·······································

Примечания к Гл.7

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

1. gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 24.22- 25. 2. For the location of the ‘Khan sku ‘bum , where the remains of ‘Khon dKon-mchog rgyal-po are said to be housed, see Schoening 1990 , pp. 14 and 24 (#11 on map 4).

2. Blue Annals, vol. 2, p. 868; compare the nineteenth-century hagiography of Khams-smyon Dharma seng-ge, Pha dam pa i rnam thar, p. 12.

3. There are many short works of the zhu len and tshogs chos format that appear to be his direct expressions; see Dam chos snying po zhi byed las rgyud kyi snyan rgyud zab ched ma, vol. 2, pp. 165-358, vol. 3, pp. 1-83; the works in the earlier sections appear more heavily edited; on the end of the Dharma, especially interesting is the zhu fen in gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 9, pp. 435-40.

4. sNgags log sun ‘byin gyi skor, p. 14.2-4; reading rgya gar ba for rgya gar na at the beginning.

5. Dam chos snying po zhi byed las rgyud kyi snyan rgyud zab ched ma, vol. 1, pp. 4n-16; this is identified in sNgags log sun ‘byin gyi skor, p. 16.2-3, by the goddess Seng-ge gdong ma who is the interlocutor in the work.

6. A li ka li gsang ba bsam gyis myi khyab pa chu klung chen po’i rgyud, found in Dam chos snying po zhi byed las rgyud kyi snyan rgyud zab ched ma, vol. 1, pp. 6-114. Three selected chapters with annotations were published in gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 9, pp. 2-16. This work is identified as Zhi byed chu klung gi rgyud in Rat-na gling-pa’s gTer ‘byung chen mo gsal ba’i sgron me, p. 47.1.

7. Dam chos snying po zhi byed las rgyud kyi snyan rgyud zab ched ma, vol. 1, pp. 413.7-14.1; ding ri is repeated on p. 414.7. I also take the mention of two languages and zangs kyi ri, p. 413.5, as indicative of the translation art and the residence of Ma-gcig lab-sgron later in her life.

8. The only reasonable record of the Zhi byed lo rgyus known to me is the Deb ther sngon po, vol. 2, pp. 1015-u35; Blue Annals, vol. 2, pp. 867-979. This is either the basis for the Zhi-byed section of the Zhi byed dang geog yul gyi chos ‘byung rin po che’i phreng ba, pp. 573-96, or they have a common source. I would not have been able to understand much of the following discussion without the valuable summary of Lo-chen Dharma-Shri, Zhi byed snga phyi bar gsum gyi khrid yig rnams phyogs gcig tu bsdebs pa bdud rtsi’i nying khu, gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 9, pp. 308-404.

9. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 2, p. 1019.20; Blue Annals, vol. 2, p. 871.

10. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 322; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 264; compare bKa’ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, p. 304; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, p. 102.

11. bKa’ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, p. 301; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, p. 99; Zhu Ian nor bu’i phreng ba, pp. 316, 318.

12. bKa’ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, pp. 310-12; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp. 109-1r; Zhu Ian nor bu’i phreng ba, pp. 352-96. This latter source is highly hagiographical; see Ehrhard 2002.

13. Ehrhard 2002 discusses this process.

14. Hagiographical material on Po-to-ba is found in bKa’ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, pp. 312- 15; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp. 1u-14; Po-to-ba and sPyan-snga appear as characters in Zhu Ian nor bu’i phrengba, pp. 368-86. Blue Annals, vol. 1 p. 269, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 329, gives Po-to-ba the birthdate of 1031; this should be questioned in the face of its other unreliable eleventh-century dates and the bKa’-gdam -pa opinion for 1027 as his birthdate.

15. Hagiographical material on sPyan-snga is found in bKa’ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, pp. 315-19; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp. n4-18; compare Zhu Ian nor bu’i phreng ba, pp. 368- 86.

16. dPe chos rin chen spungs pa, p. 364.

17. sPyan-snga’s images are mentioned in bKa ‘ gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, p. 318; bK a’ gdams chos ‘byung, p. 117.

18. dPe chos rin chen spungs pa, p. 5.

