Bringing Buddhism to Tibet
Beyond Boundaries
Religion, Region, Language and the State
Edited by
Michael Willis, Sam van Schaik
and Lewis Doney
Volume 10
Bringing Buddhism
to Tibet
History and Narrative in the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
Edited by Lewis Doney
Co-published with the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland with support from the European Research Council
Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State
(Project No. 609823)
The Open Access book is available at www.degruyter.com
ISBN 978-3-11-071522-4
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-071530-9
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-071532-3
ISSN 2510-4446
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence.
For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944394
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2021 Lewis Doney, Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Cover image: “Lintel,” circa 475 CE, in Sārnāth, Uttar Pradesh, India. Photograph by Michael Willis.
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Lewis Doney
Preface
Tibet has never been as closed off to the rest of the world
as it exists in some westerners’ imaginations. During the
seventh century, Chinese ambassadors passed through a
Central Tibet ruled by the Tibetan empire. In the eighth
century, artisans from Nepal and China were present at
court and helped establish Tibetan Buddhist material
culture. In the south, the trade routes across the Himalayas continued to provide access to the Indian subcontinent after the fall of the empire and, in the western Himalayas, the Mnga’ ris Kingdom traced its heritage back to
central Tibet but also maintained strong ties to South Asia.
With the second dissemination of Buddhism, more Tibetans travelled to Kashmir, Nepal, Bengal and the Gangetic
Plain in search of Buddhist teachings and texts, writing
of their peregrinations and advising future travelers of
the dangers that they would face. The journeys of Indic
masters to Tibet are also recorded, though more usually in
the third person.
Yet, the question still remains, what is Tibet? The geographical extent of what constituted ‘Tibet’ (Bod/Bautai/
Baitai/Tubbat/Fa/Tufan) during the imperial period
(c. 600–850 CE) varied considerably as the Tibetan empire
expanded and contracted at its various borders over time.
Yet, through the prism of especially Buddhist historiography, a ‘Tibet’ emerged that was increasingly identified
with the values of Indic Buddhism rather than military
expansion. Works of historiography reflecting the influence of Buddhist literature and the cultural memory of
the post-imperial Tibetans transformed the cosmopolitan Tibetan imperial world into a wild borderland contrasted with the Buddhist Indian subcontinent of the
first millennium, through the biographies of its emperors
who brought queens and religious masters to court from
throughout their realms and beyond and thereby civilized
the “land of snows.” When the Mongol Yuan Dynasty
(1271–1368) ruled over Tibet, the latter then gradually took
on a new role as guru to the region’s new imperial power.
This rise in the status of Tibet on the world stage influenced even later accounts. For example, the lists of countries whose Buddhist masters played roles in converting
imperial Tibet became longer, reflecting an expansion in
certain Tibetans’ geographical awareness in the interim.
These histories raise certain questions: To what extent
did such accounts draw on first-hand experiences of the
places described, either as people saw them at the time
of these works’ compilation and/or during the imperial
period itself? Is there anything in the depiction of the flow
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-201
of people between South Asia and Tibet that links the
self-representation of the emperors to the later ‘national’
self-image of the Tibetans?
As Buddhism spread through Asia during the first
millennium, its encounter with the lands and societies it
entered was represented in a variety of unique ways. Narrations of “the coming of the dharma” (chos ’byung) had
profound effects on each country’s literature and, together
with the influx of foreign narratives about South Asia
itself into these countries, formed an integral part of their
assimilation of Buddhism. The myths surrounding the
Tibetan empire and its place in the spread of Buddhism
in Asia steadily grew in length, variety, and influence
from the post-imperial “time of fragments” (sil bu’i dus)
through the politically charged fourteenth century to the
more philologically critical milieu of the fifth Dalai Lama
(1617–1682). However, Buddhist historians during this
entire period rarely made explicit statements about their
work. They seldom provided criteria defining different
genres of historical text or any of the rules governing their
choice of sources. It is therefore of central importance to
analyse the adaptation and redaction of their narratives, if
we ever hope to reveal Buddhist approaches to historiography in practice. This will also help us answer wider cultural questions of attributed authorship, literary genres,
and the creation of traditionally authoritative Buddhist
historical narratives. This book intends to do just this, and
so contribute to ongoing debates about the religio-politically motivated reconstruction of history and narrative in
Buddhist Asia, and its lasting effects on the national identities of those countries.
This edited volume brings together six scholars of
Tibetan studies to examine one such history, the Dba’
bzhed.1 The principal narrative of the Dba’ bzhed reflects
an eleventh or twelfth-century view of the Tibetan imperial period and especially the acts on behalf of Buddhism
that the eighth-century emperor (btsan po) Khri Srong
lde btsan (as his name is spelled there), his subjects and
invited religious masters performed in Tibet, China and
India. The Dba’ bzhed’s full title is: “Dba’ bzhed, the royal
narrative (bka’ mchid) concerning how the Buddha’s
1 The manuscript containing this work is reproduced and translated
in Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed: The Royal
Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet
(Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
2000). This exemplar will be referred to in this book as DBA’ 2000.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
VI
Lewis Doney
dharma arose in Tibet.”2 This description encapsulates
the main account given in the text, and perhaps indicates
the antiquity of its core depiction of this period. The Dba’
bzhed first surveys the reigns of four major Tibetan Buddhist emperors: the prehistoric Lha tho do re snyan btsan,
during whose reign Buddhism is said to have appeared in
Tibet; Srong btsan sgam po (d. 649), during whose reign
the practice of the doctrine was introduced; Khri Srong
lde btsan (742–c. 800), during whose reign the doctrine
spread and prospered; and Khri Gtsug lde btsan (Ral pa
can; d. 841), during whose reign the doctrine was thoroughly systematised.3 The biographies of these emperors
divide the narrative into four parts, with Khri Srong lde
btsan taking the lion’s share.
When the thirteen-year-old Khri Srong lde btsan takes
over the governance of the empire (on folio 4r:6), the narrative shifts from the emperor to a small group of Tibetan
ministers and their conspiracies against the dharma. The
Dba’ bzhed’s principal protagonist is the Buddhist minister
Dba’ Gsas snang (known to later tradition as Gsal snang),
with a lesser but still important role played by Dba’/’Ba’
Sang shi. Despite the rival ministers’ destruction of all that
previous Buddhist kings had achieved and their interdiction against its future practice, Dba’ Gsas snang goes in
search of the dharma to India and Nepal where he worships at Buddhist pilgrimage and monastic sites (5v:1–2).
Dba’ Gsas gnang convinces the emperor to invite the
Indian abbot Śāntarakṣita to Tibet. Śāntarakṣita in turn
recommends the tantric master Padmasambhava to tame
the land in order to build Bsam yas Monastery (gtsug
lag khang). However, Khri Srong lde btsan grows suspicious of the siddha’s power and asks Padmasambhava to
leave Tibet half-way through the narrative. The emperor
instead appoints Dba’ Gsas snang to “the highest religious
authority (chos kyi bla) as head [at his] right side (sa g.yas
kyi tshugs dpon).”4 For a while thereafter, though, Śāntarakṣita continues to play a more prominent role than
Dba’ Gsas snang, for instance in debate with the followers
of the indigenous Bon religion of Tibet or digging out the
site of Bsam yas with Khri Srong lde btsan (14v:1–15v:3).
When the abbot dies, Dba’ Gsas snang is ordained
as Ye shes dbang po and becomes the main moral goad
of Khri Srong lde btsan. Ye shes dbang po recommends
inviting the disciple of the now deceased Śāntarakṣita,
2 DBA’ 2000, 1v:1–2r:1: / / dba’ bzhed bzhugs so / / sangs rgyas kyi chos
bod khabs su ji tar ’byung ba’i bka’ mchid kyi yi ge /.
3 See DBA’ 2000, 1v:1–3, where the content of the narrative is outlined.
4 DBA’ 2000, 14r:6–7: gsas snang ni snam phyi’i sa g.yas kyi tshugs
dpon chos kyi blar bskos so / /.
Kamalaśīla, to take the gradualist side in the famous
Bsam yas Debate against proponents of the instantaneous
path to enlightenment (19v:3). Khri Srong lde btsan finally
chooses the gradual approach as the victor and spreads it
throughout Tibet (24v:2–3). Towards the end of the Dba’
bzhed, it states that his reign marked a high-point in the
rise of Buddhism in Tibet:
Where the dharma did not get established during the reign of
the five previous kings, Lha sras Khri Srong lde btsan, Ācārya
Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye shes dbang po and ‘Ba’ Sang shi, these four,
established the shrines of the triple gem.5
These protagonists are actively responsible for bringing
Buddhism to Tibet, despite the manuscript’s title and
opening lines framing the narrative as an arising of the
dharma in a way that de-emphasises (human) agency. This
should alert us to the multiple depictions existing with the
same text. Providing the core narrative of this text in precis
here gives the misleading impression that it is perhaps the
homogenous work of a single author. However, the Dba’
bzhed represents a collage of narratives that probably took
on its recognisable shape around the eleventh century.
Some Tibetans over the centuries may have read this text
as a single work (just as it is translated as a single piece
into English), but it was surely created through a process
of compilation and annotation over a number of centuries.
The text therefore contains numerous strata of narrative,
which give differing impressions of the central protagonists of the narrative, the organisation of the court and
religion’s role in Tibet (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist).
In this way, the Dba’ bzhed offers us a number of different
snapshots of a vital evolving corpus of texts and quotations within Tibetan historiography focused on the eighth
century, that shall be referred to in this volume as the Testimony of Ba tradition.6
5 DBA’ 2000, 25r:1–3: sngon rgyal po gdung rabs lngar chos ma tshugs
pa de lha sras khri srong lde btsan dang / a tsarya bo d+hi sa twa
dang / dba’ ye shes dbang po dang / ’ba’ sang shi bzhis dkon mchog
gsum gyi rten btsugs.
6 In this volume, ‘Testimony’ is used in preference to ‘Testament.’
‘Testament’ (interchangeable with ‘will’) is already a prevalent and
more fitting (though imperfect) translation for another set of terms in
Tibetan historiography, bka’ chems/ bka’ thang/ thang yig, whereas
‘testimony’ more properly captures the meaning of bzhed as ‘witness
of’ or history ‘according to’ the Dba’ perspective. See also Leonard
W.J. van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and
Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung, a Chronicle of Buddhism
in India and Tibet,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 25 (2013): 146; Per K.
Sørensen, “Preface: dBa’/sBa bzhed: The dBa’[s]/sBa [Clan] Testimony Including the Royal Edict (bka’ gtsigs) and the Royal Narrative
(bka’ mchid) Concerning the bSam yas Vihāra,” in dBa’ bzhed: The
Preface
Contributors to this book describe the earliest sources
preceding the Dba’ bzhed history and the process of recension that created it and then altered it down the centuries.
This process gave birth to the Testimony of Ba tradition on
Khri Srong lde btsan and the spread of Buddhism in Tibet
during his reign, the Testimony of Ba. The Dba’ bzhed is
the oldest available full version of the tradition, and its
core narrative probably dates to the eleventh or twelfth
century. Yet, it contains earlier narratives perhaps dating
back to the ninth century, as well as later additional elements and interlinear notes. A longer, redacted version of
the same narrative first published in 1980 most likely dates
to the twelfth century, but a condensed version of the same
narrative published in 1961 represents a thirteenth or fourteenth-century redaction.
In Chapter 1, I describe how the modern study of the
Testimony of Ba began in 1961 when a late version of the
narrative was published by Rolf A. Stein (1911–1999). As
more exemplars appeared, they influenced scholarly
debates (in Tibetan and other languages) over Tibetan
history and historiography, its language, society and religion. Chapter 1 then sketches out the relation between a
few of the key witnesses to the Testimony of Ba tradition.
This investigation helps to show the high place that the
text holds in the Tibetan historical tradition, as well as
some of the ways in which the narrative was perceived and
used over time.
In Chapter 2, Michael Willis and the late Tsering
Gonkatsang examine the codicology, palaeography and
internal history of the Dba’ bzhed manuscript. Close study
of the organisational structure and scribal peculiarities of
the manuscript bring us closer to establishing the date of
its compilation and the earliest history of the narrative.
This is followed by copious notes on philologically intriguing aspects of the manuscript, its main text and annotations.
In Chapter 3, Sam van Schaik investigates the first
evidence of the narrative, which comes from a fragment
found in one of the Mogao caves near Dunhuang, Northwest China.7 This fragment dates between c. 800 to 900 CE,
during or shortly after the time when the Tibetan empire
controlled this area. The fragment may represent the nar-
Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to
Tibet, ed. Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, 2000), ix;
Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 9 and 91, n. 350.
7 None of the truly old texts discovered in the Dunhuang library cave
date from after the early part of the eleventh century according to
Yoshiro Imaeda, “The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang
Documents,” Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 66 (2008): 98.
VII
rative in its formative state and a close examination of its
palaeography, codicology and content deepens our understanding of how the Testimony of Ba evolved between the
ninth and eleventh century.
In Chapter 4, Brandon Dotson engages in a close
reading of lexical details within the Testimony of Ba. He
shows the relationship between the title and the Dba’s
clan’s relation with the Tibetan emperor. Chapter 4 also
discusses deliberately archaic phrases and terminology
from the dynastic period, contained in the Dba’ bzhed. The
identification of these archaisms reveals much about the
sources of the narrative and the cultural context of those
who compiled and edited it over the centuries.
In Chapter 5, Serena Biondo focuses in on the Bsam
yas Debate between followers of the gradualist and instantaneous paths to enlightenment. The historical veracity of
the account, its sources and influence on later religious
and philosophical debates in Tibet has long been a topic
of intense interest among scholars of Buddhist Studies.
Chapter 5 uncovers some important quotations of other
Buddhist works within the Dba’ bzhed, reinterprets its
ending and reconsiders the identity of some of the major
protagonists of the Bsam yas Debate.
In Chapter 6, I conclude Part One with a look at the
depiction of Khri Srong lde btsan as a Buddhist king in the
Dba’ bzhed. Earlier narratives present a glorified, divine
image of this emperor and describe his reign as a ‘golden
age’ of Buddhist practice, from which Tibetan ritual has
since declined. In contrast, the Dba’ bzhed places the
period of decline in the eighth century. Tantric masters
such as Padmasambhava attempt to prevent its destruction. The emperor then hastens its demise by banishing
Padmasambhava and causing a division in the Buddhist
community. This depiction causes tensions in the portrayal
of Buddhist kingship that later editors of the Testimony of
Ba had to deal with if they wanted to keep representing the
imperial period as a ‘golden age.’
Finally, the book provides a facing-page transcription
and translation of the Dba’ bzhed undertaken by Tsering
Gonkatsang and Michael Willis and a very useful index to
the text compiled by Serena Biondo. The manuscript presented here has 31 folios. The translated text runs to 16,670
words. Gonkatsang and Willis’ transcription improves on
a number of recent attempts in the sophistication of its
philology and the clarity of the type-setting. Their translation also builds on that of Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger in 2000, more thoroughly emphasising
the main text and adding depth to the meaning based on
our two scholars’ long experience in Tibetology and Indology respectively. Having recourse to Pasang Wangdu and
Diemberger’s facsimile of the text and copious notes is still
VIII
Lewis Doney
advised. I hope that this volume will prove of use to students and scholars of Tibetan Studies, and also those in
the wider academic world interested in the redaction of
historiography and the place of literature in the Buddhicisation of empire.
As readers make their way through this book, it will
become clear that, at points, its contributors present different translations or interpretations of Dba’ bzhed narratives. I have neither sought to reduce these tensions, nor
‘solve’ these contradictions, since one of the main aims
of this volume is to problematise the monolithic presentation of the Dba’ bzhed as a single work of some genius
author that can be mined for their ‘intent’ in writing it at
a single moment in history. Instead, these different readings show the Dba’ bzhed to be a rich and complex source
of the wider Testimony of Ba tradition. The strata within
both should be distinguished, as in an archaeological dig,
to highlight the different layers of historiography, identity
politics and religious perspective deposited by the various
redactors over time. In the future, I hope that this will lead
to a relative chronology of the narratives surrounding the
Dba’ bzhed history of the coming of the dharma or bringing of Buddhism to Tibet, and shed light on the changing cultural dynamics of the early second millennium
that fed the soil of our extant exemplars of the Testimony
of Ba and sowed the seed of its enduring popularity. In
closing, I would like to heartily thank the contributors for
their hard work, patience and many forms of help over
the years beyond writing their individual contributions,
and to Aaron Sanborn-Overby and Sabina Dabrowski at
De Gruyter for seeing the book through the press. Most
of the writing, editing and publication of this book was
generously funded by the European Research Council and
the Royal Asiatic Society as part of the project “Beyond
Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State”
(ERC Synergy Project 609823 ASIA). Finally, this volume is
dedicated to the memory of Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang,
who patiently guided the work at every step and gave keen
attention to transcription and translation of the text, and
whom we shall all miss.
Contents
Lewis Doney
Preface
V
John Bray
In Memoriam: Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang (1951–2018)
Abbreviations
XI
XV
Transliteration
Figures and Tables
XVII
XIX
Part One
Lewis Doney
Chapter 1
The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
3
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
24
Sam van Schaik
Chapter 3
Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of Ba From Dunhuang
Brandon Dotson
Chapter 4
Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
Serena Biondo
Chapter 5
Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
55
64
75
Lewis Doney
Chapter 6
History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
88
X
Contents
Part Two
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Text and Translation
102
Tibetan-Language Sources
158
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
Subject Index
173
162
167
John Bray
In Memoriam: Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang (1951–2018)
In the course of his life Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang
played many roles, but he found his vocation—above all
else—as a teacher and a translator. Confident in his own
skills, he never sought any particular academic prestige.
Rather he found fulfillment in using his expertise to help
others. This involved him in a wide variety of tasks, from
deciphering complex historical texts to organising community events, making films, and translating human
rights documents into Tibetan. His formal career culminated in his appointment as the first Instructor in Tibetan
at the University of Oxford. Beyond his family, his greatest
delight was in the success of his students.
Tsering was born in Da nga, Sharkhog, eastern Tibet
in 1951, shortly after the Chinese Communist takeover
of the region. His family were relatively prosperous, the
kind of people who might be classified as class enemies.
In the mid-1950s, fearing that their son might be at risk,
his parents took him on what became an extended journey
first to Ngawa, then to Dartsedo (Kanding), and eventually
to Lhasa. At that point, his father got into trouble with the
Chinese authorities, and was imprisoned. Together with
his mother, uncle and aunt, Tsering travelled on to Kalimpong in north-east India where he went to his first school.
They did not see or hear from his father for more than 20
years.
In India, Tsering and his relatives at first lived precariously, and in that respect their fortunes mirror those
of many others in the Tibetan refugee community. From
Kalimpong they moved to Simla. During the colder winter
months, the adults earnt a supplementary income selling
sweaters in Calcutta (now Kolkata), and Tsering helped
out during the school holidays. Later, his uncle and aunt
were allocated a small plot of land in Bylakuppe, a Tibetan
settlement in southern India, where they lived from the
sale of maize and other crops, as well as wood gathered
from the nearby forest.
Despite these hardships, Tsering was fortunate in
being able to gain a good education as a boarder at the
Central School for Tibetans at Happy Valley in Mussoorie, where he excelled both academically and at sport.
Acknowledgement: This piece was first published as John Bray,
“Obituary | Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang (1951–2018),” HIMALAYA,
the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies
38, no. 2 (2018): 122–24; available at: https://digitalcommons.
macalester.edu/himalaya/vol38/iss2/16. It has been republished
with minor modifications here by kind permission of the publishers
and John Bray.
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-202
Everything that he achieved subsequently was grounded
on this early training.
Tsering went on from Mussoorie to study English at
Chandigarh University. After graduation, he was recruited
into the Special Frontier Force, a Tibetan military unit
within the Indian Army, based in Chakrata (now part of
Uttarakhand). He completed his training, but there was a
delay in the confirmation of his appointment as an officer
following an Indian government policy review after the
1977 national elections. Rather than hang around waiting,
Tsering decided to change course and become a teacher.
He therefore studied for a B.Ed degree at the Central
Institute of Education in Delhi. In 1979, he joined the SOS
Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) school in Dharamsala,
the north Indian town that serves as the headquarters of
the Tibetan government-in-exile, and in due course rose to
become headmaster.
Early in the 1980s, during the period when there was
a brief hope of political liberalization in Tibet, Tsering’s
father was able to travel via Nepal to India. Despite not
knowing either Hindi or English, he found his way to Calcutta and, having met a Tibetan monk at Howrah station,
contacted the Tibetan community in search of his family.
Tsering once told a moving story of how his father was reunited with his aunt. Thinking that a sudden unannounced
meeting might be too much of a shock, his father waited
outside her home while her relatives prepared her with a
gradual build-up of hope and expectation. Their conversation started with the thought that it would be good to
hear from Tsering’s father after so many years. Then they
discussed how wonderful it would be if he could come to
India. And it would be even better if he could come to see
her. The climax came when they announced that he was
waiting just outside.
Tsering’s father had hoped that his family might
accompany him back to Tibet. His uncle went so far as
to obtain the necessary identity papers from the Chinese
embassy in Delhi, but they ultimately decided that they
would return only when the Dalai Lama himself was able
to do so. Meanwhile, Tsering continued his teaching career
in Dharamsala.
It was in Dharamsala that Tsering first became interested in the challenges of translation. The immediate spur
was a guidance document issued in Tibetan by Samdhong
Rinpoche, who was then at the Central Institute of Higher
Tibetan Studies in Varanasi. Until then, exile Tibetan
schools had focused on the teaching of English as a core
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
XII
John Bray
survival skill, often at the expense of the mother tongue.
Samdhong Rinpoche now called on them to redress the
balance in favour of Tibetan. Evidently, his concerns were
justified because Tsering had to translate this guidance for
his Tibetan colleagues who were, themselves, products of
an English-language education. He sent his translation to
Samdhong Rinpoche, whose warm endorsement encouraged him to take his own Tibetan language skills a step
further.
In 1987 Tsering moved to the University of Glasgow in
Scotland to study for a postgraduate degree in education,
with a particular focus on mother-tongue teaching. He then
moved to north London and set up a home there with his
wife Dolker and their three children, Lhayum, Choeyang,
and Tashi, who all joined him from Dharamsala. Dolker’s
constant support and their happy family life served as the
foundation for everything else that Tsering did. He was
immensely proud of his children, their partners, and two
grandchildren, all of whom survive him.
