Chapter 26 Outline
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2. Showing the eight commitments
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4 2.1. Demonstrating the greatness of the root mantra
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.2. The bestowal of all powers through the worship of the messenger
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. The procedures of the commitments and vows
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 1. The promise to explain
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 2. Heteropraxy together with worship
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 3. Showing each of the commitments
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 4. Their concise meaning
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.4. The cause of delighting the messenger
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.5. The procedure of examining the disciple
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.6. Showing the name of the chapter
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2. Showing the eight commitments
The second part, showing the eight commitments, has six sections: (1) demonstrating the greatness of the root mantra, (2) the bestowal of all powers through the worship of the messenger, (3) the procedures of the commitments and vows, (4) the cause of delighting the messenger, (5) the procedure of examining the disciple, and (6) showing the name of the chapter.
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.1. Demonstrating the greatness of the root mantra
After the twenty-fifth [chapter], [the text reads] “Furthermore,” [implying] “I will also explain other [matters] than that which is explained in chapter twenty-five.”68 Having known well the definitive meaning of Shrī Heruka’s root mantra, regarding which there exists no other mantra as supreme in this triple world or three realms,69 one disregards, i.e., rejects, primary adherence to the all of the literal meanings of mantras (26.1) and adheres primarily to that very definitive meaning of mantra.70
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.2. The bestowal of all powers through the worship of the messenger
Since it appears that [the text] in the usual or reverse order is explained as [meaning] not transgressing the stages of the teaching of yoga, “the usual order” means upholding that which is to be upheld, and “reverse order” not skipping over the rejection of that which is to be abandoned.71
The messengers, since they are like messengers, will certainly bestow the awakened state, and they are present, exist truly, everywhere, through the method of giving rise to joy and the nature of non-dual joy. It is explained that they bestow powers that are below, i.e., mundane, whatever exists in the underworld, and those that are above, i.e., the power of the great seal.72
Another commentary explains:73
Regarding the messengers who are placed in the usual order, they are placed, in descending order, from Prachaṇḍā to Mahāvīryā. Placed in reverse order refers to their placement in ascending order, from Mahāvīryā to Prachaṇḍā. If one meditates having thus previously arranged them positioned below and above, then power is bestowed.
In practicing the supreme, with whom does one practice? It is my messenger. She goes to all (26.2) places74 through the mode of bestowing kisses and embraces etc. to all for the purpose of achieving the aims of fortunate beings.75 If that messenger who is like this bestows all powers even by looking with the eye, touching with the body, or hearing, what need is there to mention her bestowing power through being propitiated continually and correctly? This is the explanation of the three scholars.76
Regarding the messenger’s system of bestowing power by means of looking and so forth, it is through a process of giving rise to great bliss. The [Ḍākinīs’] Vajra Pavillion states:77
There is bliss through seeing a good woman,
Good too is the bliss from hearing her song.
The bliss from smelling her scent is greater,
And even greater touching her vulva.
No one can turn away from union’s bliss,
For it’s the draught of the supreme savor.
Thus, the blazing of great bliss from the sight and so forth of the supreme messenger is the “melting bliss” (zhu bde). One must melt the body’s seminal essence to give rise to that bliss, and for that [to happen] it is essential that the fury fire blaze. Since the fire is kindled through the force of the accumulated winds, if one is blessed by the supreme messenger, just as soon as she is seen one will generate great bliss continually and without reversal, even if there are contradictory conditions, through the force of the accumulated powers of wind that draw forth great bliss. Thus, one will very quickly [progress on] the path of the messenger.
One should always, i.e., continually, kiss and embrace the messenger. Furthermore, [one should] especially [kiss and embrace] the seat, i.e., distinctive place, in which occurs the yoga of the non-dual union of bliss and emptiness, that is, the supreme lotus.78 It is there that the kissing (26.3) should be done, meaning that one rubs it by moving about the tip of one’s tongue. Having delighted one’s mind with beer drinking, one should engage in love play, uniting the vajra and lotus. One engages in love play so long as one knows the yoga spoken by Vajrasattva, which is the host of79 sexual positions (karaṇa)80 explained in the treatises on love (kāmaśāstra). It is said that [doing this] causes the production of all powers.81
Another commentary explains that:82
The messengers who live at the seats of yoga, i.e., the seats (pīṭha), subsidiary seats (upapīṭha), etc. bestow all powers, meaning that [the messengers] will [bestow] power if one has been instructed in the stages explained in the treatises on love such as kissing and embracing.
If one sees a yoginī who is possessed of the real thing, or honesty, or the commitments, they, meaning food, feasts, beer, and the signs, should be offered [to her]. It is never otherwise, (26.4) meaning that they should never be offered to one who lacks the commitments.
