Derge Kangyur/Tengyur e-text, Esukhia/Barom edition — public domain (mechanical reproduction)
The Moon of Suchness is a technical commentary on the Buddhakapāla Tantra that seeks to reconcile the paradoxical nature of ultimate reality (suchness) with the practical requirements of tantric practice. The text argues that while ultimate reality is non-dual and free from conceptual elaboration, the Buddha employs conventional means—including the manifestation of the consort's bhaga and the use of Secret Mantra—to liberate sentient beings who are otherwise bound by desire and habitual tendencies. The author employs a dialectical method, addressing potential contradictions regarding the nature of nirvana, the existence of cyclic existence, and the status of functional entities. By distinguishing between ultimate and conventional truths, the work commits the reader to a path where the physical and ritual—ranging from the manipulation of seminal essence in the channels to the application of ritual ashes for specific accomplishments (siddhis)—serves as a vehicle for realizing a non-conceptual state of wisdom. The text positions the Buddhakapāla Tantra as superior to other tantras due to its accessibility to those intensely bound by desire.
Provenance
About this text
A commentary on the difficult points of the Buddha Skull Tantra, the Buddhakapālatantrasya pañjikātattvacandrikānāma belongs to the tradition of the Other Wisdom Tantras. The work is attributed to the Indian author Padmavajra. Preserved in the classical Tibetan period, the text appears in the Tengyur, volume ར, where it extends over thirty-three pages. Under its Tibetan title, sangs rgyas thod pa'i rgyad kyi dka' 'grel de kho na nyid kyi zla ba zhes bya ba, the work functions as a technical analysis of the nature of suchness and the cessation of conceptual thought. It examines the distinction between the ultimate inconceivable and the time of definitively grasping at things as certain entities, arguing that the mindfulness of realization arises when the two types of thought are absent. By addressing the nature of that which was spoken by the Blessed One, the author seeks to clarify how cognitions of subject and object cease. A scholar or serious reader consults this text today to understand the dialectical approach to non-duality and the specific interpretive framework used to reconcile the absence of thought with the manifestation of objective entities.
Cite thisAnuvāda, “A Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Buddhakapāla Tantra called “The Moon of Suchness”” (Toh 1653), machine draft, 2026.https://naxiai.com/tibetan/works/toh1653
Summary & commentary
Significance
This work is significant for its attempt to provide a philosophical grounding for the transgressive and ritualistic elements of the Buddha Skull tradition. It demonstrates the integration of high-level Madhyamaka-style dialectics with the concrete, often occult, practices of the Anuttarayoga Tantras.
Structure
Passages
Section
Description
1-38
Introduction and Philosophical Grounding
Discusses the nature of suchness, the role of the Buddha's manifestations, the superiority of this tantra over others, and the dialectical resolution of duality and non-existence.
39-45
Ritual Practice and Accomplishments
Details the practical application of the teaching, including the transformation of form, the physiology of bliss wisdom in the channels, and the use of ritual substances for specific siddhis.
Themes
The Nature of Suchness (Tattva) (2-4, 7-8, 12, 27, 30, 36-38)
Skillful Means for Bound Beings (5-6, 9-11)
Non-duality and Conventional Truth (16, 19, 23, 34-35, 36)
Ritual Siddhis and Alchemy (42-45)
Tantric Physiology and Bliss (40-41)
Summary, significance and provenance note generated by gemma4:31b from the translation and the catalogue record.
AnuvādaA Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Buddhakapāla Tantra called “The Moon of Suchness”·
In the language of India: Buddhakapālatantratattvapañjikācandrikā-nāma. In the language of Tibet: Sangs rgyas thod pa’i rgyud kyi dka’ ’grel de kho na nyid kyi zla ba zhes bya ba (The Moon of Suchness: A Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Buddha Skull Tantra). Homage to the Buddha!
I bow to Vajrasattva, the nature of all things, the coemergent nature, beyond words, like an echo. By means of the Buddhakapāla Tantra, which possesses an extremely profound nature, I shall explain the words gathered therein just as I recall them.
Regarding the phrase "Thus have I heard" (evam mayā śrutam) and so forth: "I heard" means that I heard this very thing. It refers to what was heard by Vajrapāṇi when the Blessed One taught it at the time of the great maṇḍala assembly. If one asks, "At what time?" it is "at one time." "Time" refers to an inconceivable time; the meaning is that at that time, my mind was not distracted by other thoughts. "Time" is of three types in saṃsāra: the time of happiness, the time of suffering, and the inconceivable time. In that regard, if one hears and understands something at a time when the body is manifest in great suffering, one will not later remember it exactly as it was, because the mind is manifest in suffering. Likewise, at a time when the mind is manifest in a state of intense bliss, how could others remember it? It is not so. Therefore, in those two states, [it is not remembered].
Immediately after that moment of separation, the mindfulness of realization as it is arises. Regarding the phrase "at one time," it refers to a time when the two types of thought are absent. The intention of the compiler is to state: "I shall speak of the nature of that which was spoken by the Blessed One, the compiler who is free from thought and who encompasses all objective entities."
If one asks, "What is the time when the mind is free from all thought?" it is the state in which the characteristics of hearing and so forth are correctly known, and in the future, mindfulness arises. How could it be otherwise? Since that which is called "mindfulness" is a phenomenon of thought, it is impossible for mindfulness to arise in the absence of thought.
Therefore, if one asks how the phrase "at one time" is tenable in an inconceivable time, it should be explained as follows: "Inconceivable" refers to a time when, apart from the mental engagement with an entity that is definitively established in the world, there is no thought regarding other words and meanings. Thus, when the mind is intensely focused on the definitive meaning of an entity, at the time the mind abides in many such entities, it is not the case that the correct knowledge and mindfulness arise regarding a single entity as it has become.
Therefore, the "inconceivable time" is to be understood as the time of definitively grasping at things as certain entities; it is not intended in the sense of the ultimate inconceivable. This is because at that time, all cognitions of subject and object and so forth have utterly ceased, and since one is completely free from the correct cognition of self and other, how could mindfulness and so forth possibly arise?
Regarding the phrase "all the Tathāgatas" and so forth: it means that the Blessed One was seated in the center of the great maṇḍala of the syllable laṃ, which is the nature of the body, speech, and mind of all the Tathāgatas, that is, in the center of the maṇḍala of the great elements. These are what are being explained.
The phrase "all the Tathāgatas" and so forth refers to what I, the compiler, heard directly together with them. If I were to speak of something that occurred at the time I was with them, worldly people would consider it true and trustworthy. Thus, in that retinue, all the Tathāgatas were present, and likewise the Vajrayoginīs such as Māmakī were present, and similarly the noble Ānanda and others were present in the maṇḍala. In that context, they are called "noble" (ārya) because they have transcended (ārya) evil; that is to say, they have completely subdued non-virtuous misdeeds.
Likewise, while the bodhisattva Lokeśvara and an entourage of eighty million bodhisattvas were dwelling together, the Blessed Buddha spoke this teaching on the suchness of phenomena (dharmatattva). I shall now relate exactly what I realized through one-pointed concentration. Regarding the term "bodhisattva" (bodhisattva): one whose mind is directed toward awakening (bodhi) is a bodhisattva. Then, to express for how long the Blessed One taught the suchness of phenomena, he said "Then," and so forth. "Then" means immediately thereafter. "The Blessed One" is the Great Vajradhara of the fruition. "To be known through the great vajra state" means to engage in the play of manifestation. "By explaining" means in that manner. If one asks how so, the meaning is: "He completely dissolved into the bhaga of the consort." Because he dwells in the state of supreme bliss within the bhaga of the consort—the vajra body, speech, and mind of all the Tathāgatas—he is said to be "dwelling there, the Blessed One." As for the term "bhaga," it is the place where all latencies of the afflictions (kleśa) are utterly destroyed. Because it causes one to realize the flavor of supreme joy, the Tathāgatas themselves abide in the nature of the consort.
In order to care for those sentient beings whose minds remain thoroughly afflicted by the habitual tendencies of objects, the Blessed One specifically taught these systems of Secret Mantra. Therefore, his manifestation in the form of the consort’s bhaga is taught as the supreme means to truly deliver those sentient beings who are scorched by attachment to objects, because it follows the path of great desire. For that reason, bodhisattvas should not be afraid of those objects when they give rise to the wisdom of supreme suchness; for to be devoid of devotion toward them is non-virtuous, and because those objects are the supremely pure nature of the Tathāgatas. Consequently, the Blessed One also engages in great compassion for those sentient beings whose minds are naturally connected to those objects, teaching them the Dharma of suchness itself.
Alternatively, objects themselves are the very cause of saṃsāra. Therefore, if one thoroughly understands the natural flavor of their suchness, because that knowledge exists, they also become the cause of nirvāṇa. For that reason, it is said: "If one experiences them exactly as they are in their nature." As it is also said: "When existence itself is thoroughly understood, it is called nirvāṇa." Whatever binds one, that very thing arises as great bliss.
For example, for one burned by fire, being warmed by fire itself is the supreme medicine, and nothing else. Likewise, these sentient beings who are burned by relying upon sense objects are not able to abide in great awakening if they do not abandon the savoring of those objects. For that very reason, the Blessed One teaches the Dharma by attaining supreme nirvāṇa within the bhaga of the consort.
Regarding the phrase "to the lord of all Tathāgatas," this refers to the Blessed One being viewed by all the Tathāgatas. Although it is in the locative case (seventh case), it should be viewed as the genitive (sixth case), because in certain contexts the sixth and seventh cases are inseparable.
The cause for this complete request is stated as "the vajra and the lotus," and so forth. By the union of the vajra and the lotus, the Blessed One remains dissolved within that bhaga of the consort. "Dissolved" means merely abiding in the state of great bliss. When the Blessed One is thus perceived to have entered into meditative equipoise in the nature of great bliss, the bodhisattvas and others should be viewed as having become filled with wonder and amazement.
Regarding the phrase "seeing me enter nirvāṇa," and so forth, this is because when the bodhisattvas and others have developed sublime [faith], he causes the supreme suchness to be clearly and thoroughly distinguished. "Consulting one another" means [thinking], "What kind of supreme Dharma is this Blessed One teaching?"
Then, when the bodhisattvas and the others appeared in a state of wonder, Vajrapāṇi, in order to clarify the nature of phenomena, spoke the words beginning with "O Goddess," having requested the Blessed One regarding the class of the Yoginī Citralekhā. "For the sake of liberating sentient beings, there are other most supreme methods; therefore, the Blessed One remains having entered into such an absorption. By what other method do even sentient beings of inferior merit come to obtain power and accomplishment? For that purpose, the Blessed One explains this in other special tantras and elsewhere. If one asks: 'Did the Blessed One not teach the Yoga Tantras, the Yoginī Tantras, and the systems of the Perfections? Is it not the case that through the thorough knowledge of the suchness of these, sentient beings do not obtain accomplishments and miraculous powers? Furthermore, why is it shown and explained that this [Yoginī Tantra] is superior to others and becomes the great accomplishment of sentient beings?' To this it is said: 'Sixty million Yoginī Tantras,' and so forth. The meaning of this is that although the Blessed One taught many other [tantras] such as the Father Yoga Tantras, accomplishments and miraculous powers are indeed taught and described in those as well."
Furthermore, whatever mantras of theirs have been taught also bestow accomplishments (siddhi). Although it has been explained in that way, there is a specific distinction regarding the suchness (tattva) explained therein: among the mantras taught in those [other tantras], in some cases accomplishment is achieved by reciting them one hundred thousand times, in some by ten million, and in others by reciting five hundred thousand or one million. Thus, in those other tantras, sentient beings become afflicted [by the difficulty of the practice]. However, here, if accomplishment is achieved merely by reading this Clarification of Suchness, then the intention behind the statement that "all mantras here are accomplished by reading them" is as follows: in the tantras, the mantras are primary, for they are what produce accomplishments and powers. Therefore, because the mantras bestow accomplishments swiftly, those other tantras should also be highly esteemed. That very point is shown by the passage beginning with "In some tantras..." and so forth. That same point is taught as the cause by the passage beginning with "Reciting ten million times..." and so forth. Regarding the phrase "sentient beings of inferior merit" and so forth: those of inferior merit are instructed to recite ten million times; those with little diligence are instructed to recite one hundred thousand; and those who are vessels of merit and strive in meditation are instructed to recite ten thousand.
Now, in order to clearly demonstrate how this tantra is superior to other tantras, it is said: "Sentient beings bound by desire," and so forth. The minds of sentient beings bound by desire are not capable of reciting mantras, because they are intensely oriented toward desire. Likewise, those of the class of sentient beings who are deaf or mute lack the capacity to perform recitation, because they are unable to articulate syllables clearly or maintain a fixed count. It is taught that the manner of reciting mantras is neither too fast, nor too slow, neither too short, nor too long, but should be recited just enough to be slightly audible. Similarly, if the mind is completely absorbed in distraction, one should not perform the mental recitation of mantras either. Furthermore, if one recites while distracted by mutual socializing or with a weary and discouraged mind, then even if one were to perform a hundred billion recitations for a hundred billion eons, accomplishment would not be attained, because of the absence of a devoted mind and one-pointed concentration. Therefore, how could those tantras in which accomplishment is said to occur through ten million recitations and so forth actually achieve results for such people? In this tantra, however, even for the deaf and others, accomplishment is attained by merely reciting the mantra once.
Therefore, even those who are intensely bound by desire and lack enthusiasm for the extensive recitation of mantras will achieve accomplishment. Likewise, because the clear articulation of mantras and so forth are the causes here, even the mute and others become vessels for accomplishment. Even without mantras, through mere meditation and application, one becomes a perfect vessel for accomplishment here. Even those who lack power or lack desire will achieve everything if they recite the mantras. Furthermore, even those with inferior minds and so forth are the actual causes for accomplishment here. Thus, in order to perfectly include all aggregates of sentient beings, this Buddhakapāla Tantra is superior to other tantras.
If one asks: "In that case, did the Blessed One not correctly teach other various tantras? Since this tantra states that all sentient beings are perfectly included and that accomplishment is swiftly achieved, does it not clearly show that other tantras are incorrect?" It is not so. Those tantras do not remain incorrect; rather, those tantras were taught to sentient beings who are suitable vessels for such teachings on suchness. This very [tantra] is taught to those sentient beings who are vessels for the teaching of the characteristics of the Buddhakapāla Tantra.
All those sentient beings are not born as vessels for all the teachings; rather, they differ in terms of merit and the lack of merit due to the distinctions of their individual minds according to the sequence of inferior, middling, and superior. Having heard those very words of Vajrapāṇi, the yoginī Citralekhā, desiring to experience the reality of that very mantra, sat gazing at the face of the Blessed One with a touch of longing. Having heard the Teacher speak those words, beginning with "the yoginī Citralekhā," and so forth, her "longing gaze" was an offering made through her devotion to the Blessed One. Having made that offering, she desired that her hopes be fulfilled. Regarding the phrase "the terrifying one, having rebuked," this refers to the rebuke directed at the Blessed One for not having clearly revealed the suchness of the mantras and so forth that bestow the supreme accomplishment of such dharmas. That the Blessed One, the Mother, rebukes is the perfection of her concern for the welfare of sentient beings. Furthermore, it is for the sake of completely liberating them from the suffering of saṃsāra that she teaches the suchness of the supreme mantras and so forth, so that these sentient beings may be able to swiftly attain accomplishment. If one asks: "Does the Blessed One, the Mother herself, not know such suchness? Why then does she make a request to the Blessed One?" To that, it is said:
Although he does not perceive the ultimate reality of anything whatsoever, for the sake of caring for sentient beings, he engages in the conduct of teaching suchness. That such supreme samayas are revealed together with the nature itself is most certainly authoritative. Such a samaya is the emergence of the mantra from the skull of the Blessed One’s head, which is the intention of his realization. By the phrase "by the mere sight of that," and so forth, the mantra is revealed: Oṃ buddhe siddhe, and so on. The power of that very mantra is made manifest in a mere instant. By the phrase "having gone forth by means of such a supreme mantra," and so forth, it means that by the mere emergence of that supreme mantra, all the nāgas dwelling in the seven subterranean levels are ground to powder, and it returns. Having entered the mouth of the Blessed One from the Ri-mo-can (Citrakūṭa) assembly, it emerges from the lotus and enters once again into the skull of the Blessed One’s own head. This sequence should also be understood as what the yogi must perform at the time of reciting the mantra: the recitation of the mantra that enters through one’s own [aperture] and emerges through the vajra path. Now, how is it that anyone can truly understand this process, from the mantra entering the mouth of the Ri-mo-can assembly and emerging from the lotus, and so forth?
Regarding the statement, "Having entered the mouth, it definitely goes into the ear": because that mantra is of the nature of sound, and sound is that which is to be heard by the ear, at the time when those sounds have not yet arisen within the domain of the ear—since they have all entered the mouth as its very essence—at that time, if that which has entered one's mouth were to be perceived by the ear, then because it would be apprehended by another sense faculty, there would be no distinction between the objects apprehended by the various faculties. Consequently, the mantra to be apprehended by the ear would become something to be apprehended by the sense of taste, and in that case, even blue and so forth would be established as objects to be apprehended by the ear. If that were so, the collection of distinct sense faculties would become purposeless, because a single faculty would cognize all variety. If it is argued that this is not cognized, then it is not cognized in that manner; for if everything were cognized by the ear, it would lead to an absurdity. Therefore, the claim that "having been cognized by the ear, it subsequently enters the mouth and emerges within the lotus" is not without refutation, and is not correct. When that mantra, being of the nature of sound, has become an object of the ear, it is logical that the mantra itself is supremely cognized; however, it is illogical to claim it is cognized as "having entered specifically" and so forth, because it is present only in the ear.
When [the mantra] has entered the mouth and so forth, at that time it is not something to be apprehended by the ear; therefore, how could it be realized as it truly is? If it is argued that even though it is not apprehended by the ear, the mantra’s nature is self-cognized by the mind—because there is nothing whatsoever that does not become an object of the mind—this too is unestablished. This is because the very nature of pleasure, suffering, and so forth is correctly cognized by the mind. If these mantras are to be apprehended by the faculty of the ear, how could they be realized by the mind? If they were realized [by the mind in that way], then blue and so forth, which are apprehended by other faculties, would also become apprehended by the ear. If that were the case, it would follow that even the deaf and so forth would perceive sounds and the like, because they also possess a mind. If that were so, the deaf, the blind, and so forth would be impossible. In that case, mantras would never be clearly realized or understood by the ear, because they are apprehended by the mind. Alternatively, it is impossible for a single objective entity to be apprehended by two faculties, because it would follow that blue and so forth would also be apprehended by the ear. If it is argued that even so there is no fault, because it is not contradictory for two faculties to apprehend a single objective entity in some cases—just as the entity of fire is apprehended by the eye faculty and...
It is the very act of touching the body. Even such a thing does not bring joy to the mind. In this regard, the atoms that perform the burning of fire are one thing, and the atoms that are to be seen are another; thus they exist. If it is argued that regarding such a substance of fire, the seeing and the touching are practiced as one and the meaning of the entity is viewed as a single synthesis, that is nothing but an error—then to this it must be said: if these very mantras are realized by this mental consciousness itself, there is no fault whatsoever here. While there are faults in the common minds of beings in saṃsāra, it is not the case that the Blessed One, by the nature of his object, is unable to apprehend the mantra to be grasped. It is not as if the minds of common beings do not discern the distinct divisions of the sense faculties, for the minds of the sublime ones do not function in that way either, because [the Blessed One's mind] is the domain of all of them.
