Buddhism : Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Vol. VI

PROBLEMS OF LANGUAGE IN BUDDHIST TANTRA

from the list, and it is here that we are reading "twilight language" proper. We
give an excerpt from Wayman's translation with commentary by Naropa who
tends to agree with Niigiirjuna's commentary on the list:

Having united the vola and the kakkola, one should eat meat(= the five

personality aggregates which are the nature of the five Tathagatas, and

which thereby lose self-existence, melting into the self-existence of the

mind of enlightenment possessing the five knowledges, mirror-like,

etc.); and having united those two, one should drink wine (i.e.

ambrosia) .... He (the Lord) takes the fourfold potion (Vairocana),

musk (Ak~obhya), frankincense (Ratnasambhava), and camphor

(Amitabha) (because he is inseparable from them).^35

Of course, as this excerpt stands, we are reading saf!ldhii-bhiisii interpolated

with what is not saf!ldhii-bhiisii; but let us be clear that the interpolation is not

na-saf!ldhii-bhiisii; which is a technical term for the use of language referring to

unambiguous yogic states. We can agree with Wayman that Naropa's

"commentary provides an understanding" but only in the limited sense argued

above. What matters here for instruction of a capable candidate is the "twilight"

expression of the song (and the medium of singing as well?) whose meaning is

experienced or "seen."

We come now to an important problem which we have been unable to solve

to our satisfaction. If our analysis of the saf!ldhii-bhiisii list and song has merit,

then what has become of the equivalent in the basic list or the middle term of the

expanded list? In the equation "wine" = "intoxication" = "ambrosia... drunk

continuously," how should we take "intoxication"? The question arises because

the song makes use of the first term in "twilight language" while the third term

appears to serve as commentary. The middle term is left untouched. At first, the

solution would seem to be to take "intoxication" as an opaque but concise way

of saying "ambrosia ... drunk continuously" so that both middle and third terms

function as commentary to establish the fact of a yogic reference; and it would

not be un-Indian to comment in such a concise way that subcommentary would

need to follow. The same could be said for the relationship of "strength" and

"wind, is food ... ," of"meeting" and "coming together ... "; there seems to be a

natural relationship between them. But this reasoning fails upon consideration of

the remainder of our excerpted material. No natural relationship pertains

between "dung, urine, etc." and the five Buddhas-at least, these terms do not

appear to be correlated any more rationally than are the "twilight" terms "potion,

musk etc." with the five Buddhas. Instead, "musk" and "urine" seem equally

distant from "Ak~obhya"; they seem equally ambiguous as if both first and

middle terms were saf!ldhiibhiisii words.

In fact, in the Cal')cfamahiirosana Tantra, we find an "eating" and "drinking"

of urine, etc., which is parallel to the "taking" of musk, etc., in the "twilight"

song. The text reads as George translates:^36