Conflicting Conceptions of the Shrishrishri-Svayambhucaitya as a Holy Shrine
- Alexander v. Rospatt (Ph.D.),
University of Leipzig, Germany
(This paper was presented during the 'Conference on the Buddhist Heritage of Nepal Mandal' in 1998.)
Let me start by telling You that I came to live in Kathmandu in order to learn from You, the learned community of Kathmandu Valley, about Buddhist Newar culture. When I present You here a small extract of the results of my research on the Svayambhucaitya,1 I do so with some apprehension. I do not want to suggest that I, an outsider, am in a position to teach You the secret meaning of Svayambhu or something along those lines. Of course, you as native Newars have a more intimate access to the understanding of Svayambhu than my research can ever yield. All the same, I hope that what I am going to speak about in the next half an hour will be of interest to You. I have studied various written sources relating to the conception of the Svayambhucaitya and here I would like to present some of the conclusions I have drawn from this material.
The early caityas in the history of Buddhism function as shrines housing the corporeal relics of a Buddha or some other saint, or objects of personal use such as his alms bowl or robes (paribhoga). In the course of time not only such relics but also texts or other sacred objects were deposited inside caityas in order to turn them into sacred shrines. In Vajrayana Buddhism caityas are built above various layers of mandalas. By this process and by the final consecration of the caitya, these Vajrayana caityas become three-dimensional mandalas. The mandalas usually chosen for this are the Vajradhatu-mandala and the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala. The latter mandala can be viewed as an extended form of the Vajradhatu-mandala. Both mandalas are built around the pancabuddhas in the centre. Thus the caitya comes to be the home, the alaya, of the pancabuddhas and of the deities which inhabit the outer circles of the mandala in question.
***
If we take the Svayambhupurana as our starting point, the Svayambhucaitya does not, unlike ordinary Vajrayana caityas, owe its sacredness to mandalas projected into it. Nor is it sacred because of relics or other holy objects deposited in it. Rather, it is sacred because it is erected over the very spot where the principle of Buddhahood, personified as the Adibuddha, manifested itself of its own accord. This is related in the various recessions of the Svayambhupurana.2 When Kathmandu Valley was still a lake Tathagata Vipashvin3 cast the seed of a lotus flower into its waters.4 This seed came to germinate and blossom, and upon this blossom a dharmadhatu, that is, a caitya,5 consisting of crystal (sphatikamaya) and having the form of light (jyotirupa) arose of its own accord (svayam abhut samutpannah). It is qualified as the home of the Jinas (jinalaya), as the ontological basis of the five Tathagatas (pamcatathagatashraya), as holding the qualities of enlightenment (sambodhi-shrigunadharah), as adorned with all the marks (of Buddhahood?) (sarvalakshana-manditah), as bearing all beautiful objects (sarvashubharthabhrit), as bearing the jewels of the right doctrine (saddharmaratnabhrit). These qualifications are in accordance with the general conception of caityas in Vajrayana Buddhism. However, the caitya is also described as the Eldest (jagajjeshtha) of the world, as its Lord (jagadisha), as its Master (jagatprabhuh), as foremost (agra), as supreme (shreshtha), as having no beginning and no end (anadinidhana), and as not ageing (ajirnna). These characterizations go beyond the ordinary conception of a Vajrayana caitya and show that the Svayambhucaitya surpasses all other caityas and constitutes a particular case in it its own right. This particularity is captured in one word in the characterization of it as being svayambhu, that is, as being self-arisen and self-existing, and hence as being independent of human agency that would be responsible for its construction and ritual establishment. This independence is the cardinal difference between the Svayambhucaitya and other caityas. Here Buddhahood manifests itself of its own accord rather than being induced to do so by a complex set of rituals performed by human priests. Hence, to be self-arisen, that is, to be svayambhu, came to be the decisive characterization of the caitya. This epithet became so dominant that it assumed a reality of its own. Thus it seems that in the longer Sanskrit version in verse, in the Shrimat-atibrihat-svayambhupurana, svayambhu is no longer the qualifying adjective of the Dharmadhatu-caitya, but (having become nominalised) the deity himself (svayambhu bhagavan), who manifests himself in the shape of a caitya (caityarupaja) on the lotus flower.6 As the supreme deity, Lord Svayambhu came to be identified with the Adibuddha. This identification matches the qualification of the self-arisen Dharmadhatu-caitya as the ontological basis of the five Tathagatas (pamcatathagatashraya). Accordingly, the light emanating from Svayambhu came to be looked upon as consisting of five rays, white, blue, yellow, red and green in colour in accordance with the colours of the pancabuddhas.
