You are on page 1of 19

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 development 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 offer 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
On Rngog, see now Ralf Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059 –1109), Collectanea Himalayica 1 (Munich: Indus Verlag 2007); and on Bcom ldan ral gri, refer to Leonard van der Kuijp and Kurtis Schaeffer, 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 orthograph in the manuscripts.

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.

for instance. Though widely famed for his contributions to blo sbyong. “he to whom descended the dictum of the precious enlightened spirit. It suggests that he may have become interested in philosophical studies during his youth and that he was inspired in this no less than by Thus.. in his Bka’ gdams gsar rnying gi chos ’byung yid kyi mdzes rgyan. on accompanying his master to a religious assembly that was “presided over by Rngog Lo tsā ba [i. p. Dge bshes ’Chad kha ba. ’Chad kha ba had not been previously known as an author of philosophical works. however. Blo ldan shes rab] and [where] many kalyāṇa-mitras discussed the siddhānta. trans. such as the Blue Annals. describes him as “bdag pas (sic = bas) gzhan gces pa’i byang chub sems rin po che’i bka’ babs. sought to emphasize what was in fact an incidental relationship between ’Chad kha ba during his childhood and the renowned Bka’ brgyud master of the region from which he hailed. does not mention any connection with Ras chung pa. Roerich. It may be that Bka’ brgyud sources. Paṇ chen Bsod nams grags pa (1478–1554). 24. Gangs can rigs mdzod 36 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang 2001). 5 G. Kapstein well-known figure in the early history of the Bka’ gdams pa order. 3 . for example.138 Matthew T. wherein other is more dear than self. [f]aith was born in him and he proceeded in search of religion.4 The Blue Annals recounts that. The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1976). was born in the Bya clan in the district of Lo ro and from childhood was a disciple of that region’s renowned teacher. pp.”5 This is the first reference to grub mtha’ (siddhānta) that we find in the available biographical sketches of ’Chad kha ba. 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). 4 Not all sources lay much stress on this. 125–26. N. the systems of “spiritual exercise” that were at the heart of Bka’ gdams pa religious training.. The Sa skya pa master Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams grags pa rgyal mtshan.e. Ras chung pa Rdo rje grags. 273. as he is most commonly known.3 so that the present text reveals an unanticipated dimension of his contribution to Tibetan religious culture. p.” He makes no reference to philosophical teaching on the part of ’Chad kha ba at all.

the Śrāvaka. 313–417. Further commentary is also given in pp. pp. has proven to be one of the most popular works of the blo sbyong genre. The Library of Tibetan Classics (Boston: Wisdom 2006). It was through Shar ba pa that ’Chad kha pa was instructed in blo sbyong. the course of his training led him to specialize primarily in traditions relating to the study and practice of the Mahāyāna path. and is itself the subject of numerous commentaries. Mind Training: The Great Collection. see Thupten Jinpa. 253–269: ’Chad kha ba’i gsung sgros thor bu (found at Se ra dgon pa) It is also said to be the single Tibetan text that has been most often translated into Western languages. The text itself is translated in the same work. 7 Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs glegs bam bcu gcig pa bzhugs (Chengdu: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang 2006). we may note in particular the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. and it was owing to his mastery of this tradition of practical spiritual discipline that he himself achieved renown. However.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 139 the “Great Translator” himself. For a recent discussion. The list of commentaries given there is by no means exhaustive. 6 . His summation of these teachings as the Blo sbyong don bdun ma (the “Seven-Point Mind Training”). pp. and Bka’ gdams pa summaries of the path such as the Be’u bum sngon po. but there is no hint that prāmāṇa was ever part of his curriculum. trans. pp. 87–132. The teacher with whom he came to be most closely associated was the celebrated Bka’ gdams pa adept Shar ba pa (1070–1141). 9–13. Among the textual sources mentioned in his biographies in this connection.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. He certainly studied Abhidharma and the major treatises of Madhyamaka. 83–85.and Bodhisattvabhūmis. himself a disciple of Po to ba Rin chen gsal (1031–1105). with Se spyil pu’s commentary. Further references to this volume will use the abbreviation KDSB XI. as recorded by his disciple Se spyil pu pa (1121– 1189)..

