Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»
1. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 452.3-4; the exact sense of rang gis khyab ‘brel is obscure.
2. The Shangs-pa bka’-br gyud- pa are discussed in Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 499-504, and in Kapstein 1980, 1992.
3. bKa’ gdams rin po che i chos ‘byung, pp. 307-9; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp. 106-8.
4. The following material on sPa-tshab is taken almost exclusively from Lang 1990, and the reader should see her fuller treatment for further details; see also Ruegg 2000, pp. 27-55.
5. The first of these has been translated in Eckel 1987.
6. rNam thar yang grags, p. 190.2-4.
7. For an assessment of the consequences of this position in India, see Davidson 2002c, pp. 99-102.
8. The sources disagree on this issue; the mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 2, p. 860.10, indicates that Dus-gsum mkhyen-pa learned these at gSang-phu, where he was one of the “three khams-pa,” but the first Karma-pa’s hagiography places this at ‘Phan-yul, which is more likely; see r]e dus gsum mkhyen pa’i rnam thar by rGwalo rNam-rgyal rdo-rje (1203-82), Dus gsum mkhyen pa’ i bka ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 59.3.
9. For Phya-pa, see van der Kuijp 1978 and 1983, pp. 59-70.
10. According to gZhon-nu-dpal, rGya-dmar-pa had also been the student of Zha-ma lo- tsa-ba’s son, Lha-rje Zla-ba’i ‘od-zer; Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 283; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 231-32. However, since Lha-rje Zla-ba’i ‘od-zer was reputed to have been born in rr23, or fourteen years after the birth of Phya-pa, it is unclear how Phya-pas teacher would be the disciple of a man so junior to himself.
11. van der Kuijp 1983, p. 60.
12. Phag mo gru pa i rnam thar rin po che’i phreng ba, p. I I.I.
13. Jackson 1987, vol. 1, pp. 129-31, 169-77-
14. van der Kuijp 1983, p. 69.
15. For an overview of the history of this system, see Newman 1985, 1998; Orofino 1997.
16. Kha rag gnyos kyi rgyud pa byon tshul mdor bsdus, p. 14.
17. Kalacakra-tantra 1.150; on this point, see Davidson 2002a.
18. The following sources have been used for his biography: autobiographical accounts are in the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 401-2; mNyam med sgam po pa i rnam thar, dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 267-339; Lho rong chos ‘byung, pp. 168-77; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 789-800. We may note that there was a dispute on sGam- po- pa’s dates as well; dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 277.2, says that he was born in a bird year (1069 or rn81); a date refuted in Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 175, in its questionable chronology. Si-tu identifies a site said to have been sGam-popa’s birthplace; Kah thog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, p. 258.
19. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 789.9-10, states that there were three branches of sNyi-ba: rGya-snyi, g.Yu-snyi, and Bod-snyi, this last the Tibetan branch. His source for this is unclear to me. A sNyi-ba participated in the tomb looting after the collapse of the dynasty; see mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 433.4-8.
20. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 280.2, says that he studied this and other rNyingma works with sLob-dpon Jo-sras rGyal-mtshan grags-pa.
21. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 401-2; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 55-56.
22. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 402.5; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, p. 98; this period of thirteen months is expanded to forty months in dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 320.
23. ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung p. 386.
24. Samadhiraja-sutra, passim; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 2-51, relates some of the myths accorded that bodhisattva through the later chapters of the work.
25. Jackson 19946, p. 39. Jackson ‘s analysis of sGam-po-pa is done from the position of the affirmation of Sa-par;i’s perspective and primarily through the lens of later Tibetan scholars; it does not take sufficient account oflndian literature generally and Vajrayana literature in particular. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 173, 217-30, vol. 2, pp. 328-29, repeatedly makes the point of Saraha’s importance to sGam-po-pa, and one does not need to go very far through Saraha’s doha corpus to find a castigation of scholars on a par with those identified by Jackson 19946, pp. 39-41. Rather than sGam- po-pa’s idiosyncratic personal position, it appears to be the heritage of his lineage. More to the point, I know of no normative Indian Mahayanist that maintains that conceptualization (vikalpa) is appropriate to awakening; compare Mahayanasutralamkara 1.11-14, which discusses why it is that vikalpa is the only klesa for the bodhisattva and therefore the Mahayana is not within the purview of scholasticism, echoed in sG am- po-pa ‘s rje phag mo gru pa’ i zhus len, sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 471.7-72.1, and noted by Jackson 1994b, pp. 150-51. References like this could be multiplied at great length, but it appears that sGam-po-pa’s metaphor of the dkar po chig thub builds on well-established models.
