1213

1. An Introduction to the Vajrabhairava Tantra

The Vajrabhairava Tantra and the Buddhist Tantric Systems

WITHIN THE SCOPE of the general, ex-post-facto classification of the Buddhist tantric systems in India into kriyā, caryā, yoga, and yoginī tantras (Isaacson and Sferra 2015), the VBhT has been classified under the yoga tantras. As the name of this class suggests, yoga—understood as “the paradigmatic practice of deity yoga in which practitioners create themselves as enlightened Buddha figures through a series of contemplations and visualizations, each accompanied by repetition of a specific mantra” (Weinberger 2003, 177)—was a prevalent feature of the yoga tantras. Alongside the marked shift in emphasis on the method that stressed the inner yoga over the outer ritual characteristic of the kriyā tantras, the yoga tantras were more interested in the soteriological goals that became as important as the procurement of magical powers (siddhi). The classification of the VBhT under the yoga tantras was controversial. In this regard, *Akṣobhya, one of the earliest commentators of the VBhT, outlines the main points of the disputed issue together with the reasoned arguments against those who objected such categorization. He provides the following justification:

[The VBhT] is called a yoga tantra because in this tantra there are many external ritual applications (prayogas). But if this is the case, then someone might say that this is a kriyā tantra. [To this I reply:] It is not a kriyā tantra because there is an occurrence of the seventh chapter, which teaches only things to be done by meditation (yoga). Moreover, because [the VBhT] teaches internal yoga as essential in every external ritual application, we have the teaching “[He should] be well concentrated (samāhita),” and this is an internal aspect of yoga. This is not a kriyā tantra but a yoga that teaches great external ritual applications. Others say that in this tantra, yoga cannot be derived from the stem yuji, but it can only mean yoniśas [i.e., yoniśo manasikāra, “right mental attention”], but it is not true. In this tantra, it is the stem yuji, and it is, for the most part, yoniśas not only in 14the case of the seventh chapter and achieving the body of the deity [but also in case of other chapters]. Even in the kriyā tantras, we have yoniśas, and that’s why it is not true.¹

*Akṣobhya tries to refute the first objection of the opponent (pūrvapakṣa) that the VBhT should be classified under the “action” or kriyā category because of the predominace of outer rituals on the basis of two facts. First, the very existence of the seventh chapter, which relies solely upon rituals conducted through meditation. Second, there is the inner yoga component in every outer ritual, conveyed by the phrase susamāhita/samāhita in a meaning of “[being] well concentrated,” which is to be understood as an inner meditative state characterized as the union with the deity Vajrabhairava that any practitioner (sādhaka) performing rituals delineated in the VBhT must assume prior to the engagement in the rituals. According to *Akṣobhya, these aspects alone qualify the VBhT as a yoga tantra.

The second debatable issue brought forth by *Akṣobhya in the above passage revolves around the class of the verbal stem (dhātu) from which the term yoga was derived. In this regard, the Dhātupāṭha distinguishes two classes: (1) the fourth class (IV.68), where yoga is derived from the root yuj- in the sense of concentration, yuja samādhau, and (2) the seventh class (VII.7), where yoga is derived from the root yuj- in the sense of conjunction, yuji yoge (Staal 1997, 122). It was a common practice in Sanskrit exegetical writings to engage in a discussion on the issue of the two aforementioned derivations whenever the topic of yoga was considered. For example, the exegetical commentary on the Yogasūtra, the Yogasūtrabhāṣya—forming together with it the Pātañjalayogaśāstra (probably early to mid-fifth century)—gives the following explanation of yoga:

Doubt as to the actual thing (yoga) is occasioned by doubt as to the meaning of the word. This doubt is removed by stating that in the language of the sūtra, yoga is etymologically derived from the root 15yuja in the sense of concentration and not from the root yuji in the sense of conjunction. (trans. Staal 1997, 122.)

