Kapstein 2009 Grub mtha' chen mo.pdf

Ernst Steinkellner, Duan Qing, Helmut Krasser (eds.), Sanskrit manuscripts in China. Proceedings of a panel at the 2008 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies, October 13 to 17. Beijing 2009, pp. 137–152.

Preliminary remarks on the Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje

Matthew T. Kapstein, Paris / Chicago

The recent discoveries and publications of Tibetan manuscripts found at the Gnas bcu lha khang at ’Bras spungs Monastery (Lhasa, T.A.R.), and elsewhere, are shedding abundant new light on the de-velopment of Buddhist philosophy in Tibet, particularly during the seminal period of roughly 1100–1300. The age in question may be characterized as beginning with the activites of Rngog Lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab at Gsang phu, and culminating in the contributions of Bcom ldan Rig pa’i ral gri at Snar thang, in whose work the mastery of the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition is fully in evidence.1

As an example of the unanticipated gems that are to be found among these newly revealed treasures, I off er here some initial observations on the Grub mtha’ chen mo, the “Great Siddhānta,” of Bya ’Chad (or: Mchad)2 kha ba Ye shes rdo rje (1101–1175), a

1 On Rngog, see now Ralf Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109), Collectanea Hima-layica 1 (Munich: Indus Verlag 2007); and on Bcom ldan ral gri, refer to Leonard van der Kuijp and Kurtis Schaeff er, An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom Idan ral gri, Harvard Oriental Series (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2009). 2 As the spelling ’chad is clearly preferred in all sources known to me, I write mchad only where directly transcribing an occurrence of that ortho-graph in the manuscripts.

138 Matthew T. Kapstein

well-known fi gure in the early history of the Bka’ gdams pa order. Though widely famed for his contributions to blo sbyong, the sys-tems of “spiritual exercise” that were at the heart of Bka’ gdams pa religious training, ’Chad kha ba had not been previously known as an author of philosophical works,3 so that the present text reveals an unanticipated dimension of his contribution to Tibetan religious culture.

Dge bshes ’Chad kha ba, as he is most commonly known, was born in the Bya clan in the district of Lo ro and from childhood was a disciple of that region’s renowned teacher, Ras chung pa Rdo rje grags.4 The Blue Annals recounts that, on accompanying his master to a religious assembly that was “presided over by Rngog Lo tsā ba [i.e., Blo ldan shes rab] and [where] many kalyāṇa-mitras discussed the siddhānta, [f]aith was born in him and he proceeded in search of religion.”5 This is the fi rst reference to grub mtha’ (siddhānta) that we fi nd in the available biographical sketches of ’Chad kha ba. It suggests that he may have become interested in philosophical stud-ies during his youth and that he was inspired in this no less than by

3 Thus, for example, Paṇ chen Bsod nams grags pa (1478–1554), in his Bka’ gdams gsar rnying gi chos ’byung yid kyi mdzes rgyan, Gangs can rigs mdzod 36 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang 2001), p. 24, describes him as “bdag pas (sic = bas) gzhan gces pa’i byang chub sems rin po che’i bka’ babs, “he to whom descended the dictum of the pre-cious enlightened spirit, wherein other is more dear than self.” He makes no reference to philosophical teaching on the part of ’Chad kha ba at all. 4 Not all sources lay much stress on this, however. The Sa skya pa mas-ter Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams grags pa rgyal mtshan, for instance, in his Dge ba’i bshes gnyen bka’ gdams pa rnams kyi dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa ngo mtshar rgya mtsho (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1995), pp. 125–26, does not mention any connec-tion with Ras chung pa. It may be that Bka’ brgyud sources, such as the Blue Annals, sought to emphasize what was in fact an incidental relation-ship between ’Chad kha ba during his childhood and the renowned Bka’ brgyud master of the region from which he hailed. 5 G. N. Roerich, trans., The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsi-dass 1976), p. 273.

139The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje

the “Great Translator” himself. However, the course of his training led him to specialize primarily in traditions relating to the study and practice of the Mahāyāna path. Among the textual sources men-tioned in his biographies in this connection, we may note in par-ticular the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, the Śrāvaka- and Bodhisattva-bhūmis, and Bka’ gdams pa summaries of the path such as the Be’u bum sngon po. He certainly studied Abhidharma and the major trea-tises of Madhyamaka, but there is no hint that prāmāṇa was ever part of his curriculum. The teacher with whom he came to be most closely associated was the celebrated Bka’ gdams pa adept Shar ba pa (1070–1141), himself a disciple of Po to ba Rin chen gsal (1031–1105). It was through Shar ba pa that ’Chad kha pa was instructed in blo sbyong, and it was owing to his mastery of this tradition of practical spiritual discipline that he himself achieved renown. His summation of these teachings as the Blo sbyong don bdun ma (the “Seven-Point Mind Training”), as recorded by his disciple Se spyil pu pa (1121–1189), has proven to be one of the most popular works of the blo sbyong genre, and is itself the subject of numerous commentaries.6

