BON MONASTIC DISCIPLINE AND THE GREAT MASTER DGONGS PA RAB GSAL

KALSANG NORBU GURUNG

“The Buddha’s teachings rely upon moral discipline, Without moral discipline there are no teachings of the Buddha”

These two lines are often recited in Tibetan Bonpo monastic communities to remind the monks that maintaining moral discipline is essential in order to preserve the teachings of the Buddha.348

The religion of Bon, known today as Yungdrung Bon (g-yung drung bon), is considered to be the main religion of Tibet prior to the arrival of Buddhism from India in 7th century AD.349 This is due to the fact that a number of ritual practices from the pre-Buddhist era can be found in the present Bon liturgical texts. However, to my knowledge, the Bon religion in its current state has incorporated more elements from Buddhism than it has from indigenous Tibetan practices. Present day Bon is a hybrid of Buddhism and the indigenous Tibetan practices. However, until the mid-20th century, Bon was largely considered to be a form of ‘shamanism’ or even ‘animism’ by non-Bonpo Tibetan scholars. Some western scholars, who studied Bon through Tibetan Buddhist writings, also thought about Bon in this way. Since the publication of

the original study of this article was conducted during Advanced Master Program at CNWS, Leiden University from 2001–2002. I sincerely thank the CNWS for providing funding for my participation at the program, and other support during my affiliation at the research school. 348 Here is refering to the Buddha of Bon religion, i.e. Tonpa Shenrab Miwo. 349 See Karmay (1998), article no. 8, pp. 104–56 for more on Bon.

articles and books about Bonpo doctrinal and religious texts, the concept of Bon being a form of ‘shamanism’ or ‘animism’ has changed to some extent.350 This change has occurred in both western and Tibetan academic circles. One of the most significant reasons for this change is the focus of the monastic discipline in present day Bon practices, which contradicts the assertion that it is an ‘animistic’ practice. The monastic tradition of Bon has not yet received satisfactory attention in western academia; therefore, I shall throw some light on the tradition in this article. However, the main purpose of this article is not to investigate the history of the Bon monastic tradition, but to

discuss the link between the Bon monastic lineage and the monastic lineages of early Tibetan Buddhism. This link can be traced through a monk named Dgongs pa rab gsal, who is said to have lived sometime between 9th–11th centuries AD. He is considered to be a crucial figure, and was a lineage holder of monastic discipline (Skt. vinaya, Tib. 'dul ba) in both traditions. Therefore, this investigation will

focus on him. Nevertheless, I shall first discuss the Tibetan monastic tradition before pursuing a detailed investigation about this crucial figure. The Tibetan monastic tradition was first introduced to Tibet in the 8th century by Śāntarakṣita and was principally based on the Indian Buddhist vinaya tradition of Mūlasarvāstivāda. According to the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, six Tibetans were ordained by Śāntarakṣita in the newly established Samye temple, the first of its kind in Tibet.351 Their initial duties were to translate

See Bjerken (2001), chapter II, revised in Bjerken (2004), for detailed discussion over the labeling of Shamanism to Bon. 351 Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 51. The first six Tibetan Buddhist monks are: sba Gsal snang, sba Khri bzher Sang shi ta, Bai ro tsā na, Ngan lam Rgyal ba mchog yangs, rma a tsa ra Rin chen mchog and la gsum Rgyal ba'i byang chub. Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma is considered to be the extended version (Tib. Zhabs btags ma, see p. 65ff.) of the older Sba bzhed (see the 1982 edition). As some 11th century names are given, this extended version may not be earlier than 11th century AD. Cf. Denwood (1990: 143) and Martin (1997: 23).

Buddhist texts into Tibetan and to take care of the temple. Although the number of monks was limited, their active participation within the royal court seems to have had a strong influence on royal policy at the time. A few of them were even granted religious ministerships in the court. Monks were highly honoured and were exempt from paying taxes, free from having to perform manual labour and three families

were appointed to meet the daily requirements of each monk. This encouraged more people to become monks and the monastic tradition flourished until the mid-ninth century. According to some historians, the flourishing of the monastic tradition and the increasing number of monks caused a decline in state finances. Consequently, monastic establishments faced persecution from the last king of Tibet, Glang Darma, and that caused the downfall of the monastic

tradition in central Tibet for more than a century. According to the 12th century historian Nyang ral, three learned men, G-yo Dge byung, Gtsang Rab gsal and Dmar Śākya mune, escaped from their hermitage Chu bo ri352 in central Tibet during the persecution and headed towards the Mdo smad area. They met a shepherd boy called Mu mandzu ka ra 'phan in Mdo smad.353 They transmitted their ordination lineage to this

boy and renamed him Dge ba gsal, which was derived by combining parts of each of their names.354 The boy is said to be a son of a Bonpo called Zhang lnga Mun 'jam pa Mañdzu dpal 'bar. In other sources, the boy is also called Mandzu dge 'bar, Mu zu gsal 'bar, Dge ba rab gsal, Dge ba gsal, Dgongs pa rab gsal, Dgongs pa gsal, etc. (see table 1). He devoted his entire life preserving the

This hermitage seems to be the same place where Rdo rje gling pa (1346–1405 AD), a Bonpo and Rnying ma pa treasure revealer, once took shelter. See Karmay (2000: 3). 353 Their meeting took place at Rma lung rdo rje brag ra A chung gnam gyi yang rdzong ([[Achung

Namdzong]]). 354 Nyang ral (1988: 442–50), p. 443: der g-yo dge 'byung gis mkhan po byas/ gtsang rab gsal gyis slob dpon byas nas dge tshul gyi sdom pa phog pas/ ming yang mkhan slob las dras te dge ba gsal du btags nas/ chos 'dul ba lo lnga gsan no/ kho shes rab che bas phyis mngon par shes pa mnga' bas/ bstan pa'i rtsa bar gyur bas/ ming bla chen dgongs pa gsal du grags so/.

Tibetan Buddhist monastic tradition and became a crucial figure in its history. He was later honoured by being given the title Bla chen, ‘the Great Master’. The Great Master in turn ordained many others who came from various parts of Tibet. One of the students from central Tibet was Klu mes Shes rab tshul khrims (c. 950–1025).355 When Klu mes was about to return to central Tibet he asked the [[Great

Master]] to give him a souvenir to use as an object of devotion and veneration. The Great Master gave him the Bonpo hat (Tib. zhwa 'ob) that he was wearing. Since, Klu mes reinstated the monastic tradition in central Tibet in around 978 AD, the second spread of Tibetan Buddhism is considered to have begun then.