From 1991 until 2001, Tsering worked at the International Community School in London, eventually becoming Head Teacher. Meanwhile, he was involved in a wide
range of other activities. Already an accomplished teacher
of English to non-native speakers, he now began to apply
the same skills to the teaching of his own language. I was
myself among a select group of friends who regularly
visited his house in north London for private lessons. He
also served as the General Secretary of the Tibetan Community in Britain (TCB) from 1994 to 1996, and for many
years taught Tibetan to the TCB children. At the same time,
he provided translation to and from Tibetan for a number
of organisations, including Amnesty International, the
Tibet Information Network (TIN), and the Trace Foundation in New York.
Once he had settled in London, Tsering was able to
revisit Tibet. In 1997, he travelled to his home in Amdo,
together with Dolker and Choeyang. In 2004, he and
Dolker visited her home in Tinkye, southern Tibet. Finally,
he was again able visit Amdo in 2007, a year before his
father passed away.
In 2001, Tsering took up a position as Instructor in
Tibetan at the University of Oxford; this was a new post,
created in memory of the Tibetan scholar Michael Aris
(1946–1999). Tsering’s now well-honed talents as a teacher
and a linguist meant that he was the perfect candidate.
During his years in Oxford he was able to put all his varied
skills and experience to the best possible use.
Tsering taught beginner and intermediate Tibetan,
as well as working intensively with advanced students on
the reading of specific texts. He typically spent two days a
week in Oxford. Driving up from his home in London, he
would start early in the morning and stay late, surviving
on orange juice when there was no time for meals. For his
teaching materials Tsering drew on an eclectic range of
sources including the adventures of Tintin, his own translation of the Twelve Days of Christmas (an English carol),
as well as Tibetan-language Internet blogs and historical
texts. He presented papers on Tibetan teaching materials
at successive triennial conferences of the International
Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS). The panel that he
planned on this topic at the 15th IATS conference in Paris
in 2019 will be dedicated to his memory.
Tsering’s students remember him for his warmth,
encouragement and sense of humour, often telling jokes
that set the class into fits of laughter. At the same time,
they marvelled at his linguistic versatility, whether they
needed help with dharma texts, poetry, folk tales or historical records. Always unassuming, he was at the heart of
the Oxford Tibetan studies community.
Tsering was equally generous in his collaboration with
researchers beyond Oxford, and I was myself a beneficiary.
Together we wrote three historical papers on Ladakh, and
a fourth was in preparation at the time of his death. Other
close colleagues included Michael Willis of the British
Museum with whom he wrote three joint essays; they were
working on a project on the advent of Buddhism into Tibet
according to the Chronicles of Dba’ at the time of his death.
It is a great pleasure to see this book finished and in the
hands of readers.
Tsering’s other personal projects included the translation of an illustrated biography of the 14th Dalai Lama on
behalf of the Domey (Amdo) Association in Dharamsala,
and a book on the protector deity of Kirti monastery (in
Ngawa, Eastern Tibet). At the same time, he was still fully
involved in Tibetan community activities, serving as a
trustee of the Tibet Foundation from 2009 to 2017, as well as
Tibet Watch, a UK-based NGO monitoring Tibetan affairs,
from 2008 to 2016. He provided translations for, among
others, the US-based Radio Free Asia, and collaborated
on the production of films and documentaries related to
Tibet. In all of these activities, he rarely showed signs of
fatigue. Tsering’s daughter Choeyang shares part of the
secret. For her father, there was no boundary between his
formal work and the wide range of Tibet-related activities
that brought him satisfaction and joy.
In April of this year I met Tsering at the British Library
in London, and we chatted for two hours in the canteen.
This would in any case have been a memorable occasion,
since I now live in Singapore and we rarely had an opportunity to meet in person. Now the meeting has taken on an
extra significance. Our conversation turned to his birthplace in eastern Tibet. Tsering then ran through the key
In Memoriam: Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang (1951–2018)
events of his life, retelling old stories, and sharing new
ones, including some of the anecdotes related here. He
had one more year to go before retirement from Oxford,
and then he would have had plenty of other projects. The
overwhelming impression was a sense of fulfilment and
contentment.
Less than three weeks later, Tsering died after a car
crash on his way to Oxford, having started early on a
Friday morning to offer extra help to students before the
start of his formal lessons. It was and remains hard to take
in this news. He still had so much to contribute and—on
XIII
a personal note—there was still so much that I and others
had wanted to ask him.
Tsering’s legacy includes a range of articles and translations in print and scattered across the Internet. More
than that, he will remain a continuing presence in the lives
of the many people who knew him as a friend, colleague,
and mentor. Between us, we will build on what we learnt
from him, take it a step further, and share it with others.
There can be no better way of honouring the best of friends
and the most beloved of teachers.
Abbreviations
BDRC
BL
Bu ston
DBA’
IOL
MBNTH
MTN
Nyang ral
Or.
Pelliot tibétain
RBA
SBA
Buddhist Digital Resource Center
British Library
Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1364)
Dba’ bzhed (for versions and editions see Bibliography)
India Office Library (on these sources see Bibliography)
Mes dbon gsum rnam thar (for versions and editions see Bibliography)
Me tog snying po (for versions and editions see Bibliography)
Nyang Ral pa can Nyi ma ’od zer (1124–1192)
Shelf mark used at the BL, ‘Oriental’ (on these sources see Bibliography)
Shelf mark used at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (on these sources see Bibliography)
Rba bzhed (for versions and editions see Bibliography)
Sba bzhed (for versions and editions see Bibliography)
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-203
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Transliteration
Where the transliteration of Tibetan in the footnotes and
appendices to this volume does not follow the standard
modified Wylie system, it accords with the more rigorous
codicological system adopted by editors of the Old Tibetan
Documents Online portal (see under “Editorial Policy” at
https://otdo.aa-ken.jp/). For instance, the reverse gi gu is
transliterated with the upper case “I” and stacked letters
that are not found in the Classical Tibetan orthography
of indigenous words are transliterated with the “+” sign
(e. g., dhi with a subscribed ha is d+hi), the sign marking
the beginning of a folio, paragraph, etc. is transliterated
with $ and the anusvāra is transliterated with M (capital
letter).
Tibetan terms and other foreign terms are given in
italics. Exceptions are place names and personal names.
These are spelled according to the orthography in the
main text of the Dba’ bzhed or other source being quoted,
for example Bodhisatva (with one “t”; see also Chapter 2,
footnote 9), disregarding any interlinear amendments or
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-204
additions. In proper nouns, the first letter is capitalised,
as opposed to the root letter. Family names are capitalized
alongside personal names, where both can be established,
e. g. “Sba Gsas snang” for Gsas snang of the Sba family.
Similarly, titles or honorific elements within names are
also capitalized, e. g., Khri Srong lde btsan, where Khri is
a royal title added to the name Srong lde btsan.
When quoting secondary sources, their authors’ spellings have been retained but their transliteration system
has been brought into line with that of the volume. This
means that hyphens and diacritics have been removed
(e. g. daṅ-po is converted to dang po) and names capitalised by their first letter rather than their root letter. The
exception to this is in the case of bibliographic information, where accuracy may be required in order to find
sources. Please consult the Bibliography for the abbreviations used for exemplars or the Testimony of Ba tradition
in this volume.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1.1
Content of the exemplars of Testimony of Ba 1 and the recensions Testimony of Ba 1, 2 and 3 by syllables
Figure 2.1
Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 25r with the closing sentences of the text proper marked (ending 1)
Figure 2.2
Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 25v with the two stated endings of the text marked (ending 2 and 3)
Figure 2.3
Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 26r with the closing sentence of the supplementary text marked (ending 4)
Figure 2.4
Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 17r showing the description of the Bsam yas temple inserted between line 5 and line 6 of
the running text with further notations
Figure 3.1
The two fragments of the Testimony of Ba manuscript, shown together
Figure 3.2
British Library fragments, Or.8210/S. 9498A–D, in Melinex sheet
Figure 3.3
British Library fragments, detail from Or.8210/S. 9498D
Figure 3.4
British Library fragments, Or.8210/S. 13683A–D, in Melinex sheet
Figure 3.5
British Library fragments, Or.15000/332, a fragment of a sūtra page from Miran Fort (first half of ninth century)
Figure 3.6
British Library fragments, IOL Tib J 480, monastic regulations (first half of ninth century)
Tables
Table 2.1
Outline of the events recorded in the text against the corresponding folios of the Dba’ bzhed manuscript
Table 2.2
Lists of temples in the source texts
Table 5.1
Key episodes of the debate
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-205
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
XX
Figures and Tables
Table 5.2
List of Heshang’s and Kamalaśīla’s disciples as given in the introduction to the debate and list of the people who intervened in the debate after Moheyan and Kamalaśīla’s speeches
Table 5.3
Sang shi ta, Dpal dbyangs and Ratna’s names in DBA’ 2000, SBA 1961.1–2, SBA1982.1–3 and SBA 1980’s quotation of the
Rba bzhed che ba
Part One
Lewis Doney
Chapter 1
The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
Introduction
Several important historiographical traditions were created
as Buddhism was transmitted to Tibet and assimilated there
from the seventh century on. Although our understanding
of these traditions is in its early stages, the Testimony of
Ba has emerged as a key work. This consists of a bundle of
closely allied texts that are important both for their influence over the longue durée and the problems that they raise
about the sources and narrative strata of Tibetan history.
One of the oldest versions of the Testimony of Ba is titled
the Dba’ bzhed. This version is the focus of the present book.
Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, well aware of the difficulties associated with the Testimony of Ba tradition, produced
the following sober assessment of the wider field in 1996:
The earliest Tibetan historiographical materials are extremely
diverse and, regrettably, to a large extent still unpublished.
Investigations into the literary sources used by authors of those
texts that are available to us are also in their infancy, as is, consequently, research into the particular ways in which they have
made use of them. This renders it particularly difficult to determine the original contributions made by these early authors in
terms of how they interpreted them when they were not simply
incorporating large portions of their sources into their own work.1
Although scholars of Tibetan historiography have made
good progress since 1996,2 it has been outpaced by the
1 Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Tibetan Historiography,” in Tibetan
Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger Jackson (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1996), 49.
2 To name just a few major works: Dan Martin, Tibetan Histories: A
Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works (London: Serindia, 1997)—see pp. 23, no. 1 on the Testimony of Ba; Dan Martin, Unearthing Bon Treasures: Life and Contested History of a Tibetan Scripture Revealer (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan
Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard
Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing
of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000); Tsering Gyalbo, Guntram
Hazod and Per K. Sørensen, Civilization at the Foot of Mount Sham-po:
The Royal House of lHa Bug-pa-can and the History of g.Ya’-bzang (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
2000); Per K. Sørensen, Guntrum Hazod and Tsering Gyalbo, Thundering Falcon: An Inquiry into the History and Cult of Khra-’brug, Tibet’s First Buddhist Temple (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2005); Per K. Sørensen, Guntrum Hazod and Tsering
Gyalbo, Rulers on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular HegemOpen Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-001
publication of new Tibetan data over the same period. Of
the many new sources published from Central Tibet alone,
the recent publications of mostly rare biographies and histories by Dpal brtsegs alone already make up 120 volumes.3
The last ten years has also seen an unprecedented digitization of Tibetan materials, including biographies and
histories, now available to scholars online at the Buddhist
Digital Resource Center (BDRC, https://bdrc.io; https://
www.tbrc.org/), International Dunhuang Project (http://
idp.bl.uk/) and other sites. This treasure trove of data has
yet to be systematically analysed in any depth. The wealth
of historical and hagiographical texts alone has only begun
to be placed in some loose chronological order.4
Imperial and early post-imperial sources are usually
the focus of Tibetologists interested in the first introduction of Buddhism to Tibet.5 If they are not chiselled into
ony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang (Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007); Brandon
Dotson, “Administration and Law in the Tibetan Empire: The Section
on Law and State and its Old Tibetan Antecedents” (D.Phil thesis:
Oxford University, 2007); Brandon Dotson, The Old Tibetan Annals:
An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First History, With an Annotated
Cartographical Documentation by Guntram Hazod (Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009); Brandon Dotson, “The Victory Banquet: The Old Tibetan Chronicle and
the Rise of Tibetan Historical Narrative” (Habilitationsschrift, Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München, 2013); Olaf Czaja, Medieval Rule in Tibet: The Rlangs Clan
and the Political and Religious History of the Ruling House of Phag mo
gru pa. With a Study of the Monastic Art of Gdan sa mthil (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013); Lewis Doney, The
Zangs gling ma: The First Padmasambhava Biography: Two Exemplars
of its Earliest Attested Recension (Andiast: International Institute for
Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2014); Daniel Hirshberg Remembering
the Lotus-Born: Padmasambhava in the History of Tibet’s Golden Age
(Somerville, MA: Wisdom, 2016); Cecile Ducher, “A Lineage in Time:
The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa bka’ brgyud from the 11th through
19th Centuries” (Thèse de doctorat, l'Université de recherche Paris
Sciences et Lettres, 2017); Guntram Hazod, “The Graves of the Chief
Ministers of the Tibetan Empire: Mapping Chapter Two of the Old Tibetan Chronicle in the Light of the Evidence of the Tibetan Tumulus
Tradition,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 47 (2019): 5–159.
3 Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (ed.), Bod kyi lo
rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1–120. (Zi ling: Mtsho sngon mi
rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010–2015).
4 See Martin, Tibetan Histories. A second, expanded edition of this
invaluable resource is now in preparation.
5 For example, Michael L. Walter, Buddhism and Empire: The Political and Religious Culture of Early Tibet (Leiden: Brill, 2009), xxii–
xxv seeks to base his claims only on the most reliable early sources.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
4
Lewis Doney
stone, commissioned by the emperors (btsan po) or containing their proclamations or praise for their acts,6 then
they are found for the most part in the so-called ‘library
cave’ near Dunhuang.7 These manuscripts date from different periods between the Tibetan occupation of Dunhuang in the late eighth century and the closing of the
cave at the beginning of the eleventh century.8 Foremost
among this group are the year-by-year royal records that
However, by the end of this work Walter draws increasingly on the
later redacted versions of the Testimony of Ba tradition in making
claims about imperial Buddhist ritual (Walter, Buddhism and Empire,
186–89).
6 The term btsan po is difficult to translate but may be akin to the
term “emperor” used of the previous rulers of China or Japan. In other
words, it is an indigenous term for the sole ruler of the Tibetan state.
The term btsan po, when used alone without adjectival qualification,
is therefore inapplicable either to anyone in the same country who
has not held this position, or to the head of another state, kingdom or
empire. From the seventh century onwards, though, the Yar (k)lung
rulers were also “emperors” in the more literal sense of the term,
“ones who rule over an empire,” and the Tang dynasty (618–907)
referred to them as either zanpu or using terms meaning “emperor”
from this period onwards; see Christopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan
Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among
Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese During the Early Middle Ages.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 20. Dotson (Old Tibetan
Annals, passim) likewise uses the term “emperor” to translate btsan
po; see also Christopher I. Beckwith and Michael L. Walter, “On the
Meaning of Old Tibetan rje-blon During the Tibetan Empire Period,”
Journal Asiatique 298, no. 2 (2010): 538–39. Walter, Buddhism and
Empire, 59, n. 50, states that the term means “warrior,” which may
indeed be one of the connotations of this undoubtedly multivalent
term. Below, I refer to him as an emperor when the histories use btsan
po, and a king when rgyal po becomes his primary epithet (especially
in post-imperial histories).
7 For translations and/or transcriptions of the major Old Tibetan inscriptions, see Hugh E. Richardson, A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1985); Fang-Kuei Li and W. South
Coblin, A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions (Taipei: Institute of
History and Philology, Academica Sinica, 1987); Kazushi Iwao et al.,
Old Tibetan Inscriptions: Old Tibetan Documents Online Monograph
Series II (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of
Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2009). On the Tibetan historical sources from Dunhuang, see Géza Uray, “The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia up to 751 A.D.: A Survey,”
in Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central
Asia, ed. J. Harmatta (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), 275–304;
’Bri gung sKyabs mgon Che tshang, Tun hong bod kyi yig snying las
byung ba / bod btsan po’i rgyal rabs / (Dehradun: Songtsen Library,
2010); Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang, A History of the Tibetan Empire:
Drawn from the Dunhuang Manuscripts, trans. Meghan Howard with
Tsultrim Nakchu (Dehradun: Songtsen Library, 2011); Dotson, “The
Victory Banquet.”
8 See Akira Fujieda, “Une reconstuction de la “Bibliotheque” de
Touen-houang,” Journal Asiatique 269 (1981): 65 and Yoshiro Imaeda,
“The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang Documents,” Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 66 (2008): 81–102.
constitute the Old Tibetan Annals, and the poetic account
of imperial Tibet known as the Old Tibetan Chronicle.9 The
inscriptions and the Annals are the oldest, but should not
be taken for this reason as unbiased since they still constitute the ‘official’ self-presentation of the imperium.10
The Chronicle and other narrative Dunhuang documents
are early post-imperial depictions of, for instance, the life
and acts of the Tibetan emperors. These works build on
the positive imperial self-presentations of the empire with
the emperors cast as idealised Buddhist kings or celestial
bodhisatva-s.11 As such, all of these sources may only be
used with care, since they already partake in a ‘mythographical’ representation of the past that they narrate.12
9 Version I of the Old Tibetan Annals is found in the Bibliothèque
national de France’s scroll fragment Pelliot tibétain 1288 and the British Library’s IOL Tib J 750; and version II is contained in the latter’s
Or.8212/187. The Old Tibetan Chronicle is found in the scroll Pelliot
tibétain 1287, with associated fragments in Pelliot tibétain 1144 and
IOL Tib J 1375, and a related genealogy in Pelliot tibétain 1286. Brandon Dotson, “Sources for the Old Tibetan Chronicle: A Fragment from
the Non-extant Chronicle pothi,” in New Studies of the Old Tibetan
Documents: Philology, History and Religion, ed. Yoshiro Imaeda, Matthew T. Kapstein, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (Tokyo: Institute for the
Languages and Cultures of Africa and Asia, 2011), 231–44, constitutes
an in-depth study these sources. In a way that chimes with my intention in this chapter, Dotson concludes that “confirmation of Uray’s
observation that there existed a separate, pothi version of the Old Tibetan Chronicle also deflates the artificial canonicity that has grown
up around our extant Chronicle scroll in the seventy-odd years that
it has been studied both within Tibet and internationally” (Dotson,
“Sources for the Old Tibetan Chronicle,” 242).
10 See Lewis Doney, “Emperor, Dharmaraja, Bodhisattva? Inscriptions from the Reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan,” Journal of Research
Institute, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies 51 (2013): 63–84.
11 See Lewis Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship in Tibet: The Case of
Tri Songdétsen,” Cahiers d’Extême-Asie 24 (2015): 29–47; Lewis Doney,
“The Glorification of Eighth-Century Imperial Law in Early Tibetan
Buddhist Historiography,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 26 (2017): 6–14.
12 Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 14, use the term “mythographical” to refer to the depiction of the eighth-century Indian
tantric master, Padmasambhava, in the Testimony of Ba and other
narratives. They indicate that DBA’ 2000 “must have preceded the
great mythographical tradition” of depicting Padmasambhava
(Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 14). However, while the trajectory of mythographical representations continues towards the apotheosis of Padmasambhava as a “second Buddha” in later versions of
the Testimony of Ba, this tradition was already beginning its ascent
in the folios of DBA’ 2000. Wangdu and Diemberger seem to also have
acknowledged this in separate later articles on DBA’ 2000: Pasang
Wangdu, “King Srong btsan sgam po According to the Dba’ bzhed: Remarks on the Introduction of Buddhism into Tibet and on the Greatest
of the Tibetan Royal Ancestors,” in Territory and Identity in Tibet and
the Himalayas, ed. Katia Buffetrille and Hildegard Diemberger (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 17–32; Hildegard Diemberger, “Padmasambhava’s
Unfinished Job: The Subjugation of Local Deities as Described in the
dBa’-bzhed in Light of Contemporary Practices of Spirit Possession,”
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
Histories said to date from the eleventh century
onwards also need to be approached with caution.13
The extant versions of these texts are all later copies of
the originals and, as such, they show evidence of subsequent alteration, either as a result of their transmission or
through conscious redaction by later generations of scholars. Following Paul Ricœur, these processes should not be
seen as a degradation of a posited ‘pure’ original work,
but as part of its ongoing evolution by mimesis.14 These
influences and adaptations throughout the later tradition
of Tibetan historiography can thus be studied in their own
own right, and in a number of ways that may bear rich
fruit. However, it is important not to let anachronisms
obscure a better understanding of the creative processes
taking place beneath the surface of this work.
Both types of alteration—through transmission and
redaction—are evident in the Testimony of Ba in all of its
known versions. The exemplar titled the Dba’ bzhed—
henceforth DBA’ 2000—is transliterated and translated
in Part Two of this book.15 It is clearly a composite work,
in Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. Birgitte Kellner et al. (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien,
2007), 85–94.
13 Such historiographical sources include those claiming themselves to date from the eleventh or twelfth century, by means of historical figures mentioned in their colophons, or those that Tibetan
tradition (sometimes quite recent) attributes to Buddhist masters
from this period. Examples of the former include the Bka’ chems ka
khol ma, Maṇi bka’ ’bum, Zangs gling ma and Me tog snying po (MTN),
which are all extant in several exemplars. The most notable of the
latter type for this volume is the Mes dbon gsum gyi rnam par thar pa
(MBNTH) that is extant only in one version. A few of these works are
discussed below.
14 Paul Ricœur, Temps et récit (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983–1985),
provides a particularly perspicuous representation of the movement
of history through culture. He identifies a continual process of imitation (mimesis) in historical writing, conceived of as the constant
(re)appropriation of an object of representation (such as the Tibetan
imperial period). Ricœur divides this process into three phases, mimesis1, mimesis2 and mimesis3. The first phase is found in a pre-narrative, symbolically charged world of actions, the subject of history.