Five works by ’Chad kha ba may now be found in the eleventh volume of the recently published Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs series:7

Plates 225–252: Mchad kha ba’i grub mtha’ chen mo (found at Rgyal rtse Dpal ’khor chos sde)

Pl. 253–269: ’Chad kha ba’i gsung sgros thor bu (found at Se ra dgon pa)

6 It is also said to be the single Tibetan text that has been most often translated into Western languages. For a recent discussion, see Thupten Jinpa, trans., Mind Training: The Great Collection, The Library of Tibetan Classics (Boston: Wisdom 2006), pp. 9–13. The list of commentaries given there is by no means exhaustive. The text itself is translated in the same work, pp. 83–85, with Se spyil pu’s commentary, pp. 87–132. Further com-mentary is also given in pp. 313–417. 7 Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs glegs bam bcu gcig pa bzhugs (Chengdu: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang 2006). Further references to this volume will use the abbreviation KDSB XI.


Pl. 271–272: Blo sbyong don bdun ma’i rtsa ba (old print, accom-panied by a dedication by Shar Tsong kha pa, found in the ’Bras spungs gnas bcu lha khang)

Pl. 273–297: Dge bshes Glang ri thang pa’i Blo sbyong tshig rkang brgyad ma’i ’grel ba (from the personal collection of Mkhan rin po che Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan)

Pl. 299–303: Rom po’i bshad pa’i gdams ngag (found in the ’Bras spungs gnas bcu lha khang)

Four of these are manuscripts of undetermined date. The third text, however, the Blo sbyong don bdun ma’i rtsa ba is an interesting old xylographic print, including a dedication of merit by “Shar Tsong kha pa” (pl. 272.3–6), i.e., Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). This is followed, however, by a brief printer’s colophon.8 It may well be the case, therefore, that the printer (or his patron) added the dedication, drawing it from Tsong kha pa’s works, and that it was not written by the latter expressly for this publication. If it were, however, it would be of considerable interest for the history of Ti-betan xylographic printing. We may note, too, that the fourth work listed, ’Chad kha pa’s commentary on Glang ri thang pa’s famed Blo sbyong tshig rkang brgyad ma, has long been available in the Blo sbyong brgya rtsa collection.9

It is in the fi rst of ’Chad kha ba’s works above, however, that his interest in philosophical studies is most in evidence, for here we fi nd one of the earliest examples of a treatise on siddhānta by a Tibetan author.10 It is, moreover, a work that is unusual in respect of certain

8 The printer’s colophon (KDSB XI, 272.6–7) reads: brkos mkhan mkhas pa chu shul gyi // gnas pa dpal ’phel zhes bya bas // dad pa’i sems kyis kun blangs te // spar du brkos nas phul pa yis // dge bas ’gro ba ma lus pa // byang chub sems gnyis stobs rgyas nas // kun mkhyen rgyal ba’i sku thob ste // ’gro kun srid mtsho las sgrol shog // 9 Thupten Jinpa, op. cit., pp. 277–89. 10 Among the few still earlier exmples, one notes the Lta ba’ khyad par of the ninth-century translator Ye shes sde and a small number of addition-al works dating to the “early diff usion of the teaching,” as well as the Grub


features of its content, and not merely its relatively early date.11

Like many of the later, well-known examples of the Tibetan grub mtha’ genre,12 ’Chad kha ba’s text is broadly divided into two major sections treating non-Buddhist (phyi rol mu stegs pa) and Buddhist (nang pa sangs rgyas pa) philosophical systems respectively. I have provided a translation and transcription of the text of the fi rst of these sections, and the remarks introducing the second, below. It will be seen that, as the author affi rms, his descriptions of the non-Buddhist schools – Vedānta, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsā – are largely derived from the Tarkajvālā of Bhāviveka.13 His brief discussion,

