Дэвидсон Р.М. «Тибетский ренессанс: тантрический буддизм и возрождение тибетской культуры»
<< К оглавлению |
1. gNas bstod kyi nyams dbyangs, p. 348.1.3-6. The very unpolished nature of this “song,” may be noted, especially as the syllables vary idiosyncratically between seven and nine. However, the marked tendency for Sa-skyas to question pilgrimage practices began at least with Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan, although it reached its full value later; see Huber 1990 for some of the polemics engaged in by Sa-Pan and others.
2. Noted by Martin 1996c, p. 188, n. 65, and 1996a, pp. 23-24. The prevalence of laity throughout the early Buddhist traditions in Tibet dilutes the premise of Martin 1996a, as he seems to acknowledge.
3. Kapstein 2000, pp. 141-62, examined this issue in the Ma,:zi bka’ ‘bum and other texts.
4. Good observations on the nature of the sBa bzhed chronicle are found in Kapstein 2000, pp. 23-50.
5. The basic record is in the Rwa lo tsf ba’i rnam thar, pp. 283-84, and is summarized in Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 458, Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 378. dGos-lo places the date of me pho khyi on the event, probably from reading the age of Rwa-lo in the hagiography as eighty (he was born in 1016). This apparently is why Martin 200 1a, p. 48, proposed this date. I have less confidence in the Deb ther sngon po early chronologies, however. Martin 2001a maintains that the outlying temples and the wall around the compound were damaged by the sMad ‘dul monks.
6. ‘Bri gung ehos rje ‘jig rten mgon po bka’ ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 50.1.
7. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 448, 8o r; bKa’ ‘ehems ka khol ma, p. 287; mNyam med sgam po pa i rnam thar, p. 167; Lho rong ehos ‘byung, pp. 178- 79. I am inferring that this is how the ‘Bring-tsho destroyed Atisa’s residence; see rNam thar yong grags, p. 177.
8. Except as noted, the following is based on Martin 1992 and 20ora, as well as Jackson 1994b, pp. 58- 72.
9. On part of the mChims clan becoming Zhang, see Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 125-1; Blue A nn’als vol. 1, p. 95. For an obscure discussion of other Zhang clans, see rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 236-37.
10. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 807-9.
11. Deb ther dmar po, p. 127.22-23. For these two institutions, see Richardson 1998, p. 306.
12. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 808.11.
13. Dus gsum mkhyen pa’i bk.a’ ‘bum, p. 78.1, indicates that the Karmapa mediated Lama Zhang’s dispute with a Dag-ra-ba (?).
14. Martin 1996c, pp. 185-86, and 1996a, passim.
15. Nyang ral rnam thar, pp. 90-92.
16. mKhas pa i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 808.18-19.
17. Astasahasrika-prajnaiparamita-sutra, pp. 191-96.
18. The following is based on his hagiography by rGa-lo m the Dus gsum mkhyen pa’i bka’ ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 47-128. This work is closely followed by all the standard histories.
19. Phag-mo gru-pa’s hagiographies include the Phag mo gru pa’i rnam thar rin po che’i phreng ba, dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 387- 435; sTag lung chos ‘byung, pp. 171-87; Lho rong chos ‘byung, pp. 306-27; rLangs kyi po ti bse ru rgyas pa, p. 103; Deb ther sngon po, vol. r, pp. 651- 66; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 552-65; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 8II-19; and ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung,pp. 401-8. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 534- 35, provides an anomalous chronology of Phag-mo gru- pa, having him born in the fire-tiger year (1086?) rather than the iron-tiger year (1110) and traveling to Central Tibet at the age of 24 (1110?) rather than at the age of eighteen in 1128. Jackson 1990, pp. 39- 45, and 1994b, pp. 39-42, 60-61, 77, contributed to our understanding of this important figure.
20. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 655, an d Blue A n nals, vol. 1, p. 555, h as him ordained at 25 (1135), but this is contradicted by the dKar brgyud gser phreng, p. 403, and the Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 307.
