3.8 Примечания к Гл.3

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

1. Slightly summarized from mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 390.5-11.
2. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi i bcud, p. 459; mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 390-91; rNam thar rgyas pa yongs grags, p. 113.
3. Wang 1963, p. 5.
4. Dunnel 1994, pp. 168-72.
5. Backus 1981, pp. 159-64.
6. Bod kyi rgyal rahs, p. 296.3.3; compare Deb ther dmar po gsar ma, pp. 132-33. Note that Tucci 1947, p. 458, neglects to translate this section and glosses it with “Follows a short insertion on the spread of Bon and Buddhism, “despite the importance of the passage.
7. For a discussion of these, see Uebach 1990.
8. Hagiographical literature is replete with citations of the interaction of Tibetan translators and merchants; see, for example, the hagiography of Rwa-lo, Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, esp. pp. 20, 36-37. For the modern importance of this phenomenon, see Lewis 1993.
9. See Aris 1979, pp. 3-33; see also Janet Gyatso’s 1987 discussion of the implications of this system.
10. mKhas Pt; lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 390-92; mKhas pa’i dga ston, pp. 466-68; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 449-50; lDe’u chos ‘byung, pp. 154-55; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 120-24. The significance of the ethnonym or place-name Hor here is elusive; perhaps it is to render the identity of a Turkic people, for the Deb ther dmar po, p. 41, places this area in proximity to the Q rlok kingdom.
11. This material is from sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ha, Uebach 1987, p. 122.
12. sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 83.3-5; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ha, Uebach 1987, p. 120; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 441.6-8; Bu ston chos ‘byung, p. 192.n-12.
13. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, p.446.5-11; compare mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 391.18-93.rn, for the body of individuals trained under the direction of these monks.
14. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, p. 446.4, mentions a rMe-gral or rMe tradition, beyond the mKhas-gral (one variant for mkhan-brgyud) and bTsun-gral accepted by others, but this lineage is not otherwise identified.
15. The mkhan rgyud (texts’ orthography) is sometimes referred to as the mkhas rgyud; for the two lineages, see sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 85.15; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ha, Uebach 1987, p. 128; mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 392.1-10.
16. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 128; sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 87.
17. The best discussions are Dunnel 1994; Petech 1983; Stein 1959, pp. 230-40; Iwasaki 1993; compare Schram’s 1961 historical study of the complexity of this area.
18. Iwasaki 1993, p. 18.
19. Petech 1983, p. 175.
20. Dunnel 1994, p. 173.
21. Iwasaki 1993, p. 24.
22. These kings seem to show up suddenly in the fourteenth century: rGyal rahs gsal ba’i me long, p. 200; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 73; Deb ther dmar po gsar ma, Tucci 1971, pp. 166-70.
23. Petech 1983, p. 177.
24. Iwasaki 1993, p. 22.
25. Iwasaki 1993, p. 19.
26. Iwasaki 1993, p. 25.
27. Bod rje Iha btsan po i gdung rahs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 77- 81. Nor-brang O -rgyan’s chronology is unacceptable, as he places these figures much too early and then explains away the time between the building of the temples and the early translators. See Bod sil bu’i byung ha brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba, pp. 291- 93.
28. Richardson 1957, pp. 58-63, appears to be the first to identify this correctly.
29. Sources for these names include sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 87.4-5; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 128; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. r, p. 467.7-8; Chas la ‘jug pa’i sgo, SKB Il.343.4.3; Chas ‘byung me tog snyirtg po sbrang rtsi”i bcud, p. 450.5-7 (which includes dGongs-pa-gsal); Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb r990, p. 60.15-16. Some include Thul-ha Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan (Chos la ‘jug pa’i sgo, p. 343.4.3), but I believe this a corruption of ‘Dul-ha Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan.
30. lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 156: de ltar bskos kyang mkhan po’i gsungs la ma nyan te | rang re ci dga’ byas |- This list, similarly but not exactly described, also occurs in the Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, p. 450, but has a slightly different import.
31. sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 87, describes the process, and mKhas p-a’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 473, discusses the hats as a hallmark of their association.
32. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 458-59; for another version in the Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb r990, pp. 61.8-62.5.
33. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 449.
34. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 394; Bod rje lha btsan po’i gdung rahs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 78-81; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 481.19-21; Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 86.1r14 (Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 62); rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 459.17; for a discussion of this issue, see Vitali 1990, p. 62, n. 1.
35. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 451-52, and sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, pp. 87-88; the Nyang-ral text has consistently misread lo-tshong as lo tsa ba.