mtha’ brjed byang and Lta ba’i brjed byang of the eleventh-century Rnying ma pa master, Rong zom chos kyi bzang po. On the former, one may re-fer to David Seyfort Ruegg, “Autour du lTa ba’i khyad par de Ye śes sde (version de Touen-houang, Pelliot tibétain 814),” Journal Asiatique (1981): 208–229. On Rong zom’s contributions, see now Orna Almogi, Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po, Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series XXIV (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies 2009). 11 It should be noted that the Grub mtha’ chen mo is accompanied by fi nely written annotations (mchan bu) throughout. Unfortunately, due to the mediocre quality of printing, these are in large part illegible or nearly so. For the purposes of the present, brief exposition, I have therefore ig-nored them. 12 For general surveys of Tibetan works on siddhānta, refer to Katsumi Mimaki, “Doxographie tibétaine et classifi cations indiennes,” in Fukui Fumimasa and Gérard Fussman, eds., Bouddhisme et cultures locales: Quelques cas de réciproques adaptations, Études thématiques 2 (Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient 1994), pp. 115–136; and Jeff rey Hop-kins, “The Tibetan Genre of Doxography: Structuring a Worldview,” in José Ignacio Cabezón, and Roger Jackson, eds., Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications 1995), pp. 170–86. 13 This is not the place to enter into a prolonged discussion of current research on the Tarkajvālā or the correct form of the name of its author, Bhāviveka. Fortunately, these matters have been very thoroughly treated in the recent work of David Malcolm Eckel, Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Op-


however, is no mere repetition of the Indian sources, for he endeav-ors, and in this seems unique among Tibetan authors, to advance some ideas about the manner in which these non-Buddhist traditions might have infl uenced Tibet. Thus he maintains that the Indian myth of the cosmic egg, Hiraṇyagarbha, might be the source of a similar myth among the Tibetan Bon, and that some of the contested aspects of tantric practice among the Tibetans were due to the infl uence of the Mīmāṃsakas. Lest we dismiss this as mere naïve speculation, it would be well to recall that recent scholarship has suggested both linguistic and mythological connections between archaic Tibet and Indo-Europeans,14 and that the presence of numerous elements link-ing Vedic and Tantric ritual systems is not something that contem-porary students of Indian religions might be inclined to deny.15

The second and largest section of the Grub mtha’ chen mo, con-cerning the Buddhist systems of philosophy, interestingly departs from the model with which we are most familiar, namely, a progres-sive account of the four major philosophical schools – Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka – and their respective subdivi-sions. Instead, ’Chad kha ba proceeds topically, discussing in turn

ponents, Harvard Oriental Series 70 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2008). 14 See, for example, Per Kværne, “Dualism in Tibetan Cosmogonic Myths and the Question of Iranian Infl uence,” in C. I. Beckwith, ed., Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History (Bloomington: The Tibet Society 1987), pp. 163–174; Michael Walter and Christopher Beckwith, “Some Indo-European Elements in Early Tibetan Culture,” in Helmut Krasser, Michael Torsten Much, Ernst Steinkellner, and Helmut Tauscher, eds., Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Seventh Seminar of the Interna-tional Association for Tibetan Studies. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sci-ence 1997, vol. 2, pp. 1037–54. 15 If there are any who are, they may consult, e.g., the many references to Vedic rites in Agehananda Bharati, The Tantric Tradition (London: Rider 1965). In affi rming a measure of continuity between Vedic and both Hindu and Buddhist Tantric traditions, however, I am not taking any particular stand on the infl uence vs. substratum debate. That is best left for another day.


the approaches of the four schools to particular questions and doc-trines. After briefl y describing points about which the schools agree (translated below), the remainder and most signifi cant part of the text treats points of diff erence in turn. As an example, his procedure may be represented through these remarks on the fi ve skandhas:

Among the fi ve skandhas, the Vaibhāṣika hold all fi ve to be substan-tial. The Sautrāntika hold four and a half (lit. “with a half, fi ve”) of the skandhas – excepting shapes and the viprayuktasaṃskāras – to be substantial. The Cittamātra maintain three and a half of the skandhas – excepting form (rūpaskandha) and the viprayuktasaṃskāras – to be substantial. The Mādhyamika do not maintain there to be a substantial nature in any of the fi ve. ([KDSB XI, 230.2] phung po lnga las bye brag smra bas lnga ka rdzas su ’dod pa / mdo’ sde bas dbyibs dang ldan pa ma yin pa’i ’du byed ma gtogs pa phung po phyed dang lnga rdzas su ’dod pa’o // seṃs tsam pas gzugs dang ldan pa ma yin pa’i ’du byed ma gtogs pa phung po phyed dang 4 rdzas su bzhed pa’o // dbu ma bas lnga kha la rdzas kyi rang bzhin [3] mi bzhed pa’o //)

A fuller investigation of the many topics that ’Chad kha pa treats in this fashion must await another occasion. His introductory passages, in translation and transcribed text, will suffi ce to close the present, preliminary description. As the concepts and categories discussed will be for the most part quite familiar to students of Indian and Buddhist philosophy, I have not burdened the translation with ex-planatory notes as might be useful to beginners in this fi eld.