Thus, the Svayambhucaitya is sacred in an immediate and far more concrete sense than an ordinary caitya, which only becomes the seat of the pancabuddhas (and thereby of the underlying Adibuddha) by a set of complex rituals. Here the ontological basis of Buddhahood, the Adibuddha, manifests itself of its own accord in the form of light (jyotirupa). The physical structure of the caitya is thus merely a protective cover for this light (and for the luminous crystal from which this light emanates, as well as for the lotus of jewels and diamonds upon which this crystal rests). This cover was erected by Shantishri (who is only in the longer and later versions of the Svayambhupurana identified with Shantikaracarya)7 at the beginning of the Kaliyuga in order to protect the shining crystal upon the lotus blossom from any wrongdoing.8
So much for the conception of the Svayambhucaitya according to the myth related in the Svayambhupurana. The situation is, however, more complex than that. In inscriptions, thyasaphus and other written sources, the Svayambhucaitya is frequently referred to as Shrishrishri-Svayambhucaitya-dharmadhatuvagishvara. This appellation as Dharmadhatuvagishvara alludes to the aforementioned Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala. This mandala has in its centre as the main deity Dharmadhatuvagishvara, a deity who is identified with Manjughosha and is hence a form of Manjushri. That the Svayambhucaitya is indeed also conceived of as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-caitya, much in the same way as other Vajrayana caityas are, is attested in various Newar chronicles which record previous renovations, jirnoddharas, of the Svayambhucaitya. These chronicles, which were written by participating Vajracaryas, note how the caitya was renovated and which rituals were performed in the process. It is recorded that at the beginning of the given renovation the nyasa or jivanyasa, i.e. the caitya's deity, is transferred to a special vessel, the nyasaghata, which is kept in a pure place, such as the Thakali's house or the digi chem. There it is worshipped daily until the time of the caitya's re-consecration. Part of this nityapuja is the offering of a nyasabali in order to protect the nyasa, which is deemed particularly vulnerable at this stage, from malign spirits etc. After the nyasa has been removed the caitya is dismantled by the workers down to the dome. Then the old and worn yahsi, i.e. the central pole of the caitya, is removed and replaced by a new yahsi which has been prepared in the meantime. After the caitya has been built up again, the jivanyasa is transferred back from the nyasaghata into the caitya (nyasa luyigu). After this transference the nyasa is properly re-established in the caitya by a set of complex consecration rituals. First the ten samskaras, i.e. birth, the bestowing of sight (drishtidana), name-giving, first feeding of fruits and rice etc. up to the wedding, are performed. Then the tantric initiations, the dikshas, are conferred upon the deity. This new consecration of the caitya is sealed by a complex ritual, an ahoratrapuja, which lasts up to two weeks.
The removal and later re-insertion of the nyasa as well as the subsequent consecration rituals are in this way routinely done in the context of renovations of Vajrayana caityas and murtis. The precise details of this process depend upon which kind of caitya or deity the rituals are performed for. In the case of the Svayambhucaitya the rituals point to the conception of the shrine as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-caitya. Thus, at the time of re-consecrating the caitya, the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala is drawn and ritually empowered. Moreover, the layout of the so-called "Pindikarmmamandala",9 which was inscribed on a gilded silver plate and in this form inserted in the cube above the caitya's dome (harmika) when building it up again in process of renovating Svayambhu in 1757, bears traces of the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala.10 Thus, as the chronicle of that renovation records, this mandala has as its central deity Vagishvara, who is - as the other deities of the "Pindikarmmamandala" - represented by his seed syllable (= mu) rather than by depicting his implements or his dhyana, that is, his bodily appearance which is to be visualized in meditation. The chronicles and also inscriptions dating as far back as to the 13th century (NS 492) testify that in the process of the renovation the samadhi of the Vajradhatu is practised for the most crucial rituals. Since the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala can be treated as an extended form of the Vajradhatu-mandala, the practice of the Vajradhatu samadhi may be looked upon as a proof for the conception of the caitya as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala. At the very least, the practice of the Vajradhatu-samadhi confirms that the Vajracaryas deal with the Svayambhucaitya as a Vajrayana caitya which is, conceptually, a pancabuddha-mandala.
Thus it can be learned from the records of the Svayambhucaitya's renovation that it is ritually treated much in the same way as other Vajrayana shrines. The decisive point of this process is that the divinity, the jivanyasa, is from a ritual point of view clearly dependent upon human agency, notably the officiating priests, the Vajracaryas. This becomes particularly obvious at the time of renovation when the nyasa is treated almost like a substance, that can be removed from and re-inserted into the caitya by a competent Vajracarya at will. Hence, we have a somewhat contradictory situation. On the one hand, the Svayambhu shrine is ritually treated as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-caitya. As other Vajrayana caityas, it hence owes its sanctity to the pancabuddhas and to the other deities of the mandala whom the Vajracaryas induce to abide in the caitya by a series of complex rituals. On the other hand, the caitya is conceived of as the mere cover of the sacred, radiant, crystalline Svayambhu Dharmadhatu, which is the form in which the Adibuddha manifests himself at this spot irrespective of any rituals, solely on his own accord.
