4.11 Примечания к Гл.4

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

1. Rwa lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, p. 10.9-10.
2. *Catuhkrama, fol. 358b6-7; C rags- pa shes-rab must be an approximate contemporary of rNgog-lo bLo-ldan shes-rah (1059- 1109), for both worked with Sumatikirti. De Jong 1972, p. 516, maintains that the phrases la gtugs pa or dang gtugs pa indicate “to compare [one text] with [another].” While this is the implied meaning in some circumstances with respect to texts (not here, where the text secured is the only one), gtugs actually means to encounter or to consult, in these cases with the purpose of collation. De Jong’s interpretation causes him some problems, pp. 533- 34, when colophons indicate that individuals are encountered (or not: pandita la ma gtugs shing), which do not indicate that a text was compared with a pandita but that a pandita had not been met who could solve textual difficulties .
3. Rwa lo tsa ba’ i rnam thar, p. 310.1-7.
4. Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, p. 470, sums up the received wisdom: “The second diffusion of Indian Buddhi sm in Tibet, regarded primarily as a necessary scholarly enterprise, was a very important phase in the history of the conversion of Tibet, but it represented a new beginning only so far as the collation and translating of Indian Buddhist scriptures were concerned.”
5. The literature on this phenomenon is vast; a convenient summary is in Rabil 1988, pp. 350-81.
6. For the Shong-ston bLo-gros brtan-pa, see Davidson 1981, p. 14, n. 38; the unacceptable translation system of Bu-ston is evinced in his work on the Taramulakalpa, To. 724.
7. This explanation is based in the discussion in Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 459; compare mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 396; the rNam thar yongs grags, p.113, is especially adamant that doubts about the correct path were the issue.
8. Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, p. 462.18-21, mentions the unsuccessful search for sections of esoteric literature in old temple libraries.
9. Indicating the textual history, Sorensen 1994, pp. 14-22, and van der Kuijp 1996, p. 47, pointed to one of the two lineage lists in the conclusion of the text printed in Lanzhou (p. 320: Atisa, Bang-ston, sTod-lung-pa [1032-16], sNe’uzur-ba [ro42-1n8/r9], ‘Bri-gung-pa [1143-1217], rGya-ma-ba [1138-1210], Rwasgreng-ba, dKon-bzang, rDor-je tshul-khrims [1154-1221], and then the redactor), although both suggested that the list might be made more historical than it is by emending ‘Bri-gung-pa to Lha-chen ‘Bri-gang-pa [ca. 1100/ro-1190]. However, I believe the real message here is that some bKa’-brgyud monks appropriated the Atisa legend to augment their position in the midst of the rise of the Sa-skya in the thirteenth century and were unable to invoke the bKa’-gdams lineage in a logical chronology, resulting in the chronological inconsistency. The text recognizes ( p. 321) that it is the longest version of a threefold short, medium, and long version circulating in gTsang and mentions (p. 287.ro) one whose name ends in snying-po (snying po’i mtha ‘ can), undoubtedly indicating Dwags-po sGom-tshul (1116-69; full name: Tshul-khrims snying-po, see his short hagiography appended to the mNyam med sgam po pa”i rnam thar, p. 166.9), and thus the text is probably the product of his followers who participated in the renovation of the Jokhang around 1165.
10. See, for example, the *Vajrayanamulapattitika, To. 2486, fol. 19ob4.
11. On this topic, see Davidson 1990.
12. This is important and neglected evidence about a Candrakirti. If this Indian proves to be the same as the author of the Pradipodyotana commentary on the Guhyasamaja, then that would assist our chronology of lndic tantra. See Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi i bcud, p. 459; compare mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 394, where he gives a delightful narrative of a second translation team, sNubs Yeses rgya-mtsho and Dhanadhala (?), and the latter’s evil mantras.
13. A helpful review on the opinions of the circumstances of the later diffusion is found in Kah-thog Tshe-dbang nor-bus Bod rje lha btsan po’i gdung rabs tshig nyung don gsal, pp. 77-85.
14. Early versions of the Smrti story are found in Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, pp. 459-60, and mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, p. 396.
15. For this character, the text reads khyeng rje shag btsan bya ba la btsongs te; I understand khyeng / kheng / rgyen as cognates, the former unattested but the latter well known.
16. It probable that gLan Tshul-khrims snying-po is referring to a disciple of kLu-mes; see sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 144.
