A. Prologue
The theory or conception of guru in various strands of Buddhism may be called here “Buddhist gurulogy.” The primary meaning of the Sanskrit word guru is “heavy” as opposed to laghu “light.” By extension, a spiritual mentor would be called a guru. From a Buddhist perspective, a guru, like a buddha and others, would be a “field” (kṣetra: zhing). That is, one may sow beneficent or maleficent seeds in the field and accordingly “reap” rich yields either in the form of puṇya (bsod bsams) or pāpa (sdig pa). Thus, a guru may be seen as a “person of heavy/grave consequences.” To be sure, there are various kinds of kṣetra, which is, however, beyond the scope of the present endeavor.
What I am primarily interested in here is gathering some textual sources for trying to answer the question as to whether the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru(s)—which is popular in Tibetan Buddhism—can be traced in Indic sources. As far as I can see, it appears that the concept, though not as prevalent as the concept of taking refuge in the Three Jewels, can be—directly and indirectly, explicitly and implicitly—found in Indic sources. The explicit sources, however, seem rather rare or doubtful, whereas implicit sources are abundant and clear.
1. Explicit Sources for the Idea of Taking Refuge in One’s Guru
In general the concept of taking refuge in the Three Jewels would vary according to the doctrinal affiliation, orientation, or, progression, and the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru (or vajrācārya) should be set primarily in a Vajrayāna context. The term guru, however, is not confined to Tantric sources. We can find it even in the Vinaya context. See, for example, Mūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikā (D, fol. 1b4–5): bla ma gnas pa’i sgo glegs la || lag pas dal gyis brdung bar bya ||. This work has been, by the way, attributed to one Nāgārjuna. In the pre/non-Tantric context, we should be thinking of an ācārya or kalyāṇamitra (often but not necessarily in the sense of one’s teacher/master).
While Tibetan textual sources for the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru seem abundant, explicit Indic sources seem rather scarce, late, and doubtful. Some (supposedly) Indic sources found in the bsTan ’gyur may now be presented. (a) The first source is Umāpatideva’s Vajrayoginīmaṇḍalavidhi (D, fol. 53b1–2), which states: sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun te || nges par gsum la skyabs su mchi || ’khor lo gsum gyi rang bzhin can || bye brag mkha’ ’gro ma rnams dang || dpa’ bo dpa’ mo’i dbang phyug ma || rgyal ba’i sras rnams ma lus dang || thams cad gus pa’i rang bzhin gyis || bla ma rnams la skyabs su mchi ||. This is one of the most explicit sources for the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru(s). I do not seem to find the corresponding Sanskrit, if it exists, in English 2002. But this would need further investigation. (b) The second source is the *Sāmānyadharmacaryā (D, fols. 266b7–267a1) ascribed to Kṛṣṇa and which states: mdo rgyud rtogs pa’i dgongs pa’i [= pa] ’grel mdzad cing || nyon mongs mi mthun phyogs spong thabs bstan nas || yon tan mchog rnams rgyud la sbyor mdzad pa || dus gsum bla ma rnams la skyabs su mchi ||. Until a Sanskrit source comes forth, its Indic origin may remain doubtful. The third source is *Saṃvarabhadra’s *Śaraṇagamanacittotpādacatuḥsekāvavāda (D, fol. 150a5): bdag ming ’di zhes bgyi ba snying po byang chub la thug gi bar du bla ma la skyabs su mchi’o || yi dam la skyabs su mchi’o || mkha’ ’gro la skyabs su mchi’o ||. This not only shows the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru, but also the idea of taking refuge in what came to be known as the “Three Roots” (rtsa ba gsum), namely, bla ma (i.e., guru), yi dam (iṣṭadevatā), and mkha’ ’gro (ḍākinī). The provenance of this work, however, seems uncertain. At any rate, as we can see, most of these sources do not go back to the pre-eleventh century. Even if these were indeed composed or compiled by Indian scholars, the possibility of Tibetan influences remains real.