Who are the messengers? One’s mother, sister, daughter, and wife can serve as messengers. Furthermore, the “field-born,” “mantra-born,” and “natural” are the “mother” and so forth, and it is said that they should be worshipped by one who is meditatively absorbed in the goddess Lochanā etc.83
As for them, to whom does the messenger always bestow the mantra? It is explained that the procedure (26.5) for this is that one who has been made a suitable vessel by consecration etc. serves the messenger. Someone might say that the “mother” is the consort, and that having intercourse with one who is one’s mother would be having intercourse by means of religious deception. In response to this, while it is the messenger that bestows the mantra, since there is no contact with her vulva, there is no contradiction. It is explained that: “The guru’s seal (consort) is the ‘mother,’ one’s fellow student is the ‘sister,’ she to whom one teaches the Dharma is the daughter, and she who is given by the guru is the wife.”84 Kambala explains that the literal meaning of “mother” etc. is intended for exalted yogins. For the inferior ones, “mother” etc. should be taken as just explained.85
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. The procedures of the commitments and vows
The third part has four sections: (1) the promise to explain, (2) heteropraxy together with worship, (3) showing each of the commitments, and (4) their concise meaning.
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 1. The promise to explain
Now, following the worship of the messenger, I, Vajradhara, will explain the commitments that delight the messenger. What are the commitments like? They are very difficult to obtain in the lower yoga tantras. “In the yoga tantras” has been taken as referring to the father tantras, and that which is difficult to find in those tantras are the “eight extraordinary commitments of the yoginī tantras.” This interpretation should not be accepted, since, with the exception of the heteropraxical commitment only, the others are similar to those in the father tantras.86
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 2. Heteropraxy together with worship
If a man or woman sees a yoginī, he or she should go placing her to the left, and she bestows the fruit desired in his or her mind (26.6). Those who stay in houses and fields even if they stay in far away places, should be recognized, and one should practice heteropraxy. Here women are said to be yoginīs, and men are also known to be yogins; they are not simply men and women. Those who live “far away” are evidently ones who live in excellent “fields” (kṣetra). Moreover, it is also said that:87
When you see women, circle them three times left-wise, and, bowing your head as well, supplicate them three times, [saying]:
You are my mother, and I am your son.
Until awakening occurs, guard me
By means of your milk that originates
From the factors of awakening’s breast.
Regarding this supplication “You are the mother” etc., although this can be made openly, it is a commitment that this must be done mentally. Bhavabhaṭṭa explains that:88
It is known that the man or woman [who] goes, having placed another man or woman to the left, is a yogin or yoginī in Shrī Chakrasaṁvara. On account of [it is certain that] he or she proceeds to his or her desired power. Therefore [it is said that they should be recognized, even if far away.] Even if one does not see the previously stated characteristics, the [male or] female messenger is characterized by his or her going, turning to the left. [Where is the messenger? The house etc.]
Since there is no yoga greater than Shrī Heruka’s yoga, Shrī Heruka’s yoga is the best yoga. Thus, since the master who holds this yoga is the creator of the supreme yoga, he is the mother and father of the yogas (26.7). The adept, i.e., yogin, who is consecrated in this Saṁvara Tantra is excellent, i.e., supreme. Therefore, they89 should not be disparaged, i.e., deprecated, nor should they be insulted, i.e., slandered. They should be worshipped with devotion (26.8) to the best of one’s ability.90
Since Kākāsyā etc. occur after the explanation of the eight commitments in Kambala’s and Devagupta’s commentaries, I will not quote it in the context of the eight commitments.91 Although other commentaries explain them in this context, I will not quote them in the context of the eight commitments. What then is the explanation here? The explanation of the previous ones, that it is for the sake of revering Kākāsya etc., as well as their corresponding animals,92 is incorrect. With regard to this, it is said that if the adept worships with devotion the Saṁvara yogins in the same manner that the eight gate keepers are worshipped, he will be mentally blessed. As Bhavabhaṭṭa previously explained with respect to “worshipped with devotion,” [the text] “states Kākā, etc., indicating that these eight [goddesses], Kākāsyā and so forth, truly promote devotion and faith, and they are the cause of the powers.”93
Always, i.e., continually, being devoted to the guru and yogins is the cause of the powers (26.9abc). Since the gatekeeper goddesses turn back the hindering, obstructing spirits in order to promote more and more devotion and faith, [the statement that] the gatekeeper goddesses are the cause of promoting the powers is very good. Since the equivalent term of “liberation” (’grol ba, mukti) seems to also apply to devotion and aspiration, here the translations “aspiration” (mos pa) and “devotion” (gus pa) are better.94
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 3. Showing each of the commitments
The protection of the commitments (28.9d) to renounce disparaging and slandering the previously explained heteropraxy is the first. “Moreover” (ca, kyang) is for emphasis exclusively on the act of protecting. The previous explanation of heteropraxy was just an example. One should abide in all [types of] heteropraxy.