Translation selection

[225.1] Mchad kha ba’s Grub mtha’ chen mo.

[226.1] From the measureless ocean of the Sugata’s dicta,[Come these] gems of the precious essence in brief;As I have comprehended [them] by holy mentors’ grace,I rehearse somewhat to clarify memory.

In general, all living beings may be subsumed in two [types], those who do or do not affi rm a philosophical system. As to the signifi cance of those two, they are those whose thoughts have or have not been


infl uenced by textual traditions. And concerning [what is called] a textual tradition, in this context it is held to be each one’s highest, reasoned knowledge. One may ask, “how many are the individuals of that sort, who affi rm philosophical systems?” According to this teaching of Śākyamuni, they are gathered in two: the outer Tīrthikas and the inner Bauddhas. The reason for allocating them as inner and outer pertains as to whether they are to be included within the pronouncements of the Buddha or fall outside of them. With refer-ence to the distinctions of those two, although various irrelevancies are mentioned, nevertheless there are two according to whether or not one grasps faultlessly the Three Precious Jewels as one’s refuge. On that, the Lalitavistarasūtra says that all the textual traditions of the outsiders have arisen from the sustaining power of the Buddha, and thus so in order to beautify the Buddha’s teaching and to cause one to recognize its opposite. The Vairocanābhisambodhitantra, moreover, in reference to the material cause of Vairocana, speaks [of the Tīrthikas] as the remote cause, among the pair of remote and proximate cause, but this is an esoteric instruction. Concern-ing the outsiders, all the treatises speak of the sixteen who affi rm what is outside [our teaching], and the sixty-two, and the 360 views. The most of all that emerge are drawn from a sūtra source in the Saṅghānusmṛti. Nevertheless, it says in the Tarkajvālā that they are all subsumed in four great textual traditions, as follows: Vedānta, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsā.

[226.6] The fi rst of them holds that all of these inner and outer entities are of the nature of a single great Self (mahātma). The up-per regions are its head, the lower regions its feet, the sky its back, the directions its hands, the planets and constellations its hair, the peaks its breast, the mountain ranges its bones, the rivers its network of veins, the forests its body hairs and nails; its back is the celes-tial world, its forehead Brahmā, Dharma and Adharma are its two brows; its wrathful grimace is Yama, the sun and moon its eyes, its


inhalations and exhalations the winds, while sa ga ni is said to be the navel.16 It is said that that was no cause for harm in Tibet.

[227.2] The Sāṃkhya affi rm the twenty-fi ve so-called “primi-tives” (tanmātra). Concerning them, they hold that the self, or per-son (puruṣa), is by nature conscious and aware, permanent and sin-gle. Its enjoyments are the “foremost” (pradhāna), the “great one” (mahat), egoism (ahaṃkāra), the fi ve primitives (tanmātra), the fi ve elements, and the eleven faculties. Thus they affi rm the twenty-fi ve primitives, of which the “foremost” is a nature (prakṛti) and not a transformation (vikāra). The seven beginning with the “great one” are natures and transformations, while the [remaining] sixteen are transformations. The person is neither a nature nor a transforma-tion. According to this system, the foremost is solely a cause, while the seven beginning with the great one are both cause and eff ect. The sixteen, that is to say, the fi ve elements and the eleven facul-ties, are solely eff ects. The person they hold to be neither cause nor eff ect. According to their own treatises, they affi rm both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Nature is permanent and they also affi rm a circumstan-tial impermanence, a so-called impermanence relating to the emer-gence of a disclosure and its [subsequent] disappearance. The master [Atiśa] is reported to have said that this [system] alone is subtle in reasoning and hence hard to refute. One fi nds in their texts many minor objects of knowledge, such as the “supreme light,” that are not subsumed in the twenty-fi ve primitives. It is said that they, too, have done no harm in Tibet.

[227.5] The Vaiśeṣika maintain that all objects of knowledge are subsumed in six categories. As is said:

Substance, quality, action and universal,Particularization and inherence are the six aspects.