Furthermore, if one thinks: "Apart from the characteristic of self-cognizing awareness, no other nature of the mind is seen; since it is a nature consisting solely of the essence of the four types of perfect individual realization, no particularity of the mind is seen either"—that is not so. Here, even if one is a single person, it is not the case that everyone is realized as being yellow in color. If that were so, it would follow that by the mere fact of being a person, everyone would be established as being yellow in color.
Here, too, since not even a slight distinction is observed in being merely a person, how is it that the distinction of form is established? It is seen as follows: the mind of some is such that they understand all treatises without error, while for others it is not so. Likewise, just as the mind of the Blessed One is by nature omniscient regarding suchness, how could it remain as it is during an ordinary state? In that regard, the term "his mind" is merely a conventional expression. Furthermore, regarding objects as well, there are distinctions according to the different sense faculties; due to the classification of living beings, the objects to be apprehended by one faculty are distinct from those of another, just as hooded serpents hear with their eyes. Therefore, one should not view things as common merely because of a superficial similarity in all cases, for there are distinctions among all things due to differences in place, time, and conditions. Well then, what is the nature of this distinction of the mind? Is its very nature such due to the distinctions of the gods, or does it arise from some other cause? If it were its very nature, then since form is of the nature of mind, at that time the nature of all would likewise be present as a distinction. If it were of the nature of mind, then there would be no distinction at all, because it would be identical for all living beings.
Furthermore, although there are distinctions arising from causes, there is nonetheless no distinction whatsoever, because others also possess the activity of causes and conditions. In that regard, even if a cause exists, the nature of the specific cause is not realized by any sentient beings; therefore, the minds of all sentient beings are not established as being distinguished. Well then, if that cause exists in all, there would be no one who has not realized the application for the arising of their own wisdom. If that were the case, what would be the point? By what cause would that which distinguishes it be realized? As for the claim that the mind is established as distinguished by the thorough realization of that specific view, such a thing as "realizing it by itself" does not exist; if it did, then others would likewise thoroughly realize it in that same way. Nor is it from another through a lineage of oral instructions, for how could that be? There is no such thing as realizing it by itself, as the faults of such a position have already been stated. If it were realized through a lineage of transmission, it would lead to the fault of infinite regress. Therefore, how is it that the Blessed One established the mind as preeminent? If the mind were made distinguished by the activity of some other cause, then like a wish-fulfilling gem, it would not be stable in all respects, because it would lack a stable nature, just like a vase or other objects produced from causes.
Therefore, the mind is not established as something inherently distinct, because it is merely occasional. If it is argued that, for this reason, the purpose of establishing the mind as something distinct is not established in any instance whatsoever, it must be said in response: this very distinct mind is both the nature itself, and likewise, it is also the cause. There is no contradiction in this, because a cause is merely a condition that brings about manifestation. Likewise, the nature of things is the mind itself, which exists as a pervasive appearance. However, because it is veiled by the stains of its own respective habitual tendencies (vāsanā), it does not appear in its true state. Consequently, the mind of everyone does not clearly manifest all objective entities. For example, it is like a person with the defect of cataracts for whom even a very clear mirror becomes obscured. Therefore, because the cause is of such a nature, it does not eliminate the defects of obscuration; thus, it is not born as a distinct nature. The distinctness of that cause is merely the characteristic of eliminating the defects of adventitious stains, and this is not understood by everyone. For example, although something exists, it is not seen—just as no one sees or realizes the objects existing within a deep well. Furthermore, there is no fault of infinite regress in understanding such a cause through the lineage of the gurus.
There is no harm from the fault of such an infinite regress, because saṃsāra is beginningless. For that reason, if it were not so, nothing at all would be established. If one asks, "How then does this sprout of white rice arise?" and says, "From its own seed," then if one asks, "What is the seed of that?" the answer is, "From its own seed." If that is so, how is it not an infinite regress? It is indeed so. Well then, from what does that habitual tendency (vāsanā) arise?
If this mind of becoming is by nature luminous in all respects, yet it remains as an ordinary sentient being due to some obscuration, and if this mental faculty is not as it truly is in its divine nature, then if it were to arise from a cause separate from the mind, at that time there would have to be another cause for that [separate] cause. Consequently, the non-dual nature of phenomena (dharmatā) would not be established. Furthermore, if those habitual tendencies arise from the very nature of the mind, then at that time the habitual tendencies would never cease to be manifest, because that mind exists at all times. Why is that? Because if things that are capable of acting do not produce their effects while they exist, it would follow that all actions and results would never arise at all.
Therefore, if it is asked: "Will the latencies (vāsanā) arise at all times, or will they remain as something that never arises from the very beginning?"—if latencies were never to arise at all, then because they would be non-existent at all times, how could the mind ever be stained by impurities? Since there would be no cause for agitation, there would be no such thing as a "distinguished mind" or a "non-distinguished mind." Consequently, how could it be tenable for the mind to enter into any of its states—whether called nirvāṇa or saṃsāra, or liberated or unliberated?
Furthermore, if latencies were to persist as active at all times, then at that time, no distinction could be established between an ordinary sentient being and anything else; thus, the states of bondage and liberation, as well as their respective designations, would be non-existent.
To this, it is said: Although latencies arise from wisdom itself, they remain attached to and clinging toward saṃsāra. Therefore, there is no fault in saying that they either exist or do not exist at all times based merely on their arising from that [wisdom]. As long as the mind remains following after saṃsāra, they will continue to arise in its stream. Such a mind is to be understood as being of the nature of saṃsāra; because its nature as a distortion has been thoroughly cleared away, it is of the nature of such latencies. Thus, there is no fault of the mind being common [to all] in every respect.
Since the minds of all are attached to saṃsāra, as long as they do not abide at all times [in liberation], the systems of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa exist; even if one does not desire it, it must be accepted. Otherwise, one would have to abide either exclusively in nirvāṇa at all times or exclusively in bhava (becoming) itself. Therefore, saṃsāra exists in every respect for as long as bhava exists, and that is the very nature of the mind characterized by habitual tendencies (vāsanā).
For that reason, the mind characterized by habitual tendencies acts in a manner concordant with saṃsāra. In order to realize that very mind as the entity of its own aspect, since saṃsāra is beginningless, it arises through the power of the habitual tendencies of the body accumulated previously. Just like the forms of objects conjured by a magician, that which is grasped by the mind fully endowed with habitual tendencies is saṃsāra. Furthermore, saṃsāra, which arises like a magical illusion, is inconceivable.
Thus, while it is certainly accepted that one is in saṃsāra through the attachment of universal engagement in saṃsāra, that very universal arising of the mind characterized by habitual tendencies is what is called saṃsāra. Therefore, the arising of the mind—bound by the power of previously generated karma—in the nature of habitual tendencies is what constitutes the definition of saṃsāra.