The second commitment is renouncing union with another goddess, i.e., consort, on account of being stupefied and attached to lust. Kambala explains that this [prohibits] renouncing the method of the supreme yoga and relying on another [system of] yoga.95 Vīravajra also states [that this passage means] “becoming attached to lust for union with other goddesses.”96
Regarding the third commitment, it is said that one should avoid dichotomizing self and other. It seems that this is stated for the sake of those who are not devoid of the realization of non-duality. Furthermore, since this means that one should make oneself non-devoid of, i.e., that one should protect, the realization of thatness, [the text] should be read as “not taking as two” or “non-dual.”
Unobstructed is explained as meaning that no one whatsoever is able to oppress one. That is, being unable to instruct [others] in [subjects] other than the extraordinary tantric perspective is the fourth commitment. If [the text] seems to read “not being unobstructed,” this means that one should avoid that.
The commitment is the goddess or consort. Performance means the performance of sexual passion (kāma, ’dod pa). Being occupied (26.10) means doing that. The sphere of that is the actual and gnostic seals.97 With regard to this, when one practices this, the third [commitment] prohibits its performance for one who lacks the view of thatness, and, through the fourth, one produces a mentality that is not otherwise [than this]. [This is] the fifth commitment.
Koṅkana [Jayabhadra] claims that relying upon a human female (nārī, mi mo), i.e., woman, one should not lack mastery (aiśvarya, dbang phyug nyid) when uniting the vajra and lotus. Regarding this Bhavyakīrti explains that one should not lack a lady (īśvarī, dbang phyug mo).98 One brings about [the state of] not lacking [her] by being “well-united” or “extremely united.”99 That one should not lack [her] for as long as one has not perfected the ability to draw forth natural bliss is the sixth commitment.
Just as it is explained that there is no deprivation in the sixth commitment, the seventh commitment is that one should observe chastity wherein there is no outward release from the tip of the secret place when seminal essence trickles down from the head, the repository of bliss.100 The three commentaries read “yet observe chastity in the receptacle.”101
“Transfer in the hole”102 is practicing without hostility at the time of taking up the spirit of awakening with the tongue from the woman’s lotus. The meaning of not hostile is (26.11abc), as Vīravajra explains: “at the time of taking up the spirit of awakening, one should not give rise to the conception that it is filth.”103 Since the conception of filth or repulsiveness is a [state of] non-desire in which one turns one’s back to its object, [the text] “hatred” toward that, which is like that, also occurs elsewhere. This is the eighth commitment.
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.3. 4. Their concise meaning
Upholding these eight previously explained [commitments] is the conduct of the commitments (26.11d). They should always, i.e., continually, be known, i.e., not forgotten, by adepts who are engaged in spiritual practice correctly without settling for mere knowledge. These commitments are common to all of the tantras of the action (kriyā), practice (caryā), yoga, higher yoga (rnal ’byor bla ma), and yoginī tantra [classes]. They cannot be destroyed, i.e., broken, by one who exerts himself the manner of action [tantras], because those lower tantra classes lack the cause of awakening in the manner of the higher tantra classes. This is the explanation of Kambala and Devagupta.104 According to Koṅkana, since they are common to all tantras, i.e., general, they are secret. Even those who know other tantras do not realize this implication. Since they do not realize the implication, they lack the cause, i.e., true reason (26.12), that cannot be destroyed, i.e., refuted, by other means of knowledge.105
Why is this so? They should be apprehended through the faith of trust in the tantra. They are not like the forms that can be seen by the eye, or the tangible forms touched by the hand. With respect to these secret commitments, even their name is not brought to light for unsuitable vessels but should be vigorously concealed (26.13); they should be explained to suitable vessels [only].