36. This area is described in the sBa bzhed, pp. 45-46, and this must correspond to the ‘khor-sa chen mo of the texts. This section in the sBa bzhed seems to be the source for all later descriptions, including that in the eighty-sixth chapter of the Padma bka’ thang, p. 510.
37. This room has irregular spellings: rnga-khang in sBa bzhed, p. 44, and Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtst’i bcud, p. 451; it is spelled mnga’- khang in sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 87; and snga-khang in the recent printed edition of the Padma bka’ thang, p. 510.
38. My surmise on the interpretation of the text. Skam bu indicates something completely dried, which is the appearance of rotten wood. We erroneously call this “dry rot,” even though the conditions are the ones described here: exposure to intermittent moisture without protection.
39. I believe that phyir rdzab zhal byas of Nyang-ral and phyir zha la la of the sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma derived from some colloquial usage like phyir zhal rdzongs, “Let’s get [these keys] out of here!” but the sources are unclear, so I translate Nyang-ral.
40. From the sBa bzh ed zhabsrtags ma, p. 88.6: g.yu’ ru’i lam rgyag bya ‘di gzung gsungs nas bzhes |
41. Note that the sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 88.10, indicates that kLu – mes’s attempt to repair the dbU-rtse temple was rebuffed by sBa and Rag, achieving success after only the intervention of Khri-lde mgon-btsan .
42. sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 88.10.
43. Vitali 1990, pp. 37-39 (but compare p. 63, n. 29), and van der Kuijp 1987, p. rn9, in contrast to Tucci 1949, vol. 1, p. 84, have understood these as “divisional areas” or “districts,” which is close to the recent use of the term; see Diemberger and Hazod 1999, pp. 42-45. Yet at this early stage a strong place identity is misleading. Tsho, is cognate with tshogs, ‘tshogs pa, tshogs-pa, sogs, and other forms, indicating groups of people, and tsho was and is commonly the pluralizer for some nouns and pronouns. Before the “ten men of dbUs-gTsang” even arrived in central Tibet, they were described as a common group (byin po tsho yar ‘ongs) for they all were ordained at the same time; see mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 473.3. The term sde[-pa] is preferred by some authors, such as Nel-pa (sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 132-36), while others use tsho. It appears that there was some difference in regional usage as well, for gTsang groups appear to be described as tsho more frequently. Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan ‘s record indicates that tsho, sde-pa, and [b]rgyud were terms of varying association; see rGya bod kyi sde pa’i gyes mdo, pp. 297.1.3 ff.
44. The sources for the activity of the monks establishing the groups in dbUs­gTsang are principally mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 392-96; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 452-54; lD e’u chos ‘byung, pp. 155-59; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 130-36; rGya bod kyi sde pa’i gyes mdo; Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb 1990, pp. 59-81; and rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 459-68, which seems to furnish much of the data taken by dPa’-bo in the mKhas pa ‘i dga ston, pp. 473-81. For schematics of the temples, see Tucci 1949, vol. 1, chart between pp. 84-85; and Uebach 1987, pp. 37-43.
45. This temple is also spelled rGyal-‘gong, lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 157; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 462.1.
46. lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 158.
47. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 132.
48. These eight are emphasized in the sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 132, but the others remain obscure.
49. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 478: glang tsho stod smad tu gyes.
50. For the founding of Zha-lu and the disparate evidence on the date of its founding, see Vitali 1990, pp. 89-122; Tucci 1949, vol. 2, pp. 656-62.
51. For a discussion of the process at gNas-rnying, see Vitali 2002.
52. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 464-65; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 479.
53. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 474, lD e’u chos ‘byung, p. 157; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 460; sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 132; Cha s ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, pp. 452-53.
54. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. rn3.13; mKhas pai dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 474.
55. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 136, and Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi i bcud, p. 452, refers to these four disciples as his “[four] sons” (bu bzhi), rather than four pillars. Compare Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 86.
56. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi i bcud, p. 452; sN gon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 136, dos not place this activity at Yer-pa but at g.Yu sgro lha khang dmar and acts as if the temple existed before the activity of kLu-mes or Sum-pa, for they simply came there but did not construct it. There seems to be much difference of opinion on the nature and origin of this temple(s): mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 474, lists this as one of rNgog Byang-chub ‘byung-gnas s temples; the Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. rn3, acts as if it is two temples built by Sumpa; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 75. The attribution to Sum-pa probably follows the line in the rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 460, which does so.
57. Tucci 1956b, p. rn7.
58. The modern sGrub pa’i gnas mchog yer pa i dkar chag dad pa’i sa bon, written in 1938, is found in the gNas yigphyogs bsgrig collection, pp. 3-49; the preceding reference is from p. IO.I. This text contains much material from the ancient Brag yer pa’i dkar chag, as may be seen from its continuity with the quotations in mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 456-58; for example, the line referred to here is found on p. 457.6.