When one does not regard the state of saṃsāra as supreme, at that time, since no nature of habitual tendencies (vāsanā) abides anywhere, there is neither that which is called "the mind is luminous" (ābhāsvara) nor that which is called "not luminous"; thus, there is no distinction. Therefore, one should accept that saṃsāra proceeds in a forward order, just like a magical illusion (māyā) created by a magician.
Furthermore, if one asks: "Is it that the magician sees the illusion?" As long as the stainless sense faculties perceive a truly existent entity, a cognition that produces such [an illusion] does not occur. If it did produce it, then it would be impossible for a cognition that correctly knows [things] to arise as truly existent at all times. Therefore, one might think: "From what do these [illusions] arise, if they occur as mere falsehoods?"
To this, it is said: "It is from the power of mantras and medicines that the qualities of the sense faculties are deprived." If one asks: "Why is it not so at all times?" and likewise: "Why is that very application not present at all times?" it is said: "It is because at that time the ripening of karma (karmavipāka) has ceased." If one asks: "From what does that very discordant ripening of karma arise?" it is said: "It is an illusion produced by the power of the mind (manas) permeated by saṃsāra." If one asks: "Why does that very mind arise with such a power that it is dissimilar [to its usual state]?" it is asserted: "One should understand that the mind, which abides as the very nature of becoming (bhava), possesses various kinds of power."
Thus, because that very [mind] possesses a consciousness that follows after existence, it enters the existence of karma from an unimpeded mind; therefore, it abides as an emanated entity through various dissimilar actions. In this regard, there is no contradiction whatsoever in this inconceivable birth. Consequently, that very mind is not at all born as an emanation of habitual tendencies. Regarding the phrase "the power of such a mantra" and so forth, by the power of that mantra as it was spoken, the great nāgas such as Vāsuki and others arrived, received the command from the class of Citralekhā, and asked, "What shall the goddess do?" Then, the class of Citralekhā gave them the command: "Act in accordance with the Buddha!" Having thus explained the power of the mantra, the text describes the extraction of the volume containing the meaning of the tantra, beginning with the words "By merely hearing that." The term "Unsurpassed Yoginī" refers to the Unsurpassed Yoginī Tantra; because there is nothing superior to this, there is no tantra equal to it. This tantra is called the Buddhakapāla (Buddha Skull). Since the mantras and so forth were extracted from the skull of the head of the Blessed Buddha, the tantra that is its very essence is also called by that name. The tantra that emerged from the Buddha’s skull is the object of the action and the agent; such an action and agent is what is called the Buddhakapāla.
Alternatively, the term "Buddha" is a synonym for "Vajra." Since the term "skull" (kapāla) also refers to the nature of the triangle, it is called the "Buddha Skull" (Buddhakapāla) because it is the essence of insight and method. For that very reason, the collection of illustrated volumes and so forth was entrusted to Vajrapāṇi in order to care for sentient beings. Regarding the phrase "the supreme secret," this refers to the suchness (tattva) taught in the tantra; it is the most secret of secrets, and this very [suchness] dwells within the bodies of all sentient beings.
If one asks: "If that supreme suchness dwells within the bodies of all sentient beings, then would not the happiness, suffering, and so forth of all sentient beings be perceived as a single entity? Furthermore, since the nature of suchness is a single ultimate reality, all sentient beings would be without bondage in saṃsāra. Moreover, since the nature of suchness for all is merely one, the system of establishing what is called 'saṃsāra' and what is called 'nirvāṇa' would also not exist. How, then, is this spoken by the Blessed One to be reconciled?"
To this it is said: The ultimate suchness of all is indeed of a single nature. Nevertheless, because it is thoroughly grasped by the habitual tendencies (vāsanā) of saṃsāra, and...
Since beginningless time, the minds of sentient beings have perceived self and other as objects of apprehension; therefore, suchness has not become manifest. Consequently, as long as views persist during the states of saṃsāra, how could suchness, which is the way things truly are, be realized? Because of this cause of ignorance, the mind that correctly perceives self and other is the bondage of saṃsāra. Thus, pleasure, suffering, and so forth, which are of a single nature, are individually experienced by many, because they have arisen from beginningless habitual tendencies.
For example, although the moon is one, due to defects in individual eyes, it appears in various forms to some. Likewise, their correct perception arises as various entities. Just as when there is water or a clear surface, the reflection of the single moon is perceived as many, so too, because ignorance remains as a pervasive appearance, bondage is established through mere falsity. For example, when a rope in the dim light of the sky is apprehended as a snake, one experiences intense suffering from the fear it causes; yet in reality, that suffering was not produced by the snake itself. Therefore, suffering arises even through mere falsity.
When the saṃsāra that arises from such habitual tendencies is destroyed, at that time the suffering of being bound in saṃsāra will not arise in any way, and thus pleasure, suffering, and so forth will also cease to exist, because the individual cognitions of self and other have then subsided. By the extensive teaching beginning with "the garuḍa and the falling rain," it is shown that all various accomplishments are generated. Likewise, it is taught that the great suchness of Heruka is what is to be accomplished here. Regarding the passage beginning with "the great hero Heruka," the phrase "the cause of arising and abiding" refers to the Blessed One alone. For example, a single snake may at times be coiled and at times straight, yet its essential nature does not exist as something divided into those separate states. In the same way, although this Blessed One is a single entity, he should be viewed as appearing in the various forms of saṃsāra. Likewise, that very Blessed One should be realized as the nature of both existence and non-existence.
One might ask: "If the Blessed One is the nature of both existence and non-existence, how can he arise as the non-dual reality? Since he is the nature of all things, the defects of the apprehended and the apprehender would remain in him in that way." To this it is said: "without conceptual elaboration and without stain."
Ultimately, the Blessed One is free from conceptual elaboration and is thus not perceived by the elaboration of non-existence. Why is that? Because he is unstained; for the nature of non-existence is that which is stained. Since he is unstained, there is nothing to be grasped in him, because duality is characterized by defects. If one asks, "How then is it said that his nature is both existence and non-existence?" it is said: "He acts within becoming." This means that the Blessed One is described in that way by way of the nature of existence and non-existence as he engages in saṃsāra; the intention is that he acts as a teacher for those sentient beings who are striving within saṃsāra.
Now, if that wisdom of suchness alone abides in accordance with saṃsāra, and if the ultimate nature of both existence and non-existence is devoid of their own inherent natures, how is this logical? As long as the nature of the Blessed One is understood to engage in accordance with becoming, or if it does not exist, then when it is not known, how can that nature of becoming abide as the nature of all beings, both existent and non-existent? Furthermore, if that cognition does not arise as the very basis of blue, there is no awareness for the cognition of yellow to arise; and if a single moon does not exist, how could it be perceived in the form of two?