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.4. The cause of delighting the messenger
The wise one should move his little finger, that is, stimulate the channel called “crow face” in the messenger’s lotus. What is the purpose of this? It is for the sake of the flow of the liquor that exists within the messenger (26.14). It is said that that which stimulates [the channel] moves with the concave space [formed by] the tips of the ring and middle fingers.106 Koṅkana explains that if, when worshipping the goddess with the movement of the little finger, one is unable to find a [woman] who is endowed with the yoga of the deity or well educated in mantra and seal, then one worships another consort, taking her as having the nature of the deity.107 [He also] explains that the messengers are positioned means that, at the time of that [worship], all of the messengers are pleased with the yogin.108
Durjayachandra claims that “the little finger is the center of the blessed lotus; one should move that.”109 Also, Kambala states that the little finger is the joint of an eleven-year-old, and if you take up with the tongue and drink the nectar [that flows from] holding and playing with it, it will be the cause that gives rise to great bliss for one who is accomplished in alchemy (rasāyāna).110
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.5. The procedure of examining the disciple
There are three types of persons who have the qualities of an adept, the pure, impure and mixed. The first, the purified one, gives rise to power. The second, the aspirant, does not give rise to power. The third, the illuminating, is middling; he gives rise to a little bit of power and knows the import of the treatises. Moreover, the aspirant reveres and is skilled in mantra and yoga. The man who is virtuous and who knows the import of the treatises is illuminating. Since he is lamp-like, he is able to act for the benefit of sentient beings. This is what Koṅkana intended, and it is also similar to Vīravajra’s explanation.111
3.3.3. 2.2.2. 4.2.6. Showing the Name of the Chapter
In the Concise Shrī Herukābhidhāna Tantra, this is the twenty-sixth chapter on the procedure of inspecting the disciple, i.e., the characteristics of superior and inferior disciples, and the observances, i.e., the eight commitments. This is the explanation of the twenty-sixth chapter in the Illumination of the Hidden Meaning, A Detailed Exegesis of the Concise Saṁvara Tantra Called “The Chakrasaṁvara.”
_______________
68. Tsong Khapa takes the conjunction de nas gzhan yang, “furthermore,” and breaks it into portions that he analyzes as separate terms.
69. Tsong Khapa glosses ’jig rten gsum with the synonym sa gsum, which likewise refers to the heavens, earth, and underworlds.
70. Tsong Khapa is clearly uncomfortable with the root text’s statement that “all [other] mantras should be disregarded,” and seeks to explain it in terms of discriminating between the definitive versus literal interpretations of mantras, rather than between the mantras themselves.
71. Tsong Khapa may here be following Devagupta, who wrote, laconically, that “in the usual or reverse order means that one should train in accordance with the stages” (SS 110a). All of the other Indian commentators interpret this line, “The messengers are placed in the usual or reverse order” as a reference to the twenty-four ḍākinīs of chapter 4, which Tsong Khapa discussed below. This interpretation is also followed by Sachen (PG 336.3) and Butön (NS 156b).
72. Tsong Khapa here paraphrases Kambala’s commentary at SN 39b.
73. Tsong Khapa here paraphrases Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary at CV 202a; for the Sanskrit see Pandey 2002, 483.
74. Tsong Khapa here glosses the term “omnipresent” (sarvagāḥ, kun ’gro) as gnas kun tu ’gro ba’o.
75. Tsong Khapa here comments on the text don kun ster (Gray 2012, 333), which might translate sarvārtha, corresponding somewhat to Bhavabhaṭṭa’s reading sattvārtha-siddhidam (Pandey 2002, 483). Jayabhadra, however, reads here sarvasiddhidāṁ (Sugiki 2001, 125), which corresponds to Sumatikīrti’s reading (SL: kun grub ster, Gray 2012, 449).
76. Tsong Khapa here expands upon Butön’s commentary at NS 157a.
77. The text occurs as follows in the canonical translation: bud med bzang mo mthong bas bde / rna bas glu yi bde bas bzang / snom pas dri yi bde ba che / skye gnas reg pa’i bde chen dang / ro yi btung ba’i sbyor ba las / gang gis bde ’gog par byed (DV 57b.4–5).
78. Tsong Khapa is commenting here upon the text yogapīṭhaṁ viśeṣataḥ, rnal ’byor gnas kyi khyad par.
79. Tsong Khapa here is commenting on the term yogasaṁghātāḥ, rnal ’byor tshogs rnams. One should note that Bhavabhaṭṭa interprets this compound differently, explaining that it refers to “a community of yoginīs” (Pandey 2002, 484: yogasaṁghātā iti yoginīsamūhā ity arthaḥ).
80. This is transliterated by Tsong Khapa incorrectly as ka ra na.
81. Tsong Khapa here closely follows Kambala’s commentary at SN 40a.
82. Tsong Khapa here quotes this passage as: gnas dang nye ba’i gnas la sogs pa rnal ’byor gyi gnas la gnas pa’i pho nya mos ni / dngos grub thams cad ster te tsumba na dang ’khyud pa ’dod pa’i bstan bcos las bshad pa’i rim pas bsten na dngos grub tu ’gyur ro. It occurs as follows in Bhavyakīrti’s commentary (BC 22b.1–2): gnas dang nye ba’i gnas la sogs par gnas pa’i rnal ’byor ma rnams dngos grub ster bar ’gyur ba ste / tsumba na dang ’khyud pa ’dod pa’i bstan bcos las bshad pa’i rim pas bstan na de la pho nya ma rnams dngos grub ster bar ’gyur ro. The words in brackets are words omitted by Tsong Khapa that are included in the original text. Interestingly, these omissions serve to downplay the positive contribution of the female messenger here.