1 Overview of the Bon monastic tradition As monastic discipline became a major component of life in Bonpo communities, monasteries were established to provide space for Bonpo monks and these became important centres of learning. In the Bon monastic community, monks are trained to follow a strict moral code that is principally based on the monastic discipline text. The text contains a certain number of rules and vows, to which the monks and nuns must adhere. These vows are divided into four sections

(eight when separated by gender) including two sections for monks and two for lay people. The two sections for monks are for novices and fully ordained monks. Novices (Skt. śramaṇera; Tib. dge tshul or gtsang ma gtsug phud) are required to follow a total of twenty-five vows, and fully ordained monks (Skt. bhikṣu, Tib. dge slong or dag pa drang srong) have to follow a total of two hundred and fifty vows.356 The ordination of novices is carried out when the individual first enters a monastic community, and full ordination follows several years later. The

He is also called Klu mes (alt. Slu mes, Gnub mes, Snub mes) Tshul khrims shes rab in later Buddhist and Bon sources. 356 A list of novice vows is given in Skorupski (1986: 45f). Two authentic Bon texts explaing the vows are 'Dul ba rgyud drug, which is considered to be old and 'Dul ba kun las btus pa'i gzhung written by Me ston Shes rab 'od zer (1058–1132 AD).

ordination process is conducted by an abbot (Tib. mkhan po) who holds the right to transmit the lineage. In order to qualify to give ordination the abbot must be part of a pure and unbroken line of monastic transmission. The abbot will not be permitted to conduct the ordination process if his own vows have not been kept. Whether an abbot’s lineage is considered to be unbroken or not also depends

on whether his predecessor has maintained his vows. If the conduct of the predecessor becomes impure or he gives up his vows within the successor’s lifetime for any reason, the ordination lineage of the successor is also considered to be broken. Thus, he is not qualified to give ordination unless he receives the lineage transmission again from another member of his particular lineage. This requirement of the

ordination process is still in effect today. As mentioned above, it is known that Buddhist monasticism was introduced to Tibet in 8th century AD, but it is not certain when exactly the monasticism was adopted by the Bonpos and when it began to fully function as a separate entity from Buddhist monasticism. We only know that the Bonpo monastic tradition has been developed since approximately the 11th century AD or a century earlier, because the earliest records that we can find are in the early Bon sources, the 'Dul ba gling grags357 and the Srid rgyud kha byang chen

There is no colophon in this version. However, three different dates are suggested by Bonpo scholars. Firstly, Karmay (1972, pp. 22, 166) suggests the date of this text in 11–12th century based on Shar rdza’s history, according to which Slob dpon Gang zhug thog rgyal discovered this text in the cave, Mang mkhar lcags 'phrang. Secondly, there is a passage in this version that gives some hints of three names. (See 'Dul ba

gling grags, p. 136: gshen gyi gdung can la blo gros rig pa'i rtsal dang/ rin chen tshul 'dzin rnam gsum 'byung//). Dge bsod 'tshams pa (p. 19) identified them to be Sga ston Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan (b. 1300), Rong ston Shes rab 'od zer and the founder of Menri monastery, Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1356–1415), when he comments on this passage. If the passage is referring to these three, then the present version could not have been edited or composed before the 15th century AD. Thirdly, according to the colophon of the version in Bonpo Katen (vol. 72.2), Rma shes rab seng ge discovered this in Sham

mo.358 It is recorded that one of the earliest Bonpo monasteries, called G-yas ru dben sa kha, was established in 1072 AD. Several Bonpos monk-scholars studied there and one of them, named Me ston shes rab 'od zer (1058–1132), wrote a text on monastic discipline. Traditionally, Bon monasticism is considered to have flourished twice in Tibet. There is no historical evidence to support the earlier spread (Tib. [[snga

dar]]) of monasticism but it is believed to have taken place long before the arrival of Buddhism to Tibet. According to the above sources, the monastic tradition of Bon was originally established in the land of Stag gzig and gradually spread into Zhangzhung, Mnga' ris, Eastern and Central Tibet.359 The tradition was initiated by the Bon founder and transmitted through a number of lineage holders until it declined

(see table 2). The later revival (Tib. phyi dar) of Bon monastic discipline came about through a Bonpo monk called Mu zi gsal bzang360 in the year of the earth-monkey (888 AD).

2 The decline of Bon monastic discipline According to the 'Dul ba gling grags, the transmission lineage of Bon monastic discipline was interrupted for many centuries by a dispute between two groups of the lineage holders. Ga chu (Rtsug phud rgyal mtshan) and 'Pham shi (Dpal gyi dbang phyug) on one side and Ya gong (Ye shes rgyal mtshan) and Lde btsun (rab gsal) on the other.361 A dispute between two monastic lineage

He was a grandson of Sma ston srol 'dzin (b.1092), thus he must have discovered this approximately in the 12th century (cf. also Karmay 1972, p. 22). 358 This work is said to have discovered by Gyer thogs med (b. 1280) in the early 14th century, which was also attributed to be a work of Dran pa nam mkha' (8th century). Karmay (1972: 19) and Martin (1997: 48). 359 Dagkar (1998: 8f). 360 Alternative spellings, such as mu zi, mu bzi, mu

gzi, and gsal bzangs, gsal gsangs, gsal zangs, gsal bzang. 'Dul ba gling grags, pp. 126–30 and Blo gros (1915: 56). 361 'Dul ba gling grags (pp. 125f): de'i dus na ga chu ya gong 'pham shi lde btsun bzhi'i ring la sde pa rigs nas/ sde gnas dbang che/ btsun pa 'phra dog che ba'i dbang gis/ gshen rab gyi gdung la ma 'cham nas sde rigs gnyis su chad/ ga chu dang 'pham shi

holders, but of Tibetan Buddhism, can also be found in the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma and the history by Nyang ral.362 According to these sources, Grum Ye shes rgyal mtshan and Snubs Dpal gyi dbang phyug had a quarrel. The monastic lineage was diverged from these two monks, although no specific reason for this is mentioned. What is worth to point out is that both Bon and Buddhist historian remember that

the quarrel was between the two monks named, Ye shes rgyal mtshan and Dpal gyi dbang phyug. These stories evidently are comparable, and could have derived from one another. The time frame for the decline of Bon monasticism is unclear. Among Bon sources three different time-frames are presented. First, the downfall was said to have taken place in approximately the 8th century AD. According to the 'Dul ba gling grags, it was during the reign of king Lig mi rgya, who was the last ruler of Zhangzhung kingdom and a contemporary of the Tibetan king Khri srong lde'u btsan (742–796 AD).363 Also mentioned in the text that a man from India called Dar ma gyir ti arrived in Tibet, who had reported to the king Mu la mu sangs with calumnious speech.364

gnyis kyis sde cig gzung/ ya gong dang lde btsun gnyis kyi sde cig bzung/ ... de'i dus su sde pa nang 'khrugs/ rab tu byung ba'i 'dul khrims yang nyams/ g-yung drung tshul gnas kyi sde yang 'chal ba'i rgyu ru song/. See also Dagkar (1998: 9–13); Shar

rdza (1985: 164–66, 227–28). According to the Dul ba gling grags (p. 135), these four are said to have reborn as Rba Ye shes blo gros, Slu(Klu) mes Tshul khrims 'byung gnas, Lo btsun Rdo rje rgyal mtshan and 'A zha Rgyal ba blo gros, and they converted to the doctrine of Ba la ra tsa (see note 28 for this). 362 See Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 85 and Nyang ral (1988: 445). 363 In the 'Dul ba gling grags, p. 125:

de'i dus na lde btsun yan chad du/ bon gshen kun gyi rgyal po yang lig mi rgyas mdzad do/ de'i dus na ga chu ... For the date of Lig mi rgya, See Shar rdza (1985: 202; see also Karmay 1972: 81, 86); Blo gros (1915: 48). 364 'Dul ba gling grags (p. 126): rgya gar gyi yul nas dar ma gyir ti bya bas/ mu wer brtan pa'i sras mu la mu sangs la snyan 'phra cug ste/. See also Dagkar (1998: 11). The king Mu la mu sangs has not been identified yet. Dar ma gyir ti (cf. Dharmakirti), a Tantric exorcist is said to have invited to Tibet during the king, Khri srong lde btsan in Bu ston’s history (see also Obermiller 1931: 191).