19. These examples are found in dPe chos rin chen spungs pa, pp. 25, 167.

20. The twen”ty-five topics are itemized in dPe chos rin chen spungs pa, pp. 18-21.

21. bKa gdams rin po che’i chos ‘byung, pp. 314.2, 319.2 (Joo monks for sPyansnga); bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp.112.21, 118.5 (700 monks for sPyan-snga); Yar lung Jo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 98; Deb ther dmar po, pp. 61-62.

22. On this mythology, see Beyer 19731 pp. 229-36; Willson 1986, pp. 169-206; Lienhard 1993. On the importance attached to Atisa’s translation of Avalokitesvara practices, see the relatively extensive colophons translated in Chattopadhyaya 1967, pp. 477, 485.

23. Blue Annals, pp. 1008; the ‘Phags-pa Wa-ti temple and its images are associated with the sku mched gsum in the documents studied in Ehrhard 2002. This temple is also noted in Sras don ma, p. 36.6. Atisa and Rin-chen bzang-po translated dGe-slong-ma dPal- mo’s classic text (To. 2737); see Chattopadhyaya 1967, pp. 485-86; Vitali forthcoming.

24. Bu ston chos ‘byung, Szerb 1990, p. 62.15: chad pas gcod pa i sa yin pas I ‘g ro ma nus par. This phrase usually means that there were limbs and heads left over from punishment decrees, but why would the entire city be so described?

25. rNam thar yong grags, pp. 176-77.

26. The texts translated are the Madhyamaka-upadefa (To. 3929 and 4468), the Nikayabhedavibhanga-vyakhydna (To. 4139), the Bhiksu-varsagraprccha (To. 4133), and the Tarkajvala (To. 3856). These are presented in Chattopadhyaya 1967, pp. 455, 483, 486-87- The rNam thar yong grags, p. 177, indicates that the dga’ ba ‘od ‘phro was a separate “island,” gling cig, which would usually be the description of a separate establishment different from the ‘Phrul snang gtsug glag khang. The same source indicates that it was destroyed during the troubles of the twelfth century and now was called the dkar chung gi skya khang chung chung, which I have not been able to locate.

27. mKhas pa ‘i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 447.10-12.

28. For this process and the argument that Zangs-dkar lo-tsl!.-ba did this after the chos skor of 1076, see Vitali 1990, pp. 69-88.

29. bK a’ ‘chems ka khol ma, pp. 286-89.

30. For example, bKa’ ‘chems ka khol ma, p. 104.7-8. These are identified as painting no. 1 in Vitali 1990, p. 76.

31. Catalog no. 3, pp. 54-59, in Kossak and Singer 1998. The inscription on the back of the painting reads: bya rtson ‘grus ‘od kyi thugs dam | se’ spyil phu ba’i rah gnas gzhugs | mchad kha ba’i | spyil phu ba’i chos skyong la gtad do |. While the inscription is a bit enigmatic, it appears to have been misinterpreted by Kossak and Singer. I understand the inscription to indicate that the form of Tara was used and taught by Bya rTson-‘grus-‘od (d.1175), and his disciple Se sPyil-phu-ba (d. 1189) performed the consecration of this particular painting. The painting was thus probably completed around 1175, not a century earlier, as the authors argue.

32. Rwa sgreng dgon pa”i dkar chag, pp. ro3-4; the same image was mentioned by Si-tu Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho, Kap thog si tu”i dbus gtsang gnas yig, p. 53.

33. The standard dates generally repeated for Mid-la ras-pa are 1040-1123, but as with most eleventh-century dates, these are by no means certain; dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 198.7, has him born in a sheep (lug) year rather than the lcags pho ‘brug of later texts like the Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 72.18. The following discussion is predominantly drawn from dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 189-265, except as noted. For a useful discussion of the principal sources, see Tiso 1997. See Ramble 1997, pp. 492-95 for the Khyung clan.

34. An excellent discussion of these figures is found in Martin 1982.

35. For example, sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 132-137.

36. On the folk song genre, see Roger Jackson 1996.

37. mDzod nag ma, vol. 1, p. 117.2-5; I have read dgro as dgra bo, which does not follow the meter, but neither does rnor = rnal byor of the next line.

38. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 123; The Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 93; on Khyung-po Grags-se, see Vitali 1990, pp. 97-98.

39. For a discussion of the sources of and participants at this gathering, see Shastri 1997.

40. On rNgog ‘s life and studies, see van der Kuijp 1983, pp. 29-48; Kramer 1997.

41. It is well known that Bu-ston ‘s list of rNgog bLo-ldan shes-rab’s works is the standard list; Bu ston chos ‘byung, rDo-rje rgyal-po 1988, p. 313. On the works of rNgog in general, see Jackson 1985, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a; Kramer 1997.