It seems that the Svayambhupurana is addressing this contradictory situation when it introduces the sixth chapter with the question why and since when the Svayambhucaitya has also been called Dharmadhatuvagishvara.11 Instead of an explicit answer to this question, the following episode, the main subject matter of the sixth chapter, is related: Once a certain acarya called Dharmashrimitra was teaching the Namasamgiti in the Vikramashila Vihara in India. During the process of this he was asked about the esoteric meaning of the 12 aksharas a, aa, i,i, u, uu, e, ai, o, au, am, and ah which are taught in the (Arya)Manjushrinamasamgiti, in the Mayajalabhisambodhigathas.12 Unable to answer this question, Dharmashrimitra set off towards China in order to meet Manjushri and to find out about the 12 aksharas from him. After meeting Manjushri, Dharmashrimitra is first initiated into the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala because only to such an initiate can Manjushri reveal the secret of the 12 aksharas. The Svayambhupurana only mentions that thereupon Dharmashrimitra was taught the secret meaning of these 12 letters, but it does not mention what this secret is. This episode is all that the Svayambhupurana gives in the way of an answer to the question why the Svayambhucaitya is also called Dharmadhatuvagishvara. In the absence of a commentatorial tradition which would explain how the episode answers this question, we have to arrive at our own interpretation. I suggest that we can learn two things from the episode: Firstly, it tacitly confirms the link between the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala and the appellation of the caitya as Dharmadhatuvagishvara. Secondly, it hints that the conception of the caitya as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala has to be seen against the backdrop of the Namasamgiti and the 12 aksharas taught therein. This hint makes perfect sense, for the three Mayajalabhisambodhigathas of the Namasamgiti, where the 12 aksharas are taught, contain according to the exegetical tradition the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala.13
This link between the conception of the Svayambhucaitya as Dharmadhatuvagishvara and the Mayajalabhisambodhigathas of the Namasamgiti, which is only hinted at by the Svayambhupurana, is made very explicit in a couple of historical architectural drawings of the Svayambhucaitya.14 These drawings of Svayambhu not only give the exact measurements of the various parts of the caitya, but also provide an esoteric interpretation of the upper section of the caitya surmounting the harmika . These drawings (see Kolver, op. cit., illustrations 1 and 9, on respectively p. 5 and p. 52) reveal that the yahsi is marked with the same 12 aksharas which are taught in the Namasamgiti and which Dharmashrimitra went to learn about from Manjushri. Each letter is affixed to the yahsi in such a way that it marks one of the thirteen rings (Newari: cakari) which rise above the harmika (Newari: galatuki) (as an expression of the absolute, the thirteenth ring remains unmarked). The architectural drawings correlate each letter and thereby the corresponding ring with a particular bhumi (i.e. a particular stage on the path of a Bodhisattva), with a particular paramita(i.e. a particular perfection obtained on this path), with a particular jnana (i.e. a particular spiritual knowledge and insight obtained on this path) and a particular sthana (i.e. a particular place for worship and yogic practice such as a charnel field, a shmashana). In correlating the 12 aksharas and rings with the 12 bhumis, paramitas, jnanas and sthanas, the drawings provide an esoteric interpretation of the 12 aksharas. It seems that such an esoteric interpretation of the 12 aksharas is in line with the longer versions of the Svayambhupurana. For there the hint is given that Manjushri's esoteric teaching on the 12 aksharas contained the secret knowledge of the twelve bhumis.15 The equation of the 12 aksharas with the 12 sthanas matches the correlation adduced by Ravishrshjnana in his commentary on the Namasamgiti, the Amritakanika (p. 18,11-16). All this shows that the 12 aksharas on the yahsi of the Svayambhucaitya refer to the very same 12 aksharas which are taught in the Namasamgiti. Thus we can see that the 12 aksharas of the Namasamgiti are not only linked to the Svayambhu in the Svayambhupurana, but that by virtue of being inscribed on the yahsi they are actually physically present in the Svayambhucaitya.
How does all this help in bridging the gap between the conception of the caitya as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala and as a shrine for the divine Svayambhu manifesting himself in the form of the self-arisen radiant caitya? I would like to suggest that in a word the answer is 'Manjushri'. Dharmadhatuvagishvara, the central deity of the mandala, is as a form of Manjughosha identical with Manjushri himself. On the basis of this identification, Manjushri can be taken to be the supreme deity of the caitya, the Adibuddha. This interpretation can be substantiated by referring to the 12 aksharas which, according to the architectural drawings, are written on the yahsi. For in the second Mayajalabhisambodhigatha of the Namasamgiti these same 12 aksharas are related to Manjushri, who abides as the embodiment of knowledge (jnanamurti) in the heart of the Buddhas of all times and in this sense functions as Adibuddha.16 Since the yahsi of the caitya has the same 12 aksharas located on it which are associated with Manjushri, the caitya (or, more precisely, its core the yahsi) and Manjushri can be correlated. Hence by virtue not only of the conception of the Svayambhucaitya as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala, but also by virtue of the inscription of the yahsi with the 12 aksharas, Manjushri is seen to be the underlying supreme deity, the Adibuddha, of the Svayambhucaitya.
This is in keeping with the pivotal role which Manjushri plays in the Svayambhu myth. In the form of Manjudeva he drained the lake covering Nepal in order to make Svayambhu accessible for worship, and then he settled the first inhabitants, the forerunners of the present-day Newars, in Manjupattana, and taught them agricultural and other skills; in a word, he bestowed civilization upon them.17 Moreover, he conferred tantric diksha upon Gunakara, and thus he is, via Shantishri (or Shantikaracarya if their identification in later versions of the Svayambhupurana is accepted), at the beginning of all the Vajracaryas' parampara, that is, their initiatory lineage (see John Locke: Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press, 1985, pp. 256f.). This supreme importance of Manjushri could not find better expression than in the conception of the Svayambhucaitya as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala with a form of Manjushri in its centre, and in the identification of Svayambhu with Manjushri which is implied by this.18 I think that this is the true import of the sixth chapter of the Svayambhupurana, which I have discussed above.