83. None of the commentaries that I have consulted correlate the messengers to deities such as Lochanā.
84. Tsong Khapa here quotes the text of Durjayachandra, as follows: bla ma’i phyag rgya ni ma’o / lhan cig nyan pa ni sring mo’o / rang gi chos bstan pa ni bu mo / bla mas byin pa ni chung ma’o (RG 288a.2–3). Tsong Khapa closely paraphrases him in the previous objection. Butön also quotes this text (NS 157b).
85. This is not what Kambala states; he simply states that “mother, sister, etc. are to be taken literally” (SN 40a.4: ma dang sring mo zhes bya ba la sogs pa rnams ni sgra ji bzhin pa’o).
The claim that this is only the case for exalted yogins appears to be Tsong Khapa’s.
86. Tsong Khapa here refers to Sachen’s argument at PG 337.2. This edition of Sachen’s text reproduces five folio sides per page, so citations refer to page number, folio side, and, when necessary, line numbers.
87. I am not sure what the source is for this passage. It does not occur in any of the sources I have consulted. Tsong Khapa quotes it as follows: khyod ma bdag ni bu yin te / ji srid byang chub ’byung bar du / byang chub yan lag nu ma las / byung ba’i rang gi ’o mas skyongs.
88. This is a translation of the text as it occurs in Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary, which is: vāmena naraṁ striyaṁ sthāpayitvānyaḥ puruṣaḥ striyo vā yāti sa ca śrīcakrasaṁvare yogī yoginī veti jnāyate / ataś ca siddhir iṣṭāni gacchati niyatā bhavati / ata āha vijñāyate sudure ’pīti / pūrvoktalakṣaṇādarśane ’pi vāmāvartagamanāl lakṣyate dūto dūtī vā / kurta dūta ity āha gṛha ity ādinā / (Pandey 2002, 485); g.yon du skyes pa’am bud med bzhag nas gzhan skyes pa’am bud med ’gro ba gang yin pa de ni dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i rnal ’byor ma’am rnal ’byor par shes par bya’o / de’i phyir yang ’dod pa’i dngos grub tu ’gyur ro zhes nges pa yin no / de bas na shin tu ring ba yang shes par ’gyur / zhes gsungs te/ sngon du bstan pa’i mtshan nyid ma mthong yang g.yon nas bskor zhing ’gro bas mtshon pa ni pho nya’am pho nya mo’o / pho nya gang nas zhes pa la pho nya zhes bya ba la khyim dang zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so/ (Pandey 2002, 606).
Tsong Khapa’s version of this text is abbreviated: rang gi g.yon du skyes pa’am bud med bzhag nas ’gro ba’i skyes pa’am bud med ni / bde mchog gi rnal ’byor pa’am rnal ’byor mar shes par bya’o / de’i phyir yang ’dod pa’i dngos grub tu ’gyur ro / de bas na shin tu ring ba ste sngar bshad pa’i mtshan nyid ma mthong yang / g.yon nas bskor zhing ’gro bas mtshon pa ni pho nya mo ste / de yang khyim dang zhing na gnas pa zhes ’chad do.
The text that Tsong Khapa omits is included in square brackets. Note that in place of the final line of the passage, Tsong Khapa adds the following: “She also lives in a house and field.”
89. It is not clear to whom the plural pronoun here refers, since the plural referents in the root text, the “master and mothers of yoga” are apparently reduced by Tsong Khapa to the singular and masculine figure of the guru.
90. Tsong Khapa gives both of the two textual variants here, bhaktitaḥ, “with devotion,” and śaktitaḥ. Regarding this, see Gray 2012, 151–52, n. 1911.
91. Tsong Khapa is here referring to the text “these eight, Kākāsyā and so forth, who truly promote devotion and faith.” While it is true that Kambala and Devagupta discuss these lines following the eight commitments (SN 40b and SS 111a), Tsong Khapa’s position here is weak, as this text occurs before the list of the eight commitments in the surviving Sanskrit texts as well as the Tibetan trans. In fact, these eight guardian goddesses (kākāsyādayo ’ṣṭau hy ete) clearly decline with the gerundives of the previous verse (nāvamantavyāḥ, nāpy adhikṣeptavyāḥ, pūjanīyāś ca; see Pandey 2002, 485) indicating that they are the objects of these actions. As we shall see, Tsong Khapa does not agree with this interpretation, which fits his tendency to seek to replace the female objects of devotion with male objects.