42. These texts are, respectively, the Theg chen rgyud bla’i don bsdus pa and the Lo tsd ba chen po’i bsdus don. The former text, although it represents the type of commentary known in India as a pi1pj.drtha (as pointed out by the introduction of Jackson 1993b, p. 5), the actual name don bsdus pa was evidently in imitation of the arthasarhgraha commentary (don bsdus pa) attributed to Asanga (To. 4025; the accurate title is contained in the colophon, fol. 129a), which rNgog himself translated. Both texts comment on verses from all five chapters, with the most effort expended on the first and, by far, the longest chapter. I have not located quotations from other texts in the rNgog-lo commentary. Conversely, rNgog’s influences in the Abhisamayalamkara commentary are revealed by his references to Haribhadra, fols. 13a3, 3ob4, 3ra3, 44b6, 51b4, 54b6, 61b5, 77a2, 83a6, 85b1, 86b1, 92a2, 92b1, and 98a3; to Arya Vimuktisena, fols. 2oa2, 27b1-4, 31 , 33a6, 37a1, 51b4, 62a2, 75a3, 84a1, 92a2-5; to the Ratnagotravibhaga, fol. 54a1; and to the Mahayanasutralamkara, fols. 53b3, 95b3. Interestingly, in many controversies, he sides with Vimuktisena against Haribhadra. The Lo tsd ba chen po’i bsdus don is also put into Abhisamayalamkara exegetical context by the attached learned discussion by bLo-bzang mkyen-rab rgya-mtsho, pp. 1-252.

43. The works are curiously prescient of the method used in the texts of the rDzong-gsar yig-cha of gZhan-phan chos-kyi snang-ba (1871-1927); see Smith 2001, pp. 26, 232-33, 277, n. 39, 332, n. 835.

44. Zhu Ian nor bu’i phreng ba, p. 317; for a discussion of this term, see van der Kuijp 1983, pp. 36-42, Stearns 1999, pp. 86-rn5.

45. For the lam rim literature, see Levinson 1996; for the bstan rim literature, see David Jackson 1996.

46. rNam thac yong grags, p. 199.1-4.

47. Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 50, lists works by Mar-pa known to the author.

48. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. r, p. 777-rn; attributed to a rNgog ( probably Chosrdor) is a Sre ‘pho’i zhal gdams (mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. r, p. 760 .9). Otherwise, the contents of rNgog Chos-rdor’s yig cha are listed in Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 52.19-53.3. His dates are from the Lho rong chos ‘byung, pp. 50.20-52.12. The Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 404, gives the dates rn36-1102. It may be noted, though, that rTa-tshag Tshe-dbang-rgyal had recourse to the rNgog gi gdung rabs che dge yig tshang, the rNgog clan records, while we do not; see Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 50.16-1.

49. bLa ma mnga’ ris pas mdzad pa’i brtag gnyis kyi tshig ‘grel, SKB I.i3.4-65.4. Stearns 2001, p. 231, n. II2, offers the story that gSal-ba’i snying-po displeased ‘Brog-mi but acknowledges that no earlier source supports this assessment. There are many problems with the annals of Cha-rgan dBang-phyug rgyal-mtshan, on which Stearns often relies.

50. gSang ‘dus stong thun: rten gyi gang zag ( pp. 5-12), sbyang gzhi rang bzhin gyi chos ( pp. 12-31), sbyang ha mi mthun pa lam gyi dri ma ( pp. 31-36), dmigs bya yul (pp. 36-84), nyams len thabs ( pp. 84-523), mthar phyin ‘bras bu (pp. 523-38).

51. A summary of the text is in Karmay 1988, pp. 125-33, but it does not consider Rong-zom’s investigation of the three natures or the other interesting aspects of his Mahayanist philosophical architecture. Rong-zom’s oeuvre is mapped out by his great-great grandson, sLob-dpon Me-dpung, Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, pp. 235-39. For biographical references, see Almogi 2002. The only date I have found for him is his being “discovered” as a young scholar by the Yumbrtan scion Pha-ba on or after a ‘brug year; Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, p. 393.1; this is probably either 1040 or rn52.