Among them, substance includes both permanent and imperma-nent substances, of which the fi rst [includes] fi ve: self, time, the di-

16 It is not clear to me whether sa ga ni should be read as a vulgar tran-scription of a Sanskrit word (sāgara?), or as Tibetan sa ga = Sanskrit vaiśākha.


rections, atoms and space. The impermanent substances are those substances that are part-possessors; they hold that when two and three atoms conjoin, at that point there is the emergence of a discrete part-possessing substance that is not an atom. They hold that the so-called “universal” pervades everything from the part-possessing substance to inherence. Thus, they maintain that the permanent sub-stances and the universal are absolute, but that all except those two are circumstantially impermanent and superfi cial. Qualities are, for instance, the tawniness of the cow, or a person’s cleverness and dig-nity. Actions are, for instance, the pot’s function of containing wa-ter. Particularization is, for instance, the large pot or the small one. Inherence, they hold, is that connection whereby a given substance inheres in a given aggregation. Among those [topics], the self, they maintain, is insentient, [numerically] diff erent for each animate be-ing, permanent, single, an agent, the experiencer of the ripening [of karman], and autonomous with respect to actions and enjoyments. They hold that it is without aspects. They hold, too, that it has a rela-tionship with cognitions and with the substance in which the object inheres. And they hold that [it may be subject to] liberation and om-niscience. Their textual traditions hold that everything came to be from an egg. Because something similar is maintained in the textual traditions of Bon, I wonder whether this Bon might be a Vaiśeṣika textual tradition. Later, the old writings say that in the time of Dri gung [= Gri gum] btsan po, it [i.e. Bon] came to be translated from the textual traditions of the Vaiśeṣika.

[228.4] This textual tradition of Mimāṃsā is an exceedingly evil philosophical system that was of very great harm to Tibet. So, too, all preaching of injury as religion comes from their textual tradition. All teaching that there is no cause, and all the conduct of “union and liberation” practiced in the old mantras, and all these bone orna-ments made up among the yogins are [derived from] their textual tradition. It is said that in the Pāramitā there has been no adultera-tion, but in these inner mantras, there is much adulteration due to the outsiders, whereby much harm has emerged in Tibet.


[228.5] Thus, I have discoursed a bit about the tenets of the out-siders.

All of the textual traditions of the inner Buddhists may be sub-sumed in four great ones, as it is said:

Buddhadharma has four aspects,Said to be those of Vaibhāṣika, etc.17

[228.6] About this, the Indian Śānti pa [Ratnākaraśānti] says that there are the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, and Yogācāra, and that the proposition that phenomena are non-veridical (*mithyākāravāda) is the Madhyamaka, while the Mahāyāna-Mādhyamikas are ni-hilists.18 All other Mahāyānists [hold that the four schools] are the two nikāyas [i.e., Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika], Cittamātra, and the Mahāyāna-Madhyamaka.

[229.1] All four in common adhere to the divine Three Precious Jewels as their refuge. They hold that pleasure and pain are results due to one’s acts, and that a personal self does not exist even su-perfi cially. They are alike in refuting entirely the eternalism and nihilism of the Tīrthikas, and in affi rming the four seals that charac-terize the [Buddha’s] dicta.19 The two nikāyas hold in common that the outsiders, Mādhyamikas, etc., have fallen into the extremes of exaggeration and depreciation, that there are six aggregates of con-sciousness, that apprehending subject and apprehended object are ultimately real, that the minimal component [lit. “end”] of the name is the phoneme, that the minimal component of time is the instant,

17 If one adopts the reading laṃ for lo, the second line would be trans-lated, “The paths of Vaibhāṣika, etc.” 18 Of course, Yogācāra in all its forms is also Mahāyāna; nevertheless, the designation “Mahāyāna-Mādhyamika” (theg pa chen po dbu ma ba pa) is clearly being used here to refer to the Madhyamaka of Nāgārjuna and his successors. 19 Namely, that conditioned things are impermanent, that those subject to corruption (āsrava) are suff ering, that no phenomenon is a self, and that nirvāṇa is peace.


that the minimal component of form is the atom, and that reality is ascertained on obtaining the fruit of an ārya.

[229.2] All of the Mahayānists hold in common that the philo-sophical systems of the outsiders and the philosophical systems of the nikāyas are not of defi nitive meaning, that, having at fi rst engen-dered the enlightened spirit on behalf of others, and having amassed the two accumulations [of merit and wisdom] for an unlimited time, the two obscurations with their dispositions are abandoned, and that the triple embodiment (trikāya) is obtained as the fruit.

[229.3] The proponents of Yogācāra-Cittamātra accord in hold-ing that the elements, the products of the elements, apprehended ob-ject and apprehending subject do not exist even superfi cially, that the philosophical systems of the two nikāyas and Madhyamaka are not of defi nitive meaning, that all that is knowable is determined in terms of the three characteristics, and that the experience of the mind is non-dual and ultimate.

[229.5] All of the Mādhyamikas hold in common that they refute all the entities posited by the lower philosophical systems, those up through Yogācāra, that all the knowable is determined in terms of the two truths, and that ultimately all phenomena are without sub-stantial essence.