The second phase is the creation of narrative history itself, which
makes sense of the often-chaotic world of actions by means of a ‘plot’
with a beginning, middle and end. The third phase, mimesis3, occurs
when readers naturally adapt this (hi)story to their own concerns.
They are changed by the narrative and transform it within themselves
by the same process of reading. Readers can then become re-tellers,
disseminating the narrative in their own way to be re-interpreted by
their audiences. This concept of mimesis is thus a valuable tool for
theorizing the metamorphosis of histories over time and in relation
with a changing audience and culture.
15 For abbreviations of the exemplars, see the Bibliography in this
volume. The manuscript is reproduced in greyscale in Wangdu and
5
touched by a long line of transmission and by generations
of scholarly redactors, beginning perhaps in the ninth
century. The manuscript itself dates to about the fourteenth
or fifteenth century, but the main narrative stems from the
eleventh or twelfth century. The DBA’ 2000 narrative represents a later redaction of the non-extant earliest version
of the D/S/Rba(’) bzhed history of Emperor Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s reign (756–c.800).16 Some ‘proto-version’ of this
history was perhaps originally composed during the late
imperial period and then expanded, or may constitute a
later compilation of late imperial sources.17 As a result
of either process, narrative strata from six centuries of
changing Tibetan historiography are contained within the
DBA’ 2000 manuscript. The oldest of these strata describe
Khri Srong lde brtsan in ways similar to the positive imperial-period self-presentations or the Dunhuang texts’ glorifications of the empire. The interpolations and interlinear
notes then portray him from several, slightly different,
perspectives—each reflecting the time of their addition
and thus providing us with a sense of changing religious
and political values among certain Tibetan communities.18
The processes of transmission and redaction are also
evident in the wider tradition of the Testimony of Ba, as
noted above. The complex relationship between these
strata suggest that a strictly stemmatic analysis of the
data may not prove as fruitful as one that emphasises the
natural mouvance or instability of depictions of the imperial period among this textual corpus.19 The influences
Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 126–56; Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib
’jug khang (ed.), Bod kyi lo rgyus, vol. 36, 1–62, and more recently
in colour in ’Brug thar and Karma bde legs (eds.). Bod kyi snga rabs
dam pa rnams kyi gsungs chos phyag bris ma rin chen gser phreng.
(Lanzhou: Kan su’u rig gnas dpe skrun khang, 2015), vol. 9, 161–222.
My thanks to Jörg Heimbel for verifying the existence of the latter reproduction. Lastly, folios are available online on Zenodo. http://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.3359902.
16 On the variants of this title, see Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’
bzhed, 3–4.
17 See Per K. Sørensen, “Preface: dBa’/sBa bzhed: The dBa’[s]/sBa
[Clan] Testimony Including the Royal Edict (bka’ gtsigs) and the Royal
Narrative (bka’ mchid) Concerning the bSam yas Vihāra,” in dBa’
bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s
Doctrine to Tibet, ed. Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger
(Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenchaften,
2000), x.
18 See Chapter 6, below. The main additions come at the beginning
and end of DBA’ 2000—on the relations of Khri Srong lde brtsan’s
ancestors to Buddhism in Tibet (1r:1–4r:5), and its last section on the
debate between Buddhism and Bon over who should perform the
btsan po’s funeral rites (25v:1–31v:6) respectively (see Chapter 2 in
this volume).
19 I borrow these concepts from Paul Zumthor, Essai de poétique
médiévale (Paris: Seuil, 1972), 65–75, which I also addressed in the
6
Lewis Doney
driving the evolution of the Testimony of Ba tradition may
not be strictly intertextual, but draw on surrounding cultural discussions, growing trends in religious practice and
contested places of power that mean texts in this tradition resist easy analysis into archetypes, descendants and
lemmata (quotations). These problems embrace the DBA’
2000 and a number of other texts telling the same basic
story, albeit with sundry additions, omissions and alterations. Versions of the Testimony of Ba are still being published in various places around the world, attesting to its
continued popularity over more than a millennium. The
influence and redaction of the Testimony of Ba will form the
subject of this Introduction, but more information about
DBA’ 2000 is given in the chapters below and in the landmark Preface and Introduction to the translation of this
exemplar by Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger.
Previous Study of the Testimony
of Ba
In 1961, when the highly contested national identity of
Tibet was in the world’s spotlight, R.A. Stein published a
full transliteration of an important and hugely influential
Tibetan history that he titled Une chronique ancienne de
bSam-yas: sBa-bžed.20 This Sba bzhed (herein referenced
context of later biographical traditions (Doney, The Zangs gling ma,
40–41). In the context of medieval poetry, Zumthor made a connection
between the anonymity of the author and the large degree of textual
variation, or inherent mutability, in the transmission and redaction
of the ‘work’ (œuvre). He suggested that, in these contexts, the term
‘work’ should be applied to the sum of all exemplars (“la collectivité
des versions,” Zumthor, Essai de poétique médiévale, 73), rather than
the archetype from which all exemplars stem, and that the ‘work’
thus conceived is fundamentally unstable (“L’œuvre est fondamentalement mouvante,” Zumthor, Essai de poétique médiévale, 73; his
example on the same page of the variant titles of pre-fourteenth-century manuscripts resonates with the case of the variant titles: Dba’
bzhed/ ’Ba’ bzhed/ Rba bzhed/ Sba bzhed/ Bla bzhed/ Rgyal bzhed
etc.). In the same place I also referred to Jerome J. McGann, A Critique
of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1983), especially 51–54. McGann offers a similar criticism of rigidly
adhering to stemmatic analytic method in the context of some more
modern ‘works,’ but his theoretical scope also covers earlier ‘works,’
such as those of “the (mostly) anonymous scribes of the Middle Ages”
(McGann, A Critique, 53, perhaps implicitly referencing Zumthor). He
describes a ‘work’ as “a series of specific ‘texts,’ a series of specific
acts of production, and the entire process which both of these series
constitute” (McGann, A Critique, 52).
20 Rolf A. Stein, Une Chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed
(Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1961), 1–92, henceforth SBA 1961.1. This
publication consists of Stein’s comparison of two exemplars of the
as SBA 1961.1) is based on an appendicised version (zhabs
btags ma) of a work that had previously only been known
to European scholars, such as A.I. Vostrikov (1904–1937),
through references in later Tibetan histories.21
Both before and after Stein’s publication of the Sba
bzhed zhabs btags ma, Tibetologists investigated the core
narrative of the tradition, as attested in lemmata in later
Tibetan works, for the light it could shed on Tibetan history.
Most often, they mined this Testimony of Ba tradition for
same narrative, which its own colophon claims to be based on a
comparison of different versions of the narrative (SBA 1961.1, 92.1–9).
I recently found the copy of the Testimony of Ba used for this publication within the papers of Hugh Edward Richardson held at the
Bodleian Library, Oxford (box 38: 78 and 81–128). It is written in a
notebook on lined pages, and evidently photographs of these exact
pages formed the basis of SBA 1961.1. Richardson says as much on two
pieces of paper slipped into the front of the book (box 38: 79 and 80).
The latter begins: “This is a copy of SBA BZHED given me at Lat Lhasa
by Zurkhang Shappé. It is the original from which Stein’s edition is
reproduced. Some words are clearer here than in Stein.” Giuseppe
Tucci also possessed his own manuscript of the same work (here
SBA 1961.2) from the same source, Zur khang Dbang chen bde legs
(1910–1977). Tucci notes: “I possess a manuscript copy of the book,
which was kindly presented me by His Excellency Surkhang Shape”
(Giuseppe Tucci, The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings (Rome: Serie Orientale, 1950), 79, n. 59). Tucci himself used it in a discussion of the
famous Bsam yas Debate according to the Tibetan sources (Giuseppe
Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts II (Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio
ed Estremo Oriente, 1958), especially 12–59). There, he only gives the
title Sba bzhed (Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts II, VII) and rare quotations from it to support his case.
Stein brought these two exemplars together in his edition. He states
that Richardson’s copy “is not without orthographic errors. I have
collated it together with another manuscript, in dbu-med, belonging
to Mr Giuseppe Tucci. I include only noteworthy variants. I give these
after the text with references to the page and line [of the main text].”
(Stein, Une chronique, VI reads: Le manuscrit publié ici est une copie
en dbu-čan exécutée pour M. Hugh Richardson à Lhasa. Il a été choisi
comme texte de base à cause de sa clarté et la facilité de la reproduire.
Mais il n’est pas exempt de fautes d’orthographe. Il a été collationné
avec un autre manuscrit, en dbu-med, appartenant à M. Giuseppe
Tucci. Seules les variants significatives ont été retenues. Elles sont
données après le texte avec référence à la page et à la ligne.) Instead,
numbered footnotes are given, which on the whole may reflect the
variants of the Tucci manuscript. The fact that Stein’s notes continue
throughout the text, even within the zhabs btags part, strengthen the
possibility that SBA 1961.2 was also an appendicised version of the
narrative. However, Stein’s notes may not consist solely of notable
variants from Tucci’s manuscript. For instance, one of Tucci’s only
quotations from SBA 1961.2 apparently reads na za dgu ’phrug (Tucci,
Minor Buddhist Texts II, 56–57), whereas Stein amends the same reading in SBA 1961.1, 63.13 to na bza’ [dgu ’phrug] (note 213). However,
this could conceivably be a mistake on Tucci’s part.
21 See Andrej I. Vostrikov, Tibetan Historical Literature, trans. Harish
C. Gupta (Surrey: Curzon Press, 1994 [1962]), 24–26 for an early description of the work and a list of later Tibetan authors who reference it.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
the witness it provided of a debate said to have been held
in eighth-century Tibet between those who believed in the
possibility of ‘instantaneous’ (cig car ba) enlightenment,
led by the Chinese monk Hwa shang Mahāyāna (Heshang
Moheyan), and proponents of the ‘gradualist’ (rim gyis pa)
approach such as the Indian master, Kamalaśīla.22 The
main focus in these investigations was the thorny issue of
who was proclaimed victorious, since the Chinese sources
favoured Hwa shang Mahāyāna and the Tibetan (based
largely on the Testimony of Ba) pronounced Kamalaśīla
the victor.
In this section, I shall outline the uses to which the
Testimony of Ba has been put in the twentieth and early
twenty-first century. Stein followed his 1961 publication of
the Sba bzhed in 1962 with a conspectus of Tibetan civilisation that draws on SBA 1961.1 as a source for his depiction of the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet, because it
claims to go back to contemporary evidence despite some
later alteration.23 In the 1962 French edition, Stein follows
the Testimony of Ba in attributing Chinese descent to Khri
Srong lde brtsan on his mother’s side.24 However, in the
1972 translation of his book, Stein recounts its narrative
while simultaneously problematising it with reference to
earlier texts found in Dunhuang.25 He questions whether
22 Paul Demiéville, Le Concile de Lhasa: une controverse sur le
quiétisme entre Bouddhistes de l’Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe siècle de
l’ère chrétienne (Paris: Impr. Nationale de France, 1952); Tucci, Minor
Buddhist Texts III (Rome: IsMEO, 1971), especially 12–59; Daishun
Ueyama, “Donkō to Tonkō bukkyōgaku,” Tōhō gakuhō 35 (1964):
141–214; Paul Demiéville, “Récents travaux sur Touen-Houang,”
T’oung Pao 56 (1970): 1–95; Paul Demiéville, “L’Introduction au Tibet
du Bouddhisme Sinisé d’apres les Manuscrits de Touen-Houang,” in
Contributions aux Études sur Touen-Houeng, ed. Michel Soymie (Paris:
Librairie Droz, 1979), 1–16. Yoshiro Imaeda, “Documents tibétains de
Touen-Houang concernant le concile du Tibet,” Journal Asiatique 263
(1975): 125–46, continues the discussion over the Bsam yas Debate
on the basis of SBA 1961.1. He adds another layer by questioning
whether a face-to-face debate ever took place (Imaeda, “Documents
tibétains,” 140) and, as part of his discussion, dates the completed
SBA 1961.1 narrative to the fourteenth century (Imaeda, “Documents
tibétains,” 126). See below for the further insights of Flemming Faber.
23 Rolf. A. Stein, La Civilisation Tibétaines (Paris: Dunod Editeur,
1962), 34: “Mais ce qui fut l’événement décisif pour la civilisation
tibétaine à cette époque, ce fut l’adoption officielle du bouddhisme
indien par le roi. … Nous suivrons avant tout le récit le plus ancien qui
prétend remonter à des témoignages contemporains bien qu’il ait été
remanié par la suite (le Bashe, XII-XIV° siècle ?).”
24 Stein, La Civilisation Tibétaines, 33–34.
25 Primarily the Old Tibetan Annals and Old Tibetan Chronicle, as
transliterated and translated in Jaques Bacot, Frederick W. Thomas
and Charles-Gustave Toussaint, Documents de Touen-houang relatifs à l’histoire du Tibet (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
1940–1946).
7
Khri Srong lde brtsan’s mother was really Chinese (as SBA
1961.1: 4.4–10 asserts in narrative fashion), because an
entry in the Old Tibetan Annals says the Chinese queen
died in 739 CE and that he was not born until 742. Nonetheless, he leaves this question open.26
Stein then compares the famous Bsam yas Inscription,
still found on a stela at Bsam yas Monastery,27 with the
longer edict given in Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba’s (1504–
1566) religious history (chos ’byung) titled the Mkhas pa’i
dga’ ston. Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba was a rather idiosyncratic figure, to judge from his writings. The benefit
of his Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston for scholars investigating the
Testimony of Ba tradition lies largely in the long lemmata
of a number of versions of that tradition found in it.28 He
has not critically edited the texts or come to what we might
call especially text-historically informed conclusions
about which of his sources are more antique or reliable,
but despite holding his own fixed opinions about Tibetan
history (sometimes holding them in spite of the evidence
or testimony of his sources), he appears to transcribe, copy
26 Rolf A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, trans. J.E. Stapleton Driver
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972), 64. See Lewis Doney,
“Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer and the Testimony of Ba,” Bulletin of Tibetology 49, no. 1 (2013): 22–25 on the varieties of this narrative in the
Testimony of Ba tradition.
27 The important previous secondary literature on the Bsam yas
Inscription is listed in Doney, “Emperor, Dharmaraja,” 69–72, which
goes on to contextualise the inscription within the spread of imperial
Buddhism. However, Helga Uebach, “Notes on the Palaeography of
the Old Tibetan lnscriptions: Zhol and bSam yas,” in Édition, éditions:
l’ecrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir, ed. Anne Chayet et al. (Munich:
lndus Verlag, 2010), 411–28 has recently questioned the eighth-century date given in Richardson, A Corpus, 27 and elsewhere, on palaeographic grounds.
28 Connections between Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba and the Testimony of Ba tradition were further pursued in Ariane Macdonald,
“Une lecture des Pelliot Tibétain 1286, 1287, 1038, et 1290: Essai sur
la formation et l’emploi des mythes politiques dans la religion royale
de Sroṅ bcan sgam po,” in Études tibétaines, dédiées à la mémoire de
Marcelle Lalou, ed. Ariane Macdonald (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et
d’Orient, 1971), esp. 287–90, 370–71, n. 609 and 379–81. Leonard W.J.
van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and Text
of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung, a Chronicle of Buddhism in
India and Tibet,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 25 (2013): 134–36, n. 45,
states that the Testimony of Ba lemmata are not necessarily by Dpa’
bo Gtsug lag phreng ba since they are are reproduced in smaller characters in some editions of his work, but they may have been. As a side
note, van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks,” 135–36, n. 45 also argues that
the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang Blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682)
did not quote the Testimony of Ba directly but rather the Mkhas pa’i
dga’ ston’s lemmata in his history of Tibet, A History of Tibet by Ṅagdbang Blo-bzaṅ rGya-mtsho, Fifth Dalai Lama of Tibet, trans. Zahiruddin Ahmad (Bloomington: Indiana University Research Institute for
Inner Asian Studies, 1995), 51–52, 58, 61, 65–66.
8
Lewis Doney
or otherwise put down on paper the sources at his disposal
when discussing a topic, before sometimes dismissing
them based on his own sense of historical reality.29 The
Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston was published in a popular edition
from New Delhi between 1959 and 1965 and the volume that
contains the most lemmata was published in 1962.30 Their
combined witness to this tradition is henceforth referred to
as SBA 1962. Stein finds both the Bsam yas Inscription and
the account of it in the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston consistent. On
the basis of the latter, he describes the Indian Buddhism
introduced at the time of Khri Srong lde brtsan thus:
This straightforward moral code [of the Indian teachers], the ten
virtues and the ten sins, has even been ascribed to the period of
Songtsen Gampo, and it is the moral aspect of Buddhism that
Trhisong Detsen refers to in his edict.31
This leads Stein, on the next page, to suggest that Khri
Srong lde brtsan prejudged Indian Buddhism’s “gradual
path” (Madhyamaka) to be favourable to what he calls
“Chinese quietism” (Chan) in the debate between the
two at Bsam yas Monastery (SBA 1961.1, 54–62). Apparently, Stein believed that Khri Srong lde brtsan’s shorter
Bsam yas Inscription, which predates the Testimony of
Ba, corroborates the much longer proclamation preserved
and ascribed to the same emperor in the Mkhas pa’i dga’
ston.32 Stein therefore uses sources to critique SBA 1961.1’s
account of the parentage of Khri Srong lde brtsan, but else29 His treatment of sources is evident, for instance, in his treatment
of the testimony of Khu ston Brtson ’grus g.yung drung’s Lo rgyus chen
mo (see Martin, Tibetan Histories, 26, no. 7) or the Padmasambhava
biographical genre and particularly the Zangs gling ma (see Doney,
The Zangs gling ma, 38, n. 44).
30 Lokesh Chandra, ed., Mkhas-paḥi-dgaḥ-ston of Dpaḥ-bo-gtsug-lag
(also known as Lho-brag-chos-ḥbyuṅ) Part 4 (ja) (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1962). For later editions, see the
references in Martin, Tibetan Histories, 88–89, no. 168). Another edition used in this volume was reproduced from prints from Lho brag
blocks from Rumtek Monastery, Sikkim: Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’
ston: A Detailed History of the Development of Buddhism in India and
Tibet by the Second Dpa’-bo of Gnas-naṅ, Gtsug-lag-’phreṅ-ba. Reproduced from Prints from the Lho-brag block from Rumtek Monastery.
2 vols. (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun Khang, 1980). It is largely identical with the 1962 edition but its
page-setting is a dpe cha format. It will be referred to below as SBA
1980.
31 Stein, Tibetan Civilization, 67. Compare Stein, La Civilisation Tibétaines, 36: “Ce simple code moral du bouddhisme, les dix vertus
et les dix péchés, a même été attribué déjà à l’époque de Songtsen
Gampo, et c’est à cet aspect de morale bouddhique que se réfère le
roi Thisong Detsen dans son édit.”
32 On these proclamations, see Hugh E. Richardson, “The First Tibetan chos-’byung,” in High Peaks Pure Earth, ed. Michael Aris (London: Serindia, 1998 [1980]), 89–99.
where uses similar sources to ‘explain’ the apparent acts of
Khri Srong lde brtsan, as recorded in SBA 1961.1.
A similar dynamic is found in another work of the
same year, V.A. Bogoslovskij’s Essay on the Tibetan People.
Yet perhaps he privileges Chinese histories to a greater
extent than Stein. He evidently interprets Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s character more by SBA 1961.1 than by the scant
evidence of the Old Tibetan inscriptions, for instance. For
him, Chinese sources corroborate the Testimony of Ba’s
depiction of Khri Srong lde brtsan’s reign, namely that “the
second half of the eighth century was marked by major
external and internal political upheavals.”33 Furthermore,
he uses the Sino-Tibetan conflicts evidenced in the Tang
History to ‘explain’ the Bsam yas Debate.34 He says:
The Tibetan State’s foreign policy was not without influence
on the outcome of the debate. Indeed, its rulers did not wish to
advance a religion with sinophilic tendencies during this period
of tension with China.35
Here, Bogoslovskij uses readings of Sino-Tibetan relations
in the Chinese histories to give background to one Tibetan
history’s portrayal of Khri Srong lde brtsan.
Snellgrove and Richardson make greater use of the
Old Tibetan inscriptions than any other writers of this
period, in their 1968 book A Cultural History of Tibet. Yet
their interpretation is, like that of Stein and Bogoslovskij,
backed by a reading of SBA 1961.1. They evidently consider
this latter text a reasonably reliable source, since they use
it in the chapter on “history” (titled “The Introduction of
Buddhism”) rather than the chapter on “histories” (“The
Later Literary View”).36
This interesting distinction relegates inter alia biographies of the great eighth-century tantric master, Padmasambhava, from the top rank of historical sources on
33 Vladimir Bogoslovskij, Essai sur l’histoire du peuple tibétaine ou
la naissance d’une société de classes (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck,
1972), 52: “La deuxième moitié du VIIIe siècle fut marquee par d’importants bouleversements politiques, extérieurs et intérieurs.”
34 For discussion and translation of the representation of the Tibetan
empire in the Tang History (Tangshu 唐書) see most recently Sources
of Tibetan Tradition, ed. Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Matthew T. Kapstein, and
Gray Tuttle (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 6–24.
35 Bogoslovskij, Essai sur l’histoire du peuple tibétaine, 59: “la politique extérieure de l’État tibétain n’avait pas été sans influence sur
l’issue de la lutte. En effet, les dirigeants ne voulaient pas voir progresser une Église de tendance pro-chinoise pendant cette période de
tension avec la Chine.”
36 David L. Snellgrove and Hugh E. Richardson, A Cultural History
of Tibet (New York: F.A. Praeger, 1968), 78–80 uses the Testimony of
Ba as a source in its discussion of Chan/Madhyamaka and the Bsam
yas Debate.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
the imperial period.37 These biographies were used by
some scholars before the publication of SBA 1961.1.38 In
Snellgrove and Richardson’s schema, these later life-writings become objects of study as cultural artefacts, rather
than being quoted as witnesses to the events they narrate.