2. Implicit Sources for the Idea of Taking Refuge in One’s Guru
Although explicit Indic textual sources for the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru are somewhat meager, late, and doubtful, Indic sources that implicitly show and justify the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru seem abundant, early, and unquestionable. Whether the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru is doctrinally justifiable or not seems to hinge on the very concept of taking refuge in general and the nature and role of a guru/vajrācārya, especially its proposed/presupposed relationship with the Three Jewels and particularly with the Buddha, or, a buddha. In this regard, let us first take a look at what Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra (pp. 224.12–225.5) states: bla ma bkur ba’ang [1] theg pa chen po pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul las kyang | dge ba’i bshes gnyen sangs rgyas dang ’dra bar blta’o || zhes ni gsungs na | ’phags pa dkon cog nyid du ni ma bshad do || [2] gsang sngags kyi tshul las ni | [2a] rdo rje slob dpon dkon cog bzhi par bshad pa yang yod | [2b] sangs rgyas dang mnyam par bshad pa yang yod | [23] lhag par bshad pa yang yod de | [2a] de la dkhon cog bzhi par bshad pa ni | ’di skad du | sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun dang || slob dpon yang ni phyi ma yin || dkon cog bzhi yi sbyor ba yis || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o || [2b] mnyam par gsungs pa’ang | bla ma sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o || [2c] lhag par gsungs pa’ang | phyogs bcu dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas thams cad kyi bsod nams kyi phung pos ni | rdo rje slob dpon gyi spu’i bu ga gcig gi grangs su yang nye bar mi ’gro’o || zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs pa lta bu ste | de ltar tshul gsum [i.e., 2abc] gyi sgo nas bkur ba’i tshul yang rnam pa gsum du grags pa las | gang rung gcig dgos te bsrung bar bya ba yin no || bkur ba’i yon tan yang gsang sngags kyi tshul las ni | zhing dag pa rnams kyi dam pa rdo rje slob dpon yin par gsungs so || theg pa chen po pha rol tu phyin pa las ni | zhing dag pa’i dam pa byang chub sems dpa’ dam pa rnams yin par gsungs so || theg pa thun mong las ni | zhing dag pa’i dam pa ’phags pa dkon cog gsum yin te | de’i ’og tu pha dang ma dang nad pa dang chos smra ba’i mkhan po dang | skye mtha’i byang chub sems dpa’ rnams yin par gsungs te | ’di lta bu la sogs pa ni gzhung so so las bsod nams kyi zhing so sor grags pa yin no ||.
This passage occurs in the context of explaining the five primary Tantric pledges (rtsa ba’i dam tshig lnga) of the *Guhyagarbhatantra and specifically the Tantric pledge of respecting one’s guru (bla ma bkur). Actually, this short passage provides us with a somewhat nuanced perspective of how kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru has been viewed by various Buddhist sources and systems. (1) Position one is that kalyāṇamitra has been considered in the Pāramitānaya akin to the Buddha or a buddha, but not considered a Jewel. (2) In the Mantranaya, however, a vajrācārya has been viewed in three ways: (a) as the Fourth Jewel (dkon mchog bzhi pa), (b) equal to the buddhas, and (c) more than the buddhas. He thus speaks of “three modes” (tshul gsum) of Mantranayic “Gurulogy” and hence accordingly three kinds of mode (tshul rnam pa gsum) of respecting one’s guru(s). The whole topic of Gurulogy has been, however, set within the frame of what he calls “the sublime ones who are pure fields” (zhing dag pa’i dam pa). I do not know if he had something like kṣetraśuddhi and sukṣetra in mind. Thus any discussion of Buddhist Gurulogy would necessitate considering the Buddhist notion of “field” (kṣetra), which would include parents, the sick (and the needy), a bodhisattva in his final existence (from a conservative Buddhist perspective), and importantly for the present case, a teacher (dhārmakathika/dharmakathika: chos smra ba). The locus classicus for such an idea, at least for Tibetan scholars, would be Abhidharmakośa 4.118: mātṛpitṛglānadhārmakathikebhyo ’ntyajanmane | bodhisattvāya cāmeyā anāryebhyo ’pi dakṣiṇā ||. One notices that also Rong-zom-pa is ad sensum alluding to Abhidharmakośa 4.118. In such a context, conceptual clarity between terms such as puṇyakṣetra (bsod nams kyi zhing) and guṇakṣetra (yon tan gyi zhing) is necessary.