92. This argument is made by Sachen at PG 337.3.
93. As before, Tsong Khapa’s version of Bhavabhaṭṭa’s text is slightly abbreviated, with the term “goddesses” omitted. The text occurs in Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary as follows: kāketyādi kākāsyādayo ’ṣṭau devyo bhaktiśraddhāvivardhikāḥ bhavanti / tāś ca kāraṇaṁ siddhīnām (Pandey 2002, 485); khwa gdong ma la sogs zhes gsungs te khwa gdong ma la sogs pa lha mo brgyad pa ’di gus pa dang dad pa ’phel bar byed pa yin no / de yang dngos grub rnams kyi rgyu yin no, (2002, 608). Tsong Khapa quotes this passage as follows: ka ka sogs kyis ston pa la khva gdong ma la sogs pa brgyad po ’di gus pa dang dad pa ’phel bar byed pa yin no / de yang dngos grub rnams kyi rgyu yin no.
94. Here Tsong Khapa is referring to the PM translation of 26.9b, grol dang dad pa phel byed pa (Gray 2012, 333–34), which may be misreading of bhakti as mukti, or a genuine textual variant. All extant Sanskrit mss. read here either bhaktiśraddhāvivardhikāḥ or śraddhābhaktivivardhikāḥ (Gray 2012, 152, n. 1913). In place of grol, the SL and SM translations read mos and gus, respectively (Gray 2012, 450, 527).
95. Tsong Khapa here condenses Kambala’s commentary. He wrote that “He who desires power by renouncing the method of the supreme yoga of delighting in great compassion, and relying on another [system of] yoga for the sake of achieving the powers of the desire realm deities, is stupified like a blind man.” (SN 40a.6–7: snying rje chen por rab dga’ ba’i / rnal ’byor mchog gi thabs spangs nas / ’dod lha’i dngos grub bsgrub don du / rnal ’byor gzhan la brten byas pas / gang zhig dngos grub ’dod gyur pa / dmus long bzhin du rnam par rmongs).
96. This text does not occur in either of Vīravajra’s commentaries. The text ’dod la chags pa does occur in Jayabhadra’s (CP 57a) and Bhavabhaṭṭa’s (CV 203a) commentaries, but in these cases, it is simply an alternate translation corresponding to the Sanskirt kāmavimohitaḥ.
97. That is, the karmamudrā practices, which entail union with a physical seal, or the jñānamudrā practices, which involve union with a visualized seal.
98. Tsong Khapa’s source here is Bhavyakīrti, who quotes Jayabhadra’s commentary then and comments upon it as follows: “Regarding united with a woman, Koṅkana claims that, when uniting the vajra and lotus, if there is no master one should not lack mastery; otherwise, it should be done in a masterful manner. This is the sixth [commitment]. I, Bhavyakīrti, hold that when [engaged in] sexual pleasure, the yoginī alone is the central figure.” (BC 23b: bud med dbang phyug shin tu sbyor / zhes bya ba ni rdo rje dang padma mngon par ’du bya ba’i dus su dbang phyug med cing dbang phyug dang bral bar mi bya’i / gzhan du na dbang phyug nyid du bya’o zhes bya ba ni drug pa’o zhes koṅka na’i zhal sna nas bzhed doskal ldan grags pa ni rab tu dga’ ba’i dus su rnal ’byor ma nyid gtso bo yin no zhes ’dod do). Cf. Sugiki 2001, 126 and CP 57a.
99. Tsong Khapa here glosses the Tibetan translations legs par sbyor (PM, SM) and shin tu sbyor (SL), which are poor translations of the Sanskrit sumanthāna, “excellent churning stick.”
100. The Sanskrit here, as preserved in the AU mss. and Jayabhadra’s commentary, is “yet observe chastity in meditation,” brahmacaryaṁ tathā dhyāne (CT 26.11b and Gray 2012, 152), a reading attested by all of the Tibetan translations. Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary, however, attests the variant noted by Tsong Khapa, namely brahmacaryaṁ tathādhāne (Pandey 2002, 486). The root meaning of ādhāna is “to deposit,” and it can have the sense of “impregnate,” but it can also have the opposite meaning, “to receive,” “take,” “conceive.” The Tibetan translation of Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary takes it in the latter sense of the word, and also makes it clear that it is the ejaculation of semen that is implied here: “Yet observe chasity in reception refers to the taking up of the spirit of awakening that has the form of reality. Taking it up without attachment is the seventh.” (Pandey 2002, 609–10: tshang par spyod pa de bzhin blangs zhes gsungs te de bzhin nyid kyi ngo bo nyid byang chub sems blang ba ni mngon par zhen pa med pas blang ba ste bdun pa’o).