Then, if the Blessed One enters into becoming after having known this, at that time he enters by means of the nature of self-awareness. In that regard, if he enters by means of awareness through his own very nature, then since this becoming is also known in that way, how could this becoming be clearly and individually manifest as the nature of both existence and non-existence? Because its nature is devoid of such natures as these, just as when the nature of blue is manifest, it is impossible for a cognition of the entity of yellow to arise. Therefore, since this manifold becoming is also clearly manifest by its own such nature, the Blessed One would not be clearly manifest as the nature of all beings, whether existent or non-existent, because he is utterly devoid of those two natures.
Then, if it is argued that he enters into awareness as the nature of another, at that time the various states of becoming would not be known here; for nowhere does an awareness arise that is known as something else. To be known as the nature of another is not its own essence, just as it is not logical for the cognition of a vase to become the cognition of a cloth—these are the objections. Since suchness is the knowledge of its own nature, becoming is thus as follows: although it is the essence of knowledge here, nevertheless, because it is veiled by the cause of not knowing itself in that way through its own essence, it is known as something else.
For that very reason, it is called "conventional" (saṃvṛti); it is said to refer to saṃsāra. Furthermore, because this completely covers and obscures suchness, it is called "conventional." When suchness is definitively known through this, it becomes one's own very nature; at that time, how could one continue to engage in saṃsāra? Therefore, any cognition of it as having another nature is saṃsāra due to the fault of wrong view. For example, it is like the vision of a person with cataracts, to whom the stainless sky appears to be filled with tangled hairs and the like. If that [nature] were known by something other than itself, how could that be knowledge? Since that which is called "knowing it as it is" would not accord with the actual state of things, the aforementioned points would not be subject to refutation.
This is not so. If it were otherwise, and this suchness were known by something else, would you accept that it is naturally known in that way in all respects? If it were known by something else, how could it be called "knowing its own nature"? Such a fault would arise. If that were the case, how could saṃsāra exist? Therefore, because it is not known as it is in its own nature, this becomes the essence of saṃsāra. All these forward-evolving processes of saṃsāra arise as false appearances, just as if they were created by the hand of the cataracts of habitual tendencies. From what do such things arise? They are born from the power of the maturation of prior karma.
While it is certainly true that one accepts [this], as long as one follows after saṃsāra, the mind follows after it. Therefore, just as there is a consciousness of water in a mirage, there is no contradiction whatsoever in the appearance of suchness as an entity of existence here. Thus, because it has become saṃsāra, by not knowing the nature of the mirage and so forth as it is, it arises in some cases as a false essence. If, however, suchness is known as it is, then while it is certainly true that one accepts it as what is called nirvāṇa when suchness is fully clarified, I too accept that in some cases it becomes nirvāṇa. Therefore, even by not knowing the nature as it is, through mere self-awareness itself, one will attain all the states of nirvāṇa exactly as they are. For example, when a person has just arrived from the land of Mount Kailash, even if they do not know that the nature of fire is to burn, will it not dispel the cold when it is correctly known and experienced? Furthermore, if one touches it correctly, will it not also not burn? Likewise, if one perceives something like ginger but does not know it to be poison, will it not perform its functions, such as causing salivation and fainting, when eaten?
If it is argued: "Therefore, it is illogical to say that because one does not know the nature of suchness as it truly is, one is in saṃsāra, whereas others, by comprehending that nature, are not." This is not so. Even if the wisdom of suchness knows it exactly as it is, the respective purposes of each [being] will still arise. Is it not the case that when one thing is clearly illuminated by another, that other thing serves as the purpose for the former? If one asks: "In that case, since everyone possesses the knowledge of suchness, would it not follow that there is no need to eliminate bhava (becoming)?" It is not so. It is not said that the mere experience of suchness constitutes nirvāṇa, characterized by the non-existence of the entities of bhava. Suchness alone does not bring about nirvāṇa. If one asks: "When and by what means does it become [nirvāṇa]?" It is through that very knowledge of suchness itself. If one asks: "In that case, would not bhava be absent for everyone?" It is not so, because the nature has not been definitively known as it truly is. When the nature is realized exactly as it is—that is, when it is realized as suchness—at that time it is designated as nirvāṇa. However, sentient beings who have entered the ocean of bhava do not comprehend its nature as it truly is; therefore, not everyone has attained nirvāṇa.
Since the non-dual reality itself follows after duality, why should it not abide as a false cognition? Therefore, how can one speak of it as existing for sentient beings who are completely ignorant of the nature of suchness? If one asks: "In that case, what purpose for suchness is achieved other than nirvāṇa? If nirvāṇa does not arise from knowing that, should one posit that the purpose arises from something else?" It is not so, for there is nothing other than that. The definition of the common purpose is the nature of self-awareness; the wisdom of omniscience called self-awareness is itself the common purpose, which is the very distinction of specifically realizing aspects such as blue, yellow, and so forth. Thus, the self-aware wisdom of suchness exists in the form of various entities and non-entities. Its specific purpose is the distinct realization of the nature of the object, which is the name of nirvāṇa; of this there is no doubt. If one asks: "Is the nature of nirvāṇa not self-awareness? If it were the case that it is distinguished from the purpose of the definition of self-awareness, then nirvāṇa would never at any time become the nature of realization, because it would lack the nature of self-awareness."
If one asks: "How is it that self-awareness knows anything other than itself? If it is of such a nature, then even things like vases would not be aware by their own nature, as they are merely inanimate and lack the capacity for clear manifestation; is not nirvāṇa also like that?"
It is not so. Through the conditions of the eye, the ear, mental engagement, and objects, a consciousness in the form of a vase arises correctly. Although one says, "I am aware of the vase" or "I know the vase," because that [consciousness] is itself inanimate, it lacks the clarity of an agent that performs the action. If one then asks, "Is nirvāṇa also like that?"
It is not so, because its nature is primordial wisdom (jñāna). It is illogical for the essence of primordial wisdom to be known by another primordial wisdom; for that would require yet another primordial wisdom, and for that another, resulting in the fault of infinite regress.
Furthermore, if one says that nirvāṇa is also of the nature of primordial wisdom, does one then assert that nirvāṇa is of the nature of inanimate matter? If one asserts it to be of such a nature, then the nature of all things, such as vases and so forth, would also be nirvāṇa. If that were the case, all beings would be completely liberated without effort, because all things like vases would abide in that very nature, and since they would be of the nature of inanimate matter, there would be no distinction whatsoever between vases and so forth and nirvāṇa.
Furthermore, if nirvāṇa is of the nature of wisdom (jñāna), then there is the fault that the entities of cyclic existence (bhava) would be utterly non-existent at all times. This is because cognitions of blue and so forth exist at all times in that same manner; and if they are wisdom itself, there is no distinction whatsoever between the cognition of blue and the cognition of nirvāṇa.
