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

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

Примечания к Гл.8

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

1. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 452.3-4; the exact sense of rang gis khyab ‘brel is obscure.

2. The Shangs-pa bka’-br gyud- pa are discussed in Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 499-504, and in Kapstein 1980, 1992.

3. bKa’ gdams rin po che i chos ‘byung, pp. 307-9; bKa’ gdams chos ‘byung, pp. 106-8.

4. The following material on sPa-tshab is taken almost exclusively from Lang 1990, and the reader should see her fuller treatment for further details; see also Ruegg 2000, pp. 27-55.

5. The first of these has been translated in Eckel 1987.

6. rNam thar yang grags, p. 190.2-4.

7. For an assessment of the consequences of this position in India, see Davidson 2002c, pp. 99-102.

8. The sources disagree on this issue; the mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 2, p. 860.10, indicates that Dus-gsum mkhyen-pa learned these at gSang-phu, where he was one of the “three khams-pa,” but the first Karma-pa’s hagiography places this at ‘Phan-yul, which is more likely; see r]e dus gsum mkhyen pa’i rnam thar by rGwalo rNam-rgyal rdo-rje (1203-82), Dus gsum mkhyen pa’ i bka ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 59.3.

9. For Phya-pa, see van der Kuijp 1978 and 1983, pp. 59-70.

10. According to gZhon-nu-dpal, rGya-dmar-pa had also been the student of Zha-ma lo- tsa-ba’s son, Lha-rje Zla-ba’i ‘od-zer; Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 283; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 231-32. However, since Lha-rje Zla-ba’i ‘od-zer was reputed to have been born in rr23, or fourteen years after the birth of Phya-pa, it is unclear how Phya-pas teacher would be the disciple of a man so junior to himself.

11. van der Kuijp 1983, p. 60.

12. Phag mo gru pa i rnam thar rin po che’i phreng ba, p. I I.I.

13. Jackson 1987, vol. 1, pp. 129-31, 169-77-

14. van der Kuijp 1983, p. 69.

15. For an overview of the history of this system, see Newman 1985, 1998; Orofino 1997.

16. Kha rag gnyos kyi rgyud pa byon tshul mdor bsdus, p. 14.

17. Kalacakra-tantra 1.150; on this point, see Davidson 2002a.

18. The following sources have been used for his biography: autobiographical accounts are in the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 401-2; mNyam med sgam po pa i rnam thar, dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 267-339; Lho rong chos ‘byung, pp. 168-77; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, pp. 789-800. We may note that there was a dispute on sGam- po- pa’s dates as well; dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 277.2, says that he was born in a bird year (1069 or rn81); a date refuted in Lho rong chos ‘byung, p. 175, in its questionable chronology. Si-tu identifies a site said to have been sGam-popa’s birthplace; Kah thog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, p. 258.

19. mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 789.9-10, states that there were three branches of sNyi-ba: rGya-snyi, g.Yu-snyi, and Bod-snyi, this last the Tibetan branch. His source for this is unclear to me. A sNyi-ba participated in the tomb looting after the collapse of the dynasty; see mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, p. 433.4-8.

20. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 280.2, says that he studied this and other rNyingma works with sLob-dpon Jo-sras rGyal-mtshan grags-pa.

21. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 401-2; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 55-56.

22. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 402.5; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, p. 98; this period of thirteen months is expanded to forty months in dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, p. 320.

23. ‘Brug pa’i chos ‘byung p. 386.

24. Samadhiraja-sutra, passim; mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 2-51, relates some of the myths accorded that bodhisattva through the later chapters of the work.