26. Jackson 1994b, pp. 14-28, does a good job of introducing this problem; Mathes forthcoming, shows that sG am- po-pa’s position has roots in the writings of Advayavajra and Sajahavajra.
27. For his discussions of this material, see sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 333-35, vol. 2, pp.· 329- 378.
28. Abhisamayalamkaraloka, p. 270.13.
29. One of the sixteen Arhats, Cudapanthaka, was said to have realized all the Tripitaka by contemplation; Divyavadana, p. 429.
30. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 460-62, contains some quotations, but the one text that is a curious amalgam of odd bits of textual references, with little in the way of continuity or argument, is the bStan bcos lung gi nyi ‘od, which was missing in the older edition of the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum but is included in the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum yid bzhin nor bu, vol. 41 pp. 91-184.
31. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 219, 269, 304, 368; p. 303, shows himself to be familiar with the system of A-ro ye-shes byung-gnas, though it is not clear whether this is from a text or from oral exposure. On similarities between rDzogschen and the bKa’-gdam- pa views, see sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, p. 300.5. In sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 438-39, he voices frustration with rDzogs-chen claims, as noted by Jackson 1994b, p. 30, n. 71.
32. See sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, passim, but the section discussing his most important term, sahaja, and its relationship to rig-pa, 267.5-268.6, is particularly interesting. On p. 273, sGam-po-pa even uses the term rig pa rang shar.
33. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum. For the Rong-lugs fourfold categories, see kLong chen chos ‘byung, p. 393.
34. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 281.2-83.5, 285.4-88.1.
35. The bibliography for this issue is now enormous; important sources include Ruegg 1989; Karmay 1988, pp. 86-106; Demieville 1952; Broughton 1983; Gomez 1983; Ueyama 1983; and Meinert 2002, 2003, forthcoming.
36. gSang ‘dus stong thun, p. 301.1; rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 3.1.6, 17.1.3.
37. Caryamelapakapradipa, Skt. text, pp. 3-7; Tibetan text, pp. 158-67.
38. Caryamelapakapradipa, p. 4, quotes Lankavatara-sutra, p. 55.2-14. See also Lankavatara-sutra, pp. 82, 84. Ruegg 1989, p. 120, notes the use of the Lankavatara-sutra but does not refer to Aryadeva’s use. This same Lankavatara material is quoted in Pelliot Tibetan n6, fol. 129, and Pelliot Tibetan 823, fols. 9b-10a, indicating a Chan awareness; see also Demieville 1952, p. 18. The influence of this scripture on the Northern Chan was contested by McRae 1986, pp. 24-29.
39. bsTan bcos lung gi nyi ‘od, pp. 173-74; this text was not accessible to Jackson 1994b, p. 24, when he voiced his consternation at sGam-po-pa’s sources.
40. Compare Mayer 1997a, a review article of Jackson 1994b.
41. On the patron, see rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 530.3.
42. mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 142- 43 .
43. This was explored by Schopen 1992, 1994a, 19946, 1995.
44. Gyatso 1985; Edou 1996; Rossi-Filibeck 1983; Kollmar-Paulenz 1993, 1998.
45. There is some disagreement on her place and date of birth; see Gyatso 1985, p. 329, and Edou 1996, p. 11r.
46. Martin 1996b also proposed this connection; I thank Bryan Cuevas for bringing the article to my attention.
47. See sNgag log sun ‘byin kyi sk.or, p. 14, about Dam-pa nag-chung, an alternative name for Pha-dam-pa.
48. The following is from Lam ‘bras byung tshul, pp. r15-1.1-16.2.4 (spelling the name Zhwa-ma) which is very close to the Zha-ma lineage work, the Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, pp. 440-47; Zhib mo rdo r:}e, Stearns 2001, pp. 124-31; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par tharpa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 43-48; gDams ngag byung tshulgyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 102-8. The Zha-ma lineage text, or one of the other Lam-‘bras works, is evidently the source for Deb ther sngon po, vol. 11 pp. 271-80; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 218-26. This inference is especially important, since the Lam-‘bras is primarily represented in the Blue Annals through the Zha-ma system. For a map and discussion of the current Pha-drug area, see Diemberger and Hazod 1999, p. 36.
49. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 274, 279-80, 283; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 221, 226, 229. Even though widely acknowledged, we should still note Roerich’s confusion between Zha-ma ma-gcig and Ma-gcig Lab-sgron in Blue Annals, 1949, vol. 1, p. 225, vol. 2, p. 919. The correction was made by Gyatso 1985, pp. 328-29, n. 34, and is the subject of LoBue 1994.
50. The husband is called A-ba lha-rgyal, and the marital age is fourteen in Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 274; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 221.
51. For an especially colorful hagiography, see the Pha dam pa’i rnam thar.
52. For example, Phag-mo gru-pa studied with Zha-ma Ma-gcig; Blue Annals, pp. 226, 557, and sTag-lung chos ‘byung, p. 177.
53. Compare Zha-ma Ma-gcig in Diemberger and Hazod 1999, who wrote an entire article on this fascinating woman without mentioning the Lam ‘bras connection, a reflection of her later employment in Tibetan sacred geography.
54. The following sources were available to me for Sa-chen’s hagiography: bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, pp. 84.2.6-87.3.5; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 132-49; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 48-66; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, pp. 142-44; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 316-21; r]e btsun sa skya pa gong ma gsum gyi rnam par thar pa dpag bsam fjon pa, pp. 70-85; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 108-28; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 22-62.
55. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.r.2: ru lag gtsang stod gram pa’i yul gyi stod du sku ‘khrungs pa’i bla ma chen po sa skya pa zhes gnas las mtshan du grags pa.
56. gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 20-23.
57. I have found no confirmation of a later story that ‘Khon dKon-mchog rgyalpo was first a monk and then later was asked to renounce his vows. T his appear s tied into a much later story of Atisa and the Sa-skya prophecy; see C assinelli and Ekvall 1969, p. 12.
58. We may recall the importance of the KhasarpaQ.a form of Avalokitesvara for later esoteric Buddhism in general and the Virupa myth in particular; see chap.1.
59. For example, gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 109; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 23-24.
60. The name for this building as it was known to sNgags-‘chang Kun-dga’ rinchen was sCo-rum gZim-spyil dkar-po; Schoening 1990, pp. 13-14. Schoening relies on the description of the building as seen during Kal;i-thog Si- tu’s 1919 visit; see Kab thog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, pp. 315-27, esp. pp. 323-24.
61. The early sources in fact begin Sa-chens story at this point; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.2.6; Yar lung jo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 142; Zhib mo rdo lje, Stearns 2001, p. 132.
62. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. 5a5-5b6; the importance of this hagiography is recognized in gDung rabs chen mo, p. 29.11.
63. Solomon 1990 argues that its origin is in Gandhari.
64. Several sources, apparently beginning with the Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 143, indicate that the vision was received in the building then housing the bLabrang-shar; compare rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 317.
65. From rCya-mtsho 1981, p. 27.
66. rJe sa chen la bstod pa, p. 38.2.3; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 88.2.2-3. See also the discussion of Zhen pa bzhi bral literature in rGya-mthso 1981.
67. This extended episode is found in the ¼r lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 143; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 50-51; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 318-19; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 111-12; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 27-28. Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 85.1.1, has Sa-chen study Abhidharma after he works with Ba-ri, and places it in his-twelfth year. The shift in later hagiographers is possibly due to the fact that it would be impossible for anyone to complete the range of studies under Ba-ri outlined in Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s narrative within a sin gle year, whereas rudimentary Abhidharma can be accomplished in that period.
68. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 50.
69. Note that A-mes-zhabs expands the already impressive list of titles for both dKon-mchog rgyal-po and Sa-chen; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 28.4.
70. Intimations of this episode are found in the Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 136- 37.
71. The following material is based on Ba-ri’s hagiography written by bSod-nams rtse-mo, bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, especially fols. 3a-5b.