3–6). that his interest in philosophical studies is most in evidence. We may note. 272. 277–89. Kapstein Pl.8 It may well be the case. however.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. too. one notes the Lta ba’ khyad par of the ninth-century translator Ye shes sde and a small number of additional works dating to the “early diffusion of the teaching. This is followed. found in the ’Bras spungs gnas bcu lha khang) Pl. pp. 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. i. op.” as well as the Grub 8 . 272. The third text. that the printer (or his patron) added the dedication. If it were.. has long been available in the Blo sbyong brgya rtsa collection.e.9 It is in the first of ’Chad kha ba’s works above. including a dedication of merit by “Shar Tsong kha pa” (pl. 271–272: Blo sbyong don bdun ma’i rtsa ba (old print. 10 Among the few still earlier exmples. moreover. therefore. and that it was not written by the latter expressly for this publication. cit. however. for here we find one of the earliest examples of a treatise on siddhānta by a Tibetan author. however. drawing it from Tsong kha pa’s works. a work that is unusual in respect of certain The printer’s colophon (KDSB XI. Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357– 1419).140 Matthew T. that the fourth work listed. it would be of considerable interest for the history of Tibetan xylographic printing. the Blo sbyong don bdun ma’i rtsa ba is an interesting old xylographic print. 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.. ’Chad kha pa’s commentary on Glang ri thang pa’s famed Blo sbyong tshig rkang brgyad ma. however. by a brief printer’s colophon.10 It is. accompanied by a dedication by Shar Tsong kha pa.

these matters have been very thoroughly treated in the recent work of David Malcolm Eckel.” Journal Asiatique (1981): 208–229. Unfortunately. refer to Katsumi Mimaki. eds. 115–136. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series XXIV (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies 2009). as the author affirms. pp. and not merely its relatively early date. 11 It should be noted that the Grub mtha’ chen mo is accompanied by finely written annotations (mchan bu) throughout. below.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.. Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Op- . and Roger Jackson. Vaiśeṣika. “Doxographie tibétaine et classifications indiennes. Sāṃkhya. On Rong zom’s contributions. “Autour du lTa ba’i khyad par de Ye śes sde (version de Touen-houang..11 Like many of the later. one may refer to David Seyfort Ruegg. brief exposition. 12 For general surveys of Tibetan works on siddhānta. Études thématiques 2 (Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient 1994). these are in large part illegible or nearly so. 170–86. Fortunately. see now Orna Almogi. and the remarks introducing the second.” in José Ignacio Cabezón. Bhāviveka. Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications 1995).” in Fukui Fumimasa and Gérard Fussman. due to the mediocre quality of printing. Bouddhisme et cultures locales: Quelques cas de réciproques adaptations. Rongzom-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. pp. Rong zom chos kyi bzang po. “The Tibetan Genre of Doxography: Structuring a Worldview. 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. For the purposes of the present. well-known examples of the Tibetan grub mtha’ genre. and Jeffrey Hopkins.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 141 features of its content. On the former. I have provided a translation and transcription of the text of the first of these sections. It will be seen that. and Mīmāṃsā – are largely derived from the Tarkajvālā of Bhāviveka. eds. Pelliot tibétain 814).13 His brief discussion. I have therefore ignored them. his descriptions of the non-Buddhist schools – Vedānta. mtha’ brjed byang and Lta ba’i brjed byang of the eleventh-century Rnying ma pa master.

“Some Indo-European Elements in Early Tibetan Culture. . Kapstein however. Sautrāntika. e. 14 See. That is best left for another day. I am not taking any particular stand on the influence vs. and Helmut Tauscher. pp. concerning the Buddhist systems of philosophy.. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Seventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies.” in Helmut Krasser. ed.. Ernst Steinkellner. Instead.15 The second and largest section of the Grub mtha’ chen mo. pp. Michael Walter and Christopher Beckwith. to advance some ideas about the manner in which these non-Buddhist traditions might have influenced Tibet. it would be well to recall that recent scholarship has suggested both linguistic and mythological connections between archaic Tibet and Indo-Europeans. 163–174. Per Kværne. and that some of the contested aspects of tantric practice among the Tibetans were due to the influence of the Mīmāṃsakas.g. might be the source of a similar myth among the Tibetan Bon. interestingly departs from the model with which we are most familiar. eds. substratum debate. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science 1997. Hiraṇyagarbha. for example. and in this seems unique among Tibetan authors. however. they may consult. Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History (Bloomington: The Tibet Society 1987).” in C. is no mere repetition of the Indian sources. 15 If there are any who are. Yogācāra. Michael Torsten Much. Thus he maintains that the Indian myth of the cosmic egg. In affirming a measure of continuity between Vedic and both Hindu and Buddhist Tantric traditions. Harvard Oriental Series 70 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2008). 2. Lest we dismiss this as mere naïve speculation. the many references to Vedic rites in Agehananda Bharati. Beckwith. I. Madhyamaka – and their respective subdivisions. ’Chad kha ba proceeds topically. The Tantric Tradition (London: Rider 1965). vol. “Dualism in Tibetan Cosmogonic Myths and the Question of Iranian Influence. 1037–54. a progressive account of the four major philosophical schools – Vaibhāṣika.14 and that the presence of numerous elements linking Vedic and Tantric ritual systems is not something that contemporary students of Indian religions might be inclined to deny. discussing in turn ponents.142 Matthew T. namely.. for he endeavors.