If one objects to this, it is not so. The wisdom of nirvāṇa arises from the wisdom of suchness (tattva-jñāna); it is impossible for that which is not wisdom to arise [as wisdom]. It is utterly illogical for the activity of cognition to be non-cognition, for a distinction in the effect is produced by a distinction in the cause. Just as it is impossible for a white cloth to be produced from weaving black threads, and a copper vessel cannot be made from clay, so too, the purpose of the wisdom of suchness is the characteristic of self-awareness (svasaṃvedana). Beyond that, the purpose of the specific characteristic of nirvāṇa is the realization of the nature of things as they are. How are these points to be established?
To this it is said: From the purpose of the wisdom of suchness, which is self-awareness, the purpose of the characteristic of nirvāṇa does not arise as a nature other than self-awareness. If one objects that it is contradictory because being other than self-awareness would mean it is not self-awareness, it is not so. The very purpose of the characteristic of nirvāṇa is precisely that self-awareness itself. What is it like?
If it is argued that since there is a distinction between the purpose of self-awareness and this other purpose, and since both are asserted to be self-awareness, the division into two is contradictory, it is not so. It is not the case that everything becomes a single entity called "self-awareness" merely by the name "self-awareness," because they are distinguished by their respective individual divisions. Just as the mere self-awareness of blue, yellow, and so forth does not make their respective essences one, so too the purpose of the wisdom of suchness (tattva-jñāna), characterized by nirvāṇa, exists as a distinction from that commonality of mere self-awareness. Likewise, the entities of becoming (bhava) are also entirely distinguished by mere self-awareness. Therefore, the realization of nirvāṇa also exists because it is of the nature of self-awareness.
If one says that nirvāṇa occurs from realizing the nature of suchness exactly as it is, this would become a mere matter of speaking according to one's own wishes. If "suchness," "nirvāṇa," "liberation," and so forth are merely synonyms, then how is it appropriate to speak of them in terms of the duality of action and agent? How is it that such assertions are tenable?
Although there is no distinction whatsoever in the ultimate, nevertheless, based upon the conventional, all the classifications such as action and agent—which are established as mere convention—are situated as mere convention. In the ultimate, however, there is no duality whatsoever, such as what is called "action" and "agent." As it is said in the Word: "Mahāmati, all phenomena are unborn; they are unborn in both truth and untruth." Therefore, immediately upon the perfect realization of the wisdom of suchness as it is, through being free from habitual tendencies, one will certainly aspire to nirvāṇa. By that seed, it is to be understood as having been produced as mere convention. Furthermore, just as it is said, "How will one be satisfied by the Joyful?" those joys and satisfactions established conventionally do not exist as anything else in nirvāṇa, yet they are established in that way.
Now, if one asks: "How does realization itself arise prior to nirvāṇa?" To that it is said: If you say it is the nature of self-awareness, it is not so. For what purpose is this self-awareness required? Show what the nature of that wisdom is in this existence. If the nature of awareness is not known, it would be like saying one knows a vase without knowing its neck and so forth; thus, you must show whether this nature is perceived as something substantial or whether it is perceived as something insubstantial.
In that regard, if one abides in the position of functional entities, then through the reasoning of being devoid of the nature of being either one or many, suchness itself would become utterly non-abiding. If, on the other hand, one abides in the position of non-entities, since non-existence is preceded by existence, how can one demonstrate that the nature of non-existence exists when existence itself is thus absent?
If it is argued that suchness is that which is called "devoid of the nature of both," even so, because that entity endowed with awareness gives rise to that wisdom, it would possess an apprehended object. Consequently, by virtue of having the nature of an apprehended object, it would become a functional entity, characterized by the definition of an agent and an action.
If it is then argued that this wisdom is without arising because its very nature is self-awareness, in that case, if this wisdom does not produce any actions whatsoever, how could it exist? Since it would be devoid of all capacity, it would be like the son of a barren woman; how then could it be awareness? Therefore, nirvāṇa would become a nature of emptiness that is utterly devoid of all capacity.
Even if that were the case, if self-awareness were definitely present therein, one would have to admit that this wisdom possesses action, agent, and so forth. If those were to occur, it would result in the same fault as before: the apprehension of a functional entity, because a functional entity is characterized by action and agent.
Then, because it is by nature free from the aspects of duality, there is no awareness of that suchness as having a nature of "thusness." If one asks, "In that case, how many faults remain in perceiving it as a functional entity possessing wisdom, an agent, and so forth?"—even so, because there is no entity of "thus-awareness," what kind of nirvāṇa could there be? If one asks, "Does this not lead to the fault of not even individually cognizing nirvāṇa?"—it is not so. What is being shown is that it is inexpressible. Does its absence mean that the nature of self-awareness is also destroyed and non-existent? How could a mute person or the like, having tasted a supreme flavor, fail to experience that flavor simply because they are unable to describe it?
The passage beginning with "The many types of powers have been taught" and so forth indicates that this very tantra is superior to other tantras. It is stated that the suchness of the mantras and so forth taught in this tantra is accomplished by merely hearing them; by that single utterance, the accomplishments are bestowed. Here, even the preliminary service is not required, and likewise, accomplishment is achieved without the need for hundreds of thousands of recitations and the like.
The passage beginning with "By drawing the images" and so forth indicates that the yogi, by describing the nature of various powers, should engage sentient beings. Therefore, by drawing images and so forth, those sentient beings who are difficult to tame are tamed through seeing what is uncommon to others.
By that, one becomes a vessel for the teaching of the Dharma. Regarding the phrase "transforming one's own form," this means discarding one's individual name and form to assume the form of a lion, a tigress, or the like. "Entering another's village" means completely discarding one's own body and causing one's own consciousness to enter into the body of another. One who is capable of performing all such powers is a yogin of the Buddhakapāla.
Furthermore, regarding the phrase "moreover, it shall be explained," this refers to the removal of poison and the immediate extraction of its potency, which are described and taught here. Then, regarding the statement "the eighteen applications are taught," these are the methods for causing those who have eaten and become intoxicated to be cured. These include the application of sālikā and so forth. At the time when they have eaten and become intoxicated, the mantra practitioner should perform the applications of sālikā and the rest as they have been described. Immediately after performing those applications, those who have eaten will be restored to life.
Regarding the "Vidyādharas," two types of Vidyādharas are to be produced from the ground flour. Regarding "gambling," in a place where those who have eaten are present, the mantra practitioner endowed with meditative concentration (dhyāna) should engage in gambling, and thereby those who have eaten will be restored to life. Then, by means of the application of beating a drum, and so forth, the mantra practitioner should perform these eighteen applications.