In this connection, we may also take a look at following passage from the A ti sha’i gsung ’bum (p. 1128.1–3): de la rtsa ba’i dam tshig dang | bla ma bskur ba’i skabs su thams cad bkur bar bya ba yin na lhag par yang dbang dang dam tshig dang | man ngag mnos pa ste | rnams (sic) bskur bar bya ste | de yang sangs rgyas pas lhag par ram | mnyam pa’am | dkon mchog bzhi par bskur bar bya’o ||. This passage is interesting because it seems to presuppose the samaya scheme found in the *Guhyagarbhatantra.
Being inspired by some scholars such as Rong-zom-pa, I may consider some possible relationships between one’s kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru and the Three Jewels. First, a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru may simply be seen as a spiritual mentor, role model, and guide and hence naturally be considered to be a member of the Saṃgha, and hence also an object of one’s refuge. Rong-zom-pa, as we have seen above, explicitly states that in the Pāramitānaya, kalyāṇamitra should be seen akin to a buddha but still not considered a Jewel. To be noted is that the idea of taking refuge in animate (e.g., all kinds of non-human beings) and inanimate (e.g., trees) can also be found in Buddhist sources mainly to contrast the taking of refuge in the Three Jewels but this should not concern us here. Second, an ācārya/guru has also been considered a semblance of the Buddha or a buddha (sangs rgyas dang ’dra ba) mainly in terms of the soterial benefits one derives from him and in terms of one’s indebtedness to him. In this context, too, it seems legitimate to view one’s ācārya/guru as one’s object of refuge. Third, an ācārya/guru has also been considered equal to the Buddha or a buddha (sangs rgyas dang mnyam pa). Often he is said to be not only equal to the Buddha or a buddha but to all buddhas (sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam pa). If all buddhas can be the object of one’s refuge, why can one not take refuge in one’s ācārya/guru who is equal to all buddhas? Fourth, Tibetan sources, however, add a nuanced interpretation of the third position probably because Tibetan scholars realized that the claim that someone excels the Buddha or a buddha is hardly tenable. Thus, a guru is equal to all buddhas in terms of what they abandoned and realized (spangs rtogs) but excels them in terms of the benefit that one derives and hence the degree of gratitude one owes. In the light of this, the famous line would make sense: yon tan sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam na yang || bka’ drin sangs rgyas kun las lhag pa’i mgon ||. Fifth, a guru/vajrācārya has also been considered the embodiment of all buddhas and all Three Jewels. This idea is captured by the expressions such as bla ma sangs rgyas kun ’dus and bla ma dkon mchog kun ’dus. Sixth, a guru/vajrācārya is also regarded as the “Fourth Jewel” (dkon mchog bzhi pa). Seventh, an ācārya has often been said to be an emanation of the Buddha. Eighth and finally, according to what Rong-zom-pa calls “Extraordinary/Special Mahāyāna” (theg pa chen po thun mong ma yin pa), or, his Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda, while all positions mentioned above may be acceptable from a common Buddhist/Mahāyāna perspective, there seems to be a radical re-evaluation of the nature and role of a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru. What is actually a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru? Is he a super/perfect teacher, a human being? If so, what does it mean? Someone who is free of all faults, who can please all, and who is able to place all sentient beings in the state of the Buddhahood? Is such a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru at all possible? If not, what makes someone a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru, and whose? The Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādins seem to have come to the realization that no one is intrinsically a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru, but extrinsically anyone can be a trigger for someone’s salutary or salvatory breakthrough and hence his or her kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru. The secret therefore is not to expect a perfect kalyāṇamitra but try to turn everyone into one’s kalyāṇamitra! Even a pāpamitra, even one’s enemy, or a māra may turn out to be one’s kalyāṇamitra if one can use them for one’s salutary and salvatory benefits. Such an attitude or approach is consonant with the idea that nothing is intrinsically toxic or tonic, poisonous or medicinal, but anything can either have a toxic or tonic effect. The secret seems to lie in dealing with the substance in such a way that one derives only benefit from it.