52. David Jackson’s description of Rong-zom as having “stressed the need for faith over reasoning” (Jackson 1994b, p. 29) is not compelling. Theg chen tshul ‘jug, p. 410.1, makes a place for faith, but it is posed as the technique for those who cannot otherwise enter the rdzogs chen method. The reasoning is explicitly and implicitly affirmed throughout (especially in chaps. 2 and 3, dedicated to objections and analysis), although , as with most Mahayanists, Rong-zom presents absolute truth as beyond predication.Jackson’s predilection for epistemological authors perhaps is behind his focus on this narrow variet y of analysis as “reasoning, ” whereas historically many kinds of reasoning have been used in Buddhism , and the word cannot legitimately be restricted to late Buddhist dialectical or syllogistic forms. The reification of authors’ positions into a dialectic of faith versus reason is surely inadequate to do justice to esoteric Buddhist complexity.

53. rDo rje phur pa’i chos ‘by ung ngor mtshar rgya mtsho’i rba rlabs, pp. 145-56; compare the brief descriptions of the nine vehicles in Theg chen tshul ‘j ug, pp. 349-53, and his ritual statements in his Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba zhes bya ba’i ‘grel pa, pp. 75-93, and especially his ambivalence, pp. 105-121. For Rong-zom’s translations, see chap. 6, n. 85.

54. Stearns 2001, pp. 102-23, reviews this material in depth. See also bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 24-41; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 77-99. ‘Brom De-pa ston-chung is depicted by mKhyen-brtse, p. 78, as a gTer ston during his stay at bSam-yas, although the ‘Brom lugs documents do not maintain this relationship.

55. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 111-13; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 28-29; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 75-77.

56. bLa ma mnga’ ris pas mdzad pa’i brtag gnyis kyi tshig ‘grel, SKB I.13.4-65.4. The editor, Ngor-thar-rtse mkhan-po, clearly believed that the following work, dPal Kye rdo rje’i rtsa ba ‘i rgyud brtag pa gnyis pa’i dka’ ‘grel man ngag don gsal, SKB l.66.1-78.3, was also an eleventh-century work, by sGyi-chu-ba, but this was the result of his inferring it from various “teachings received” texts, rather than its being clear in the text itself; see his note in the contents, SKB I.xvii. Compare Ngor-chen’s Kye rdo rje’i ‘grel ba ‘i dkar chag, p. 284.4.4, where the “seven superior texts” are listed.

57. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 75.

58. For the nature of these texts, see Jackson 1985, p. 21.

59. Stearns 2001, pp. 113-17, 232-35, provides much detail on the ‘Brom hagiographies.

60. Nyang-ral’s Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, mentions a ‘Brom-ston rDo-rje rin-chen living in the mid-eleventh century, p. 470.10.

61. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 112-13, and bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 30, make ‘Brom De-pa ston-chung a native of dbUs, in the area of ‘Phan-yul, but this affirmation is not accepted by Ngor-chen in his Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 114.1.6-2.1. Much of this latter text is drawn from a document quite similar to the ‘Brom record included in the Bhir ba pa i lo rgyus, p. 399: ‘brom de mdo’ smad kyi ‘khams pa mi chen phyug po byin brlabs shin tu che ba |. Compare gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 77-82, which demonstrates mKhyen-brtse’s proclivity toward the storyteller’s art. The following discussion is drawn from these sources.

62. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 78.

63. This is the best interpretation I can provide for a sentence differently explained in all our sources about a silk garment being offered {dar sham) either to ‘Brog-mi or to his wife.

64. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 114.4.4.

65. The best source for Se-ston-pa is the Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. u6- 17, followed by bLa ma brgyud pa ‘i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 32-36, and gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 82-90, although the later texts emphasize hagiographic issues.

66. Stein 1961, pp. 4-19, 24-25. Cf. Ramble 1997.

67. Deb ther sngon po, p. 267.7-8; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 215, seems to have a block print that says twenty-five (i.e., Western twenty-four) and died the next year, but our text is much more qualified.

68. Mang-thos klu-sgrub rgya-mtsho listed 1025 as his birthdate and says that he lived for nin y-seven years, but this is questionable; bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, p. 89; many of the dates in this text appear erroneous or without verification.

69. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 120-21; compare bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 35.3.

