The Hidden Bodhicaryāvatāra:

Introduction

Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra (Introduction to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life), a handbook for contemplatives following the path to awakening, has enjoyed much attention over the centuries since it was first taught. The Bodhicaryāvatāra is variously an inner monologue, a confession, a set of affirmations and guided meditations, an etiquette manual, a philosophical treatise, and a rumination on suffering and how to escape it. Its wide-ranging treatment seems to offer something for everyone, and it is often taught to diverse modern audiences. Nonetheless, the Bodhicaryāvatāra is not authoritative for everyone, even within Buddhism. The text and its ethos have been propagated within the traditions that are generally called tantric or Vajrayāna (“Thunderbolt Vehicle’”), and not within the broader, nontantric Mahāyāna (“Great Vehicle”), especially as practiced in East Asia. Yet the Vajrayāna traditions that value the Bodhicaryāvatāra do not associate its discourse with Vajrayāna proper, that is, with initiatory religion, programmatic visualization, mantra repetition, ethical inversion, and so on. These are the very kinds of praxis that Śāntideva does not advocate, in as many words, in his most famous work. The factors that link the Bodhicaryāvatāra to the tantrism of the traditions that propagate it have so far remained obscure, unexamined, and hidden.

The prevalent view of Śāntideva is that he is interested primarily, if not solely, in the ideology of the bodhisattva. As Francis Brassard states, “most scholars of Buddhism do not accept the idea that Śantideva was connected in some way or another to the Tantric schools of Buddhism . . . he is considered a representative of the Madhyamaka school.”^[1] This view is in lockstep with the doctrinaire Tibetan Buddhist presentation of Śāntideva as a philosopher.^[2] Modern scholarship likewise accepts that Śāntideva was quite well read in Buddhist scripture. Did this leading light of his era truly know nothing, or choose to say nothing, about the latest revelations of the Buddha’s teaching, the tantras? After all, if anyone were to need special training in altruism, it could well be the tantric practitioners whose conduct conflicts with mainstream Buddhism. Some tantras current in Śāntideva’s time lead initiates to believe that they can take things that are not theirs and treat them as their own; to embrace illicit sex, intoxicants, and other vices; and so on.^[3] In Mahāyāna ethics, these practices are problematic insofar as they disregard other lives or, in other words, lack bodhicitta, the “thought of awakening.” Whereas the bodhisattva, intent on awakening, gives selflessly, voluntarily, and repeatedly to those who suffer, the tantric practitioner only needs to give transactionally to the guru.^[4]

If the Bodhicaryāvatāra and its author divulged no knowledge of tantrism, there would be nothing more to say here. But Śāntideva does know about tantric practices of various kinds. In his tenth and final chapter, Śāntideva praises Mañjunātha, the “Sublime Protector,” whose name is most often invoked in connection with tantric Buddhism and who is not mentioned in Mahāyāna scriptures.^[5] Although this verse of praise, Bodhicaryāvatāra 10.53, belongs to a chapter that is believed to have been added to the text at a later stage of its development,^[6] the chapter is written in Śāntideva’s style and is generally accepted as his work. The Bodhicaryāvatāra’s invocation of Mañjunātha, the material relating to tantric praxis in its second and third chapters, and Śāntideva’s advocacy of certain mantra techniques are analyzed in what follows.

This short investigation into the tantric background of Śāntideva’s thought adopts a multidisciplinary and historicist approach to the text and makes use of primary sources.^[7] All translations provided here are my own, and are literalistic, so as to highlight previously overlooked nuances in the text. Citations of the Bodhicaryāvatāra refer to P. L. Vaidya’s widely used 1960 edition. Although the currently available Sanskrit editions are not without faults, a few textual imperfections need not scare us away from engaging with a work that has guided so many people for such a long time. The means to derive better readings are, furthermore, readily available now. Two palm-leaf manuscripts of the Bodhicaryāvatāra that are accessible in online repositories but rarely used in text editions were checked during the writing of this paper, although they had almost no noteworthy variants in the passages of interest.^[8]

The Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Vajrayāna in Context

How much did Śāntideva know about the transgressive tantric movements of his day? Overall, our picture of Buddhism in this period lacks clarity, and this lack of clarity frustrates efforts to understand Śāntideva’s motives and background. Little historical information on Śāntideva is available. His Bodhicaryāvatāra was referred to by two senior monastics of the late eighth century, Śāntarakṣita and his student Kamalaśīla. Their works show that the Bodhicaryāvatāra was completed in the years before the mid-770s, when Śāntarakṣita—who referred to it in his Realization of Reality (Tattvasiddhi)—was undertaking his final journey to Tibet.^[9] The Bodhicaryāvatāra is then encountered soon after, in the year 790 at the latest, when it was cited by Kamalaśīla in connection with the famous debate at Samye in Tibet.^[10]

Śāntideva was therefore active at a time when the monastic establishment had begun to grapple with the challenges of Buddhist tantrism. Both Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla refer to Buddhist tantras by name in their works, and they were not the first monks to do so. The tantric monk Nāgabuddhi is known from Chinese sources to have been active between the years 700 and 743. His famous tantric treatises treat the Secret Communion (Guhyasamāja Tantra) as a prime authority for the praxis of transgression and ethical inversion. Another tantric master, Ānandagarbha, an officiant (ācārya) residing at Nālandā monastery in the middle or late eighth century,^[11] also composed commentaries on this tantra. Śāntideva himself is credited as the author of at least one work related to the Secret Communion and various tantric songs, but the authorship of these works has not yet been examined in the necessary detail, and this study focuses on the two works that Śāntideva is generally accepted to have composed.

The Secret Communion itself was first noticed in a précis of South Asian texts gathered for Chinese pilgrims before the year 746. This précis refers specifically to an episode of the tantra’s teaching that disturbs the bodhisattvas.^[12] In Tibet, the translation of transgressive tantras (the Secret Communion being a prime example) was banned in a royal edict issued soon after the year 803.^[13] Since official curbs had already been placed on antinomian tantrism outside India by the beginning of the ninth century, there is no doubt that this tradition was seen as problematic in some quarters; the question is where or when we may see a similar reaction surfacing in the original Indian milieu.

Why would an advocate of the bodhisattva’s way of life want to take issue with the distinct practices of the Secret Communion? In aiming to unify with absolute “reality” (tattva), practitioners of this tantra putatively overturn Buddhist prohibitions on killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and substance abuse. Having received tantric initiation, they reenact the psycho-cosmic vision of the Secret Communion by identifying with its pantheon in a step-by-step process. The tantra itself does not rigidly specify such a process or explain the necessity of inverted ethics, although the erotic generation of the deities is a consistent feature of its framework.^[14] Nor did the first proponents of this tantra—the aforementioned Nāgabuddhi and Ānandagarbha, as well as adepts such as Indrabhūti, Padmavajra, and Anaṅgavajra—advocate, as a group, a standard system of praxis. Hence, there was much scope for interpreting the tantra’s vision as directives for contemplation and ethics. Two main schools of interpretation sprang up: the school of Jñānapāda (the “Gnosis Master”) and the school of the Āryas (the nobles or ecclesiastics).^[15]

The maṇḍala of Jñānapāda is centered on the saffron-colored, multiarmed Mañjuvajra and his consort, and is generally associated with noncelibate or transgressive praxis. Jñānapāda’s patrons, according to Tibetan tradition, were kings of the Indian Pāla Empire who ruled during the last quarter of the eighth and the early ninth century.^[16] The maṇḍala of the Ārya school is more elaborate, and its associated praxis is, accordingly, both more sophisticated and less directly at odds with Buddhist ethical norms. Its key figures are dated to about the same period as Jñānapāda. The question of where Śāntideva might stand with respect to tantric Buddhism of any kind has not yet been explored.

Mañjunātha and the Early Tantras Known to Śāntideva

The homage to Mañjunātha in Bodhicaryāvatāra 10.53 shows that Śāntideva’s inspirations extend beyond the nonesoteric Mahāyāna and into the religion of mantra deities and their maṇḍalas. The earliest classical locus for the name Mañjunātha, as far as can be determined here, is the long Mnemonic of Noble Acala (Āryācalanāmadhāraṇī). This proto-tantric text describes the maṇḍala of a saffron-golden youth called Mañjunātha, who holds a sword and a book of wisdom.^[17] The Mnemonic of Noble Acala is a relatively simple and early scripture of Buddhist esotericism, judging from its contents and mantra repertoire, which are typical of the seventh-century.^[18] It does not espouse carnal rites of initiation, inverted ethics, and other practices unbecoming for bodhisattvas.

The innocent imagery of the young knowledge bodhisattva Mañjunātha remained consistent as the Vajrayāna developed. One example comes from an independent worship manual, the Procedure for Worship of the Abecedarian Mañjunātha (Arapacanamañjunāthapūjāvidhi), which is now available in its original Sanskrit. The author of this manual may have been writing at a relatively late date, although, again, there are no antinomian tantric elements in his process.^[19] The devotee is to dedicate offerings as follows:

To the a-ra-pa-ca-na [alphabet], dextrous at destroying the dim, shining like a moonstone gem, holding a book in the left hand and a sword in the right, giver of sublime voice . . . ^[20]

As the imagery of this bodhisattva is quite innocuous, it can be asked whether Śāntideva’s devotion to Mañjunātha was confused with the bodhisattva Mañjughoṣa, who is mentioned earlier in the Bodhicaryāvatāra and in the broader Mahāyāna.^[21] Yet Mañjughoṣa also became an esoteric figure by the late eighth century. He appears—in a near-identical form—in a Vajrayāna context, and was indeed silently imported from that context into Hindu tantrism.^[22] Since Śāntideva associates Mañjughoṣa with progress through the stages of the bodhisattva (10.51) and, by contrast, aspires to “see” Mañjunātha in a presumed visualization context (10.53), the difference between the two is apparent—except, perhaps, to those who lack initiation.