In making a distinction between the two derivations of the word yoga, *Akṣobhya goes against the objection of the opponent that denies the possibility of the word yoga to be derived from the stem yuja, “yoga as concentration,” and favors the derivation from the dhātu yuji, “yoga as union,” expressed through the Buddhist idiom of yoniśas manaskāra—“right mental attention.” In order to understand *Akṣobhya’s reasons for putting forward such an explanation, we have to look at the definition of yoga in the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, a commentary on the early ninth-century Mahāvyutpatti:

What is called yoga is so called [because of the root, dhātu] yuji, [“to unite”]. Yoga means meditation (dhyāna), which unites tranquility (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā). Yoniśas manaskāra means the following: yoni is upāya, the method or tantra, [the affix] śa[s] means “it teaches” (śasati);² [this refers to the act of] following and teaching that very same method and means. In general, through meditation on the repulsive (aśubhabhāvanā), one eliminates desire, through meditation on the dependent origination, one eliminates ignorance, and so on. Because it is the name for meditation (dhyāna) according to the [right] method and means, it is called yoniśas manaskāra accordingly.³

There are two aspects of the above definition of yoga that could throw some light on *Akṣobhya’s earlier explanation. First, yoga is derived from the Sanskrit root (dhātu) yuji (that is, “yoga as union”), and it denotes a meditation (dhyāna) that is understood in terms of the union of calm abiding and special insight (śamathavipaśyanā). Those two technical terms Wayman (1973, 110) defines as the “backbone of tantric practice” insofar that they relate to the development of the one-pointed concentration on tantric Buddhist deities, mantras, and so on, during śamatha and the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā) 16in vipaśyanā, respectively (Sarbacker 2005, 116). Second, dhyāna is also defined through the yoniśas manaskāra⁴ terminology because of its proximity to skillful means (upāya), or the method of meditation that brings specific results—for example, elimination of desire and so on. If we take this explanation as an interpretative tool for understanding *Akṣobhya’s definition, we may conclude that in the VBhT, “yoga as union” is considered a skillful means for eliminating all kinds of obstacles through meditation (dhyāna), which comes about through concentration and realization of emptiness.

Yet another attempt at classifying the VBhT within the scheme of Buddhist tantras in India came with Vilāsavajra, who placed it within the great yoga (mahāyoga) or highest yoga (yogottara) category,⁵ alongside the Guhyasamāja Tantra (GS) and the Māyājāla Tantra (Tribe 1994, 5). It is difficult to understand what the basis for Vilāsavajra’s classification was. Scholars usually point to several distinctive features of yogottara tantras not found in other classes. For example, an oft-repeated statement is that one of the yogottara tantras’ features was a sudden proliferation of wrathful deities of Akṣobhya’s vajra family, whose status rose to prominence in that genre of texts (Tribe 1994, 5; English 2002, 4). While this statement may be correct in the case of the Guhyasamāja and Māyājāla, it cannot be confirmed with regard to the VBhT, where no mention of Akṣobhya is to be found. Similarly, scholars (see, e.g., English 2002, 4; Williams and Tribe 2000, 151–64; Harvey 2013, 182) unanimously maintain that the yogottara tantras are distinguished from the tantras of other classes by their marked emphasis on sexuality, especially initiation involving sexual intercourse as well as the depiction of deities in sexual embrace. While sexuality becomes an important aspect of the Guhyasamāja and Māyājāla, it is entirely absent in the VBhT. The only feature that the text seems to be sharing with the tantras of the yogottara class is the ritual use of body products. The VBhT employs the ritual consumption of the five nectars (pañcāmṛta),⁶ and 17thus it follows the “transgressive paradigm” initiated in Buddhist tantras by the Guhyasamāja.