72. rNam thar yong grags, pp. 201-2; Deb ther sngon po, vol. r, p. 101.5; Blue Annals vol. r, p. 73. Chattopadyaya 1967, pp. 493,498, lists two works (To. 1866, 2704) said to have been translated by Atisa and Ba-ri in Tho-ling, where Atisa was between 1042 and 1045; this means that Ba-ri would have had to learn Sanskrit and classical Tibetan between the ages of two and five; the colophons are clearly apocryphal here.
73. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. ra-16, 4a; while the hagiography calls them rDo-rje gdan-pa che-ba, and rDo-rje gdan-pa chung-ba, it is not clear that these designations would have been reflected in their Indian names: Maha-Vajrasana-pada?, Cuda-Vajrasana- pada?, or something analogous.
74. Many such texts are included in the core of the Bari be’u bum, pp. 1 through 23 of which are actually by Ba-ri lo-tsa-ba; the rest accreted over time with much gter ma material, and by the end of the text ( p. 581.3) there is a reference to rDorje gling-pa (1346-1405).
75. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.4.2-6; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 28-29.
76. For a discussion of Ba-ri’s work and analogous sddhana collections, see Thomas 1903.
77. Also now called the rNam-rgyal sku-‘bum, its location is shown by Schoening 1990, pp. 24-25 (no. 10); bLa ma ba ri lo tsd ha rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. 5ab ( pp. 263-64); gDung rahs chen mo, pp. 28.21-29.12.
78. The dharani was possibly the Sarvadurgatiparsodhani-usnisavijaya-dharani (To. 597 (= 984]). For the use of spells in stiipas, see Schopen 1985. Ba-ri’s hagiography, bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fol. 5a6, claims that 3,140,000 (‘bum ther gsum dang khri tsho bdun bzhugs pa’i rnam rgyal gyi satstsha) clay sealings of the dharani were included in this reliquary, an improbable number.
79. According to Jeffrey Schoening, reported by Stearns 2001, n. 170, this is a temple in Sa-skya itself.
80. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fol. 5a5, indicates that Bari came to Sa-skya at the age of sixty-two, maintained the monastery for ten years, and (fol. 5b5) transferred it to Sa-chen when Ba-ri was seventy; this is mathematically impossible, and we must consider that the ten years were from 1102 until his death in 1112. The chronological calendar in the Tshig mdzod chen mo lists 1111 as both the year of Kun-dga ‘ snying-po’s ascension to the position of Sa-skya Khripa and Ba-ri ‘s death. This is probably based on two different chronologies. The rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 317, maintains that Sa-chens father died when he was eleven (i.e., 1103, but incorrect), while most other sources give ten (1102, correct); compare gDung rahs chen mo, p. 28.22.
81. For the Sa-skya emphasis on this school, see Jackson 1985.
82. This material is obscure; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 85.1.6-2.2: yang bla ma de nyid la rje btsun me tri: ba’i slob ma rje btsun phyag na rdo rje zhes bya ba la bla ma de nyid kyis nos pa’i grub pa sde bco brgyad grub pa’i khongs su gtogs pa du ma dang bcas pa I snying po skor phra mo dang bcas pa nyis shu rtsa Inga yan lag du ma dang bcas pa shi n tu zab pa’i man ngag gis brgyan pa rnams khong du chud par mdzad do I- I had initially suspected much of this was included in Sa-chen’s odd collection of bits in instruction, the dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po che’i phreng ba, but none of these forty-nine texts is attributed to Vajrapani.
83. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 52; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 318; gDung rahs chen mo, p. 31.2-9.
84. This episode is found from the Zhib mo rdo rje, Steams 2001, pp. 136-39; compare bLa ma brgyud pa·i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ha, pp. 53-54; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p: I 13, has an alternative version of the dream. This episode from mKhyen-brtse was translated in Stearns 1997, pp. 192- 93.
85. gDung rahs chen mo, pp. 33.22-34.3.
86. See the short hagiographical notice in the Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 463- 65; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 381-83.
87. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 117;
gDung rahs chen mo, p. 35.