Text

[225.1] % // // mchad kha ba’i grub mtha’ chen mo /

[226.1] %%% // : // bde gshegs gsung rab rgya mtsho dpag med las // gces pa’i snying po mdor bsdus rin po che // bshes gnyen dam pa’i drin gyis gang rtogs pa // dran pa gsal byed cung zad brjod par bya // // spyir skye ’gro thams cad ni grub mtha’ khas len pa dang mi len pa gnyis [2] su ’dus pa yin la / de gnyis kyi don yang gzhung lugs kyi blo bsgyur ba dang ma bsgyur ba gnyis yin no // gzhung lugs de yang skabs ’dir rang rang gi rigs pa’i shes pa mthar thug pa cig la ’dod pa’o // grub mtha’ khas len pa’i gang zag de lta bu du yod ce na / shag kya thub pa’i bstan pa ’di la phyi [3] rol mu stegs pa


dang / nang pa sangs rgyas pa dang gnyis su ’dus pa’o // de la phyi nang du ’jog pa’i rgyu ni sangs rgyas kyi gsung gi nang du tshud pa dang / phyi rol du gyur pa’o // / de gnyis kyi khyad par la ma ’brel pa sna … tshogs pa cig brjod mod kyi / ’on kyang kha na ma tho ba med pa nyid dkon mchog rin [4] po che gsum la skyabs gnas su ’dzin pa dang mi ’dzin pa gnyis yin no // de la rgya cher rol pa’i mdo’ sde las phyi rol ba’i gzhung lugs thams cad kyang sangs rgyas kyi byin rlabs kyis byung pa ste / ’di ltar sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa mdzes par bya ba’i phyir dang / de’i mi mthun pa’i phyogs ngo shes par bya ba’i phyir byung par gsung la / yang [5] rnaṃ par snang mdzad mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud las kyang rnaṃ par snang mdzad kyi rgyu ni yin pa la / ring pa’i rgyu dang nye ba’i rgyu gnyis las ring rgyur gsungs pa ni ’dir man ngag yin no // phyi rol ba la phyi rol smra ba bcu drug dang / drug bcu rtsa gnyis dang / lta ba suṃ brgya drug bcu gsungs pa bstan bcos kun nas ’byung pa la / de kun pas kyang mang [6] pa dge ’dun rjes su dran par mdo’ khung drangs pa dag nas ’byung ste / ’on kyang gzhung chen po 4r thams cad ’du bar rtog ge la ’bar gsungs ste / ’di ltar rigs byed kyi mtha’ pa dang / grangs can pa dang / bye brag pa dang / spyod pa ba’o // de la dang pos ni phyi nang gi dngos po ’di thams cad bdag chen po cig gi rang bzhin du ’dod de / ’di

[227.1] % / / ltar steng gi phyogs ni ’go’ / ’og gi phyogs ni rkang pa / naṃ mkha’ ni rgyab / phyogs rnaṃs ni lag pa / gza’ dang rgyu skar rnaṃs ni skra / ri bo rnaṃs ni brang / ri’i ’phreng pa rnaṃs ni rus pa / chu rlung rnaṃs ni rtsa’i dra ba / nags rnaṃs ni spu dang sen mo / rgyab ni mtho’ ris kyi ’jig rten / ’phral ba ni tshangs pa / chos dang chos ma yin pa ni smin ma / [2] gnyis / khro gnyer ni ’chi bdag / nyi zla gnyis ni mig / dbugs ’byung rngub ni rlung / sa ga ni la lte bo zer ste des bod la gnod rgyu tsam ma byung gsung // grangs can pas de tsam nyi shu rtsa lnga bya bar khas len la / de yang bdag skyes bu shes shing rig pa rtag pa cig pu’i rang bzhin du ’dod la / de’i longs spyod du gtso’o dang / chen po dang / nga rgyal dang / [3] de tsam lnga dang / ’byung ba lnga dang / dbang po bcu gcig ste de tsam nyi shu rtsa lnga khas len la / de yang / gtso bo rang bzhin yin gyi rnaṃ ’gyur min // chen po sogs bdun rang bzhin rnaṃ ’gyur