17. The sM r’a sgo mtshon cha (To. 4295) is examined in some detail in Verhagen 2001, pp. 37-57-
18. Datang xiyuji,T.2087.51.918b16-24; Beal 1869, vol. 2, pp. 135-36.
19. Sachau 1910, vol. 1, p. 19.
20. Datang xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan, T. 2066 passim; Lahiri 1986, p. xvii.
21. Verhagen 1994, pp. 185-98, 231-57, discusses these grammars and their associated literature.
22. Verhagen 1994, pp. 9-107, reviews this effort.
23. Colophon to the Arya-tathtigatosnisasitapatraparajita-mahapratyangaira-paramasiddha-nama-dharani, fol. 219a7
24. Colophon to the Bhiksavrtti-nama. I have not been able to locate a Nye-ba’i ‘thung-gcod-pa in Kathmandu. For a translation of Si-tu Pan-chen’s visits to Kathmandu in 1723 and 1744, see Lewis and Jamspal 1988. None of the sites mentioned by Si-tu Pan-chen seems to correspond to this one. Cf. Lo Bue 1997.
25. The colophons to three texts contain virtually the same lines: Raktayamarisadhana, To. 2084, rgyud, tsi, fol. 161 -5; Kayavakcittatrayadhisthanoddesa,To. 2085, rgyud, tsi, fol. 162b4-5; Trisattvasamadhisamapatti, To. 2086, rgyud, tsi, fol. 162b3-4. Note that the Tohuku catalog has no translator listed for the first (To. 2084) of these, just one of many places where this catalog is in error. On Tirhut, see Petech 1984, pp. 55, 119, 207-12.
26. Colophon to the rJe btsun ma ‘phags pa sgrol ma’i sgrub thabs nyi shu rtsa gcig pa’i las kyi yan lag dang bcas pa mdo bsdus pa, To. 1686, bsTan-gyur, rgyud, sha, fol. 24b6. For Stam Bihara as Vikramasila, see Stearns 1996, p. 137, n. 37.
27. Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 238.
28. See the remarks in Hattori 1968, pp. 18-19; Manjusrinamasamgiti, Davidson 1981, p. 13.
29. Witzel 1994, pp. 2-3, 18-20.
30. Sachau 1910, vol. 1, p. 18; discussed in Witzel 1994, pp. 2-3.
31. Colophon to Sri-Hevajrabhisamayatilaka, fol. 13oa6.
32. The following is taken from the Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar 1989; Decleer 1992 considered some of the problems of this document.
33. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, p. 9.
34. Decleer 1992, pp. 14-16, showed the disagreement among the sources on this betrothal. While the Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, p. 9, indicates that he did not wish marriage, Taranatha’s telling of the same tale indicates that his fiancee could not stand Rwa-lo; both may still be true in some measure.
35. Rwa lo tsti ba ‘i rnam thar, pp. 11-13.
36. The designation Transitional was suggested by Slusser 1982, vol. 1, pp. 41-51; adopted by Petech 1984, pp. 31-76; and questioned to some degree by Malla 1985,p. 125
37. The following political description follows Petech 1984, pp. 31-43, except as noted. See Malla 1985, although this is an excessively harsh review of Petech 1984.
38. Compare Petech 1984, pp. 37-39, who provides the regnal dates of 1010 to 1041, while the editors of the Gopalarajavamsavali, p. 236, suggest 1023 to 1038.
39. Petech 1984, pp. 39-41; Gopalarajavamsavali, p. 127; Nepalavamsavali, p. 98.
40. Regmi 1983, vol. 1, pp. 132-33, vol. 2, pp. 82-83, vol. 3, pp. 221-23; the date is Mahadeva era, beginning October 576 c.e., year 199. For this era, see Petech 1984, p. 12.
41. Eimer 1979, §§ 248 to 251.
42. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 60.
43. Rwa lo tsd ba”i rnam thar, pp. II, 20-21, 38, 68, 81, etc.
44. Regmi 1983, vol. 1, pp. 76-77, vol. 2, pp. 46-47, vol. 3, pp. 139-46; Gum Baha in Sankhu is the only one clearly identifiable; see Locke 1985, pp. 467-69.
45. Locke 1985, pp. 533-36.
46. Locke 1985, pp. 28-30, considers this grouping.
47. Based on the descriptions of geography, Decleer 1994-95 hypothesized that Ye-rang nyi-ma steng be located in the Chobar Gorge, but the evidence is not compelling and the site unlikely. I prefer to look for the monastery exactly where the text locates it and read the geographical descriptions as Pure-Land inspired.