For example, after quoting the fourteenth-century Padma
bka’ thang’s lengthy description of the scene wherein Padmasambhava first meets Khri Srong lde brtsan, we read:
How far this quasi-historical narrative diverges from the true
course of events, the reader may be left to judge. Nevertheless,
as a piece of imaginative writing based upon historical themes
this ‘biography’ of Padmasambhava remains a quite remarkable
piece of medieval Tibetan literature.39
Snellgrove and Richardson anticipate the reader’s critical judgement in their use of the terms “quasi-historical,”
“imaginative writing,” “literature” and the ‘scare-marks’
around the word “biography.” Thus, the birth of serious
interpretations of Khri Srong lde brtsan’s own self-representations as “history” coincides with the birth of studying what were previously perceived as sources for the life
of Khri Srong lde brtsan as examples of medieval literature. Snellgrove and Richardson evidently treat the Testimony of Ba more as a source of “history” than a piece of
“literature,” however.
In the same year, the Shes rig par khang or Tibetan
Educational Printing Press, Dharamsala, published an
37 The authors position these biographies below ‘the stone inscriptions, the Tun-huang documents and the Chinese accounts’ (Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cultural History, 95) and presumably below
SBA 1961.1. The Testimony of Ba is not mentioned, though the authors
use it as a source in their discussion of the Bsam yas Debate (Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cultural History, 78–80).
38 On the twelfth-century, earliest full-length biography of Padmasambhava, see Doney, The Zangs gling ma. On the later tradition, especially the fourteenth-century Padma bka’ thang, see Lewis
Doney, “A Richness of Detail: Sangs rgyas gling pa and the Padma
bka’ thang,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37 (2016): 69–97; Lewis Doney
“Revelation and Re-evaluation: The Flourishing of Padmasambhava
Biography after Yuan Mongol Decline,” European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 52 (2018): 46–70. Tucci, Tombs of the Tibetan Kings, uses
it to discuss various aspects of the imperial Tibetan history under its
other title, the Padma thang yig. Interestingly, by 1970 Tucci classes
both the Testimony of Ba and this fourteenth-century Padmasambhava biography under “Cycles of Legends” that can nonetheless offer
a glimpse of imperial Tibet (Giuseppe Tucci, The Religions of Tibet
trans. Geoffrey Samuel (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980
[1970]), 3, 7, 9 and 312). The former cycle, which he calls the Sba bzhad
(sic), leads him to conclude that its two protagonists named Sba Gsal
snang and Sang shi were somehow responsible for Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s indecision over whether to favour Indian or Chinese Buddhism (Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, 2–3).
39 Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cultural History, 98.
9
edition of the appendicized Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma
(henceforth SBA 1968) with a preface (and perhaps edited)
by Stag lha Phun tshogs bkra shis.40 He refers to Stein’s
edition but claims that this edition is based on the original
manuscript used to make Stein’s copy, from ’Ba’ nyag Monastery in Gangtok.41 The edition is thus almost identical
to Stein’s, including its errors, and yet seemingly incorporates none of Stein’s amendments into its text. Although
the publication in South Asia of a cheaper and more easily
available edition was evidently welcome, this edition has
not been so widely cited as SBA 1961, and Dan Martin
even claims that this edition is dependent on SBA 1961.1,42
which no doubt decreased it use as a source even further.
In 1980, G.W. Houston began a second wave of interest in the Testimony of Ba by comparing the available versions in a sustained manner.43 His work transliterates and
translates SBA 1961.1, as well as the long lemmata from
the Testimony of Ba tradition in the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston
(SBA 1962), as part of a collection of sources on the Bsam
yas Debate. He also speculates on Khri Srong lde brtsan’s
character in a similar manner to the scholars above:
By outlawing Bon practices, then by stopping the Chinese Buddhist teachings, Khri srong lde brtsan solidified his empire
under his sole control. It is evident that although Khri srong lde
brtsan may not have understood all of the philosophical arguments of the two parties at the debate, he did understand politics. His political intuition told him that there must be one state
religion, and also, that he must diminish the chinese influence
upon his court. In order to reign supreme, Khri srong lde brtsan
had to declare the Rim gyis pa [gradualists] the winners.44
In spite of some shortcomings in his method, or because of
them, Houston’s work inspired a new generation of Tibetologists to revist the exemplars of the Testimony of Ba in
40 This is titled Btsan po khri srong lde btsan dang / mkhan po slob
dpon padma’i dus mdo sngags so sor mdzad pa’i sba bzhed zhabs btags
ma (Dharamsala: Shes rig par khang, 1968). It was reprinted in 2000.
41 SBA 1968, 2.14–3.1 reads: sgang tog ’ba’ nyag gdan sa par yod pa’i
ma dpe la’ang zhus btugs kyis ’di ga d+ha ram sa la’i shes rigs par
khang du ’debs bgyis.
42 Martin, Tibetan Histories, 23.
43 Garry W. Houston, Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate
(Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980). In the same year,
Craig E. Watson translated part of Stein’s SBA 1961.1 (83.5–89.7), concerning the beginning of the second diffusion (phyi dar) of Buddhism
after the fall of the Tibetan empire; Craig E. Watson, “The Introduction of the Second Propagation of Buddhism in Tibet According to
R.A. Stein’s Edition of the Sba-bzhed,” Tibet Journal 5, no. 4 (1980):
20–25. The ‘critical transcription’ that Watson, “The Introduction,” 20
suggests is contained in the article is missing, though his notes (pp.
25–26) offer some corrections to the text.
44 Houston, Sources, 9–10, with his underlining of proper nouns.
10
Lewis Doney
a more thorough philological fashion. van der Kuijp criticised Houston’s methods and offers his own analysis of
the Testimony of Ba tradition, in a 1984 review article concerning the Bsam yas Debate. It concludes that “philological weeding thus becomes an essential precondition for
any justified use of the ‘Sba-bzhed’ as a reliable historical
source.”45 In this review article, van der Kuijp also brings
to the attention of scholarship a newly published version
of the Sba bzhed.46
This source is titled Sba bzhed ces bya ba las sba gsal
snang gi bzhed pa (henceforth cited as SBA 1982). It is an
eclectic edition of three manuscripts (SBA 1982.1–3) that
Mgon po rgyal mtshan edited together while adding interlinear notes. It is thus not an exemplar of the Testimony
of Ba, but well represents a certain redaction of it. SBA
1982 lacks the zhabs btags appendix, but this is only the
most obvious of many differences between SBA 1961.1
and SBA 1982, as Tibetologists soon discovered. In 1990,
Jinhua Tong and Bufan Huang published the first complete translation of the Testimony of Ba, based on this edition.47 Tong also wrote an article on the authorship and
major Sino-Tibetan themes of the tradition around the
same time.48 This was followed in 1996 with Dbyangs can
45 Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution
on/to the Bsam-yas Debate,” Kailash 9, nos. 3–4 (1984): 180.
46 van der Kuijp, “Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution,” 178–79.
47 Jinhua Tong, and Bufan Huang, “Ba xie” (zeng bu ben) yi zhu
(Chengdu: Sichuan min zu chu ban she, 1990).
48 Jinhua Tong, “Lun ‘Bashi,’” Zangzu Wenxue Yanjiu/ Bod kyi rtsom
rig zhib ’jug (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1992), 64–85.
According to van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks,” 134, n. 45, it was first
published in Zangxue Yanjiu Wen (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe)
in 1989. The article describes the Testimony of Ba’s exemplars, authorship, dating—ostensibly the eighth century but probably in the second
diffusion (phyi dar) after the tenth century—during which Tong provides brief descriptions of ’Ba’ Sang shi and Dba’ Gsal snang, then recounts passages in the text related to Tang-Tibet relations in precis and
quotation: The marriage of Khri Lde gtsug brtsan to Jincheng and birth
of Khri Srong lde brtsan (contrasted with the Dunhuang evidence), the
civilising influence of Buddhism against Bon, culminating in Chinese
influence (through Dba’ Sang shi), the anti-Buddhist acts of the indigenous religion, the continuation of the Buddhist religion by Khri Lde
gtsug brtsan (=Khri Gtsug lde brtsan?), the building and consecration
of Bsam yas (Padmasambhava is mentioned briefly here alone), and
the Bsam yas Debate (in which the two versions are suggested to reflect a series of historical debates, in some of which the Chinese side
is stronger). In conclusion (and in Tong, “Lun ‘Bashi,’” 75 f.) the author argues that Testimony of Ba shows Tibetan historians to be skillful
folklorists, and that Chinese influence has been positively civilising
and well received by them from the Tubo period onwards. Tong ends
with words of praise for the literary merits of the tradition:
In short, when describing historical events, the Sba bzhed is meticulous, detailed, and often adopts folklore story techniques,
and is full of myth and legend. Therefore, it is an excellent work
mtsho’s discussion of the Testimony of Ba,49 in which the
exemplars SBA 1962/ SBA 1982 are considered to reflect the
short or condensed recension (bsdus pa), the source mentioned in SBA 1962, 89v:6 as the Bsam yas dkar chag chen
mo is the middle length recension (’bring po, as it is also
named in that source), and SBA 1961.1 reflects the long
recension (rgyas pa).50 The article goes on to lay out the
subject matter of the Testimony of Ba, its value for history
and impact on Tibetan historiography.51 A 2003 entry
by Bis mdo Rdo rje rin chen in a Tibetan encyclopaedia
largely recounts the historical details of the Testimony of
Ba but also briefly discusses its authorship and proposes
a three-fold recension in the tradition, all following traditional sources.52 Neither author mentions Tong and
Huang’s translation or any secondary literature on the
tradition. Another work in Tibetan, published this time in
India in 2005, focuses on the Bsam yas Debate.53 It brings
in traditional Tibetan sources including SBA 1982 and SBA
1962, but also Chinese and Dunhuang manuscripts (for the
Chinese account of the debate), the secondary literature of
Demiéville, Imaeda and the sources and insights of David
Seyfort Ruegg (see below).
Returning to the 1980s, a marked improvement
on Houston’s work was that of Flemming Faber.54 He
also criticises Houston and makes more rigorous use of
sources including long passages resembling SBA 1961.1–2
in the newly published manuscript edition of the Me tog
snying po (henceforth MTN), a religious history attributed
to Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124–1192).55 Faber notes, for
in the early Tibetan period that is full of love, history and culture
[总之,《巴协》在记述历史事件时,细致具体,周密翔实,常
采民间传说故事手法,并富神化传奇色彩。所以, 它是藏族
早期的一本文情并茂,亦史亦文,不可多得的佳作。] (Tong,
“Lun ‘Bashi,’” 87)
49 Dbyangs can mtsho, “‘Sba bzhed’ kyi rtsom pa po dang de’i lo
rgyus rig pa’i rin thang la dpyad pa,” Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig/ China
Tibetology 4 (1996): 79–86.
50 Dbyangs can mtsho, “Sba bzhed,” 81. See also Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 2 and 69, n. 234. I propose a different three-fold
division of the tradition below.
51 Dbyangs can mtsho, “Sba bzhed,” 83–85.
52 Bis mdo Rdo rje rin chen, “‘Sba bzhed’ las ’byung ba’i don chen
’ga’i dogs dpyod,” in Bod kyi yig rnying zhib ’jug, ed. Kha sgang Bkra
shis tshe ring (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003), 450–55.
53 Penpa Dorjee/ Span pa rdo rje, An Analytic Study on Samye Debate/ Bsam yas rtsom pa (Sarnath, India: Central Institute of Higher
Tibetan Studies, 2005). My thanks to Tenzin Ghegay of the Shantarakshita Library, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, for granting
me access to this work.
54 Flemming Faber, “The Council of Tibet according to the sBa
bzhed,” Acta Orientalia 47 (1986): 33–61.
55 Richard O. Meisezahl, Die große Geschichte des Tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition (Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsver-
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
instance, a mention of Ting nge ’dzin in this source “not in
BZC [SBA 1982] or the CBKhG [Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston i. e. SBA
1962], indicating that Nyang ral has used the same version
of the Sba bzhed as we find in the BZS [SBA 1961.1].”56 He
argues that the recension of the Testimony of Ba standing
behind the exemplar SBA 1982 is the extensive one, not
the ancestor of SBA 1961.1, despite the latter’s appendix
making it appear larger today.57 He also suggests a later
date for the latter recension by drawing attention to the
citation of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s (1290–1364) religious
history of 1322 (the Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed
chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod) at SBA
1961.1, 54.10: gsung rab rin po che’i bang mdzod du … .58
Based in part on Faber’s study, David Seyfort Ruegg
then analysed the representation of the Bsam yas Debate
in SBA 1961.1, SBA 1962, SBA 1982 and MTN in his 1989
monograph Buddha-Nature.59 His analysis is excellent,
but the results occasionally only deepen the mystery of
the relation of the versions. For example, he points out
an inconsistency among the texts’ attributions of the
speeches to famous Tibetans:
lag, 1985); see also Doney, The Zangs gling ma, 19–22. Leonard W.J.
van der Kuijp had already made some use of this source in his article
“On the Sources for Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Notes on the Bsam yas Debate,”
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 9, no. 2
(1986): 147–53, a proposed revision to the argument of David Jackson,
“Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Account of the Bsam yas Debate: History as Polemic,” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
5, no. 1 (1982): 89–99. There, van der Kuijp argues: “The very close, at
times virtually literal correspondence between the wording of Nyang
ral’s account and the various notices in several of Sa paṇ’s texts can
only lead one to conclude that either Sa paṇ made use of Nyang ral’s
Chos ’byung, or that both derive their information from a third, as of
yet unknown, earlier source” (van der Kuijp, “On the Sources,” 148).
56 Faber, “The Council of Tibet,” 44. The extent of the quotation from
the Testimony of Ba tradition in the last part of the MTN is analysed
and the attribution of at least this section (if not the whole MTN) to
Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer is questioned in Daniel A. Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born: Padmasambhava in the History of Tibet’s
Golden Age (Somerville, MA: Wisdom), 141–75. The looser adaptation
of episodes from the same tradition within the MTN account of the
reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan preceding this section is explored in
Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer.”
57 Faber, “The Council of Tibet,” 41.
58 Faber, “The Council of Tibet,” 39–40. It has long been known that
this history itself quotes the Testimony of Ba at length, see Vostrikov,
Tibetan Historical Literature, 25, n. 56 and most recently van der
Kuijp, “Some Remarks.” Faber (“Council of Lhasa,” 42) also argues
that Bu ston Rin chen grub probably had access to ancestors of both
SBA 1961.1 and also SBA 1982.1–3.
59 David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, Mind and the Problem of
Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and
Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet (London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London, 1989), 68–92.
11
It should be noted, moreover, that the words ascribed to Dpal
dbyangs in this Chos ’byung [MTN, 433a–33b], in one version
of the Sba bzhed (G [SBA 1982], p. 70) and in the Mkhas pa’i
dga’ ston ([SBA 1962] ja, f. 117b) are ascribed in the Zhabs btags
ma version of the Sba bzhed (S [SBA 1961.1], p. 59) to a certain
Sang shi, a name (or title) borne by another member of the ’Ba
family…60
In other words, Ruegg notices that SBA 1962 and SBA
1982 agree, against SBA 1961.1, and adds further that MTN
follows the former two over the latter.
Standing back from these details, Ruegg questions the
worth of applying Yoshiro Imaeda’s fourteenth-century
dating of the Sba bzhed (mentioned in footnote 22) to the
core underlying narrative common to the entire Testimony
of Ba tradition:
In sum, despite the fact that the Supplemented Version of the
Sba bzhed published by Stein [SBA 1961.1] must for reasons
mentioned above be considered as a whole to be much later
than the eighth century, and although the recensions of the Sba
bzhed now available to us differ in wording and in many details,
there would nevertheless seem to exist no compelling reason
to reject as completely spurious and unreliable the matter on
which the recensions agree in substance … and that we thus
have reflected (however indirectly) in our texts of the Sba bzhed
the major views of the participants in these events.61
In a later essay, he is more direct: “It could nevertheless
be that these Sba records go back at least in their core to
a time soon after the Great [Bsam yas] Debate, and in any
case to the time of the Yar klungs dynasty in the early ninth
century.”62 In this he specifies their content, not their language—though the exemplars do contain some archaisms
(see Chapter 4, below).
Ruegg also rightly criticises interpretations of the
political aspects of the Bsam yas Debate, such as he finds
in the work of Demiéville (and we have seen above in that
of Bogoslovskij):
60 Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 79. Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed,
83 n. 318 agrees with Ruegg in its analysis of the Bsam yas Debate,
while adding the witnesses of DBA’ 2000 and Bu ston Rin chen grub’s
religious history chos ’byung:
Sba bzhed A ([SBA 1961.1] 59) gives Sang shi [as the interlocutor
here,] as does the Dba’ bzhed [DBA’ 2000]. Sba bzhed B ([SBA
1982] 70) and Sba bzhed C ([SBA 1962] 388) [and MTN] give Dpal
dbyangs instead, and this corresponds to what is given in the Bu
ston chos ’byung (189).
61 Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 71.
62 David Seyfort Ruegg, “On the Tibetan Historiography and Doxography of the ‘Great Debate of bSam yas,’” in Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Narita 1989, ed. Shōren Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi (Narita:
Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), vol. 1, 240.
12
Lewis Doney
It will also be far from the mark—and quite anachronistic—to
regard the “Great Debate” as a more or less politically motivated confrontation between the Indians and Chinese as rival
powers in Central Asia. … Accounts found in Tibetan historical
literature in fact seem to reflect the Tibetans’ attempts either to
rediscover their early history or to constitute tradition, or even
do both of these things at the same time. As a consequence,
the “Great Debate” of Bsam yas often appears in this literature
more as a semi-historical topos than as an historical event, and
the Hva shang Mahāyāna as a more or less dehistoricized and
emblematic figure standing as it were for a certain typological
variety of Buddhism.63
He instead highlights the doctrinal opposites at play in
this debate, and their importance in shaping later Tibetan
Buddhist orthodoxy. In this respect, Ruegg is closer to
Snellgrove and Richardson in emphasising the later
remembrance of the Bsam yas Debate. Yet, his interests are
more doctrinal than political, and he makes the first steps
toward examining the Testimony of Ba tradition as made
up of expressions of cultural ideas rather than sources on
an actual historical event. Other important secondary literature on the Bsam yas Debate can be found in Chapter 5
of this volume.
In 1994, Per K. Sørensen published his translation of
the Rgyal rabs Gsal ba’i me long, a text completed in 1368.
There, in notes and supplementary material, Sørensen
undertakes the first major comparison of the entire narratives of SBA 1961.1, SBA 1962 and SBA 1982 with MTN,
along with other sources.64 One source of especial interest
is the Mes dbon gsum rnam thar (henceforth MBNTH).65
The title of this work suggests a biographical anthology
that comprises three biographies of Tibet’s imperial dharma-kings, Khri Srong brtsan/ Srong btsan sgam po, Khri
Srong lde brtsan and Khri Gtsug lde brtsan/ Ral pa can.
Yet, in reality it consists of two works joined together: a
biography of Srong btsan sgam po, in the tradition of the
Bka’ chems ka khol ma or the Maṇi bka’ ’bum’s Lo rgyus
63 Ruegg, “On the Tibetan Historiography,” 239–40.
64 Per K. Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, An Annotated Translation of the XIVth
Century Tibetan Chronicle Rgyal-rabs Gsal-ba’i Me-long (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1994).
65 MBNTH: “Mi rje lhas mdzad byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’
chen po chos rgyal mes dbon rnam gsum gyi rnam par thar pa rin po
che’i phreng ba,” in Rin chen gter mdzod chen po’i rgyab chos (Paro:
Ugyan Tempai Gyaltsen, 1980), vol. 7. The publisher’s attributed this
work to Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer, but the attribution was rightly questioned in János Szerb, “Two Notes on the Sources of the Chos-’byung
of Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub,” in Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays
in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie ed. Lawrence Epstein and Richard Sherbourne (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 143–48. Szerb, “Two Notes,”
146, n. 4 suggests that the work may date to the fourteenth century.
chen mo, and a retelling of Khri Srong lde brtsan’s reign
and the history of Buddhism after his death based on an
ancestor of SBA 1961.1, but with its own minor omissions
and additions.66 Sørensen traces the origin of the shared
Testimony of Ba narrative back to a no-longer extant Bsam
yas ka gtsigs chen mo narrating the building of Bsam yas
Monastery during the reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan.67 This
echoes the findings of Philip Denwood in his 1990 article
on the origins of the Testimony of Ba.68 Sørensen’s analysis also shows the extent to which the Testimony of Ba
66 See Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer.” The quotation from the
Testimony of Ba in MBNTH begins on 82r:6 and the first omission that
marks its divergence against SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 1962 in agreement
with the Testimony of Ba 3 is at 82v:6. MBNTH continues to quote
the bzhabs btags ma recension (including the appendix, again with
minor divergences) right up to folio 150r:1 (corresponding to SBA
1961.1, 91.6).
67 See Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography, 9–12. Sørensen
also writes in concluding his bibliographic entry on the Testimony of
Ba (Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography, 633–35):
BZH [i.e the Testimony of Ba], CHBYMTNYP ([MTN] ab 292a5 ff.,
though interspersed with lengthy sub-sections), MBNTH followed by the lDe’u versions (GBCHY, DCHBY) display a fair degree of correspondence in the chain of events related, suggesting
that they draw from a common proto-version of BZH, possible
Bsam-yas Ka-gtsigs chen mo (cf. the Introduction). Nyang-ral,
moreover, has employed a version identical or cognate to the
Chin. ed. of BZH [SBA 1982], while he cites a part of its colophon
([MTN] 439b3–6), but, most surprisingly, Nyang-ral (ab 440a6,
cf ad note 1385 ff.) shares long verbatim passages with the annotated version of BZH (found in Stein ed. [SBA 1961.1]), which indicates that the so-called zhabs btags ma, was in circulation and
inserted (?) into a BZH-version already in the XI-XIIth century.
Dan Martin is currently preparing a translation of the Lde’u chos
’byung that will no doubt address both the sources Sørensen cites here
as Lde’u versions, so at present I shall leave them out of this analysis. See Dan Martin, A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet: An Expanded Version of the Dharma’s Origin in India and Tibet Made by the
Learned Scholar Lde’u (Boston: Wisdom Publications, forthcoming).