25. Jackson 19946, p. 39. Jackson ‘s analysis of sGam-po-pa is done from the position of the affirmation of Sa-par;i’s perspective and primarily through the lens of later Tibetan scholars; it does not take sufficient account oflndian literature generally and Vajrayana literature in particular. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 173, 217-30, vol. 2, pp. 328-29, repeatedly makes the point of Saraha’s importance to sGam-po-pa, and one does not need to go very far through Saraha’s doha corpus to find a castigation of scholars on a par with those identified by Jackson 19946, pp. 39-41. Rather than sGam- po-pa’s idiosyncratic personal position, it appears to be the heritage of his lineage. More to the point, I know of no normative Indian Mahayanist that maintains that conceptualization (vikalpa) is appropriate to awakening; compare Mahayanasutralamkara 1.11-14, which discusses why it is that vikalpa is the only klesa for the bodhisattva and therefore the Mahayana is not within the purview of scholasticism, echoed in sG am- po-pa ‘s rje phag mo gru pa’ i zhus len, sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, p. 471.7-72.1, and noted by Jackson 1994b, pp. 150-51. References like this could be multiplied at great length, but it appears that sGam-po-pa’s metaphor of the dkar po chig thub builds on well-established models.

26. Jackson 1994b, pp. 14-28, does a good job of introducing this problem; Mathes forthcoming, shows that sG am- po-pa’s position has roots in the writings of Advayavajra and Sajahavajra.

27. For his discussions of this material, see sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 333-35, vol. 2, pp.· 329- 378.

28. Abhisamayalamkaraloka, p. 270.13.

29. One of the sixteen Arhats, Cudapanthaka, was said to have realized all the Tripitaka by contemplation; Divyavadana, p. 429.

30. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 460-62, contains some quotations, but the one text that is a curious amalgam of odd bits of textual references, with little in the way of continuity or argument, is the bStan bcos lung gi nyi ‘od, which was missing in the older edition of the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum but is included in the sGam po pa gsung ‘bum yid bzhin nor bu, vol. 41 pp. 91-184.

31. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 219, 269, 304, 368; p. 303, shows himself to be familiar with the system of A-ro ye-shes byung-gnas, though it is not clear whether this is from a text or from oral exposure. On similarities between rDzogschen and the bKa’-gdam- pa views, see sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 2, p. 300.5. In sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 438-39, he voices frustration with rDzogs-chen claims, as noted by Jackson 1994b, p. 30, n. 71.

32. See sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, passim, but the section discussing his most important term, sahaja, and its relationship to rig-pa, 267.5-268.6, is particularly interesting. On p. 273, sGam-po-pa even uses the term rig pa rang shar.

33. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum. For the Rong-lugs fourfold categories, see kLong chen chos ‘byung, p. 393.

34. sGam po pa gsung ‘bum, vol. 1, pp. 281.2-83.5, 285.4-88.1.

35. The bibliography for this issue is now enormous; important sources include Ruegg 1989; Karmay 1988, pp. 86-106; Demieville 1952; Broughton 1983; Gomez 1983; Ueyama 1983; and Meinert 2002, 2003, forthcoming.

36. gSang ‘dus stong thun, p. 301.1; rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, pp. 3.1.6, 17.1.3.

37. Caryamelapakapradipa, Skt. text, pp. 3-7; Tibetan text, pp. 158-67.

38. Caryamelapakapradipa, p. 4, quotes Lankavatara-sutra, p. 55.2-14. See also Lankavatara-sutra, pp. 82, 84. Ruegg 1989, p. 120, notes the use of the Lankavatara-sutra but does not refer to Aryadeva’s use. This same Lankavatara material is quoted in Pelliot Tibetan n6, fol. 129, and Pelliot Tibetan 823, fols. 9b-10a, indicating a Chan awareness; see also Demieville 1952, p. 18. The influence of this scripture on the Northern Chan was contested by McRae 1986, pp. 24-29.

39. bsTan bcos lung gi nyi ‘od, pp. 173-74; this text was not accessible to Jackson 1994b, p. 24, when he voiced his consternation at sGam-po-pa’s sources.

40. Compare Mayer 1997a, a review article of Jackson 1994b.

41. On the patron, see rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 530.3.

42. mNyam med sgam po pa’i rnam thar, pp. 142- 43 .