In the original Sanskrit text, Bhavabhaṭṭa glosses ādhāna, “to deposit, release,” with its antonym, ādāna, “to take, draw to oneself,” a subtlety that was evidently missed by the Tibetan translators. The Sanskrit text of his commentary reads, “Yet in reception refers to the deposition of the seminal essence that has the form of reality; drawing it up without attachment is the seventh” (2002, 486: tathādāna iti tathatā[rūpa]sya bodhicittasyādhānam ādānaṁ tatrānabhiniveśaḥ saptamaḥ; the bracketed text is my correction).
At issue here is the challenge presented by sexual yogas to the vows of celibacy taken by monks. The canonical text, “observe chastity in meditation,” implies that these practices can be fruitfully undertaken via visualization only. Bhavabhaṭṭa’s comment implies the arguably more transgressive, alternative, namely seminal emission followed by reabsorption.
101. Tsong Khapa refers to another variant of this line, tshangs par spyod pa de bzhin gzhi, with gzhi/ādhāra in place of dhyāna, occurs in the translations of the commentaries by Jayabhadra, Bhavyakīrti, and Vīravajra (BC 23b.2: tshang par spyod pa de bzhin gzhi; PD 404a.2: tshang par spyod dang de bzhin gzhi; CP 57a.6: tshang par spyod pa de bzhin bzhi). However, the Sanskrit text of Jayabhadra’s commentary attests dhyāne, which he glosses as ādhāre, as follows: “Yet observe chasity in meditation means that, at the time of the trickling of seminal essence in the receptacle, one should observe, i.e., practice, chastity” (Sugiki 2001, 126: brahmacaryaṁ tathā dhyāna ity ādhāre bodhicittasravaṇakāle brahmatattvaṁ cared ācared ity arthaḥ).
102. The Sanskrit here reads srotasaṁcāre, “in the transfer of fluid,” which is correctly translated as rgyun gyi kun tu spyod in the SL translation (Gray 2012, 450). In place of rgyun gyi, the SM and PM translations give the variant readings bu gar and sbubs su (Gray 2012, 527, 334), with sbubs meaning an interior hollow space, a cavity, tube, or the womb. Tsong Khapa follows the SM translation, reading “in the hole,” bu gur.
103. Tsong Khapa quotes Vīravajra’s text as follows: byang sems len pa’i dus su btsog pa’i ’du shes mi bya ba; the text occurs as follows: byang chub sems len pa’i dus su bcog pa’i ’du shes mi bya ba (SG 190a5). Note that Tsong Khapa’s text has the correct reading btsog pa’i ’du shes.
104. Tsong Khapa here paraphrases the commentaries contained at SN 40b and SS 111a.
105. Tsong Khapa here glosses Jayabhadra’s comments at CP 57b.1, although he downplays the notion of secrecy, and also differs with respect to the gloss of hetubhiḥ/rgyu yis. Jayabhadra’s full commentary reads as follows: “Common to all tantras means that this is the secret of all tantras that is common [to them]. While this secret is implied, those who know other tantras do not know it. Hence [the text] cannot be destroyed by causes is stated. That is, they cannot be destroyed by causes, namely by means of knowledge such as direct perception, etc.” (Sugiki 2001, 126: sāmānyaṁ sarvatantrāṇām iti etad rahasyaṁ sarvatantrāṇām iti sāmānyam / ata eva rahasyaṁ abhisaṁdhānam anyatantravido na vidanti / ato na hantavyā hetubhir ity uktaṁ / hetubhiḥ pratyakṣādibhiḥ pramāṇair na hantavyaḥ).
106. Tsong Khapa here relies on Bhavabhaṭṭa’s commentary, which occurs as follows: “The rite of loving the messenger is indicated by little finger, etc. The channel called ‘bird face,’ khagamukhā, which is like a bandhūka flower, should be moved, i.e., stimulated, by the concave space [formed] by the tips of the ring and middle fingers as if around a seed, inserted within the flower. What is the purpose of this? The messengers, etc. indicate that [it is done in order to stimulate] the descent of the streaming intoxicant which exists within the messenger” (Pandey 2002, 487: dūtyanurāgaṇavidhim āha kaniṣṭhām ityādi / khagamukhānāḍīṁ bandhūkakusumasadṛśīṁ kusumasadṛśena kiṁbījenānāmikā-madhyamāgra-saṁpuṭanyastena cālayec codayet / kimartham āha dutaya ityādi / dūtīnāṁ samvyasthānaṁ svavasthānaṁ sravanmadatvam). Note that Tsong Khapa gives an alternate name for the channel, “crow face” (kākāsyā, bya rog gdong).