3. Indic Sources for Guru Being the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha
The idea that a guru is the Buddha, Dharma, Saṃgha seems to be quite popular in Indic sources. Here are some random sources. First, it is found in Raviśrījñāna’s Guṇabharaṇī Ṣaḍaṅgayogaṭippaṇī (Newman 1987: 5; Sferra 2000: 76): gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca | gurur vajradharaḥ śrīman gurur evātra kāraṇam ||; Tib. (Sferra 2000: 76): bla ma sangs rgyas bla ma chos || de bzhin bla ma dge ’dun te || dpal ldan bla ma rdo rje ’dzin || bla ma nyid kyis ’dir byed rgyu’o ||. Second, it is also found also in the Guhyasamayasādhanamālā (English 2002: 393, n. 50): gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca | gurur vajradharaḥ śrīman gurur evātra kāraṇam ||. This reference contains additional details. Third, the idea is also found in a citation in Anupamavajra’s Ādikarmapradīpa (de La Vallée Poussin 1898: 194; Takahashi 1993: 142): gurur buddho bhaved dharmaḥ saṃghaś cāpi sa eva hi ||. Fourth, it is found in the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Part I, Bendall 1903: 383): gurur buddho bhaved dharmaḥ saṃghaś cāpi sa eva hi | yatprasādāl labhyet tattvaṃ paraṃ ratnatrayaṃ varam ||. Fifth, the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha indicates the source to be Indrabhūti. And indeed it is found in his Jñānasiddhi 1.24 (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 95): gurur buddho bhaved dharmaḥ saṃghaś cāpi sa eva hi | prasādād jñāyate tasya yasya ratnatrayaṃ varam ||; Tib. (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 150): bla ma sangs rgyas chos gyur cing || dge ’dun yang ni de bzhin te || de yi drin gyis shes ’gyur bas || de bas dkon mchog gsum yin no ||.
Sixth, I cannot tell the direction of influence (if one presupposes one), but a similar idea can be found also in the Brahmanical tradition, for which, see, for example, Christopher Wallis, “The Tantric Age: A Comparison of Śaiva and Buddhist Tantra,” 2016 (online, n. 25) where the Buddhist gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca has been juxtaposed to the Brahmanical gurur brahmā gurur viṣṇur gurur devo maheśvaraḥ.
4. Indic Sources for the Idea of Guru Being the Fourth Jewel
First, Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 1067.17–19): dkon mchog bzhi yi sbyor ba dang || phyag rgya de la gzhol bar bya || sangs rgyas chos dang ’phags dge ’dun || slob dpon yang ni phyi [= pha?] ma’o ||. Here, if I see things correctly, ācārya is here the Fourth Jewel. This translation is by Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam-dpal-go-cha). Second, *Mañjuśrīkīrti’s Vajrayānamūlāpattiṭīkā (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 818.16–17) also states: dkon mchog bzhi yi sbyor ba dang || phyag rgya de la gzhol bar bya || sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun dang || slob dpon yang ni pha ma’o ||. Third, the Ālokālaṃkāra, a commentary on the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra (Bᵀ, vol. 34, p. 183.9–12), by an anonymous author but whose Indic provenance has been questioned, states: de dag ni bla na med pa’i khyad par du ’phags pa’i dkon mchog bzhi zhes bya ste | de ’dra ba’i bla na med pa’i dkon mchog bzhi la bdag cag lha dang bcas pa’i ’jig rten skyabs su mchi zhes par ’brel to ||. This, however, suggests a different list of Four Jewels, the fourth being gsang sngags bla na med pa. This is explained in the context of explaining the Durgatipariśodhanatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 85, p. 187.9–11): sangs rgyas ’dra ba’i ston pa med || chos dang ’dra ba’i dge ba med || dge ’dun ’dra ba’i snod med de || sngags dang ’dra ba’i ’dren pa med ||. This seems to be found only in one of the two Tibetan translations.
