Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»
<< К оглавлению |
1. Suparigrahamandalavidhi-sadhana, fol. 154a6-7.
2. For example, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 484; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 399; see also Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, pp. 474-75.
3. Given the attention that macrons have received in the spelling of Atisa’s name precipitated by Eimer’s observation that Atisa is never spelled Atisa in Tibetan I must inform the reader that Gayadhara is always spelled Gayadhara/Ghayadhara in Tibetan literature, the latter being very common, albeit the least probable. So why the change? Because I have never seen the name spelled Gayadhara in inscriptions, only Gayadhara. For example, Banerji 1919-20, 1. 27; Kielhorn 1886, v. Sr. Having worked with medieval Bengali and Newar manuscripts, I must conclude that the concern for vowel length has perhaps received more attention than is warranted.
4. bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, pp. 81-83.
5. gNas chen muk gu lung gi khyad par bshad pa, in Bod kyi gnas yig bdams bsgrigs, p. 299, indicates that Mu-gu-lung was founded 436 years before 1479.
6. Chos ‘byungdpag bsam I.Jon bzang, p. 834, with the birthdate inferred from the assumption that ‘Brog-mi was to have been 84 when he died; compare bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, p. 83.
7. bL a ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba 13-20; compare Tucci 1947 for the various lineages in Central Tibet, and Richardson 1998, pp. 106-13, for the question of the reliability of these lists.
8. Aris 1979, pp. 3-34; Gyatso 1987.
9. Ferrari 1958, pp. 66, 154.
10. Ekvall 1968 provides a good introduction to traditional nomad life.
11. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, pp. 19-24, and p. 53; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi i bcud apparently has one place where ‘brog mi is used as a collective noun, p. 461.6-7-
12. Nebesky-Wojkowit z 1956, pp. 269-73-
13. ‘Brog-mi dPal ye-shes is found in mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 613; Lo-tsaba ‘Brog-mi Phrag gi ral-pa-can in Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 490. The mTshams-brag manuscript of the rNying ma rgyud ‘bum, vol. tsha, fols. 26a67, represents the shorter text of the Sarvabuddhasamdyoga to be the translation of Pandita [?Buddha-] Guhya and ‘Brogmi dPal gyi ye-shes; equally, Kaneko 1982, no. 207, for the gTing-skyes manuscript.
14. bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, p. 82, Lam ‘bras khog phub , p. 121.r.
15. bLa ma brgyud pa bod kyi lo rgyus, SKB III.173.r.674.1.6.
16. The SKB edition reads snga dro’i tshur nye ba rnam thang dkar po na, but the place name sPa-gro was evidently overwritten by the editor into sNga-dro (morning), and the correct name and alternative spe lling is retained in other editions of the text; see LL Xl.595.5 : spa gro’i tshur nye ba gnam thang dkar po na; compare Pod-nag, LL XVI.17.6-18.1.
17. The story as related by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan is far too elliptical to be translated directly, so I have supplied the sense from the Pod-nag, LL XVI. 18.1-23.3.
18. Again the text makes little sense. The editing of the LL XI.597.2, compared with bLa ma brgyud pa”i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba LL XVI.22.2, has been accepted: der bla chen gyi slob ma sgom chen se rog gnyis can du bzhugs nas |
19. gNag-smad, evidently a kind of wild black yak. An expanded version of the story of these yak and the position they played in the family of Se-mkhar chungba is found in the bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, LL XVI.32.6-33.1, in which Se, while a boy, is sent to graze them on a mountain, a fairly common experience among ‘brag-pa, even those from a quasi-aristocratic lineage.
20. The problems surrounding Rin-chen bzang-po’s chronology is examined in Vitali 1996, pp. 186-89 and n. 263. An edition and translation of the earliest Rinchen bzang-po hagiography are provided in Snellgrove and Skorupski 1977-80, vol. 2, pp. 83-116. Please note that this hagiography sets Naropa in Kashmir; thus it is subject to all the problems besetting the Naropa hagiography.
21. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 257; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 205; bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, p. 81.
22. Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, p. 436.
23. Stearns 2001, p. 207, n. 15.
24. For an attempt to demonstrate the need for a reassessment of Ratnakarasanti’s work, see Davidson 1999. Fortunately, other scholars like Isaacson 2001, have begun to edit and reassess his material.
25. For example, for the inferiority of Ratnakarasanti’s view, see rNam thar yong grags, pp. 49, 71, 75-76, 86.
26. rNam thar yong grags, p. 114.
27. rNam thar yong grags, pp. 114-26.
28. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 85-87; compare bLa ma brgyud pa i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 15-16.
29. In the sDe-dge bsTan ‘gyur are collected his treatise on cheating death (Mrtyuvancanopadesa, To. 1748), four instructions on the Guhyasamaja-tantra (To. 188790), a ritual for image consecration (To. 3131), and short sadhanas to Vajrapani (To. 2887) and Tara (3682)
30. The following is from Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 85-89; compare bLa ma brgyud pa i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 16.
31. Compare Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, p. 437; Bhir ba pai lo rgyus, p. 395.
32. This work is also given three other titles, the Instruction of Santipa, the Autolocomotion of the Essential Meaning, and the Instruction on blessing the Awareness of Appearance; the work is in the Pusti dmar chung LL XIII.394-398.
33. Pusti dmar chung LL XIII.398-4ro contains these various instructions; the importance of these is emphasized in the Lam ‘bras khog phub, pp. 124-25.
34. rNam thar rgyas pa, Eimer 1979, §§ 231-32.
35. Pusti dmar chung LL XIII .398.3: na lendra’i mkhas pa sgo drug las.
36. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 86-87; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 16.
37. Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, p. 437, and Bhir ba pa’i lo rgyus, p. 395, give nine years; Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan has twelve; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 88-89, has thirteen for both Nepal and India; Lam ‘bras khogphub, p. 124, gives eighteen years.
38. For the sources of this nomenclature, see chap. 1, nn. 41 and 42.
39.Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, p. 437; Bhir ba pa’i lo rgyus, p. 395.
40. Aris 1979, pp. 3-34; Gyatso 1987.
41. sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 52; mKhas pa i dga’ ston, vol.1, p. 187.1920; the importance of Ru-lag was noted by Everding 2000, vol. 2, pp.279-89.
42. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 187.4-5, 188.15-16.
43. mKhas pa’i dga·’ ston, vol. 1, p. 187.6; Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 492; Vitali 1990, pp. 89-96.
44. Chas la ‘jug pa’i sgo, p. 345.1.5; the date is interpreted following Vitali 1996, P· 547, n. 934.
45. mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po maintained that the trip could be done in a day; Ferrari 1958, p. 64.
46. Tshar chen rnam thar, p. 500; Ferrari 1958, p. 65.
47. Tshar chen rnam thar, p. 500; the cave was called Cha-lung rdo-rje-brag rdzong.
48. Ferrari 1958, p. 23; similarly, the visit by Si-tu Chas kyi rgya-mtsho, who visited Mu-gu-lung in 1919, devotes only a couple of lines to ‘Brog-mi; Kap tog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, pp. 328-29.
49. The text is not really given a title in the work outside the title provided by the editor-gNas chen muk gu lung gi khyad par bshad pa-but it is included in a collection of “sacred site letters” (gnas yig) entitled Bod kyi gnas yig bdams bsgrigs, pp. 29599.
50. We see mang-gar, mang-kar, mang-gar, mang-dkar, etc.; see Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 90-107, 117,180,226,229,235; sNgongyigtam me togphreng ba, Uebach 1987, p. 52; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 187.19-20.
51. The Ratnajvalasadhana, To. 1251, ascribed to Prajfiedraruci.
52. The earliest instance with which I am familiar is that of a Kayastha Bhattipriya from Mathura. See the inscription edited and translated in Sharma 1989, p. 312, dated to the first century c.e.; compare Russell 1916, vol. 3, pp. 404-22; Gupta 1996, pp. 8-49. There are many more inscriptions, however, than Gupta notes, and the history of the medieval Kayasthas has yet to be written.
53. For a succinct account of the caste, see Leonard 1978, pp. 12-15.
54. bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus, SKB III.173-1.1-6, and note the Apabhramsa forms found in Gayadhara’s own Jnanodayopadesa, fols. 363b7-368a2.
55. Gupta 1996, pp. 50 ff.; Russell 1916, vol. 3, pp. 416-18.
56. This is disputed by Gupta 1996, pp. 61-62, although his reasoning is questionable, given the overwhelming specificity of the term Gauc;la; compare Russell 1916, vol. 3, p. 418.
57. Russell 1916, vol. 3, p. 421.
58. Boyer, Rapson, and Senart 1920-29, nos. 330, 338, are by divira Budharachi, who in 419 is identified as an important monk. Lin 1990, p. 285, was written by the monk Samghamitra; compare the remarks of Salomon 1999, p. 54, in which the monks are scribes (here Kayastha) who were permitted to retain their equipment and, evidently, exercise their skills on behalf of the Dharma.
59. There are too many inscriptions to note, compare Rajguru 1955-76, vol. 4, pp. 97, 103, 109, 155, etc.; compare Gupta 1996, pp. 94-99, for some others.
60. Gupta 1996, pp. 156-62.
61. Gupta 1996, pp. 156,158.
62. Mrcchakatika, pp. 182-83, 324-25 (act 5, v. 7, prose, act 9, v. 14); compare Rqjataraizgi1J.i 5-180-84, 8.131.
63. Kemendra’s Kalavilasa, discussed in Gupta 1996, pp. 160-61; for Kemendra’s criticism of tantrikas in general, see Baldissera 2001.
64. bLa ma brgyud pa·i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 117-
65. Tshar chen rnam thar, pp. 413-14.
66. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 43; Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 111.1.5-6.
67. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 43.
68. Tshar chen rnam thar, p. 414.
69. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 43-44.
70. bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, pp. 92-93.
71. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 145; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. n2; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 90-93.
72. Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, p. 438; Bhir ba pa’i lo rgyus, p. 396.
73. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. n4.3; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 96-97-
74. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 49.
75. For example, ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung, p. 221.
76. Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 47.
77. The colophon to the Sri-Jnanajvala-tantraraja identifies her as such; To. 394, fol. 223a6: sing gha la’i gling gi rnal ‘byor ma tsandra ma la. ‘Brog-mi may have been party to the revision of the Abhidhonottara-tantra which is found in the Phug-brag canon, Samten 1992, no. 446, in which case he would have worked with Prabhakara as well; see Samten 1992, p. 163, which lists the revisers as Prabhakara and Shakya Yes-shes, but the chronology is difficult and it is possible this is another Shakya Yes-shes or an error in the name.
78. Samputa, fol. 158b6.
79. rNam thar yong grags, p. 159; mKhas pa i dga ston, vol. 1, p. 683; bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, p. 103.
80. Stearns 2001, pp. 91, 213, n. 39; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 77-99. mKhyen-brtse portrays Lha-btsun Ka-li as the son of mNga-bdag dPal-lde, indicating that ‘Brog-mi ‘s wife was a princess of the royal house. None of our lists for dPal-sde ‘s progeny support this claim; compare, for example, Bod rje htsan po’i gdung rah tshig nyung don gsal, p. 71, in which dPal-lde is given two sons: the elder, ‘Od-dpal-lde, and the younger, Dharma Tsakra. Stearns 2001, p. 213, n. 39, seems to accept the marriage of a princess and a nomad, even though he acknowledges on p. 232, n. 114, that no non-Lam-‘bras documentation supports this position. It would be unlikely indeed if a commoner like ‘Brog-mi were capable of marrying a princess. It is possible that the aristocratic house into which he married postured as one of the pretenders that arose during the period of fragmentation.
81. The annotation to the Zhih mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 90-91, indicates this about his sons, followed by bLa-ma Dam-pa, bLa ma hrgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 17; compare the names for the sons listed in bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 35.6. Nyang-ral’s Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’i bcud, however, mentions a ‘brog mi sras po lo tsa ba, p. 480.15; Stearns 2001, p. 213, n. 39, discusses legends of the sons. The Phag mo gru pa’i rnam thar rin po che’i phreng ba, p. 13.2, mentions a bLa-ma Mang-dkar-ba, who may have been a descendant of ‘Brog-mi.
82. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 96-97; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 49.
83. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 100-101.
84. For a list of the participants, both Indian and Tibetan, see Shastri 1997, pp. 877-78.
85. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 100; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 72.
86. mKhas grub khyung po rnal ‘byor gyi rnam thar, p. 33; the claim is unclear as to which trip of Gayadhara’s is meant, and we are not certain that Khyung-po rnal’byor’s hagiographer knew that the Bengali scholar had made multiple trips.
87. Lam ‘bras snyan hrgyud, pp. 439-40; Kha rag gnyos kyi rgyud pa hyon tshul mdor hsdus, pp. 12.4-13.2.
88. While it is clear that the Rog here is sGom-pa Rog or gShen-sgom Rogpo, it is not clear that this Se is Se-ston Kun-rig; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 22; compare gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 49 ; Lam ‘bras khog phub, pp. 138-39; Stearns 2001, p. 233, n. 120, discusses the problem.
89. Bhir ba pa’i lo rgyus, p. 398; bLa ma brgyud pa i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 21-22; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 49; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, p. 97.
90. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, p. 99; bLa-ma Dam-pa maintains that they were offered to Sa-chen by Nags-ston lo-tsa-ba at the time of his receiving the Lam’bras from Sa-chen; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 22.
91. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, 114.1.25.
92. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, 114.1.34; Ngor-chen lists the following texts: a translation of the [Lam ‘bras] rTsa ha rdo 1je’i tshig rkang, the annals of the lineage of the Gyi-jo’i slob-brgyud, both a lengthy commentary on and a summary of the Lam ‘bras rtsa ha, and an unspecified number of texts on topics like the letters in the bha ga dkyil ‘khor. The lineage is Gyi-jo zla-ba’ i ‘od-zer, Zhu ‘khor-lo, Zhu dar-ma rgyalmtshan, Zhu-ston Hor-mo, ‘Od-pa don-ne, mChims Tshul-khrims shes-rab.
93. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, 110.3.5-11.2.5.
94. Zab don gnad kyi sgron me of Go-rams bSod-nams seng-ge, p. 2.
95. Raktayamantakasadhana, To. 2017; Raktayamarisadhana, To. 2018; Uddiyanasriyogayoginisvabhuta-sambhoga-smasanakalpa, To. 1744 (fol. 11361 of this work associates it with the Mahamaya-tantra, or the Khasamatantra), Chinnamundasadhana, To. 1555; a variant version of this last work was edited and examined by Nihom 1992.
96. gShin rje gshed kyi yid bzhin gyi nor bu’i phreng ba zhe bya ba’i sgrub thabs, To. 2083, fol. 159a7.
97. Schaeffer 2002 introduces this literature but glosses over ( p. 523) the fact that the literature principally describes a substance, ambrosia (amrta), rather than immortality per se.
98. Raktayamantakasadhana, To. 2017, fol. 78a2; there is little surprising about this, but the confirmation is satisfying. The nectar texts are Amrtasiddhimula, To. 2285, and Amrtadhisthana, To. 2044.
99.Yamririyantrrivali, To. 2022.
100. These are, respectively, the ‘Od gsal ‘char ba’i rim pa,To. 2019, and the Karmacandalika-dohakosa-giti , To. 2344. Despite the doha form of this latter, it is really an instructional text.
101. Dohakosa, To. 2280; Viruaptidacaurasi, To. 2283; Sunisprapancatattvopadesa, To. 2020.
102. bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer, p. 178.3.
103. There are three specific works like this in the Pod ser: Lung ‘di nyid dang mdor bsdus su sbyar, Lung ‘di nyid dang zhib tu sbyar ba, Lam ‘bras dang bcas pa’i don rnams lung ci rigs pa dang sbyar. Collectively, they occupy Pod ser, pp. 481-581.
104. Differences of opinion by various teachers, Indian and Tibetan, are especially noted in the sGa theng ma, pp. 175, 180, 186-87, 192-93, 195-96, 203, 223, 267, 280, 282, 319-20, and 331-32.
105. lDan bu ma, p. 298.1.
106. It is possible that this work is related to the recently published Jnanodayatantra.
107. Yoginisancarya LI, and chaps. 2 and 3, are largely dedicated to this idea; Yoginisancarya, ed. Pandey 2002, pp. 8-13, 19-41.
108. For example, Sras don ma, pp. I 1.2, 21.I, 22.4, 27. 5, etc.
109. We might note the continuity of use from the Ratnagotravibhriga forward, for that Mahayanist work starts with seven “adamantine words” (vajrapada); Ratnagotravibhaga, LI; Takasaki 1966, pp. 141-42. Compare the discussion in the Pancakrama, LII 12.
110. Ratnagotravibhaga,1.23-26; Takasaki 1966, pp. 18695.
111. For example, Jackson 1996; Levinson 1996.
112. For example, Sras don ma, pp. 5152, which allows for both Samvara and Hevajra visualization systems, even though evidently preferring the former.
113. Sras don ma 24.1-2.
114. This material is taken from the rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing 30.3.535-1.5, and supplemented by sGa theng ma 386.4-400.2, Sras don ma 323.6-34.4.
115. One of the curiosities of Sachen’s descriptions are that the four joys of the mandalacakra practice are called in “ascending” order, despite the descent of the fluid from the fontanel to the navel, and the four joys of the adamantine wave are in the “descending order,” despite their ascent from the navel to the fontanel. I have not encountered an explanation of this variance in terminology. Both go through the sequence of ananda-paramananda-viramananda-sahajananda. For a discussion of these and the controversy on their order, see S nellgrove’s introduction to Hevajra-tantra, p. 38; see also Kvrerne 1975; Davidson 2002d.
116. On this controversy and the lore of sahaja, see Davidson 2002d.
117. For example, all three ‘khams ‘dus pa are applied to the rdo rje rba labs in kLog skya ma, pp. 254-55. However, Sa-chen in the Gang zag gzhungji !ta ba bzhin du dkri ba’i gzhung shing, Pod ser, pp. 312-13, equates the two lists of three items.
118. I have pointed out that alternative Tibetan translations of the Maiijusrinamasamgiti, for example, were the most frequently encountered in monastic liturgical syllabi (chos spyod), and these did not conform to its late canonical translation (To. 360) by Shong bLo-gros brtan-pa; Davidson 1981, p. 13; cf. Wedemeyer, forthcoming .
119. LL Xl.347-479; we note a different order observed by Ngor-chen in his Lam ‘bras byung tshul 109.3.2-10.1.6.
120. The received Sanskrit is edited by Samdhong Rinpoche and Dvivedi, Guhyadi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 195-208; ‘Brog-mis translation is found in Pod ser LL Xl.347-62, and at that time the text apparently had the title Acintyakramopadesa; these eight subsidiary cycles are presented briefly in Stearns 2001, p. 210, n. 30.
121. See the bibliography; it is worth noting that Crags-pa rgyal-mtshans gLegs bam gyi dkar chags makes no mention of the eight subsidiary texts, so their inclusion is apparently a later addition to the Pod ser LL XI.1-8.
122. LL Xl .36287-
123. Acintyadvayakramopadesa vv. 87-89; LL XI.358.4-5; To. 2228, fol. 103a7-b1.
124. The text is found Pod ser LL XI.387-95.
125. Shendge 1967 (Sahajasiddhi); Samdhong Rinpoche and Dvivedi, Guhyadi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 181-91; compare Pod ser LL XI.387-95.
126. Hevajra-tantra I.x.41; compare Pod ser LL XI.387-4.
127. These are reviewed by Shendge 1967, p. 128.
128. Pod ser LL XI.395.5: ‘di la rtsa ba med pa’i lam ‘bras bya ba’ang ming ‘dogs te l-
129.Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 109.4.3; compare his discussion of l) ombiheruka ‘s position in the “exegetical system,” (bshad brgyud), Kye rdo 1je’i byung tshul, p. 282.1.12.5; for Ngorchen’s consideration of this lineage, see Davidson 1991 and 1992.
130. The text is found in Pod ser LL Xl.400-406.
131. Pod ser LL Xl.405.5-6.
132. Guhyasamaja-tantra, p. 10, has both verses, even if the verse attributed to Vairocanavajra is not identified with a number by Matsunaga; the obhyavajra verse is ll.4. The former verse is found right at the beginning of the Bodhicittavivarana, To. 1800, fol. 38a7. Namai 1997 has begun to explore the complexity of the bodhicitta texts and their relationship to the Guhyasamaja.
133. Sarahapadasya dohakosa, Bachi 1935, pp. 52-120.
134. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 109.4.2.
135. Pod ser LL Xl.401.4, 406.1.
136. The text is found in Pod ser LL Xl.406-419.
137. Pod ser LL Xl.406.3-4; note that Ngor Chen, Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 110.1.2-3, indicates that rather than Pombiheruka’s Nairdtmyayoginisddha na, Vagisvarakirti used his own De kho na nyid rin po che’i phreng ba as a source text. We seem to have no surviving text by that name attributed to Vagisvarakirti, however, and I wonder whether Ngor-chen was confusing Vagisvarakirti with Advayavajra, who did write a Tattvaratnavali, found in the Advayavajrasamgraha, pp. 14-22.
138. Saptanga (To. 1888), esp. fol. 19oa-b; Tattvaratnavaloka, ed. Janardan Pandey (To. 1889).
139. Pod ser LL Xl.406.5, 418.6.
140. The text is found in Pod ser LL Xl.419-441.
141. Pod ser LL Xl.419.4-5; we note that Ngor-chen makes this work based on both the Sri-Hevajrasadhana and the Sri-Hevajrapradipasulopamavavadaka; Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 109.3.6-4.1.
142. Pod ser LL Xl.420.2-3.
143. Pod ser LL Xl.441-445; compare To. 1220, which is the same translation.
144. Pod ser LL Xl.445.3.
145. The text occurs in Pod ser LL Xl.445-57.
146. The identity of the Samvara as a nondual tantra is anomalous; see bSodnams rtse-mo’s rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, p. 18.1.2.
147. Pod ser LL Xl.445.4-46.1.
148. The Vasantatilaka has been edited by Samdhong Rinpoche and Dvivedi; the Guhyatattvaprakasa is found as the gSang ba’i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba (To. 1450), and the Samvaravyakhya is found as the sDom pa bshad pa (To. 1460); the Olapati is discussed later.
149. The commentary’s title is imperfectly Sanskritized to Olacastustayavibhanga : Rim pa bzhi’i rnam par ‘byed pa; fol. 358b7.
150. Sa-chen’s works on Kanha’s tradition are found in SKB I.216-4-2-256.3.6, which mention the “six texts” (gzhung drug) of Kanha and especially attend to the Olapati and the Vasantatilaka. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s materials are primarily on the consecration ritual and lineage, although the “six texts” topics are covered in some detail; Nag po dkyil chog gi bshad sbyar and bDe mchog nag po pa’i dkyil chog lag tu blang ba’i rim pa.
151. The text gives U-tsita-‘chiba-med-pa, and it appears that acyuta >ucyata >ucita in a series of copying errors, as acyuta exactly translates ‘chi ha med pa, deathless. The text is in Pod ser LL Xl.457-61.
152. Pod ser LL Xl.461.1.
153. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 110.1.4-5.
154. Caryagitikosa, nos. 10, 1r, and 18.
155. Pod ser Ll Xl.458.5.
156. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. no.1.5.
157. The text occurs in Pod ser LL Xl.461-79.
158. Sras don ma, pp. 364.4-66.1.
159. Pod ser LL Xl.461.2-3.
160. Pod ser LL Xl.479.3-4; compare Blue Annals (1949), vol. 2, p. 697, Prajnagupta is attributed the position of the Indian informant in Mahamudratilaka (To. 420), and other tantras (To. 421-22). Ruegg 1981, pp. 220-21, discusses his career and incorrectly reconstructs his name, while the colophon to the Jnanatilakayoginitantraraja-paramamahadbhuta,To. 422, fol. 136b4, provides the correct Prajniagupta. See also Karmay 1998, pp. 30-35; Stearns 2001, pp. 52-53; Vitali 1996, p. 238, n. 336.
161. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, pp. 124.4.6-25.1.2; I am presuming this section belongs to the part completed by Gung-ru Shes-rah bzang-po; Gung-ru Shes-rah bzang-po refers to a line in the Pod ser LL Xl.6.4.
162. Samputatilaka, To. 382, fol. 194a6-7; de Jong 1972, pp. 26-27, notes and translates this colophon but does not interpret it satisfactorily. Interestingly, a manuscript of ‘Brog-mi’s initial translation of the tantra before his final revision exists in the Phug-brag canon no. 461; Samten 19921 p. 168.
163. rGyud kyi rgyal po chen po sam pu (a zhes bya ba dpal ldan sa skya pa1_uji ta’i mchan dang bcas pa, fol. 3ooa3 ( p. 667.3);the date is provided fol. 300b4 ( p. 668.4).
164. This enumeration is taken from the Tohoku catalog, ed. Ui et al. 1934. Respectively, this indicates numbers To. 381-4u, 413-14; 41718 (one work, the Hevajra-tantra), 418191 426-27, 1185, 1195, 120 78, 1210-13, 1220, 1225-26, 1236, 1241, 1251, 1263, 1305-6 (note the incorrect numbering, 1306 given twice, but 1304 missing so that the numbers once again coincide by 1306), 1310, 1416, 1514, 1705. We may also note that To. 429, listed in the catalog as by Gayadhara and (‘Brogmi) Shakya ye-shes, is an incorrect reading of the colophon, which gives the translators as Gayadhara and ‘Gos khug-pa lhas-btsas. Similarly, To. 1209 and To. 1240 are not clearly by ‘Brog-mi, according to the printed text, which provides no translator, although the designation of ‘Brogmi to To. 1210 and To. 1241 may indicate that these were considered concluding sections of their immediately preceding works. Phug-brag 446 [Samten 1992, p. 163] is a revision ascribed to Prabhakara and Shakya Ye-shes, but it is possible that this is not ‘Brog-mi.
165. This work describes a mandala of ten divinities and features a Gold Tara with four heads and eight arms. It is not clear why ‘Brogmi should have translated this work, although he did it alone and it may have been done toward the end of his life; Arya-Taramandalavidhi-sadhana, To. 1705.
166. Respectively, To. 381, 382, 417-418, and 419; To. 417 is in fact only the first half (kalpa) of the two parts of the work, so that the translators’ colophon indicates their agency in the entire translation, and the Tohoku catalog needs emendation. For observations on the importance of different renditions of the Hevajra, see van der Kuijp 1985, whose errors in Sanskrit have been noted by Nihom 1995, p. 325, n. 29. Samten 1992, pp. xiv, 167, notes that the Vajraparijara found in Phug-brag no. 458, while ascribed to this team, is in fact quite different from the edition found in the other canons.
167. In his bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer, p. 175.2.2, Ngor-chen identifies Ratnasrijnana with Gayadhara, although this identification appears to be another of Ngor-chen’s idiosyncratic readings of history.
<< К оглавлению |