Now, let us examine the placement of the VBhT in Tibet. The classification of Buddhist tantras in Tibet went through various stages of development and only in the twelfth century was codified into the well-known fourfold division mentioned above, mainly thanks to the legitimizing efforts of the members of the new schools (gsar ma) such as the Sa skya pas (Dalton 2005, 159). The “fourfold” system closely followed the classifications of tantras current in India at that time into “action” or kriyā (bya ba’i rgyud), “performance” or caryā (spyod pa’i rgyud), yoga (rnal ’byor gyi rgyud), and “unexcelled yoga” or yoganiruttara (rnal ’byor bla na med pa’i rgyud),⁷ the last one grouped together the yogottara and yoginī tantras. The yoganiruttara class was further divided into father (pha rgyud), mother (ma rgyud), and nondual tantras (gnyis med rgyud) (English 2002, 6). With regard to this system, the VBhT was categorized under the father tantras of the unexcelled yoga (yoganiruttara) class (anuttarayoga, Siklós 1996, 4). The father tantras were further organized in accordance with the predominance of afflictive emotions (kleśa) present in the trainees—namely hatred, desire, and ignorance. In accordance with this classification, the VBhT—as well as the Yamāntaka—were suitable for those trainees who had mainly hatred, while the Guhyasamāja and *Vairocanamāyājāla were appropriate to those who had desire and ignorance, respectively.⁸ It is reasonable to assume that the grouping of these three tantras together may have been influenced by Vilāsavajra’s model attesting to the inclusion of the same texts under the yogottara category. The father tantras were also distinguished from the mother tantras for its emphasis on the cultivation of the illusory body (sgyu lus), which is upāya / the material cause of the material body (gzugs sku). The mother tantras, on the other hand, emphasize luminosity (’od gsal), which is prajñā / the material cause of the truth body (dharmakāya).⁹

The grouping of the VBhT under the unexcelled yoga (yoganiruttara) category in Tibet was controversial. The tantras of the yoganiruttara class are qualified as the highest of all tantra classes for one particular reason—they are regarded as a tool for reaching awakening in this lifetime. The dispute revolved around the suitability of classifying the VBhT as a text for attaining liberation in view of its (mostly low-level) magical content designated to harm some target. The ramifications of this controversy were extensive, and it is useful to present the whole argument summarized in Tāranātha’s History of the Yamāntaka Tradition (Gshin rje chos ’byung). Tāranātha was dissatisfied with the perspective of elimination (rnam bcad) that viewed the VBhT, in accord with the description of the father tantras, merely as the means (upāya) of removing obstacles leading to awakening. He stated that there are various obstacles such as disease or poverty that can also be removed by other things, such as medicine and so on. Their removal, however, does necessarily guarantee awakening (byang chub). He writes thus:

If one cannot attain awakening through the path of [the VBhT in] seven chapters, it would be inappropriate for you [the opponent] to hold that the explanations of the seven chapters of the Skyo and Mal lineages is the supreme dharma, because even though it [the seven chapters] would enable one to accomplish some minor rituals, it would be comparable to the dharma of the non-Buddhists. Again, if one were to examine the position that says “[The VBhT] dispels obstacles to attain awakening,” [one may conclude the following]: if all the obstacles can be removed in that way, then [the VBhT] would be the unexcelled (niruttara) means of awakening. Because once all the obstacles are removed, it is impossible not to attain awakening. Now, if [the VBhT] only removes disease, harm, poverty, it would be impossible to establish it as [the means of] removing obstacles [leading] to awakening. And if it can do it, then, since the knowledge of medicine, substances, magical formulas, methods against the enemy, and so on have the same ability, [the VBhT] would be comparable to the method of village people. In that case, how would you justify [the VBhT] as a valid means of annihilating, protecting [against evil], and destroying [the obstacles]? If you were to argue that [the VBhT] removes the suffering for one or two lifetimes, that too would make it similar to the methods of non-Buddhists.¹⁰

On that basis, Tāranātha argued in support of the positive inclusion (yongs gcod) that would subsume the VBhT under the unexcelled (niruttara) category by associating it with skillful means (upāya) as well as with wisdom (prajñā). In this regard, prajñā—understood as “knowledge of indissolubility of Beatitude and Void on the side of void” (Lessing and Wayman 1978, 265)—precedes the elimination of obstacles. If we take it in a metaphysical sense, as Tāranātha does, we may say that the main “obstacle” the VBhT tries to eliminate—Māra or Yama—requires a skillful means (upāya), but this “means” can only be generated from the transcendental wisdom (prajñā).

