UC Santa Barbara

The eighth-century Indian Buddhist master Buddhagupta (more commonly known as Buddhaguhya) is one of the most influential figures in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. According to the Tibetan religious histories, Buddhagupta was invited to teach at the Tibetan imperial court in the mid-to-late eighth century. Though he did not accept the invitation, Buddhagupta is said to have initiated the the emperor’s envoys into several tantric systems and transmitted to them many of his own works. There are numerous tantric commentaries and other works attributed to Buddhagupta in the various recensions of the Tengyur—the commentarial section of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon—as well as in other canonical collections such as the Nyingma Kama (Rnying ma bka’ ma). The scope of these works is vast, ranging from exoteric Mahāyāna topics and orthodox tantras of the kriyā, caryā, and yoga tantras, to the transgressive mahāyoga tantras, which are known for their use of ritual sex and violence. The Tibetan manuscripts at Dunhuang even preserve a text attributed to Buddhagupta on Dzokchen (Rdzogs chen) or the Great Perfection, the summum bonum of the Nyingma (Rnying ma) or “Ancient” School of Tibetan Buddhism. Contemporary scholarship remains divided as to whether all of these works are attributable to a single, mid-to-late eighth-century author or if the texts on mahāyoga and Dzokchen were written by a later hand. Drawing on the methodologies of philology, history, higher textual criticsm, and translation, this dissertation argues that the mahāyoga and Dzokchen works were written by a later author from the mid-to-late ninth century who shared the same name as the eighth-century Buddhagupta who transacted with the Tibetan emmisarries. This conclusion is based on an analysis of two of these mahāyoga works: An Orderly Arrangement of the Paths (Lam rnam par bkod pa) and Brief Explanation of the Path (Lam rnam par bshad pa chung ngu), both of which draw heavily on the Guhyagarbha Tantra (Rgyud gsang ba’i snying po) and other mahāyoga tantras of the Māyājāla (Sgyu ’phrul drwa ba) cycle. Moreover, through a close examination of Tibetan text catalogs, treatises, and historical sources from the eighth to the eighteenth century, this dissertation proposes that the original Sanskrit name of both figures is in fact Buddhagupta and not Buddhaguhya. It further suggests that Buddhaguhya is reconstruction by post-dynastic Tibetan authors based on sangs rgyas gsang ba, which was the way the imperial period translators rendered Buddhagupta. Finally, this dissertation explores several related issues, Buddhagupta’s biographies and his influence on the Nyingma tradition’s interpretation of the mahāyoga tantras, especially the Guhyagarbha Tantra.