21. Phag mo gru pa’i rnam thar rin po che i phreng ba, p. 12.I.
22. Lam ‘bras byung tshul , p. u 8.1.1, has Phag-mo gru-p a living at Sa- skya for twelve years, an improbable number; this is eviden tly followed by A- mes-zhabs, gDung rabs ch en mo, p. 48.
23. dKar brgyud gser phreng, pp. 407-11, emphasizes both Phag-mo gm-pa’s faith and the experiences he receives. As Jackson 1994b, p. 60, notes, the Zhang writings on this period have a peculiar chronology.
24. Sperling 1994.
25. This is rGwa-lo gZhon- nu-dpal (1110/14- 1198/1202). For this figure, see Sperling 1994 and Blue Annals, vol. 2, pp. 469, 475, 555. W e note that th ere was a later rGwa-lo rNam-rgyal rdo-rje (1203-82), who was the hagiographer of Dusgsum mkhyen-pa and was apparently considered the reincarnation of the earlier disciple of rTsa-mi.
26. On this affix, see Kychanov 1978, p. 2rn. This article treats the special position of Tibetans among the Tangut.
27. Dunnall 1992, pp. 94-96; van der Kuijp 1993.
28. On this issue, see Sperling 1987 and Dunnel 1992.
29. Martin 2001b, pp. 148-60, provides an excellent introduction to this material. The composition of the verses is discussed in Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa’i yig cha, pp. 156-58.
30. ‘Bri gung chos rje Jig rten mgon po bk.a’ ‘b um, p. 166; ‘Brig gung gdan rahs gser phreng, p. 83.
31. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 87.2.5-3.1.
32. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 53.
33. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 144.2.5.
34. Schoening 1990, p. 14.
35. On Rin-chen bZ ang- po’s mask, see Vitali 2001.
36. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 52; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 318; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 31.2-9.
37. The disciples are mentioned in Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 149-51; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 66-70; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 128-34; Lam ‘bras khog phub, pp. 188-90.
38. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 133; a letter is mentioned in the bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 68. This is probably the dGa’ ston la spring yig, SKB III.272.3.6-74.3.2, also contained in the fifteenth-century Pusti dmar chung, pp. 41-49: rJe btsun gyis dga’ ston rdo rje grags la gdams pa.
39. For a different perspective of Phag-mo gru-pa, see Stearns 2001, pp. 26-31.
40. dKar brgyud gser phreng, pp. 407-11, emphasizes both Phag-mo gru-pa’s faith and the experiences he receives.
41. dKar brgyud gser phreng, pp. 414-15; Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 314.
42. dKar brgyudgser phreng, p. 414-15; compare Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 314.Jackson 1990, pp. 39-47, discusses the unfortunate proposition (based on Roerich’s interpretation of Blue Annals, 1949, vol. r, p. 559) that Sa-chen and Phag-mo gru-pa had a falling-out, but Jackson rejects this interpretation on good textual grounds.
43. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 1I 8.2.2. See chap. 8 for questions about the sGatheng-ma.
44. This is in a supplement to the homage to Sa-chen by Zhu-byas, gDung rahs chen mo, pp. 49-51, which A-mes-zhabs follows.
45. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 130.
46. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 62.
47. Jackson 1987, vol. 2, pp. 344-47, presents Sa-skya Pacyq.ita’s summary of the thirteenth-century Tibetan understanding of the five Buddhist and five non-Buddhist areas of knowledge: Buddhist areas constitute the philosophical systems of the Vaibha ika, Sautrantika, Vijnapti[-matrata-vada], and the Nihsvabhavavada (Madhyamaka); non-Buddhist systems are *Vaidaka (Mimamsa), Samkhya, Aulukya (Vaisesika), Ksapanaka (Jaina), and Carvaka. The areas of knowledge listed in the Mahavyutpatti, nos. 1554- 59, 4953-71, do not include any specifically Buddhist studies and collectively demonstrate the changing nature of these rubrics.
48. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 63.
49. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 120.1.4; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 63.
50. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 144.2.6.
51. For Phya-pa, see van der Kuijp 1978 and 1983, pp. 59-70.
52. sLob dpon Phya pa la bstod pa, p. 41.r.5. He evidently sent a copy to gSang-phu Ne’u-thog as an offering, p. 41.2.2. Phya-pa’s death date, offerings made on his behalf, and the areas of his intellectual emphasis are mentioned in this panegyric as well.
53. This was maintained in the episodes in which Phag-mo gru-pa was favored by Sa-chen, who liked the way he answered questions put to him; for example, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 656; Blue Annals, vol. 2, p. 556.
54. bDag med ma’i dbang gi tho yig, p. 404.3.2-6. This short work is mentioned in his rGya sgom tshul khrims grags la spring ba of 1165, p. 39.3.2-3.
55. brGyud pa dang bcas pa la gsol ba ‘debs pa, p. 39.r.5.
56. rGya sgom tshul khrims grags la spring ba; p. 39, passim, is very difficult, with very obscure twelfth-century words and honorific usages.
57. sLob dpon Phya pa la bstod pa, p. 40.2.2-5, is especially significant.
58. This emphasis on Sa-skya Pandita’s position is found, for example, in Jackson 1983, p. 7. A-mes-zhabs notes the importance of prosody in bSod-nams rtsemo’s compositions; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 66.
59. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 64: ‘dzam bu gling pa bstan pa’i srog shing chen po.
60. gD ung rabs chen mo, p. 64.
6r. Sam pu ta’i ti ka gnad kyi gsal byed, p. 189.35. .
62. dPal kye rdo rje’i sgrub thabs mtsho skyes kyi ti ka, p. 131.6.
63. The Yig ge’i bklag thabs byis pa bde blag tu ‘jug pa is discussed late r. Punyagra is found in the colophon to his Dang po’i las can gyi bya ba i rim pa dang lam rim bgrod t sh ul, p. 147.r.6; Dveshavajra is found in dPal kye rdo rje rtsa ba’i rgyud brtag pa gnyis pa’i bsdus don, p. 176.r.5.
64. gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 66- 67.
65. bL a ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, SKB V.143.1.1- 154.4.6. The other essential sources are gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 69-85, and his dream record in rJe btsun pa’i mnal lam.
66. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, pp. 144.1.2, 144.1.6 , 144.2.3, 144-4-4, 145.1.2.
67. rJe btsun pa’i mnal lam. The SKB editor includes a note ( V.x) that Ngor-chen claims the letter was dictated by Grags- pa rgyal-mt shan to mKhas-pa sbal-st on at an uncertain date, and this also is indicated in the colophon to the text as contained in LL I.64.1: rje btsun pa’i mnal lam sbal ston seng ge rgyal mtshan gyis bris so j.
68. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 144.2.4- 3.2; Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig, p. 104.2.6, includes the death date of his youngest brother, dPal-chen ‘od – po (1150-1203).
69. bLa ma rye btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 143.2.2. Here nagaraja (klu’i rgyal po) would be understood as the king of elephants in India (since elephants and snakes are frequently seen as variations of the same entity), and I presume that Sa-skya Pandita would be using the term in this manner.
70. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 661; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 561. He is listed as a disciple of Sa-chen and is considered an incarnation of Avalokitesvara in gDung rabs chen mo, p. 50. For his connection to the ‘Brom-lugs, see Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 114-4-2.
71. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 69.
72. rJe btsun pa”i mnal lam, p. 98.3.1-4.2; bLa ma rye btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 144,4,4-6.
73. For example, bLa ma rye btsun chen po’i rnam thar, pp. 143.4.1, 144.1.1-2; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 51, gives Par:i-chen Mi-nyag grags-rdor’s supplementary list of Sa-chens disciples, which includes two Zhang: Zhang-ston gSum-thog-pa and Zhang-ston sPe’i dmar-ba.
74. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 70; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 140.2, adds rCya-sgom tshul-khrims-grags to the list of Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan ‘s important teachers.
75. gDung rahs chen mo, p. 83, mentions some of the different reports.
76. rGya sgom tshul khrims grags la spring ba, pp. 39.3.5 and 39-4-1-2.
77. bLa ma 1je btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 144.4.1; compare gDung rabs chen mo, p. 75, which numbers more than three hundred and places the hundred in the temple housing the remains of the great Sa-skya teachers (gong ma), a designation usually meaning Sa-chen, his two sons, Sa-pan and ‘Phags-pa, although it is not clear that their remains were housed together at this time.
78. Tshar chen rnam thar, p. 500; Ferrari 1958, p. 65.
79. rje btsun pa’i mnal lam, SKB IV.99.1.2-3.4.
80. bDe mchog kun tu spyod pa i rgyud kyi gsal byed, p. 55.2.4.
81. This may be inferred by Sa-skya Pandita’s observation at the end of the outline, rGyud sde spyi’i rnam gzhag dang rgyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa’i stong thun sa bead, SKB 111.81.2.4-5, that he was fourteen years old when he edited the summary. These works are also referenced in his brTag gnyis rnam ‘grel dag ldan, p. 162.3.3.
82. rGyud sde spyi’i rnam gzhag dang rgyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa’i stong thun sa bead, SKB 111.81.2.4-5; rGyud kyi rgyal po chen po sam pu fa zhe bya ba dpal ldan sa skya pan(ii ta i mchan dang bcas pa, p. 668.4 (fol. 3oob4), indicates that Sa-par:i had heard from Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan the Samputa five times and the Samputa-tilaka two before he wrote the notes at age sixteen (1198).
83. For example, dPal ldan sa skya pandi ta chen po’i rnam par thar pa, pp. 434.1.4-436.3.2, provides a long list of topics and titles, most of which are attributed to Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan s teaching; pp. 436.1.3 and 436.3.1 specifically list rNying-ma esoteric works and the study of Sanskrit.
84. Jackson 1985, p. 23, acknowledges that the disparity between Sa-skya Pandita’s list of his uncle’s studies and the lists provided in the latter’s hagiographies in this case, concerning Madhyamaka studies-but refrains from concluding that we have the hagiographer’s art at its source.
85. Vidyadharikeli-srivajravarahi-sadhana, SKB IV.29.2.3, and see SKB IV.28.2.5- 30.4.4.
86. Stearns 1996, pp. 132-34, provides sources for this issue.
87. Dunnel 1996, p. 158.
88. Kychanov 1978, p. 208.
89. Bod rje lha btsan po’i gdung rahs tshig nyung don gsal, p. 84. The discussion of Vinaya is on pp. 82-85. Sakyasri becomes an important culture hero celebrated in the Myang chos ‘byung, pp. 68-73.
90. Phag mo las bcu’i gsal byed, SKB IV.28.2.3. For Mi-nyag as a national designation, see Stein 1951, 1966, p. 288.
91. Bya spyod rigs gsum spyi’i rig gtad kyi cho ga, SKB IV.255-1.3-5.
92. Nges brjod bla ma’i ‘khrul ‘khor bri thabs, SKB IV.45.4.5, requested by rTsami; A rga’i cho ga dang rah tu gnas pa don gsal, SKB IV.252.2.6, requested by sNgeston (? = sDe-ston) dKon-mchog-grags and mDo-smad gling- kha’i yul du skyes pa yi dGe-slong lDe-ston-pa; Kun rig gi cho ga gzhan phan ‘od zer, SKB IV.228.1.4, requested by Lle’u dge-slong Seng-ge-mgon; gZhan phan nyer mkho, SKB IV.237.2.4, requested by gTsang-kha (= Tsong-kha) snyid-ston dGe-slong Rinchen-grag s; rTsa ba’i ltung ha bcu bzhi pa’i ‘grel pa gsal byed ‘khrul spong, SKB III.265.3.4, requested by bTsong-ga’i dGe-slong rDor-rje grags-mched; rTsa dbu ma’i khr id yig, SKB IV.42.4.2, requested by mDo-smad gyar-mo-thang gi ston-pa gZhon-nu; Chos spyod rin chen phreng ba, SKB IV.320.2.6, requested by rTsongkha’i cang-ston (?) dGe-slong brTson-‘grus-grags.