It has to be conceded, however, that the sixth chapter of the Svayambhupurana does not spell out the link between Manjushri and the Svayambhucaitya in the way suggested here. Hence my interpretation has to remain speculative. But even if it is not accepted, one can at least find a common denominator between the Svayambhucaitya's ritual treatment as a Vajrayana mandala and its conceptualization according to the myth of the Svayambhupurana in its function as seat of the Adibuddha. Every Vajrayana caitya is the abode of the pancabuddhas (see above) and thereby ultimately of the Adibuddha, who is the personification of the principle of Buddhahood underlying them. Likewise, the self-arisen caitya of the Svayambhu myth is identified as Lord Svayambhu and in turn as Adibuddha. Thus on both counts the Svayambhucaitya is the abode of the Adibuddha, and the difference can be reduced to the question whether he manifests himself here solely of his own accord or whether he is induced to do so by human agency. To be sure, this is no mean difference. On the other hand, the tension between the autonomous nature of a deity and its ritual dependency upon human agency is not restricted to the Svayambhu shrine, but can also be found in other contexts.19 What is more, to perceive of the dual nature of the Svayambhucaitya as in some way contradictory is, of course, a very Western perspective. From an Indic point of view there will be nothing disturbing about a caitya being treated in one context as a Vajrayana caitya that is dependent upon human ritual agency, while being regarded in another context as completely autonomous. Rather than being perplexed by this lack of consistency, one will happily accept that this caitya is not only sacred because of the rituals performed for it, but also because this is the place where Buddhahood manifests itself in any case spontaneously. After all, this complex situation makes for the special sacredness and great importance which sets the Svayambhucaitya apart from all other Buddhist shrines.
***
The conflict between the dependency of the caitya as a mandala upon human agency (Vajrayana rituals) on the one hand, and between the autonomous nature of Svayambhu on the other hand, is not the only contradiction in the conception of the Svayambhucaitya as a holy shrine. I want to point out one more instance. For this I will return to the aforementioned chronicles recording various renovations of the Svayambhucaitya. In these chronicles it is described how the new yahsi is felled and brought to Svayambhu. Upon the arrival at Svayambh it is ritually welcomed by the nakim , i.e. the wife of the eldest man of the community of Buddhacaryas. The Buddhacaryas are the clan residing up at Svayambhu and charged with the daily care of the caitya. The ceremonial welcome, the laskus rite, is performed for the yahsi in the same way as it is for a new wife. Thus by pulling the yahsi inside with the help of a key, the nakim incorporates it into the Buddhacarya community just as a new bride is taken in. Consequently, at the next renovation when the yahsi has become old and worn out and is replaced by a new yahsi, it is ritually treated as a member of the Buddhacarya community who has died. It is cremated by the guthiyars of Svayambhu with the assistance of 2 segumis (the jyapu helpers attached to Svayambhu). As the aforementioned inscription of the 12 aksharas on the yahsi shows, it is the central part of the caitya, the part most intimately associated with the sacred life of the caitya. Thus the new yahsi is, after its erection inside the dome, consecrated by the ten samskaras even before the nyasa is transferred back from the nyasaghata to the caitya and thus even before the caitya is consecrated at large. The fact that the yahsi, the central and in many ways most sacred part of the caitya, is treated by the Buddhacaryas as a member of their community shows that from their perspective the Svayambhucaitya is not only a universal shrine for the pancabuddhas and the underlying Adibuddha, but also a deity intimately linked to their community and in this sense almost clan-like in nature.20 This intimate link also finds its expression in the Buddhacaryas' function as jajaman for rites performed in connection with the Svayambhucaitya.
The Buddhist caityas and deities scattered over the Valley generally belong to a specific bahah, bahi, clan or other group. As such, they are like the Svayambhucaitya closely associated with the community in question and ritually treated accordingly. What is striking, however, in the case of Svayambhu is that this caitya functions also as the focal point for the Newar Buddhist community at large. Beyond the borders imposed by locality and caste, all Newar Buddhists accept Svayambhu as their most sacred shrine, as the centre of their religion and by converging there express their identity as Newar Buddhists.21 This character of the Svayambhucaitya to unite the Newar Buddhist community also finds expression at the renovations of this caitya. As the aforementioned chronicles record, in the process of renovation just about every section of society gets involved, be it as craftsman, as priest, as donor, as musician, as part of the huge group of people pulling the yahsi up to Svayambhu or be it in some other way.