107. Jayabhadra comments here that: “The wise one should move his little finger means that he has union with the goddess at the time of worshipping the goddess. But if a woman who is well educated in mantra and tantra has not been obtained, then cultivating some other uncultivated woman, she should be worshipped (Sugiki 2001, 126–27: kaniṣṭhāṁ cālayed dhīmān iti devīpūjākāle devatāyogavān ity arthaḥ / athavā mantratantrasuśikṣitā yadi na labhyata itarām apy aprākṛtaṁ kṛtvā pūjāyed iti; cf. CP 57b.2–3).
108. Tsong Khapa here glosses Jayabhadra’s commentary, which is grammatically ambiguous in its Tibetan translation. The commentary reads as follows: pho nya mo rnams yang dag gnas / zhes bya ba ni / de ltar dus de’i tshe blo dang ldan pa zhes bya ba pho nya mo thams cad dga’ bar ’gyur ro zhes bya ba’I don to (CP 57b.3–4).
This text is ambiguous because it does not indicate the grammatical connection between the wise one/yogin and the rest of the sentence. Tsong Khapa assumes a locative relationship, i.e., the messengers are pleased with the yogin. The Sanskrit, however, reads differently, as follows: “The messengers are positioned means that at that very time all of the messengers are pleased by the wise one, i.e., the yogin” (Sugiki 2001, 127: dūtayaḥ saṁvyavasthitā ity evaṁ tatkāle dhīmato yoginaḥ sarvā dūtyaḥ suprasannā bhavantītyarthaḥ).
109. Durjayachandra’s commentary here occurs as follows: blo ldan mthe’u chung bskyod par ni / zhes bya ba la sogs pa smos te / padma’i mthe’u chung ste byin gyis brlabs pa’i lte ba du mthe’u chung ste bskyod par bya zhes sbyar ro / (RG 289a.7–b.1).
110. Tsong Khapa here expands upon Kambala’s comment that occurs as follows: “Little finger is one who has the joint of a little finger. Holding the body of an eleven-year-old and taking it up with one’s tongue is the cultivation of the achievement of alchemy, which is the cause of great bliss.” (SN 40b.6–7: mthe’u chung zhes bya ba mthe’u chung ni tshigs dang ldan pa ste / lo bcu gcig pa’i bdag nyid bzung nas / lce yis blangs te ra sa ya na’i dngos grub brtsam pa ni bde ba chen po ’byung ba’i rgyu’o).
111. Tsong Khapa here paraphrases Vīravajra’s commentary, which begins by distinguishing the three types of adepts in terms of their capability, and then restates Jayabhadra’s commentary; see SG 190b. Jayabhadra’s commentary here occurs as follows: “The aspirant, the purified one, and the illuminating virtuous man refers to the three types of yogins. The aspirant has not given rise to inspiration (pratibhā), the purified one has given rise to competence. The illuminating one is middling, having given rise to some inspiration, and awakening for the sake of self and others. In addition, the aspirant worships the deity through the discipline of mantrayoga. The illuminating one who is virtuous and who knows the meaning of the treatises is like a lamp, and is able to accomplish the aims of all beings.” (Sugiki 2001, 127: ārādhako viśuddhaś ca dīpako guṇavān nara iti yogi tridhā vidyate / ārādhaka ity anutpannapratibhāḥ, viśuddha ity utpannasamarthyaḥ, dīpaka iti madhyadīpakaḥ kiṁcidutpannapratibhāḥ svaparārtha-bodhakaś ca / atha vā ārādhako mantrayogābhyāsena devatārādhakaḥ, guṇavān śāstrārthavettā, dīpakaḥ pradīpavat sarvasattvārthakriyāsamarthaḥ /; cf, CP 57b.4–6).
Interestingly, Vīravajra, in his other commentary, distinguishes the three types of adept in terms of their mode of practice, writing that “the pure one meditates on the creation stage, and the impure one meditates on the perfection stage in which the five types of nectar are enjoyed. The mixed one meditates on both the creation and perfection stages” (PD 404b: dag pa ni bskyed pa’i rim pa bsgom pa’o / ma dag pa ni bdud rtsi rnam pa lnga la longs spyod pa’i rdzogs pa’i rim pa bsgom pa’o / ’dres pa ni bskyed rdzogs gnyis ka bsgom pa’o). This inverts the hierarchy assumed by commentators such as Jayabhadra.