5. Indic Sources for the Idea that a Teacher Should Be Seen as the Teacher or the Buddha
The idea that one should see one’s teacher as the Teacher (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha) seems to be found in several Indic sources. The Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra (Nobel 1937: 78) states: tasya ca dharmābhāṇakasya bhikṣor āntike śāstṛsaṃjñā utpādayitavyā |; Tib-1 (Nobel 1944: 59): dge slong chos smra ba de la yang ston par ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||. Here is an English translation (Emmerick 1996: 31): “ln the presence of that monk who is preaching the Law he must produce the thought that the monk is his teacher.” Emmerick interprets śāstṛ here as “a teacher” and not “the Teacher” (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha). See also Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra (Nobel 1937: 81): tasya dharmābhāṇakasyāntike śāstṛsaṃjñotpādayitavyā |; Tib. (D, fol. 88b1–2): chos smra ba’i mkhan po la ston pa chen po’i ’du shes bskyed par bgyi’o ||; Eng. (Emmerick 1996: 32): “In the presence of that preacher of the Law he must produce the thought that the preacher is his teacher.” That at least some did interpret śāstṛ as the Teacher (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha) is evident from the following Tibetan translation (D, fol. 89a): chos smra ba’i mkhan po la sangs rgyas kyi ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||. We also find statements such as: de’i phyir byang chub sems dpa’ sems dang po bskyed pa nas theg pa chen po la gnas pa thams cad la sangs rgyas kyi ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||.
Sources for such an idea seem to be abundant. See, for example, the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra (Harrison 1978: 25): dge ba’i bshes gnyen rnams la ston par ’du shes pa |; ibid. (Harrison 1978: 42): chos smra ba la’ang de bzhin byams pa skyed || ston par ’du shes rtag tu nye bar zhog ||; ibid. (Harrison 1978: 196): bzang skyong | de la byang chub sems dpa’ lhag pa’i bsam pa phun sum tshogs pa | byang chub don du gnyer ba de dag gis dpag tshad brgya po der song nas | gang las ting nge ’dzin ’di thos par gyur pa’i slob dpon de la des ston pa’i ’du ses bskyed par bya’o ||.