70 . The normative placement is found in the guidebook of mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po, Ferrari 1958, pp. 24, 65. A mKhar-chung in eastern Ding-ri is mentioned by Ngor-chen, Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p.115.3-1, and a lDog-mkhar-chung founded in 1064 in the table of years (re’u mig) in the Chos ‘byung dpag bsam ljon bzang, p. 833. The old Tibetan term phro brang, later meaning palace, early indicated the residence of the king, wherever that was, and mKhar-chung may have been so understood as well.

71. The myth is unknown in early documents, like Chos la ‘jug pa’i sgo, pp. 343.1.2- 344.2.6, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba ‘i gsung yig, p. 104.2.1; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.1.4, and the 1352 Sa sky a’i gdung rahs, p. 310, by sGra-tshad-pa Rin-chen rnam-rgyal. Fourteenth-century versions are in the Deb ther dmar po, p. 46; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, pp. 136-44, with fully formed versions in the rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 305-20, and the gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 6-13. The rGya bod yig tshang chen mo material was translated in Smith 2001, pp. 99-109, and summarized from the fifth Dalai Lama’s Chronicles, Tucci 1949, vol. 2, p. 625.

72. For the Indian sources and first Tibetan assimilation of this myth, see Davidson 2003.

73. See Stein 1961, pp. 18-70, for the identity of these tribes; the lDong are found on pp. 31-41.

74. See Stein 1961, pp. 50-66, for the dMu.

75. Deb ther dmar po, p. 46, refers to g.Ya’-spang-skyes as from the eastern section of Yar-lungs.

76. An alte rnative place in mNga ‘- ris, at mT hos-zhing-sa, is cited in gDung rabs chen mo, p. 10.

77. Please note the difference between the Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 137, and gDung rabs chen mo, p. 11, on the precise nature of these eight (A-mes-zhabs allows for another two as well) qualities .

78. His position is indicated in different ways in each of our sources; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtsha r snang ba, p. 25, nang mi (la gtogs pa); Yar lungJo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 138, nang rje kha; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 308, nang che ba; and gDung rahs chen mo, p. 11, nang blon.

79. On marriage to the rMu divinities, see Stein 1985, p. 107; on the ma-sangs , see m Khas pa ‘i dga’ ston , vol. 1, p. 152, and note that gNya’ g.Ya’-sp ang skye is one of them; this list is discussed in Haarh 1969, p. 293.

80. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.1.3: dge ba’i bshes gnyen brgyud pa’i rigs su gyur pa; compare C rags-pa rgyal- mtshan ‘s letter to Ga-r ing rgyal-po, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig, p. 104.2.2, which simply begins the lineage rather than characterizing it.

81. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.3-4; compare gDung rabs chen mo, p. 7

82. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 411-13, provides a list of ministers, none of which is a ‘Khon. Compare sBa bzhed, pp. 58-59; sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, p. 51, where the young men number six and do not include kLu’i dbang-po.

83. Bacot and Toussaint 1940-46, index; Tun hong nas thon pa’i bod kyi lo rgyus yig cha, pp. 202-7; Thomas 1935-55, vol. 3, p. 117-19; compare Chang 1959-60, pp. 171-73; sBa bzhed zhabs rtags ma, pp. 95-96.

84. Chos ‘byung me tog snyingpo sbrang rtsi ‘i bcud, pp. 310; legends of their individual troubles in their study in India are related on pp. 310-12. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 13, acknowledges the difficulties.

85. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 186-87.

86. Nyang ral mentions this as his title; Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 393.4.

87. Emphasized in rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 309.

88. Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s Phyag rgya chen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, pp. 305.1.6-3.4, includes a transmission purportedly from the royal dynastic period, the “gNubs nam mkha’i snying po’i nag po ‘bru bdun.”

89. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po·i rnam thar, p. 84.1.4-5, indicates that kLu’i dbangpo’s younger brother is one Phal-pa, and rDo-rje rin-po-che was his son; compare rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 309; gDung rahs chen mo, p. 14.6.

90. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 187. 4,188.15.

91. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 310. The other sources do not make as spe- cific a claim.

92. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, p. 50.

93. The Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 139, does not have them return to g.Ya’-lung.

94. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, p. 50.

95. The earliest surviving example of a hagiography for ‘Khon dKon-mchog rgyal-po is in Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.2.2-6. This is a hagiography of Sa-chen but includes a short one of his father as well. Other sources include Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, pp. 140-42; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 25-30; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 18-22 (again the first part of Sa-chen ‘s section is again his father’s hagiography); rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 312-16; r]e btsun sa skya pa gong ma gsum gyi rnam par thar pa dpag bsam /jon pa, pp. 67-70; and gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 71-77.

96. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 18; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 140; this episode is curiously lacking in bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 26, where his study with ‘Brog-mi is precipitated by his brother ‘s death instead.

97. The Yar lung jo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 140, reads de lta bu’i bla ma de la ‘bro’i gson gshin byed ba’i gdan ‘dren byung bas byon 1- I have not located a satisfactory reference to gson gshin as a ritual. Thomas 1935-55, vol. 2, pp. 412-13, seems inapplicable. rGya hod yig tshang chen mo, p. 309.12, also is questionable, but the rGya hod yig tshang chen mo, p. 312, designates it a ‘Bro’i lung ston chen po gcig byung ba’i tshe, “when there was a great prophetic gathering on behalf of the ‘Bro.” Com pare Tucci 1980, p.228; Snellgrove 1967, p. 118.8.

98. Previously (Davidson 1991, p. 218) I typified the Sa-skya as “pugnaciously secretive,” which caused Stearns 2001, p. 174, n. 36, to say that I seemed “offended” by the tradition, an unfortunate misperception on his part. The Sa-skya used its emphasis on secrecy as a basis for its claim of superiority over other traditions, to the point that some Sa-skya-pa claimed that the rNying-ma meditators would no longer be able to obtain any accomplishment because of their lack of secrecy (e.g., Ngor chos ‘hyung, p. 301.6). This use is certainly pugnacious.

99. Snellgrove 19871 vol. 2, p. 5m, highlights the change to large gatherings in the Tibetan context.

100. Rwa lo tsti ba’i rnam thar, pp. 53- 41 119-1201 etc. There may be a question about whether the term khrom refers to a simple gathering anywhere or a market gathering, as I have elected to interpret it.

101. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 18; Yar lung jo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 140; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 312.

102. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 18; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 313; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 140; these figures are briefly discussed in Nebesky-Wajkowitz 1956, pp. 87, 259, 275.

103. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 26, also has dKon-mchog rgyal-po study with another of ‘Brog-mi’s disciples, dbRad dKonmchog rgyal-po; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 72, identifies ‘Khyin lo-tsa- ba with that association, as well as specifying another name, sBal-ti lo-tsa-ba, which would indicate his affiliation with the far western mNga’-ris area or with the actual location of Baltistan, southeast of Gilgit. However, we must use mKhyen-brtse judiciously, for he frequently presents material that is provided in no earlier source.

104. Jo-mo nor phreng-ba; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ha, p. 26; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 313.

105. We note, for example, that Ngor-chen wrote two different “origin” texts, one for each side of the system: his incomplete Lam ‘bras byung tshul, and his Kye rdo rje’i byung tshul.

106. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.2.2- 6.

107. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 26, correctly identifies Prajfiagupta as Acarya dM ar- po, as we saw in the previous chapter. The five ti/aka tantras would probably be the Samputa-tilaka (To.382), the Mahamudratilaka (To. 420 ), the Jnanatilaka (To. 422)1 the Candraguhya-tilaka (To. 477), and the Guhyamani-ti laka (To. 493), although I have no confirmat ion of this list. Both the Mahamudra-tilaka and the Jnanatilaka, however, were translate d by Prajnagupta, and the proclamation of Pho-brang Zhi-ba-‘od condemns them as compositions of this Uddiyana Pandita; see Karmay 1998, p. 35. gZhon-nu-dpal, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 2, p. 1221 (Blue Annals, vol. 2, p. 1049; followed by Karmay 1998, p. 30), has made the error of identifying Sa-chen Kun -dga’ snying-po -as the student of Prajnagupta, probably because dKon-mchog rgyal-po’s hagiography is included in the same document as his son’s; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.2.5-6. Apparently this was the cause for gZhon-nu-dpal postulating two trips by Prajfiagupta to Tibet, for there seems to be no other source for this story. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 18.8-9, has dKon-mchog rgyal-po study the Cakrasamvara with rMa-lo, but I have followed Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan ‘s bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar. Martin 1996a, p. 36, n. 35, shows that some Tibetan sources confuse Acarya dM arpo with a Tibetan figure, La-stod dMar-po.

<< К оглавлению
Web Analytics