yin // bcu drug po ni rnaṃ par ’gyur ba ste // skye bu rang bzhin ma yin rnaṃ ’gyur min // ces pa’i tshul gyis / gtso’o ni rgyu kho na yin la / chen po la sogs pa bdun ni [4] rgyu ’bras gnyis ka / ’byung ba lnga dang dbang po bcu gcig ste bcu drug po ni ’bras bu kho na yin la / skyes bu rgyu ’bras gnyis ka ma yin par ’dod de / rang gi gzhung gis ’khor ba dang myang ’das gnyis ka khas len la / rang bzhin rtag pa dang / gsal ba’i skye ba dang nub pa’i mi rtag pa ces pa gnas skabs mi rtag pa yang khas len te / jo bo’i zhal nas ’di kho na rigs [5] pa phra ba sun dpyung rka ba yin gsung skad // de tsam nyi shu rtsa lngas ma bsdus pa’i ’od mchog ces pa la sogs pa’i shes bya phra mo mang po yang rang gi gzhung las ’byung ste / de kyang bod la gnod pa tsam med gsungo // bye brag pas shes bya thams cad tshig gi don drug gis bsdus par ’dod de / ji skad du / rdzas dang yon tan las dang spyi // bye brag ’du [6] ba rnaṃ pa drug // ces te / de la rdzas la rtag pa’i rdzas dang mi rtag pa’i gnyis las / rtag pa’i rdzas ni lnga ste / bdag dang / dus dang / phyogs dang / rdul dang / nam mkha’o // mi rtag pa’i rdzas ni yan lag can gyi rdzas ste / rdul phra rab gnyis dang / gsum ’dus pa ni bar du yan lag can gyi rdzas rdul phra rab ma yin pa re skye bar ’dod do //

[228.1] spyi zhes pa yan lag can gyi rdzas nas ’du ba’i bar thams cad la khyab par ’dod de / de ltar rtag pa’i rdzas dang spyi gnyis don dam du ’dod la / de gnyis ma gtogs pa gnas skabs mi rtag pa kun rdzob du ’dod pa’o // yon tan ni ba lang ser zal dang / skyes bu’i mkhas cing btsun pa la sogs pa’o // las ni bum pa’i las chu ’chu ba [2] la sogs pa’o // bye brag ni bum pa che chung la sogs pa’o // ’du ba ni tshogs pa re ’du ba’i rdzas res ’brel bar ’dod pa’o // de la bdag ni bems po sems can so so la tha dad pa / rtag pa / cig pu / las byed pa po / rnaṃ smin myong pa po / bya ba dang longs spyod la rang dbang du gyur par ’dod / de yang rnaṃ pa med par ’dod / shes pa dang don [3] ’du ba’i rdzas kyis ’brel bar ’dod de / thar pa dang thams cad mkhyen pa ’dod de / de’i gzhung gis kyang thaṃd sgo ngar las srid par ’dod la / bon gyi gzhung las kyang de ltar ’dod pas bon ’di bye brag pa’i gzhung cig yin naṃ snyaṃ la / phyi yig rnying las dri gung btsan po’i ring la bye brag pa’i gzhung las bsgyur bar ’byung gsungo // [4] spyod pa ba’i gzhung ’di grub mtha’ shin du


ngan pa bod la gnod pa shin tu che ba ste / ’di ltar ’tshe ba chos su smra ba thaṃd kyang de’i gzhung las ’byung / rgyu med par smra ba thaṃd dang / sngags rnying du byas pa’i sbyor sgrol spyod pa thaṃd dang / rnal ’byor bar byas pa’i rus pa’i rgyan cha can ’di kun de’i gzhung yin / pha rol du phyin pa la ’dres pa’i [5] zol med / sngags nang pa ’di la phyi rol ba dang ’dres pa’i zol mang pas bod la shin tu gnod par ’byung gsungo // des phyi rol ba’i ’dod pa cung zad gleng bslang pa’o // // nang pa sangs rgyas pa’i gzhung chen po 4r thaṃd ’du bar bzhed de / ji skad du / sangs rgyas chos ni rnaṃ pa bzhi // bye brag smra la sogs pa’i lo (laṃ?) // [6] zhes te / ’di la rgya gar shan ti bas bye brag smra ba dang / mdo sde ba dang / rnal sbyor spyod pa dang / rang gi rnaṃ par rdzun par smra ba la dbu ma zhes zer la / theg pa chen po dbu ma ba pa ni chad par smra bar ’dod do // theg pa chen po gzhan thaṃd kyis ni sde pa gnyis dang / rnal ’byor spyod pa seṃs tsam pa dang / theg pa