59. mKhas pa”i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 474.8-14, lists his death date as rn6o (lcags byi) at the age of eighty-five (that is, eighty-four in European reckoning), but the chronology is problematic. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 460, spells the earlier temple as Ra-tshag. rGyal lha-khang is the subject of Richardson 1957.
60. Vitali 2002, pp. rno-rn2; Richardson 1957.
61. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 474; compare Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 452.
62. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 453.11.
63. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 397.
64. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 157.4, 176.7-rn.
65. Tables 3 through 7 in sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 39- 43, provide a convenient schematization of the relationships and construction.
66. Vitali 1990, pp. 1-35, has unfortunately done exactly that with the conflation of Ka-chu and Ke-ru temples; see Richardson 1998, pp. 212-13, 317.
67. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 164.3, 169.13-14.
68. The term khral is understood as sham thabs khral in the rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 156.15, 187.21-88-5. Vitali 1990, p. 38, interprets the taxation as applying to divisions of area, but taxation in early Tibet by household or commercial transaction rather than on land, which was owned by the gentry; Rona-Tas 1978; Thomas 1935-55, vol. 2, p. 327. Thus, the khral tsho was a dutiable monastic group.
69. rNam thar yongs grags, p. 156.15-16.
70. rGya bod kyi sde pa ‘i gyes mdo, SKB IV.297.2.3-4; the text seems somewhat garbled.
71. Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb 1990, pp. 72.12, 76.rn-77.4; this material reproduced in rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 464.12, 466.6-9.
72. One of Lo-btsun’s disciples, Kyi Ye-shes dbang-po, was said to have four revenue communities in his stod tsho; rGya bod kyi sde pa’i gyes mdo, SKB IV.297 .3 . 2.
73. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 126.
74. Deb ther sngon po,vol. 1, p. rn4.12-13, Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 76; reproduced in mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 476.16.
75. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 122-124 provides a summary of the figures involved; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 93-94; Ferrari 1958, p. 52; Kab thog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, p. 202.
76. Gra-pa mNgon-shes’s hagiography is found principally in the Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 124-32; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 94-101; see also mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 475.16-76.16. Vitali 1990, p. 39, reproduces much of this material; see also Ferrari 1958, pp. 54-55.
77. For one list of his disciples and their monasteries, see sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 138-41, and table 3.
78. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 104.12, 122.3-5, 127-1-2; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 76, 93, 96-97. An early-twentieth-century description of Grwa-thang can be found in Kab thog situ i dbus gtsang gnas yig, pp. 123-25.
79. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 126.17-18; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 96.
80. sPyan-g.yas lha-khang; see Ferrari 1958, p. 53.
81. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 478.7, connects him to the new translation work of Zangs-dkar lo-tsa- ba and his nephew; the same work p. 501.9, connects him to revelations from the Ayrapalo temple.
82. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 394; lD e’u chos ‘byung, pp. 157-58.
83. bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 280.
84. Martin 2001b, pp. 93-104.
85. The Pe-har cult is taken as indicative of this inclusiveness; see Vitali 1996, pp. 216-18; Karmay 1991; Martin 1996c, pp. 184-91.
86. Vajrafekhara; To. 480, fol. 199b4-5, becomes the locus classicus of the trisariwara (Tibetan: sdom gsum). The Ordinance of Lha-bla-ma, Karmay 1998, pp. 3-16, appeals to three vows. For a systematic study of the later sdom-gsum literature, see Sobish 2002.
87. A widely distributed example of this favoring of the Gu-ge kingdom is Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 470-509.
88. For a broad survey, see Snellgrove and Skorupski 1977-80, both vols. A more specialized discussion of chronology and sources is Vitali 1996, and Klimburg-Salter 1997 provides an excellent investigation of a Tabo temple founded in the late tenth century.
89. The Rin chen bzang po’i rnam thar shel ‘phreng published and translated in Snellgrove and Skorupski 1977-80, vol. 2, pp. 85-111, places his departure at 975. For the mortality total, see also the rNam thar yangs grags, p. 114.
90. For specific temples, see Vitali 1996, pp. 249- 87, 303-10.
91. Unless specified, all the material on Atisa and Nag-tsho is drawn from the rNam thar yangs grags; this episode is found on pp. 117- 25.
