2.7 Примечание к Гл.2

Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»
<< К оглавлению
  1. bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, translating pp. 277.19-78.2, 278.13-79.r.
  2. The standard history is Beckwith 1987.
  3. A survey of the court involvement with Buddhism is found in Dargyay 1 991.
  4. This is a point that Kapstein 2000, pp. 11-12, makes convincingly. The term feudalism has been contested in its application to Tibet s modern period, but the primary criteria-decentralization, dissolution of a central state apparatus, and insecurity-inhibiting the application of feudalism to Tibet as proposed in such protests as Thargyal 1988 are in fact found in our period. Because of these and other traits, it was similar to Indian feudalism, for which see Davidson 2002c, chap. 2.
  5. Tucci 1947, p. 463. This same observation has been made many times.
  6. Hackin 1924, p. 18; Chos la Jug pa’i sgo, p. 343.3. Tucci 1947, table between pp. 462-63; Tucci 1956a, pp. 51-63, considers the later lineage. The perhaps latetwelfth-century Bod kyi rgyal rabs of Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan, p. 296.1.5-4.2, and the Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcudofNyang-ralnyi-ma’od-zer, pp. 446 ff, appear to be the earliest of our surviving sources to provide a somewhat more extensive discussion of the period. By the thirteenth century, the 1283 Ne’u chronicle sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 118 ff; the /D e’u chos ‘byung, pp. 137-63; and the mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 364 ff., seem to present welldeveloped stories of the period; their similarity to thesBa bzhedzhabs btags ma, Stein 1961, pp. 78-92, would seem to argue for a late date to the completion of this latter work; see Martin 1997, pp. 23-24, for a bibliography on sBa bzhed scholarship.
  7. Sorensen 1994, p. 410, n.1420, provides the references to Tibetan literature. The Xin Tangshu gi s 838.; see Pelliot 1961, p. 183; compare Vitali 1996, p. 541, n. 923.
  8. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud pp. 417.20-18.4; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, Stein 1961, pp. 70.14-71.
  9. Sorensen 1994, p. 412, n. 1431, notes the Sad-na-legs 812 chronology but misunderstands the significance of the bkas bead rnam pa gsum and does not consider that reforms took time to implement; that is why the Ral-pa-can materials emphasize his position in the revision. Compare the recent work of Scherrer-Schaub 2002 on this process.
  10. See Herrmann-Pfandt 2002 for a recent discussion of these catalogs.
  11. For these and their sources, see Uebach 1990; I thank Janet Gyatso for drawing my attention to this article.
  12. Bu ston chos ‘byung, p. 19r.5-7; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 417.12-16; the final part of this is in Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsti bcud p. 423.6-7.
  13. This is the reading of Bu ston chos ‘byung, p. 19r.6; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 417-14, makes the restriction apply solely to the matr-tantras, the later scriptures not translated in the early period. rNying-ma authors like Nyang-ral do not accept this restriction on translation and engage in lengthy descriptions of the material translated, most of which, however, is actually apocryphal and assigned to Ral-pa-can as a matter of chronological defense. See, for example, Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud pp. 420-23, which introduces aberrations like the translation of the Byams-chos-lde-lnga ( p. 422.8), mostly done later by rNgog bLoldan shes-rah.
  14. dBa’ bzhed, p. 88 (fol. 24b5-6).
  15. Richardson 1998, pp. 176-81.
  16. As found in the dKar chag ldan dkar ma; Lalou 1953, Herrmann-Pfandt 2002.
  17. Bod sil bu’i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba, pp. 78-88, shows how much the sources disagree over the birth, death, and regnal dates of this figure.
  18. Weinstein 1987, pp. 114-37.
  19. Kapstein 2000, p. 52, rightly rejects the explanation that Buddhism was the sole cause of collapse, and he also looks to the issues of empire maintenance to explain the question. But he does not fully consider Relpachen’s excessive expenditure on behalf of the clergy as a primary factor or the catastrophic assassination as important. For an estimate of dissatisfaction with the Buddhist faction, see Sorensen 1994, p. 423, n. 1488.
  20. Woghihara, ed., Bodhisattvabhumi, pp. 165-66; Demieville, “Le Bouddhism de la guerre,” reprinted in Demieville 1973, pp. 261-99, esp. p. 293; Tatz 1986, 70-71.
  21. This is according to the Ne’u Pandita’s sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 120; it is also accepted by the sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, pp. 81-82.
  22. Her name is given as sNa-nam bza’ in the mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. r, p. 430, but the Nyang-ral’s twelfth-century Chos ‘byungme tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 446, provides ‘Bal-‘phanbza’-ma; the lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. qr,andthemKhas pa lde’ u chos ‘byung, p. 369, give ‘Phan-bza’ ‘phan-rgyal.