[229.1] chen po dbu ma ba’o // de 4 kas thun mong du lha dkon mchog gsum la skyabs gnas su ’dzin pa dang / bde sdug rang gi las kyis ’bras bur ’dod pa dang / gang zag gi bdag kun rdzob du’ang med par ’dod pa dang / mu stegs pa’i rtag chad thaṃd ’gegs pa dang / bka’ rtags kyi phyag rgya bzhi khas len par bstun pa yin no // // sde pa gnyis kyis thun mong du phyi rol pa dang / [2] dbu’ ma ba la sogs pa sgro skur kyi mthar lhung bar ’dod pa dang / rnaṃ shes tshogs drug du ’dod pa dang / gzung pa dang ’dzin pa don dam du ’dod pa dang / ming gi mtha’ yi ger ’dod pa dang / dus kyi mtha’ skad cig du ’dod pa dang / gzugs kyi mtha’ rdul phra rab du ’dod pa dang / de nyid ’phags pa’i ’bras bu thob pa na nges par ’dod pa rnaṃs mthun pa’o // // theg pa chen po ba thaṃd [3] kyis thun mong du phyi rol ba’i grub mtha’ dang / sde pa dag gi grub mtha’ nges don ma yin par bzhed pa dang / dang po gzhan don du byang chub du thugs bskyed nas / tshogs gnyis dus thug pa med par bsags pas sgrib pa gnyis bag chags dang bcas pa spong par bzhed pa dang / ’bras bu sku gsum thob pas bzhed pa mthun no // // rnal ’byor spyod pa seṃs tsam pas ’byung ba dang ’byung [4] ba dang20 ’byung ba las

20 ’byung ba dang repeated by dittography.


’gyur pa dang / gzung ba dang ’dzin pa kun rdzob tsam du’ang med par bzhed pa dang / sde pa gnyis dang dbu ma’i grub mtha’ nges don ma yin par bzhed pa dang / shes bya thaṃd mtshan nyid gsum kyi (sic) gtan la ’bebs par bzhed pa dang / sems myong pa gnyis med don dam du bzhed par mthun no // // dbu ma ba thaṃd kyis thun mong du bzhed pa ni rnal ’byor spyod pa man [5] chad grub mtha’ ’og ma thaṃd kyis dngos por brtags pa thaṃd ’gegs pa dang / shes bya thaṃd bden gnyis kyis gtan la ’bebs pa dang / don dam par chos thaṃd rang bzhin med par bzhed pa mthun pa’o // //

Abbreviation

KDSB XI Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs glegs bam bcu gcig pa bzhugs. Vol. XI. Chengdu: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang 2006; cf. above n. 7.

Sanskrit manuscripts in ChinaProceedings of a panel at the 2008 Beijing

Seminar on Tibetan StudiesOctober 13 to 17

Edited by

Ernst Steinkellner

in cooperation with

Duan Qing, Helmut Krasser

China Tibetology Publishing HouseBeijing 2009

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

前言 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

•

DUAN QingA fragment of the Bhadrakalpasūtra in Buddhist Sanskrit from Xinjiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

FAN MuyouSome grammatical notes on the Advayasamatā vijaya mahā -kalparājā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Pascale HUGON

Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge’s synoptic table of the Pramāṇa -viniścaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Harunaga ISAACSON

A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in Sanskrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Matthew T. KAPSTEIN

Preliminary remarks on the Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Shoryu KATSURA

Rediscovering Dignāga through Jinendrabuddhi . . . . . . . . . 153

Helmut KRASSER

Original text and (re)translation – a critical evaluation. . . . . . 167

LI XuezhuCandrakīrti on dharmanairātmya as held by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna – based on Madhyamakāvatāra Chapter 1 . . . . 179

6 Contents

李学竹

月称关于二乘人通达法无我的论证 – 以梵文本《入中论》第一章为考察中心 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

LUO HongA preliminary report on a newly identifi ed Sanskrit manu-script of the Vinayasūtra from Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

LUO ZhaoThe cataloguing of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in the TAR: A complicated process that has lasted more than twenty years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

罗炤

西藏梵文贝叶经的编目情况及二十余年的曲折经过 . . . . . . . . 235

SAERJI

Sanskrit manuscript of the Svapnādhyāya preserved in Tibet . . . 241

SFERRA

The Manuscripta Buddhica project – Alphabetical list of Sanskrit manuscripts and photographs of Sanskrit manu-scripts in Giuseppe Tucci’s collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Ernst STEINKELLNER

Strategies for modes of management and scholarly treat-ment of the Sanskrit manuscripts in the TAR . . . . . . . . . . . 279

恩斯特∙斯坦因凯勒西藏自治区梵文手稿的管理模式及学术性处理方面的策略 . . . . 293

Tsewang GyurmeProtecting the Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts in the Tibet-an Autonomous Region – A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

YE ShaoyongA preliminary survey of Sanskrit manuscripts of Madhya-maka texts preserved in the Tibet Autonomous Region . . . . . . 307

Kapstein 2009 Grub mtha' chen mo.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Kapstein 2009 Grub mtha' chen mo.pdf