I rehearse somewhat to clarify memory.1] Mchad kha ba’s Grub mtha’ chen mo. in translation and transcribed text. his procedure may be represented through these remarks on the five skandhas: Among the five skandhas. preliminary description. As I have comprehended [them] by holy mentors’ grace. those who do or do not affirm a philosophical system. the Vaibhāṣika hold all five to be substantial. As an example. will suffice to close the present. I have not burdened the translation with explanatory notes as might be useful to beginners in this field.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. As the concepts and categories discussed will be for the most part quite familiar to students of Indian and Buddhist philosophy. [Come these] gems of the precious essence in brief. As to the significance of those two. Translation selection [225. The Sautrāntika hold four and a half (lit.1] From the measureless ocean of the Sugata’s dicta. all living beings may be subsumed in two [types]. “with a half. they are those whose thoughts have or have not been . ([KDSB XI. After briefly describing points about which the schools agree (translated below). five”) of the skandhas – excepting shapes and the viprayuktasaṃskāras – to be substantial. The Mādhyamika do not maintain there to be a substantial nature in any of the five. His introductory passages.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 143 the approaches of the four schools to particular questions and doctrines. 230. [226. In general. the remainder and most significant part of the text treats points of difference in turn. The Cittamātra maintain three and a half of the skandhas – excepting form (rūpaskandha) and the viprayuktasaṃskāras – to be substantial.

it says in the Tarkajvālā that they are all subsumed in four great textual traditions. its wrathful grimace is Yama. With reference to the distinctions of those two. [226. On that. Concerning the outsiders. Nevertheless. moreover. all the treatises speak of the sixteen who affirm what is outside [our teaching]. and Mīmāṃsā. the lower regions its feet. Dharma and Adharma are its two brows.144 Matthew T. One may ask. the Lalitavistarasūtra says that all the textual traditions of the outsiders have arisen from the sustaining power of the Buddha. among the pair of remote and proximate cause. the mountain ranges its bones. the directions its hands. 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. Kapstein influenced by textual traditions. “how many are the individuals of that sort. and the sixty-two. who affirm philosophical systems?” According to this teaching of Śākyamuni. The most of all that emerge are drawn from a sūtra source in the Saṅghānusmṛti. as follows: Vedānta. the planets and constellations its hair. the sun and moon its eyes.6] The first of them holds that all of these inner and outer entities are of the nature of a single great Self (mahātma). but this is an esoteric instruction. nevertheless there are two according to whether or not one grasps faultlessly the Three Precious Jewels as one’s refuge. Vaiśeṣika. the forests its body hairs and nails. they are gathered in two: the outer T īrthikas and the inner Bauddhas. The Vairocanābhisambodhitantra. The upper regions are its head. and thus so in order to beautify the Buddha’s teaching and to cause one to recognize its opposite. And concerning [what is called] a textual tradition. the rivers its network of veins. Sāṃkhya. in this context it is held to be each one’s highest. although various irrelevancies are mentioned. in reference to the material cause of Vairocana. its back is the celestial world. the sky its back. and the 360 views. its forehead Brahmā. the peaks its breast. its . speaks [of the T īrthikas] as the remote cause. reasoned knowledge.