  23. Petech 1994, pp. 652-56; Vitali 1996, pp. 196-97.
  24. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 430; lDe’u chos ‘byung, p. 141; Deb ther dmar po, p. 40; Nor-brang O-rgyan presents several reasons why he believes the story should be dismissed, Bod sil bu’i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba, pp. ro3-1r.
  25. Petech r994, p. 649.
  26. Petech 1994, pp. 651-52.
  27. Nor-brang O-rgyan is particularly interested in the popular revolts;Bod sil bu’i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba, pp. 128-56.
  28. Petech 1994, p. 651; Beckwith 1987, pp. 169-72; lDe’u chos ‘byung, p. 144; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 431; mKhas pa lde’u chos byung, p. 372. We have a wealth of variation on the orthography of this man’s name; Kho-byer lde stong sbas (mKhas pa lde’ u chos ‘byung), Kho-bzhir stong sde sbas (lD e’u chos ‘byung), dBa’s kho bzher legs steng (mKhas pa’i dga’ ston), and the Chinese Shang Kong-zhe (Petech 1994, p. 651); I have followed Beckwith’s reproduction of the Dun Huang annals’ orthography. It is quite possible that he was only distantly related to the sBa, and Petech notes that the Chinese transcription of his name was as if it were ‘Bal, another important clan.
  29. Petech 1994, p. 651, discusses this man’s career; see also Richardson, “The Succession to Glang-dar-ma,” in Richardson r998, p. 110.
  30. Vitali 1996, p. 546; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 447; mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 321, 327.
  31. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 376.
  32. Vitali 1996, p. 542, n. 923.
  33. Vitali 1996, pp. 190, n. 545; lD e’u chos ‘byung, pp. 142-43; mKhas pa lde’u chos byung, p. 371. I believe Vitali misinterpreted this passage, for it is clear that the two figures of ‘Bro Tsug-sgra lha-ldong and Cang-rgyan A-bo (with their variant spellings) did not try to “protect dPal-‘khor-btsan’s throne in gTsang” but acted in the capacity of officers of an institution, a common use of the verb bskyangs.
  34. lD e’u chos ‘by ung, p. 142.
  35. lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 143.
  36. Vitali 1996, p. 548; mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 376; Petech 1997, p. 231, puts this date at 923.
  37. For a general discussion, see Vitali 1996 and Everding 2000, vol. 2, pp. 260-69.
  38. This passage is taken from the mKhas pa lde’u chos byung, pp. 372-73, supplemented by the lDe u chos ‘byung, pp. 144-46. Similar language is included in the mKhas pa’ i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 431. This section continues in all three sources, but the language of omens and conversations with divinities is very obscure and is apparently related to the ancient Tibetan of the dynastic religion.
  39. A curious narrative about him is related in mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 373-74. The traditional scenario for the story of his death is discussed in Richardson 1998, pp. 144-48; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 420-22; compare Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 446; lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 138.
  40. For Bran-kha dpal-yon as a later divinity, see Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956, pp. 232-33. Karmay 1998, pp. 437-38, relates that as a demon he challenged the authority of the nine mountain deities of Central Tibet. Richardson 1998, p. 147, saw what was said to be Bran-kha dpal-yon’s stuffed body set up in Yer-pa.
  41. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 371. A different form of this phrase is cited in ID e’u chos ‘byung, p. 143; here, I understand res mos as being from the cognate ris mo, a diagram or image.
  42. lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 143.3-6.
  43. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i hcud, p. 446.17-19.
  44. Chos ‘hyung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i hcud , p. 446.15-16; the “dar gyi mdud pa” indicates a protective silk string with a knot in the center guaranteeing life; some Tibetans apparently believed that this dissolution of political and religious order was impossible; see mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 420-21.
  45. mKhas pa”i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 433.4-8; compare sNgon gyi gtam me togphreng ha, Uebach 1987, p. 85, n. 321, which dates the tomb desecration as 877. However, the date of the breaching of the tombs was more plausibly during or after the long insurrection of 905 to 910. Tucci 1950, p. 42, and Petech 1994 and 1997 discussed the difficult chronology involved. Tucci’s conclusion that it happened in 877 conflicts with more recent studies; see Hazod 2000b, p. 185; Hazod 2000a, p. 197, n. 6; and Vitali 1996, pp. 544-47. For the titles of the tombs, see Haarh 1969, pp. 391-92; and mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 377-79.
  46. m Khas pa’i dga’ ston , vol. 1, p.455.10-11; on the palace at Khra-‘brug, see the hKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 104.7-8.
  47. Kah-thog Tshe-dbang nor-bu’s Bod rje Iha htsan poi gdung rahs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 78-81, presents a good summary of the differing opinions about the time elapsed between the collapse of the royal dynasty and there introduction of the Dharma into Central Tibet; compare m Khas pa ‘i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 481.19- 21.
  48. Petech 1994, p. 653; both he and Vitali follow the long chronology, which is best represented in the Sa-skya records. See Vitali 1996, pp. 541-51, but the results of their calculations are slightly different.
  49. Exceptions are Beckwith 1977; Dunnel 1994; and Petech 1983 and 1994.
  50. Wang 1963, p. 16; Somers 1979, pp. 727- 54.
  51. hKa’ thang sde Inga, p. 152; for the phrase “thousand district,” see Uray 1982; Richardson 1998, pp. 167- 76.
  1. The monolith at sPuwas described by Francke 1914-26, p. 19, reedited in T hakur 1994, whose interpretation was challenged by Richardson 1995. The inscription is discussed by Vitali 1996, pp. 207- 8. Richardson 1998, pp. 286- 91, discusses a monolith, probably of the eleventhor twelfth century, carved in imitation of those erected during the royal dynasty.
  2. On this distinction, see kLong chen chos ‘byung pp. 413-14; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 447-448.
  3. David Germano proposed applying the term post-tantra to the rNying-ma compositions because of their radical difference from the Indic models of tantra.
  4. Hackin 1924, pp. 30, 21; the perceptive reader will see that there the term paripurna might be seen in compound with the eighty characteristics and thirtytwo marks but has been separated for pedagogical purposes; paripurna generally denotes fulfillment, as when all the perfections have been completed. On the early use of rdzogs chen, see van Schaik 2004.
  5. See Krsnayamari-tantra 17.9-11, and Kumaracandra’s informative discussion of this material in his commentary to Krsnayamari, pp. 123-29. Wayman 1977, pp. 156-59, noted its use in the Arya exegesis of the Guhyasamaja-tantra.
  6. Hackin 1924, pp. 2, 5.
  7. The following discussion is based on the Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 435-36; for more detail, see the excellent discussion in Germano 2002.
  8. Works dedicated to these systems are found in the rNying ma bka’ ma rgyas pa, vol. 17, pp. 371-411, 426-517, and are included in the gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 1, pp. 213-371; this list of the important traditions is found in kLong chen chos ‘byung PP· 393-94.
  9. The problem of A-ro is recognized in Karmay 1988, p. 133. kLong chen chos ‘byung p. 393, makes A-ro Ye-shes ‘byung-gnas a disciple of gNyags Jnanakumara, which is highly unlikely. A-ro does not seem to be quoted in the works by sNubschen, like the bSam gtan mig sgron, so he would appear to have been active after the early tenth century. The Deb ther sngon po, vol. 2, p. 1163, Blue Annals, vol.2, pp. 999-1000, provides a short hagiography of dubious value. Chos ‘byungme tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 491, features A-ro in two rdzogs chen lineages.
  10. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 211; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 167.
  11. sNyan brgyud rin po che’i khrid kyi man ngag mkha’ dbyings snying po’i bde khridby dPal mKha’-spyod-pa; this author is mentioned in Deb ther sngon po, vol. 2, p. 1151, Blue Annals, vol. 2, p. 991, as the disciple of Karma-pa Rang-byung rdorje (1284-1339); it is possible that he should be identified with Zhwa-dmar-pa II mKha’-spyod dbang-po, as does gDams ngag mdzod, table of contents, vol. 1, although the dates provided (1350-1405) are problematic.
  12. kLong chen chos ‘byung, p. 393-94.
  13. I thank David Germano for making this very rare work available to me. The chapters are ‘khor bar sdug bsngal nyes dmigs mang po’i gzhi ( pp. 7.2-12.1), rnam rtog bdag tu ‘dzin pa ‘khor ba’i rgyu ( pp. 12.2-19.4), mya ngag ‘das pa zhi ba bde ba’i mchog ( pp. 19.4-25.3), and bdag med rtogs pa mya ngan ‘das pa’i rgyu ( pp. 25.3-47.4).
  14. See the long list of bKa’-gdams-pa figures listed in the lineage lists in the sLob dpon dga’ rab rdo rje nas brgyud pa’i rdzogs pa chen po sems sde’i phra khrid kyi man ngag. pp. 436-37, 516-17, some of whom were disciples of Panchen Sakyasri. The work was written by rGya-sman-pa Nam- mkha’ rdo-rje, probably in 1273 (cho mo bya lo). rGya-sman-pa was a teacher of the famous Ku-m:1-ra-nl-dza (1266-1343); see Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 246; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 199.
  15. On the early lineages in general, see Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 482-92.
  16. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 485-13.
  17. Nagano 2000 is an excellent recent study of such practices.
  18. Karmay 1998, pp. 382; for an excellent discussion of the issue of purity, see pp. 380-412; c;mpare Tucci 1980, pp. 163-212, which emphasizes the auspicious-inauspicious continuum.
  19. On the somewhat neglected marriage ritual, see Karmay 1998, pp. 147-53; Shastri 1994. The gN a’ rahs bod kyi chang pa’i lam srol of Bar-shi Phun-tshogs Dbang-rgyal is an interesting modern Tibetan work on marriage. On travel to the realms of the dead, see Lalou 1949; Macdonald 1971b, pp. 373-76; Kapstein 2000, pp. 7-8; and Cuevas 2003, pp. 33-38.
  20. On the sources for this idea, see Stein 1986, pp. 185-88.
  21. Lalou 1952; Snellgrove 1967, p. 16; Martin 2001b, pp. 12-15.
  22. These have been well studied by Lhagyal 2000.
  23. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 192.12-23; on mi chos as the ritual of the tombs, see vol. 1, p. 170.12.
  24. An early catalog of the items included in mi chos is found in sBa bzhed, p. 62.8-11; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 53.6-8.
  25. Their names are given as Chen-po rGyal-ba and his disciple Zhang-lcanggrum in the sBa bzhad zhabs btags ma, p. 86, and Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 448.16, which identifies their residence as ‘Chims-smad and th eentire issue of reading a text and commentary for postmortem or prophylactic purposes is given in much greater detail.
  26. mKhas pa.i. dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 430-31; analogous material found sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, pp. 86.5-87.2, 90.11-91.1; Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, pp. 448.ro-449.3. I thank Dan Martin for suggestions and corrections to this passage.
  27. The ‘ban ‘dzi ba of sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 86.9, are evidently the same group spelled ‘ba’ ‘ji ba in the received version of the proclamation of Lha bla-ma Ye-shes-‘od; see Karmay 1998, pp. 3- 16. Martin 2001b, p. 109, n., believes the name to be un-Tibetan. However, I am inclined to interpret ‘ban/’ ba’ ‘dzi ba as an orthographic oddity to render Bande ‘dzi ba, for the ‘a in’ba’ may be pronounced with a nasal, as ‘ban, and ‘dzi and ‘ji are easily confused in dbu med manuscripts. As noted by Karmay 1998, p. 71 n. 30, other editions have ‘ban ‘ji ba, such as the modern printed version of the bka’ shag in the dGag Ian nges don ‘brug sgra, pp. 182.21, 186.n; Karmay 1998, p. 16, n., suggests other foreign etymologies.
  28. Karmay 1998, pp. 3- 16.
  29. Vitali 1996,pp. 215- 18.
  30. bK a’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 282-85.
  31. See Childs 1997 for an indication of this problem. The problem of animal sacrifice in Buddhist ceremonies – whether Tibetan, Newar, or other Himalayan group- is much more widespread than Childs’s essay indicates. For some indication of its severity, see Owens 1993; Locke 1985, p. 14; Cupper s 1997; Diemberger and Hazed 1997.
  32. I thank David Germano and Matthew Kapstein for their sharing their perspective on this issue.
  33. Bod kyi gdung rus zhib ‘jug makes a start on identifying clans in the various periods, but the work must be handled carefully, sometimes conflating place names with clan names; on the ancient clans, see Stein 1961.
  34. Bod kyi gdung rus zhib’jug, pp. 58-83, identifies the clans of the royal dynastic period. Tucci 1956a, p. 80, n. 7, believes that some of the names in table 2 are geographical designations rather than clans and proposes that the clan names are missing from this one entry; the syntax, though, would seem to argue for these as clans.
  35. This is from lDe’u chos ‘byung, pp. 145-46; there are several variations of this list, indicating the god of the domain and other details, which are studied in Dotson, forthcoming.
  36. For modern class mobility, see Carrasco 1959, pp. 128-31.
  37. For modern clan names, see Bod kyi gdung rus zhib ‘jug, pp. 160-208.
  38. On these grades in the dynastic period, see Richardson 1998, pp. 12-24, 149-66.
  39. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 125-1-2; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 95.
  40. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 147-u-14; Blue Annals, vol. 1, 114; in this case, both were from the Zur clan; on this clan, see Tsering 1978.
  41. Some of these have been studied; see Tucci 1949, vol. 2, pp. 656-73; Vitali 1990, pp. 94-96; Stein 1962; for the Khon, see chapter 7.
  42. The rNgog gi gdung rahs che dge yig tshang is mentioned in the Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 50.16-17.
  43. See Vitali 2002 for an excellent study on the involvement of clans with gNas-rnying temple.
<< К оглавлению
Web Analytics