43. This was explored by Schopen 1992, 1994a, 19946, 1995.

44. Gyatso 1985; Edou 1996; Rossi-Filibeck 1983; Kollmar-Paulenz 1993, 1998.

45. There is some disagreement on her place and date of birth; see Gyatso 1985, p. 329, and Edou 1996, p. 11r.

46. Martin 1996b also proposed this connection; I thank Bryan Cuevas for bringing the article to my attention.

47. See sNgag log sun ‘byin kyi sk.or, p. 14, about Dam-pa nag-chung, an alternative name for Pha-dam-pa.

48. The following is from Lam ‘bras byung tshul, pp. r15-1.1-16.2.4 (spelling the name Zhwa-ma) which is very close to the Zha-ma lineage work, the Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud, pp. 440-47; Zhib mo rdo r:}e, Stearns 2001, pp. 124-31; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par tharpa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 43-48; gDams ngag byung tshulgyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 102-8. The Zha-ma lineage text, or one of the other Lam-‘bras works, is evidently the source for Deb ther sngon po, vol. 11 pp. 271-80; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 218-26. This inference is especially important, since the Lam-‘bras is primarily represented in the Blue Annals through the Zha-ma system. For a map and discussion of the current Pha-drug area, see Diemberger and Hazod 1999, p. 36.

49. Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 274, 279-80, 283; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 221, 226, 229. Even though widely acknowledged, we should still note Roerich’s confusion between Zha-ma ma-gcig and Ma-gcig Lab-sgron in Blue Annals, 1949, vol. 1, p. 225, vol. 2, p. 919. The correction was made by Gyatso 1985, pp. 328-29, n. 34, and is the subject of LoBue 1994.

50. The husband is called A-ba lha-rgyal, and the marital age is fourteen in Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 274; Blue Annals, vol. 1, p. 221.

51. For an especially colorful hagiography, see the Pha dam pa’i rnam thar.

52. For example, Phag-mo gru-pa studied with Zha-ma Ma-gcig; Blue Annals, pp. 226, 557, and sTag-lung chos ‘byung, p. 177.

53. Compare Zha-ma Ma-gcig in Diemberger and Hazod 1999, who wrote an entire article on this fascinating woman without mentioning the Lam ‘bras connection, a reflection of her later employment in Tibetan sacred geography.

54. The following sources were available to me for Sa-chen’s hagiography: bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, pp. 84.2.6-87.3.5; Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 132-49; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 48-66; Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, pp. 142-44; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 316-21; r]e btsun sa skya pa gong ma gsum gyi rnam par thar pa dpag bsam fjon pa, pp. 70-85; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 108-28; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 22-62.

55. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.r.2: ru lag gtsang stod gram pa’i yul gyi stod du sku ‘khrungs pa’i bla ma chen po sa skya pa zhes gnas las mtshan du grags pa.

56. gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 20-23.

57. I have found no confirmation of a later story that ‘Khon dKon-mchog rgyalpo was first a monk and then later was asked to renounce his vows. T his appear s tied into a much later story of Atisa and the Sa-skya prophecy; see C assinelli and Ekvall 1969, p. 12.

58. We may recall the importance of the KhasarpaQ.a form of Avalokitesvara for later esoteric Buddhism in general and the Virupa myth in particular; see chap.1.

59. For example, gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 109; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 23-24.

60. The name for this building as it was known to sNgags-‘chang Kun-dga’ rinchen was sCo-rum gZim-spyil dkar-po; Schoening 1990, pp. 13-14. Schoening relies on the description of the building as seen during Kal;i-thog Si- tu’s 1919 visit; see Kab thog si tu’i dbus gtsang gnas yig, pp. 315-27, esp. pp. 323-24.

61. The early sources in fact begin Sa-chens story at this point; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.2.6; Yar lung jo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 142; Zhib mo rdo lje, Stearns 2001, p. 132.

62. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. 5a5-5b6; the importance of this hagiography is recognized in gDung rabs chen mo, p. 29.11.

63. Solomon 1990 argues that its origin is in Gandhari.

64. Several sources, apparently beginning with the Yar lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 143, indicate that the vision was received in the building then housing the bLabrang-shar; compare rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 317.

65. From rCya-mtsho 1981, p. 27.

66. rJe sa chen la bstod pa, p. 38.2.3; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 88.2.2-3. See also the discussion of Zhen pa bzhi bral literature in rGya-mthso 1981.

67. This extended episode is found in the ¼r lungjo bo’i chos ‘byung, p. 143; bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 50-51; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, pp. 318-19; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 111-12; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 27-28. Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 85.1.1, has Sa-chen study Abhidharma after he works with Ba-ri, and places it in his-twelfth year. The shift in later hagiographers is possibly due to the fact that it would be impossible for anyone to complete the range of studies under Ba-ri outlined in Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s narrative within a sin gle year, whereas rudimentary Abhidharma can be accomplished in that period.

68. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 50.

69. Note that A-mes-zhabs expands the already impressive list of titles for both dKon-mchog rgyal-po and Sa-chen; gDung rabs chen mo, p. 28.4.

70. Intimations of this episode are found in the Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 136- 37.

71. The following material is based on Ba-ri’s hagiography written by bSod-nams rtse-mo, bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, especially fols. 3a-5b.

72. rNam thar yong grags, pp. 201-2; Deb ther sngon po, vol. r, p. 101.5; Blue Annals vol. r, p. 73. Chattopadyaya 1967, pp. 493,498, lists two works (To. 1866, 2704) said to have been translated by Atisa and Ba-ri in Tho-ling, where Atisa was between 1042 and 1045; this means that Ba-ri would have had to learn Sanskrit and classical Tibetan between the ages of two and five; the colophons are clearly apocryphal here.

73. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. ra-16, 4a; while the hagiography calls them rDo-rje gdan-pa che-ba, and rDo-rje gdan-pa chung-ba, it is not clear that these designations would have been reflected in their Indian names: Maha-Vajrasana-pada?, Cuda-Vajrasana- pada?, or something analogous.

74. Many such texts are included in the core of the Bari be’u bum, pp. 1 through 23 of which are actually by Ba-ri lo-tsa-ba; the rest accreted over time with much gter ma material, and by the end of the text ( p. 581.3) there is a reference to rDorje gling-pa (1346-1405).

75. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 84.4.2-6; gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 28-29.

76. For a discussion of Ba-ri’s work and analogous sddhana collections, see Thomas 1903.

77. Also now called the rNam-rgyal sku-‘bum, its location is shown by Schoening 1990, pp. 24-25 (no. 10); bLa ma ba ri lo tsd ha rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fols. 5ab ( pp. 263-64); gDung rahs chen mo, pp. 28.21-29.12.

78. The dharani was possibly the Sarvadurgatiparsodhani-usnisavijaya-dharani (To. 597 (= 984]). For the use of spells in stiipas, see Schopen 1985. Ba-ri’s hagiography, bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fol. 5a6, claims that 3,140,000 (‘bum ther gsum dang khri tsho bdun bzhugs pa’i rnam rgyal gyi satstsha) clay sealings of the dharani were included in this reliquary, an improbable number.

79. According to Jeffrey Schoening, reported by Stearns 2001, n. 170, this is a temple in Sa-skya itself.

80. bLa ma ba ri lo tsti ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, fol. 5a5, indicates that Bari came to Sa-skya at the age of sixty-two, maintained the monastery for ten years, and (fol. 5b5) transferred it to Sa-chen when Ba-ri was seventy; this is mathematically impossible, and we must consider that the ten years were from 1102 until his death in 1112. The chronological calendar in the Tshig mdzod chen mo lists 1111 as both the year of Kun-dga ‘ snying-po’s ascension to the position of Sa-skya Khripa and Ba-ri ‘s death. This is probably based on two different chronologies. The rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 317, maintains that Sa-chens father died when he was eleven (i.e., 1103, but incorrect), while most other sources give ten (1102, correct); compare gDung rahs chen mo, p. 28.22.