If you were to argue that [the VBhT] counteracts Māra or Yama, then transcendental wisdom must be generated [for that]. On that basis, one must understand [the VBhT] as referring to the “means (thabs) of attaining awakening.” From the elimination point of view, it is the case of giving up faults, such as obstacles and so on. From the perspective of inclusion, it may be possible that good qualities may not actually be obtained. The following exemplifies this dharma explanation: Imagine a dirty copper vessel that you wash out and then pour a liquid into; it is like this. Without the stages of knowledge, neither the understanding of the stages of the path nor the giving up of the undesirable can arise here. Therefore, without generating the antidote to the evil one, one will be unable to eliminate the object of elimination.¹¹

Tāranātha supports his argument by referring to the well-established Mahāyāna categories of the two accumulations that need to be accomplished during the bodhisattva’s ascent through the ten bodhisattva levels. It is only upon the accumulation of merit (puṇyasaṃbhāra) associated with upāya and of wisdom (prajñāsaṃbhāra) associated with prajñā that the eradication of the emotional and cognitive obscurations (the kleśa- and jñeya-āvaraṇas) is possible.¹² This eradication, in turn, is concomitant with the attainment of awakening.

Similarly, if the two accumulations of merit and wisdom are incomplete, the two obscurations [emotional and cognitive] will not be cleared, just like you cannot remove darkness without light. Therefore, according to the perspective of inclusion, one generates good qualities and eliminates faults of obstacles; [thus, generation of good qualities] and removal of faults run in tandem. Because this is the way of highest comparability [between the two methods], when one eliminates obstacles, one achieves the unexcelled [realization of awakening], and when one generates good qualities, one also achieves the unexcelled [realization of awakening].¹³

Tāranātha’s explanation comes very close to the exposition given by *Kṛṣṇācārya and Kumāracandra in their commentaries on the VBhT, who also understand the purpose of the sādhana delineated in the VBhT as the means of attaining awakening through the eradication of the two obscurations (see pp. 37, 39 below). Tāranātha concludes his defense of the VBhT as the “unexcelled yoga” (yoganiruttara) by showing that the generation of the transcendental wisdom is a prerequisite that must necessarily precede the skillful means, and thus that the position that the VBhT is the “tantra of method” (upāyatantra) because it merely removes hindrances is untenable.

Dating the Vajrabhairava Tantra

Dating the VBhT is somewhat problematic. Based on the evidence presented below, it is currently plausible to date the text to the mid- to late eighth century. The VBhT is mentioned in Vilāsavajra’s NMAA, which means it was composed prior to it. The dating of the NMAA ranges between the late eighth and the early to mid-ninth centuries (Tribe 2016, 6),¹⁴ which therefore provides the terminus ante quem for the VBhT. The reason for placing the VBhT in the eighth rather than the ninth century is based on the fact that Vilāsavajra grouped the VBhT among other eighth-century tantras, such as the Guhyasamāja (GS)¹⁵ and the Māyājāla, which may indicate that the connection among these three texts was based on their relative chronology. However, taking into account the evidence of quotations included in the VBhT, it is certain that the VBhT must have been composed after the GS, since it cites, albeit without attribution, a passage from that text’s characterization of the enemy (14.47ad), defined as those people who “blame the teacher” (ācāryanindana) and “speak ill of the Mahāyāna” (mahāyānāgranindakāḥ), and who—as part of retributive punishment—must be killed or else relocated. The existence of an isolated, unattributed quotation from the GS establishes the terminus ante quem for the composition of the VBhT. The VBhT is also mentioned in chapter 3 of the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra together with other early Buddhist tantras, such as the STTS, GS, and Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasaṃvarakalpa (Gray 2007a, 177). Since the Cakrasaṃvara is most probably dated to the ninth century (Gray 2012, 6–8),¹⁶ the VBhT must have been written before that time, which in turn could possibly support the dating to the mid- rather than the late eighth century. There is, however, another important piece of evidence that suggests a slightly later date for the composition of the VBhT. Unlike the GS, STTS, and the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasaṃvara, the VBhT is not mentioned in Amoghavajra’s Index of the Vajraśekhara Yoga Sūtra in Eighteen Sections,¹⁷ 22penned after Amoghavajra’s return to China in 746.¹⁸ This fact could push the date for the production of the VBhT to the later half of the eighth century.