68 Philip Denwood, “Some Remarks on the Status and Dating of
the sBa bzhed,” The Tibet Journal 15. no. 4 (1999): 135–48. Denwood,
“Some Remarks,” 135–41 argues that the application of the term bka’
gtsigs (and variants) to the Testimony of Ba could not have been in
the fourteenth or even twelfth century, since the meaning of the term
(bka’) gtsigs dates from the imperial period, meaning ‘charter’ (and
occasionally ‘treaty’) and its meaning was not remembered much
past the fall of the empire. He concludes that the Testimony of Ba
may have originally been a charter that Khri Srong lde brtsan disseminated to the Dba’(s) clan and/or after the Bsam yas Debate that
was expanded over the centuries, or perhaps an imperial-period narrative that was not originally a charter had the term attached to it
(Denwood, “Some Remarks,” 146 and 144). Whichever is more likely,
“the use of the term bka’ gtsigs in connection with the Sba bzhed goes
back to the royal period, and that it lends the work some degree of
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
tradition influenced the later genre of Tibetan Buddhist
historiography.
Mathew Kapstein, in his 2000 book The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, focuses almost exclusively on what
Snellgrove and Richardson had called “literature,” rather
than “history,” whether discussing the representation of
reality offered by the Tibetologist, the Tibetan histories or
Khri Srong lde brtsan himself. Though he begins with a
scientific chronology that includes Khri Srong lde brtsan’s
conversion, military activities and the Bsam yas Debate,
he admits on the first page of his introduction:69
The scholar as contextualiser must in the end be a myth maker,
spinning tales of reason, truth, and history, in virtue of which
the actions, arts, sciences and myths of persons elsewhere and
elsewhen may become somehow more intelligible for us than
they would have been otherwise.
Here, the scholar seeks to contextualise the “elsewhere”
(Tibet) and “elsewhen” (pre-1400 CE) for “us,” the reader,
but the object can only become more intelligible, never
fully known. His primary foci are the worlds that the Testimony of Ba and Padmasambhava biographies create,
as narratives of the conversion of Khri Srong lde brtsan
and Tibet.70 He explains elements that previous scholars
discussed as “history,” such as Khri Srong lde brtsan’s
Chinese mother and his invitation of Padmasambhava to
Tibet, as literary episodes that owe more to other texts and
traditions than to their groundings in reality (whatever
they may be).71 In a long endnote, Kapstein discusses the
official status” (Denwood, “Some Remarks,” 146), meaning that the
Testimony of Ba is not a twelfth-century or later invention.
69 Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, xvii.
70 Anne-Marie Blondeau had already carried out important groundwork in this regard; Anne-Marie Blondeau, “Conférence de Mme
Anne-Marie Blondeau,” École pratique des hautes études, Section des
sciences religieuses. Annuaire 99, 1990–1991 (1990): 69–74. In that
contribution, she compares the representation of Padmasambhava in
SBA 1961.1, SBA 1962 and SBA 1982 and concludes that they are generally consistent in their outline and in narrating that Padmasambhava
left Tibet before Bsam yas was built, the first monks were ordained or
Bon was suppressed (Blondeau, “Conférence,” 69–72). She also notes
that, whereas in later Tibetan tradition the title mkhan po is applies
to Śāntarakṣita and slob dpon to Padmasambhava, in the Testimony
of Ba they are used interchangeably, perhaps leading to confusion
as to which master performed which actitivities in Tibet (Blondeau,
“Conférence,” 72).
71 See Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, 23–37 on Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s Chinese mother; Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, 46–50
and 155–62 on his invitation of Padmasambhava. Later works follow
this lead, such as Ronald Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric
Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). Davidson begins with the fall of the Tibetan empire in the ninth century and only ever refers to Khri Srong lde brtsan
13
redaction of the Testimony of Ba tradition, and concludes
that “[it] seems most likely [that] the expanded redaction
represented by the Richardson-Stein text [SBA 1961.1]
had in its ancestry a text closely resembling the Beijing
edition [SBA 1982].”72 This is part of the conclusion to
which I came independently and to which I shall return
below. Yet, Kapstein’s use of “expanded” here suggests
that he does not know of (or has not accepted) Faber’s
point that the recension of the Testimony of Ba standing
behind the exemplar SBA 1982 is actually the extensive
one, not the ancestor of SBA 1961.1—despite the latter’s
appendix making it today appear a little larger.73
In the same year, that is 2000, Wangdu and Diemberger
published their translation and facsimile of a manuscript
from Lhasa, whose title they translate as: “The dBa’ bzhed,
the royal narrative concerning the bringing of the Buddha’s doctrine to Tibet.”74 The Preface and Introduction
to this work stress the difference between the Dba’ bzhed
and the later tradition. Wangdu and Diemberger seem to
portray and the main content of DBA’ 2000 as a shorter
and earlier version of the Testimony of Ba that lacks many
of the latter’s “mythographical” elements:
In the Dba’ bzhed there is no mention of the legendary assumption of power by Khri Srong lde brtsan during his childhood, nor
of the story that Gyim Shang Kong co [the Chinese princess] was
the true mother of Khri Srong lde brtsan, which are given in the
Sba bzhed versions.75
They use these “historical correspondences with the
dynastic sources” over the later tradition to suggest that
the literary construct: whether of the Testimony of Ba (Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 65 and 219–21), later Buddhist histories (pp. 87
and 269) or Bon histories (pp. 12–13 and 212), apocryphal writings
suggesting only a later mood (p. 22), or Buddhist treasure texts including the Padmasambhava biographies (pp. 214 and 230–31). Reference to these different representations is enough to show how many
Khri Srong lde brtsans exist in the Tibetan texts, and Davidson evidently feels no compulsion to compare them or distinguish fact from
fiction in each case.
72 Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, 214, n. 25.
73 Faber, “The Council of Tibet,” 41.
74 Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, Plates. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, 214, n. 25 states that he was already aware of the
manuscript in 1998 and was able to benefit from discussions on it
with Pasang Wangdu in Lhasa. Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs
may also have quoted extensively from this manuscript’s Zas gtad
appendix concerning debates over how to perform Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s funeral. See Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs (ed.), Bod kyi
lo rgyus rags rim g.yu yi phreng ba (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe
rnying dpe skrun khang, 1989), vol. 1, 334–43; Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography, 602–603, n. 35.
75 Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 13.
14
Lewis Doney
DBA’ 2000 may be a comparatively early historical narrative, but their notes throughout the text never go so far
as to claim its access to the “history” of Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s reign on a par with “the dynastic sources.”76
Wangdu and Diemberger’s publication has significantly benefited the study of early Tibetan Buddhism,
inspiring a third generation of interest in the Testimony
of Ba. Putting aside the obvious value of DBA’ 2000 for
assessing the actual reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan that it
claims to narrate,77 or for gaining anthropological insights
into the Buddhification of Tibet,78 this manuscript helps
us immeasurably to see the process of redaction of the Testimony of Ba in the later exemplars. Also of great value for
charting the trajectory of the narrative was Sam van Schaik
and Kazushi Iwao’s discovery of fragments of what seems
to be the Testimony of Ba among the British Library manuscripts from the Mogao cave complex near Dunhuang.79
As Chapter 3 of this volume makes clear, it is difficult to
establish whether these fragments, together referred to as
the BL fragment, constitute one side of a folio intended
for an earlier version of the Testimony of Ba, or part of an
independent narrative that was also incorporated into the
Testimony of Ba tradition.80 Nevertheless, they show the
76 See also Wangdu, “King Srong btsan sgam po.” One exception to
this may be Wangdu and Diemberger’s discussion of Padmasambhava, who they claim may have actually introduced to Tibet “the
sophisticated irrigation systems used in his land of origin”; Wangdu
and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 14. See footnote 12, above.
77 See, for instance, Michael Willis, “From World Religion to World
Dominion: Trading, Translation and Institution-building in Tibet,”
in Religions and Trade Religious Formation, Transformation and
Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West, ed. Peter Wick and
Volker Rabens (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 231–59. That contribution also
includes a detailed analysis of the DBA’ 2000 manuscript and a discussion and dating of its interlinear notes and end section, though
see now Chapter 2.
78 Diemberger, “Padmasambhava’s Unfinished Job.”
79 Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament
of Ba from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128,
no. 3 (2008): 477–88. This article has now been translated into Tibetan by Dongzhi Duojie, “Ton hong gter yig las sba bzhed kyi shog
hrul yi ge’i skor,” Bod ljongs slob grwa chen mo’i rig deb/, Journal of
Tibet University 4 (2012): 37–48.
80 van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba,” 484,
are tentatively of the former opinion. Though they are careful not to
refer to the BL fragment as part of an exemplar of the Testimony of Ba,
they conclude: “Though merely fragments, it is clear that they were
once part of a well-prepared and finely written manuscript, probably of much greater length” (van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the
Testament of Ba,” 484). The expert handwriting, and the fact that
the episode could not have started on line 1 or been concluded on
line 6, supports the first part of this argument. I am still unsure how
much ‘of much greater length’ the original text could have been, as
the authors claim. In the form in which the BL fragment have come
strata of narrative tradition that went into the Testimony,
and the redaction undertaken by scholars and copyists
over the tenth and eleventh centuries to create the core
drama that unfolds between folios 4v and 25r of the DBA’
2000 manuscript transcribed and translated in Part Two
of this volume.
Recently Published Exemplars of
the Testimony of Ba
In the last few years, a number of exemplars of the Testimony of Ba have appeared that help assess the different
recensions of the tradition. In 2009, the ‘Rba bzhed’ phyogs
bsgrigs was published.81 This contains a transcription of
a Sba bzhed (80–158, henceforth SBA 2009.1) without a
bzhabs btags supplementary end section and resembling
SBA 1982, and a Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma (159–236, SBA
2009.2) resembling SBA 1961.1–2. This is in addition to a
faithful transliteration of SBA 1961.1 (1–79) and a transcription into dbu can of the DBA’ 2000 manuscript (237–81).82
down to us, the narrative could represent an excerpt from a ninth or
tenth-century Dba’ bzhed, or they could instead form part of a short
narrative on Śāntarakṣita that was copied and adapted for use in the
Testimony of Ba. Such a short narrative on Śāntarakṣita would be akin
to Pelliot tibétain 44’s narrative on Padmasambhava, on which see
Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur
pa from Dunhuang (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2008), 41–67.
81 Bde skyid (ed.), ‘Rba bzhed’ phyogs bsgrigs / bde skyid kyis
bsgrigs / (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe’i skrun khang, 2009). In the same year
was published Tshe ring don grub (ed.), Bsam yas dkar chag (Gansu:
Kan su’i mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009), consisting of a transcription
of SBA 1982 (pp. 1–104), DBA’ 2000 (105–61) and SBA 1961.1 (or a dependent exemplar) with unique amendments (163–268) as well as a
Zhang zhung-Tibetan dictionary (269–313) seemingly corresponding
to the Zhu yas nyi ma grags pas mdzad pa’i zhang bod kyi sgra bsdebs
(an undated xylograph held in digital form in the BDRC under Resource ID W8LS16829).
82 SBA 2009.1, SBA 2009.2 and the transliteration of SBA 1961.1 (Bde
skyid, Rba bzhed, 1–79) are used in the critical edition and English
translation of the portion of the Sba bzhed bzhab btags ma covering Padmasambhava’s sojourn in Tibet and the Buddhist-Bon po debate by Shin’ichi Tsumagari, “Bashey With Supplement: A Critical
Edition of the Tibetan Text and an Annotated Translation (4)” 宗教
学年報/ Annual Review of Religious Studies 30 (2013), 193–210. Like
Wangdu and Diemberger, his notes to the translation give variants,
but no firm conclusion about affiliation. They also provide useful
information on the people, places and things covered in that portion of the Testimony of Ba. The critical edition consists of a single
text drawn from SBA 1961.1, SBA 1968, SBA 2009.1, SBA 2009.2, the
transliteration of SBA 1961.1 (Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 1–79), SBA 1962
and DBA’ 2000 with no footnotes containing variants or explana-
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
As the title suggests, the collection (phyogs bsgrigs) was
apparently compiled (bsgrigs) by a certain Bde skyid,
who has done a less-than-perfect job of transcribing
DBA’ 2000.83 However, his transcription of SBA 1961.1 is
a marked improvement.84 Thus, at least some limited
trust can be placed in his transcription of the other two
tions of why readings in some of those exemplars have been rejected.
The transcription of DBA’ 2000 in Bde skyid, Rba bzhed is used in
a discussion of the (unfortunately still named) “Lhasa Debate” as
politico-doctrinal res gestae literature by Michal Synek, “Doktrína a
politika lhaské debaty: Obraz samjäské tradice v kronice Baže,” Sacra
10, no. 1 (2012): 5–32.
83 Comparing Bde skyid’s transcription (Bde skyid, Rba bzhed,
237–81) with that in Part Two of this volume, a few things stand out.
Names such as “Lha tho tho ri snyan btsan” (Bde skyid, Rba bzhed,
237) are given in the later traditional spellings, overriding the DBA’
2000 manuscript’s spellings (e. g. “lha tho do re snyan btsan”) without marking these alterations as editorial interventions. Numerous
scribal mistakes are not weeded out, such as giving Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s name as “Khri Gtsug lde btsan” at Bde skyid, Rba bzhed,
237.5 and vice versa at Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 237.6 (thus placing the
ninth-century emperor before his eighth-century ancestor in the list).
Bde skyid’s edition ignores some of the interlinear notes (for instance
the one identifying Khri Gtsug lde btsan as “Ral pa can” that would
have alerted the editor to his above mistake), while making mistakes
in the placement of others (the de la preceding the note given at 237.7–
9, beginning rgya gar gyi yi ge drug pa…, is repeated redundantly after
this note). Some interlinear notes are transcribed as part of the main
text rather than as a note. For instance, Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 237.11
provides no parentheses to mark the last interlinear note to 1v:3: yun
bu gla sgang gnyan gyi mdzod du sbas te as a note. This is an error
that also occurs in Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 25. These
mistakes and minor misreadings or scribal errors (e. g. bu for bur, Bde
skyid, Rba bzhed, 237.8) make this transcription a little untrustworthy
without recourse to the original manuscript, which is not included
in this 2009 edition. See also Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “A Hitherto
Unknown Religious Chronicle: from Probably the Early Fourteenth
Century,” Bod rig pa’i dus deb/ Zangxue xuekan/ Journal of Tibetology
7 (2011): 71 for his assessment.
84 Bde skyid includes most of the variants from SBA 1961.1 and follows them with Stein’s notes in parentheses. However, this is not always the case, and so for instance at Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 2.5 gives:
zhang blon kun rtsed blo chag brel bas … where SBA 1961.1, 14–15
reads: zhang kun rtse bro chag brel bas … . SBA 1968, 5.9–10 reads:
zhang kun rtse bro chag brel bas … too, so this is not the source of
Bde skyid’s reading here. Thus, unless Bde skyid is in fact copying a
completely different exemplar (that in most other respects is identical
to SBA 1961.1), it seems most likely that Bde skyid at points alters the
exemplar’s text—sometimes following Stein’s notes and sometimes
not—without acknowledging the fact. Given that SBA 1961.1 and SBA
1968 are no longer published and so scarce, scholars in the last decade have begun to use Bde skyid, Rba bzhed as a go-to source for the
Zhab btags ma recension if not most exemplars of the Testimony of
Ba. See, for example, Rme ru Yul lha thar, “Sba bzhed kyi dpar gzhi’i
skor dang des bod kyi lo rgyus rig gzhung la thebs pa’i shugs rkyen
skor las ’phros pa’i gtam,” Bod ljongs zhib ’jug 4 (2012): 85–92. For
the reasons given above, reliance on Bde skyid, Rba bzhed is not ad-
15
texts, whose provenance De skyid does not discuss in his
introduction. As mentioned above, SBA 1982 is an eclectic edition of three manuscripts (SBA 1982.1–3). It may be
hoped that only a single manuscript is transcribed as SBA
2009.1. Is it too much to hope that it is one of the exemplars
forming the basis of SBA 1982? The text bears a similar
title, but contains some minor differences from SBA 1982
that place it closer to SBA 1961.1–2.85 However, it lacks that
supplementary zhabs btags end section, and so is not a
part of that recension.
In 2010, Longs khang Phun tshogs rdo rje published
a collection titled Dba’ bzhed, which includes a far better
transcription of the DBA’ 2000 manuscript (pp. 1–58),86
transcriptions of SBA 1982 (59–157) and SBA 1961.1 (158–
258), and a curious work entitled Rba bzhed (259–318). van
der Kuijp noticed that the majority of the narrative in this
latter text was completely different from the Testimony of
Ba tradition, and by analysing the end portion was able to
date this history to the early fourteenth century.87 However,
he did not see that the opening narrative (259–70.1) is very
similar to that of DBA’ 2000 folios 1–7r.
vised if one wishes to be certain that one is accurately quoting these
sources.
85 Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 80.1–2: sba bzhed ces bya ba las / sba gsal
snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs /.
86 Longs khang Phun tshogs rdo rje (ed.), Dba’ bzhed (Lhasa: Bod
ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skun khang, 2010). Phun tshogs rdo
rje has retained the archaic spellings and the interlinear notes. These
are mostly marked as such with parentheses, though one mistake
is to transcribe the interlinear note to 1v:3, which reads yun bu gla
sgang gnyan gyi mdzod du sbas te, but not to mark it as an annotation.
Strangely, the same mistake is made in the transcription in Bde skyid,
Rba bzhed, 237.11 and the translation in Wangdu and Diemberger,
dBa’ bzhed, 25 (see the note above). Some useful editorial suggestions are given in angle brackets (<…>) after the original words are
faithfully transcribed. He also correctly identifies the Zas gtad end
narrative as a semi-separate entity (Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed,
49–58). Naturally, Phun tshogs rdo rje made some errors in reading
the text. Some more modern conventions are retained, such as omitting a shad after a ga (whereas DBA’ 2000, 1v:1 writes yi ge / bod…,
Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed, 1.6 transliterates yi ge bod…) but
these are typesetting issues more than editorial decisions. This does,
however, lead to oversights perhaps caused by following the 2009
edition. For example, both read shin tu on Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 6
and Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed, 1.10 respectively (also given
as shin tu in Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 24), where DBA’
2000 reads shin du, incorrectly according to later sandhi rules. Other
mistakes are not found in the 2009 edition, for instance reading the
last interlinear note to 1v:3 as yum bu gla sgang…, rather than yun bu
gla sgang… (as Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 237.11 correctly transcribes it),
because Yum bu bla sgang is a variant spelling of the castle’s name
(see Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 25, n. 10).
87 van der Kuijp, “A Hitherto Unknown Religious Chronicle.”
16
Lewis Doney
It is now clear that this “Rba bzhed” consists of two
texts mistakenly combined together.88 By good fortune, I
made this discovery thanks to the publication of the thirty-sixth volume of old histories and biographies from Dpal
brtsegs, 2011. It includes photolithographs of the original
manuscript of the just-mentioned Rba bzhed (63–110,
henceforth RBA 2011.1) along with the DBA’ 2000 manuscript (1–62). It also contains another manuscript, also
titled Rba bzhed, which consists of a Sba bzhed zhabs
btags ma (henceforth RBA 2011.2).
RBA 2011.1, folios 1–4 (pp. 63–70), strongly resemble the opening portion of DBA’ 2000 that recounts the
life-stories of the previous emperors and the reign of Khri
Srong lde brtsan up to his invitation of Śāntarakṣita. The
narrative is also included in the BL fragment, as discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this volume.89 From
folio 5r, however, the narrative jumps from eighth-century Tibet to India during the lifetime of the Buddha.90
The very different history that then follows is summarised by van der Kuijp as part of his article on this Rba
bzhed. Longs khang Phun tshogs rdo rje failed to notice
this break in the RBA 2011.1 manuscript when he transcribed both texts as one in his book. van der Kuip did not
have access to the original RBA 2011.1 manuscript, and
so also failed to notice the break. The overall agreement
of RBA 2011.1 and DBA’ 2000 against the later Testimony
of Ba tradition, in relating the life-stories of the previous
emperors before narrating the life-story of Khri Srong
lde brtsan, suggests that these may be two exemplars of
a shared recension rather than that DBA’ 2000 stands
alone against all other exemplars of the Tradition of Ba.
Unfortunately, since RBA 2011.1 is missing its final folios,
we cannot assess whether it originally also contained the
Zas gtad narrative as part of its manuscript.
Below is a list of the exemplars of the Testimony of Ba,
omitting transcriptions or reprintings of already existing
exemplars. They are grouped into three categories that I
believe conform to three major recensions, DBA’ 2000, SBA
1982.1–3 and the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, or Testimony
of Ba 1, Testimony of Ba 2 and Testimony of Ba 3:
The Dba’ bzhed, Testimony of Ba 1
Dunhuang fragment, London 2008
This is a manuscript fragment (or fragments) from Dunhuang now in the collections of the British Library,
London. It contains the oldest surviving text giving a recognisable portion of the narrative. It was published first
in Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, “Fragments of the
Testament of Ba from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 128 (2008): 477–88. This will be referred to
here as the BL fragment.
དབའ་བཞེེད་ Vienna 2000
This is the oldest known full-length version of the text and
the focus of the present study. It was first published in
Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed:
The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s
Doctrine to Tibet (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2000). The text, casually but correctly
written in a cursive hand, was reproduced photographically on pages 126–56. The same manuscript was reproduced again as a photo-lithograph facsimile in volume 36
of the Bod gyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs published
from Zi ling (Xiling) in 2011 (see BDRC W1PD153537). This
will be referred to in this book as DBA’ 2000.
རྦ་བཞེེད་ Zi ling 2011, text one
88 See Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer,” 9, n. 8.
89 The two texts have been collated for study purposes by Tsering
Gonkatsang and Michael Willis, and are available online at Zenodo.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.574881.
90 The story corresponding to DBA’ 2000, folios 1–7r, ends at the end
of RBA 2011.1, line 4v:10 (Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed, 269.21–70.1:
chos bsgyur ba’i sngo thogs te / a nandas) and another narrative begins with RBA 2011.1 line 5r:1 (Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed, 71.1:
nas dgra bcom pa lnga brgyas bsdus ba dang po mdzad pa ni /). Although seemingly in the same hand (this needs more detailed study),
the folios jump from containing 10 lines per side to containing only
nine lines per page for the rest of the text, and from then on contain
interlinear notes (mchan ’grel). The changeover between folios 4 and
5 corresponds to Phun tshogs rdo rje, Dba’ bzhed, 269.21–70.1, which
obscures the changeover but whose resulting text makes no sense
(especially having a terminative following an ergative): chos bsgyur
ba’i sngo thogs te / a nandas nas dgra bcom pa lnga brgyas bsdus ba
dang po mdzad pa ni /.