Likewise, an early 20th century Bon scholar, Mkhas grub Lung rtogs rgya mtsho wrote that the two lineages of Ya gong and Pham shi had a dispute before the king Khri srong (Khri srong lde'u btsan). As a result, the doctrine of monastic discipline splintered and started to decline.365 Shar rdza placed the event during the time of king Khri srong lde'u btsan, king Lig mi rgya of Zhangzhung and the

bodhisattva, referring to Śāntarakṣita in his history. 366 Secondly, Khyung po Blo gros rgyal mtshan argued that the Bon monastic discipline collapsed before the reign of an early king of Tibet, Gri gum btsan po.367 He also wrote that monasticism was reinstated eight hundred years after its initial decline, when Mu zi gsal bzang emerged from his longterm meditation retreat in 888 AD.368 By subtracting eight hundred years we can calculate the approximate date of the downfall to be the year 88 AD. Thirdly, Nyi ma bstan 'dzin, a 19th

century Bonpo scholar, wrote that Mu zi gsal bzang entered into his meditation when the monastic discipline collapsed in 911 BC (the year of earth-bird) in his chronological table.369 In Kvaerne’s translation of this chronology, the earth-rat is mentioned, which is likely to be the result of a writing error in the Tibetan original, because rat (byi) and bird (bya) have only one vowel difference in

Tibetan writing. The year of the earth-rat either falls on 932 BC or on 872 BC, but not on 911BC. The latter is the year of the earth-bird. Nyi ma bstan 'dzin confirmed this date by mentioning clearly the year of the earth-bird in his commentary of the chronology. He also mentioned that by 888AD, 1800 years had passed since

Mkhas grub (1917: 49): khri srong gi gong du ya gong dang pham shi ba'i brgyud mtha' 'dul ba sde gnyis nang 'khrugs nas bstan pa sil bur gyur ba'i tshe. 366 Karmay (1972: 81, 85). 367 Blo gros (1915: 40): kha cig 'dul ba nub pa yang 'di'i dus su ['di refers to Gri gum btsan po] ngos bzung ba mang yang/ de ni 'di'i gong du nub pa srid de. This history is said to have composed possibly in 1439 AD (the year of the earth-sheep according to Tibetan lunar calander). 368 See Blo gros (1915: 56). 369 Kvaerne (1971: 212, 226).

the time that Mu zi gsal bzang ceased his meditation. Many Bonpo scholars have accepted Nyi ma bstan 'dzin’s date as authentic, probably due to his popularity. However the date, 911 BC, is far beyond any recorded historical account of [[Bon

tradition]]. Although these dates can not be proved with evidence, they demonstrate that Bonpo authors have been constructing the story about the initial decline of Bon monasticism for centuries. This story has reserved a crucial place in the history of Bon. From all this evidence, we can say that Bonpo authors were consciously promoting their claim that the Bon monastic tradition existed before the 8th century AD.

3 The rekindling of Bon monastic discipline The author of the 'Dul ba gling grags writes that a Bonpo monk, Mu zi gsal bzang, fled to the Mdo smad region during the decline of Bon monasticism. In order to protect the lineage from declining, the monk entered into a meditative state known as ‘cessation of the senses’ in a cave named Brag dkar rtse 'dus (white joined peak) in the

area, Rma ri del.370 After many years of meditation, he was approached by a horse herder from Mongolia named Sprel slag can (one who wears monkey fur). Mu zi gsal bzang transmitted the lineage of monastic discipline to Sprel slag can and gave him the name Khri 'bar tshul khrims.371 This transmission of the lineage, according to Bon sources, is considered to be the revival of Bon monasticism from Mdo smad. Khri 'bar tshul khrims in turn transmitted the lineage to 'Dan ma G-yag slog can and named him Rgyal ba gtsug phud. The latter transmitted to Drum G-yung drung 'bar, a son of Drum bon dpal 'bar, and named him Gtsug phud tshul khrims,

‘Cessation of senses’ is referred here to a meditation practice (Tib. 'gog pa), which requires one to suspend all senses, but a subtle consciousness. It is believed that the practitioner can remain in the state as long as he wishes and able to return to life at the achievement of his goal. 371 Karmay (1972: 38, 105), Shar rdza (1985: 164–66, 227f), and Dagkar (1998: 9–13).

also known by his nickname Shing slog can.372 Shing slog can was the one who transmitted the monastic lineage to the Great Master Mu thur Dgongs pa rab gsal, who was also known as Shes rab tshul khrims in Bon sources.373 In this way the Bon monastic tradition is thought to have been rekindled by the monk Mu zi gsal bzang and his successors including the Great Master at Mdo smad, and is

known as the later transmission of Bon monastic discipline. It is interesting to mention here how the lineage holders of the later transmission are related to those of the earlier transmission. More than half of the lineage holders mentioned in the later transmission are identified as being reincarnations of the people in the earlier one (see table 2) in a very decent order. By thoroughly analysing the

relationship between the two lineages, I can draw a hypothetical conclusion that the monks from the later lineage must have remembered at first merely as the reincarnations of the earlier figures. But, when the history was rewritten, later Bon historians had projected those people as predecessors and drafted out the list of the lineage holders from the earlier transmission. According to the '

Dul ba gling grags, this rekindling of monastic discipline took place during the reign of the king, bearing an animal name. This apparently refers to the king Dar ma, who had a nickname with prefix ‘glang’ (i.e. ox or bull). According to the 'Dul ba gling grags, this king bearing an animal name persecuted the doctrine of Ba la ra tsa, and this seems to be reporting the persecution of Tibetan monasticism by the king, Glang Dar ma.374

This name, with different spelling (Cf. Grum Shing rlag can and Grum Phyir klag can) also appear in Buddhist sources. See Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 86 and Nyang ral (1988: 445). Cf. also Stoddard (2004: 71) and Watson (1978: 23). 373 'Dul ba gling grags, pp. 130f., Dagkar

(1998: 11), Blo gros (1915: 56f) and Martin (2001a: 100f). 374 See 'Dul ba gling grags, pp. 129f.: rgyal po byol song gi ming can cig [gcig] gi ring la ba la ra tsa'i stan[bstan] pa 'jig/ de'i dus su stan [bstan] pa'i rnga me ro smad nas langs nas yong/ ... / mu bzi gsal zangs ting nge 'dzin la gnas pa la/ rgya'o lag nag gi bu lha mthu ... Buddhism is reffered as the doctrine of Ba la ra tsa in this source. It is