Lalitavajra: The Revealer of the Vajrabhairava Tantra

The colophons in the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the VBhT state that the text was brought from Oḍḍiyāna by a master of the infinitely great maṇḍala (paramamahāmaṇḍalācārya), Śrī Lalitavajra. On the basis of this as well as historiographical information included in Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India (Rgya gar chos ’byung), it has been accepted that Lalitavajra is the revealer of the VBhT. The identity of Lalitavajra and his whereabouts in the Buddhist world are, however, highly problematic. Tibetan Buddhist historiography gives witness to several individuals who share this or a similar name, and Tāranātha himself acknowledges the mix-up that left the Tibetan lineages that took part in the transmission of the VBhT confused about Lalitavajra’s identity. The main problem concerning the identity of Lalitavajra revolves around the erroneous translation of the word lalita into Tibetan as sgeg pa, while the proper translation should be rol pa. Tāranātha thinks that the wrong translation created confusion between Rol pa’i rdo rje (Lalitavajra) and Sgeg pa’i rdo rje (Vilāsavajra), whose separate identities were sometimes conflated into one. Tāranātha refers to this mix-up as follows:

Thinking that rol pa and sgeg pa are synonyms, it appears that lalita was translated as sgeg pa. Thus, ācārya sgeg pa’i rdo rje became the ground for confusing him with another person. The translation as sgeg pa’i rdo rje is not good; furthermore, lalita is mainly expressed through [the Tib.] rol pa. The etymology of sgeg pa is principally lāsya or vilāsya, and the meaning of rol pa is “play,” “frolic,” the purpose of which is to be relaxed in one’s own nature and behave in whatever manner one wants. Since the term sgeg pa connotes “exuding a sense of grandeur,” the meaning of the two words [i.e., rol pa and sgeg pa] is slightly different.¹⁹

That Sgeg pa’i rdo rje (Vilāsavajra) and Rol pa’i rdo rje (Lalitavajra) are two different persons has been established by Tribe (1994, 10–11). Sgeg pa’i rdo rje, born in Nor bu gling (Ratnadvīpa)²⁰ but a resident of Oḍḍiyāna, was a teacher of *Buddhajñānapāda, the founder of the Jñānapāda school of GS exegesis, and “taught him many kriyā and yoga tantras.”²¹ Tāranātha and ’Gos lo tsā ba make the distinction between the two masters clear when they refer to them by different names: Rol pa’i rdo rje for Lalitavajra and Sgeg pa’i rdo rje for Vilāsavajra/Līlāvajra.²² They are also consistent in portraying them via different storylines.²³ More importantly, the works attributed to Sgeg pa’i rdo rje in the Bstan ’gyur differ in nature from those assigned to Rol pa’i rdo rje: the former is associated with the authorship of the commentary on the MNS—that is, the NMAA—while the latter being exclusive to titles bearing the names Vajrabhairava, Bhairava, and Kṛṣṇayamāri (Tribe 1994, 11). Although Tāranātha and ’Gos lo tsā ba are most of the time careful²⁴ in using Rol pa’i rdo rje for Lalitavajra in order to distinguish him from Sgeg pa’i rdo rje, the Tibetan lineages that took part in the transmission of Vajrabhairava cycle had not been as careful. The confusion between the equivalent forms rol pa and sgeg pa has been indeed transferred to the narratives dealing with Lalitavajra’s life. For example, the followers of Bari lo tsā ba Rin chen grags (1040–1111/12) refer to Lalitavajra as Sgeg pa’i- and not Rol pa’i rdo rje. Moreover, in the Bari lineage, Sgeg pa’i rdo rje is succeeded by the line of masters associated 24with the commentarial tradition of the Nāmasaṅgīti, which indicates that the Sgeg pa’i rdo rje whom they thought was Lalitavajra was in fact Vilāsavajra (see diagram 1).