Klong-chen-pa, on several occasions, refers to the idea of “four notions” (’du shes bzhi), which includes the notion that one’s kalyāṇamitra should be viewed as a buddha. But an exact Indic source for it seems to be lacking even though he does even mention some Indic sources such as the Samādhirājasūtra. My explanation for now is that Klong-chen-pa was probably making use of the idea found in rDzogs-chen scholar dBus-pa sTon-shāk’s alias Dam-pa bSe-sbrag-pa’s Kun ’dus rig pa’i sgron me (via BuddhaNexus), which states: brtan bya’i sgo nas bsrung ba’i ’du shes bzhi || dge ba’i bshes la sangs rgyas ’du shes dang || des bstan chos la lam gyi ’du shes dang || de sgrub rnams la grogs kyi ’du shes dang || sems can kun la bu gcig ’du shes te || ’di dag smon pa’i bslab bya yang dag go ||. By the way, it appears that the identity, name/s, and date of the author would require further investigation. Matthew Kapstein calls him dBus-pa sTon-shāk and Dam-pa bSe-sbrag-pa and if I remember correctly, he dates him to the twelfth-century (i.e., his floruit). In the BDRC (P2KG207265), however, he is called Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje and has been dated to the thirteenth-century. While the date still remains to be scrutinized, it should be noted that the author in the “author colophon” (i.e., to be distinguished from “authorship colophon”) of the Kun ’dus rig pa’i sgron me calls himself Shākya’i-dge-slong Ban-dhe [= Ban-de] Shākya-rdo-rje (Kaḥ thog bka’ ma, vol. Shi, fol. 324b5). Of course, a scholar can have more than one name just as the author gives multiple titles to his work. To be sure, the above cited verses are Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje’s own mūla texts. He does not seem to claim that these are based on Indic scriptures. Klong-chen-pa, however, appears to have attempted to trace Indic sources assuming that the idea is found in Indic sources. To be sure, similar sets of four notions can be found in all and sundry Indic sources, according to which a kalyāṇamitra is to be seen, for example, as a doctor or healer (vaidya: sman pa) (Wangchuk 2020: 87–90).
6. Indic Sources for the Idea That a Vajrācārya/Guru Is More than a Buddha
We have seen above that Rong-zom-pa indicates a source for the idea that a vajrācārya/guru is more than a buddha. Possibly, he has been thinking of the idea found, for example, in the Guhyasamājatantra (Matsunaga 1978: 104–105): tadyathā api nāma kulaputra yāvanto buddhā bhagavanto daśasu dikṣu viharanti teṣāṃ ca buddhānāṃ bhagavatāṃ yāvat kāyavākcittavajrajaḥ puṇyaskandhaḥ sa ca puṇyaskandha ācāryasyaiva romakūpāgravivare viśiṣyate | tat kasmād dhetoḥ | bodhicittaṃ kulaputra sarvabuddhajñānānāṃ sārabhūtam utpattibhūtaṃ yāvat sarvajñajñānākaram iti |; Tib. (D, fol. 143a7–b2): ’di lta ste gzhan yang rigs kyi bu sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das phyogs bcu na | ji snyed bzhugs pa’i sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das de rnams kyi sku dang gsung dang thugs rdo rje las byung ba’i bsod nams kyi phung po ji snyed pa de bas kyang | slob dpon gyi ba spu’i bu ga gcig gi bsod nams khyad par du ’phags so || de ci’i phyir zhe na | rigs kyi bu byang chub kyi sems ni sangs rgyas thams cad kyi ye shes kyi snying por gyur pa bskyed pa gnas par gyur pa nas | thams cad mkhyen pa’i ye shes kyi ’byung gnas yin pa’i bar du’o ||. This passage has also been cited with slight variation, for example, in the Jñānasiddhi (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 151); Tib. (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 234).
7. An Indic Sources for the Idea that Dharma is One’s Guru
I am not sure if I understand the following statement found in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Dutt, p. 75): dharmaguravo hi buddhabodhisattvāḥ | dharme hi tatkriyamāṇe pareṣām adhimātraṃ dharmagauravam utpadyate|; Tib. (Gangs-can-rig-brgya’i-sgo-’byed-lde-mig 24, p. 123): chos ni sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyi bla ma yin pa’i phyir te | chos la bkur sti byas na gzhan dag kyang shas cher chos la gus pa bskyed par ’gyur la |. This seems to say that the dharma is the guru of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and that hence by respecting dharma, one would also generate respect for the buddhas and bodhisattvas. In other words, if one respects dharmaratna, one would also come to respect buddharatna and saṃgharatna.
Ω. Epilogue
What I have attempted to do here is merely to take down some notes of Indic textual sources pertinent to the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru(s). Sources that explicitly allude to the idea seem to be rather rare but those sources that support such a concept seem to be abundant.
Pratisaṃvid 