81. For the Sa-skya emphasis on this school, see Jackson 1985.

82. This material is obscure; bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 85.1.6-2.2: yang bla ma de nyid la rje btsun me tri: ba’i slob ma rje btsun phyag na rdo rje zhes bya ba la bla ma de nyid kyis nos pa’i grub pa sde bco brgyad grub pa’i khongs su gtogs pa du ma dang bcas pa I snying po skor phra mo dang bcas pa nyis shu rtsa Inga yan lag du ma dang bcas pa shi n tu zab pa’i man ngag gis brgyan pa rnams khong du chud par mdzad do I- I had initially suspected much of this was included in Sa-chen’s odd collection of bits in instruction, the dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po che’i phreng ba, but none of these forty-nine texts is attributed to Vajrapani.

83. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 52; rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, p. 318; gDung rahs chen mo, p. 31.2-9.

84. This episode is found from the Zhib mo rdo rje, Steams 2001, pp. 136-39; compare bLa ma brgyud pa·i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ha, pp. 53-54; gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p: I 13, has an alternative version of the dream. This episode from mKhyen-brtse was translated in Stearns 1997, pp. 192- 93.

85. gDung rahs chen mo, pp. 33.22-34.3.

86. See the short hagiographical notice in the Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, pp. 463- 65; Blue Annals, vol. 1, pp. 381-83.

87. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 117;

gDung rahs chen mo, p. 35.

88. This individual is not to be confused with the dGe-shes dGon-pa-ba who was a well-known bKa’-gdams-pa disciple of Atisa; compare rNam thar yang grags p. 193, or with another Zhang-ston Chos-‘bar, Deb ther sngon po, vol. 1, p. 125; Blue Annals vol. 1, p. 95.

89. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ha, p. 42.1, lists their skills as being gsung rah kyi rtsi dras mkhan po, an office that is unknown to me, perhaps involved in enumerating costs (rtsis) for the writing of the canon. See also gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, pp. 100-101.

90. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi·i bcud, pp. 187-90.

91. The two tantras are the rDo rje sems dpa’ nam mkha’ che bram ze rgyas pa’i rgyud, with sixteen chapters that consistently announce themselves as from the Extensive Brahman Tantra [Kaneko (1982), no. 19] and the rDzogs pa chen po lta ba’i yang snying I sangs rgyas thams cad kyi dgongs pa I nam mkha’ klong yangs kyi rgyud [Kaneko 1982, no. 114] in fifty-three chapters, which represents itself as a member of six tantras buried by Myang Ting-nge-‘dzin bzang-po. I thank David Germano for drawing my attention to this latter work.

92. Myang chos ‘byung, p. 207.

93. Chas ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, p. 492. Germano (personal communication) suggested that this may be an incipient canon of eleven tantras based on his readings of the colophons of various tantras.

94. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 118, is an exception, for it has Sa-chen study Lam-‘bras four years and then another four on the eight ancillary cycles of practice, but this is a measure of the questionable nature of this narrative. A-mes-zhabs indicates that Sachen was twenty-seven when he began his studies and they lasted until he was thirty-one, or from 1119 to 1123, although we must doubt that the early record can support this level of specificit y; Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 176. The name Mi-bskyod rdo-rje is explicit in the version of the Tibetan hagiographies found in the current printing of the Pod ser, p. 593, translated in chap. 5, and is reflected in Crags-pa rgyal- mtshan’s gNas bstod nyams dbyang, p. 348.2.1.

