History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c92.11

v7.c92.11

¹⁶⁶⁵ I. H Q. Vol. IX p. 358 f n 'गच्छ त्वं भारते वर्षे अधिकाराय सर्वतः। पीठोपपीठक्षेत्रेषु कुरु सृष्टिमनैकधा॥'. Vide H. P. Sastri's Cat. of Palm-leaf mss. in Nepal Durbar Library (Calcutta, 1905), Preface p. LXXIX, for the verse in Kubjikāmata, the ms. of which is written in late Gupta characters (i. e. about 7th century A. D.). Dr. B. Bhattacharya appears to hold the same opinion (p 43 of the work cited in the preceding note). Arthur Avalon in Mahānirvāṇatantra (3rd ed. of 1953 p. 560) holds that tantra was brought into India from Chaldea or Śakadvīpa. In 'Modern Review' for 1934 pp. 150-156 Prof. N. N. Choudhuri tries to prove that Indian tāntricism has its origin in the Bon religion of Tibet. He relies on the Tibetan tradition of Asaṅga having introduced Tāntricism in India. But that tradition is mainly based on Taranath's History of Buddhism. Lama Taranath was born in 1573 A. D. (1575 A. D. according to some) and completed his history in 1608 i. e. he wrote about twelve hundred years after Asaṅga. Prof. Choudhuri further relies on the colophon to Ekajaṭāsādhana (in Sādhanamālā No. 127, आर्यनागार्जुनपादैर्भोटेषु उद्धृतमिति). But this sentence is dropped in three out of the eight mss. on which the edition is based Prof. Choudhuri further asserts that the guru's position 'in tantra' is neither Vaidika nor Paurāṇika Here he is wrong. The Vidyāsūkta in Nirukta (II. 4) and the passage of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad quoted in note 1540 make the Vaidika position of the guru clear. As for the Paurāṇika position of guru, vide the Liṅgapurāṇa (quoted in note 1718 below) and Devībhāgavata (XI. I. 49 'Gurur-brahmā' &c in the same note) and the verse 'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिर्यथा देवे तथा गुरौ॥ तस्यैते कथिता ह्यर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः॥' श्वेताश्व० उप VI. 23 and आप्रौसू. 392 6