Śāntideva was familiar with the genre of esoteric mnemonic texts (dhāraṇī) and other early tantras. In his other major work, the Compendium of Training Points (Śikṣāsamuccaya), Śāntideva repeatedly cites the early tantra called the King of Three Covenants (Trisamayarāja). This is his source for the hundred-syllable mantra of the “Thunderbolt Being” Vajrasattva, which is a standard formula used throughout all of tantric Buddhism. He gives the King of Three Covenants’s “spell of the maṇḍala covenant” in full;^[23] this is also recommended in the Mnemonic of Noble Acala.

The fact that Śāntideva gives such direct instruction on mantra praxis has not received the attention it deserves in modern scholarship. It may have added to his successors’ conviction that Śāntideva was himself a tantric practitioner. In later generations, Śāntideva’s praise of Mañjunātha was adopted into an independent visualization routine (sādhana) of Mañjuvajra,^[24] intended for practitioners of the system of the Secret Communion, with which Mañjuvajra is distinctively associated.

The name of Mañjunātha does occur in some nontantric texts on subjects such as grammar and epistemology (pramāṇa). These texts all, however, appear to be later than Śāntideva, such that their authors are either following his lead or operating in a similar religious environment. Whereas Karṇakagomin, for instance, pays homage to Mañjunātha in the opening verse of his pramāṇa treatise, Karṇakagomin is dated to the “ninth or tenth century,” and one of his comments relates to an important Buddhist tantric tradition discussed in his sources.^[25] Karṇakagomin’s understanding that Mañjunātha represents “the mind of uplift of sentient beings” goes beyond the simple ritual context of the deity in the Mnemonic of Noble Acala and other early tantras;^[26] it is a sentiment much more aligned with Śāntideva’s altruism-fostering project. Jitāri, an author of pramāṇa and tantra treatises active in the mid- to late tenth century, invokes Mañjunātha (or Mañjuvajra) in the same way.^[27] None other than the founder of Buddhist epistemology, Diṅnāga, is supposed to have been inspired by Mañjunātha while writing his Compendium of Epistemology (Pramāṇasamuccaya). This supposition is, however, very unlikely, since Diṅnāga’s text evidently referred to the nontantric Mañjuśrī (or had no such reference at all) in the earlier stages of its transmission.^[28]

While there is no scope here to examine every occurrence of this figure in the Buddhist corpus, it can be said, in the context of interest, that Mañjunātha’s identity overlaps with the Mañjuśrī of the regular Mahāyāna as well Mañjuśrī’s esoteric forms, including the Mañjuvajra of transgressive tantrism. On the whole, for Śāntideva and his successors, Mañjunātha is a multivalent knowledge deity who embodies the thought of nontantric, proto-tantric, and tantric Buddhism.

Śāntideva’s Hagiographies and Religio-Historical Milieu

Narratives about Śāntideva’s relationship with tantric Buddhism are propagated in an emic Indo-Tibetan hagiographical tradition. It is well known that the life stories of Buddhist adepts can be difficult to relate to historical contexts. The narrators were often far removed from the lives of their subjects in place and time. However, these traits of Buddhist life writing do not in themselves invalidate the veracity of all their particulars. The emic perspective can hardly be ignored if we wish to understand how Śāntideva’s work was received and interpreted within his own community, as is the task of this study. What will be highlighted here are elements in the hagiographies that can be connected with his own writings and with other kinds of sources. It is beyond the current scope to attempt to comprehensively sift, in the words of Akira Saito, “facts from fictions”—not because this is undesirable or methodologically impossible, but because the data linking Śāntideva with tantrism is so voluminous. A closer study of this material would be a worthwhile addition to the profusion of modern studies on Śāntideva the philosopher.

The two major South Asian sources for Śāntideva’s life story are Abhayadatta’s anthology of hagiographies, the Activities of the Eighty-Four Adepts (*Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti), and Vibhūticandra’s commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra, the Illumination of Particulars (*Viśeṣodyotanī). They are available in Tibetan translations, and Vibhūticandra’s version of the story has been preserved in Sanskrit.^[29] Both works were compiled more than three centuries after Śāntideva is thought to have lived, and the religious milieu had become much more accepting of tantrism during that interval. Vibhūticandra is well known as a specialist in tantric and nontantric Buddhism. However, his account of Śāntideva’s life is specifically concerned with the events leading to the writing of the Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Compendium of Training Points, and not with tantrism per se. By contrast, very little is said about Śantideva in an earlier commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra by Prajñākaramati, dated to about the end of the tenth century. Prajñākaramati ignores any connection with tantric Buddhism, which is strange, since Prajñākaramati is said to have resided at a tantric monastery, and he quotes authors, such as Jitāri, who also wrote about Vajrayāna topics.^[30] Prajñākaramati’s commentary in any case epitomizes the widespread point of view that Śāntideva’s teaching has, or should have, nothing in particular to do with tantrism.

According to the hagiographies, Śāntideva was a monk at Nālandā monastery when he wrote the Bodhicaryāvatāra. This is an unproblematic claim; it has positive support, and nothing in his works indicates otherwise. As has been pointed out elsewhere, one section of the Bodhicaryāvatāra reiterates minor rules of monastic conduct (5.85, 5.88–96).^[31] Śāntideva was therefore preaching to or among a monastic audience, at least some of the time. It is reasonable to understand that he was doing so as a monk, not as a layman unable to speak with authority on monastic life. On the other hand, Śāntideva’s admonitions to men who lust after women (5.21, 6.53, 9.30) indicate that his audience is unlikely to have been confined to monastics.

The fact that Śāntideva was the compiler of the Compendium of Training Points anthology is unanimously accepted in the Bodhicaryāvatāra itself (5.105) and in traditional hagiography.^[32] The anthology’s sheer range and volume of citations show that the compiler had access to an exceptional library, as is reputed to have existed at Nālandā monastery. Śāntideva’s confirmed association with the Compendium of Training Points provides a very detailed record of his readings in Buddhist scripture. Yet this open record could not have included quotations from secret and transgressive Buddhist tantras. That tantric discourse had to be treated separately is evidenced by the contemporaneous anthology of Buddhist tantra quotations, Śāntarakṣita’s Realization of Reality, which deals only with tantra. With this exclusive focus, the author of the Realization of Reality seals the subject off from the unwanted attention of noninitiates. Whatever the situation in the late eighth century, subsequent generations of tantric commentators increasingly turned to Śāntideva’s Compendium of Training Points to source their scriptural citations.^[33]

The traditional hagiographies concur that Śāntideva engaged in tantric practice, but they differ on when and how this occurred. According to Abhayadatta, Śāntideva first became a monk and later took up the tantric practice of Mañjuśrī in the form “of the ‘abecedarian’ deity” Arapacana, which led him to write the Bodhicaryāvatāra. He then, according to Abhayadatta, left the monastery to become a swordsman and a hunter. But according to Vibhūticandra’s tradition, tantric practice came first and monastic life came last. Śāntideva starts out learning the invocation of Mañjuśrī in the tantric form of Mañjuvajra, continues this practice while serving as a king’s swordsman, and then ordains as a monk and writes his major works. The latter tradition is more consistent with what is known of the eighth-century tantric milieu. The transmission of the Secret Communion is said to have been flourishing outside monasteries at this time. Jñānapāda, for instance, counts several monastics, semi-monastics, and nonmonastics among his circle of initiates.^[34] Vibhūticandra’s tradition does not name the guru who instructed Śāntideva in the invocation of Mañjuvajra.^[35] It is only said that Śāntideva, on hearing about this guru, was as glad as a pauper who discovers a gem—a neat callback to the Bodhicaryāvatāra (1.11, 3.27), where the devotee who begets bodhicitta is characterized in a similar way. By not identifying the guru in question, Vibhūticandra’s tradition sidesteps potential controversy about the bona fides of Śāntideva’s lineage. It also opens up the possibility of finding Śāntideva noticed in the early transmission of the Secret Communion under another name.^[36]

Abhayadatta and Vibhūticandra both narrate an episode in which Śāntideva unsheathes an enchanted sword that gleams so brightly that the king, despite warnings, loses an eye.^[37] This episode showcases Śāntideva’s yoga of the sword-bearing knowledge deity, namely, an esoteric Mañjuśrī—Mañjunātha, Mañjuvajra, or Arapacana. It loosely connects to the lore of Śāntideva writing under the guidance of Mañjuśrī, and of course to Śāntideva’s own homages to the exoteric and esoteric forms of the bodhisattva (10.51–53). This story nonetheless goes further with its explicit reference to sword magic (khaḍgasiddhi). Ritual involving glowing swords is prescribed in the aforementioned King of Three Covenants, and sword iconography is prominent in the Mnemonic of Noble Acala. Whether or not this episode is linked to Śāntideva’s confirmed sources, it is another example of how the tradition wanted to remember Śāntideva not just for his feats as a philosopher but also for feats of tantric accomplishment.

An episode in which Śāntideva retires to hunt “illusory” deer, which concludes Abhayadatta’s narrative but is omitted by Vibhūticandra, has little connection to anything else known about Śāntideva. One tantric song that relates hunting to the experience of inessentiality is attributed to Śāntideva under the name of Bhusuku—broadly, the “Layabout” or “Good-for-nothing.”^[38] As his hagiographers assert, Śāntideva ceased to be known as a layabout after completing his major works. The moniker implies a lazy or sedentary lifestyle, if not serious debility; Bhusuku is not a name that a hunter would reasonably give to himself. If this song is taken literally as a reflection on hunting, as in Abhayadatta’s tradition, it would be more germane to a famous hunter-adept called Śabara or Saraha, whose songs are transmitted in the same anthologies as Bhusuku’s songs, often right next to each other.^[39] The names Śabara and Saraha have the same number of syllables as Bhusuku, such that they can easily be substituted or confused in the line of attribution at the end of each song. There is another tantric song that begins: “If you, Bhusuku, go a-hunting . . .”^[40] This song, with its whimsical opening stanza, is more in line with the thinking of a contemplative such as Śāntideva.

To summarize what can be gleaned about Śāntideva both from his own works and from his hagiographies: he was a monk at Nālandā; he was a devotee of an esoteric form of Mañjuśrī; and he was informed by extensive reading in Buddhist scripture, including the mantric and proto-tantric texts cited in his Compendium of Training Points. Although many of Śāntideva’s successors also saw him as acquainted with advanced tantric praxis, evidence of this remains to be seen in the Bodhicaryāvatāra itself.