95. Several of Stearns’s (2001) arguments are based on the proposition of there being no text of the Lam-‘bras prior to Sa-chen. He points out ( p. 173, n. 20) that the colophon to the A seng ma verifies this. The colophon indicates that Virupa’s work was not committed to writing and that to do so would be a sin. I would take this as the circumstances known to him at that time, but the situation had evidently changed later, for he himself commits the work to writing, and I expect that he had encountered manuscripts by others having done the same.

96. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 146-47; bla ma Dam-pa has Zhang-stonpa’s wife offer the1:exts to Sa-chen, bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, p. 62; a version of this episode is translated in Stearns 2001, p. 250, n. 215.

97. gLegs bam gyi dkar ehags, p. 2: cung zad gsungs pa rnams sngar yi ge med kyang.

98. Sras don ma,127- 2.8, 175-71.

99. sGa theng ma, pp. 192,267,320, 331-33; Sras don ma, p. 200; Bande ma, p. 88. In his Zhang ston la bstod pa, p. 2.3.1, Sa-chen provides a cryptic allusion to Zhangston- pa’s literary holdings: rdo rje’i tshig rnams rgya cher ‘grel mdzad sdud pa por I nges par mchis kyang mi yi gzugs ‘dzin bla ma mchog|.This seems to indicate that Zhang collected extensive commentaries, or (if sdud pa is taken as a variant for sdus pa) perhaps composed a summary. Without some other reference, the verse remains obscure. The colophon indicates that this panegyric was composed when Sa-chen took the Lam-‘bras initiation, but since it mentions Lam-‘bras vocabulary, we still have the question of its textual transmission.

100. Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 184.

101. Note that A-seng evidently appears an occasional teacher of Sa-chen’s, for Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan traces at least one of the lineages in his Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, p. 304.1.1, from bla-ma A-seng to bla-ma Sa-skya-pa. We see the same text and lineage in dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe’i phreng ba, p. 273.3.4, but here with the bla-ma A to Sa-skya-pa, apparently indicating that “bla-ma A” found in so many of these short works is A-seng or was understood to be so by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan.

102. gLegs bam gyi dkar ehags, speaking about his composition of the dkar chags, p.3. The formal title of the Aseng ma, Don bsdus pa, is mentioned under the designation Thams cad kyi don bsdud kyi tshigs su bead pa, gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 4.2.-3.

103. For example, the gSung sgros ma, p. 4.3; bLa-ma Dam- pa’s bLa ma brgyud pa ‘i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, pp. 62-63, mentions only the Aseng ma, the sGa theng ma, the kLog skya ma, and the gNyags ma. Specifics on the acceptance of the commentaries are found in Stearns 2001, pp. 24-25.

104. For example, Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 187.

105. This master list is taken from the Lam ‘bras khogphub, p. 5; the items are interpreted according to Sras don ma, pp. 21-24, or according to Zhu byas ma, pp. 5-6.

106. Stearns 2001, p. 30. In an e-mail (dated January 14, 2004), Stearns informed me that he no longer holds this position but believes the sGa theng ma to be authentic and the original dPe mdzod ma of Phag-mo Gru-pa to be lost, replaced by the sGa theng ma.

107. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng p. 404.4.

108. The breaks are Sras don ma, pp. 205, 241, and 381. the colophon, pp. 445-46, seems to indicate that rJe Phul-byung-ba did this when he occupied the abbot’s position of Sa-skya for three years training Sa-chen’s sons: Compare mKhyen-brtse’s gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 128.

109. The intermediate state (Tib.: bar do) is articulated in most detail as a sep- arate category in the lDan bu ma, pp. 361-65.

110. gDams ngag byung tshul gyi zin bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed, p. 128.

111. Lam ‘bras khogphub, p. 187.

112. See p. 357 on the contents of the Pod ser in the following chapter.

113. These works are in section II in the Pod ser; see chapter 9, p. 357; with the Aseng ma, fourteen works by Sa-chen are found in that section.