Even though Bonpos consider Mu zi gsal bzang to be the foremost figure of the later flourishing, they consider the Great Master to be equally important in the history of the Bon monastic lineage. For Bonpos, keeping both the figure in their lineage is profitable at least for the following two purposes. Firstly, Bonpos asserts that the phyi dar lineage was initiated by Mu zi gsal bzang to support the claim

that the Bon monastic tradition existed before the Tibetan Buddhist one, because he was the only figure survived from the snga dar lineage according to Bonpos. Secondly, the involvement of the Great Master links the Tibetan Buddhist monastic tradition to the Bon one and therefore to

support the claim that Buddhist monasticism derived from the Bonpo monastic lineage. However, these claims are less verifiable when the sources are studied critically, which I shall demonstrate below. Having mentioned some textual accounts of the monasticism of both Bon and Tibetan Buddhism to some extent, I shall turn my focus to the life of the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal. It may be clear from the above

paragraphs that the Great Master was considered to be a crucial figure in rekindling the monastic traditions of both Tibetan Buddhism and Bon in Tibet. Many Tibetan historians write that Dgongs pa rab gsal was born to a Bonpo family, however as for other important details such as his name, lineage and when he lived, there are some discrepancies from source to source as well as from tradition to tradition. Henceforth, I shall discuss these by comparing relevant passages from Bon and Tibetan Buddhist sources.

4 The Names of Dgongs pa rab gsal There are two types of names used in Tibetan Buddhist texts to refer to the Great Master. One type is his pre-ordination or childhood name and the other is his ordained name. In the Tibetan monastic community, anyone who receives

possible that the author considered the religious doctrine introduced from India not as Buddhism, but as a doctrine of Balarāja (cf. Balarāma). However, this reference requires further study.

ordination also receives a new name as they are making a fresh start, entering into a new life and leaving any karmic residue attached to the old name behind. Sometime, this change of name may occur twice due to the two different levels of ordination: novice and [[full

ordination]]. As shown in the table 1, there are many different pre-ordination names of the Great Master from different sources. Most of these seem to be the authors’ own inventions. The recorded names are Mun dzu, Mañdzu, Mu mañdzu, Mu zu, Mu gzu, Mu bzu, Sma za and Rmu za followed by Dge ba 'bar, Ka ra phan, Gsal 'bar, Gsal 'phan, Gsal and 'Phan. These names can be divided into two groups: Mun dzu (including Mañdzu or Mu mañdzu)

and Mu zu (including Mu gzu, Mu bzu, Sma za and Rmu za) according to sound and spelling.375 The former, Mun dzu, can be read as the Sanskrit name Mañdzu, of which the Tibetan equivalent is 'Jam, while the latter, Mu zu, is considered to be a typical Bon word. As Mu zu (Mu zu gsal 'bar) first appeared in the 13th century Tibetan Buddhist history by Mkhas pa lde'u (late 13th century), it is possible that

this name was derived from Mu zi (Mu zi gsal bzang) from the early Bon source, the 'Dul ba gling grags . With regard to the names Mu zu gsal 'bar and Mu zi gsal bzang, there are several issues that indicate that one name derives from the other. For instance, Mu zu gsal 'bar and Mu zi gsal bzang were both said to be monks and important lineage holders involved in rekindling the monastic tradition,

born from Bonpo families and living during the 9th century (832–915AD or 888AD). The only difference is that Bonpo claim Mu zi gsal bzang was a predecessor of Dgongs pa rab gsal, while Tibetan Buddhists claim that Mu zu gsal 'bar was none other than Dgongs pa rab gsal. Furthermore, a 20th century Tibetan historian Shing bza' Skal bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan wrote that Mu zi gsal bzang was the father of Mu zi gsal 'bar who was later called Dgongs pa rab

There is a single reference on Bla chen po, aparently the great master, in Biography of Atisha by Nag tsho Lo tsā ba tshul khrims rgyal ba (1011–1064), p. 117. According to this biography, the great master was called Mu du Dgongs pa gsal and his monk’s name was Dge ba gsal, but this part of information seems to have inserted perhaps later.

gsal.376 This seems to be a new assessment and has no precedent in any earlier sources. The ordination names are more consistent and so as the other names, which are very similar to the ordination names, as I have illustrated in the table (see table 1). Although it has been common practice in Tibetan communities to have many names for one person, the case here is different, as the uses of these names have diverged extensively in

different sources. Most of these names have been coined by later historians. Most of these texts assert that all these names belonged to a single person who was respectfully called the Great Master. However, contrary to this, a fourteenth century Sakyapa master Bsod nams rgyal mtshan indicated in his history, Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, that Dge ba gsal and Dgongs pa rab gsal were two different people. I

shall discuss this later in detail. In Bon text, the Great Master is known by three distinct names (see table 3). The earliest known Bon text, the 'Dul ba gling grags, gives us two names. His ordination name is Shes rab tshul khrims, the name which he is generally known by, and he was called Ya zi bon ston, before he became monk.

The son of Zi khrom 'bar, Ya zi bon ston, is the manifestation of Dmu [tsa] tra he pe.377 [He] practised peculiar Tantra in his earlier life, [and] practiced moral discipline later. Bla [ma] Shes rab tshul khrims met Gnyos A rin in Mdo smad, when the latter was wandering in search of wealth. [Gnyos A rin] requested ordination and received an ordained name Rin chen rgyal mtshan [from the Bla ma].378

Shing bza' (1993: 401). According to this source, Dgongs pa rab gsal was born in 952 AD and died in 1935 AD. The author also mentioned of Ya zi bon ston in this source as a student of the Great Master (Shing bza' 1993: 406). 377 Dmu tsa tra he pe is the sixth lineage holder in

the earlier transmission (see table 2). He is also said to be one of the six great translators (see Karmay 1972: 16). 378 'Dul ba gling grags, p. 131: dmu (tsa) tra he pe sprul pa ni yab zi khrom 'bar sras/ ya zi bon ston bya ba 'byung/ tshe stod mtshan ma sngags spyod/ tshe smad tshul khrims

In the above passage the author of the 'Dul ba gling grags neither used the title ‘bla chen’, nor the name, Dgongs pa gsal, to refer to the Great Master. To my knowledge, it was in the early fourteenth century work, Srid rgyud kha byang chen mo, that the name Dgongs pa gsal was used for the first time. This confirms that the name Dgongs pa gsal and Dgongs pa rab gsal was adopted by Bonpos not

earlier than Tibetan Buddhist historians. As the name was attached to the above two names, which were then identified respectively as his birth name and his ordination name, the Srid rgyud kha byang chen mo became the earliest Bon text that provides all three names together. I shall quote the passage here. The manifestation of Dmu tsa tra he is Ya zi bon ston, a knowledgeable person with ascetic mind [[[body]]]. [He is called] Mu thur Dgongs pa gsal in between and Shes rab tshul khrims as his ordained name. He lived in a cave Sum snang rma.379

