106 Kano
bundle. As he goes on to note, the 12 folios (≈ Taishō vol. 30, pp. 589b19–600c10)
are probably followed by the 98 folios (which contain other parts of the same
text, pp. 609b10, 611a17, 646b3–4).69 From this we can deduce that both the
12 folios in Russia and the 98 folios in the Potala were originally preserved at
Retreng.
We may further speculate whether the rest of the paper folios in the Russian
Academy also come from Retreng. According to Matsuda, the set of manu-
scripts in the Russian Academy contains the Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī (3 fols.),
the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (12 fols.), the Samantabhadracaryānirdeśaparivarta
of the Buddhāvataṃsaka (1 fol.), and the Third Bhāvanākrama (8 fols.).70 They
have all the same format (paper manuscripts with a similar script), their edges
have been damaged by fire, and their folio size is about 56×8.5cm.71
Judging from Luo Zhao’s description, the Potala manuscripts (1) to (5) have
very similar and unmistakable characteristics relating to format and physical
state (fire damage). The difference in width between the Russian (56×8.5cm)
and Potala manuscripts (68×8.4cm) has probably resulted from different
degrees of damage suffered at their edges.
Based on these considerations, the Bhāvanākrama manuscript in Lhundrup
chöpel’s list (no. 26) probably corresponds to the Third Bhāvanākrama (8 fols.)
of the Russian Academy.72
Furthermore, the Buddhāvataṃsaka among the Russian manuscripts is
possibly the manuscript copied by Atiśa at Pekarling (Tib. dPe dkar gling) in
Samye73 (or else a copy of it). Accordingly, the 24 manuscript folios in Russia
69 Matsuda, “Afghanistan shahon.” See Luo Zhao, Budala gong, 4: “skandhavastukauśalyaṃ,
dhātuvastukauśalyaṃ, śiṣṭiviniścaya, [.. .] gurulāghavaṃcayāpacayayogaśvaphalajanma-
viniścaya (for gurulāghavaṃ / cayāpacayayogaś ca phalajanmaviniścayaṃ //).” The first
two correspond to Taishō, vol. 30, 609b10 (≈ D 4308, 77b7) and ibid., 611a17 (≈ D 82a3), and
the last to an uddāna in ibid., 636b3–4 (≈ D 146b2).
70 Matsuda, “Dalailama 13 sei” and “Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī: bonbun tekusuto to wayaku
Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī―梵文テクストと和訳― [The Sanskrit Text and a Japanese
Translation of the Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī],” Bukkyōdaigaku sōgōkenkyūjo kiyō
佛教大学総合研究所紀要 [Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyō University] 3
(1996): 89–113 (Mironov, Ms. Ind. VII. 23). The first three works were identified by Matsuda.
71 See Matsuda, “Dalailama 13 sei” and “Nirvikalpapraveśadhāraṇī,” 92. Images of 16 of the
24 folios have not been published; according to Prof. Matsuda, all 24 folios are similar in
format and script. I am grateful to Prof. Matsuda for the information and for showing me
photographic images of the Samantabhadracaryānirdeśaparivarta.
72 If so, the list reflects the situation at Retreng before the beginning of the 20th century
(when the Bhāvanākrama manuscript was given to Russia).
73 mChims Nam mkha’ grags, rNam thar rgyas pa, §319.