***
We can affirm, then, that the Svayambhucaitya is treated both as a local shrine closely associated with the clan of the Buddhacaryas and as the religious centre of the Newar Buddhist community which unites its members beyond local and caste boundaries. This discrepancy in scope touches mainly upon function and is not as striking as the conflicting conceptions of the shrine at Svayambhu as both the seat for the self-arisen Adibuddha and as a Dharmadhatuvagishvara-caitya. However, this discrepancy, too, goes to show that there are various and partly conflicting ways in which the Svayambhucaitya is conceived of as a sacred shrine. Whatever the merits of the synthesising explanation of the sixth chapter of the Svayambhupurana may be, the tensions between the differing perceptions of the Svayambhucaitya are never resolved completely. I see no harm in this. Buddhahood is beyond the limitations of systematic human thinking, and so why should the same not hold good for the shrines where Buddhahood manifests itself? Indeed, the coexistence of seemingly contradictory conceptions is to my mind a proof of the great spiritual vitality and importance of the Svayambhucaitya. By being able to accommodate multiple and from a systematic point of view to at least some degree mutually exclusive conceptualizations, the Svayambhucaitya displays the flexibility and malleability needed to accommodate the different currents within Newar Buddhist religiosity. In this way the conflicting understandings of the Svayambhucaitya should not be viewed negatively as sign of a lack of coherency on the part of the tradition, but, on the contrary, positively as an indication of the great ability of the tradition to accommodate different and even conflicting perspectives. It seems to me that this ability is an important factor making for the vitality and strength of the Newar Buddhist tradition even today.
***
Notes
1 I prefer to refer to the shrine at Syemgu as "Svayambhucaitya" without adding the honorific prefix maha- and without adding the suffix -natha.
As for maha-, to my knowledge, the designation of Svayambhu as a mahacaitya is in older Nepalese material only attested in the bilingual inscription recording the renovation from 1751 to 1758 (CE) and standing outside the Murttisamgrahalaya museum up at Svayambhu. This inscription was commissioned and erected by the Tibetan sponsors of this renovation. The Newari is a straight translation of the original Tibetan text. Hence the reference to Svayambhu as a mahacaitya is a translation of the Tibetan mchod-rten chen-po, a frequent term to exalt a caitya in Tibetan. The usual honorific particle in a Newari context for the Svayambhucaitya is not maha- but -bhattaraka, as recorded in the title of most of the versions of the Svayambhupurana. In addition, the name "Svayambhucaitya" may be exalted by prefixing shri - (up to three times). This prefixing, however, refers rather to the deity Svayambhu than to the caitya as such. Nowadays the term mahacaitya has become so accepted that it can even be found on the 50-paisa coin. I presume that this is mainly (if not exclusively) due to Pandit Hemraj Shakya's encyclopedic study of the Svayambhucaitya and its environs, which is published under the title Shri-Svayambhu Mahacaitya (Kathmandu 1978/9). As for the suffix -natha, the designation of the shrine at Syemgu as Svayambhunath is to my knowledge not attested in older sources. The suffix -natha clearly betrays Hindu influence (the Nathas and in particular Gorakhanatha, the saint whose shrine is housed inside the Kashthamandapa at Hanumandhoka; the designation of Pashupati as Pashupatinath etc.) and makes little sense if we look beyond the 19th century and study the Svayambhucaitya as a sacred shrine that probably has existed for at least some one and a half thousand years. Even nowadays most Buddhists simply refer to the caitya as Svayambhu rather than as Svayambhunath.
2 I here follow the Svayambhudharmadhatusamutpattinidanakatha version of the Svayambhupurana (NGMPP reel no. A 923/3, fol. 8r4-7. Note that the passages adduced from the various recensions of the Svayambhupurana in this essay are cited on the basis of respectively one manuscript only. This is not satisfactory, but should suffice for documenting my summary of the Svayambhu myth. The reading enclosed by square brackets [...] is to be deleted (ca[r]tur: instead of the manuscript's reading cartur read catur). The portion enclosed by pointed brackets <...> has been added to the text found in the manuscript. Where the letters are not in italics, the reading of the manuscript has been emended; the original reading of the manuscript is only reproduced here where it differs significantly from the conjectured reading proposed by me.
tasminn eva sare(sic.) tatra punyajalashraye hrade | maninalam mahaddiptihirakesharam uttamam ||
pancaratnamayam divyasarojaragakarnnikam | pradu<r>bhutam mahapadmam sahasradalakashitam ||
tasya ratnasarojasya karnnikamadhyamandale<|> svayam abhut samutpanno dharmmadhatur jinalayah ||
ekahastapramanamshuh shubhraratnasarojjvalah | sambodhishrigunadharah sarvalakshanamanditah ||
jyotirupo jagajj<y>eshtha<h> pamcatathagatashrayah | jagadisho jagadvandyo jagatpujyo jagatprabhuh ||
anadinidhano 'jirnno manyah sarvashubharthabhrit ||
samantabhadrarupo grah shreshthah saddharmaratnabhrit ||
trailokyasadgunadhisash ca[r]turvarggaphalapradah ||
tasmimshcai[r]tye samutpanne ...
-tl:dGg]j ;/] tq k'0ohnf>o] ¥xb] . dl0f0ffn+ dx2LlKtxL/s]z/d'Qd+ ..
k~r/Tgdo+ lbJo;/f]h/fusl00f{s+ . k|fb'e{"t+ dxfkß+ ;x;|bnsflzt+ ..
t:o /Tg;/f]h:o sl00f{sfdWod08n] . :jode"T;d'TkGgf] wDd{wft'lh{gfnoM ..
Psx:tk|df0ff+z'M z'e|/Tg;/f]HHjnM . ;Daf]lw>Lu'0ffwf/M ;j{nIf0fdl08tM ..