92. For some of these issues, see Ruegg 1981; for Prajnagupta’s influence on ‘Brog-mi and ‘Khon dKon-mchog rgyal-po, see chapters 5 and 7. The rNam thar yangs grags, p. 192.12, anachronistic ally has rGya-gar nag-chung (= Pha-dam-pa sangs-rgyas) sending a disciple to make offerings to Atisa.
93. rNam thar yangs grags, p. 117-r r-12.
94. ln the rNam thar yongs grags, for on p.118.4-5, Nag-tsho is depicted as having studied Abhidharma with rGya brTson-seng on his first trip to India.
95. Fragments of Nag-tsho’s record of his itinerary are contained in the rNal ‘byor byang chub seng ge’ i dris Ian, SKB III.277.4.4-78.r.6; I have used some of this material in Davidson 2002c, pp. 316-17, and consider this record in more detail later in this book.
96. See Decleer 1996, Bajracharya 1979, Locke 1985, pp. 404-13, Petech 1984, pp. 42-43, Stearns 1996, pp. 137-38.
97. For a short review of the Vinaya lineages, see Kal:i-thog Tshe-dbang nor-bu ‘s Bod rje lha btsan po’i gdung rabs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 82-85; compare mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1., pp. 481-83; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi”i bcud, p. 446.
98. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 178-79.
99. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 164.3, 169.13-14; the former was at sNan-mda’, whereas the latter temple was in Yar-lung at Bya-sar-chags.
100. Stark and Bainbridge 1985, pp. 27-28.
101. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 159, 163, 174, 186.
102. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 156, 187-88.
103. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 156, 187-88.
104. rNam thar yongs grags, p. 169, 15-20.
105. Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’ i bcud, pp. 455.18-56.1.
106. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 158, 166, 179.
107. rNam thar yongs grags, pp. 169.17-70.3.
108. Rwa sgreng dgon pa’i dkar chag, pp. 76-84, discusses the founding of this section of Rwa-sgreng. According to this description, although this main temple and stupa section was constructed after some smaller, mostly residential, buildings, it was the first large construction that turned it into a real monastery.
109. rNam thar yongs grags, p. 221.9-20.
110. rGya bod k.yi sde pa’i gy es mdo, SKB IV.297.2.2; this material is treated differently in van der Kuijp 1987, pp. 108-10.
111. rNam thar yongs grags, p. 212.21-13.3, compared with the preceding statement.
112. From Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 449, but the list of the royal supporters and their descent from Yum-brtan becomes increasingly less clear; lDe’u chos ‘byung, p. 154; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 433-34; Deb ther dmar po gsar ma, pp. 170-71.
113. Chos la j’ug pa’i sgo, SKB Il.344.2.3, emphasizes the West Tibetan contributions.
114. Colophon to the Sri-Guhyasamajasadhana-siddhasambhava-nidhi, fol. 69b6; Petech 1997, pp. 237, 253, n. 51.
115. Petech 1997, p. 253, n. 51, provides a few incorrect references; the following are attributed to Tsa-la-na Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan: To. 451, 1214, 1320, 1846, 1850, 1853, 1859, 1866, 1870, 1872-78. Of these, it appears that the brDa nges par gzung ba may have been composed by the royal monk himself.
116. The chronology is from Hazod 2000b, p. 182.
117. dPal gsang ba ‘dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ‘dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed, p. 185; compare Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 451; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 372; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’ i bcud, p. 477.7-18.
118. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 213-14; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 168-69; most of the works identified by ‘Gos-lo gZhon-nu-dpal as containing the word rdzogschen were translated by Tsa-la-na Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan.
119. Hazod 2000b, p. 176.
120. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, pp. 460-72, considers the West Tibetan connection a supplement to the great activity already taking place. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 153, mentions it only in passing; mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 397 provides only a bit more; Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb 1990, pp. 86- 89, treats Western Tibet and the bKa’-gdams-pa in passing as well; greater respective attention is given in sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, pp. 89.12-91.9. In Chos la ‘jug pa’i sgo, SKB II.343.4.6-44.2.6, the review of the events does not even mention Atisa or the bKa’-gdams-pa. The twelfth-century bKa ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 2-5, 276,319, is the earliest text to be strongly concerned with Arisa, in this case the apocryphal connection between Atisa and Srong-btsan sgam-po. From the time of the 1363 Deb ther dmar po, pp. 61-81, we see the bKa’gdams-pa receiving their own chapter and approaching parity with the Eastern Vinaya monks; this direction was followed in the 1434 rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 472-81.
121. We see this in both the 1529 sectarian history of Pan-chen bSod-nams grags-pa, bKa’ gdam s gsar rnying gi chos ‘byung, pp. 4.4- 45.5, and in the more mainstream Deb gter sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 297-425; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 241-350.