The Confession of Sins and the Implicit Maṇḍala

Śāntideva’s routine for the confession of sins, as set out in the second chapter of his Bodhi­caryāvatāra, is regarded as a standard Mahāyāna expression of faith and humility.^[41] His routine as a whole is, however, distinctive and innovative, and the fact that it unfolds in parallel with the maṇḍala visualizations of Secret Communion tantrism has not been noticed before. These parallels are not coincidental. Śāntideva follows the entire contemplative scheme of one type of maṇḍala, from its architecture to its inhabitants to its gatekeepers, step-by-step and in tandem with the sequence of Secret Communion praxis, and following that sequence only.

The confession of sins in the Bodhicaryāvatāra starts by summoning the exemplars of enlightenment, the buddhas and their “offspring,” to hear out the confessor. Heaping mental offerings and praises upon the invitees, the confessor asks for their help and promises to sin no more. In its broad outline, this routine follows parts of the established confession (deśanā) credo of the Mahāyāna. For instance, Śāntideva echoes the pathos and self-reproaching tone of the Poem of Confession (Deśanāstava) of one of his predecessors, Candragomin. But Śāntideva goes further, calling his routine a “confession of sins” (pāpadeśanā), a term that was hardly used before his time. In classical Buddhism, the seeker of salvation is a sufferer, not a sinner as such. Śāntideva, by contrast, positions the confessor as a sinner and dwells on the effects of sinful deeds. His confession of sins routine is more suited to chronic bad behavers—such as those who resort to tantrism, the ideal practitioners of the Secret Communion^[42]—than to the “ladies and gentlemen” and other well-to-do people who are courted in Mahāyāna sermons. Since the confession of sins has become such a routine element in tantric ritual, it is easy to overlook that Śāntideva was a pioneer of this process.

Preliminaries: The Buddhas and Their Progeny

In the second chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, the figures first called upon by Śāntideva to hear the confession of sins are the buddhas and their “offspring” or “progeny.” Their offspring are “from themselves (i.e., the buddhas) born,” ātmaja; Śāntideva mentioned them at the start of the Bodhicaryāvatāra (1.1c, 2.1d, 2.8d). Contemporary translators have interpreted this progeny as the buddhas’ “sons,” the bodhisattvas.^[43] While the word ātmaja is masculine in gender, it can designate female or male offspring. In this regard, Śāntideva is potentially speaking of both the women and the men who are engendered by the buddhas. And this progeny, in turn, may include the female forms in which the buddhas generate themselves in the opening vision of the Secret Communion.

Language that is more explicitly inclusive of women is not expected here, as Śāntideva is speaking to the monastic community that regards the (male) buddhas as supreme. Tantric goddess worship was not yet mainstream in the eighth-century monastic milieu. A more direct acknowledgement of the female personas of the maṇḍala would also have breached the secrecy that binds tantric initiates and undermined Śāntideva’s focus on universal salvation. His opening homage to the buddhas and their progeny is, in short, entirely aligned with conventional Buddhism, yet it is broad enough to allude to the male and female deities at the core of the maṇḍala. More specific connections to the Secret Communion system come later.

The Offering of the Unowned and Its Source

The greeting of the buddhas and their progeny is followed by a mental guest-reception ritual in which the invitees are given gifts and bathed. The confessor contemplates claiming all the unclaimed things in the world that are fit to offer, such as wild crops, loose gemstones, and lakes of water, and offers them up (2.2–6). With this “offering of the unowned,” Śāntideva makes good on his promise to teach according to scriptural sources (1.1). His inspiration for this technique and the wording “these unclaimed (things)” go back to the King of Three Covenants, which Śāntideva quotes by name in the same context in his Compendium of Training Points.^[44] Śāntideva thereby constructs his ritual with a scriptural source that is authoritative mainly for tantric practitioners. Although his virtual offering procedure is not particularly tantric, its target audience is people who lack “merit”—a novice tantric practitioner, for instance. Here he is not speaking to the well-resourced altruist of the Mahāyāna who gives tangible things, not just their thoughts. For the final gift in this sequence, the confessor offers their own self (2.7).

Meditation on Bathing the Invitees in a Pavilion

The confession of sins proceeds with a meditation on bathing the buddhas and their kin in a special pavilion (2.10–12). This process has been loosely characterized as worship at a virtual temple or altar.^[45] The pavilion is in fact created with elements of maṇḍala architecture that are significant and necessary in tantric Buddhism, but not in the Mahāyāna. Certain features mentioned by Śāntideva, such as the patterned floor (kuṭṭima), pillars (stambha), and sunshades (vitāna), are discussed using the same terminology in the Secret Communion maṇḍala rituals of Nāgabuddhi’s Twenty Rites (Viṃśatividhi).^[46] These rituals are in all likelihood earlier than Śāntideva. Such details of visualized architecture, together with “clarification” correspondences (viśuddhi) determining their symbolism, remain essential to all schools of Secret Communion praxis and to most other maṇḍala rituals.

The bathing of the invitees in the Bodhicaryāvatāra (2.11) again has a direct counterpart in tantric ritual. The details and terminology differ only a little from the initiatory anointment process mandated by Nāgabuddhi and others. Whereas Śāntideva’s visualization uses “pots” (kumbha), tantrists use “vases” (kalaśa); they are to be made of precious substances in either case.^[47] Śāntideva’s act of “bathing” (snāna) is also carried out in tantric ritual, albeit as part of the anointment or unction (abhiṣeka) process proper.^[48] While the Bodhicaryāvatāra’s bathing visualization is broadly analogous to the tantric ritual of the assumption of sovereignty, it introduces a twist. Instead of being bathed by the buddhas, as the anointed yogi is grandiosely supposed to be, the confessor takes on the humbler and more subordinate role of bathing the buddhas. Unlike the tantric visualizations in which the maṇḍala architecture comes first, for Śāntideva, the buddhas come first.

The Bodhisattva Group of the Bodhicaryāvatāra

The virtual bathing is followed by another series of offerings that starts with the dressing and ornamenting of the invitees. A number of bodhisattvas are mentioned by name here (2.13), and a similar group is detailed later in the confession (2.50–53). These bodhisattvas are well known from their individual appearances in Mahāyāna scripture, and they are grouped into a set in a proto-tantric scripture, the Circle of Eight (Aṣṭamaṇḍalaka). Groups of up to eight of these bodhisattvas also appear in the maṇḍalas derived from the Secret Communion and are a distinctive feature of the system of this tantra. Six bodhisattvas are named in Jñānapāda’s pantheon, although they are paired with the six sense goddesses and are not always counted explicitly as separate figures.^[49] The Ārya school’s pantheon adds two more—Maitreya and Mañjuśrī—to make up a full set of eight. The first description of the bodhisattva group in the Bodhicaryāvatāra’s confession of sins names a few of these figures:

I adorn [or “mandalize”] with splendid soft, sheer, and colorful clothes, divine and of various kinds, Samantabhadra, Ajita, Mañjughoṣa, Lokeśvara, and others as well. (2.13)^[50]

The mention of Ajita (“Undefeated”) another name for Maitreya, should align this group with the Ārya’s set of eight bodhisattvas. However, this part of the verse varies in different textual traditions. The Tibetan translation, for instance, reads “the Noble” (’phags pa, *Āryaka) or similar instead of Ajita.^[51] The name Mañjughoṣa, likewise, is often synonymous with Mañjuśrī, another bodhisattva in the proto-tantric group of eight. Alternatively, Mañjughoṣa could be synonymous with the whole group, if not with the esoteric Mañjunātha or Mañjuvajra. This interpretation could be warranted by the next specification of the bodhisattva group:

Trembling with fear, I give myself to Samantabhadra, and again I, myself [ātmanā], give myself to Mañjughoṣa. (2.50)^[52]

The repetitive wording here may imply a kind of identity between Mañjughoṣa and Samantabhadra. For instance, one bodhisattva might generate themselves as another. If so, the bodhisattva group specified in the Bodhicaryāvatāra can be aligned with Jñānapāda’s system, which accepts only six bodhisattvas starting with Samantabhadra, and excludes Mañjughoṣa/Mañjuśrī (but accepts Mañjuvajra). Otherwise, this set is compatible with the Āryas’ system (see table 1).

Bodhisattva	Bodhicaryāvatāra	Jñānapāda	Ārya
Samantabhadra	2.13c, 2.50a	✓	✓
Mañjughoṣa	2.13d, 2.50c	✓ (if Mañjuvajra or Samantabhadra)	✓ (if Mañjuśrī)
Ajita or ārya	2.13a	✓ (if not Maitreya)	✓ (if Maitreya)
Avalokiteśvara	2.13d, 2.51	✓	✓
Ākāśagarbha	2.52a	✓	✓
Ārya (Sarvanīvaraṇa­viṣkambhin?)	2.52a	?	?
Kṣitigarbha	2.52b	✓	✓
Vajrapāṇi	2.53a (Vajrin)	✓	✓

The specification of the bodhisattva group continues later in the confession of sins:

And to the Sensitive Protector [Avalokiteśvara] whose behavior is full of sympathy, I, afraid, cry out a shout of pain; may he protect sinful me.

To Ākāśagarbha, the Ārya,^[53] and Kṣitigarbha, in earnest—and for that matter all great empaths—I, seeking safety, cry out.

I salute the Thunderbolt-Haver who, when merely glimpsed, Yama’s envoys and other evildoers flee, horrified, to the four quarters. (2.51–53)^[54]

This bodhisattva group comprises some five to six personages: Samantabhadra and/or Mañjuśrī/Mañjughoṣa, Avalokiteśvara, Ākāśagarbha, Kṣitigarbha, and Vajrapāṇi. Of the one or two āryas, one is open to identification with Maitreya. Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin is the only bodhisattva in the Secret Communion maṇḍalas who is not mentioned by name in the Bodhicaryāvatāra,^[55] but he too could be referenced by the name “Ārya.” Śāntideva’s group can, in short, be interpreted as having six, seven, or eight members in total—in all cases, in a manner consistent with one of the schools of Secret Communion exegesis.

