1.10 Примечания к Гл.1

Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»

1. Edited and translated into German in Dietz 1984, pp. 360-65. I differ from her translation on small points. I am well aware that the text as it stands cannot be entirely authentic; see Karmay 1998, p. 25.
2. Chattopadhyaya 1994, pp. 183-222; Burton Stein 1991 is an update of the segmentary state model.
3. On this phenomenon, see Nath 2001; compare Sharma 1965 and 2001, pp. 235-65.
4. Dravyasamgraha, pp. 42-44, n5-16.
5. On these classifications as inherited by Tibetans, see Orofino 2001.
6. See Davidson 1991, for Ngor-chen’s two works examiningthe ritual systemsof texts classified as kriya and caryti-tantras: the Bya rgyud spyi i rnam par bshad pa legs par bshad pairgya mtsho (writtenin 1420) and the sPyod pa.’i rgyud spyi ‘i rnam par gzhags pa legs par bshad pa’i sgron me (written in 1405).
7. These experiences are nicely outlined in Gyatso 1982.
8. Guhyasamaja-tantra XII.58-65, XVIII.135-39, XVIII.171-77.
9. For a good traditional Tibetan discussion of these schools and controversies about their literature, see A-mes zhabs, dPal gsang ha ‘dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ‘dus chos kun gsal p, a i nyin byed, esp, pp. 24.5-48.3, covering India and Indian literature.
10. Manjuvajra is mentioned in Guhyasamaja-tantra XII.3, XIV.37, XVI.68, XVI.86; and Ak obhyavajra is mentioned in Guhyasamaja-tantra VI.prose intro., XI.26 and XVII.r; neither of these figures are necessarily primary in the tantra, however. ‘”
11. I discuss the Buddhajnanapada legend in some detail in Indian Esoteric Buddhism, pp. 3r1-16; the lore of the tantric Nagarjuna has hardly been examined beyond Tucci 1930a.
12. From Pancakrama Il.4-23. I have translated the forms of sunya as if sunyata, for that is effectively the way it is glossed, for example, Pancakrama Il.23ef: mahasunyapadasyaite paryayah kathita jinaih || For the importance of this material, see Wayman 1977, pp. 322-24, unfortunately obscured by Wayman’s impenetrable style; more approachable is Kvrerne 1977, “The Religious Background,” pp. 30-34, in the introduction to his Carydgitikosa edition.
13. Introductory Remarks to Pancakrama, p. x, n. 12.
14. See Davidson 1991; Stein 1995; Mayer 1998.
15. For a discussion of the source of this list of sites, see Davidson 2002c, pp. 206-11.
16. bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 131,138,156; the same text identifies Tibet as being like Sri Lanka in that it is Raksasapuri; pp. 46, 145, 202.
17. For a short examination of these lineages, see Davidson 1992.
18. For a discussion of these mandalas, see Davidson 2002c, pp. 294-303.
19. This table is actually an amalgamation of two tables formulated by Snellgrove in his introduction to the Hevajra-tantra, pp. 34, 38. For a more detailed discussion of these issue of the origin of such ideas, see Davidson 2002d.
20. Reported in Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 127.18- 19; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 97. The gDams ngag mdzod vol. _10, pp. 2- 6, preserves a text on sddhana translated by Gyi-jo that may be part of chapter 4 of the Kalacakra-tantra.
21. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 59-135; compare with the Ras chung bsnyan brgyud tradition of Lha-btsun-pa Rin-chenrnam-rgyal, 1473- 1557,represented in Guenther r963, pp. 7-109, which has some convergence with my text. Other Naropa hagiographies that I have looked through to understand the difficult sections of the preceding text include the early hagiography attributed to sGam-popa in the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. r, pp. 4.6-16.3; Lho rang chos ‘byung, pp. 18-29; sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 77- 91; mKhas pa”i dga’ ston, vol. r, pp. 760- 771; ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung, pp. 186- 204; dPal Naro pa’i rnam par thar pa. The odd hagiography of Abhayadattasri is found in Robinson 1979, pp. 93-95 (translation), pp. 338-39 (ms. text, ff. 108-11) = *Caturasitisiddhapravrtti, fols. 25b4-26br. A comparative study of the Naropa hagiographies would be instructive.
22. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, vv. 20-32 of the Naropa chapter; the verses are given on pp. 62.7- 64.4 and commented on pp. 85.2- r32 -4.
23. The Lha-btsun-pa Rin-chen rnam-rgyal hagiography translated in Guenther 1963 is different from earlier works precisely because it emphasizes content in the hagiography. This strategy was also followed in the dPal Nd ro pa’i rnam par thar pa of dBang-phyug rgyal-mtshan.
24. This is from sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 56-77; compare mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 739-54, which organizes these lineages by direction; Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 16.
25. There are several versions of the “six yogas,” but the bKa’-brgyud-pa tend to follow this one; it is from the Saddharmopadesa, To. 2330, and gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 5, pp. rn6-7.
26. This was proposed by Ngor-chen Kun-dga ‘ bzang-po in his section of the Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 1 rn.2.3, by associating the Dharmapala of the legend with the Dharmapala of the Buddhabhumisittra transmission. For the dates 530 to 561 of the scholastic Dharmapala, see Kajiyama 1968/69, pp. 194-95.

27. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 1rn.2.4.
28. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 11r.3.5-6. The old royal chronology is defended by Sa-skya Pandita in his hagiography of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, pp. 147.r.1 ff, based on apocryphal Khotanese sources, and he rejects the Indian chronology of Pandita Sakyasri, which the Indian master computed in 1210 identifying the Buddha’s nirvana in 543 b.c.e._, a much more accurate date. See Yamaguchi 1984 and Davidson 2002a.
29. This is a translation of the dPal ldan Bi ru pa la bstod pa, SKB I.r.r.1-2.2.4.
30. An intentional contradiction is inserted to indicate that Virupa is beyond duality, part of standard Mahayana hermeneutics. The identification of contrapositives is seen elsewhere, for example, v. 3, where Virupa is considered the play of the immovable.
31. kun tu rgyu ha – possibly an indication of Virupa’s Avadhuta status, although Avadhuta is normatively rendered kun tu ‘dar ba; compare Hevajra-tantra, Snellgrove 1959, vol. 2, p. 161.
32. Ripening is done through the four consecrations, and liberation is performed through the practice of the generation and completion paths; see Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan ‘s rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, p. 17.r.3.
33. ‘Gros bzhi thims; Lam-‘bras masters consistently define the final fruit by means of the dissolution of these four gradations or functions of the body; Sras don ma 437-3-440.3; sGa theng ma 481.3-485.3.

34. The text continues with an articulation of a vision and teachings said to have been received by Sa-chen. Thus the great lord of yogins appeared with four other siddhas. Sa-chen visibly saw his face, and Virupa preached to him. Sa-chen’s panegyric was said to arise out of the force of this experience. For an evaluation of the report on this ostensible vision, see chapter 8.
35. bLa ma rgya gar ba i lo rgyus, SKB III.170.3.2-5.
36. The “four aural streams” (snyan brgyud bzhi: *catuhkarnatantra, see To. 2337 and 2338; snyan-brguyd is perhaps a rendering of either karmaparampara or karnatantra) are one of the important defining systems erected by the Lam-‘bras authors, the other major one being the “four epistemes” (tshad-ma bzhi ). Together they verify the unbroken and undiminished authenticity of the lineage from the Buddha to the lama of initiation; compare Sras don ma 197.5-201.3; sGa theng ma 296.2-299.2; Davidson 1999. For the appropriation of the tshad ma bzhi by bKa’brgyud-pa masters, see Martin 2001b, pp. 158-76.
37. The use of “heat” as an image of meditative success is of long duration in India, whether m the Brahmanical sense of tapas or the specifically Buddhist usage of usman, which is the term used here in its Tibetan rendering, drod Within the Lam-‘bras, this use of heat is preeminently indicative of the experience generated on the worldly path, not the experience of the path of vision and above. Its presence is a prerequisite for further experience on the path. See Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 47.2.5-50.2.1; Sras don ma, pp. 252.6-58.2. The capacity to turn the poisons of the personality (latent demons) into the qualities of liberation (forms of gnosis) is at the base of the Vajrayana theoretical structure and was definitively elaborated in the environment of the Sa-skya, especially Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan; see rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 63.2.2-69.1.4; compare ]ndnasiddhi l.37-64.
38. Thapar 2004 has reexamined the history of Somanatha. I am preparing a monograph on Virupa and his Apabhramsa materials.
39. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. u6.6; mKhas grub khyung po rnal ‘byor gyi rnam thar, pp. 27-29.
40. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 7-1-2; see Nihom 1992 for an edition and discussion of the Chinnamastd sddhana attributed to Vinlpa.
41. In the gLegs barn gyi dkar chags, p. 5.3-4, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan identifies the lam ‘bring po of Lam ‘bras rtsa ba IV.B as the rtsa ba medpa’i lam, meaningthat the “textless path” would be one holding merely to the precepts; compare sGa theng ma, p. 487-4; Sras don ma, pp. 443.6-444.4. Conversely, in Sahajasiddhi, Pod ser, p. 395.5, a note indicates that it is the rtsa ba med pa i lam ‘bras and that the inclusion of the eight other practices was justified by a line in the gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 6.4, that he could not mention all the little teachings associated with the Lam-‘bras. This was used to include various teachings like the eight subsidiary practices; see Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 125.1.2. The Lam ‘bras lam skor sags kyi gsan yig, p. 32.4.3-5, said to have been received from ‘Phags-pa, appears to collapse the Sahajasiddhi and the exegetical lineages from Dombi into a single line.
42. As far as I am aware, the earliest recognition of this division is in the lineages foundin bSod-namsrtse-mo’s rGyudsde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, pp.36-4-2-37.1.3. bSod-nams rtse-mo, though, does not employ the nomenclature of “man ngag lugs” and “bshad lugs,” and it is not clear when this terminology came into use. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan simply numbers them: first lineage and second lineage; rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i (jon shing, p. 69.1.5-6. I noted “birwa pa’i man ngag brgyud,” but not distinguished from a “bshad brgyud ,” in Grags-pa rgyal-mtshans rTsa ba’i !tung ba bcu bzhi pa’z ‘grel pa gsal byed ‘khrul spong, p. 235.3.2. The earliest use of terms close to “man ngag lugs” and “bshad lugs” thatIhave noted is in Ngor-chen’s Thos yig rgya mtsho, pp. 48.4.1-49.3.6, where we find mang ngag lugs kyi dkyil ‘khor du rgyu dus kyi dbang gi chu bo ma nub par bskur ba’i brgyud pa, but its contrast is with the bshad bka’ legs par thos pa’i brgyud pa, 49.1.6. This specific terminology is missing in ‘Phagspa’s Lam ‘bras lam skor sogs kyi gsan yig, p. 32.4.2-5, where we find lam ‘bras kyi brgyud pa and gzhung gi rgyud pa. The distinction between the two lineages was important enough that Ngorchen dedicated separate works to their lines of transmission: his Lam ‘bras byung tshul for the “method of instruction” and his Kye rdo rje’i byung tshul as a partial discussion of the “explanatory method.” See the bibliography for these works. For a more general discussion, see Davidson 1992, pp. 109-10.
43. A version of this verse is used at the completion of the ceremony for bodhisattva precepts, Bodhicaryavatara IIl.25; the form here is from the Vajravali, Sakurai 1996, p. 475; another version is found in the Samvarodaya-tantra XVIII.34c-35b.
44. For example, Sarvadurgatiparisodhana-tantra, p. 238.32; this use of vajra is specified in Sarvatathaga-tatattvasamgraha, Chandra, pp. 59-60, there done as part of the consecration.
45. Vajraydnamulapatti(ikd-mdrgapradtpa, To. 2488, fols. 208b7-210; for a review of tantric rules, see Davidson 2002c, pp. 322-27-
46. Sarvabuddhasamayoga-ganavidhi, To. 1672, fol. 196b4; see Davidson 2002c, pp. 318-22; and Snellgrove 1987, vol. r, pp. 160-70.
47. van der Veer 1988, pp. 85-130; this situation may be contrasted with the Nath yogis studied by Bouillier 1997, pp. 142-57, 206-9.