As said, Mu thur Dgongs pa gsal is identified here to be the third name of the Great Master, after his other two names: Ya zi bon ston and Shes rab tshul khrims. It is clear that Mu thur Dgongs pa gsal is none other than the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal, who is also known as Mu zu gsal 'bar, recorded in Tibetan Buddhist sources. ‘Mu thur’ before the name Dgongs pa gsal is only found in Bon sources and this is possibly linked to Mu zu or Mu.380 There is another earlier source discovered by Bon zhig G-yung drung gling pa, also known as Rdo rje gling pa (b. 1228 AD), which provides us the name of

nyams su len// gnyos a rin bya ba nor med pa'i [pas] mdo smad du 'khyams pas/ bla shes rab tshul khrims dang 'byal [mjal]/ tshul zhus tshul ming rin chen rgyal mtshan bya ba yin//. 379 Srid rgyud kha byang chen mo, p. 425: dmu tsa kra he se yi sprul pa ni/ drong [drang] srong thugs [lus?] la mkhyen pa can/ ya zi bon ston zhes kyang bya/ bar du mu tur dgongs pa gsal/ tshul ming shes rab tshul khrims mtshan/ de sum snang rma'i brag la bzhugs/. See also p. 447 for similar reference. The passage is also quoted in the Shar rdza’s history (see Karmay 1972: 107). 380 Cf. Skye chen Mu thur in Karmay (1972: 63).

another important Bonpo called Bla chen Mu tur. This Bonpo is said to have been from the Kong po region. The above ‘Mu thur’ is also seen written alternatively as ‘Mu tur’ in many sources. It is likely that the ‘Bla chen Mu tur’ was first attached to the name Dgongs pa gsal and attached later to the other two names, provided above, by Bonpo historians. However, it is yet to be discovered how the name ‘Mu tur’ or ‘Mu thur’ was attached to Dgongs pa gsal. Other Bon sources that maintained the connection of Mu thur Dgongs pa gsal, Ya zi bon ston and Shes rab tshul khrims include the commentary of the 'Dul ba kun las btus pa by Mnyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1356–1415) and the fifteenth century history by Khyung po Blo gros rgyal mtshan. The latter text presents only two names. His disciple was 'Dan ma G-yag slog can, [whose ordination] name was Rgyal ba gtsug phud. His disciple was Shing slog can, [whose ordination] name was Gtsug phud tshul khrims. His disciple was Bla ma [mu] thur Dgongs pa gsal, [whose ordination] name was Shes rab tshul khrims, who had a disciple named Gnyos A rin.381 Following these sources, all Bonpo authors from later centuries maintained the belief that Ya zi bon ston, Dgongs pa gsal and Shes rab tshul khrims were three names of the same person. However, it is not mentioned in the 'Dul ba gling grags that Dgongs pa gsal and Shes rab tshul khrims are the same person. Since the two names were attached to Dgongs pa gsal from the 14th century onwards, as mentioned above, the name Dgongs pa gsal or Dgongs pa rab gsal has continuously been used in later Bon sources (see table 3).

5 Ordination Lineage of Dgongs pa rab gsal As outlined in detail above, Bonpo consider their own lineage to be traceable back to the founder of Bon and deny any link with Tibetan Buddhist monasticism. Bon historians argue that the Great Master was ordained by a

Blo gros (1915: 57). Also see Martin (2001a: 101).

Bonpo monk Gtsug phud tshul khrims and therefore belongs to the Bon monastic lineage.382 Mnyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1356–1415 AD), the founder of Menri monastery in Tibet, wrote the following in his commentary on Bonpo vinaya. The disciple of Khri 'bar tshul khrims is 'Dan ma G-yag slag can, whose ordination name is Rgyal ba gtsug phud. His disciple is Drum shing slag can, who received an ordination name, Gtsug phud tshul khrims. His disciple was Bla Mu thur Dgongs pa rab gsal, also called Ya zi bon ston and whose ordination name was Shes rab tshul khrims. His disciple was Rin rgyal, a monk from Gnyos, and his disciple was Kun dga' tshul khrims from Gnyos. Mnyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan further wrote that the lower vinaya tradition of other Tibetan Buddhist sects was also transmitted from Bla Mu thur from Mdo smad. He verified this claim with the four men from Gtsang and three men from Dbus, who are said to have been students of the Great Master also in Buddhist sources.383 Mnyam med not only connected the three names of the Great Master as discussed in the previous section, but also confirmed the connection by mentioning the four men of Gtsang and three men of Dbus. He even clearly indicated the link between the Tibetan Buddhist and Bon monastic transmission lineages.384 It seems that his writing has strongly influenced the entire Bonpo community with regard to their understanding of the history of Bon monastic discipline.

See Blo gros (1915) and Spa btsun (1991). 383 The four men from Gtsang are: Lo ston Rdo rje dbang phyug, Tshong gi shes rab seng ge, Rgyal ba blo gros from 'A zha and 'Bri ye shes snying po. The three men from dBus are: Snubs mes Tshul khrims shes rab, Rag shi tshul khrims 'byung gnas and Rba Ye shes blo gros (cf. table 4). Mnyam med, p. 10–11. 384 The claim that the Buddhist monastic lineage derived from Bon was already known in 12th century, as Nyang ral recorded it in his history as an anonymous claim. Nyang ral (1988: 442): la la na re/ a me [mes] chen po'i sprul pa yin pas/ bla ma dang mkhan slob med zer/ sdom pa'i bka' bon gyi yin/ de'i rtags kyang bzhi yod zer/.

Gtsug phud tshul khrims was also known as Grum shing slag can and Grum g-yung drung 'bar.385 In the same way, Grum shing slag can was the nickname of Grum Ye shes rgyal mtshan, who was also called Grum 'bar ba byang chub in Tibetan Buddhist sources.386 This confirms that the name, Grum shing slag can, in both Bon and Tibetan Buddhist sources is referring to the same person. The other two names, Grum G-yung drung 'bar from Bon sources and Grum 'Bar ba byang chub from Tibetan Buddhist sources, are also interesting to look at. The terms ‘G-yung drung’ and ‘Byang chub’ sometimes have the same implication, thus are interchangeable, like ‘byang chub sems dpa'’ in Tibetan Buddhist text has been translated as “g-yung drung sems dpa'” in Bonpo writings. This is to say that the above names interchanged as 'bar ba to 'bar, byang chub to g-yung drung, while ‘grum’ remained the same in both. Beside the name corresponds, there is also not much difference in time when they must have lived. These evidences suggest that there was a crucial link at the time of writing these historical records. Tibetan Buddhist historians write that the ordination lineage of the Great Master was directly linked from the lineage of Mulasarvastivadin vinaya from the early period of the flourishing of Buddhism. As traditional claims are largely dependent on the transmission lineage, I shall now discuss in detail about the person who ordained the Great Master. There are five different personal names recorded in the Tibetan Buddhist historical records, all of which are said to have ordained Dgongs pa rab gsal. First, according to the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma and the history by Nyang ral and Mkhas pa lde'u, it was G-yo Dge 'byung, who ordained the Great Master. Secondly, Ne'u Pandita wrote that Dgongs pa rab gsal was ordained by Lha lung rab 'byor dbyangs with accompany of Rong ston as the main instructor and Rtsangs (Gtsang Rab