Another confusion that contributed to conflating the identity of Lalitavajra with Vilāsavajra was created by the linguistic problem of using the words lalita and līlā as synonyms. The Skyo lineage accepted the name Līlāvajra (and not Lalitavajra) for the revealer of the VBhT, and in so doing they seemingly confused him with Sgeg pa’i rdo rje (whose name sometimes appears in Sanskrit transcription as Līlāvajra),²⁵ whom they believed was also the author of the Gsang ldan (*Guhyāpanna).²⁶ Sgeg pa’i rdo rje, the author of the *Guhyāpanna, again suggests Vilāsavajra—the late eighth- to early ninth-century author of the NMAA. He is known as the founder of the ’Jam dpal gsang ldan (Mañjuśrī *Guhyāpanna) school, which was named after Agrabodhi’s sādhana to the *Guhyāpanna (Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgītisādhana, Toh. 2579; see Tribe 1994, 20). Agrabodhi, which is the ordination name of Vilāsavajra, is considered by Tāranātha and Bu ston as one²⁷ and the same person²⁸ (Tribe 1994, 19).²⁹

The juxtaposition of Vilāsavajra/Agrabodhi with Līlāvajra suggested by Skyo lineage is understandable, especially since those masters share the same interest in the MNS and Māyājāla Tantra traditions,³⁰ and both resided at 25Nālandā Monastery. Nevertheless, it is more probable that the Skyo lineage attributed the stories of Vilāsavajra, whom they thought to be the same as Agrabodhi, to Līlāvajra (see diagram 2). This is supported by another piece of evidence: according to the Skyo lineage, Līlāvajra met Mañjuśrīmitra.³¹ But as the two Tibetan historiographers confirm, Mañjuśrīmitra was a teacher of both *Buddhajñānapāda (’Gos lo, Deb ther sngon po, 449; Roerich 1949, 1:369–70) and Sgeg pa’i rdo rje³² (Vilāsavajra), and not Līlāvajra.

The real identity of “our” Lalitavajra is difficult to establish. Unfortunately, most of the information about him comes from Tāranātha’s Rgya gar chos ’byung and Gshin rje ’chos byung, whose historical accuracy has often been questioned (Templeman 1981). Tāranātha depicts Lalitavajra, the revealer of the VBhT, as one of the siddhayogis and great masters (mahācāryas), contemporary of other great tenth-century siddhas, such as Luipa (also known as Lūyīpā, Lvāvapā, and Kaṃbalapāda), Indrabhūti the Middle, Kukkurāja, and Saroruhavajra (Chattopadhyaya 1990, 240–41). According to the Rgya gar chos ’byung, Lalitavajra (whose real name was *Mañjuśastra) was a teacher (ācārya) at Nālandā Monastery who did not have a mortal guru but was initiated by Vajrayoginī/Vajraḍākinī when he went to U rgyan (Oḍḍiyāna) to retrieve the three cycles of Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka, which also featured the VBhT in seven chapters. Tāranātha depicts Lalitavajra’s life through the narratives of magical feats, acts of religious conversion of the non-Buddhists, and victorious struggles with natural and supernatural adversaries (Wenta 2021), all of which he employed to emulate a certain siddha ideal.³³ Although Lalitavajra was probably a historical figure, in Tāranātha’s work he underwent a kind of canonization, and the gaps in his real life story were filled with wonders and marvelous deeds so that they could become a firm basis for embodying the magical paradigm of the siddha milieu. The fact that Lalitavajra is depicted in the company of other famous siddhas, such as Luipa and Indrabhūti the Middle,³⁴ who act as direct witnesses of Lalitavajra’s display of siddhis, is deliberately designed to consolidate Lalitavajra’s status as the accomplished siddha and the founder of a new tantric tradition.