48. Locke 1985, pp. 70-74, discusses this monastery.
49. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 72: specifically, Maitripa was said to have been the Upadhyaya, but this siddha figure was ejected from Vikramasila by Atisa for sexual impropriety, and it is questionable whether he would have gotten a hearing at Nalanda at about the same time.
50. Two of the scriptural materials are edited and translated in Siklos 1996; the colophons are available on pp. II4, 155. Siklos ‘s analysis of the transmission to Tibet, pp. 10-II, is weak. The representation of Bha-ro phyag-rdum as essential to the Yamari materials is bolstered by his presence in the lineage received by Sa-chen Kun-dga’ snying-po, bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 83.3.r.
51. The Mayamata 25.43-56 contains a description of the construction of various kinds of kunda.
52. For the current usage, see Kolver and Sakya 1985, p.19; compare Gellner 1992, pp. 162- 86.
53. Petech 1984, pp. 190-91; Kolver and Sakya 1985, pp. 72, 91, 107, 128. The earliest Bharo attested is Kadha Bharo, in a document dated 1090/91, sixty years after Rwa-lo’s arrival. It is difficult to extrapolate from current caste designations as far back into the eleventh century, and we know that the remarkable changes in the twentieth century could just as easily have occurred before. For the changes in Newar sociology in the last two centuries, see Rosser 1978.
54. rNam thar rgyas pa, Eimer 1979, §§ 271, 393; Petech 1984, p. 190.
55. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 66.
56. Rwa lo tsd ba’ i rnam thar, p. 13; for bhari = wife, see Gopalarajavamsavali, p. 181. Locke 1985, p. 484a, specifically questions the depiction of medieval Patan under the “thesis [that] posits a great (celibate) monastic and scholarly tradition on the model of the Indian Buddhist Universities which then deteriorated to produce a sort of corrupt Buddhism in the Malla period. Did this [model actually] ever exist, or has Nepalese Buddhism from its inception been mainly ritual Buddhism supported mostly by householder monks?” Note, however, that the bahis maintained an ideology of conservative Buddhist monasticism, even after becoming entirely lay, which may indicate that at one time they were the centers of celibate Mahayanist orthodoxy; see Gellner 1992, pp. 167-68; Locke 1985, pp. 185-89.
57. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, pp. 20-21, 39-40; in this latter place, the merchant ‘s name is given as Zla ba bzang, perhaps *Candrabhadra or some similar name.
58. Rwa lo tsd ba-‘i rnam thar, pp. 15-16: nga rta la bahs nas bong bu zhon pa mi’ong.
59. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 35.
60. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 43; Decleer 1992 showed this episode to be reported in a dramatically different manner by Taranatha.
61. Rwa lo tsd ba ‘i rnam thar, pp. 30-31, for the warning, in strong contrast to Rwa-lo’s propagation in public environments, pp. 45, 54, 143, 145, 158, 159, 162, 181,183, 188, 200, 217, 229, 234, 241, 243, 291, 300, etc.
62. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 48.
63. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 49.
64. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 50.
65. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 100.
66. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 63; I have not been able to locate the precise meaning of this designation in medieval Nepalese documents, but Tibetan materials treat Ha-du (or Ham-du, Had-du) as a class of Newari religious; compare Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, pp. 64, 66. In the latter section, two hundred of these individuals are assembled. Hang-du dkar-po is also mentioned as Sa-chen’s source for some Yogini, Guhyasamaja, and Kalacakra teachings; see bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 85.4.2-3. Compare Stearns 2001, pp. 206-7, n. 15.
67. We note that none of the rNying-ma annalists of the Vajrakila agrees with this outcome. For them, Rwa-lo was killed by Lang-lab Byang-chub rdo-rje , and this constitutes a great item of pride; see, for example, Sog-bzlog-pa, dPal rdo rje phur pa i lo rgyus chos kyi ‘byung gnas ngo mtshar rgya mtsho’i rba rlabs, in Sag bzlog pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 168-77, esp. pp. 168.4-70.3.
68. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. 309.
69. Rwa lo tsd ba i rnam thar, p. 310; one of the verses in this sung reply is translated at the head of this chapter; see n.2. The episode of Kong-po A-rgyal’s daughter is related on pp. 293-95; Rwa-lo’s survival and escape were, of course, miraculous.
70. Sag bzlog pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 168. We note that Sog-bzlog-pa had his own reasons for propagating this number, for he claimed that Lang-lab Byang-chub rdo-rje was the only figure to escape Rwa-lo’s net of magic, thus articulating the superiority of the Vajrakila system over that of Vajrabhairava.
71. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, pp. 102-3.
72. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, pp. 64, 142; Chos ‘byung bstan pa’i sgron me, p.148.1-2.
73. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, pp. 166-68; Davidson (forthcoming b) further examines this conflict.
74. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 438-43; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 360-64.
75. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 159.9-10; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 123.
76. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 438.9-10; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 360.
77. dPal gsang ba ‘dus pa’i dam pa ‘i chos byung ba’i tshul, pp. II 5-17; Vitali 2002, p. 90, n. 6, relates the gNas rnying skyes bu rnams kyi rnam thar version of the story.
78. bLa ma brgyud pa bod kyi lo rgyus, p. 173.3.5, translated in chapter 5.
79. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 151-52, 156; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 117, 121.
80. Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 50, mentions the rNgog gi gdung rahs che dge yig tsang of the rNgog clan.
81. Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 470-526, contains many cogent observations on this point.
82. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, p. 122.
83. See Jackson 1990, pp. 102-4.
84. Deb ther dmar po, p. 74.2, gives a bird year; the thirteenth-century dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng gives no dates, pp. 137-87, nor does the mKhas pa ‘i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 774-75; Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 49, is the most informative on the chaos of dates: “This lord was born in the sa-mo-phag year (999 or 1059) and passed away at eighty-six (that is, 85); we can also accept the difference of two years so that he was born in the chu-pho-stag year (1002 or 1062), but there are others accepting a difference of five years (1004?), and which among these is correct should be examined. The Chos ‘byung mig ‘byed (?) says he was born in a shing-pho-byi (1024) and died at eight-four in the me-mo-phag (1107), but that would put Mila at age sixtyeight and rNgog mdo-sde at age thirty-one when he died, and the time doesn’t fit.” Only the later bKa’- brgyud sources, like the sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 132-44, accepts the date of the Blue Annals, pp. 404-5.
85. For the relationship of Mar-yul to the current Ladakh, see Vitali 1996, pp. 153-61.
86. Kha rag gnyos kyi rgyud pa byon tshul mdor bsdus, dated 1431?, pp. 5-16. This hagiography clearly has its own problems, and gNyos-lo is accorded an age of more than 140 years at his death, p. 16.3.
87. Deb ther dmar po, p. 74.16, has Mar-pa study for six years and six months with Naropa.
88. Decleer 1992, pp. 20-22, examined this curious episode; Stearns 2001, p. 220, n. 62, discussed charges that gNyos-lo-tsa-ba fabricated tantra rather than translating them.
89. The problems with the exact death date of Naropa extends to testimony of the bKa’-gdams-pa. As we will see, the report of Nag-tsho in Grags-pa rgyalmtshan’s letter makes 1041 the most likely date, with the news of his death received by Atisa and Nag-tsho after they had already arrived in Nepal. Yet the rNam thar rgyas pa has Naropa die twenty-one days after Nag-tsho sees him back in Vikramastla; see Eimer 1979, § 232.
90. For example, sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 131-45.
91. Mar pa lo tsd’i rnam thar, p. 84; this strategy was followed by gTsang-smyong’s follower Brag-dkar Lha-btsun Rin-chen rnam-rgyal (1457-1557) in his hagiography of Nru-opa, which is the one translated by Guenther 1963; see pp.100- 102; for gTsang-smyong, see Smith 2001, pp. 59-79.
92. rNal ‘byor byang chub seng ge’i dris Ian, SKB III.277,4,4-78.2.7.
93. There have been many who have noticed this problem; Wylie 1982 is representative; compare Guenther 19631 pp. xi-xii.
94. For example, Saddharmopadesa, To. 2330, fol. 271a2-3; compare Guhyaratna, To. 1525, fol. 83b1-2.
95. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 760; rNgog ‘s dates from Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 52, but other sources place his birthdate at 1036.
96. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 11 p. 326.8; on this figure, see Deb ther sngon po, vol. 11 p. 485.2-67, Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 400; on sGam-po-pa locating Puspahari in Kashmir, see sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, pp. 8, 392.
97. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 173; this prophecy is often repeated; see Deb ther dmar po, p. 74, mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 775; ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung, p. 325.
98. sGra sbyor ham po gnyis pa, fol. 132b6-33a1.
99. Rwa lo tsd ba’i rnam thar, p. ro4, identifies three kinds of dakinis: flesheating (sha za), worldly (‘jig rten), and gnostic (ye shes). It is not clear whether these categories are in fact Indian. For the Lam-‘bras definitions of five daka, see app. 2, §I.B.2.d. note 7.