The Sense Goddesses

The confessor follows their first offering to the group of bodhisattvas by disbursing a series of virtual gifts, each one gratifying a particular sense faculty: touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing. The Mahāyāna has a rich culture of offerings—often mentioned in scholarship on the confession of sins—but it has no systematic process for gratifying the human sensory modalities. That process belongs to Buddhist tantrism. The sense offerings in the Bodhicaryāvatāra can then, in such a context, be correlated with the sense goddesses of the Secret Communion system, especially because their sequence corresponds to the maṇḍala visualizations of this system.

The first mental offering in this block (2.14–18) applies scented powder (gandha) to the honorees’ bodies; it gratifies the sense of touch. Next, the confessor presents sweet-smelling flowers and clouds of incense (2.15–16ab), appealing to the olfactory senses. Then follow offerings stimulating to the sense of taste (2.16cd). Lit lamps, golden lotuses, and flower arrangements gratify the sense of sight (2.17). The final verse in this block appears to combine two offerings:

I present to the friendly ones clouds of aerial vehicles, enticing with hymns and songs, splendid with draped beaded pearl strings, glowing and decorating the heavens all over. (2.18)^[56]

The cosmic vista of a sky full of humming airborne vehicles (vimānas), can be categorized as an offering to the sense of hearing (2.18abc). But as it is too extravagant for the sense of hearing alone, it arguably also involves the offering of the whole of reality, the dharmadhātu. While the term “dharmadhātu” is not used in the Bodhicaryāvatāra, it is used in the Compendium of Training Points, wherein the dharmadhātu is likened to space or the sky in several scriptural quotations. In one of these, the practitioner is urged to extend the scope of offering throughout the dharmadhātu to include all buddhas everywhere.^[57] As Śāntideva knows this cosmic imagery well, his verse can be interpreted accordingly. There are, therefore, correlates in the Bodhicaryāvatāra for all the tantric sense goddesses, including Dharmadhātuvajrā, who is part of Jñānapāda’s pantheon. The correspondences between the confessor’s offerings, the individual senses, and the sense goddesses of Secret Communion tantrism are as follows.

sense	Bodhicaryāvatāra offering	Sense goddess	Jñānapāda	Ārya
touch	powder (2.14)	Sparśavajrā	✓	✓
smell	garlands etc. (2.15–16ab)	Gandhavajrā	✓	✓
taste	food etc. (2.16cd)	Rasavajrā	✓	✓
sight	lamps etc. (2.17)	Rūpavajrā	✓	✓
space/ consciousness	humming aerial vehicles (2.18ab)	Dharmadhātuvajrā	✓	? (✕ if dharmadhātu)
hearing	″ (2.18c)	Śabdavajrā	✓	✓

The correlation of a sense faculty with a particular category of offering—as is argued to occur in Bodhicaryāvatāra 2.14–18—is common in the visualizations of the Secret Communion system. According to a set of correspondences going back to Nāgabuddhi, a mirror represents sight (Rūpavajrā), a lute represents hearing (Śabdavajrā), perfume represents smell (Gandhavajrā), a punchbowl or fruit bowl represents taste (Rasavajrā), and soft clothes represent touch (Sparśavajrā).^[58] Śāntideva’s sense-offering correspondences are all different, perhaps deliberately so.

The Furies

The furies (mahākrodhas), the outer gate guardians of the maṇḍalas, are not mentioned by name in the Bodhicaryāvatāra. As the furies have no place in the beneficent religion of the bodhisattva, they do not belong in an exposition of the Mahāyāna mainstream. The confession of sins merely alludes to the functions of these fierce tantric gatekeepers. The abovementioned homage to the “Thunderbolt-haver” (2.53) who frightens off Yama’s envoys is interpretable as a reference to Yamāntaka, the “Ender of Yama,” the first of the furies revealed in the Secret Communion. Yama’s envoys are said by Śāntideva to have a “terrifying visage” (bhairavākāra) (2.45). The descriptor bhairava occurs almost exclusively in tantric texts with the meaning “a form of Bhairava.” Such Bhairava-like entities are the nemeses of the ferocious deities who guard the entrances to the maṇḍala of the buddhas. The threat of these outer messengers of death (or of Hindu tantrism) is presented as another incentive for confessing one’s sins and taking refuge in the exemplars of enlightenment (2.46–48). The anti-Yama figure honored by Śāntideva represents the final point of commonality with the Secret Communion pantheon. The confession of sins, together with its implicit maṇḍala (figure 1), then wraps up, and is later recapitulated in the Bodhicaryāvatāra’s final chapter.

The Relationship Between the Implicit Maṇḍala and the Confession of Sins

Śāntideva’s confession of sins has been described as textbook Mahāyāna “ritual” or “supreme worship” (anuttarapūjā),^[59] but it does not contain features of ritual proper, such as explicit instructions for performance. Śāntideva instead focuses on the interaction that should take place when practitioners contemplate their superiors, the exemplars of enlightenment. With every step of his confession of sins paralleling a step of maṇḍala visualization, he repositions the buddhas and bodhisattvas as moral paragons instead of as mere ciphers of tantric yoga. The second chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatāra is, in this regard, a cathartic “disempowerment” effected through repeated confessions of the practitioner’s weak and needy position, in contrast to the vacuous assumption of power and agency by a tantric neophyte. Whereas Jñānapāda confesses the “dirt accumulated over compounded aeons/rules (kalpa) in the flow of existence qua beginningless mind” in a short statement,^[60] Śāntideva has the practitioner apologize at length for many kinds of shameful behavior (2.28–47, 57, 61, 64) in order to clear the way for their altruism, their bodhicitta, to flourish. He refuses to identify the worldling’s tarnished mind with the absolute and instead asks that practitioners acknowledge the problems that lead them to seek the buddhas’ guidance.

Double Entendres On Retaining Bodhicitta

After outlining the confession of sins, Śāntideva discusses the retaining of the thought of awakening, bodhicitta. The cultivation of the thought of awakening underpins much of the Mahāyāna, and the Bodhicaryāvatāra has been held up as one of its model presentations. What is less often noticed is that Śāntideva accepts a relatively advanced theorization of bodhicitta. The abstraction of the thought of awakening as a joint experience of emptiness and compassion, as taught by Śāntideva, is a development that had only crystallized by the eighth century, and it undergirds the conceptual framework of Buddhist tantrism.^[61]

Śāntideva’s teaching on bodhicitta also unfolds against a background of hardcore Vajrayāna interpretations. In this context, the term “bodhicitta” acquires the additional meaning of male reproductive biofluid—the special essence that gives rise to buddhas and the liberating state of great bliss. A typical example of this semantically overloaded yet euphemistic tantric language is given by Padmavajra, who is approximately contemporary with Śāntideva, in his Secret Success (Guhyasiddhi):

When exposing bodhicitta for beginner practitioners, if a Seal of Action [i.e., a physical consort, a karmamudrā] is left out, the target won’t be hit any other way. (Secret Success 3.24) ^[62]

At the very start of his teaching, Śāntideva speaks to those who are prone to expelling their bodhicitta (1.8–11). Who are these people? If they were retrogressives who had abandoned the thought of awakening for conservative Buddhism, or converts to Hinduism, Śāntideva’s teaching of the bodhisattva path would be misdirected. His sermon on this subject is rather aimed at people who are still connected to the bodhisattva path in some way. Novice tantric practitioners, who notionally accept altruistic Mahāyāna values only to upturn them in a deliberately libertine ethos, could be such people.

If it is admitted that Śāntideva is citing tantric texts, worshiping esoteric bodhisattvas, setting out maṇḍala-like visualizations, and so on, then his speech on keeping bodhicitta can be read as double entendre that speaks to the Mahāyāna mainstream and simultaneously, but obliquely, to tantric initiates. His statements about the “generation” or “charging” of bodhicitta (3.23), about his “surrendered” body being played with and laughed at (3.13), and so on could, in this regard, be seen in another light. Be that as it may, after Śāntideva moves on from his chapter on the thought of awakening, his references to bodhicitta cease to be readable as double entendres. For instance, he later rhetorically asks why a person with bodhicitta would resent those who find happiness on their own (6.80–85).^[63] It is not yet known to what, or whom, Śāntideva may be referring here. Insofar as Śāntideva can be seen to talk about tantrism at all, he does not let the subject overshadow his broader message.

“Today My Birth Is Fruitful”: Affirmation in Bodhicitta Ritual

As Śāntideva’s sermon on retaining bodhicitta approaches its high point, he asks his audience to affirm their place on the path to buddhahood. The wording of Śāntideva’s affirmation is very similar to a verse that is set out in the tantric ritual handbooks of the period. Although the first quarter of this verse goes back to a proto-tantric or Mahāyāna scripture, the Basket Array (Kāraṇḍavyūha), Śāntideva’s articulation of the verse does not derive directly from this scripture, which he does not refer to in any way.^[64] The affirmations that begin “Today my birth is fruitful” all belong to a distinctively tantric milieu, with the sole exception of the affirmation in the Bodhicaryāvatāra and its derived works. Śāntideva asks those who keep their bodhicitta to affirm:

Today my birth is fruitful. This human existence is deservedly had. Today, born in a clan of the Buddha, I am now a son of the Buddha. (3.25)^[65]

Similar forms of this affirmation circulated among early practitioners of the Secret Communion, and they became common utterances in rites of initiation. Some of the first tantric experts who recommend such an affirmation are earlier than Śāntideva or his contemporaries. Nāgabuddhi’s relatively early handbook on the Twenty Rites, for instance, has the tantric officiant recite a similar verse while preparing the maṇḍala:

Today my birth is fruitful and my life is fruitful. I have no doubt become equal to the covenant deities. (Twenty Rites 6.3)^[66]

The same verse was used in similar contexts by other early tantric masters. Ānandagarbha repeats this verse in many of his commentaries and handbooks on tantras related to the Secret Communion.^[67] One of these is a long manual of praxis in this system, Emergence of the Blessed Mañjuvajra (Śrīmañjuvajrodayā), which has no credited author but is most likely Ānandagarbha’s work, since a great deal of the text overlaps with his other ritual manuals.^[68]

Nāgabuddhi’s reference to the covenant deities’ presence in tantric initiation would of course be inappropriate for an uninitiated general audience of the kind that the Bodhicaryāvatāra seeks to reach. Śāntideva’s form of the verse therefore appears to have been adapted—modified out of necessity—from a tantric ritual environment. His direct source may have been one of Ānandagarbha’s writings. Ānandagarbha often follows this affirmation with a declaration of affinity to the “clan of the Tathāgata” (tathāgatakula); Śāntideva’s modified verse, likewise, refers to the “clan of the Buddha” (buddhakula).^[69] The new and distinctive element of Śāntideva’s affirmation—“this human existence is deservedly had”—ties into the non-tantric Buddhist position that a human birth is the best opportunity for pursuing awakening.