In the Gshin rje chos ’byung, Tāranātha provides us with yet another chronology of Lalitavajra’s period of activity, for he places him approximately one hundred years before the great master *Buddhajñānapāda (slob dpon chen po sangs rgyas ye shes zhabs) (ca. 770–820).³⁵ Based on this information, it can be inferred that Lalitavajra would have been active between the second half of the seventh and the first half of the eighth century. Tāranātha says that for about one hundred years after Lalitavajra’s discovery of the VBhT, the cycle did not flourish much. After a gap of approximately a hundred years—that is, around the middle of the eighth century—the Vajrabhairava cycle was picked up by *Buddhajñānapāda, who inherited the succession of Lalitavajra and taught the Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka cycle.³⁶ The Tibetan lineages that took part in the transmission of Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka tantras perceive the relationship between the two masters slightly differently, for they consider Lalitavajra to be a disciple of the great vajra-master (mahāvajrācārya) of the maṇḍala *Devabuddhajñānapāda (dkyil ’khor chen po’i rdo rje slob dpon lha sangs rgyas ye shes zhabs), who “has achieved realization equal to the state of nonduality of Mañjuśrī in peaceful and wrathful forms,” and not his teacher.³⁷ In this regard, both the Zhang and Gnyos lineages (see diagrams 3 and 4) consider *Buddhajñānapāda to be the first actual lineage holder of 27Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka cycle, and Lalitavajra to be his disciple.³⁸ According to the Zhang lineage (see diagram 3), Lalitavajra belonged to a direct transmission lineage of *Buddhajñānapāda through another vajra-master of Vikramaśīla, Dīpaṅkarabhadra, who bestowed upon him the Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka tradition.³⁹ Tāranātha tried to resolve this chronological conundrum by stating that there existed two Lalitavajras: Lalitavajra Senior, who brought the VBhT from Oḍḍiyāna, and Lalitavajra Junior, who was a direct disciple of Dīpaṅkarabhadra in the lineage of *Buddhajñānapāda.⁴⁰ 28Lalitavajra Junior was committed to reviving the legacy of Lalitavajra Senior through dissemination of Lalitavajra Senior’s earlier works,⁴¹ and he also composed his own treatises (see diagram 5). Since the two Lalitavajras bear the same name, their distinct identities became conflated.

Tāranātha’s solution to this chronological problem is to postulate the existence of the two Lalitavajras separated in time and space. His explanation of a revival of Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka tradition initiated by *Buddhajñānapāda and implemented by Lalitavajra Junior seems viable. Our current knowledge about the scholarly interests of the Vikramaśīla vajrācāryas allows for the existence of a strong Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka tradition at Vikramaśīla Monastery, as suggested by the type of works the tantric masters at Vikramaśīla engaged with. Beginning with *Buddhajñānapāda, who allegedly composed three texts on the Raktayamāri (Toh. 2086, 2084, 2085), through Śrīdhara, the first lineage holder of the Raktayamāri tradition, to Dīpaṅkarabhadra, Lalitavajra Junior, Tathāgatarakṣita, Kamalarakṣita, Kṛṣṇācārya Junior, and so forth, we notice a continuous effort to grant visibility to the Vajrabhairava-Yamāntaka cults in the tantric world.

Six Canonical Commentaries on the Vajrabhairava Tantra

As noted above, there are six known commentaries on the VBhT originally composed in Sanskrit by various Indian authors. These commentaries were written to clarify more obscure or difficult portions of the root tantra (mūlatantra), following a word-by-word exegesis. All six of them have been included in the Bstan ’gyur portion of the Tibetan canon, and they are referenced in my annotated translation of the VBhT in part II. Only one of these commentaries⁴² has come down to us in the original Sanskrit; the others can only be accessed in Tibetan translation. The history of the VBhT’s exegetical writers is even more obscure than the history of its alleged revealer, Lalitavajra. Almost nothing is known about their lives, and any shred of information that can be gathered on some of them, for example from xylographs’ colophons, does not throw any light on their affiliation or the lineages they belonged to. Tāranātha does not have much to say about the commentaries either. His brief note contains the following: