Emergence from Sampuṭa
Introduction

The tantra Emergence from Sampuṭa is so rich and varied in content, and its intertextuality so complex, that a truly comprehensive description would be difficult in the space of a brief introduction. Instead, we will here mainly focus on the specific issues that make this text stand out among other tantras, the unique quandaries it presents, and some of the problems we encountered as we prepared a Sanskrit edition and English translation of the complete text for the first time. Some prior awareness of these problems could prove helpful to anyone intending to read the translation presented here.

The Sampuṭodbhava Tantra (henceforth referred to in short as the Sampuṭa), in the broadest system by which all tantras are categorized into either “root” or “explanatory,” falls into the latter category, despite the fact that it does not exactly “explain” the material from the chronologically earlier root tantras. Rather, it provides a synopsis of that material, quoting from the sources selectively, either verbatim or with modifications. As a synopsis, however, it still fits into one of the sub-categories of “explanatory” tantras. Treating not one, but a whole range of earlier works (which, incidentally, are not all root or even explanatory tantras), it can be further categorized as a “shared” or “common” explanatory tantra. The tantric writer Indrabhūti (although it is not certain which of the several figures so named) described the Sampuṭa as “the elucidator of three million six hundred thousand cycles of tantras.” He lists, however, only seventeen titles (Verrill 2012, p. 184) as those “elucidated.” Some sixteen texts, for the most part matching Indrabhūti’s list, have been identified by Péter-Dániel Szántó (2013). For the sake of anyone wishing to study the intertextuality of the Sampuṭa, many of the corresponding passages have been noted in the text of the accompanying Sanskrit edition, specifying the title of the source text, and the page and verse numbers.

The Sampuṭa is a fascinating work, albeit difficult and full of challenges. Many features of its intertextuality and philological history would baffle a traditionalist, excite a scholar, or perplex someone seeking to reconcile the traditionalist and philological approaches. Rather than trying to confine the Sampuṭa within established categories, one should perhaps allow the text itself to inform one’s understanding of tantric scripture in general, and revealed scripture in particular. A brief look at key attributes of the Sampuṭa’s origin and structural composition may be helpful, as they tie in with the tantra’s title and the nature of its content.

Although a revealed scripture, the Sampuṭa does not fit the model of linear intertextuality particular to revealed literature, where a text is usually claimed to be a recap of its own (“now lost”) longer version‍—which, in turn, might have been only a summary of a still older and longer version. Instead, the Sampuṭa is a digest of earlier texts. The parts incorporated into the Sampuṭa, even when modified, always tend to preserve the meter, language (whether classical Sanskrit, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, BHS influenced, or Apabhraṃśa), and style of the original sources, thus ruling out the possibility that it might have been the Sampuṭa that served as the single source for all these individual works. Moreover, some of these sources, having authors’ names given in colophons, are not revealed literature themselves. The Prajñopāya­viniścaya­siddhi, for example, was composed by the celebrated scholar Anaṅgavajra; the Vasantatilakā, by Kṛṣṇācārya; and the Vajrāmṛta­ṭīkā, according to its colophon in the Tengyur, by Bhago. As Szántó (2013) shows, the parts based on the last of these sources, the Vajrāmṛta­ṭīkā, have been adapted from being a commentary to being a dialogue between the Blessed One and his interlocutor, specifically to fit the conventions of a revealed scripture, with the Blessed One prompted to teach by his interlocutor. Apart from the Vajrāmṛta­ṭīkā, a few of the Sampuṭa’s other sources might have originally been composed as commentaries, and in places still preserve the typical commentarial style of what seem to be lemmata followed by glosses. This incorporated material constitutes more than half of the Sampuṭa’s content.

Tradition does seem to allow for a compilation of extracts, or other such collated or composite forms, to be classed as revealed literature. We find an example of this in The Practice Manual of Noble Tārā Kurukullā (Tārā­kurukullā­kalpa, Toh 437),1 where we read:

In this verse, the act of forming a scripture based on earlier sources is attributed to the awakened activity of the Buddha’s sambhogakāya, presumably with the human compiler being merely the medium of transmission.

In the case of the Sampuṭa, however, no such act of divinely inspired compilation is mentioned. Instead, the tantra is introduced as having been delivered by a sambhogakāya deity residing in the realm of nonduality‍—more precisely, in the bhagas of the goddesses of the vajra realm. The Sampuṭa starts with the usual words of an anonymous narrator, “Thus did I hear at one time,” followed by the description of the circumstances of this tantra’s original delivery. Such an opening, since it sets the narrative frame by stating the occasion and the reason for the delivery of the tantra‍—in this instance that it was requested by one of the assembled bodhisattvas for the Blessed One to teach, is termed the nidāna (foundation).

In the specific case of the Sampuṭa, this conventional nidāna has a deeper layer, referred to as the “secret” nidāna, whose significance extends not just to the nature of the Sampuṭa’s contents, but also to its special position in relation to all Father and Mother tantras. This more fundamental nidāna is explained in the text soon after the “conventional” nidāna just mentioned. The secret nidāna seems to wave off any possible contradictions between philological and historical facts on the one hand, and its attribution as scriptural revelation on the other. Because of the special significance of the secret nidāna in the context of this tantra, the technical terms referring to it‍—sampuṭodbhava (emergence from sampuṭa) or simply sampuṭa‍—also function as the tantra’s titles.

The conventional nidāna describes the circumstances particular to the Sampuṭa alone, namely the Blessed One’s entering a particular samādhi and delivering the Sampuṭa discourse in response to Vajragarbha’s request. The secret nidāna, however, is shared by all the tantras in the same group as the Sampuṭa. The Sampuṭa itself defines this class as “the Guhyasamāja, and so forth,” clearly referring to all Father and Mother tantras, since the Guhyasamāja is traditionally regarded as the original tantra in this combined group. And indeed, the teachings on sampuṭa and “emergence from sampuṭa” are central to this group. Since the statement of the secret nidāna follows in the Sampuṭa shortly after the conventional nidāna, that statement seems to be an explanatory gloss, as it were, for the conventional nidāna, implying that the two are one and the same. The conventional nidāna, with its esoteric scenario of the Blessed One residing in nonduality in a place of bliss, seems to be no more than a literary expression of the secret nidāna, which is the real and only one.

This secret, shared “foundation of all the tantras” is defined in the Sampuṭa as being, alternatively, “sampuṭa whose nature is gnosis and skillful means,” or the fact of these tantras’ “emergence from [such] sampuṭa.” The Sampuṭa, since it shares the same nidāna with most of its source texts, in a sense also subsumes all these texts under its own conventional nidāna, thus dismissing the relative facts of their individual philological histories.

What is sampuṭa then? This important term, central to the Sampuṭa and other tantras in its class, can be understood on different levels. The word itself denotes any spherical hollow space, and especially the space enclosed between two bowls or round vessels. The notion it thus evokes is the union of two elements, with a protected or special space created by their union. This notion is perhaps the basis for the esoteric interpretation of sampuṭa‍—a nondual, awakened state of mind produced by sexual union. The Sampuṭa sums up this state in this way (10.­46 et seq.):

As the “coupling pair” conceive of themselves as deities, sampuṭa can be regarded as a nondual, blissful awareness as expressed by the sexual union of Heruka (whether Saṃvara or Hevajra) and his consort. All these esoteric connotations, however, boil down to the union (sampuṭa) of emptiness (female) and compassion (male), or gnosis and skillful means. The cultivation of this nondual state (sampuṭa) is the central theme of the Father and Mother tantras, with the former laying the theoretical foundation for the processes that occur in the body by explaining the subtle body with its channels, winds, and drops, and the latter shifting the emphasis to consort practice with its powerful dynamic. Whatever the exact method, the result of this practice is the recognition of the ever-present (but mostly unrecognized), blissful, nondual wakefulness, in which emptiness and compassion are an indivisible unity.

Lastly, as the Sampuṭa tells us, sampuṭa‍—or its realization‍—may be seen as the deity Vajrasattva. This realization is the aim of the profound practices taught in this tantra, a teaching that has itself emerged from sampuṭa. The “sampuṭa” nature of Vajrasattva has been poignantly expressed (without, however, mentioning sampuṭa explicitly) in the opening verse of the first known tantra of the Saṃvara cycle, the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga:2

The gist of this famous verse, repeated in the subsequent (uttara) and analyzed in the explanatory (vyākhyā) tantras of the Saṃvara cycle, can be regarded as the cornerstone for the doctrine of supreme bliss, most salient in this cycle and also in all the Mother tantras represented in the Sampuṭa. The above verse defines Vajrasattva, who “comprises all buddhas” (sarvabuddhamayaḥ), as “supreme bliss” (paraṃ sukham). As such, he is “ever-present” (sadā sthitaḥ) as the “secret and supremely blissful nature of all beings/things” (rahasye parame ramye sarvātmani). The prevailing exegesis interprets “secret” as referring to Vajrasattva/Saṃvara’s indivisibility from the ḍākinīs (because of which he is called Ḍākinī­jāla­saṃvara, “Saṃvara of the Host of Ḍākinīs”). The varied interpretations, linguistic and otherwise, of Vajrasattva/Saṃvara’s connection with the ḍākinīs are too many to present here. The ḍākinīs, however, are usually interpreted as the movement of vital energies in the subtle channels, which brings us to the secret and profound practices that also include sexual yoga.

Since the union called sampuṭa is imbued with every potentiality and is infinitely creative, it is only natural that the teaching on sampuṭa must also include that which arises from it, in other words, the “emergence from sampuṭa” (sampuṭodbhava), which is both the title and also the central idea of the present tantra. But just as sampuṭa can be defined in more than one way, so too can sampuṭodbhava. In the most general sense, this “emergence” may comprise all animate and inanimate things. Inversely, as these entities arise from sampuṭa, sampuṭa is their intrinsic characteristic (lakṣaṇa). This perspective naturally applies to all the Father and Mother tantras, themselves an emergence from sampuṭa, an expression of sampuṭa, and a teaching on sampuṭa. In a more specific sense, “emergence from sampuṭa” could also be seen as the arising of the meditative absorption of sampuṭa, wherein its two defining elements of emptiness and compassion arise as gnosis and skillful means respectively.

Thus, the use of the word nidāna in the Sampuṭa, as in many of its chapter colophons, involves a play on words. The phrase “emergence from sampuṭa,” when taken as the title, denotes the tantra. When taken in its literal meaning, it is the secret foundation of this and all other Father and Mother tantras. In calling “emergence from sampuṭa” the “foundation of all the tantras” (sarva­tantra­nidāna) of this class, the play on words diverges further, for both “emergence from sampuṭa” (the phenomenon) and Emergence from Sampuṭa (the text) each constitute such a foundation. The text, being a digest of the most important Father and Mother tantras, establishes their theoretical foundation, presenting itself as a compendium of all the most important tenets and practices. This foundation is itself rooted in sampuṭa, so that at this point we have come full circle.

In the well-known classification (among several others) of tantras into the fivefold hierarchy of Kriyā, Caryā, Yoga, Yogottara (Father), and Yoganiruttara (Mother) tantras, the compilers of the Tibetan Kangyur placed the Sampuṭa in the Mother group, the most esoteric of the five, because of the predominance of Mother tantra material it contains. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that despite that categorization the Sampuṭa is primarily what it presents itself to be‍—that is, a digest not just of the Mother tantras, but of “all the tantras starting from the Guhyasamāja” that comprise the combined Father and Mother group termed “unexcelled tantras” (bla med rgyud) by the Tibetan doxographers. Furthermore, the text also includes some Yoga and even Kriyā material (in part 4 of chapter 3, and parts of chapter 7, respectively). The inclusion of these additional elements, customary as it is in Father or Mother tantras, does not prevent the Sampuṭa having the character of any “typical” Mother tantra despite being a multi-source digest.

One serious challenge facing the translator of the Sampuṭa is which of the exegeses to follow when translating its cryptic and often ambiguous passages. The Sanskrit often differs from the Tibetan translations of the root text, with individual Tibetan versions in different Kangyurs also disagreeing with one another. The three Indian commentaries can sometimes narrow down the choice of options, but can often contribute to the confusion instead, since the individual views of the commentators may diverge quite widely. Complicating matters further, until the publication in China of Abhayākara­gupta’s famous Āmnāyamañjarī commentary in 2015, which we were unfortunately unable to consult for this translation, these three commentaries were available only in Tibetan translation (see bibliography). A careful comparison of Abhāyaka­gupta’s commentary in Sanskrit remains a desideratum.

A question even more fundamental is whether to follow, in the case of sections and passages traceable to earlier tantras, the interpretations found in the commentaries on those source texts, or those in the commentaries and literature that focus on the Sampuṭa itself. To make matters more complex still, the translator should ideally attempt to judge whether parallel passages that do not correspond verbatim with the source texts have been altered intentionally or through scribal error.

In the present translation, such interpretational choices have mostly been made in favor of the interpretations specific to the Sampuṭa. Except for instances when the text of the Sampuṭa is obviously corrupt, there is no obvious reason to repudiate textual modifications that appear to have been deliberately made for such purposes as to re-contextualize the content and give the Sampuṭa its own textual integrity (even if that integrity is by no means complete). There are good grounds for respecting intentional modifications of this kind, even if the corresponding content in the source tantras was historically earlier and could be regarded as “original.” Moreover, the teachings and methods presented in the tantras generally tend to be fluid in character, with their main value for a practitioner lying more in their efficacy than in their absolute fidelity to historically earlier sources.

Accordingly, to reflect in the accompanying Sanskrit edition this interpretational preference in favor of the Sampuṭa, readings based on the source tantras have only rarely been quoted in the critical apparatus, and adopted only exceptionally in the text. Instead, both the Sanskrit edition and the English translation have been profoundly informed by the Sampuṭa commentaries and, of course, by the readings in the Tibetan canonical translation, whose merits are summed up in the translation colophon of the Degé version (c.­1, F.158.b):

Butön’s own Commentary on the Sampuṭa, Elucidation of the True Meaning largely reflects the interpretation found in Śūravajra’s Ratnamālā.

The accompanying Sanskrit edition has been prepared based on several Sanskrit manuscripts, two of which, from the Royal Asiatic Society and the Wellcome Library, date to the eleventh century, and another one, from the Asiatic Society of Bengal, probably to the early twelfth century (see Szántó 2013). For the first two chapters of the text, the edition of the Sanskrit text of the Sampuṭa in Skorupski (1996 and 2001) was also used.

As already indicated, the internal integrity of the Sampuṭa is far from airtight. Most of its discourse is presented in the form of a dialogue, with the Blessed One answering questions posed by his interlocutor, the bodhisattva Vajragarbha, as may be gleaned by looking at the beginning, the end, and a few other places throughout the text. We can guess, by the Sampuṭa’s character and content, that the Blessed One (bhagavān) is a heruka, but we may surely be excused if we treat the designation bhagavān as a variable, sometimes standing for Saṃvara, sometimes for Hevajra or another heruka, depending on what source text corresponds to the part of the Sampuṭa in question. In places where the identity of the Blessed One cannot be clearly determined, we may presume him to be Vajrasattva (more precisely, his wrathful heruka aspects). The interlocutor changes too, on occasions even switching gender from male to female, much of the time reflecting the situation in this or that source text. Whenever the interlocutor cannot be ascertained, the presumed interlocutor would be Vajragarbha (who also happens to be the Blessed One’s interlocutor in the Hevajra, one of the main source texts).

Some lapses in the internal consistency of the Sampuṭa should perhaps be attributed to oversights by its human compilers (although any such oversight has little bearing on the professed esoteric origin of this tantra’s teachings), such as at least one reference in the text to things “mentioned above”‍—mentioned, however, not in the Sampuṭa but in the source text. In the context of the Sampuṭa such references have become obsolete links.

Notwithstanding its inconsistencies and ambiguities, the Sampuṭa is a treasure trove of all the main teachings and practices of the Father and Mother tantras, all brought together in a single compendium‍—including some that so far have been known and studied mainly from Tibetan sources, such as the transference of consciousness (Skt. utkrānti, Tib. ’pho ba) at the time of death, and the teachings on death and rebirth in general. It must be borne in mind, though, that the present translation and the accompanying Sanskrit edition are far from definitive, for it would take years of further research to establish the intended interpretations in the source texts and in the Sampuṭa, and how exactly they relate to each other. With the three Sampuṭa commentaries diverging at virtually every step, one could produce not one, but at least three equally valid translations. To reflect this state of affairs, many alternative interpretations have been presented in notes, allowing readers to judge for themselves.

The identified source texts of the Sampuṭa are, in the Father tantra group: (1) the Guhya­samāja (Toh 442), (2) the Samājottara (Toh 443, often regarded as the eighteenth chapter of the Guhya­samāja root tantra), (3) the Catur­devī­paripṛcchā (Toh 446, an explanatory tantra on the Guhya­samāja), and (4) the Vajra­bhairava (Toh 468).

In the Mother tantra group, the main sources are: (5) the Hevajra (Toh 416); (6) the Catuṣpīṭha (Toh 428); (7) the Sarva­buddha­samāyoga (Toh 366); (8) the Herukābhidhāna (Toh 368, also called the Laghu­śaṃvara) and (9) its commentary, the Vasanta­tilakā by Kṛṣṇācārya (Toh 1449); (10) the Vajra­ḍāka (Toh 399); (11) the Vajrāmṛta (Toh 435) and (12) its commentary, the Vajrāmṛta­ṭīkā (Toh 1650); (13) the Māyā­jāla (Toh 466); (14) the Prajñopāya­viniścaya­siddhi (Toh 2218); and (15) the Yoginī­sañcāra (Toh 375).

Another text, extant in Chinese only, identified as a source of Sampuṭa chapter 3 part 4, is (16) the Pi mi siang king (Noguchi 1986b). This part of the Sampuṭa is dedicated to Yogatantra material (or perhaps Yogatantra “proper,” as, in Sanskrit sources, the groups corresponding to Father and Mother tantras are commonly called the “higher” and “highest” divisions of Yogatantra.

There is also a correspondence between parts of the Sampuṭa and the Sahaja­maṇḍala­trayāloka (Toh 1539) by Jñānaśrī (cf. Szántó 2013), but it is unlikely that the latter was a source for the former, because of the relatively late date of Jñānaśrī.

Parts that cannot be traced to any obvious source might possibly be based on some earlier texts now lost, making the Sampuṭa all the more valuable.

Anyone wishing to use this translation of the Sampuṭa as a reference work should be aware that because, in the present translation, we have favored the Sampuṭa’s textual variants over those in the source texts, we have made hardly any attempt to standardize the information typically shared by all the sources, such as the lists of power places or places of pilgrimage, or the lists of secret language signs. For these lists, the reader would be also advised to consult the relevant parts of the Hevajra and the Herukābhidhāna, where arguably one can find more “standard” versions.

Just as the Sampuṭa sees its own teachings as the theoretical foundation of all Father and Mother tantras, its first chapter can be understood as laying the foundation for this tantra itself. The chapter gives us a foretaste of the Sampuṭa’s comprehensiveness, as it alternates between the most esoteric and the most basic teachings of Buddhism. It first introduces the notion of sampuṭa, and then proceeds to interpret everything as the interaction between the female and male principles entailed in this notion. In terms of practice and theory, this interaction also applies to the human body, as borne out in this verse:

Thus the involvement with the body mainly concerns the subtle channels and energy centers, which are responsible for all our mental states‍—even supreme awakening, when the energy is able to course freely in the central channel. Such processes can be stimulated by, and occur simultaneously in, the female and male bodies, through sexual yoga. In both Father and Mother tantras, the body is the means to realize the deity.

After this esoteric introduction, the text reverts to the very foundational tenets of Buddhism, down to the noble eightfold path, before returning again to the profound teachings of the Mother tantras. Such interludes remind us, throughout the tantra, that no matter how esoteric the teachings may be they remain, in essence, an expression of the Buddhist principles on which they are founded.

The first chapter also introduces the deity Vajrasattva, equating him with Saṃvara. Vajrasattva as Saṃvara underlies the notion of sampuṭa (and vice versa), and, as may be expected, the Saṃvara cycle of tantras (where the teaching on sampuṭa is most prominent) is one of the best represented in the Sampuṭa’s composition.

It would be superfluous here to set out a full description of the Sampuṭa’s contents, for this would be tantamount to summing up not only all the main teachings of the Father and Mother tantras, but also the Buddhist teachings in general. For a linear description of this tantra’s structure the reader would be advised to consult the introduction to Skorupski (1996).

This translation and edition are presented as a work in progress, in the hope that they may stimulate further study and exploration of this important text.