Hof]tL?kf] huHHo]i7M k+rtyfutf>oM . hubLzf] huåGBf] huTk"Hof] huTk|e'M ..
cgflblgwgf] ShL00ff]{ dfGoM ;j{z'efy{e[t\ ..
q}nf]So;b\u'0ffwL;Zrt'j{Uu{kmnk|bM .. tl:d+Zr}To] ;d'TkGg] ===_
Compare the corresponding passage in the shorter and presumably older Goshringaparvatasvayambhucaityabhattarakoddesha version: tasmimsh ca hrade shakatacakrapramanam sahasradala<m> samaninalakam sahirakesaram (Ms: sahitakeshara ) jvalatsarojaragakarnnikam pamcaratnamay<a>m mahapadmam pradurbhutam<|> tasya karnnikayam yo 'sau dharmmadhatu<h> sphatikamaya<h> sarvalakshanasampurnno jyeshthah shreshtho vamdaniyah pujaniyo manorathadhikaphalaprado devasuramanushyanam hitaya sukhaya mokshaya ca svayam utpannah. (manuscript, private property of Badriratna Bajracarya, fol. 4r6-v3). -tl:d+Zr ¥xb] zs6rqmk|df0f+ ;x>bn+ ;dl0fgfns+ ;xL/s];/+ HjnT;/f]h/fusl00f{s+ k+r/Tgdo+ dxfkß+ k|fb'e"{t+ . t:o sl00f{sfof+ of] S;f} wDd{wft'M :kml6sdoM ;j{nIf0f;+k"00ff]{ Ho]i7M >]i7f] j+bgLoM k"hgLof] dgf]/yflwskmnk|bf] b]jf;'/dg'iof0ff+ lxtfo ;'vfo df]Iffo r :jod'TkGgM ._
3 I follow the Newar and Sanskrit sources consulted by me which exclusively read Vipashvin. This version of the name is also found in the Gunakarandavyuha, a text of Newar provenance closely related to the Svayambhupurana. Of course, as we know from countless other occurrences of the Tathagata's name in a different context, the "proper" name should be Vipashyin.
4 This planting of the seed by the Tathagata Vipashvin is related in the Svayambhupurana translated (as it seems rather freely) by Mana Bajra Bajracharya and edited by Warren W. Smith (Mythological History of the Nepal Valley from the Svayambhu Purana. Kathmandu: Avalok Publishers 1978). In the older versions of the Svayambhupurana, there is no mention yet of the planting of the lotus seed by Vipashvin. They only state that at the time of the Tathagata Shikhin a lotus with Svayambhu in its midst arose from the lake covering Nepal. This is more coherent inasmuch as the planting of the seed of the miraculous lotus flower would seem to be somewhat at odds with the supposed self-origination of the caitya that manifests itself upon its pericarp.
5 In the present passage, the self-arisen dharmadhatu is clearly understood to be a caitya, since it is referred to as such in the next sentence (tasminsh caitye samutpanne). This usage of the term dharmadhatu is also attested in the Kriyasamgraha (cf. Mireille B?nisti: "?tude sur le Stupa dans l'Inde Ancienne." Bulletin de l'?cole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient L,1 (1960), pp. 37-116: p. 90). For further references of this usage of dharmadhatu see Heino Kottkamp's Der Stupa als Repr?sentation des buddhistischen Heilsweges (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992), p. 465.
6 NGMPP reel no. E 1293/8, fol. 25v4-7: tatra sphatikasamkashah svayambhur bhagavan prabhuh | ... caityarupajah ... j<y>oti<r>bhih puritah so <'>yam bhagavan jagadishvarah. -tq :kml6s;+sfzM :joDe"e{ujfg\ k|e'M . === r}To¿khM === Hof]ltle{M k"l/tM ;f] So+ eujf~hubLZj/ M ._
7 It is to my knowledge only in the longer versions of the Svayambhupurana with ten chapters (rather than with eight only) that Shantishri, the builder of the caitya covering Svayambhu, is identified with Shantikara (more precisely, with Shantikaradeva, as he is actually called in the manuscripts consulted by me), the Vajracarya who pacified the nagas and thus ended the long period of draught which had troubled the Valley. The explanation of this identification, which is related in chapter 9, is problematic in itself. According to it, Shantishri came to be called Shantikara after and because he had pacified the nagas, but in the previous chapter, relating the draught and its termination, the acarya is called Shantikara right from the beginning, even before setting out to pacify the nagas.
8 This myth of the origin of the Svayambhucaitya has some interesting parallels in the aforementioned account of the Dhanyakataka Stupa transmitted in the Tibetan tradition (cf. Arianne MacDonald, "Le Dhanyakataka de Man-luns guru", Bulletin de l'?cole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient 57 (1970): pp. 169-213: 178f). According to this account, the Dhanyakataka Stupa was erected over the mandala (according to the testimony of Abhaya and Ca-mi, the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala - ibid.) which the Buddha (identified as Adibuddha by Sureshamati - ibid., p. 176) had drawn in order to give initiations to his listeners before revealing the Kalacakratantra to them. Initially, the mandala was left uncovered after the Buddha had imparted the Kalacakratantra. At that time, the mere sight of it afforded liberation. Then, "out of envy" (phrag dog skyes nas!), the Digmaharajas had the mandala covered by a stupa so that it would no longer grant liberation to each and everyone setting their eyes on it.
9 I have dealt with the insertion of this kind of mandala into caityas in an essay (On the Conception of the Stupa in Vajrayana Buddhism. The Example of the Svayambhucaitya of Kathmandu) published in the Journal of the Nepal Research Centre (N.11, 1999: pp. 121-147).
10 NGMPP E 1743/3, folio 25r2-5: thva pindikarmmamandalasa vija || vagisvara mu || dathusa || vajradhateshvari dathusam themli catudalasa || purvvasa jinajika, ragarati || dakshinasa ratnadhrika dhesharati|| pashcima, alorika, moharati || uttara vishvadhrika moharati || thvampi sakatam || pindikarmmamandalavat |||| vija || -Yj lkl08sDd{d08n; jLh .. jflu:j/ d' .. by'; .. jh|wft]Zj/L by';+ y]+ln rt'bn; .. k"Jj{; lhglhs, /fu/lt .. blIf0f; /Tgfw[s w]if/lt .. klZrd, cfnf]l/s, df]x/lt .. pQ/ ljZjw[s df]x/lt .. Yj+lk ;stf+ .. lkl08sDd{d08njt\ .... jLh .._
11 Goshringaparvatasvayambhucaityabhattarakoddesha (manuscript, private property of Badriratna Bajracarya) folios 19b7-20a2: dharmadhato<r> buddhadharmabodhi<sa>tvalayasya katamasya tathagatasya kalasamaye kasmad dhetor dharmmadhatuvagishvara iti namabhini<r>v<ri>tti<r>(?) bhavati ||
-wd{wftf]a{'4wd{af]lw;Tjfno:o std:o tyfut:o sfn;do] s:df4]tf]w{Dd{wft'jfuLZj/ Olt gfdflelgj{[lQe{jlt .._
Svayambhu Mahapurana (manuscript, private property of Ratnakaji Bajracarya) p. 264,11f.: ava srisvayambhubhagavanayata sridharmadhatuvagishvara dhakam gu byalasam nisyam nama prashyamta jula chuya hetunam jula. -cfj ;|L:joDe'eujfgoft ;|Lwd{wft'jfuLZj/ ws+ u' Aon;+ lg:o+ gfd k|iof+t h'n 5'of x]t'g+ h'n ._
12 These 12 letters represent the male vowels (ali); ri, rii, lri are considered to be neuter (napumsaka) since they are not pure vowels; the consonants are female (kali). See Ravishrijnana's commentary on the gatha in question in his Amritakanika (edited by Banarsi Lal, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1994 CE: p. 18,8 et segg.): rikaradicaturnam napumsakatvena varjana.
The same differentiation between male, neuter and female letters can also be found in the tradition of Kashmiri Shaivism, e.g. in the Shri Shri Paratrimshika (edited by Acarya Nilakantha Gurutu, pp. 283-6) or in Abhinavagupta's Tantrasara (Abhinavagupta: Tantrasara with Hindi Translation and Annotation by Pt. Shree Hemendra Nath Chakravarty, Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Sansthan, 1986: p. 13).
13 See Wayman 1985: 23f and 27f.
14 These drawings have been published by Prof. Bernhard K?lver in his book Re-building a Stupa. Architectural Drawings of the Svayambhunath (Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1992). Manuscripts "A" and "B" of Prof. K?lver's study record the Svayambhucaitya's measurements from respectively NS 832 (1712 CE) and NS 937 (1817 CE), and manuscript "C" records the measurements after the renovation at the end of Jayaprakasha Malla's reign (completed in NS 877 = 1757 CE).
15 Svayambhu Mahapurana (manuscript, private property of Ratnakaja Bajracarya) fol. 274,3 et segg.: thanalim thohma dharmashrimitranam thohma shrimahamanjushriguruya kripanam abhisheka lanava dvadashabhuvanaya guhekajnana lanava ... .-yg+ln yf]Dx wd{>Lldqg+ yf]Dx >Ldxfd~h'>Lu'?of s[kfg+ cleif]s nfgfj åfbze'jgof u"x]s1fg nfªfj ===_
Svayambhudharmadhatusamutpattinidanakatha (NGMPP reel no. A 923/3) 29b2 et segg.: tatas tasmai prasannaya manjudevo yathavidhi<h> || dvadashaksharaguhyarth<a>m vishuddhim samupadishat || tato labdhabhisheko 'sau dharmashrimitra utmana<h> || dvadashabhumiguhyartham vishuddhijnanam aptavan || -tt:t:d} k|;Ggfo d~h'b]jf] oyfljlwM .. åfbzfIf/u'x\ofyf{+ ljz'l4+ ;d'kflbzt\ .. ttf] nAwfleif]sf] S ;f} wd{>Lldq pTdgfM .. cfbze"ldu'x\ofy{+ ljz'l41fgdfKtjfg\ .._
16 Namasamgiti, verse 26: a aa i ii u uu e ai o au am ah sthito hridi | jnanamurtir aham buddho buddhanam tryadhvavartinam || -c cf O O{ p pm P P] cf] cf} c+ cM l:ytf] x[lb . 1fgd"lt{/x+ a'4f] a'4fgf+ oWjjlt{gf+ .._ ( a aa i ii u uu e ai o au am ah - I am the Buddha who abides the Body of Knowledge in the heart of the Buddhas occurring in the three times [= past, present and future].)
