[INDOLOGY] Catushpitha Tantra vs Hevajra Tantra
Paolo Eugenio Rosati
paoloe.rosati at gmail.com
Mon Jan 9 14:23:18 UTC 2017
Thanks a lot to all; I am going to have a look of these studies and I'll
try to contact dr Peter-Daniel Szanto.
Regarding the date of *Hevajra Tantra*, probbaly seventh century is too
early, but considering that the same list of *catuspitha*s was found either
in the ritualistic section (64) or in the mythological section (18) of
*Kalikapurana*, I argue the *Hevajra Tantra* should be compiled not later
than ninth-middle of ninth century, because I always supposed the
*catuspitha*s' concept was a product of Esoteric Buddhism and later
reformulated in the Assamese *shakta purana*s, particularly in the *Kalika*.
Thanks so much for the informations!
On 9 January 2017 at 15:07, Lubomir Ondracka <ondracka at ff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> Dear Paolo,
> ask Peter-Daniel Szanto (All Souls College in Oxford). He wrote an
> excellent thesis on the Catuṣpīṭha. He discusses the problem of these four
> pīṭhas in the introductory section of his theses and shows how Sircar
> misunderstood the matter. If I remember well, Peter says that it's not
> clear why four chapters of the CP are so called (ātma, para, yoga, guhya)
> and that these names do not correspond to the content of particular
> Regarding the chronology, according to Peter CP is older than
> Hevajratantra, but to date HT to "between seventh and middle of eighth
> centuries" seems to be to early.
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:38:54 +0100
> Paolo Eugenio Rosati <paoloe.rosati at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear indologists,
> > I am struggling with the "chronology" regarding the *catushpitha*s
> > and its first appearance in the Vajrayana cosmos.
> > Particularly, the *Catushpitha Tantra *described a list of four *pitha*s
> > linked to philosophical concepts---*atman pitha*, *para pitha*, *yoga
> > *and *guhya pitha *(cit.
> > in D.C. Sircar [*The Shakta Pithas*] 1948, 11).
> > Regarding this text, the only clue that I found is that one of its
> > commentaries was copied in 1145 CE (ibid.).
> > While I found no discussion about the original text, and particularly if
> > was previous or coeval with the *Hevajra Tantra* (that could be date
> > between seventh and middle of eighth centuries)---althoug from Sircar
> > I argued he considered the two tantras to be more or less coeval.
> > I wish someone can help me with some reference to the *Catushpitha
> > Best wishes,
> > Paolo
> > --
> > Paolo E. Rosati
> > Oriental Archaeologist
> > PhD candidate in "Civilizations of Asia and Africa"
> > South Asia Section
> > Dep. Italian Institute of Oriental Studies/ISO
> > 'Sapienza' University of Rome
> > *https://uniroma1.academia.edu/PaoloRosati/
> > <https://uniroma1.academia.edu/PaoloRosati/>*
> > paoloe.rosati at uniroma1.it
> > paoloe.rosati at gmail.com
> > Skype: paoloe.rosati
> > Mobile: (+39) 338 73 83 472
Paolo E. Rosati
PhD candidate in "Civilizations of Asia and Africa"
South Asia Section
Dep. Italian Institute of Oriental Studies/ISO
'Sapienza' University of Rome
paoloe.rosati at uniroma1.it
paoloe.rosati at gmail.com
Mobile: (+39) 338 73 83 472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY