Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»
<< К оглавлению |
1. Zangs gling ma, p. 129.13-17.
2. A good survey of the phenomenon, primarily from a later point of view, is Gyatso 1996; for Bonpo gter traditions, see Martin 20016.
3. This is the emphasis in Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 397-99.
4. Especially seen in Mayer 1994, p. 541; Gyatso 1994 discusses the earliest apology, that of Guru Chas dbang, whose ideas will play a part here.
5. Karmay 1972, pp. 65-71.
6. For these categories, see Gyatso 1998, pp. 147-48; for a modern Tibetan rep- resentation of gter-ma, see Thondup 1986.
7. gTer byung chen mo, pp. 101.7, 104.1.
8. gTer byung chen mo, pp. 81.5-82.3; these are discussed in Gyatso 1994, p. 276.
9. Zangs gling ma, pp. 132-133.
10. Thomas 1957, pp. 45-102.
11. Davidson 1990, 2002a, 2002c, p. 147.
12. For some reason, the sutra side of this has received little attention, but several sutras are quoted in the gter literature, most notably variations on the title Chu klung sna tshogs [rol pa’i ] mdo and the rNam rol mdo; see bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 14.17, 15.8-9, 107.13-14; the M a,:zi bka’ ‘bum, pp. 173.3-75.4; and Guru Chos-dbang’s gTer ‘byung chen mo, pp. 89.5, 91.6. Martin 20016, p. 23, seems to presume an Indian text and provides one of these sutras with the Sanskritized title Ntiefilalita Sutra, an improbable combination. See Davidson 2003, forthcoming a.
13. bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 258.2-12; compare statements in Guru Chosdbang’s gTer ‘byung chen mo, p. 83.6-84.1; Gyatso 1994, p. 280-83.
14. Denjongpa 2002, p. 5,”One day, my teacher Lopen Dugyal mentioned that there are many more spirits and deities inhabiting the environment in Sikkim than there are human beings.”
15. Karmay 1998, p. 254; Tucci 1949, vol. 2, pp. 721-24; Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956, pp. 287-300.
16. bKa’ thang sde Inga, p. 137-18.
17. Lalou 1938 translates and studies Atisa’s text on the eight Na.gas.
18. This is also true of their comparison to the Chinese dragon, which has traits accorded to the Tibetan klu, the Tibetan dragon, the ‘brug, and the Tibetan wind horse, the lung-rta; for this latter, see Karmay 1998, pp. 414-15.
19. On Naga; see Sutherland 1991, pp. 38-43; Vogel 1926.
20. For example, Zangs gling ma, p. II r.12-15, has Padmasambhava do many ceremonies focused on the klu because of their dominion; similarly p. 120.12-14.
21. bK a’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 257.12, 247.8; sBa bzhed, p. 46.5; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 38.1; Richardson 1998, pp. 247-50, locates the chapel to the klu and gnod-sbyin nos. 12 and 16.
22. The sBa bzhed p. 45.12-14 makes no mention of the klu, and the treasury is called the “treasury of things” (rdzas kyi bang mdzod), but sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 37 leaves it out; compare bKa’ thang sde Inga, p. 139.12: ‘khor sa bar ma klu la gtad pa yin.
23. bK a’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 37.14, 203.8; mKhas pa’i dga ston 1: 221.6.
24. bKa ‘ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 221.5-7; mKhas pa’i dga ston 1: 223.15-17.
25. sBa bzhed p. 53; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 45; dBa’ bzhed, pp. 53 (r ra), 55 (ua), 63 (14b); for a discussion of the issue of phywa, see Karmay 1998, pp. 178-180, n.; 247, n.
26. Tucci 1956b, p. 77.
27. Aspects of this have been studied in the fine collection of essays in Blondeau and Steinkellner 1996.
28. dBa’ bzhed, pp. 24-25 (text fol. 163-6 has been rather freely interpreted by the translators); S0rensen 1994, p. 150; Haarh 1969, pp. 335-38; Stein 1986, pp. 188-93; Richardson 1998, pp. 74-81. On the gnyan po gsang ba, mKhas pa’i dga ston, vol. 1, pp. 168- 70 ; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 137.6; Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi”i bcud, pp. 164.8-166.7.
29. dBa’ bzhed, pp. 24- 25 (fol. 2a1).
30. dBa’ bzhed, p. 36.
31. sBa bzhed, p. 35.2-3; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 28.5-6.
32. sBa bzhed, p. 32.15-17; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 26.6- 7.
33. Haarh 1969, pp. 348-49; for the Kharo thi materials, see Salomon 1999, pp. 240-47.
34. This phrase is employed in the rGyal rahs gsal ba ‘i me slong, p. 61.4, for the gnyan po gsang ha.
35. Ma’l_li bka’ ‘bum, fol. 96.5-6; the Punaka edition cited here reads the temple name incorrectly as phra ‘brug, but the Zhol spar khang (fol. 9ob6) has khra ‘brug; this treasury was probably at the Khra-‘brug palace; see bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 104.7- 8. T he temple is the Arya-palo (i.e. Aryavalokitesvara] temple close to the south entrance of the compound, which was built first by Khri-srong lde’u-btsan; its certification here by Srong-btsan sgam- po is an anachronism; sBa bzhed, p. 339.5-6; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 32.1-4. The “river silk” is chu dar, a board-like or felt-like material made from pounding water weeds (Tshig mdzod chen mo, p. 802b); the water weed described by chu bal (mo) remains uncertain, and the attempt by Arya 1998, p. 65b, to identify it with spirogyra varians (a form of algae) may not be correct, since a solid paper would need fibers. The consistent reference to chu dar in gter ma means that it may have been an early (sacred?) form of paper employed by Tibetans before the importation of Chinese products; see bKa’ thang sde Inga, pp. 160 .19, 195.21. It is placed first on the list of materials on which gter ma may legitimately be copied (bris gzhi) in Guru Chos-dbang’s gTer ‘byung chen mo, p. rn2.4.
36. The best material on the ideas of the bla is collected in Karmay 1998, pp. 310-38; see also Tucci 1980, pp. 190-93.
37. mKhas pa lde’u chos ‘byung, pp. 254.21-55.1.
38. That is, g.yas kyi tshugs dpon; dBa’ bzhed, p. 60, fol. 14a7; sBa bzhed, p. 34.7 ; the title chos kyi bla is left out of sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 27.10.
39. sBa bzhed, p. 35.14; dBa’ bzhed, fol. 15a2; mKhas pa”i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 333.13; missing sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 26.11. The identity of the bla’i gtsug lag khang with bSam-yas is evident in the sNgon gyi gtam me tog phreng ha, Uebach 1987, p. I 12 (Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag Inga, p. 28.2), in which the same episode mentions bSam-yas. For the Ba-lam-glag temple, see dBa’ bzhed, Wangdu and Diemberger 2000 (under dBa’ bzhed), pp. 41 n. 90, 63, n. 203.
40. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 192.8, 192.15.
41. Zangs gling ma, pp. 130-32.
42. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 437.5.
43. gNa’ rabs bod kyi chang pa’i lam srol, p. 37.
44. Ferrari 1958, pp. 48, 122, n. 207.
45. Karmay 1998, pp. 327- 28.
46. Karmay 1998, p. 314.
47. Z angs gling ma, pp. 130-32.
48. gTer ‘byung chen mo, p. 98.5- 6.
49. bKa’ thang sde Inga, pp. 166- 77.
50. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 136.13; Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 164.8.
51. Tun hong nas thon pa i bod kyi lo rgyus yig cha, pp. 34-35 (= Pelliot Tibetan 1287).
52. Haarh 1969, p. 144; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 161.15- 21.
53. Haarh 1969, p. 381, and Macdonald 1971b, p. 222, n. 133, pointed out that a tent provided the fundamental metaphor for the tombs, a point that Karmay 1998, p. 225, does not accept. I believe he is incorrect in this, although he is to be commended for discovering the site.
54. This line of thought is particularly noticeable in rNying-ma-pa literature; see chap. 38 of the gTam gyi tshogs theg pa’i rgya mtsho by ‘Jigs-med gling-pa, pp. 27-8 303. T his chapter was used by Tucci 1950, pp. 1-5, and Haarh 1969, pp.114-17, 362- 64, 381- 91; compare the Bon-po text studied in Lalou 1952.
55. bKa’ thang sde Inga, p. 146; discussed in Tucci 1950, p. 10, and translated Haarh 1969, pp. 350-52, but his translation is in need of revision, and Haarh has misunderstood the tomb guardians as different from the ministers.
56. Guru Chos-dbangs gTer ‘byung chen mo, p. rn2.3, mentions that gter has an inexhaustible location, as it may be hidden in the mind; this may lead to the sys tem of dgongs gter, but is not quite there yet, for it is missing the question of Padmasambhava’s disciples’ reincarnating consciousnesses revealing at a later date the texts buried earlier.
57. Zangs gling ma, p. 130.15, has the thugs gter buried in mChims phu’i dben gnas, that is, the Chimpu hermitage, a placement followed in Padma bka’ thang, p. 551.17, but not in the same text, p. 551.5-7; gTer ‘byung chen mo, p. 98.7, has the thugs gter buried at rNam skas brag (unidentified). There is a dgongs gter, but it too is placed in the ground, and the bKa’ thang sde Inga, pp. 74.21-75-1, indicates that the three dgongs gter were to be hidden in the three Jo mo gling.
58. Padma bka’ thang, pp. 558-74.
59. A later example is presented in Gyatso 1998, pp. 57-60, 168, 173-75, 255-56; we see the beginning of this process in the kha-byang statements found in the Zangs gling ma, p. 140.2.
60. Karmay 1972, pp. 118-22.
61. Kvrerne 1971, p. 228; Karmay 1972, pp. 112-26; Karmay 1998, pp. 122-24.
62. Martin 200Ia, pp. 49-80, 93-99; Karmay 1972, pp. 126-32.
63. There earliest reference I have seen to Sangs-rgyas bla-ma is in the Padma bka’ thang, p. 558.9; this section is quoted and expanded in the Gu bkra ‘i chos ‘byung, pp. 365-66, which is essentially copied in gTer ston brgya rtsa’i rnam thar, fols. 36a3-37a5.
64. This is the Yang gter rtsa gsum dril sgrub, found in Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo, vol. 97, pp. 521- 52. The dubious nature of this work is evident when we take into accoun t the statement of Gu-ru bKra-shis that the fifth Dalai Lama could not locate any texts by Sangs-rgyas bla-ma; Gu bkra’i chos ‘byung, p. 366.1. It is interesting that Kong-sprul sought out verification of this work from mChog-gyur gling-pa and others before including in the Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo; see gTer ston brgya rtsa’i rnam thar, fol. 37 – 5.
65. Martin 2001a, p. 53, notes that a number of texts associated with gShenchen klu-dga’ were found by later gter ston.
66. gTer ston brgya rtsa i rnam thar, fol. 6oa2-b5; again much of the material is taken from the Gu bkra i chos ‘byung, pp. 398-99.
67. rGyud bzhi’i bka’ bsgrub nges don snyingpo, pp. 235.4- 36.2; first no ted by Kar- may 1998, pp. 228-37, esp. p. 230, n. 12.
68. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 501.8-12.
69. Padma bka’ tha ng, p. 563-1-4.
70. gTer ‘byung chen mo, pp. 84.7- 85.7.
71. Bairjurya sngon po, pp. 206.6-rn.4; compare Gu bkra ‘i chos ‘byung, pp. 376- 78, and gTer ston brgya rtsa’i rnam thar, fols. 45b6-46b5.
72. Karmay 1998, pp. 228-37, has given this his usually meticulou s atten tion .
73. The 1302 Zhu fen nor bu phreng ba, for example, mentions the bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma revelation only in association with Zhang-ston Dar-ma rgyal-mtshan ( p. 454). He was a disciple of Zhang-ston Dar-ma-grags (1103-74), whose dates are found Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 284. For the bKa’-brgyud-pa evidence, see chap. 4, n. 9. There also were several thirteenth-century bKa’-gdams-pa masters strongly associated with the khams lugs sems sde in Central Tibet: see sLob dpon dga’ rab rdo rje nas brgyud pa’i rdzogs pa chen po sems sde’i phra khrid k.yi man ngag, pp. 436-37, 516-17.
74. Phug-brag no. 772; Samten 1992, pp. 240-4r.
75. Compare Padma bka’ thang, p. 558.9-13, Gu bkr•ai chos ‘byung, pp. 366.10-17, and gTer ston brgya rts;ai rnam thar, fol. 37a5-b4.
76. This passage translates bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 258.14-59.8, 260.17-61.7. For ease of reading, I have altered the ra-sa of 259.1 to lha-sa, which is the reading for the same sentence 259.5-6, and have altered Khrom-pa-rgyan to Grom-pargyang, as it is evidently an unusual spelling of the temple’s name. The meaning of seng ge lag zan ma of 259.4 is not clear to me; apparently it has been changed in later recensions to ka ba seng ge can, the lion pillar (bKa’ thang sde Inga, p. 159.9).
77. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 372-76.
78. Zangs gling ma, pp. 130-32; bKa’ thang sde Inga, pp. 74-75, 155-20 7, 529-32; Padma bka’ thang, pp. 548-57; compare the quotation in mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 246-47.
79. gTer byung chen mo, pp. 105.2, I 11.5.
80. I thank David Germano for many conversations on the question of the sNying-tig lineages.
81. A good introduction to the position of the lCe can be found in Vitali 1990, pp. 91-96; much remains to be said on this clan, however, as well as on other clans in the Myang-stod area.
82. Rig pa rang shar, A-‘dzom chos-gar ed., pp. 852-55; the mTshams-Brag, pp. 696-99; and the gTing-skyes, pp. 332- 34. I thank David Germano for suggestions and corrections to the colophon translation.
83. I have read “kun gyis ma tshims sa yi gter du bzhag” where the texts are problematic.
84. Compare sNying thig ya bzhi, vol. 9, pp. 162- 72; rNying ma bka’ ma rgyas pa, vol. 45, pp. 643-52. Karmay 1988, p. 209, n. 16, dates this to the twelfth century. W hile I have erred in my previous dating of the text by attributing it to kLongchen-pa (Davidson 1981, p. 11) and have no objection to the twelfth-century date, Karmay, though, has far more confidence than I that the single occurrence of the first person bdag indicates that the text should be definitely ascribed to Zhangston- pa (1097-u67), for such first-person identities are often hagiographically manipulated.
85. I have been able to identify eight translations on which he worked: To. 604: Khrodhavijayakalpaguhyatantra, working alone [see Samten 1992, p. xv]; To. 1301: Manjusrijnana’s Hevajra sadhana, working with the author; To. 1319: anon. Kurukullesadhana, working again with Manjusrijnana; To. 1922: Padmapani’s Krsnayamaritantrapanjika, working with Paramesvara; To. 1982: *Amoghavajra’s Vajrabhaira-vasadhanakarmopacara-sattvasamgraha, revised translation with Manjusrijnana and Phyug-mtshams dBang-phyug rgyal-po; To. 2014: *Vilasavajra’s Yamantakavajraprabheda-nama-mulamantrartha, with Upayasrimitra; To. 4432: anon. Tripratyayabhasya, on his own; and *Vilasavajra’s Vajramandalavidhipusti-sadhana, which noncanonical and is found in Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 355-67. For his hagiographical sources, see Almogi 2002.
86. Rong-lugs rdo-rje phur-pa; Sog bzlog pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 145-56, treats the rong zom lugs kyi dbang lung; for the four lineages of Rong lugs sems sde, kLong chen chos ‘byung, p. 394.
87. Rong-zo m’s oeuvre has been mapped out by his great-great grandson, sLobdpon Me-dpung, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, pp. 235-39, and it is distressing how little has been preserved; the relationship of this figure to Rong-zom is found in the hagiography, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 30. The principal materials ascribed to Rong-zom are collected in his Rong zom gsung thor bu, the rNying ma bka’ ma rgyas pa collections (esp. his rdo rje phur pa and gsang snying texts in vols. 8-9), the Theg chen tshul’j ug, and the Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum. I do not have access to the recently published Khams edition of his collected works; see also Martin 1997, p. 25, n. 6. We may note that he is ascribed a Chos ‘byung which is missing in action; see Martin 1997, p. 25, n. 5.
88. Chos ‘byung grub mtha’ chen po, pp. 43.3-47.4; the material I have not translated (. . .) includes a discussion of Bai-ro tsa-na’s banishment and Vimala’s problems with other PaQ<;litas, with the result that there are no more texts in India. Compare also the partial quotation of this passage in Ratna gling pa’s Chos ‘byung bstan pa’i sgron me, pp. 72-73. Compare the Rong-zom chos-bzang quote, Rog Bande Shes rah ‘od, Chos ‘byun grub mtha’ chen po, pp. II5-18, on the superiorities of the rNying-ma system over the gSar-ma, discussed as well in Ratna gling-pa, pp. 136-40. Rog-ban has been given the dates 1166-1233 by the Tshig-mdzod chenmo, pp. 3223 and 3228.
89. Either Rong-zom or Rog-ban is making a sarcastic pun; more than one of the gSar-ma traditions entitled their teachings the “Golden Dharma,” but the text indicates that these lo-tsti-ba and pa’!Jr/itas were really interested in the religion (chos) of gold (gser).
90. These historical works were not included in Martin 1997; Ratna gling-pa, Chos ‘byung bstan pa’t sgron me, p. 106, cites the same sources, possibly taken from Rog-bande.
91. Eimer 1979, § 239.
92. Witzel 1994, pp. 1-21.
93. Rocher 1986, pp. 49- 59.
94. Chos ‘byu ng bstan pa’i sgron me, pp. 166-67-
95. For example, the gTer ‘byung chen mo gsal ba’i sgron me of Ratna gling-pa, pp. 46.1-47.2, 52.5-54.5, takes pains to identify the category of gsar- ma-gter. We may even note that the issue of gter per se apparently did not become an area of contention until the time of Chag-lo-tsa-ba, and his Chag lo tsd bas mdzad pa”i sngags log sun ‘byin pa, in sNgags log sun ‘byin gyi skor, pp. 13.2-4.2.
96. Karmay 1988, pp.175-200, views rig-pa from a somewhat different perspective.
97. On the Rig pa rang shar, Tucci 1958, vol. 2, pp. 63-64, states, “This tantra preaches the doctrine of the non-existence of a path and the non-existence of cause and effect.”This seriously misrepresents this scripture, as will be seen. By means of such misrepresentations, Tucci was trying to prove that the rNying-ma tantras are reformulations of Chan doctrines. Cf. van Schaik 2004.
98. For these phrases, see Broughton 1983; Gomez 1983; Ueyama 1983; and Meinert 2002, 2003, and forthcoming. My own reading of such documents as Pelliot Tibetan u6, 823; Stein Tibetan 468, and others convinces me of little influence visible in the oldest strata of rDzogs chen, that of the sems sde. For example, the limited use of so so’i rang gi rig pa, found in Pelliot Tibetan 116, indicates the translation of pratyatmavedaniya (individually perceived) or some similar Sanskrit word through the Chinese and does not render the gnoseological force of rig-pa; see Mala and Kimura 1988, p. 90 (£ 157, lines 3-4); see a similar use fols. ur.4-12.r, 237.5. The only use I have noted in Pelliot Tibetan u6, similar to the rNying-ma sense is fol. 194.4, followed immediately by a lengthy discussion of myed pa’i sems and myed pa’i gnas, which have no connection to rNying-ma use. Stein Tibetan 468, fol. 1br, uses rig-pa as a term of beginning understanding, equivalent to shespa, and I could not find rig-pa in Pelliot Tibetan 823 at all.
99. In particular, I would like to acknowledge that the contents of some sNyingtig tantras, like the sGra thal ‘gyur chen po’i rgyud (Kaneko 1982, n. 155) rNying ma rgyud ‘bum, gTing-skyes manuscript, vol. ro, pp. 386-530, do not consider rig-pa in the definitive sense of the Rig pa rang shar. But many others do, and it remains the main gnoseological term for the rNying-ma tradition.