The supreme wisdom, the nature of Heruka, is clearly explained: "Then, furthermore, it shall be explained: the supreme wisdom of suchness just as it is."
Regarding the phrase "and so forth": the wisdom that is the nature of coemergent joy is that which abides within the channels of the lotus of insight, circulating in the form of seminal essence. Nevertheless, because all these sentient beings are shrouded by the darkness of ignorance, they are bound in saṃsāra by grasping at that nature through the mode of apprehension. When that very [wisdom] is correctly known through the ritual of the coemergent wisdom in the lotus of insight, one experiences the assembly of the deities of the maṇḍala circle. By correctly knowing that very [wisdom] as suchness, the supreme wisdom free from apprehension, it becomes the elixir and so forth in all respects; for that very wisdom is the principal of all accomplishments (siddhis). That which is blessed by such accomplished wisdom is itself the locus of accomplishment; one does not depend on other applications such as mantras or medicines, because all of those are of the nature of that [wisdom]. This is the intended meaning.
Regarding the phrase "the channels abiding in the secret union" and so forth: this is the explanation of the nature of the Citrā class in response to the question of what the suchness of the Citrā class is like. The "channels abiding in the secret" refers to those channels which, being the cause of supreme bliss, are called "the beautiful one" (Citrā) and are thus marvelous. The wisdom that is the nature of bliss is called the "class" (gaṇa).
The entity of such great bliss wisdom, which arises perfectly from the channels, is called the Citrā class. To clarify that this itself is the Great Vehicle (Mahāyāna), it is said: "This very thing is the Great Vehicle," and so forth. "The source channels are the yoginīs" means that the source channels which abide as the wisdom of great joy are of the nature of Citrā; that very thing is said to be the Great Vehicle. Therefore, it is clarified that this itself is the supreme wisdom, the sādhana for all accomplishments (siddhi). These are the first chapter of the Buddhakapāla, the king of tantras of the Unsurpassed Yoginī Tantra, composed by the great learned master Padmavajra, who attained great accomplishment.
Now, the mantra accomplishment is taught: "Then, it is perfectly explained," and so forth. The mantra for offering incense and so on to accomplish the yoginīs is taught as: oṃ buddhakapālini, and so forth. Oṃ hāṃ hāiṃ, and so forth, is the armor mantra (kavaca-mantra); with these, one should don armor in sequence upon the heart, the crown of the head, the top of the head, the shoulders, the eyes, and all the limbs. Oṃ buddhakapālini āḥ khaṃ, and so forth, is the mantra for inviting the Citrā class of yoginīs.
They have arrived authentically in order to bestow blessings. Then, having performed the offering cakes, offerings, and so forth, other mantras for requesting them to depart are spoken: Oṃ mahākāpāla vajriṇī, and so on. Through such means, the yoginīs will grant all accomplishments.
Next, the application for invisibility is taught. The very application by which a yogin is not seen even by gods, asuras, or humans is taught: "Taking white rice," and so forth. In that regard, the white rice is finely ground by a young girl; from that, the image is made. As soon as the young girl has ground it, the yogin himself should make the image. That image should have one face and four arms. The weapons in its hands are taught: "The khaṭvāṅga," and so forth. "Born from the vajra" refers to Akṣobhya. Having taken those very things as they were described, the yogin should perform the mantra recitation one hundred and eight times according to the ritual. The mantra to be recited is also taught: Oṃ mahāvajre, and so forth.
Then, having recited [the mantra] seven times over water, one should smear it on the image. If one washes one's own face with the remainder of that, one will become invisible. Then, even if the yogin engages in various diversions right in front of others, no one will see him. Then, if one washes one's own face and mouth with milk, one will become visible once again.
The application for paralyzing weapons is taught: "Of that image," and so forth. Regarding the image as described, one should not perform those applications in its heart as previously shown. Instead, one should apply the funeral pyre fire to the heart of a vanga tree, and having smeared the image of Vairocana with the "Brahma-vajra"—that is, the ashes of the burnt image—one should take it up. The phrase "arisen from the vajra," and so forth, is clear. By this application of such ashes, one should observe that the malevolent ones will be utterly destroyed. Regarding the phrase "of all the malevolent ones," and so forth: by anointing the body of the yogi with those ashes produced by the application, if he looks with anger, even a thousand fierce ones will have their heads severed. Likewise, by the mere act of mental intention, he causes them to go mad. Similarly, if this very accomplished ash is mixed with excellent sesame oil and applied to the eyes, even objects situated a thousand leagues away will be seen. Once those objects are seen, by the yogi merely striking them with his fist or the back of his hand, they will come of their own accord and remain in his presence. Similarly, another application of that very ash is taught: "That ash with bezoar," and so forth. If the yogi performs this application, even a thousand or a hundred thousand military hosts will fall prostrate.
Regarding the phrase "by merely washing": if the yogin washes that thumb with milk, the enemies will be restored to life. Furthermore, regarding the application of that very ash in another way to transform [substances] into gold, it says "that very ash" and so forth. "The juice of the vaṅga tree" refers to the essence of the vaṅga tree. Then, one should place it into the vajra. "Iron filings" refers to the powder that is also poured therein. The "essence of the vajra-staff" is Akṣobhya. "Having steeped it in great bile" means steeping it in human bile. Then, other applications for the purpose of the "youthful maiden’s vajra-elixir" are taught, beginning with "again, by that very ash" and so forth. Having applied that ash to the crown of the head, one should also thoroughly moisten the youthful maiden with that which arises from the vajra. Furthermore, one should also make a tilaka on her with that very ash. Regarding "if one fumigates her with the five incenses," it means if one fumigates that youthful maiden with the incense of the five amṛtas. Through such an application, all youthful maidens will speak. Having performed such an application for that youthful maiden, other applications are described for the purpose of causing the seven accomplished swords to emerge from the mouth, beginning with "for the fruit of accomplishing the goal" and so forth. The "fruit of accomplishing the goal" is the fruit of white mustard seeds. Through this application, the accomplishment of a vidyādhara is produced.
Furthermore, that same ash is taught for the accomplishment of the pill (guḍikā-siddhi). Regarding the phrase "that ash" and so forth: having wrapped it in the three metals and made it into a pill means that the yogi should form it into a pill for the purpose of achieving the accomplishment of the pill using the ash of copper, silver, and gold. Likewise, the other accomplished mantras (siddha-mantra) taught are also easy to understand as they are exactly as they appear.
These are the notes on the second chapter of the Buddhakapāla, the King of Tantras of the Unsurpassed Yoginī Tantra, composed by the great learned master Padma-vajra, who attained the great accomplishments (mahāsiddhi).
The Tattvacandrikā, the Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Buddhakapāla Tantra, composed by the great learned master Padma-vajra, is hereby complete.