Some tantric texts transmit a version of the “Today my birth is fruitful” verse that is closer to Bodhicaryāvatāra 3.25 than to the versions in Nāgabuddhi’s and Ānandagarbha’s works. For instance, Anaṅgavajra, another proponent of carnal tantrism in the tradition of the Secret Communion, gives the affirmation in a form that is the same as Śāntideva’s apart from the second quarter-verse. We see this in Anaṅgavajra’s Determination on Insight-and-Means (Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi):

Today my birth is fruitful and my life is fruitful. Today, born in a clan of the Buddha, I am now a son of the Buddha. (Determination on Insight-and-Means 3.30)^[70]

What is not clear at this point is who is borrowing from whom. Anaṅgavajra’s dates have not been determined; he is sometimes located in the milieu of eighth-century adepts from “Oḍḍiyāna,” such as Padmavajra.^[71] If he had lived at the same time as Śāntideva, he could have been Śāntideva’s direct source, or Anaṅgavajra could have borrowed from Śāntideva. So too for Ānandagarbha.

In general, tantric masters use the “Today my birth is fruitful” affirmation—however they may phrase it—in the same nominal context as Śāntideva: for the bestowal of bodhicitta. These masters differ, nonetheless, in advocating a hardcore tantric rite of initiation involving exchanges of bodily fluids.^[72] The initiand in the rite described by Anaṅgavajra, for example, speaks the affirmation upon being “anointed with bodhicitta.”^[73] The “Today my life is fruitful” verse became so seminal in tantric initiation ritual that it made its way into the tantras themselves—the Coupling (Saṃpuṭa) and the Emergence of Saṃvara (Saṃvarodaya), among others.

It is evident that Bodhicaryāvatāra 3.25 is participating in a contemporaneous discourse on tantric bodhicitta ritual. Śāntideva’s wording of the affirmation, which emphasizes altruism, highlights his differences with the tantric milieu. And as he keeps insisting on holding on to bodhicitta (3.27–32), Śāntideva tacitly opposes the sensualists who want to unload it. Nonetheless, apart from the subtext, Śāntideva’s statements continued to be interpreted as innocuous reiterations of Mahāyāna principles.^[74] His bodhicitta affirmation was accepted into a nontantric ritual environment. For Prajñākaramati, this environment is the “taking of an oath of religion” (śikṣāsaṃvaragrahaṇa) practiced by bodhisattvas-to-be. Śāntideva’s affirmation was duly used in one oath-taking ritual formulated by Jitāri, which has been described as a “ritual manual of the Bodhicaryāvatāra.”^[75] However, Jitāri’s ritual also incorporates—perhaps unsurprisingly—the use of mantras and the maṇḍala of the guru.^[76]

The Double Entendre of Happiness / Erotic Bliss

Śāntideva aims to bring happiness or bliss (sukha) to sentient beings (3.1, 3.32, 3.33). Tantric praxis has the same aim, but a different methodology. It seeks to transmute ordinary happiness into euphoric, transcendent bliss through the catalyst of eros or unconventional behavior. Śāntideva does not acknowledge such practices directly, and he never uses the proprietary Vajrayāna euphemism, “great bliss” (mahāsukha). He does, however, devote much effort to refuting the notion that women are a source of happiness or bliss, and his language gets quite emotive (8.41–70). Śāntideva also scorns the idea of obtaining happiness through some kind of alchemy of delusion:

By hoping to get rid of suffering, they run toward suffering; just by wanting happiness, they kill their own happiness [svasukha] like an enemy because they are deluded. (1.28)^[77]

While this criticism is general in scope and does not identify its targets, it does echo other criticism of “irreligious fools obsessed with upping their own happiness/erotic bliss” that was already occurring within tantric Buddhism.^[78] This is another concern of tantrism that is shared with the discourse of the Bodhicaryāvatāra.

Bodhisattva and Tantric Yogi: Common Interests

While Śāntideva does not address tantric Buddhism explicitly in his major works, it is clear that proponents of Buddhist tantrism were interested in Śāntideva, whether or not they are regarded as faithful proponents of Śāntideva’s project. These later masters consistently associate him with a blended Mahāyāna-Vajrayāna religiosity, which was starting to emerge among his contemporaries. One common concern in the two subtraditions is the problem of how to transgress a rigid ethics of benevolence for the sake of the greater good. This problem had already occupied the thinkers of the Mahāyāna, and it comes to the fore again in the Vajrayāna. Śāntideva’s own position was adapted into a stock verse of Buddhist tantric ritual:

Having understood this, one should be furthering the benefit of others, always. Even what is forbidden is allowed for a sympathetic person who sees benefit. (5.84)^[79]

Here Śāntideva espouses a principle that had been expressed in tantrism with a different emphasis and wording. In Nāgabuddhi’s rite of initiation, the officiant declares: “There is nothing that is not to be done with the mind of insight-and-means,” using the common euphemism for sensual praxis.^[80] Śāntideva, by contrast, focuses on “benefit,” the motivator of the bodhisattva.

Śāntideva was in the right place and time to have known some of the many teachers who expounded the Secret Communion at Nālandā monastery. According to one tradition, Śāntideva was a student of the Nāgārjuna who was the figurehead of the tantric Ārya school at Nālandā.^[81] Although much more could be said about the relationship between Śāntideva and this circle, it is worth noting here that Śāntideva’s work was known to another member of the Ārya school, deutero-Āryadeva. A verse from the Bodhicaryāvatāra was silently incorporated into deutero-Āryadeva’s Treatise on the Purification of Mind (Cittaviśuddhiprakaraṇa).^[82] As has been mentioned, there is also a short handbook on Secret Communion tantric praxis with Śāntideva’s name attached to it,^[83] which remains to be studied.

Śāntideva’s admonitions to keep bodhicitta do align with a major tantric Buddhist movement advocating seminal retention. This movement gained momentum with the Ārya school’s exegesis and reached its climax in the Kālacakra system,^[84] which links seminal retention to the preservation of celibacy and of (celibate) Buddhism itself. The pioneers of the Kālacakra, like Śāntideva, stressed the link between keeping bodhicitta and staying on the Buddha’s path to awakening.^[85] One of the early Kālacakra works quotes a tantric song of the Bhusuku.^[86] This song examines the nature of emptiness—yet another subject of joint interest in the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. These are a few examples of the ways in which Śāntideva’s teaching precedes, supports, and has been related to key topics in tantric praxis.

Conclusion

This article has examined the concurrent development of two traditions of Buddhist meditation: one altruistic and self-abnegating, the other tantric and in some cases hedonic and transgressive. While it is clear that tantric yogis knew about Śāntideva’s teaching, evidence presented here indicates that Śāntideva himself not only knew about tantrism but also declined to teach it to his primary audience. Instead, by using double entendre and the ecumenical voice of a teacher of the Mahāyāna, Śāntideva circumvents tantric secrecy to discuss—obliquely and secondarily—ethical issues that bear on tantric praxis. In so doing, he inverts the tantric inversion of the bodhisattva’s way of life. He encourages yogis to maintain their altruistic bodhicitta in language and imagery that they, and we, can recognize as relevant to tantrism. Yogic visualization can be performed by any altruist; rites of initiation and transgression are not required. Śāntideva’s silent shunning of tantrism was, nonetheless, overlooked as his teaching was absorbed into Buddhist tantric systems over time. The Bodhicaryāvatāra has long since become a kind of adjunct to or enabler of tantrism. It is routinely taught as a prelude to mass “empowerments” or tantric initiations in global Tibetan Buddhism today. Contemplative studies can shed light on such traditional practices by striving for deeper historical and theoretical understandings of their origins.

Notes

1. Brassard, Concept of Bodhicitta in Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, 17. Here Brassard echoes Ruegg, Literature of the Madhyamaka School, 82–85, 106, among others. ↑
2. Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna Atiśa (982–1054) also identifies Śāntideva as a Mādhyamika “philosopher” in his autocommentary on his Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma’i dka’ ’grel (Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, *Bodhipathapradīpa), as propagated in the Dergé printing of the Tibetan canon, No. 3947 according to the catalog of Ui et al., Canons. For a translation of the relevant passages, see Sherburne, Lamp for the Path, 139–140. ↑
3. The covenant (samaya) that includes commitments such as “The not-given is to be taken by you, and the woman of another enjoyed” (adattaṃ ca tvayā grāhyaṃ sevyās tu parayoṣitaḥ) is spoken in the initiation ritual of Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 15.6cd. For the Sanskrit text (silently normalized in this article) and its Tibetan translation (Ui et al., Canons, no. 1810), see Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 139. The same vow is included in the developed Guhyasamāja Tantra, 16.61; for the Sanskrit text, see Matsunaga, Guhyasamāja Tantra, 91. On tantric ethics in this tradition, see, in brief, Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 958–959. ↑
4. Tantric initiation generally involves gifts to the guru (see, e.g. Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikā­viṃśatividhi, 224) or payment in kind, such as favors. For an example of the latter, see, for instance, the third chapter of Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, which sets out a scripted exchange between the tantric initiate and the tantric master. For the Sanskrit text, see Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 75–77; for a translation, see Snellgrove, “Tantras,” 245–246. Additional references to initiatory process are given throughout this paper. ↑
5. yadā ca draṣṭukāmaḥ . . . mañjunātham avighnataḥ (10.53). For the full Sanskrit verse, see Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva, 286. ↑
6. On the hypothesis that the Bodhi­caryā­vatāra was enlarged by the tenth chapter after its initial drafting, see Saito, “Facts or Fictions.” ↑
7. Tanaka, Illustrated History of the Maṇḍala, 274–284. ↑
8. These two manuscripts of the Bodhicaryāvatāra are Sanskrit MSS 262 and 264 at the University of Tokyo, on which see Matsunami, Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts, 352–353. Their format and paleography indicate that they date from between the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. ↑
9. The Tattvasiddhi is a treatise on epistemology that quotes tantric texts circulating before the mid-eighth century, as well as the Bodhicaryāvatāra (Ruegg, Literature, 82, 93). It has been speculated that Śāntarakṣita, who was known for his work on epistemology, did not compose the tantra-oriented Tattvasiddhi, but a comprehensive study of the Tattvasiddhi would be needed to rule out Śāntarakṣita as its author. Why, for instance, would Śāntarakṣita have not known of the Bodhi­caryā­vatāra and various tantras while his contemporary and disciple, Kamalaśīla, did know of these works? For some references to studies that accept Śāntarakṣita’s authorship, see Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 962–964, and the present special issue of the Journal of Contemplative Studies. ↑
10. For some relevant references, see Ruegg, Literature, 93–94. ↑
11. Ānandagarbha’s residence at Nālandā is mentioned in the colophon of one of his commentaries (Ui et al., Canons, no. 1662). He does not refer to tantras much later than the Guhyasamāja Tantra and the mid-eighth century, such as yoginītantras. ↑
12. See Tanaka, Illustrated History, 85–86, for a summary of this précis, the Shibahui zhigui (Indications of the Eighteen Assemblies) of Bukong/Amoghavajra. The relevant part of this précis refers to Guhyasamāja Tantra 5, ed. Matsunaga, Guhyasamāja Tantra, 15–16. ↑
13. Tanaka, Illustrated History, 166. ↑
14. Tanaka, Illustrated History, 172–176. ↑
15. See Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 964–967, for general background on the two schools. ↑
16. Dalton, “Enacting Perfection,” 28. ↑
17. See the Tibetan translation of the *Āryācālanāmadhāraṇī, the ’Phags pa mi g.yo ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Ui et al., Canons, no. 631), fol. 79b: . . . ’phags pa ’jam dpal mgon po’i sku byis pa lo brgyad gnyis lon pa lta bu gser btso ma’am gur kum gyi kha dog ’dra ba / zhal gcig phyag gnyis pa / sems dpa’i skyil mo krung gis bzhugs pa/ phyag g.yas pa na ral gri nam mkha’ la ’phyar ba / g.yon pa po ti thugs kar ’dzin pa’i. ↑
18. Several mantras in the *Āryācālanāmadhāraṇī begin with the archaic invocation namaḥ samantabuddhānām, which is associated with early Buddhist esotericism and a tantra that began circulating in the first half of the seventh century, the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi (Ui et al., Canons, no. 494), and which was later discontinued. ↑
19. The Sanskrit text has been transmitted without attribution; see Qunzong, “Fanwen xieben,” 83. Its Tibetan translation (Ui et al, Canons, no. 2716) is credited to Mi pham bshes gnyen (*Ajitamitra), an alias of the late twelfth-century master also known as Mitrayogin. The text names four goddesses surrounding Mañjunātha, but they are static and not representative of carnal tantrism. ↑
20. Arapacanamañjunāthapūjāvidhi: . . . arapacanāya kumatidahanadakṣāya candrakāntimaṇiprabhāya kha[ḍ]gapustakavyagrāgrahastāya mañjuvāṇīvarapradāya . . . ; Qunzong, “Wuzi Wenshu huzhu gongyang yigui,” 81. ↑
21. Where Bodhicaryāvatāra 10.53cd reads tam eva nāthaṃ paśyeyaṃ mañjunātham avighnataḥ (Vaidya, Bodhi­caryāvatāra, 286), the Tibetan translation (Ui et al., Canons, no. 3871), fol. 40a, more freely reads mgon po ’jam dbyangs de nyid ni / gegs med par yang mthong bar shog, which seems to understand *mañjughoṣam avighnataḥ in 10.53b. There are insufficient grounds to emend the Sanskrit text here (reading *mañjughoṣam could be contamination from 10.51d or distant homoioteleuton from a previous chapter). ↑
22. On the Buddhist sources of Mañjughoṣa in Hindu tantrism—one of which was propagated by the aforementioned *Ajitamitra—see Bühnemann, “Buddhist Deities and Mantras,” 38. ↑
23. Śikṣāsamuccaya 8: trisamayarāje ’pi pāpapratipakṣasamudācāroktaḥ . . . śatākṣaram aṣṭasahasraṃ japet; imāṃ trisamayarājoktāṃ vidyāṃ maṇḍalasamayārtham uccārayet . . . . For the Sanskrit, see Bendall, ed., Çikshāsamuccaya, 172, 138, respectively, and for English translations, Bendall and Rouse, Śiksha-Samuccaya, 168–169, 136, and more recently, Goodman, The Training Anthology, 170ff. ↑
24. See the anonymously authored Mañjuvajrasādhana published as number 83 in Bhattacharyya, ed., Sādhanamālā, 1:116, lines 1–2, which silently incorporates Bodhicaryāvatāra 10.53. There are no indications that this is an early sādhana that was potentially influential on Śāntideva; it is a pastiche of works on the esoteric forms of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. ↑
25. I thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing attention to this verse of Karṇakagomin. For Karṇakagomin’s dates, see most recently Van der Kuijp, “Karṇakagomin’s Pramāṇavārttikavṛttiṭīkā,” 214. On Karṇakagomin’s apparent knowledge of the tantric Buddhist tradition of the Śrīparamādya in his comment on the title Bhaginītantra, see Tokushige, “Karṇakagomin,” 124. ↑
26. Pramāṇavārtikaṭīkā of Karṇakagomin 1c: sattvārthodyatamānasaś ca suciraṃ śrīmañjunātho vibhuḥ; Rāhula­sāṃkṛtyāyana, ed., Ācāryadharmakīrtiḥ Pramāṇavārttikam, 1. ↑
27. Jitāri’s Jātinirākṛti opens with a homage ending in the half-verse yo vandamānam abhisiñcati dharmarājye jāgartu yo hitasukhāya sa mañjunāthaḥ, in which mañjuvajraḥ is recorded as a variant for mañjunāthaḥ; see Bühnemann, ed., Jitāri, 30. ↑
28. The Tibetan translation of the Pramāṇasamuccaya (Ui et al., Canons, no. 4203) ends with the statement that it was authored by “the *Mañjunātha-inspired Diṅnāga” (’jam pa’i mgon po’i bkas bskul phyogs kyi glang po). However, the textual tradition of this translation is regarded as unreliable, and Jinendrabuddhi’s commentary on this closing section of the Pramāṇasamuccaya instead refers to Mañjusrī. See Ono et al., Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā: Chapter 6, xviii, 50. ↑
29. The hagiography of Bhusuku a.k.a. Śāntideva in the *Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti of Abhayadatta is preserved in Tibetan translation (Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus). For English translations, see Robinson, Buddha’s Lions, 145–149; and Dowman, Masters of Mahāmudrā, 222–226, among others. For the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts of the hagiographical passage in Vibhūticandra’s Viśeṣodyotanī, together with a French translation, see De Jong, “La légende.” ↑
30. Prajñākaramati’s long commentary on Bodhicaryāvatāra 9.2 (Vaidya, Bodhi­caryā­vatāra, 174) quotes, without attribution, a verse (na san nāsan na sadasat . . . tattvaṃ mādhyamikā viduḥ) that appears to originate in Jitāri’s *Sugatamatavibhaṅga (Ui et al., Canons, no. 3899, fol. 7b: yod min med min yod med min / . . . / dbu ma de nyid mkhas pa ’dod). This work is not, however, concerned with tantrism. For an example of a partly tantric work attributed to Jitāri—which refers to Śāntideva—see note 66 on his *Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi (Ui et al., Canons, no. 3968). ↑
31. For some discussion of these verses, see Crosby and Skilton, Śāntideva, 32. ↑
32. In Vibhūticandra’s hagiographical tradition, Śāntideva begins his preaching when he gathers a trilogy (granthatraya) that includes the Śikṣāsamuccaya, the Bodhicaryāvatāra and a third text, the Sūtrasamuccaya (Compendium of Scripture). For the relevant passage, see De Jong, “La légende,” 171, no. XII. There is a related belief in Tibetan Buddhism that Śāntideva compiled a Sūtrasamuccaya, which has received much attention in modern scholarship; see for instance Ruegg, Literature, 84, and Pāsādika, “Prolegomena.” The associated references derive from Bodhicaryāvatāra 5.106, wherein Śāntideva in fact states that “one should look at the Sūtrasamuccaya compiled by Nāgārjuna,” paśyet sūtrasamuccayam / āryanāgārjunābaddham; see Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 79–80. ↑
33. For instance, the Śikṣāsamuccaya shares numerous passages with the much later commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti (Chorus of Names) by Mañjukīrti (Tibetan translation: ’Phags pa ’jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa’i rgya cher bshad pa, Ui et al., Canons, no. 2534), with Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkara (Ornament to the System of the Sage), and so on. ↑
34. On the personages mentioned in Jñānapāda’s *Mukhāgama or Oral Transmission (Rim pa gnyis pa’i de kho na nyid sgom pa zhes bya ba’i zhal gyi lung; Ui et al., Canons, no. 1853), see Dalton, “Enacting Perfection,” 34, and for additional remarks, Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 966. ↑
35. Śāntideva’s guru is named as Nāgārjuna—here not differentiable from the Guhyasamāja master—in Atiśa’s *Bodhipathapradīpa (trans. Sherburne, Lamp for the Path, 151). ↑
36. The puzzling fact that Śāntideva is mentioned in several Indo-Tibetan teaching lineages—most of which are associated with tantrism—is yet to be investigated. Citations given by Saito, “Facts or Fictions,” 7, imply that other names or identities of Śāntideva remain to be discovered. ↑
37. For translations, see De Jong, “La légende,” 70 (Vibhūticandra), and Robinson, Buddha’s Lions, 148 (Abhayadatta). ↑
38. For the Apabhraṃśa text, a Sanskrit paraphrase, and an English translation, see Bhayani, Dohā-gīti-kośa, 91–92. Part of this song has been independently transmitted in Tibetan translation as Ui et al, Canons, no. 2395. ↑
39. Songs in the Caryāgītikośa (Treasury of Praxis Songs) and their authorial attributions are arranged, for instance, in the following order: Bhusuku (21), Saraha (22), Bhusuku (23) . . . Bhusuku (27), Śabara (28). See Bhayani, Dohā-gīti-kośa, 105–108. ↑