88. This individual is not to be confused with the dGe-shes dGon-pa-ba who was a well-known bKa’-gdams-pa disciple of Atisa; compare rNam thar yang grags p. 193, or with another Zhang-ston Chos-‘bar, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 125; Blue Annals vol. 1, p. 95.
89. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ha, p. 42.1, lists their skills as being gsung rah kyi rtsi dras mkhan po, an office that is unknown to me, perhaps involved in enumerating costs (rtsis) for the writing of the canon. See also gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 100-101.
90. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi·i bcud, pp. 187-90.
91. The two tantras are the rDo rje sems dpa’ nam mkha’ che bram ze rgyas pa’i rgyud, with sixteen chapters that consistently announce themselves as from the Extensive Brahman Tantra [Kaneko (1982), no. 19] and the rDzogs pa chen po lta ba’i yang snying I sangs rgyas thams cad kyi dgongs pa I nam mkha’ klong yangs kyi rgyud [Kaneko 1982, no. 114] in fifty-three chapters, which represents itself as a member of six tantras buried by Myang Ting-nge-‘dzin bzang-po. I thank David Germano for drawing my attention to this latter work.
92. Myang chos ‘byung, p. 207.
93. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 492. Germano (personal communication) suggested that this may be an incipient canon of eleven tantras based on his readings of the colophons of various tantras.
94. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 118, is an exception, for it has Sa-chen study Lam-‘bras four years and then another four on the eight ancillary cycles of practice, but this is a measure of the questionable nature of this narrative. A-mes-zhabs indicates that Sachen was twenty-seven when he began his studies and they lasted until he was thirty-one, or from 1119 to 1123, although we must doubt that the early record can support this level of specificit y; Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 176. The name Mi-bskyod rdo-rje is explicit in the version of the Tibetan hagiographies found in the current printing of the Pod ser, p. 593, translated in chap. 5, and is reflected in Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s gNas bstod nyams dbyang, p. 348.2.1.
95. Several of Stearns’s (2001) arguments are based on the proposition of there being no text of the Lam-‘bras prior to Sa-chen. He points out ( p. 173, n. 20) that the colophon to the A seng ma verifies this. The colophon indicates that Virupa’s work was not committed to writing and that to do so would be a sin. I would take this as the circumstances known to him at that time, but the situation had evidently changed later, for he himself commits the work to writing, and I expect that he had encountered manuscripts by others having done the same.
96. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 146-47; bla ma Dam-pa has Zhang-stonpa’s wife offer the1:exts to Sa-chen, bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 62; a version of this episode is translated in Stearns 2001, p. 250, n. 215.
97. gLegs bam gyi dkar ehags, p. 2: cung zad gsungs pa rnams sngar yi ge med kyang.
98. Sras don ma,127- 2.8, 175-71.
99. sGa theng ma, pp. 192,267,320, 331-33; Sras don ma, p. 200; Bande ma, p. 88. In his Zhang ston la bstod pa, p. 2.3.1, Sa-chen provides a cryptic allusion to Zhangston- pa’s literary holdings: rdo rje’i tshig rnams rgya cher ‘grel mdzad sdud pa por I nges par mchis kyang mi yi gzugs ‘dzin bla ma mchog|.This seems to indicate that Zhang collected extensive commentaries, or (if sdud pa is taken as a variant for sdus pa) perhaps composed a summary. Without some other reference, the verse remains obscure. The colophon indicates that this panegyric was composed when Sa-chen took the Lam-‘bras initiation, but since it mentions Lam-‘bras vocabulary, we still have the question of its textual transmission.
100. Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 184.
101. Note that A-seng evidently appears an occasional teacher of Sa-chen’s, for Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan traces at least one of the lineages in his Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, p. 304.1.1, from bla-ma A-seng to bla-ma Sa-skya-pa. We see the same text and lineage in dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe’i phreng ba, p. 273.3.4, but here with the bla-ma A to Sa-skya-pa, apparently indicating that “bla-ma A” found in so many of these short works is A-seng or was understood to be so by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan.
102. gLegs bam gyi dkar ehags, speaking about his composition of the dkar chags, p.3. The formal title of the Aseng ma, Don bsdus pa, is mentioned under the designation Thams cad kyi don bsdud kyi tshigs su bead pa, gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 4.2.-3.