Spa btsun (1991: 698), Shar rdza (1985: 228), Karmay (1972: 106f), and Martin (2001a: 101). 386Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, p. 85, and Nyang ral (1988: 444).

gsal) as the secret instructor in his 13th century history.387 His record varies greatly from all other sources, particularly in regard to the number of monks that attended Dgongs pa rab gsal’s ordination. Ne'u Pandita wrote that there were eight monks present during the event, while no more than five are mentioned in other sources. He was also aware of the three monks’ presence at Dgongs pa rab gsal’s ordination, but he did not verify that any of them performed the ordination of Dgongs pa rab gsal. In fact, he explicitly rejected someone’s claim that Dgongs pa rab gsal was ordained by the three men. In his history, Ne'u Pandita also implied that he was aware of the story regarding the meeting of the Bonpo goatherd, Mu zu gsal 'bar, with three monks Dmar, G-yo and Rtsangs (Gtsang), the three monks initiating the goatherd and giving him the name, Mu zu Dge ba gsal. He wrote that such narratives are incorrect and based on unreliable oral history. Although Ne'u Pandita does not provide his sources, it is evident that he was suggesting to have seen a different version of the story that existed during his time. 388 Apart from the above two names, a fourteenth century historian Bu ston Rin chen sgrub wrote that it was Gtsang Rab gsal who ordained the Great Master.389 The fourth person whom it is claimed performed the ordination of

Ne'u pandita (1974: 126): lha lung gis mkhan po byas/ rong ston dang rtsangs kyis las kyi gsang ste'i slob dpon byas/ gzhan rnams kyi dad dge mdzad snyen par rdzogs par byas so/. 388 Ne'u pandita 1974, p. 123: yi ge kha cig gi lugs las khams su dmar g-yo rtsang gsum gyi byon pa la/ bon po'i bu mo zu gsal 'bar zhes pa ra lug mtsho bas mthong nas dad pa skyes te chos zhus pas/ 'dul ba 'od ldan btad nas 'di la ltos byas nas/ dad na rab tu 'byung gsung nas ltas pas dad nas rab tu byung ba'i lo rgyus 'dug ste ngag rgyud la g-yom rgyugs su 'chad pa mang yang ma dag pa yin no/. The author had, possibly, seen the relevant passage recorded in the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma and the histories by Nyang ral and Mkhas pa lde'u. 389 Bu ston (1988: 194): der gtsang gis mkhan po byas/ g-yos slob dpon byas te dge tshul bsgrubs so/ mkhan slob las ming sbyar te dge ba rab gsal du btags/ phyis thugs rab che bas Dgongs pa rab gsal du btags/.

Dgongs pa rab gsal is Zhang mnga' 'jam dpal.390 This claim is found in a passage quoted in a sixteenth century source by Dpa' bo gtsug lag phreng ba (1504–66) from the Lo rgyus chen mo. There is not much known about this source apart from it is said to have been written by Khu ston brtson 'grus g-yung drung (1011–75),391 thus the passage seems to be from 11th century AD. The passage from this text is as follows:

[It is stated] in the great history (Lo rgyus chen mo) that Zhang mnga' 'Jam dpal and Yang gong Shes rab 'byung gnas arrived at Khams from Central Tibet during the persecution of doctrine. Yang gong showed the origin [of lineage] and Bla chen Dgongs pa rab gsal took ordination from Zhang mnga' 'jam dpal. His disciples were Cog ro Dpal gyi dbang phyug and Grum Shing slag can.392

One important thing that needs to be noted here is that the name, Zhang mnga' 'jam dpal coincides with the name Zhang lnga Mun 'jam pa Man dzhu dpal 'bar. Therefore, these two names seem to belong to a single person. In this case, the relationship between Dgongs pa rab gsal, as the disciple, and Zhang mnga' 'jam dpal, as the one who ordained him, contradicts the father and son’s relationship between the two that recorded in Nyang ral’s history. The fifth name of the one who ordained the Great Master is recorded in a twentieth century Nyingmapa history by Bdud 'joms Ye shes rdo rje. Bdud 'joms informed us a different figure from all those mentioned above. According to him, Smar/Dmar Śakya mune served as the ordainer. He further added a part of the ordainer’s name, Śakya, before the given name of the Great Master,

Thu'u bkwan (1983: 3) gives a very similar name Non 'jam dpal with whom the Great Master secretly studied Tibetan Buddhism. 391 See Martin (1997: 26). 392 Dpa' bo (1959: 121): lo rgyus chen mo las ni/ bstan pa bsnubs pa'i dus dbus nas zhang mnga' 'jam dpal dang yang gong shes rab 'byung gnas gnyis khams su byon/ de'i tshe yang gong gis khungs bstan nas zhang mnga' 'jam dpal las bla chen dgongs pa rab gsal bsnyen par rdzogs/ de'i mkhan bu cog ro dpal gyi dbang phyug dang grum shing slag can gnyis yin/.

calling him Śakya Dge ba rab gsal. However, his version of the Great Master’s name still incorporates parts of the names of all the three-learned men: Śakya from Dmar Śakya mune, Dge ba from G-yo Dge 'byung and Rab gsal from Gtsang rab gsal.393

6 Dates of Dgongs pa rab gsal’s birth and death It is generally agreed that the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal was born in the year of the water-rat and died in the year of the wood-pig according to the Tibetan Lunar calendar. Since the year of water-rat and the year of the woodpig reoccur every sixty years, there are three different sets of dates that should be considered: 832–915 AD394, 892–975 AD395 and 952–1035 AD (in Bon sources).396 The fact that there is a gap of either one or two sixty-year cycles in between these periods is due to not having precise information about the specific year in which he was born. Therefore, I shall look at the sequence of the chronological events to determine the most likely dates of the life span of the Great Master. There are some chronological problems regarding these dates. The first set of dates (832–915) probably derives from the year when the Great Master is supposed to have received ordination from the three learned monks. The ordination is said to have taken place not long after the persecution of Tibetan

Bdud 'joms (1996: 138f): dmu gzu gsal 'bar gyis bltar phyin pas dad de rab tu byung bar zhus pa la/ smar gyis mkhan po dang g-yos slob dpon byas te rab tu byung / ming śākya dge ba rab gsal du btags/. 394 Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, Nyang ral (1988), Bu ston (1988), Sa skya (1993), Sum pa (1992) and Thu'u bkwan (1985). See also Watson (1978: 265), Tucci (1980: 250) and Stoddard (2004: 63). 395 Mkhas pa lde'u (1987), Ne'u pandita (1974), Tshal pa (1993), Sa skya (1993), 'Gos lo (1984) and Bdud 'joms (1996). See also Tucci (1980: 250) and Stoddard (2004: 63). Stoddard has also discovered two other dates of the Great Master. 396 See Kvaerne (1971: 228). Shing bza' and Sum pa Ye shes dpal 'byor seems to follow the date estimated by Bonpos.