40. The beginning of Caryāgīti 23 is paraphrased in Sanskrit by Bhayani, Dohā-gīti-kośa, 107 as *yadi yuyaṃ bhusukuḥ [sic] ākheṭake yāsyasi. ↑
41. Crosby and Skilton, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 11. ↑
42. On the typical tantric sādhaka in this tradition, see, in brief, Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 958. ↑
43. Batchelor, Guide, 3, 10; Crosby and Skilton, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 3, 14. ↑
44. Bodhicaryāvatāra 2.5d: . . . apīmāny aparigrahāṇi (Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 23); Śikṣāsamuccaya 16: āryatrisamayarāje ’pi | amamāny aparigrahāṇi (Bendall, Çikshāsamuccaya, 290). For English translations, see Bendall and Rouse, Śiksha-Samuccaya, 264, and Goodman, Training Anthology, 274. ↑
45. See Crosby and Skilton, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 147; and Huntington, “Ritual Structure,” 132–140. ↑
46. The kuṭṭima feature is mentioned in Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 10.3–4, the stambha in 4.13–15, 8.10 and so on, and the vitāna in 2.1; see Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 59, 71–72, 92–94. ↑
47. Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 5.5; Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 74. ↑
48. Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 13 (snānamaṇḍalavidhi); Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 74; Tanaka, Illustrated History, 171–184. ↑
49. Tanaka, Illustrated History, 171–184, and specifically 181 for Jñānapāda. ↑
50. divyair mṛduślakṣṇavicitraśobhair vastrair alaṃkāravaraiś ca tais taiḥ | samantabhadrājita­mañjughoṣalokeśvarādīn api maṇḍayāmi || (2.13); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 25. ↑
51. The canonical Tibetan translation of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, the Byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa (Ui et al., Canons, no. 3871), translates the third quarter-verse as ’phags pa kun du bzang dang ’jam dbyangs dang, seemingly understanding a reading such as *samantabhadrāryakamañjughoṣa. The Chinese translation, Taishō Tripiṭaka no. 1662, lacks a name corresponding to Ajita. An unclear glyph in University of Tokyo manuscript 263, folio 4b, line 2, might support the (even less preferable) reading –arjita-. On the applicability of the name Ārya to Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin, see below. ↑
52. samantabhadrāyātmānaṃ dadāmi bhayavihvalaḥ | punaś ca mañjughoṣāya dadāmy ātmānam ātmanā || (2.50); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 33. ↑
53. The particle ca in this quarter-verse differentiates two entities: āryam ākāśagarbhaṃ ca. Likewise in Tibetan: ’phags pa nam mkha’i snying po dang. ↑
54. taṃ cāvalokitaṃ nāthaṃ kṛpāvyākulacāriṇam | viraumy ārtaravaṃ bhītaḥ sa māṃ rakṣatu pāpinam || (2.51); āryam ākāśagarbhaṃ ca kṣitigarbhaṃ ca bhāvataḥ | sarvān mahākṛpāṃś cāpi trāṇānveṣī viraumy aham || (2.52); yaṃ dṛṣṭvaiva ca saṃtras-tāḥ palāyante caturdiśaṃ | yamadūtādayo duṣṭās taṃ namasyāmi vajriṇam (2.53). Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 33. ↑
55. Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin is mentioned by name in the translation of Batchelor, Guide, 186, perhaps because of some guidance in the Tibetan commentary he used, but this bodhisattva is not named in the Sanskrit text, 10.15 (Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 284), nor elsewhere in the Bodhicaryāvatāra. ↑
56. pralambamuktāmaṇihāraśobhān ābhāsvarān diṅmukhamaṇḍanāṃs tān | vimānameghān stutigītaramyān maitrīmayebhyo’pi nivedayāmi || (2.18); Vaidya, Bodhi­caryā­vatāra, 27. ↑
57. yad utāśeṣaniḥśeṣānavaśeṣasarvabuddhapūjopasthāpanāya | sarvākāravaropetam udārādhimukti­viśuddhaṃ dharmadhātuvipulam ākāśadhātuparyavasānam . . . ; Śikṣāsamuccaya 16; Bendall, Çikshāsamuccaya, 291; Bendall and Rouse, Śiksha-Samuccaya, 265; Goodman, Training Anthology, 295. ↑
58. Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 11.7; Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 97 (only the first four symbols are mentioned in this verse). The correspondences between these offerings and the sense goddesses are expanded and made explicit in the commentarial tradition. ↑
59. Crosby and Skilton, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 9–12. ↑
60. Samantabhadrasādhana 10: yad anādimati bhavaughe samastasaṃkalpasambhṛtaṃ kaluṣam | tad deśayāmi . . . ; Kano, “Fugen jojūhō,” 35. ↑
61. Sasaki, “Precursory Phrase.” ↑
62. ādikarmikasattvānāṃ bodhicittaprakāśane | karmamudrāṃ yatas tyaktvā lakṣyaṃ nānyatra labhyate || (Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi 3.24); Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 22. ↑
63. bodhicittaṃ samutpādya sarvasattvasukhecchayā | svayaṃ labdhasukheṣv adya kasmāt sattveṣu kupyasi (6.80); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 102; Crosby and Skilton, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 57. ↑
64. A verse beginning “Today my birth is fruitful” (adya me saphalaṃ janma) is uttered by King Balin upon meeting Avalokiteśvara in the proto-tantric Kāraṇḍavyūha I.11. This verse of the Kāraṇḍavyūha chronologically precedes the bodhicitta affirmation verse in tantrism, but its scriptural context is not tantric. Śāntideva does not cite the Kāraṇḍavyūha in his known works. ↑
65. adya me saphalaṃ janma sulabdho mānuṣo bhavaḥ | adya buddhakule jāto buddhaputro ’smi sāmprataṃ || (3.25); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 43. ↑
66. Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 6.3; Tanaka, Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 77. The present translation rests on two emendations: adya me saphalaṃ janma saphalaṃ jīvitaṃ ca me | samaḥ samayadevānāṃ (Tib.: dam tshig lha rnams; Tanaka: samayabuddhānāṃ) bhavito ’haṃ (Tanaka: bhavitāhaṃ) na saṃśayaḥ. Tibetan parallels would also support taking 6.3c to mean “equal to the deity and the covenant[s]” (lha dang dam tshig gis mnyam par). ↑
67. The verse is usually given by Ānandagarbha as follows—here quoted from his Sarvavajrodayā or Bringing Forth of All Vajras, ed. Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai, “Vajradhātu­mahāmaṇḍalopāyika-Sarvavajrodaya,” 20: adya me saphalaṃ janma saphalaṃ jīvitaṃ ca me | samaḥ samayadevānāṃ (ed.: samayabuddhānāṃ; Tibetan: lha dang dam tshig gis) bhavito ’haṃ (ed.: bhavitāhe; Tibetan: gyur par bdag ni) na saṃśayaḥ. The same verse is found in Ānandagarbha’s exegesis of the Guhyasamāja and related tantras: his Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha commentary (Ui et al., Canons, no. 2520), fol. 105b; Śrīparamādya commentary (Ui et al., Canons, no. 2510), fol. 103a; maṇḍalavidhi (Ui et al., Canons, no. 2520), fol. 111a; Trailokyavijayakalpa commentary (Ui et al., Canons, no. 2519), fol. 83b. ↑
68. The title of the Śrīmañjuvajrodayā maṇḍalopāyikā (Dpal ’jam pa’i rdo rje ’byung ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga sems can thams cad kyi bde ba bskyed pa; Ui et al., Canons, no. 2590) has not previously been related to Ānandagarbha’s oeuvre, although the title itself aligns with Ānandagarbha’s other treatises on ritual: the Sarvavajrodayā (which has most of the detected parallels), Vajrasattvodayā, Vajrajvālodayā et al. For the verse in question, see fol. 252b: deng ni bdag tshe ’bras bu yod . . . . ↑
69. Ānandagarbha tends to follow the “Today my birth is fruitful” verse with the verse avaivartyo bhaviṣyāmi bodhisattvaikacetanaḥ | tathāgatakulotpattir mamādya syān na saṃśayaḥ; see, for instance, Ānandagarbha’s Sarvavajrodayā, ed. Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai, “Vajradhātumahāmaṇḍalopāyika-Sarvavajrodaya,” 20. ↑
70. Here only the second quarter-verse differs from the verse in the Bodhicaryāvatāra: saphalaṃ jīvate ca me (Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi 3.30b); Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 76. ↑
71. For instance, Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi has often been propagated together with Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi, Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi, and the works of other persons associated with Oḍḍiyāna (location undetermined); see Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 6–7. See also Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 961–962. ↑
72. For a translation, see Snellgrove, “Tantras,” 245–246. ↑
73. bodhicittabhiṣiktāya śiṣyāya vigatainase (Anaṅgavajra’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi 3.26ab); Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 76. ↑
74. Atiśa’s autocommentary on his *Bodhipathapradīpa (trans. Sherburne, Lamp for the Path, 95) regards the verses under discussion (Bodhicaryāvatāra 3.25cd–26) as general expressions of the benefits of the bodhisattva path. ↑
75. So it has been described by Solonin and Xie, “Tangut Buddhism,” 1. ↑
76. The *Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi (Byang chub kyi sems bskyed pa dang yi dam blang ba’i cho ga, Ui et al., Canons, no. 3968) of Jitāri (Dgra las rnam par rgyal ba), fol. 243a, gives the affirmation in exactly the same form as Bodhicaryāvatāra 3.26–27: de ring bdag tshe ’bras bu yod / mi yi srid pa legs par thob / de ring sangs rgyas rigs su skyes / sangs rgyas sras su bdag gyur to / . . . / de bzhin du ni rang rigs dang / mthun pa’i las ni bdag gis bya (nirmalasya kulasyāsya kalaṅko na bhaved yathā). Jitāri expects the participants to recite all of Śāntideva’s affirmation verses (zhes bya bas mjug rgyas par bya’o) and then has the oath takers create a gurumaṇḍala with its familiar mantras. ↑
77. duḥkham evābhidhāvanti duḥkhaniḥsaraṇāśayā | sukhecchayaiva saṃmohāt svasukhaṃ ghnanti śatruvat || (1.28); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 16. ↑
78. mūḍhā dharmavihīnās te svasukhodayamānasāḥ (Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi 17.27cd); Dwivedi and Samdhong Rinpoche, Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 150. ↑
79. evaṃ buddhvā parārtheṣu bhavet satatam utthitaḥ | niṣiddham apy anujñātaṃ kṛpālor arthadarśinaḥ || (5.84); Vaidya, Bodhicaryāvatāra, 69. The second half-verse is quoted in Abhayākaragupta’s consecration ritual, Vajrāvalī 20.2, Mori, Vajrāvalī of Abhayākaragupta, 373. ↑
80. Nāgabuddhi’s Viṃśatividhi 15.14ab: nāsti kiñcid akartavyaṃ prajñopāyena cetasā; Tanaka, Śrī­guhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi, 140. ↑
81. Atiśa claimed that his tradition derives in an “unbroken line” from Nāgārjuna and Śāntideva, and that the latter received “the gift of Mañjughoṣa through Nāgārjuna’s instruction.” See his autocommentary on his *Bodhipathapradīpa, trans. Sherburne, Lamp for the Path, 70, 151. This relationship sounds much more direct than Śāntideva merely studying Nāgārjuna’s Sūtrasamuccaya. On the Nāgārjuna who was a Guhyasamāja figure at Nālandā, see Tanaka, Illustrated History, 179. ↑
82. The source of deutero-Āryadeva’s *Cittaviśuddhiprakaraṇa verse 83 was first identified as Bodhicaryāvatāra 9.3cd–4ab by Patel, Cittavisuddhiprakarana, 101. ↑
83. This is an unassuming tract on balividhi in the system of the Guhyasamāja Tantra (Rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud dpal gsang ba ’dus pa’i gtor ma’i cho ga; Ui et al., Canons, no. 1824) attributed to *Śāntideva (shānta de ba). Lindtner, “Cittamātra,” takes the view that Śāntadeva is the true name of Śāntideva. ↑
84. On the Ārya school’s connection to the Kālacakra system, and the shared interest in tantric celibacy, see, in brief, Sinclair, “Soteriologies,” 967. ↑
85. This is a central theme in the first topical discourse (mahoddeśa) of the Kālacakra Vimalaprabhā commentary of “Kalki” Puṇḍarīka. See the translation of Newman, “Outer Wheel of Time,” 231–233. ↑
86. For the Apabhraṃśa verses of Bhusuku quoted in the Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Nāropā, see Sferra and Merzagora, Sekoddeśaṭīkā, 139–140, and for Vibhūticandra’s Sanskrit paraphrase, 403–405. Another recension of the song was transmitted as Caryāgītikośa 30 (Bhayani, Dohā-gīti-kośa, 112–113)↑