114. I will provide the titles for these works in the notes so as not to burden the reader; here the reference is to Sa-chens Lus kyi dkyi ‘khor, Pod ser, pp. 135-38.

115. For some of this material and references, see Davidson 1991.

116. Bum dbang gi snang bsgyur ba’i ‘da ka ma, gSang dbang gi skabs su thig le’i rnal ‘byor bzhi, Shes rab ye shes kyi phyag rgya’i mtshan nyid, and dBang bzhi pa’i ‘da’ ka ma dang bum dbang dang thun mong du yi ges sgo dgag pa dang bcas pa; these are collectively represented in Pod ser, pp. 144-51.

117. ‘Das pa’i lam la gsang dbang gi skabs su ‘khor bzhi i rgya, dBang bzhi pa.’i skabs su dang phyug gi don brgyad, Pod ser, pp. 185-87; the former topic was to be taken up later in a text attributed to Sa-skya Pandita, Lam sbas bshad, SKB IV.349.1.2-3.6. n8.

118. Bar do bzhi i gdams ngag, Pod ser, pp. 151-54.

119. rTen ‘brel Inga, Pod ser, pp. 163-66.

120. Crib sel gyi sbyin sreg bsdus pa, Yi ge brgya pa gdon pa ‘i gdams ngag, Pod ser, pp. 166-67, 171-73.

121. Bha ga i yi ge bcu bzhi, Sa bcu gsum pa ‘i phyed kyi mngon rtogs, Pod ser, pp. 18r85, 187-88.

122. Davidson 1991.

123. ‘Phrang bdun gsal ba, Byung rgyal du mi gtong ba’i gnad bzhi, ‘Byung ba !us ‘khrugs rlung dang spyod lam gyi gsal ba i brtse chen thub pas legs bar gsungs, Pod ser, pp. 260-88; see section IV in the Pod ser table in chap. 9, p. 357.

124. rTsa ba med pa’i lam ‘bring po, and Lam ‘bras bsdus pa zhes bya ba’i rtsa ba, Pod ser, pp. 292-99 (which also includes two short works not found in the gLegs bam kyi dkar chags); these constitute section Vin the Pod ser table.

125. gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, pp. 5.4- 6.r; these are in sections VI and VII in the Pod ser, table 10.

126. Phyi nang gi mdzad pa bcugnyis, Pod ser, pp. 339-44.

127. The Lam bsre ba is found in Pod ser, pp. 327-36.

128. One of the gzhung shing chen po bzhi, Pod ser, pp. 300-14.

129. Pod ser, pp. 323-25. 130.

130. SKB I.2.3.4-7.4.6.

131. For example, in Buddhaguhya ‘s Vairocandbhisambodhitantrapi,:ujdrtha, fols. 2a3-4 .

132. Now well known by the translation of mKhas-grub- rje’s manual in Less ing and Wayman 1968.

133. It is unclear at this section of the text whether it is by Ngor-chen himself or completed by Gung-ru Shes-rah bzang-po; Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p. 118.2.4-5.

134. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 152-53.

135. Zhib mo rdo rje, Stearns 2001, pp. 152-53, and compare p. 255, n. 235.

136. Pusti dmar chung, pp. 13-15. This text is also called Pod dmar, but because there exists another Pod dmar by dMar-ston Chos-kyi rgyal-po, the designation Pusti dmar chung is sometimes used by the tradition to avoid confusion.

137. Pod nag, p. 64. Stearns 2001, p. 255, n. 234, indicates that the exact nature of this list was problematic for the tradition but that it was “clarified” in the work of gLo-ba mkhan-chen bSod-nams lhun-grub (1456-1532). The fact that the tradition required more than three hundred years to identify the materials transmitted supports my evaluation of its apocryphal nature.