100. For a fuller elaboration of the concerns in this section, see Davidson 2002a.
101. For example, Pha dam pa’i rnam thar, pp. 6o-6r.
102. Dam chos snyingpo zhi byed las rgyud kyi snyan rgyud zab ched ma, vol. 1; this very interesting collection is in need of much work; Hermann-Pfandt 1992, pp. 40 7- 151 has begun the process; compare Davidson forthcoming a.
103. Sri-Vajradakinigita, To. 2442, fol. 67a1-2.
104. rNal ‘byor pa thams cad kyi de kho na nyid snang zhes bya ba grub pa rnams kyi rdo rje’i mgur, To. 2453.
105. Examples of the normative view of gSar-ma traditions being almost universally authentic include Mayer 1997b, pp. 620-22.
106. There are two received versions of the sNgag log sun ‘byin. One is in Sog bzlog gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 475-88, which includes the interlinear annotations and refutations of the translator’s position. The second version is found in the sNgags log sun ‘byin gyi skor, pp. 18-25. The texts diverge in significant ways.
107. gSang sngags snga gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi Ian du brjod pa Nges pa don gyi ‘brug sgra, in Sog bzlog gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 444.4.
108. On Bai-ro tsa-na, see Karmay 1988, pp. 17-37.
109. On this canon, see Karmay 1988, pp. 23-24. Kaneko 1982 lists five works having rMad du byung ba in the title: nos. 10, 20, 38, 40, and 42. Karmay 1988, p. 24, identifies no. 20 as the text in the sems-sde canon.
110. sNgags log sun ‘byin gyi skor, pp. 13, 26.
111. Mayer 1996, p. 142, n. 29, reports that Alexis Sanderson argued that because of its citation in the received manuscript of Vilasava’s Mantrarthavalokini, the real name of this work is Guhyakosa. The Dun-huang manuscript studied in Hackin 1924, p. 7, however, reads Guhyagarbha, and the text provides a close approximation of the phonetics we expect from an lndian – Devaputra – in the tenth century.
112. David Germano called my attention to this translation by Thar-pa lo-tsaba Nyi-ma rgyal-mthsan being preserved in the Phu-brag, no. 754, Samten 1992, pp. 233-34; compare Sog bzlog pa gsung ‘bum, p. 479. Sog-bzlog-pa reports that the Manika Srijnana translation was done in the iron monkey (lcags pho spre’u) year. gZhon-nu-dpal, writing in 1478, mentions that the bSam-yas text was actually found by Kha-che paQ-chen Sakyasri, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and came eventually to bCom-ldan rig-ral and was translated by Thar-pa lo-tsaba, a teacher of Bu-ston, and that gZhon-nu-dpal himself had the surviving Sanskrit folia in his possession. See Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 136; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 104.
113. Karmay 1998, pp. 29-30.
114. Karmay 1998, p. 30, correctly identified him with the Pandita Prajnagupta.
115. On this issue, see Davidson 1990.
116. 116.To.378,379,392-94,398,404,410,421,422,447,450.

117. Davidson 1981, p. 13, for a discussion of this point.
118. Rinpoche and Dwivedi, eds. Jnanodaya-tantram.
119. On this point, see the introduction by Tsuda 1974 to his edition of the Sarizvarodaya-tantra, p. 30.
120. Jackson 1996, p. 235, first notes this was in the twelfth century but that its roots were in the eleventh; Rong-zom devotes two surviving works to the issue, although it is discussed elsewhere in his oeuvre as well: the Sangs rgyas sa chen po, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, pp. 69-87; and the Rang byung ye shes chen po’i ‘bras bu rol pa’i dkyil ‘khor tu bla ba’i yi ge, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, pp.111-30. The question is discussed in the hagiography/contents by Mi-pham, Rong zom gsung ‘bum dkar chag me tog phreng ba, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 15-21; I thank Oma Almogi for drawing my attention to these works.
121. Spitz 1987, vol. 1, p. 148.
122. Bu st on chos ‘byung, pp. 3- 9; Obermiller 1931, vol. 1, pp. 8-17.
123. Rwa lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, p. 205; for this event, see Shastri 1997; van der Kuijp 1983, pp. 31- 32.
124. On European textual cultures, see Irvine 1994, and on the problems of definition for a textual culture, see Stock 1990, pp. 140-58. The situation appears more complex than reported in Blackburn 2001 for Sri Lanka.