103. For example, the gSung sgros ma, p. 4.3; bLa-ma Dam- pa’s bLa ma brgyud pa ‘i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 62-63, mentions only the Aseng ma, the sGa theng ma, the kLog skya ma, and the gNyags ma. Specifics on the acceptance of the commentaries are found in Stearns 2001, pp. 24-25.
104. For example, Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 187.
105. This master list is taken from the Lam ‘bras khogphub, p. 5; the items are interpreted according to Sras don ma, pp. 21-24, or according to Zhu byas ma, pp. 5-6.
106. Stearns 2001, p. 30. In an e-mail (dated January 14, 2004), Stearns informed me that he no longer holds this position but believes the sGa theng ma to be authentic and the original dPe mdzod ma of Phag-mo Gru-pa to be lost, replaced by the sGa theng ma.
107. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng p. 404.4.
108. The breaks are Sras don ma, pp. 205, 241, and 381. the colophon, pp. 445-46, seems to indicate that rJe Phul-byung-ba did this when he occupied the abbot’s position of Sa-skya for three years training Sa-chen’s sons: Compare mKhyen-brtse’s gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 128.
109. The intermediate state (Tib.: bar do) is articulated in most detail as a sep- arate category in the lDan bu ma, pp. 361-65.
110. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 128.
111. Lam ‘bras khogphub, p. 187.
112. See p. 357 on the contents of the Pod ser in the following chapter.
113. These works are in section II in the Pod ser; see chapter 9, p. 357; with the Aseng ma, fourteen works by Sa-chen are found in that section.
114. I will provide the titles for these works in the notes so as not to burden the reader; here the reference is to Sa-chens Lus kyi dkyi ‘khor, Pod ser, pp. 135-38.
115. For some of this material and references, see Davidson 1991.
116. Bum dbang gi snang bsgyur ba’i ‘da ka ma, gSang dbang gi skabs su thig le’i rnal ‘byor bzhi, Shes rab ye shes kyi phyag rgya’i mtshan nyid, and dBang bzhi pa’i ‘da’ ka ma dang bum dbang dang thun mong du yi ges sgo dgag pa dang bcas pa; these are collectively represented in Pod ser, pp. 144-51.
117. ‘Das pa’i lam la gsang dbang gi skabs su ‘khor bzhi i rgya, dBang bzhi pa.’i skabs su dang phyug gi don brgyad, Pod ser, pp. 185-87; the former topic was to be taken up later in a text attributed to Sa-skya Pandita, Lam sbas bshad, SKB IV.349.1.2-3.6. n8.
118. Bar do bzhi i gdams ngag, Pod ser, pp. 151-54.
119. rTen ‘brel Inga, Pod ser, pp. 163-66.
120. Crib sel gyi sbyin sreg bsdus pa, Yi ge brgya pa gdon pa ‘i gdams ngag, Pod ser, pp. 166-67, 171-73.
121. Bha ga i yi ge bcu bzhi, Sa bcu gsum pa ‘i phyed kyi mngon rtogs, Pod ser, pp. 18r85, 187-88.
122. Davidson 1991.
123. ‘Phrang bdun gsal ba, Byung rgyal du mi gtong ba’i gnad bzhi, ‘Byung ba !us ‘khrugs rlung dang spyod lam gyi gsal ba i brtse chen thub pas legs bar gsungs, Pod ser, pp. 260-88; see section IV in the Pod ser table in chap. 9, p. 357.
124. rTsa ba med pa’i lam ‘bring po, and Lam ‘bras bsdus pa zhes bya ba’i rtsa ba, Pod ser, pp. 292-99 (which also includes two short works not found in the gLegs bam kyi dkar chags); these constitute section Vin the Pod ser table.
125. gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, pp. 5.4- 6.r; these are in sections VI and VII in the Pod ser, table 10.
126. Phyi nang gi mdzad pa bcugnyis, Pod ser, pp. 339-44.
127. The Lam bsre ba is found in Pod ser, pp. 327-36.
128. One of the gzhung shing chen po bzhi, Pod ser, pp. 300-14.
129. Pod ser, pp. 323-25. 130.
130. SKB I.2.3.4-7.4.6.
131. For example, in Buddhaguhya ‘s Vairocandbhisambodhitantrapi,:ujdrtha, fols. 2a3-4 .
132. Now well known by the translation of mKhas-grub- rje’s manual in Less ing and Wayman 1968.
133. It is unclear at this section of the text whether it is by Ngor-chen himself or completed by Gung-ru Shes-rah bzang-po; Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 118.2.4-5.
134. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 152-53.
135. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 152-53, and compare p. 255, n. 235.
136. Pusti dmar chung, pp. 13-15. This text is also called Pod dmar, but because there exists another Pod dmar by dMar-ston Chos-kyi rgyal-po, the designation Pusti dmar chung is sometimes used by the tradition to avoid confusion.
137. Pod nag, p. 64. Stearns 2001, p. 255, n. 234, indicates that the exact nature of this list was problematic for the tradition but that it was “clarified” in the work of gLo-ba mkhan-chen bSod-nams lhun-grub (1456-1532). The fact that the tradition required more than three hundred years to identify the materials transmitted supports my evaluation of its apocryphal nature.
138. These start with a Grub chen bcu according to the current edition of the SKB and conclude with a Phra mo brgyad kyi man ngag, SKB V.349.3.6-54.3.1, but the compile•rs organization is belied by the designations found on pp. 350.1.1 and 354.3.1. In fact the text on pp. 350.2.2 to 353.2.1, actually entitled in the text “Teachings from the mouth of the Yogesvara Virupa” (dPal rnal ‘byor gyi dbangphyug chen po birwa pa’i zhal gyi gdams pa, pp. 350.2.1-53.2.1), appears to be a simple expansion or commentary on the Grub chen bcu, with the short hagiographical episode added.
139. Grub chen bcu, SKB V.350.1.5-2.2; compare gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 45, 53.
140. dPal ldan Bi ru pa la bstod pa, pp. 2.2.2-2.2-4-
141. Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 180.
142. See, for example, his rNal ‘byor byang chub seng ge’i dris Ian, his gLegs bam kyi dkar chag, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig, and the delightful series of “songs of my experience” (nyams dbyangs) collected in SKB IV.345.3.2- 54.2.6. There are a few places where I have located Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan s use of “nga” for the first person. These include his gNas bstod kyi nyams dbyangs, pp. 348.2.6 and 348.3.3, and even there tends to use “bdag.” This is not, though, a letter to a disciple of his father, one who is, moreover, an honored member of the eastern Tibetan community, as sGa-theng certainly was. There is also one “nga rang” towards the end of his long letter to Ga-ring rgyal- po, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba i gsung yig, p. 104-4-1, but again this was written at the age of sixty, not as an adolescent.
143. gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 7-1-2.
144. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 87.2.3.
145. bLa ma rnam thar bstod pa khyod nyi ma, p. 83.1.4.
146. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 44; for the location of Mon in the early period, see Pommaret 1999.
147. The discussion on the use of one, two, or four cakras in the practice of psychic heat, for example, is found in the Sras don ma, pp. 95-99; yet this practice appears to have derived from a text in the collection, the Pulla ha ri’i parpjita’ i man ngag, found in the dPal sa skya pa”i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe 1i phreng ba, p. 275,1.5-4.3. The former is one recension of the same text also found in Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan ‘s own compendium of directions, the Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, p. 309.2.1-4.3.
148. Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa0i man ngag, SKB IV.302.3.1-r 1.4.5.
149. dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe’i phreng ba, pp. 278.2.4-4.1, 280.3.2-4.4.
150. Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ‘byor, p. 339.4.4-5.
151. Asta’i gzhi bshad, p. 355.3.4.
152. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 509-1r; Myang ehos ‘byung, pp. 23-24; Lho rang ehos ‘byung, p. 650; Brug pa ‘i ehos ‘byung, pp. 429-35; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 847; a text of the ‘Brug lugs ro snyoms rtsa gzhung is contained in gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 7, pp. 59-73.
153. On the development of the bKa’ gdams glegs bam, see Ehrhard 2002.
154. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p.117.1.4-5; I presume that we must read the sentence: de la cha gan gyi[s] zhwa ma lugs kyi chos skor to make Cha-gan the sub ject of the visionary experience.