93. Byin rlabs tshar gsum khug pa, p. 95.3.3- 4.
94. bDud rtsi ‘khyil pa sg rub thabs las sbyor dang bcas pa, SKB IV.67.2.6. This is the only time that I have found he used this designation.
95. rGya sgom tshul khrims grags la spring ba, p. 39.4.3; Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig, p. ro 4.4.4- 5.
96. The section beginning rje btsun pa’i mnal lam, SKB IV.99.4.4, which mentions his looking toward sixty- nine years of age, I take to be a continua tion of the dream at sixty -six beginning on p. 99.4.1. This is how it is understood in gDung rahs chen mo, p. 81, whereas bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 145.3.2, seems to say that it happened two years before his death.
97. rJe btsun pa i mnal lam, p. 99.4.1-4. Compare LL I. 62.3- 5.
98. The term is used in describing the episode in the Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 190.5; I know of no instan ce where it is used before this text.
99. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rnam thar, p. 145.1.2- 2.2.
100. gD ung rah chen mo, p. 79; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zi n bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 139-40; Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 190 .5.
101. bLa ma rje btsun chen po’i rna m thar, p. 145.1.2- 4, is almost identical with rJe btsun pa’i mnal lam, pp. 98.4.6- 99.1.2.
102. bLa ma rje btsun ehen po’i rnam thar, p. 145.r.5-2.1. While all the preceding sources report the verse, none agrees, so Sa-skya Pandita’s version appears to be the most authentic.
103. bLa ma rje btsun ehen po’i rnam thar, p. 146.2.2-3.
104. Personal communications from Ngor Thar-rtse zhabs-drung (1981) and Ngor Thar-rtse mkhan-po (1982). These works were the rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, the rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po ehe’i ljon shing, the hrTag gnyis rnam ‘grel dag ldan, and the sDom gsum rab dbye.
105. bLa ma rje btsun ehen po’i rnam thar, p. 144.1.4-5; see a similar expression in gDung rah chen mo, p. 74.
106. His Chas la ‘jug pa’i sgo is examined later; the Amoghapasa lineage materials are found in his ‘Phags pa don yod zhags pa’i lo rgyus.
107. Genealogical material is included in Chas la ‘jug pa’i sgo, pp. 343.r.2-46.2.4, of bSod-nams rtse-mo and in the dedicated Bod kyi rgyal rahs of Crags-pa rgyalmtshan. ‘Khan lineal matters occupy the bLa ma sa skya pa ehen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.r.4-2.2, and is the topic of Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig.
108. Besides the hagiography of his father, his major hagiographical contributions are Virupa’s in his bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus; Kanha’s in his Nag po dkyil chog gi bshad sbyar, pp. 304.3.4-306.2.2; Ghantapada’s in the sLob dpon rdo r:je drii bu pa’i lo rgyus; and Luipa’s in the bDem mehog lu hi pa’i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa’i lo rgyus. Both his Notes on Vajrayana Systems (rDo rje ‘byung ba’i yig sn a ) and his Notes on Individual Sadhanas (sGrub thabs so so’i yig sna) also contain odd bits of curious stories.
109. rGya bod kyi sde pa’i gyes mdo.
110. Lam ‘bras ‘byung tshul, p. 120.r. Note that A-myes-zhabs presents the reading gseg shubs ma, indicating a standard book case (gsegs); Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 275.
111. dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe ‘i phreng ba, SKB I.268.2.1-81.2.6. The numbering is uncertain, for some texts appear to work in conjunction with works before or after, and there is no dkar-chag to enumerate the works as intended.
112. For example, compare Sras don ma, pp. 95-99, and dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe’i phreng ba, SKB I.275.r.5-75.4.3.
113. Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, SKB IV.302.3.1-1 r.4.5. The uncertainty of numbering for Sa-chen’s collection applies to Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s as well.
114. Ehrhard 2002, p. 40.
115. gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 3-1.
116. For the relationship of Tibetan color terminology to English, see Nagano 1979, pp. 11-23.
117. gLegs bam gyi dkar-ehags, p. 8.r-2.
118. See his gSung ngag rin po ehe lam ‘bras bu dang bcas pa ngor lugs thun min slob bshad dang | thun mong tshogs bshad tha dad kyi smin grol yan fang dang beas pa’i brgyud yig gser gyi phreng ba byin zab ‘od brgya ‘bar ba, LL XX.417-511; compare Smith 2001, pp. 235-58.
119. Lam bras khog phub, pp. 301-3.
120. Stearns 2001, pp. 32-35, already summarized the Pod ser contents, but his discussion emphasizes elements different from mine, so they are complementary rather than redundant.
121. Lam-bras khog phub, p. 187.
122. Crags-pargyal-mtshan was apparently responsible for the following works (with their pages in the Pod ser): Kun gzhi rgyu rgyud (128-31); gDan stshogs kyi yi ge (131-35); Bum dbang gi ‘da’ ka ma’i skabs su ‘chi ltas | ‘khrul ‘khor | ‘chi bslu dang bcas pa (138-44); Lam dus kyi dbang rgyas ‘bring bsdus gsum (154-58); Tshad ma bzhi’i yi ge (158-61); gDams ngag drug gi yi ge (161-63); Crib ma khrus sel (167-69); Crib ma satstshas sel ba (169-70 ); Thig le bsrung ba (170-71); and the Jig rten pa’i lam gyi skabs su rlung gi sbyor ba bdun gyis lam khrid pa (173-83). The others are by Sa-chen, according to the gLegs bam kyi dkar chags.
123. gLegs bam kyi dkar chags, p. 5.1-2.
124. Wayman 1977, pp. 137-80, is still the only significant treatment of the Guhyasamaja material.
125. Tachikawa 1975 is devoted to an examination of this issue with respect to the dGe-lugs understanding found in the sGrub mtha’ shel gyi me long of Thu’u-bkwan bLo-bzang chos kyi nyi-ma.
126. Stearns 2001, pp. 30-32, argues that some short works in the Pod ser are based on Lam-‘bras writings of Phag-mo gru-pa. This may prove to be true, but his argument as presented is not entirely compelling, as it relies on the idea that Sa-chen used no texts; compare Stearns 2001, pp. 32-35.
127. Lung ‘di nyid dang mdor bsdus su sbyar (Pod ser, pp. 481-93), Lung ‘di nyid dang zhib tu sbyar ba (Pod ser, pp. 493-529), and Lam ‘bras bu dang bcas pa’i don rnams lung ci rigs pa dang sbyar (Pod ser, pp. 529-81).
128. Besides Pod ser, sec. IV, pp. 144-51 and 185-87, there is a longer work, Kye rdor lus dkyil gyi dbang gi bya ba mdor bsdus pa, ascribed to bLa-ma Sa-chen-pa and close to the language associated with Sa-chen’s other works. On fol. 7a4 ( p. 19.4), the signature of the Lam ‘bras, the rdo rje rba rlabs bsgom pa, is mentioned; compare a supplemental work on the Vajracaryabhiseka, Gong tu ma bstan pa’i rdo rje slob dpon gyi dbang gi tho, Sa skya’i rje btsun gong ma rnam lnga’i gsung ma phyi gsar rnyed, vol. 1, pp. 21-25. There is another short text, sMon lam dbang bzhi’i bshad par sbyar ba, which is not definitely a Lam-‘ bras-related work; Sa skya’i rje btsun gong ma rnam lnga’i gsung ma phyi gsar rnyed, vol. 1, pp. 81-84.