138. These start with a Grub chen bcu according to the current edition of the SKB and conclude with a Phra mo brgyad kyi man ngag, SKB V.349.3.6-54.3.1, but the compile•rs organization is belied by the designations found on pp. 350.1.1 and 354.3.1. In fact the text on pp. 350.2.2 to 353.2.1, actually entitled in the text “Teachings from the mouth of the Yogesvara Virupa” (dPal rnal ‘byor gyi dbangphyug chen po birwa pa’i zhal gyi gdams pa, pp. 350.2.1-53.2.1), appears to be a simple expansion or commentary on the Grub chen bcu, with the short hagiographical episode added.

139. Grub chen bcu, SKB V.350.1.5-2.2; compare gDung rabs chen mo, pp. 45, 53.

140. dPal ldan Bi ru pa la bstod pa, pp. 2.2.2-2.2-4-

141. Lam ‘bras khog phub, p. 180.

142. See, for example, his rNal ‘byor byang chub seng ge’i dris Ian, his gLegs bam kyi dkar chag, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba’i gsung yig, and the delightful series of “songs of my experience” (nyams dbyangs) collected in SKB IV.345.3.2- 54.2.6. There are a few places where I have located Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan s use of “nga” for the first person. These include his gNas bstod kyi nyams dbyangs, pp. 348.2.6 and 348.3.3, and even there tends to use “bdag.” This is not, though, a letter to a disciple of his father, one who is, moreover, an honored member of the eastern Tibetan community, as sGa-theng certainly was. There is also one “nga rang” towards the end of his long letter to Ga-ring rgyal- po, Ga ring rgyal po la rtsis bsdur du btang ba i gsung yig, p. 104-4-1, but again this was written at the age of sixty, not as an adolescent.

143. gLegs bam gyi dkar chags, p. 7-1-2.

144. bLa ma sa skya pa chen po’i rnam thar, p. 87.2.3.

145. bLa ma rnam thar bstod pa khyod nyi ma, p. 83.1.4.

146. gDung rabs chen mo, p. 44; for the location of Mon in the early period, see Pommaret 1999.

147. The discussion on the use of one, two, or four cakras in the practice of psychic heat, for example, is found in the Sras don ma, pp. 95-99; yet this practice appears to have derived from a text in the collection, the Pulla ha ri’i parpjita’ i man ngag, found in the dPal sa skya pa”i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe 1i phreng ba, p. 275,1.5-4.3. The former is one recension of the same text also found in Crags-pa rgyal-mtshan ‘s own compendium of directions, the Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa’i man ngag, p. 309.2.1-4.3.

148. Phyag rgya ehen po gees pa btus pa0i man ngag, SKB IV.302.3.1-r 1.4.5.

149. dPal sa skya pa’i man ngag gees btus pa rin po ehe’i phreng ba, pp. 278.2.4-4.1, 280.3.2-4.4.

150. Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ‘byor, p. 339.4.4-5.

151. Asta’i gzhi bshad, p. 355.3.4.

152. dKar brgyud gser ‘phreng, pp. 509-1r; Myang ehos ‘byung, pp. 23-24; Lho rang ehos ‘byung, p. 650; Brug pa ‘i ehos ‘byung, pp. 429-35; mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 847; a text of the ‘Brug lugs ro snyoms rtsa gzhung is contained in gDams ngag mdzod, vol. 7, pp. 59-73.

153. On the development of the bKa’ gdams glegs bam, see Ehrhard 2002.

154. Lam ‘bras byung tshul, p.117.1.4-5; I presume that we must read the sentence: de la cha gan gyi[s] zhwa ma lugs kyi chos skor to make Cha-gan the sub ject of the visionary experience.

<< К оглавлению
 

От Гамбурга и Дрездена до Хиросимы : англо-американские технологии уничтожения больших городов и их населения

Вступление

После налета на Ковентри 14 ноября 1940 г., в ходе которого погибли 554 человека и 865 были ранены (всего за время войны в ходе налетов на этот город в 1940-1942 гг. погибли 1236 человек), премьер-министр У. Черчилль пообещал: “Мы превратим Германию в пустыню”. [….]

Web Analytics