substance includes both permanent and impermanent substances. Thus they affirm the twenty-five primitives. As is said: Substance. such as the “supreme light. Concerning them. 16 . or as Tibetan sa ga = Sanskrit vaiśākha. of which the “foremost” is a nature ( prakṛti) and not a transformation (vikāra). permanent and single. that is to say. are solely effects. The person is neither a nature nor a transformation. of which the first [includes] five: self.16 It is said that that was no cause for harm in Tibet. the “great one” (mahat). the foremost is solely a cause. quality. a so-called impermanence relating to the emergence of a disclosure and its [subsequent] disappearance. According to their own treatises. while sa ga ni is said to be the navel. [227.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 145 inhalations and exhalations the winds. egoism (ahaṃkāra).” that are not subsumed in the twenty-five primitives. The master [Atiśa] is reported to have said that this [system] alone is subtle in reasoning and hence hard to refute. The sixteen. too. The person they hold to be neither cause nor effect. the five elements. One finds in their texts many minor objects of knowledge. Among them. the diIt is not clear to me whether sa ga ni should be read as a vulgar transcription of a Sanskrit word (sāgara?). [227. action and universal. It is said that they. The seven beginning with the “great one” are natures and transformations.5] The Vaiśeṣika maintain that all objects of knowledge are subsumed in six categories. Its enjoyments are the “foremost” ( pradhāna). or person ( puruṣa).2] The Sāṃkhya affirm the twenty-five so-called “primitives” (tanmātra). the five primitives (tanmātra). Nature is permanent and they also affirm a circumstantial impermanence. Particularization and inherence are the six aspects. and the eleven faculties. time. have done no harm in Tibet. while the [remaining] sixteen are transformations. they affirm both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. is by nature conscious and aware. the five elements and the eleven faculties. while the seven beginning with the great one are both cause and effect. According to this system. they hold that the self.

is insentient. They hold that the so-called “universal” pervades everything from the part-possessing substance to inherence. they maintain that the permanent substances and the universal are absolute. Kapstein rections. the old writings say that in the time of Dri gung [= Gri gum] btsan po. The impermanent substances are those substances that are part-possessors. So. . is that connection whereby a given substance inheres in a given aggregation. single. that it has a relationship with cognitions and with the substance in which the object inheres. they hold that when two and three atoms conjoin. they hold. Bon] came to be translated from the textual traditions of the Vaiśeṣika. whereby much harm has emerged in Tibet. they maintain. I wonder whether this Bon might be a Vaiśeṣika textual tradition. at that point there is the emergence of a discrete part-possessing substance that is not an atom. for instance. atoms and space. And they hold that [it may be subject to] liberation and omniscience. an agent. All teaching that there is no cause. too. Actions are. the experiencer of the ripening [of karman]. and all the conduct of “union and liberation” practiced in the old mantras. It is said that in the Pāramitā there has been no adulteration. for instance. Their textual traditions hold that everything came to be from an egg. Inherence. for instance. or a person’s cleverness and dignity. Qualities are. all preaching of injury as religion comes from their textual tradition. and autonomous with respect to actions and enjoyments. the large pot or the small one. the self.4] This textual tradition of Mimāṃsā is an exceedingly evil philosophical system that was of very great harm to Tibet. the tawniness of the cow.e. it [i. They hold that it is without aspects. and all these bone ornaments made up among the yogins are [derived from] their textual tradition. Among those [topics]. the pot’s function of containing water. Particularization is. there is much adulteration due to the outsiders.146 Matthew T. Later. [228. but that all except those two are circumstantially impermanent and superficial. but in these inner mantras. Thus. too. [numerically] different for each animate being. permanent. Because something similar is maintained in the textual traditions of Bon. They hold.