monasticism (841 AD), when the three monks escaped from the central Tibet to Mdo smad. This date is compatible with the Great Master ordaining Grum ye shes rgyal mtshan, who evidently lived from 865–935 AD.397 It is problematic if we consider that the Great Master was the teacher of Klu mes Shes rab tshul khrims (950–1025 AD), because there is a huge gap of 35 years between the Great Master’s death and the birth of Klu mes. The second set of dates (892–975 AD) is most probably based on the narrative that the ordination of the Great Master took place long after the persecution, for which the first set of dates is too early. These dates allow for the possibility that Dgongs pa rab gsal was the teacher of Klu mes Shes rab tshul khrims, which is the case according to both Bon and Tibetan Buddhist historians. Yet, it is arguable that the Great Master must have been

alive when he gave a Bonpo hat to Klu mes, who immediately returned to central Tibet and reinstated the lineage of monastic discipline in approximately 978 AD.398 However, Klu mes must have taken more than three years to reach central Tibet or to reinstate the lineage, otherwise the year 975 AD may also be little early to meet the Great Master. Most Tibetan historians also assert that the Great Master, Grum and Klu mes were contemporaries and that Klu mes studied the text of monastic discipline with Grum for a year. Since both of these sets of dates are based on logical reasoning one way or the other, they have been taken for granted by some scholars. For instance, Sakyapa master Bsod nams rgyal mtshan composed a story that includes both sets of dates. According to Bsod nams rgyal mtshan, Śākya Dge ba gsal received ordination from the three monks, who fled from Chu bo ri during the persecution of Tibetan monasticism in central Tibet, while Dgongs pa rab gsal was ordained some sixty years after the persecution. This theory may have been constructed based on the author’s evaluation of the two different 397 This date is estimated by Richardson (1957:60–62) based on information that Grum was a contemporary of the last Táng emperor Chao Süan Ti (Zhao Xuan Di, reigned 905–907 AD). 398 Mkhas pa lde'u (1987: 394) dates this event to 949 AD.

narratives about the Great Master found in earlier sources. Presented here are sections from the writings of Bsod nams rgyal mtshan. These are followed by the passages that may have been used to derive his theory. In regard to the first narrative, the author wrote that a Bonpo son, named Sma za gsal, met three monks arrived from Chu bo ri, when he went to graze herds. A faith towards these monks was arose in him by the power of karmic residue, thus he requested ordination. They ordained him and gave him the name Śākya Dge ba gsal, which was a combination of the names of all three: the abbot, the instructor and the secret instructor.399 According to the second narrative in the Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, a son of Bonpo Mu gsal gshen 'bar, named Rmu za 'phan, visited the Snang gsal temple at 'Phan yul zhog, when sixty years had passed since the king persecuted the Dharma. The boy saw painted figures of ordained monks on the wall teaching and listening to the Dharma. When he asked an old woman there about the paintings, she told him that they were figures of ordained monks. By the power of the boy's residual karma, faith arose in him and with tears he asked her if any such monks still exist. The old woman replied that there were many monks when she was a young girl. However, the monks were forced to leave their monkhood and some were even executed during the persecution of the Buddhist doctrine by the king Glang Darma. There was no one left in Dbus and Gtsang, but there were some monks in Khams, who fled from Chu bo ri and Yer pa. The boy was very happy and without worrying about his body or his life, he went to Khams. The boy met those learned monks and received ordination. He was given the name the Dgongs pa rab gsal.400

a skya (1993: 241): bon po'i bu sma za gsal gyis phyugs 'tshor phyin pas/ chu bo ri nas byon pa'i dge slong gsum po dang mjal te las 'phro'i dbang gis dad pa skyes nas rab tu byung bar zhus pas gnang ste/ mkhan slob song ste gsum kha'i mtshan nas dras te/ shakya dge ba gsal du btags/. 400 Sa skya (1993: 241): de'i tshe rgyal po sdig can gyis chos snubs nas lo drug cu lon pa na/ 'phan yul zhog na rmu gsal gshen 'bar bya ba'i bon po'i bu/ rmu za 'phan bya ba'i byis pa cig gis/ snang gsal lha khang bya ba'i nang du phyin pas/ rab tu byung ba chos

These two narratives can be compared to the following passages. First, according to the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, three monks packed their robes and fled to Khams in beggar’s clothing from their meditation cave at Chu bo ri. They put their former robes on when they arrived at Dan tig shel monastery. A son of a Bonpo Mun dzu dpal 'bar, Mun dzu dge ba 'bar saw the monks while he was grazing goats. When the Bonpo goatherd expressed his wish to become monk faithfully, they initiated him as a novice and named him Dge ba rab gsal.401 The second narrative is comparable to the passage from the Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba. The author, Ne'u pandita, wrote that a Bonpo Mu zu gsal 'bar had a sixteen year old son named Mu zu gsal 'phan in 'Phan yul zhog. The son visited the Snang gsal temple and saw on the wall painted figures of ordained monks teaching and listening to the Dharma. When he inquired, an old woman told him that they were ordained monks. By the power of residual

nyan bshad byed pa 'dra ba'i gzugs gyang ris la 'dug pas ci yin dris pas/ de na 'dug pa'i rgan mo cig na re/ rab tu byung ba bya ba'i gzugs yin byas pas/ byis pa de sngon gyi las 'phro'i dbang gis dad pa skyes nas mchi ma phyung ste/ rab tu byung ba da lta e yod dris pas/ rgan mo na re/ nga bu mo'i dus na yin te/ rgyal po glang dar mas chos snubs pa'i dus rab tu byung ba rnams phab pas/ rtags dang phral/ la la bsad la la shi da lta dbus gtsang na rab tu byung ba med do/ chu bo ri dang yer pa la sogs nas khams su bros pa'i rab byung mang po da lta khams na yod thag chod 'dug zer bas/ rab tu dga' ste lus dang srog la ma bltas par byis pa des khams su phyin pas/ lha lung dpal gyi rdo rje dang mjal [p. 242] nas/ dad pa skyes nas rab tu byung bar zhus pas/ lha lung dpal gyi rdo rje'i zhal nas/ bdag gis rgyal po sdig can bsad pas nga la sdom pa med/ ngas grogs bya yis gsungs nas/ mkhas btsun de rnams dang mjal rab tu byung bas/ ming yang bla chen dgongs pa rab gsal du grags so/. 401 Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, pp. 83f.: ... dge slong gsum dpal cho bo ri la sgom pa'i dus su/ ... btsun pa gsum pos gos re bas sbril nas rprang chas su zhugs nas khams su bros nas/ dan tig shel gyi dgon par/ rngar gyi gos gyon pas/ ... / mun dzu dpal 'bar bon po'i bu/ mun dzu dge ba 'bar ra 'tsho bas mthong te/ ... ra rdzi na re nga'ang btsun pa byed zer/ chos 'di nas 'byung ba bzhin byed nus na bya'o/ 'di lto shig byas pas/ kho ra ded nas ... / dge tshul gyi sdom pa phob pas ming kyang dge ba rab gsal du btags/”.