In this verse of the Namasamgiti Manjushri is actually not named explicitly. Rather, the Buddha who is the subject of the sentence is referred to as "I" (aham). In the immediate context of the Namasamgiti, the referent of aham should be Shakyamuni. But in the wider context of the Namasamgiti the referent should be Manjushri. The solution to this problem could lie in the compositional structure of the Namasamgiti. The three Mayajalabhisambodhigathas are incorporated into a different context in the Namasamgiti, so that the aham of the second gatha may have a different referent in the original (and no longer extant) text. Hence Shakyamuni who seems to be the obvious referent in the immediate context of the Namasamgiti may not be the real referent of the "I" of the gatha in question.
The heart-mantra (hridayamantra) given for Manjughosha, a form of Manjushri, in the Nishpannayogavali at the end of its treatment of the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala supports the identification of aham with Manjushri in the second Mayajalabhisambodhigatha. In accordance with this gatha, the mantra identifies Manjughosha as "the heart of all Tathagatas" (sarvatathagatahridaya), as "the body of knowledge" (jnanamurtti).
17 This role of Manjushri is also recorded in the "Sthirobhava-vakya" published by Mary Slusser in her Nepal Mandala (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982: vol. 1, p. 420). Here Manjushri is not only credited with "having created" the artisans needed for building houses but also with providing the building materials.
18 The identification with Svayambhu implies that Manjushri becomes the supreme "deity", the Adibuddha. Even though Manjushri is usually thought of as a Bodhisattva, this identification is in line with Dharmadhatuvagishvara's (= Manjushri's) supremacy in the Dharmadhatuvagishvara-mandala, and with his correlation with Vajrasattva and Mahavairocana in the Nishpannayogavali's treatment of this mandala (edited by Benoytosh Bhattacharyya. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1972: p. 65,9 et seqq.: iha bhagavan mahavairocanatma manjughoshah suvishuddhadharmadhatujn-anasvabhavah svabhavajrasatvena mudritah). On the identification of certain Bodhisattvas as Buddhas see Marie-Thérèse de Mallmann's article "'Dieux Polyvalents' du Tantrisme Bouddhique." (Journal Asiatique 252: 365-377).
19 So, for instance, in the case of Bungadyah, one of the most important Buddhist deities of the Valley. In his study of the annual yatra of this god ("Human Agency and Divine Power: Transforming Images and Recreating Gods among the Newar." History of Religions 34 (3): 201-240.), Bruce McCoy Owens has discerned tensions similar to those referred to here. On the one hand, Bungadyah is dependent upon human agency (not just priests but a whole array of other groups within Newar society involved in his yatra); on the other, he is a powerful god who cannot only grant rain and bounty, but also spell disaster for the people of Nepal, including those upon whom he is ritually dependent himself.
20 When recording the consecration of the Svayambhucaitya by Vrishadeva, the Gopalarajavamshvali (edited by Dhanavajra Vajracarya and Kamal P. Malla, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985) refers to it as "Singuvihara-caitya" (folio 20v3). Since the Singuvihara is the bahah of the Buddhacaryas this appellation confirms the link between this clan and the caitya for a very early period.
21 Again the situation is somehow similar in the case of Bungadyah. On the one hand, he is the local deity of Bungamati, hence his name "Bungadyah". On the other hand, during his yatra he becomes the focal point of worship for the Newars from Patan and its environs, and to a lesser extent also for the Newars from other parts of the Valley and beyond. The ambiguity of being both local and pan-Newar deity finds its perfect expression in the way Bungadyah shares his year between his residence in his temple in Bungamati and his yatra in Patan (including his five month stay in Ta Bahah in Patan prior to the yatra as such).
In the case of Svayambhu the opposition in scope between local shrine and pan-Newar sanctuary is not reflectedby a similar spatial separation, but finds its expression in the organisation of the daily worship (nityapuja) of the caitya. in addition to the puja offered by the dyahpala of the Buddhacaryas on behalf of their Thakali and the clan as a whole, the caitya is worshipped in the name of the so-called day duty group (hni seva khala). This group is composed of Thakalis from some of the bahahs of Kathmandu and acts on behalf of the Newar public at large. Nowadays (and according to my informants also in the past) the turnholder of the hni seva khala does not offer the puja himself, but provides the dyahpala of the Buddhacaryas with the puja materials (financed by the Guthisamsthan) which the latter then offers on behalf of the day duty group and indirectly of the Newars as a whole. Thus the caitya is worshipped by the dyahpala once as a shrine of the Buddhacaryas and once as a pan-Newar sanctuary. It may be added that - in line with the general decline of ritual practice - nowadays the turnholder of the hni seva khala does not come up to Svayambhu every morning to provide the puja materials (as he used to do and should), but only once a week, namely on Tuesday when his (one week long) turn commences. Thus the offerings he brings along have to be portioned so that they last for seven days.
-----