the second line would be translated. that those subject to corruption (āsrava) are suffering.17 [228. 19 Namely. that the minimal component of time is the instant. They hold that pleasure and pain are results due to one’s acts. etc. Cittamātra. Mādhyamikas. and Yogācāra. Sautrāntika. [229.e. and that the proposition that phenomena are non-veridical (*mithyākāravāda) is the Madhyamaka. If one adopts the reading laṃ for lo. etc.19 The two nikāyas hold in common that the outsiders. that conditioned things are impermanent. I have discoursed a bit about the tenets of the outsiders. that no phenomenon is a self. All of the textual traditions of the inner Buddhists may be subsumed in four great ones. 17 . as it is said: Buddhadharma has four aspects.1] All four in common adhere to the divine Three Precious Jewels as their refuge. that the minimal component [lit. Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika].18 All other Mahāyānists [hold that the four schools] are the two nikāyas [i. Said to be those of Vaibhāṣika.” 18 Of course. nevertheless. the Indian Śānti pa [Ratnākaraśānti] says that there are the Vaibhāṣika. 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.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 147 [228. and that a personal self does not exist even superficially. “The paths of Vaibhāṣika. They are alike in refuting entirely the eternalism and nihilism of the T īrthikas..5] Thus.6] About this. Yogācāra in all its forms is also Mahāyāna.. and the Mahāyāna-Madhyamaka. that there are six aggregates of consciousness. “end”] of the name is the phoneme. and that nirvāṇa is peace. etc. and in affirming the four seals that characterize the [Buddha’s] dicta. have fallen into the extremes of exaggeration and depreciation. that apprehending subject and apprehended object are ultimately real. while the Mahāyāna-Mādhyamikas are nihilists.

[229. that the philosophical systems of the two nikāyas and Madhyamaka are not of definitive meaning.3] The proponents of Yogācāra-Cittamātra accord in holding that the elements. [229. and that reality is ascertained on obtaining the fruit of an ārya. [229.5] All of the Mādhyamikas hold in common that they refute all the entities posited by the lower philosophical systems.1] % // // mchad kha ba’i grub mtha’ chen mo / [226. Kapstein that the minimal component of form is the atom. that all the knowable is determined in terms of the two truths. the products of the elements.2] All of the Mahayānists hold in common that the philosophical systems of the outsiders and the philosophical systems of the nikāyas are not of definitive meaning. having at first engendered the enlightened spirit on behalf of others. apprehended object and apprehending subject do not exist even superficially. that all that is knowable is determined in terms of the three characteristics. and having amassed the two accumulations [of merit and wisdom] for an unlimited time. those up through Yogācāra. and that ultimately all phenomena are without substantial essence. that. Text [225.148 Matthew T. and that the experience of the mind is non-dual and ultimate. the two obscurations with their dispositions are abandoned. and that the triple embodiment (trikāya) is obtained as the fruit.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 .

The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 149 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 .

Kapstein 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 // [228.150 Matthew T.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 .

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.The Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje 151 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. .

Kapstein ’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.152 Matthew T. 7. cf. XI. Chengdu: Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang 2006. . above n.

Helmut Krasser China Tibetology Publishing House Beijing 2009 .Sanskrit manuscripts in China Proceedings of a panel at the 2008 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies October 13 to 17 Edited by Ernst Steinkellner in cooperation with Duan Qing.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Harunaga ISAACSON A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in Sanskrit . . . . . . . .Contents Introduction . . . . . . . 11 • DUAN Qing A fragment of the Bhadrakalpasūtra in Buddhist Sanskrit from Xinjiang . . 179 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FAN Muyou Some grammatical notes on the Advayasamatāvijayamahākalparājā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Matthew T. 167 LI Xuezhu Candrakīrti on dharmanairātmya as held by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna – based on Madhyamakāvatāra Chapter 1 . 7 前言 . . . . . . 137 Shoryu KATSURA Rediscovering Dignāga through Jinendrabuddhi . . . . . . . . 153 Helmut KRASSER Original text and (re)translation – a critical evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KAPSTEIN Preliminary remarks on the Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje . . . . . 41 Pascale HUGON Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge’s synoptic table of the Pramāṇaviniścaya . . . .

. . . . . . 183 LUO Hong A preliminary report on a newly identified Sanskrit manuscript of the Vinayasūtra from Tibet . 307 . . . . . 235 SAERJI Sanskrit manuscript of the Svapnādhyāya preserved in Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . 303 YE Shaoyong A preliminary survey of Sanskrit manuscripts of Madhyamaka texts preserved in the Tibet Autonomous Region . . . . . 241 SFERRA The Manuscripta Buddhica project – Alphabetical list of Sanskrit manuscripts and photographs of Sanskrit manuscripts in Giuseppe Tucci’ s collection . . . . . . . 293 Tsewang Gyurme Protecting the Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts in the Tibetan Autonomous Region – A summary . . . . . . . . . 259 Ernst STEINKELLNER Strategies for modes of management and scholarly treatment of the Sanskrit manuscripts in the TAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . 195 LUO Zhao The cataloguing of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in the TAR: A complicated process that has lasted more than twenty years . . . . . . . . .