karma, faith and respect arose in him and he asked, “Where do they exist these days?” An old man replied, “When I was a young, there were many of them. When the king Glang darma destroyed the teaching, most of them were killed, some were deprived of their monkhood, and a few escaped to Khams. I do not know how many of them still exist, but the three monks Dmar, G-yo and Gtsang, who escaped from Chu bo ri must definitely be alive now”. After hearing this, a faith was arisen in him and he went to Mdo smad in search of those monks. The boy met several monks and received ordination. The boy came to be known as the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal.402 Among the Bon sources, the earliest source, 'Dul ba gling grags, does not give any precise dates regarding the life span of the Great Master (Shes rab tshul khrims). His name is listed after a well known Bonpo scholar Khro tshang 'brug lha (born in 956 AD); cf. Martin 2001a: 117), which suggests that he

Ne'u pandita (1974: 123f): de'i tshe 'phan yul zhogs pa na mu zu gsal 'bar zhes bya ba'i bon pa [po] cig [gcig] la bu mu zu gsal 'phan zhes bya ba la [lo] bcu drug lon pa cig [gcig] gis snang gsal lha khang du phyin pas/ rab tu byung ba chos bshad nyan byed pa'i gzugs gyang ris la 'dug pa mthong nas/ 'di ci yin dris pas/ rgan mo na re rab tu byung ba yin zer/ las 'phro'i stobs kyis dad gus skyes te/ 'di 'dra da lta ga na yod dris pas/ rgad po cig na re gzhon dus su mang po yod pa yin te/ rgyal po glang dar mas chos snubs pa'i dus su phal cher bsad/ la la phab/ 'khams su yang 'ga' re bros zer te/ gzhan ni khungs ma thos/ chu bo ri nas bros pa'i dmar g-yo rtsangs gsum ni yod nges par 'dug zer ro/ de'i tshe las 'phro sad de chos men [min] pa yid la mi dran pa'i dad pa skyes nas mdo smad du tshol du byon/ lam du bon po cig [gcig] gi sar zhag byas nas ... zla shod tshal phyi'i rong du dbus pa mi drug dang ha shang gnyis te brgyad po 'tshogs nas lha lung gis mkhan po byas/ rong ston dang rtsangs kyis las kyi gsang ste'i slob dpon byas/ gzhan rnams kyi dad dge mdzad snyen par rdzogs par byas so/ de nas thos bsam byas pa ni mkhan po la 'dul ba lung sde bzhi/ kva la rgyas pa'i bstan bcos pa sde lnga/ dmar g-yo gnyis la 'dul ba mdo dtsa [rtsa] man chod kyi phran tsho/ rong ston la sdom rnam pa gnyis rang mdzod dang dbus ma/ rtsangs la pra ka ra na sde brgyad la sogs pa thob po/ ... mngon shes la sogs pa bsam gtan gyi yon tan kyang mang du thob nas bla chen dgongs pa rab gsal zhes grags so/. This text is said to have composed in 1283 AD. Cf. Martin (1997: 46).

lived sometime in the second half of the 10th century AD. Nyi ma bstan 'dzin also wrote in his chronological table that the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal was born in the year of the water-rat, and that is equivalent to 952 AD).403 He seems to have adjusted this date to correspond with the list in 'Dul ba gling grags regarding Khro tshang 'brug lha. This date is also based on his evaluation of both Bon and Tibetan Buddhist narratives. He not only took the lunar year of the water-rat, which is mainly from Tibetan Buddhist sources, as the accurate date, but also adjusted it to match the teacher-student relationship between the Great Master and Klu mes. However, his date is too far away from the time when Grum shing slag can (865–935) was alive for him to be the person who ordained Dgongs pa rab gsal as all Bonpo authors have claimed. Because, the time gap between the two people is big. Khyung po Blo gros rgyal mtshan wrote in his history that Lha lung dpal rdor, who assassinated the king Glang Dar ma in 842 AD, met a student of the Great Master and sent seven Tibetans to the Great Master to become monk. This indicates that the great master was active from the late 9th to the early 10th century AD.404 In brief, there are many controversies in Bon histories one way or the other. These have arisen most likely because of differences of opinion, confusing details and a lack of precise information among Bon historians. Another factor may be a lack of collaboration among Tibetan historians, which makes the chronology of events in Tibetan monastic history more complex.

7 Conclusion As the earliest available Bon source regarding the Great Master is the Srid rgyud kha byang chen mo, it may be said that not much was known among Bonpos about Dgongs pa rab gsal until approximately the 14th century. It seems that later Bonpo historians attached the name Dgongs pa gsal first to ‘Bla chen Mu tur’ and then to the other two names: Ya zi bon ston and Shes rab tshul khrims. The link between these two names and Dgongs pa rab gsal first appears

Kvaerne (1971: 228). 404 Blo gros (1915: 57).

in the above-mentioned 14th century Bon text. Therefore, it may be said that Bonpos used the name Dgongs pa gsal or Dgongs pa rab gsal later than Tibetan Buddhists. In addition, the Great Master Dgongs pa rab gsal became a crucial lineage holder of Bonpo monasticism, probably because of recognising him as Shes rab tshul khrims. Through this, Bonpo scholars connected the Great Master, who according to them was a Bon monastic lineage holder, to the rekindling of the Tibetan Buddhist monastic lineage. This gave rise to a new story that the Tibetan Buddhist vinaya was transmitted from Bon. Bonpos not only claim that Mu zi gsal bzang rekindled the Bon monastic tradition and transmitted the lineage through the Great Master, but also write that the latter transmitted the lineage to Buddhists students. However, both Bonpo and Tibetan Buddhist scholars were writing about the same monastic lineage and it is evident that the stories influenced each other. For instance, Tibetan Buddhist historians included a Bonpo goatherd, Mu zu gsal 'bar,

in their story, part of which seems to have derived from Mu zi gsal bzang’s story in the 'Dul ba gling grags. On the other hand, Bonpos have the story of Mu zi gsal bzang’s contribution to restoring the Bon monastic tradition, which seems to be based on Buddhist accounts of the Great Master. The connection between the two strands of histories is also evident by the references to the area called Mdo smad. According to Buddhist accounts it was the area in which the goatherd, who later became the Great Master, met the three monks from whom he received ordination, and the area in which the tradition is said to have been rekindled. Similarly according to Bon sources, Mu zi gsal bzang fled to

Mdo smad and entered a cave on the ‘white joined peak’ (Brag dkar rtse 'dus) in the Rma ri del area, until he transmitted his monastic lineage to a horse herder. Although the names of the cave and the place of the hermitage are different, the region and the direction towards which the monks fled to are the same, i.e. Mdo smad. By way of a concluding remark, I should like to state that my present conclusions are provisional and still require further investigation and demand BON MONASTIC DISCIPLINE—THE GREAT MASTER DGONGS PA RAB GSAL 299 extensive textual study. This article may be considered as a preliminary publication, which merely serves to shed some light on the connection between these two important lineages of Tibetan monastic traditions, or at least to raise some questions. I intend to revise and refine the argument when more material becomes available to me in the future.

Source

[[Category:]Tibetan Buddhism]