129. Guhyasamaja-tantra XII, vv. 60-76, pp. 42-44.
130. For references, see Davidson 1992, pp. 178-79, n. 20.
131. For a discussion of this ritual and related concerns, see Davidson 1992, pp. u4-20.
132. For a discussion of many of these issues, see Nor-chen’s bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer, pp. 190.1 ff.; and Go-rams-pa’s bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer la rtsod pa spong ba gnad kyi gsal byed, pp. 597 ff.
133. rTsa ba’i ltung ba bcu bzhi pa’i ‘grel pa gsal byed ‘kh rul spong.
134. Eimer 1997.
135. bLa ma mnga’ ris pas mdzad pa’i brtag gnyis kyi tshig ‘grel. Compare the acknowledgement of Durjayacandra’s and mNga’-ris- pa’s commentaries in dPal kye rdo rje’i rnam par bshad pa nyi ma’i ‘od zer, p. 109.3.1.
136. Kye rdo rje’i rtsa rgyud brtag gnyis kyi dka’ ‘grel.
137. dPal kye rdo rje’i rnam par bshad pa nyi ma’i ‘od zer.
138. brTag gnyis rnam ‘grel dag ldan.
139. Guhyasamaja-tantra XVIII.34.
140. rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, pp. 22.3.5, 34.3.3, 35.4.5, 36.1.3, 36.3.3.
14r. See Steinkellner 1978; Broida 1982, 1983, and 1984; Arenes 1998.
142. His sources are identified in rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, pp. 31.4.5, 32.1.2, 32.1.6, 32.3.1, 32.3.3, 32.3.4, 33.1.5, 33.2.6, 34.2.1, 34.2.4, 34.3.6, 35.1.1, 35.2.4, 35.3.4, 35.4.6.
143. rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, pp. 11.4.4-12.1.2.
144. rGyud kyi mngon rtogs rin po che’i ljon shing, p. 2.1.3.
145. Grags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s scriptural source for this is HT II.ii.14-15, and HTII.viii.9-10.
146. rGyud kyi mngon rtogs rin po che’i ljon shing, 17.1.6-2.3, citing the Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha and the Samputa; compare HTII.iv.76.
147. rGyud kyi mngon rtogs rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 22.1.1-4, 26.3.2-4.
148. rGyud kyi mngon rtogs rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 22.3.2, 26.1.3. We also see his interest in this level of encounter and refutation in his rTsa ba’i ltung ba bcu bzhi pa’i ‘grel pa gsal byed ‘khrul spong, pp. 261.2.6-65.2.6, where he refutes four “incorrect opinions” with respect to the Vajrayana.
149. The identity of this place is not certain. The Rwa lo rnam thar, p. 46, mentions a sNye-nam na-mo-che in La-stod, and the rNam thar rgyas pa yong grags, p. 157, mentions a sNe-len in La-stod.
150. Yi ge’i bklag thab byis pa bde blag tu ‘jug pa.
151. Verhagen 1995, 2001, pp. 58-63, studies this work.
152. sMra sgo’i mtshon cha’i mchan rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis mdzad pa; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 74; Jackson 1987, vol. 1, pp. rr 6- rr 7; Verhagen 2001, p. 52.
153. Byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ‘jug pa’i ‘grel pa; see p. 515.2.5 for his debt to Phya-pa.
154. bSod-nams rtse-mo’s Dang po’i las can gyi bya ba’i rim pa dang lam rim bgrod tshul, and the Chos spyod rin chen phreng ba of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan.
155. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 64.
156. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 72.
157. Ruegg 1966, pp. 112-13, discusses this episode.
158. For a discussion of this controversy, see Stearns 1996, pp. 152-55.
159. gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 80-81.
<< К оглавлению |