100. For a review of the Yogacara documents, see Davidson 1985.
101. Tucci 1930b, p. 51; Hattori 1968, pp. 28-31, 101-6; Bandyopadhyay 1979.
102. Pramanavarttika, pp. 190-210, 223- 45.
103. Davidson 1981, p. 8 n. 21; Davidson 1999; Sthiramati uses the word in his Madhyantavibhaga-tika , pp. 79.12, 122.16. The first of these two references is the more important as it occurs in a quotation of an unnamed sfltra. The sutra identifies svasamvedy9 as the description of nonconceptual gnosis (nirvikalpajnana) through which one enters the dharmadhdtu.
104. It is not generally noted that this work is featured in the two later recensions of the Testament of the Ba-clan and played an important in the early renaissance rNying-ma self representation; sBa bzhed, p. 32.5-7; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, pp. 25-16- 26.1.
105. My translation; compare Karmay 1988, pp. 159, 167; this passage in a slightly different form is quoted in bSam gtan mig sgron, p. 192.4-5. For a discussion of this passage and the antiquity of the Man ngag /ta phreng, see Karmay 1988, pp. 140-44.
106. Tohoku 2591; Mafijusrimit ra’s text is edited and translated in Norbu and Lipman 1986.
107. Rong-zom Chas kyi bzang-po, Theg chen tshul ;’ug, pp. 319.4, 333.2-6; we note the sparse discussion of rig-pa in his Man ngag /ta ba’i phreng ba zhes bya ba’i ‘grel pa, p. 104.2. At one place in his commentary to the Guhyagarbha-tantra, the rGyud rgyaf gsang ba snying po’i ‘grel pa rong zom chos bzang gis mdzad pa, p. 207-1-2, the tantra quotation seems to cry for an explanation of rig-pa, but he interprets it as a perception ‘of ye-shes. Again, in the same commentary, he emphasizes the perceptual interpretation of rig-pa; for example, pp. 148.5, 151.5.
108. Karmay 1988, pp. 99-103, discusses the problem of gNubs-chen’s dates and proposes a tenth-century date; Vitali 1996, pp. 546-47, arrives at the same date based on other sources.
109. gNubs-chen, bSam gtan mig sgron, p. 196.r.
110. bSam gtan mig sgron, p. 290.6.
111. Rig pa rang shar, gTing-skyes, p. 106.7; A-‘dzom, p. 539.5.
112. Rig pa rang shar, gTing-skyes, p. 62.4-6; A-‘dzom, pp. 473.6-74.2.; almost identical language elsewhere, for example, gTing-skyes, p. 42.1-5; A-‘dzom, p. 446.1-4.
113. Rig pa rang shar, gTing-skyes, pp. 205.5-206.2; A-‘dzom ed., p. 683.2-6.
114. Rig pa rang shar, gTing-skyes, p. 134.4; A-‘dzom ed., p. 583.6; compare gTing-skyes, pp. 99.7-100.6.
115. Rig pa rang shar, gTing-skyes, p. 57-2-5; A-‘dzom ed., p. 465.6-66.3.
116. See Nye brgyud gcod kyi khrid yig gsal bar bkod pa legs bshad bdud rtsi’i rol mtsho, p. 26; Karmay 1988, p. 1851 considers some of the early materials; Ratnagotravibhtiga l.42-44; Takasaki 1966, pp. 225-29; Ruegg 1971, p. 464, n. 73; 1973, p. 79, n.3.
117. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 190-91; this list was reviewed by Tucci 1956a, pp. 88-89; compare Chang 1959-60, pp. 133, 153, n. 21. The texts are found in sNying thig ya bzhi, vols. 8-9. The term phra khrid may be understood in light of the Old Tibetan phra- men, which was argued by Tucci 1950, p. 79, n. 45, to correspond to silver-gilt, as is understood by Dunhuang Chinese equivalents. Compare Richardson 1985, p. 105, n. 1, where lapis lazuli may be this item, although he is uncertain; see Stein 1986, p. 193. On these appointments, see Stein 1984; Demieville 1952,pp. 284-86.
118. Haarh 1969, pp. 380-91.
119. Richardson 1998, pp. 219- 33; Tucci 1950, passim; compare with the spirit roads illustrated and discussed in Paludan 1991.
<< К оглавлению |