Works Cited

Batchelor, Stephen. A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1979.

Bendall, Cecil, ed. Çikshāsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching. Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1902.

Bendall, Cecil, and W. H. D. Rouse. Śiksha-Samuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhist Doctrine Compiled by Śāntideva, Chiefly from Earlier Mahāyāna Sūtras. John Murray, for the Government of India, 1922.

Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh, ed. Sādhanamālā. Vol. I. Central Library, 1925.

Bhayani, H. C. Dohā-gīti-kośa of Saraha-pāda (A Treasury of Songs in the Dohā Mātre) and Caryā-gīti-kośa (A Treasury of the Caryā Songs of Various Siddhas). Prakrit Text Society, 1997.

Brassard, Francis. The Concept of Bodhicitta in Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra. State University of New York Press, 2000.

Bühnemann, Gudrun. “Buddhist Deities and Mantras in the Hindu Tantras: II. The Śrīvidyārṇavatantra and the Tantrasāra.” Indo-Iranian Journal 43 (2000): 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000000124993813.

Bühnemann, Gudrun. Jitāri: Kleine Texte. Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1982.

Crosby, Kate, and Andrew Skilton. Śāntideva: The Bodhicaryāvatāra. Oxford University Press, 1995.

Dalton, Catherine. “Enacting Perfection: Buddhajñānapāda’s Vision of a Tantric Buddhist World.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2019.

De Jong, J. W. “La légende de Śāntideva.” Indo-Iranian Journal 16 (1975): 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000075791615441.

Dowman, Keith. Masters of Mahāmudrā: Songs and Histories of the Eighty-Four Buddhist Siddhas. State University of New York Press, 1985.

Dwivedi, Vrajvallabh and Samdhong Rinpoche, eds. Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha. Rare Buddhist Text Series 1. Rare Buddhist Text Project, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1987.

Goodman, Charles. The Training Anthology of Śāntideva: A Translation of the Śikṣā-samuccaya. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Huntington, Eric. “Ritual Structure and Material Culture in the Guide to Bodhisattva Practice.” In Readings of Śāntideva’s Guide to Bodhisattva Practice, edited by Jonathan C. Gold and Douglas S. Duckworth. Columbia University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.7312/gold19266-010.

Kano, Kazuo. “Fugen jojūhō 1‒54 ge shaku (Japanese Translation of the Samantabhadrasādhana).” Mikkyō Gakkaihō (The Annual Bulletin of the Esoteric Buddhist Society) 59 (2021): 27–57.

Lindtner, Christian. “Cittamātra in Indian Mahāyāna until Kamalaśīla.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 41 (1997): 159–206.

Matsunaga, Yukei, ed. The Guhyasamāja Tantra. Toho Shuppan, 1978.

Matsunami, Seiren. A Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tokyo University Library. Suzuki Research Foundation, 1965.

Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai, ed. “Vajradhātumahāmaṇḍalopāyika-Sarvavajrodaya—Bonbun tekisuto to Wayaku—(II) kan (Vajradhātumahāmaṇḍalopāyika-Sarvavajrodaya (II): Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation).” Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University 9 (1987): 13–85.

Mori, Masahide, ed. Vajrāvalī of Abhayākaragupta: Edition of Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions. The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2009.

Newman, John Ronald. “The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayāna Buddhist Cosmology in the Kālacakra Tantra.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1987.

Ono, Motoi, Muroya Yasutaka, and Toshikazu Watanabe, eds. Jinendrabuddhi’s Viśālāmalavatī Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā: Chapter 6. Austrian Academy of Sciences and China Tibetology Research Center, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1553/978OEAW91681.

Pāsādika, B. “Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 5, no. 2 (1982): 101–109.

Patel, Prabhubhai Bhikhabhai, ed. Cittavisuddhiprakarana of Aryadeva: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. Visva-Bharati, 1949.

Qunzong, Dawa. “Fanwen xieben Wuzi Wenshu huzhu gongyang yigui Hanyi yu yanjiu (The Chinese translation of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Arapacanamañjunāthapūjāvidhi from Tibet).” Xizang Yanjiu,no. 2 (2024): 72–83.

Rāhulasāṃkṛtyāyana, ed. Ācāryadharmakīrtiḥ Pramāṇavārttikam (svārthānumānaparicchedaḥ). Svopajñavṛttyā, Karṇakagomiviracitayā taṭṭīkayā ca sahitam. Kitāba Mahāla, 1943.

Robinson, James B. Buddha’s Lions: The Lives of the Eighty-Four Siddhas. Dharma Publishing, 1979. Ruegg, David Seyfort. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Vol. VIII, fasc. 1 of A History of Indian Literature. Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.

Saito, Akira. “Facts or Fictions: Reconsidering Śāntideva’s Names, Life and Works.” Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 22 (2018): 1–20. Sasaki, Kazunori. “A Precursory Phrase of Tantric Definition of Bodhicitta in the Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 53, no. 2 (2005): 965–967. https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.53.967.

Sferra, Francesco, and Stefania Merzagora, eds. The Sekoddeśaṭīkā by Nāropā (Paramārthasaṃgraha). Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text by Francesco Sferra. Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translation by Stefania Merzagora. Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 2005.

Sherburne, Richard. A Lamp for the Path and Commentary of Atiśa. George Allen and Unwin, 1983.

Sinclair, Iain. “The Soteriologies of Buddhist Tantrism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Tantric Studies, edited by Richard K. Payne and Glen A. Hayes. Oxford University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197549889.013.52.

Snellgrove, David. “The Tantras.” In Buddhist Texts Through the Ages, edited by Edward Conze. Bruno Cassirer, 1954.

Solonin, Kirill, and Haoyue Xie. “Tangut Buddhism and the Bodhicittotpādasamādānavidhi.” Studies in Chinese Religions 7, nos. 2–3 (2021): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/23729988.2021.1941623.

Tanaka, Kimiaki. An Illustrated History of the Maṇḍala: From Its Genesis to the Kālacakratantra. Wisdom Publications, 2018.

Tanaka, Kimiaki. The Śrīguhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikāviṃśatividhi: Introduction and Romanized Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. Watanabe Publishing, 2024.

Tokushige, Hiroshi. “Karṇakagomin ga genkyū suru Caturbhaginītantra ni tsuite [The Caturbhaginītantra Mentioned by Karṇakagomin].” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 70, no. 2 (2022): 124–129. https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.70.2_915.

Ui, Hakuju, Munetada Suzuki, Yenshō Kanakura, and Tada Tōkan. A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur). Tōhoku Imperial University, 1934. Vaidya, P. L., ed. Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva. With the Commentary Pañjikā of Prajñākaramati. The Mithila Institute, 1960.

Van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. “Was There a Tibetan Translation of Karṇakagomin’s Pramāṇavārttikavṛttiṭīkā? On a Quotation in Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s 1297 Pramāṇavārttika Commentary.” International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture 33, no. 1 (2023): 195–230.