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 catuspithas 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 catuspithas' concept was a product of Esoteric Buddhism and later reformulated in the Assamese shakta puranas, particularly in the Kalika.

Thanks so much for the informations!
Best, Paolo

On 9 January 2017 at 15:07, Lubomir Ondracka <ondracka@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 chapters.

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.

Best,
Lubomir


On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:38:54 +0100
Paolo Eugenio Rosati <paoloe.rosati@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear indologists,
>
> I am struggling with the "chronology" regarding the *catushpitha*s concept
> 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 pitha
> *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 it
> was previous or coeval with the *Hevajra Tantra* (that could be date
> between seventh and middle of eighth centuries)---althoug from Sircar study
> 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 Tantra.*
>
> 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@uniroma1.it
> paoloe.rosati@gmail.com
> Skype: paoloe.rosati
> Mobile: (+39) 338 73 83 472



--
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/
Skype: paoloe.rosati
Mobile: (+39) 338 73 83 472