This version was also reproduced as a photo-lithograph
facsimile in volume 36 of the Bod gyi lo rgyus rnam thar
phyogs bsgrigs (see BDRC W1PD153537). This text is closely
related to DBA’ 2000 in its palaeography and the narrative
also corresponds up to folio 4v (pp. 63–70), after which a
different work recounts events in the life of the Buddha.
This will be referred to here as RBA 2011.1.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
The Sba bzhed, Testimony of Ba 2
སྦ་བཞེེད་ Beijing 1980
Edited by Mgon po rgyal mtshan under the title Sba bzhed,
this version was issued from Beijing in 1980 and 1982 (see
BDRC W20000). The text presented is based on three allied
manuscripts not otherwise know. In this book, this version
is cited as SBA 1982.1–3. In time, when the three copies
behind this version become know, it may be possible to
refer to them as SBA 1982.1, SBA 1982.2 and SBA 1982.3 but
these manuscripts are not available to me and thus not
used in this study.
སྦ་བཞེེད་ Beijing 2009, text one
This version was published as part of the ‘Rba bzhed’
phyogs bsgrigs edited by Bde skyid and issued from
Beijing in 2009 (Bde skyid, Rba bzhed, 80–158; see BDRC
W1KG6259). It consists of an edited transcription of a
source resembling SBA 1982 and this source may turn out
to be one of the three manuscripts used by Mgon po rgyal
mtshan, i. e. SBA 1982.1, 2 or 3. In any event, this version
will be referred to here as SBA 2009.1.
མཁས་པའི་དགའ་སྟོོན་ Delhi 1962
The Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston is attributed to Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag
phreng ba (1504–1566) and its chapter ja, which concerns
us here, was published in 1962 by Lokesh Chandra as
mKhas-paḥi-dgaḥ-ston, Part 4 (Śatapiṭaka Series, no. 9 [4].
New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture; see
BDRC W1KG24245). This monumental work narrates the
history of the dharma from the teachings of the Buddha
up to the sixteenth century. Its chapter ja, on the imperial
period of Tibetan history, contains long sections quoted
from the Testimony of Ba tradition. It relies on a number
of exemplars, but its most often-quoted source lies close
to the witness of SBA 1982.1–3. These lemmata are cited
below as SBA 1962.
མཁས་པའི་དགའ་སྟོོན་ Delhi 1980
This edition of the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston was published in
two volumes in Delhi, based on prints from Lho brag blocks
from Rumtek Monastery, Sikkim (see BDRC W28792). It is
largely identical with the 1962 edition but is page-set in a
dpe cha format. Here, it is referred to as SBA 1980.
17
The Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, Testimony
of Ba 3
སྦ་བཞེེད་ Paris 1961
R.A. Stein published this version as Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed (Paris: Institut des hautes
études chinoises, 1961). The publication consists of a facsimile of a hand-copy of an old manuscript made for Hugh
E. Richardson. Stein collated this with a second manuscript in the possession of Giuseppe Tucci. The Richardson
version will be referred to here as SBA 1961.1, while the
Tucci manuscript used for collation by Stein will be cited
as SBA 1961.2.
ཆོོས་འབྱུང་གི་ཡིི་གེ་ཞེིབ་མོ་ Beijing 2009, text two
This version was published as part of the ‘Rba bzhed’
phyogs bsgrigs edited by Bde skyid and issued in 2009 (Bde
skyid, Rba bzhed, 159–236; see BDRC W1KG6259). It consists of an edited transcription of a source resembling SBA
1961.1–2 but since a transcription of that is also included in
the phyogs bsgrigs, this source comes from elsewhere, and
may also turn out to be one of the three manuscripts used
to create SBA 1982. For now, this version will be referred to
here as SBA 2009.2.
རྦ་བཞེེད་ Zi ling 2011, text two
This version was reproduced in a photo-lithograph facsimile in volume 36 of Bod gyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs
published from Zi ling in 2011 (see BDRC W1PD153537).
This copy, neatly written in a dense cursive hand, stands
in the same Zhabs btag ma recension as SBA 1961.1–2 and
Sba (2009.2). It is referred to in this book as RBA 2011.2.
སྦ་བཞེེད་ Dharamsala 1968
An edition of the appendicized Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma
by the Shes rig par khang or Tibetan Educational Printing
Press, Kashmir House, Dharamsala (see W3CN17326). The
editors appear to refer to a manuscript from ’Ba’ nyag Monastery in Gangtok used as the basis of the transcription,
but it may instead be dependent on Stein’s edition SBA
1961. Nonetheless, this will be cited here as SBA 1968.
The Process of Redacting the
Testimony of Ba
How do the versions just listed relate to each other? The
situation is certainly complex, but a sketch can be made
based on earlier reseach (see also Figure 1.1, below). van
Schaik and Iwao already compared the accounts of the
18
Lewis Doney
invitation of Śāntarakṣita in DBA’ 2000 and the BL fragment. There, they draw attention to the later Testimony of
Ba’s alteration of this episode. For instance, in DBA’ 2000
the Indian abbot is not “placed” in the Jo khang, as in the
BL fragment, but instead “asked to reside” there.91 van
Schaik and Iwao note that “this passage is further weakened in the Sba bzhed, where the order to investigate Śāntarakṣita comes not from the king, but from his ministers
instead.”92
It now seems clear that the redactors of the Testimony
of Ba tradition created the ancestor of SBA 1982.1–3 and
SBA 2009.1 from a narrative more closely resembling DBA’
2000 and RBA 2011.1. They not only added to DBA’ 2000 but
also rewrote it in their narrative to reflect an increasingly
pious reading of history. However, the variance between
DBA’ 2000 and RBA 2011.1, where they recount the same
narrative, and the different ways in which they altered the
vignette found in the BL fragment, suggest that we should
take care when ascribing redaction within the tradition.
Where the Dba’ bzhed differs from the later Testimony of
Ba tradition in minor details, these variants could be as
easily due to the amendments made in the compilation of
the Dba’ bzhed as to the redaction that created SBA 2009.1,
or SBA 1982.1–3.93
However, it is clear that most of the narrative shared
in SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1 is created by expanding an
older narrative also contained in DBA’ 2000 and RBA
2011.1.94 So, in many parts of the former narrative, almost
every word of DBA’ 2000 is included while additions of
various lengths are interspersed among them. These additions either clarify the grammar of the sentence or provide
extra details to the story from earlier written sources or
oral tradition. For example, in one episode DBA’ 2000
(11v:1–4; not contained in the surviving fragment RBA
2011.1) describes Śāntarakṣita prostrating to Khri Srong
lde brtsan and then beginning to convince the Tibetan
emperor to welcome Padmasambhava to Tibet. The later
Testimony of Ba tradition expands this episode, perhaps
in line with the growing popularity of religious themes in
91 van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba,” 482.
See also Chapter 3 in this volume, which further incoprorates RBA
2011.1’s witness into this analysis.
92 van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba,” 482,
n. 9.
93 One example of this may be the description of the Buddhist’s
defeat of non-Buddhists in China (DBA’ 2000, 11v:7–12v:4), which
Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 55, n. 157 note corresponds to
no account in the wider Testimony of Ba tradition.
94 The main omissions, however, are from the beginning and end of
DBA’ 2000 (1r:1–4r:5 and 25v:1–31v:6 respectively; see above).
Tibetan historiography. With the words that remain from
DBA’ 2000 in bold, SBA 1982 reads:
When Abbot [Śāntarakṣita] arrived at the palace, he introduced (brda sbyar) [his presence] to the emperor (Khri Srong
lde brtsan), then prostrated to the emperor (btsan po). And
the emperor said: “[I] cannot [accept] the prostration of an
ordained man.” Then Master [Padmasambhava] prostrated to
a boulder, so that it split into pebbles (pha bong shags = pha
bong shag [ma]). Since the emperor prostrated, the master asked
after his health. … Ācārya Bodhisatva (Śāntarakṣita) spoke
to the emperor: “Previously, when the Buddha dwelt in the
world, there was no one among the divinities and demons95
who was not bound to his oath. Since there are many harmful
[beings] in Tibet who are not bound under oath, the emperor
is prevented from practising the dharma. Here and now,
after inviting this, the most able [master] in ’Dzam bu gling,
named Padmasambhava, he resides [here]. During the reign
of Emperor Srong btsan sgam po, [he] was prevented from
practising the dharma; and the lakes and reservoirs broke their
banks and a great river flooded into ’Phang thang [plain]… .”96
SBA 2009.1 follows the latter almost verbatim, except
that Padmasambhava merely splits the rock (omitting
“pebbles,” pha bong), the temple Sgo rgya’i de’u shan
(perhaps related to Mount Wutai) is here named ’God
dpyad de’u shan,97 a request for punishment (der phyag
’bebs par zhus) is given as a request to “descend there” (der
phyogs ’bebs par zhus), and the reservoirs that flood (bem
95 On the term lha ma srin as an Old Tibetan translation from the
Chinese kouei chen (鬼神guishen), see Rolf A. Stein, “Tibetica Antiqua
I: Les deux vocabularies des traductions Indo-tibétaine et Sino-tibétaine dans les manuscripts des Touen-houang,” Bulletin de l’École
Française d’Extrême-Orient 72 (1983): 192.
96 Note the Tibetan words from DBA’ 2000, 11v:1–4 (in bold) that
are incorporated, in order, though not necessarily spelled the same,
in SBA 1982, 27.13–28.4: mkhan po pho brang du gshegs nas btsan
po la brda sbyar nas btsan po la phyag bzhes pa la / btsan po na
re / rab tu byung ba’i phyag mi thub gsungs nas / slob dpon gyis pha
bong la phyag mdzad pas pha bong shags kyis gas / btsan pos phyag
phul bas slob dpon gyis snyun rmed pa mdzad / chags gar phebs ces
pa dang / sang shis de’i bar du ston pa rtsig ces nas / brag dmar mgrin
bzang ’khor sa sgo ma mchis pa cig rtsig tsa na / nang lha khang sgo rgya’i de’u shan la dpe blangs pa gcig tshar lags pas der phyag ’bebs par
zhus / de dus a+’ tsarya bo d+hi sa tvas btsan po la gsol ba / sngon
sangs rgyas ’jig rten na bzhugs pa’i tshe / lha ma srin dam ’og tu ma
chud pa ma mchis par rigs pa la / bod yul na dam ’og du ma chud
pa’i gdug pa can mang du mchis pas / btsan po chos mdzad du ster
mi ’dra bas / da lta ’di na ’dzam bu gling na nus pa che ba’i padma
’byung gnas zhes bya ba ’di spyan drangs nas bzhugs pas / bod kyi
btsan po srong btsan sgam po’i sku ring la dam pa’i chos mdzad du mi
ster zhing lha rdzing dang / bem rdzing gdol {brtol} nas ’phang thang
du chu bo che gtong ba dang /.
97 See Tsumagari, “Bashey With Supplement,” 206, n. 12 on this. The
other exemplars of the Testimony of Ba are equivocal on this temple’s
name.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
rdzings gdol; the latter corrected by the editor to brtol) are
spelled differently (bam rdzings gdol; the editor corrects
the latter not to brtol but to brdol).98 None of these details
are found in DBA’ 2000 so they do not help assess whether
SBA 1982 or SBA 2009.1 stands closest to that earlier
recension. The later tradition agrees more with variants in
SBA 1982 against SBA 2009.1 (especially in including the
“pebbles” and reading “punish” rather than “descend”),
so may not have been based on the latter. However, since
the former is an eclectic edition, nothing certain can be
said on that as yet. Interestingly, the reference to Emperor
Srong btsan sgam po being prevented from practising the
dharma is not found in the later Testimony of Ba tradition
or in SBA 1962 (see below), which at other points strongly
resembles SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1. However, the inclusion of this reference in both SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1
gives greater probability to its existence in their shared
recension. In this way, SBA 2009.1, is an invaluable aid to
the eclectic and so (from a philological perspective) flawed
SBA 1982 edition.
In the above, indented quotation, some of the additions of SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1, against the shorter DBA’
2000 and RBA 2011.1, are grammatical modernisations.
They unpack sentences to show, for instance, who is speaking and to whom. However, the first major addition in this
quote reverses DBA’ 2000’s message. It depicts Khri Srong
lde brtsan as unwilling to be superior to Śāntarakṣita and
then frightened into prostrating to Padmasambhava by the
latter’s magic. In DBA’ 2000, it seems natural and proper
that a foreigner at the emperor’s court should bow before
the latter’s imperial authority. In contrast, the redactors of
the Testimony of Ba behind creating SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA
2009.1 appear to have believed that Khri Srong lde brtsan
in fact bowed to the religious master.
98 SBA 2009.1, 105.16–106.7: mkhan po pho brang du gshegs nas
btsan po la brda sbyar nas btsan po la phyag bzhes pa la / btsan po
na re / rab tu byung ba’i phyag mi thub gsungs nas / slob dpon gyis
pha bong la phyag mdzad pas bshags kyis gas / btsan pos phyag phul
bas slob dpon gyis snyun rmed pa mdzad / chags gar phebs ces pa
dang / sang shis de’i bar du ston pa rtsig ces nas / brag dmar ’grin
bzang ’khor sa sgo ma mchis pa cig rtsig tsa na / nang lha khang ’god
dpyad de’u shan las dpe blangs pa gcig tshar lags pas der phyogs
’bebs par zhus / de dus a+’ tsarya bo d+hi satvas btsan po la gsol
pa / sngon sangs rgyas ’jig rten na bzhugs pa’i tshe / lha ma srin
dam ’og du ma chud pa ma mchis par rigs pa la / bod yul na dam
’og du ma chud pa’i gdug pa can mang du mchis pas btsan po chos
mdzad du ster mi ’dra bas / da lta ’di na ’dzam bu gling na nus pa
che ba’i padma ’byung gnas zhes bya ba ’di spyan drangs nas bzhugs
pas / bod kyi btsan po srong btsan sgam po’i sku ring la dam pa’i chos
mdzad du mi ster zhing lha rdzing dang / bam rdzings gdol {brdol} nas
’phang thang du chu bo che gtong ba dang /.
19
This is by no means the only example of such an addition. Identifying in each episode the process of recension
that, as a whole, transformed an ancestor of DBA’ 2000
and RBA 2011.1, what we could call Testimony of Ba 1, into
the ancestor of SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 2009.1, Testimony
of Ba 2, remains to be done. However, the above comparison already highlights the increasingly Buddhist attitude of Tibetan historians towards the imperial period.
The Testimony of Ba redactors seek to explain the Testimony of Ba 1 narrative by adding extra details to each
scene. Yet, these are almost invariably religious (rather
than political) details.99 Instead of explaining that narrative, they sometimes even reverse its position (as in the
case of Padmasambhava meeting Khri Srong lde brtsan)
by making religious figures appear superior to royal
ones.
Let us now move on to the even later Testimony of Ba
tradition, where the core narrative appears to actually
shrink. SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 2009.2 and RBA 2011.2 omit
parts of SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 2009.1 and DBA’ 2000 and
RBA 2011.1 from their shared account. Yet, far from constituting evidence that they are all part of an earlier recension than Testimony of Ba 2 (SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 2009.1),
I shall show below that their readings actually support
the argument that they reflect a later recension than Testimony of Ba 2. Returning to the vignette translated above,
SBA 1961.1 reads:
[Śāntarakṣita] arrived at the palace and introduced [himself]
to an ambassador in order to meet the emperor. Then, he prostrated to the emperor but the emperor said “[I] cannot [accept]
the prostration of an ordained man. Then [Padmasambhava?]
prostrated to a boulder that split into pebbles. After the
emperor prostrated, the master asked after his health. … Ācārya
Bodhisatva spoke to the emperor: “Previously, when the Buddha
dwelt in the world, there was no one among the divinities and
demons who was not bound to his oath. However, there are
99 Śāntarakṣita’s reference to Srong btsan sgam po being prevented
from practising the dharma is an interpolation that seemingly is not
“religious” in motivation. SBA 1961.1, SBA 2009.2, 2011.2 and SBA
1962 do not include this reference—though it is in SB 2009.1, which
may be one of the sources that Mgon po rgyal mtshan used to compile
SBA 1982. No version of the later Testimony of Ba tradition includes
the opening folios of DBA’ 2000, on the previous Tibetan emperors,
but here SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1 make a clear comparison between
Khri Srong lde brtsan and his predecessor, Srong btsan sgam po. This
interpolation is therefore at least consistent with DBA’ 2000’s royal
narrative. However, I would argue that it still has a religious emphasis. Śāntarakṣita makes the comparison in terms of their attempts
to establish Buddhism in Tibet. SBA 1982 uses the shared religious
aspects of their lives, rather than, say, their imperial domains, to
explain how Śāntarakṣita convinced Khri Srong lde brtsan to accept
Padmasambhava into Tibet.
20
Lewis Doney
many harmful [beings] in Tibet who are not bound under oath
so the emperor is prevented from practising the dharma. Here
and now, after inviting the most able [master] in ’Dzam bu gling,
named Padmasambhava, he resides [here]. As for expelling,
subduing and binding to oath all [those forces] that previously
prevented the Tibetan emperor from practising the dharma, this
mantrin [Padmasambhava] will weed them out (sngo thog)”100
SBA 2009.2 agrees in this reading, albeit with greater
variation in orthography than shown between SBA 1982
and SBA 2009.1, above.101 However, one difference stands
out at the beginning. Whereas SBA 1961.1–2 recounts
that Padmasambhava bows to the emperor (btsan po la
phyag bzhes pas /), SBA 2009.2 reverses this, saying “the
emperor bowed [the prostration of] the ordained one”
(btsan pos rab tu byung pa’i phyag bzhes pas /)—with “the
ordained one” perhaps mistakenly repeated from the
next sentence (dittography). RBA 2011.2 lies somewhere
in between and contains far more variants of its own (one
might possibly call many of them errors) but is generally
closer to SBA 2009.2 than to SBA 1961.1–2 and its reading
here (btsan pos phyag bzhes pas /) also agrees with SBA
100 SBA 1961.1, 21.15–22.10 reads: pho brang du byon nas btsan po
dang zhal mjal ba’i pho nyas rda sbyar nas / btsan po la phyag bzhes
pas / btsan pos rab tu byung ba’i phyag mi thub gsung nas pha bong
la phyag mdzad pa’i shags kyis gas / btsan pos phyag phul nas / slob
dpon gyis snyun smed pa mdzad / phyag gar ’bebs ces pa dang / sang
shis de’i bar du ston pa gcig rtsig ces nas brag dmar ’gran bzang ’khor
sa der sgo ma mchis pa gcig rtsigs tsa na / nang lha khang mgo de’u
shan la dpe blang pa gcig rtsigs lags pa / der phyag phebs par zhus / a
tsarya bo d+hi satvas btsan po la gsol pa / sngon sangs rgyas ’jig rten
na bzhugs pa’i tshe / lha ma srin dam ’og tu ma tshud pa ma mchis
par rigs pa la / bod yul nas dam ’og tu ma chud pa’i gdug pa can mang
du mchis pas / btsan po chos mdzad du ster mi ’dra bas / da lta ’di
na ’dzam bu gling na nus pa che ba’i padma ’byung gnas zhes bya ba
spyan drangs nas bzhugs pa / bod kyi btsan po chos mdzad du mi ster
ba thams cad skrad cing gzir gzir ba dang / dam la ’dogs pa ni sngags
mkhan ’dis sngo thog /.
101 SBA 2009.2, 177.12–78.1 reads: pho brang du byon nas btsan po
dang zhal ’jal ba’i pho nyas rda sbyar nas / btsan pos rab tu byung pa’i
phyag bzhes pas / btsan pos rab tu byung pa’i phyag mi thub gsung
nas pha bong cig la phyag mdzad pas shags kyis gas / btsan pos phyag
phul nas slob dpon gyis snyun smed pa mdzad / phyag gar ’bebs ces
pa dang / sang shis de’i bar du ston pa cig tsig ces nas brag dmar ’gran
bzang ’khor sa sgo ma mchis pa cig rtsigs tsam na / nang lha khang ’go
ste shan la dpe blangs pa cig lags pa der chags ’bebs par zhus / a tsa
rya bo d+hi sa tas btsan po la gsol pa / sngon sangs rgyas ’jig rten na
bzhugs pa’i tshe lha ma srin dam ’og tu ma chud pa ma mchis par rigs
pa la bod yul na dam ’og tu ma chud pa’i gdug pa can mang du mchis
pas btsan po chos byed du ster ster mi ’dra bas / da lta ’di na ’dzam bu’i
gling na nus pa che ba’i padma ’byung gnas zhes bya ba spyan drangs
nas bzhugs pas / bod kyi btsan po chos mdzad du mi ster ba thams cad
skrad cing gzir gzir ba dang / dam la ’dogs pa ni sngags mkhan / ’dis
sngo thog … .
2009.2 against SBA 1961.1–2, but lacks the former’s alleged
dittography.102
Here, all three exemplars omit Śāntarakṣita’s description of natural calamities, including flooding in ’Phang
thang, that show the untamed nature of Tibet’s autochthonous spirits. Yet, some of those descriptions were
present in DBA’ 2000 (marked in bold in the quote from
SBA 1982). It is therefore more likely that SBA 1961.1–2
omits parts of the ancestor of SBA 1982.1–3 than that the
Testimony of Ba 2 ancestor of SBA 1982.1–3 has added elements to the ancestor of SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 2009.2 and
RBA 2011.2. Such omissions are widespread in the shared
narrative of these three exemplars. These omissions
probably represent a purposeful condensation of the
narrative, a new redaction that we may call Testimony of
Ba 3. Yet, I find it difficult to understand in any one case
(for instance, the references to natural calamities) why
the redactors of Testimony of Ba 3 should have decided
to omit such details.
Based on the evidence above, I speculate that a circa
eleventh-century Testimony of Ba 1, perhaps based on
a ninth or tenth-century source, forms the main part of
DBA’ 2000 (also partially recorded in RBA 2011.1). Later
redactors then added an opening and closing section and
interlinear notes to create DBA’ 2000 as it exists today.
Other redactors added interpolations into Testimony of Ba
1 to form Testimony of Ba 2. SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 2009.1
are edited versions of Testimony of Ba 2, as are most of
the lemmata from the Testimony of Ba in the Mkhas pa’i
dga’ ston (SBA 1962). Testimony of Ba 3 is a thirteenth or
fourteenth-century condensed version of Testimony of
Ba 2. It omits much of the content of Testimony of Ba 1
in the process. Either the zhabs btags end section was
already present in Testimony of Ba 3 or the redactors of
SBA 1961.1–2 added it to their version. This remains to
102 RBA 2011.2, 5v:2–5 reads: pho brang du byon / btsan po dang
’jal ba pho nyas brda sbyar nas / btsan pos phyag bzhes pas / btsan
pos rab tu byung ba’i phyag mi thub gsung nas / pha ’ong la phyag
mdzad pas shags kyis gas / btsan pos phyag phul nas / slob dpon gyi
snyun smed pa mdzad / phyag gar phebs ces pa dang / sang shis de’i
bar du ston pa gcig rtsig ces nas / brag dmar ’dran bzang ’khor sa sgo
ma mchis pa gcig rtsigs tsam na / nang lha khang gro’u? ste shan la
dpe blangs pa gcig legs pa der phyag ’bebs par zhus nas / bo d+hi sa
tvas btsan po la gsol pa / sngon sangs rgyas ’jig rten na bzhugs pa’i
tshe lha ma srin ste brgyad? dam ’og tu ma tshud pa med par rigs pa
la / bod yul du dam ’og tu ma tshud par gdug pa can mang du mchis
pas / btsan po chos byed du ster ster mi ’dra bas / da lta ’di na nus pa
che ba’i pad ma ’byung gnas zhes bya ba spyan drangs nas bzhugs
pas / btsan po chos byed du mi ster ba’i gdug pa can thams cad
skrad cing gzir ba dang / dam la ’dogs pa ni sngags mkhan ’dis sngo
thog /.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
21
Figure 1.1: Content of the exemplars of Testimony of Ba 1 and the recensions Testimony of Ba 1, 2 and 3 by syllables
be investigated.103 These relationships are shown here in
Figure 1.1.104
Finally, in narrating Śāntarakṣita’s recommendation
of Padmasambhava to Khri Srong lde brtsan (quoted
above according to published editions of the Testimony
of Ba proper), Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba evidently consulted old versions of the Testimony of Ba. Yet, the final
text contained in his Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (SBA 1962) is
here apparently very much his own. SBA 1962 follows a
version of Testimony of Ba 2 very closely. However, it also
contains its own interpolations and modernisations:
103 I am not certain that the long section at the end of MTN that
resembles the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma belongs to Nyang ral Nyi ma
’od zer’s original version (see above). If this section was added to MTN
after the twelfth century, then quotes from a Sba bzhed zhabs btags
ma could have been interpolated at any time. On the other hand, if
Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer did borrow from the Sba bzhed zhabs btags
ma then it suggests that Testimony of Ba 3 contained this section. As a
result, SBA 1961.1 could perhaps be a twelfth-century redaction of the
Testimony of Ba 2. This will require further analysis, but there is no
overwhelming evidence to suggest it so far. It is also worth pointing
out that MTN could quote from the same narrative that the Testimony
of Ba 3 later includes as its zhabs btags section, rather than quoting
from the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma itself.
104 For a more detailed chart of DBA’ 2000, see Penghao Sun, “The
Metamorphoses of the Testimony of Ba: Notes on the Padmasambhava Episode of the Dba’/Sba/Rba bzhed,” (M.A. thesis: Harvard University, 2015), 26, which inspired the format of this figure.
After Abbot [Śāntarakṣita] of Za hor arrived at the palace,
[he] introduced [his presence] to the emperor (Khri Srong lde
brtsan). The emperor welcomed [him] and since [Khri Srong
lde brtsan] prostrated Master [Padmasambhava] asked after his
health. Master [Padmasambhava] stretched out the palm of his
right hand to a boulder, so that it split into pebbles. … At that
time Ācārya Bodhisatva (Śāntarakṣita) spoke to the emperor:
“Previously, when the Buddha dwelt in the world, there was no
one among the divinities and demons who was not bound to his
oath. However, there are many harmful deities (lha ’dre) in Tibet
who are not bound under oath so the emperor is prevented from
practising the dharma. Here and now, after inviting this, the
most able [master] in ’Dzam bu gling, named Padmasambhava,
he resides [here]. Previously, to prevent [you] from practising
the dharma, a great river flooded into ’Phang thang [plain]…”105
105 SBA 1962, 85v:5–86r:1 reads: za hor gyi mkhan po pho brang du
gshegs nas btsan po brda sbyar / btsan po bsus te phyag mdzad pas
slob dpon gyis bsnyun rmed / slob dpon gyis pha bang zhig la phyag
g.yas pa’i thal mo phyir mdzad pas pha bang shags kyis gas / da phyags
gar ’bebs ces pa la / sang shis de’i bar brag dmar mgrin bzang ’khor sa
sgo ma mchis pa cig la nang lha khang rgya’i de’u shan la dpe blangs
pa cig bzhengs tshar nas der phyags phebs par zhus / de dus a+’ tsarya
bo d+hi sa tvas btsan po la gsol pa / sngon sangs rgyas ’jigs rten na
bzhugs pa’i tshe lha ma srin dam ’og du ma tshud pa ma mchis par rigs
pa la bod yul na dam ’og du ma tshud pa’i lha ’dre gdug pa can mang
du mchis pas btsan po chos mdzad tu mi ster ba la da lta ’dir dzambu’i
gling na nus pa che ba’i padma ’byung gnas ces bya ba ’di spyan drangs
nas bzhugs pas sngon chos mdzad tu mi ster bar ’phang thang du chu
bo che gtong ba dang … .
22
Lewis Doney
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba elsewhere cites a great and a
middling Testimony of Ba version at the end of volume ja,
and quotes from some other exemplars at various point
in the work, one of which at least falls within the same
recension as the oldest (twelfth-century?) source for SBA
1982.1–3. However, it omits Śāntarakṣita’s prostration and
has Khri Srong lde brtsan bow to Padmasambhava.106 In
an earlier comment, Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba expressly
denies any other histories’ claims that a religious figure
would prostrate to a king.107 This very thorough and
thoughtful historian thus quotes the later Testimony of
Ba tradition and unconsciously contradicts its source,
the ancestor of DBA’ 2000. The trajectories of portrayals
over time can reverse even the position of their original
narration. Kapstein noted this trend in the attribution of a
Chinese mother to Khri Srong lde brtsan.108 Dpa’ bo Gtsug
lag phreng ba reverses the position of the ancestor of DBA’
2000, when quoting the later Testimony of Ba tradition,
too. He argues that no Indian religious figure would bow
to a Tibetan king. Yet, this is just what DBA’ 2000 states
did happen.
Conclusion
Before the publication of the Dba’ bzhed manuscript (DBA’
2000), it was impossible to know for certain that the truncated narrative preceding the appendix in SBA 1961.1–2
was actually later than the longer recension indicated by
the eclectic (and so partially opaque) edition SBA 1982.
Above, I have argued that SBA 1982 and SBA 2009.1 reflect
an interpolated and (in some cases) ideologically altered
recension (Testimony of Ba 2) of the shared ancestor of
DBA’ 2000 and RBA 2011.1 (Testimony of Ba 1), and that
SBA 1962 in grosso modo closely follows this Testimony
of Ba 2 recension (though lemmata from other exemplars
are found therein). SBA 1961.2, SBA 1961.1, the dependent
SBA 1968 and the newly published SBA 2009.2 and 2011.2
reflect Testimony of Ba 3, an edited and reduced version
of a source within the Testimony of Ba 2 recension. To this
recension has been added an extra section covering later
history that has earned it the description Sba bzhed zhabs
106 Compare the beginning of the quote in the note above with DBA’
2000, 11v:1–2. The order of the sentences has also been changed, and
as a result the king’s prostration precedes, and is not caused by, the
magical act of Padmasambhava.
107 Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1962, 84v:5–7; see also Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 54, n. 152 on Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba’s long
explanation.
108 See Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation, 36.
btags ma. These exemplars need to be placed in such a
chronological order in order to avoid anachronism in
representing accounts of each exemplar. Moreover, charting the alteration of key scenes over time will hopefully
deepen our understanding of the narratives contained in
the various recensions as products of different periods
within the maturing Buddhist ideology within Tibet. This
is especially true concerning the perceived role that imperial Buddhism played in Tibet’s evolution.
However, it must be stressed again that no work is the
singular creation of a lone inspired author. DBA’ 2000, for
example, was not the original work of one imperial-period
creative figure and the Ur-text for everything that followed.
Instead, it had already been expanded and altered by the
eleventh or twelfth century, as suggested by the existence
of a similar ninth- or tenth-century narrative found in the
BL fragment (see Chapter 3). The overwhelming similarity between this version and the corresponding episode
found in DBA’ 2000 and RBA 2011.1 demonstrates that
the account shared between the latter sources contains
vignettes that stem from at least the ninth or tenth century.
The subtle differences show that the text of these narratives have been redacted since those times. The evidence
of the BL fragment therefore suggests that the main part of
DBA’ 2000 contains a roughly eleventh-century narrative
made up of various earlier and contemporaneous strata.
In a similar way, the narratives contained in later recensions of the Testimony of Ba may be set in their final-ish
form by a group of editors, but the sources of those additions and the inspiration for their amendments may predate the milieu of those editors by some time.
From the twelfth century onwards, anonymous redaction of the Testimony of Ba seemingly gave way to incorporation of its witness as adapted precis and acknowledged lemmata in works attributed to a single author. The
oveerlapping of these two forms of historiography writing
results in the ‘feedback loop’ whereby Bu ston Rin chen
grub is referenced in SBA 1961.1. Yet, it remains to be
seen which of the exemplars of the Testimony of Ba stand
closest to the lemmata in MTN, MBNTH and so forth, clues
which may help to date the production of both the histories and also their exemplars in future. However, ascription of authorship also often obscures processes of anonymous (group) compilation, editing and transmission by
many hands. This is even more true of the Testimony of Ba
tradition, which is only later attributed to Sba Gsal snang.
It remains an open question, therefore, the extent to which
the anonymity of this tradition’s compilers encouraged its
mutability, and/or the degree to which its mouvance (see
footnote 19) resisted the ascription of the Testimony of Ba
to an ‘author’ for so long.
Chapter 1 The Testimony of Ba: Literature and Exemplars
Finally, the variant account found in the BL fragment
also raises questions about the various ages of the strata
within DBA’ 2000 and the early state of the Testimony of
Ba tradition. Dotson’s Chapter 4 uncovers archaisms in
both DBA’ 2000 and the surrounding tradition, which
may further help to date the strata in the future. Due to
the composite construction of the narrative, it is not easy
to ascertain which episodes date from the earlier period
and which were added later. The situation is further complicated because, as with the BL fragment, above, it is
possible that later redactors made changes within episodes, rather than leaving them as they found them. This
is especially true of the accounts of the Bsam yas Debate
(see Chapter 5), perhaps because later Tibetan Buddhist
traditions imbued the event with such importance in their
doctrinal debates. Thus, in order to satisfactorily analyse
the depiction of the imperial period in DBA’ 2000, one
would need to date not only individual episodes, but also
individual elements within episodes.
Nonetheless, the witness of DBA’ 2000 has already
proved invaluable in deciding the relative ages of the
strata in the wider Testimony of Ba tradition. In Chapter
2, Willis and Gonkatsang distinguish the layers of the
manuscript archaeologically. They show that the beginning and end of the manuscript are lacking in the later
Testimony of Ba tradition—on the relations of Khri Srong
23
lde brtsan’s ancestors to Buddhism in Tibet (1r:1–4r:5) and
the debate between Buddhism and Bon over who should
perform the emperor’s funeral rites (25v:1–31v:6) respectively. The opening narrative, on the previous emperors,
is also covered in the Rba bzhed, which shows that the
Dba’ bzhed is part of a recension that included at least
the opening portion. The loss of the latter portion of RBA
2011.1 leaves us unable to assess whether this manuscript
once contained the final Zas gtad narrative found in DBA’
2000. No later Testimony of Ba contains either DBA’ 2000’s
opening folios or its last section. The Testimony of Ba
redactors had no reason to omit the beginning and end
of the Dba’ bzhed, if it was contained in their archetype.
Hence it is most likely that these parts were not present in
the Dba’ bzhed version that the redactors used.
The Dba’ bzhed and the Testimony of Ba tradition of
which it is a part both throw up a number of multivocal
narratives. As I attempt to show in Chapter 6, complex
royal identities and religious dynamics are played out in
DBA’ 2000, which are certainly not merely products of the
dynastic period but reflect the various ages of their strata.
The Testimony of Ba was always in a state of becoming,
rather than a fixed entity that could only be corrupted.
This tradition has always been in flux, metamorphosing to
suit the changing tastes of its Tibetan-speaking audience,
whomever they may have been.
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
The only absolutely certain thing is the future, since the past is
always changing.1
The Testimony of Ba—as the work presented here is generally known—has slightly different names according to
the version: Dba’ bzhed, Rba bzhed, Sba bzhed, and Sba
bzhed zhabs btags ma are among the best known. The
differences hint at the text’s distance from the historical
events it describes, a point supported throughout the
narrative, as we shall see in the course of this chapter.
In this study we use the spelling Dba’ bzhed because this
appears in the manuscript that stands at the heart of the
present book. The name comes from the Dba’ clan, one
of the elite families of the dynastic period. (The name is
sometimes spelt Dba’s in the oldest sources, as discussed
in Chapter 4). The purpose of the Dba’ bzhed is to chronicle the arrival and establishment of Buddhism in Tibet,
but it also aims—as the title indicates and the text soon
reveals—to show how members of the Dba’ family played
a vital role in the process. In particular, the story centres
on the actions of an individual called Dba’ Gsas snang
who took the name Ye shes dbang po when he entered
the Buddhist order. He became the preceptor of King Khri
Srong lde brtsan (742—circa 800 CE) and with him was
involved with the establishment of Bsam yas, the main
monastery and temple in central Tibet.2 This temple and
the events that happened there form the core of the Dba’
bzhed narrative.
Over the last fifty years, a number of versions of the
Testimony have been discovered and published, as discussed in Chapter 1. Further versions appear to have been
in circulation from an early date, and it seems likely that
some of these will be found as research goes forward. For
1 A Yugoslav aphorism, cited in Katherine Verdery, National Ideology
Under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceausescu’s Romania
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 215, for which reference we are grateful to Csaba Dezső.
2 The role of the kalyāṇamitra (dge ba’i bshes gnyen) is explored in
Lewis Doney, “Narrative Transformations: The Spiritual Friends of
Khri Srong lde brtsan,” in Interaction in the Himalayas and Central
Asia: Processes of Transfer, Translation and Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity, ed. Eva Allinger, Frantz Grenet, Christian Jahoda, Maria-Katharina Lang and Anne Vergati (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017), 311–20. The king’s
dates are revisited in Brandon Dotson, “‘Emperor’ Mu-rug-btsan and
the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” Journal of the International Association for Tibetan Studies 3 (2007): 1–25.
Open Access. © 2020 Michael Willis, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-002
the moment and for the present book, the sources listed
and described in Chapter 1 give the materials that are available. We do not seek to privilege any copy of the text at this
stage. Yet, the fragment from Dunhuang, discussed below
and in Chapter 3 of this volume, is the oldest surviving
indication of the story and the version presented in this
book is the oldest complete copy of the narrative proper
currently extant. The core of this text dates between the
eleventh and thirteenth centuries, with the actual manuscript belonging to the fourteenth or early fifteenth century.3
A key problem for Tibetan historical writing is the
relationship of the Dba’ bzhed to the other versions of the
narrative. All the versions are connected, but they differ
in ways that point to a process of redaction and supplementation over time. How we should deal with these processes pose historical problems. In this chapter, we seek to
provide some answers to these problems by examining the
Dba’ bzhed as a text and as a manuscript. Our contention
is that a study of the codicology helps show how histories
were assembled and how readers responded to them over
time.
The Dba’ bzhed, like most texts, was not static: it has
been supplemented, commented on, corrected and amplified. It has been read and re-read through different eyes,
with some of these readings showing as notations on the
pages. This complex layering explains the word ‘archaeology’ in our chapter title. Like an ancient habitation site,
the Dba’ bzhed has many phases and layers. And like an
ancient site, it has no simple or essential core. It simply
continues as a place in the landscape where people have
3 See Michael Willis, “From World Religion to World Dominion:
Trading, Translation and Institution-building in Tibet,” in Religions
and Trade Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural
Exchange between East and West, ed. Peter Wick and Volker Rabens
(Leiden: Brill, 2013), 231–59, but note further discussion of the date
below. The study of palaeography and dating are at an early stage;
see Sam van Schaik, “Towards a Tibetan Palaeography: Developing
a Typology of Writing Styles,” in Early Tibet Manuscript Cultures:
Mapping the Field, ed. Jörg Quenzer, Dmitry Bondarev and Jan-Ulrich
Sobisch (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 299–337. The general lack of research on book culture in Tibet outlined with characteristic laments
in Leonard van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung, a Chronicle of
Buddhism in India and Tibet,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 25 (2013):
120–21.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Chapter 2
lived and continue to live. And just as a place means different things to the different people who have lived there
or passed by, so too the text has different meanings for
those who have come across it and paused to dwell on
it. We are, in the end, not excluded from the long chain
of readers: ours is the most recent deposit in a thousand
years of reading and textual stratigraphy. To help demonstrate these points, we will look at the Dba’ bzhed on two
levels: firstly, the general organisation of its parts and,
secondly, the internal organisation of each part, including
the notations made on the folios by readers over time. The
discussion here is guided by Table 2.1.
As a preliminary, we should note that we have tried
to avoid repeating the observations made by Wangdu and
Diemberger, who first published the manuscript in 2000.4
They identified many of the individuals mentioned in the
text, discussed problematic readings and compared the
Dba’ bzhed with later versions. While some overlaps are
inevitable, our aim has been to supplement this earlier
work and, in a few places, offer a different understanding
of how the text should be assessed.
General Organisation: Two Texts
A key point with regard to the organisation of the manuscript of the Dba’ bzhed is that it combines two different
but related texts. This is not a new observation, certainly,
but it is worth restating and reformulating in the present
context. The second text begins on folio 26r and starts
in a formal way: “During the first month of spring in
the Horse Year, his majesty Khri Srong lde btsan died”
(Figure 2.3).5 There follows an account of the confrontation between Buddhist and Bon factions over the nature
of the king’s last rites. Table 2.1 in this chapter outlines
the events against the corresponding folios of the manuscript.
At the heart of this text is a debate between Vairocana, a Buddhist sage summoned to the Tibetan court,
and Mchims Btsan bzher legs gzigs, a leading member of
the Bon. After the Buddhists win the debate, the text gives
a brief account of the rites performed and then, at the very
end, says that: “The account of the food offering ritual is
4 Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed: The Royal
Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet,
with Preface by Per K. Sørensen (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000).
5 The original manuscript, with folio and line numbers marked, is
available here: Dba’ bzhed. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
3359902. See also text and translation, folio 26r, end of line 2.
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
25
finished.”6 So this section is both thematically different
from what has come before and it has its own name: the
Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus.
The text of the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus is close in palaeographic style to the earlier folios and it was probably
copied out at about the same time. However, the letters are
spaced differently and some letters are written in a consistently different way. The differences appear clearly in
folio 25v, where the two texts are joined (see Figure 2.2).7
The number of lines sometimes increases in the second
text, notably in folio 26r (see Figure 2.3). Generally speaking, the writing looks more hurried. We can conclude,
therefore, that this portion of the manuscript was added
by a different scribe, albeit not long after the first part was
written out.
Points of Transition Between the Two Texts
The key transition point comes in folio 25v. As illustrated
in Figure 2.2, we have the text closed in the following
way in line 3: “So ends the Dba’ bzhed—the account from
the Dba’ perspective—the text of the noble narrative of
how the dharma of the Buddha came to the region of
Tibet.”8 This is a definitive end, certainly. However, we
can see from the folio itself that the text continues with
an account of events after the death of Ye shes dbang
po. From the perspective of codicology, we note that
the writing style from this point onward is different (see
Figure 2.2, line 4). In terms of narrative content, this
change means that everything from the account of Ye
shes dbang po’s daughter’s actions to the end of the Zas
gtad kyi lo rgyus was written by one scribe. This scribe
was different from the person who wrote the earlier part
of the manuscript.
This change in writing style has a number of implications. The main conclusion we can make from the manuscript is that the scribe who wrote the text from folio 25v:4
onwards was compiling information from his sources as
he wrote. The subjects of the sentences change abruptly
6 See text and translation, folio 31v. Brandon Dotson renders this as
the “Account of the Food-Provisioning [for the Dead],” and discusses
the text in “The Dead and Their Stories: Preliminary Remarks on the
Place of Narrative in Tibetan Religion,” in Tibet after Empire: Culture,
Society and Religion between 850–1000, ed. Cristoph Cüppers, Rob
Mayer and Michael Walter (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research
Institute, 2013), 51–83, a corrected version is published in Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016): 77–112.
7 Perhaps the best diagnostic letter is ya, as can be seen in Figure 2.2.
8 Readers are also referred to the chart in this chapter and our Tibetan text and translation.
26
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Table 2.1: Outline of the events recorded in the text against the corresponding folios of the Dba’ bzhed manuscript
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
Title page
1r
Title of the work with later library notation.
Summary
1v
Synopsis of the entire work and role played by the following kings: 1. Lha tho do re snyan btsan, 2. Khri
Srong btsan (sgam po), 3. Khri Srong lde btsan and 4. Khri Gtsug lde btsan.
Prelude
1v
Prelude recounting activities of earlier dharma kings Lha tho do re snyan btsan and Khri Srong btsan
who built the Ra sa vihāra; ’Thon mi Gsam bo ra is sent to India; he returns with Kaṃśadatta and the
Ratnameghasūtra and
2r
Daśakuśalāni (Ten Virtues); the texts are sealed and deposited in the royal treasury; the writing system
is taught to four trusted attendants.
Decree of
Khri Srong btsan
2r
2v
Khri Srong btsan goes into retreat for four years to write a decree based on the Ten Virtues. He
announces the degree publicly and orders his subjects to follow it or face the consequences; they give
him the epithet ‘sgam po’ as a consequence. The writing system promulgated.
Mission to the Chinese
court
2v
3r
A mission to China is sent under ’Gar Stong btsan yul zungs; dispatch box episode; princess Mum shang
Ong co brought to Tibet as a bride; she brings a gold image of the Buddha which is placed in the Ra mo
che where she resides; the king resides in Lhan kar ta mo ra.
The Great Prophecy and
the two monks from
Khotan
3r
3v
4r
Two monks come from Khotan to see Khri Srong btsan who is reputed to be an incarnation of
Avalokiteśvara; the story is recorded as a prophecy taken exactly from the Lung bstan chen po.
Intermediate
dharma kings
4r
King ’Dus sro po rje rlung nam builds the Glang ri tse; his son Khri Lde gtsug brtan takes Gyim shang
Ong co as his queen and builds five temples; the queen annually worships the Buddha at Ra mo che;
great festivals and the tshe rituals are celebrated; the couple duly pass away.
The anti-Buddhist
reaction of
Zhang Ma zhang
4r
4v
Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes (otherwise known as Zhang Ma zhang) leads a revolt against the
dharma; the Buddha image in Ra mo che is removed with plans to send it back to China; monks are sent
back. Temples otherwise are desecrated or destroyed, some nobles are executed and the tshe rituals
suspended. Zhang Ma zhang, however, does not survive: he is buried alive as the king’s scapegoat after
a female diviner is bribed to make a false prognostication.
Dba’ Gsas snang
in Tibet
5r
Doubts about the Ra mo che image continue and it is sent toward Nepal. A plague arises and tshe rituals
for the dead continue to be forbidden. The children of Dba’ Gsas snang—who appears now for the first
time—fall victim to the epidemic. Bon rituals are performed for appearances, but tshe is performed in
secret. An old Hwa shang is summoned to foretell the post-mortem destiny of the two children.
Dba’ Gsas snang
in India and Nepal
and meeting with
Bodhisatva (Śāntarakṣita)
5v
Dba’ Gsas snang is secretly initiated and practices meditation in secret; king Khri Srong lde btsan
appoints him as an officer in Mang yul and Gsas snang proceeds from there to India (Mahābodhi and
Nālandā) and Nepal where he worships and studies in contravention of the ban instigated by Ma zhang.
He invites Bodhisatva (known to other sources as Śāntarakṣita) back to Mang yul.
6r
Bodhisatva predicts the building of Bsam yas and states he is willing to serve as kalyāṇamitra to the
king of Tibet. He bestows the name Ye shes dbang po on Dba’ Gsas snang and grants him leave to return
to Tibet and meet the king. Bodhisatva returns to Nepal; Dba’ Gsas snang travels to Tibet.
6v
King Khri Srong lde btsan orders Dba’ Gsas snang out of harm’s way and prompts Zhang Nya bzang to
instigate a ministerial debate in council about the merits of Buddhism.
7r
King Khri Srong lde btsan enters the discussion in support of Zhang Nya bzang, ordering the return of
the Ra mo che image and the summoning of Dba’ Gsas snang to court; the latter commends Bodhisatva.
The king orders Dba’ Gsas snang to Nepal to invite Bodhisatva. The lord of Nepal giving his assent,
Bodhisatva proceeds to Mang yul. The Tibetan king then orders Gsas snang and Lang ’Gro snang ra to
escort the preceptor Bodhisatva from Mang yul to the Ra sa vihāra where Lang ’Gro snang ra serves as
his attendant.
Debates at court
and the arrival of
Bodhisatva
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
27
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
Bodhisatva is investigated
7v
King Khri Srong lde btsan stays in Brag dmar, ordering the preceptor to remain in the Ra sa vihāra; he
sends three ministers (i. e. Zhang blon chen po Sbrang Rgyal sbra legs gzigs, Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs
and ’Ba’ Sang shi) to investigate the preceptor and determine if he is up to mischief and black magic.
The brāhmaṇa Janitabhadra from Kashmir is found as a competent translator. The enquiry continues for
two months.
Bodhisatva is given
audience amid calamitous events
8r
The ministers are convinced that the preceptor’s intentions are good and he is given audience in Brag
dmar. With the help of translators, the preceptor reminds the king of their shared experiences in earlier
lifetimes; the king studies the Indian dharma for six months. However, floods, epidemics and famine
raise doubts.
King reconsiders
and Śāntarākṣita
returns to Nepal.
8v
King Khri Srong lde btsan visits the preceptor and advises that he should withdraw in the long-term
interest of establishing Buddhism in Tibet; both the preceptor and the Buddha image from Ra mo che are
escorted by Seng ’gro Lha lung gzigs and Gsas snang to a place called Blang sna’i gru tshugs. Thereafter Lang ’Gro snang ra and Gsas snang escort the preceptor to Nepal.
Dba’ Gsas snang
is sent to China
8v
The king orders Dba’ Gsas snang to China in search of the dharma with a team of thirty including Sbrang
Gtsang bzher and ’Ba’ Sang shi. Meanwhile the king discourses in favour of the dharma at court.
Predictions in China
and the arrival of the
Tibetan Delegation in
Eg chu.
9r
As the Tibetan delegation heads to China, the Chinese preceptor Gyim Hwa shang in Eg chu predicts
their arrival, saying that two of the party are Bodhisatva emanations. He further predicts that a court
astrologer will announce their arrival to the prince in Bum sangs and present a drawing of the two Tibetans in question. The prince informs the emperor of China, who orders a welcome if the Tibetans match
the drawing and the descriptions. The Tibetans arrive and ’Ba’ Sang shi and Dba’ Gsas snang are duly
recognised as Bodhisatva emanations according to the drawing and the descriptions. An elaborate welcome ensues and the party are presented to the prince of Eg chu and Gyim Hwa shang.
Prophesies and instructions of
Gyim Hwa shang
9r
Gyim Hwa shang states that Sang shi is the Bodhisatva called ‘Wild Horse’ and prophesies that he will
establish the dharma in Tibet. Sang shi replies that he was minded to request Mahāyāna sūtra volumes
from the emperor for distribution in Tibet, but that he has decided the time is not yet right; he then
asks Gyim Hwa shang if he will live to see the day. Gyim Hwa shang announces that the king of Tibet is
a bodhisatva and predicts Sang shi will support the king in debates to come. In addition, he predicts
that Sna nam Nya bzang, Mchims Mes slebs and Seng mgo Lha lung gzigs will rise to prominence in the
debates.
10r
Gyim Hwa shang instructs Sang shi to give special attention to teaching the dharma to the three just
mentioned and predicts they will help him and the king in debates against the non-Buddhists. He further
instructs that the king should be given instructions according to the Karmavidbhaṅga, the Śālistamba
and the Vajracchedika. He finally instructs that Bodhisatva should be invited back to Tibet at the right
moment to serve as kalyāṇamitra to the king.
10r
The delegation travels to see the emperor at Keng shi and is hailed along the way; the Chinese emperor
gives them a great welcome and confirms that Sang shi and Gsas snang are bodhisatva-s.
10v
Gsas snang thanks the emperor for his kind words and asks to meet a Hwa shang who might instruct
them in meditation. Gyim Hwa shang is summoned from Eg chu for this purpose.
Audience with
Keng shi court
Delegation
returns to Tibet
Padmasambhava enters
Tibet
Sang shi and Gsas snang are presented with imperial gifts; an envoy is sent ahead to announce the
return of the delegation; meanwhile king Khri Srong lde btsan speaks with his ministers to reach an
agreement in principle about the practice of the dharma. Gsas snang presents himself at court on return
and it is agreed that he should proceed to Mang yul to invite Bodhisatva back to Tibet.
11r
Bodhisatva invites Padmasambhava to Tibet; concurrently Gsas snang invites a preceptor of geomantic
signs for laying the foundation of Bsam yas. Padmasambhava enters Tibet and subdues troublesome
nāga-s and causes hot springs to cool. The angry spirits at Snying drung are subdued in a ritual contest
during which Padmasambhava causes clouds, thunder, lightning and hail.
28
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
Bodhisatva petitions
Khri Srong lde btsan
11v
After a month Padmasambhava pays his respects to his majesty at the palace; Bodhisatva then makes a
detailed case before king Khri Srong lde btsan in favour of Padmasambhava, describing how he will be
able to subdue the malevolent deities who obstructed the dharma in Tibet even in the Buddha’s time;
he will bring them into submission with divination texts and his command of the mirror divination of the
four great kings.
12r
Bodhisatva draws on historical precedent in China, noting how non-Buddhists there were defeated by
logical disputation and supernormal displays. He advocates the same in Tibet now. The king agrees that
Bodhisatva and Padmasambhava should fill these roles.
Ritual preparations for
Bsam yas
12r
Bodhisatva and Padmasambhava urge the building of Bsam yas under the supervision of the divination
expert from Nepal. The king agrees and Padmasambhava then performs the mirror divination of the four
great kings.
Padmasambhava and
malevolent deities
12v
Padmasambhava changes the malevolent deities into human form and castigates them; Bodhisatva
counsels them in the dharma through a translator. Padmasambhava advocates performing the ritual two
more times.
Ablutions of
Khri Srong lde btsan
Padmasambhava and
the landscape
Padmasambhava advises that the water for the ablution of the king’s head should be brought from a
spring called Aśvakarṇa. Using his magical powers he sends a vase there through the air; he summons
the immediate return of the vase with mantra-s.
13r
Khri Srong lde btsan
reacts
Padmasambhava castigates the king
and departs
The ministers reject the use of the water from Aśvakarṇa. Padmasambhava speaks at length about
transforming the landscape with hydrology projects, creating springs, meadows and fertile fields so the
people will be busy with productive fieldwork. To prove his point, he transforms several barren areas
through japa and dhyāna.
Ministers are alarmed by these developments and raise suspicions in the king’s mind; the king suspends the two further rituals commended by Padmasambhava (in folio 12v), and requests Padmasambhava to return to India.
13v
Assassination is
planned
Padmasambhava criticises Khri Srong lde btsan for his narrow-minded attitude, sneers at the petty politics in the Tibetan court and makes derisory remarks about the gift of gold that the king offers to placate
him. He departs for India.
The inner assembly plots the assassination of Padmasambhava on his return route, but Padmasambhava
is aware of their intentions.
Padmasambhava subverts his assassination
and sends a warning
14r
The archers sent to kill Padmasambhava wait in a gorge, but he renders them motionless using a mudrā.
Approaching Mang yul, he announces to his escorts that if the ritual to bind the malevolent deities had
been performed three times (folio 12v), the dharma would be well established and the king’s reign and
that of his successors would be long and stable. He predicts that in the final five hundred years of the
dharma, the Buddhists will dispute among themselves and turmoil will prevail in Tibet. He releases
the assassins from their frozen state and the envoys return. They give a full account to the king who
becomes despondent on hearing it.
Debates against Bon
14r
A dharma council is organised in Brag dmar and Gsas snang is appointed to a key role. A debate is
planned between Bon and the Buddha dharma and the parties assemble at the palace of Zus phug
skyang bu tshal.
14v
The teams for each side are named; the Buddhist are led by Bodhisatva; the only Buddhist in the list who
also appeared in the prophecy of Gyim Hwa shang (folio 9r) is Seng mgo Lha lung gzigs. The Bon side
is led by Stag ra Klu gong and others. The Bon are defeated in logical debate (supernormal displays,
planned above in folio 12r, are excluded because Padmasambhava has returned to India). Bon rites,
especially the slaughter of animals for the dead, are proscribed; the Bon rites are compared to the single
performance of Padmasambhava after which epidemics ceased and rain has fallen in due time.
14v
Bodhisatva lays the foundation of Bsam yas and the divination expert from Nepal examines the auspicious signs and omens. Dba’ Lha btsan becomes a monk,
Bsam yas
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
29
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
Background activities
15r
under the name Dba’ Dpal dbyangs. The Buddha image is brought back and reinstalled in Ra mo che. A
temple is built at Glag at the behest of Gsas snang; the latter urges members of his clan to follow Buddhism and a number of them and their friends convert.
Temple plan
Bodhisatva climbs the mountain of Khas po ri with the king, Sang shi and Snyer Stag btsan ldong gzigs;
looking down he orders that an enclosure be made of sheaves of grass like a horse corral.
Site examination
King Khri Srong lde btsan puts on a golden mantle and digs the site seven times with a golden hoe. He is
assisted by four young nobles.
15v
First temple and
selection of prototypes
Temple consecration
and marvellous events
The young nobles dig the site and small measures of rice and barley are found along with pliable clay.
Inauspicious things (such as bone and charcoal) are not found. Bodhisatva is pleased and announces
the project will be well accomplished.
Construction begins with a temple for Ārya palo. The king and Bodhisatva discuss the images for the
building. A Chinese vermillion seller publicly announces that he is an expert image maker and is available for the work; the king decides that Indian and Chinese prototypes should not be followed. Rather,
handsome young Tibetan courtiers should be used as models; the most handsome are duly selected and
the work begins.
16r
Prayer to Tārā
The shrine and its paintings and images are completed and the building is consecrated. In the evening
a miraculous light shines from the top the shrine; the king orders a shrine of Amitābha be added to the
top of the temple as a result. A feast to honour the Chinese vermillion seller is prepared but he has disappeared; it is concluded he was an emanation.
Bodhisatva reminds king Khri Srong lde btsan that Tārā stimulated his first wish for enlightenment at the
vajrāsana and that prayers should be made to her now as a consequence. After receiving instructions
from the preceptor and while meditating in the temple of Ārya palo, Hayagrīva is heard to neigh thrice.
Dbu rtse and the king’s
dream
16v
The Dbu rtse is built where the site was examined (folio 15r). Khri Srong lde btsan wonders about its
images; in a dream a guide takes the king to Khas po ri where he shows him rocks in the shape of Buddhas, Bodhisatvas and other figures. In the morning the king goes to the mountain and sees that the
rocks approximately correspond. Stone masons from Nepal shape the images and they are transported
on a horse-cart to the temple. The earth shakes as they reach the gate and are installed in the Dri gtsang
khang. Four stūpa-s are built.
The blue stūpa
and marvellous events
17r
For the blue stūpa, in the south direction, a cakra is made. It goes missing and is found installed on the
stūpa. The carpenter responsible dreams that the cakra is installed by four men in gold chain-mail. When
day breaks the four men are gone but one suit of gold chain-mail remains as the carpenter’s reward. The
divination expert informs the king of these happenings; the four men are acknowledged to have been
the four great kings and their likenesses are engraved on a vase.
Ye shes dbang po
Indic language
and new ordinations
The Gtsug lag khang is completed; Gsas snang is given the name Ye shes dbang po with his ordination
(compare folio 6r).
17v
Consecration
Sons of the ministers are taught the language of India but only Śākyaprabha (son of Mchims anu) and
Vairocana (son of Pa ’or Na ’dod) and Lha bu (son of Zhang Nya bzang) and Bse btsan and Shud po
Khong slebs become proficient. Rad na (son of Dba’ Rma gzigs) becomes proficient also and takes Rad
na as his ordination name.
The temple is consecrated and one hundred people are ordained including Jo bo gcen khri rgyal and Sru
btsan mon rgyal.
Reforms
17v
A proclamation is issued withdrawing the extreme punishments that were instituted by Khri Srong btsan
(reported in folios 3r-3v above); the rule of dharma prevails. High and low agree to adhere to the new
dispensation and charitable donations are made. Monks are assigned a standard allowance of barley
each year.
Appointment of
kalyāṇamitra
17v
Ye shes dbang po gains supernormal insight and the king appoints him kalyāṇamitra (succeeding
Bodhisatva, folios 6r, 8r, 10r, 10v, and whose death is incidentally reported in folio 19v); protocols and
council arrangements are changed.
30
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
Endowments
18r
Ye shes dbang po suggests that long term endowments be established to support the saṃgha rather
than annual allotments (folio 17v). A debate ensues in court about the size of the endowments and Ye
shes dbang po reflects on their political, agrarian and social implications.
18v
In accord with Ye shes dbang po’s suggestion, two hundred servants are assigned to each monastery
and three households (involved in agrarian production) are assigned to each monk.
Withdrawal of
Ye shes dbang po
18v
Lands are selected for the endowments, but the monk Myang Ting nge ’dzin and others grumble about
the arrangements; Ye shes dbang po reports this to the king and retreats to an isolated place for meditation. Dpal dbyangs is appointed in his place.
Hwa shang
arrives from China
18v
Hwa shang Mahāyāna arrives from China and many Tibetan monks study with him; frictions emerge due
to incompatible views and some monks mutilate themselves. The disturbances come to the attention of
king Khri Srong lde btsan.
19r
Agitators threaten to kill the followers of the gradualist path and march on the palace; the king dispatches a messenger to Ye shes dbang po seeking his advice.
Conflicts
Ye shes dbang po
returns
Kamalaśīla
The messenger reaches Ye shes dbang po’s isolated meditation cave; although displeased at the interruption, he agrees to return. At court he lectures the king that his meditation should not have been disturbed.
19v
Preparations for the
Bsam yas Debate
Ye shes dbang po quotes a statement made by Bodhisatva before his death to the effect that in the final
five hundred years of the dharma in Tibet, Buddhists will dispute amongst themselves (compare folio
14r) and when that happens, Kamalaśīla should be summoned from Nepal.
Kamalaśīla is summoned and preparations begin. The followers of the instantaneous path take the Prajñāpāramitā to the Bsam gtan gling and practice debate for two months. Ye shes dbang po provides an
account of the gradualist position to king Khri Srong lde btsan who is convinced by it.
Bsam yas
Debate
20v
The king orders the great debate to begin and Hwa shang Mahāyāna sets out the position of those following the instantaneous path (Ston mun pa).
Kamalaśīla’s reply
20v
Kamalaśīla sets out his reply drawn from his Bhāvanākrama-s. His discourse on the gradualist path
continues to the middle of folio 22r.
Sang shi’s reply
22r
Sang shi sets out the understanding of charitable giving, moral conduct, forbearance, diligence,
one-pointed concentration and wisdom from the instantaneous perspective. He acknowledges that
approaches vary but common ground is universally agreed, such as the striving for nirvāṇa.
Dpal dbyangs’s reply
22v
Dpal dbyangs disagrees and amplifies criticisms of the instantaneous path, rejecting the validity of
common terminology. He asks rhetorically which Buddha has attained Buddha-hood instantaneously,
knowing full well that there is no scriptural warrant for it. He then describes the ten stages to supreme
omniscience in detail; his discourse on the ten stages continues to folio 24v.
Ston mun pa defeated
24v
The followers of the instantaneous path find themselves unable to refute the gradualists and accept
defeat. The king rules that the instantaneous path shall not be followed.
Implementation
24v
The king implements the recommendations of Ye shes dbang po and Bodhisatva and a translation
school is established. An account is given of works translated: Sūtra and Abhidharma texts, but not
Mahāyoga from the Tantra corpus. The Kriyā and Ubhaya are translated, so also the Dīrghāgama and
Abhidharmakośa. Teachers are appointed in every place and the nobility are encouraged to study the
dharma.
End (1)
25r
The core text here ends as follows: “Whereas the dharma could not be established during the reign of
the five previous kings, the devaputra Khri Srong lde btsan, Ācārya Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye shes dbang po
and ’Ba’ Sang shi—those four—established seats for the triple gem (and) the noble holy dharma was
propagated widely in the region of Tibet.”
Death of
Ye shes dbang po
25r
Ye shes dbang po nears death and is attended by the king with a food offering. With his passing, Khri
Srong lde btsan thinks that his life will end soon and he reflects on the fact that due to the fire at
Nālandā only a portion of dharma texts could be retrieved from India; as a consequence he regrets that
the complete canon in China was not translated.
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
31
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
folio
Summary of episodes
End (2)
25v
The text states “This is the end.”
Khri Gtsug lde btsan
25v
Text continues to the reign of Khri Gtsug lde btsan during whose time scholars come from India and
further texts are translated; those translations made earlier are revised according to the new language
system; 108 temples built and Vinaya rules tightened. Text states this is the end of the Dba’ bzhed;
marginal note says “Edited.”
End (3)
Dba’ za Spyan ras gzigs
Dba’ za Spyan ras gzigs, daughter of Ye shes dbang po (compare folio 5r) asks Jo mo Byang chub (see
folio 19v) to build centres for dharma study; she builds stūpa-s; Indian tablets with writing appear.
Khri Lde srong btsan
25v
Khri Gtsug lde btsan dies and during the reign of Khri Lde Srong btsan the king dreams that Ācārya ’Ba’
Rad na will translate the Shes rab ’bum for the first time (compare folio 19v). It is offered to the king by
Dba’ Mañju(śrī).
Death of
’Ba’ Sang shi
26r
’Ba’ Sang shi dies and Tārā is heard weeping in the temple of ’Gran bzangs.
End (4)
Text ends once more (reflecting some of the content in folio 25r): “Thus it was that the dharma was first
founded.”
Funeral rites of
Khri Srong lde btsan
26r
Text starts in a formal way with the death of Khri Srong lde btsan “in the Horse Year” and his funeral
rites under his son Mu ne btsan po. Ministers in favour of Bon make arrangements, setting up a funeral
tent in the Mtsho mo valley in Brag dmar; experts in Bon practice are summoned.
Dream of
Mu ne btsan po
26r
Mu ne btsan po has a dream in which his father Khri Srong lde btsan appears with Vairocana in the Akaniṣṭha realm with Vajrapāṇi and Mañjuśrī; he deems that the funeral rites cannot be conducted according to Bon. He orders a discussion so a common agreement can be reached.
Vairocana
and the assembly
26v
Monks assemble and Vairocana is summoned from the kingdom of Tsha ba tsha shog. The two sides
enter the chamber and jostle for seating positions around the king; Vairocana displays wrathful emanations in his beard to startle the Bon and they step away;
Btsan bzher
legs gzigs states the
Bon case
27r
the Buddhists quickly occupy the right hand. Btsan bzher legs gzigs opens the discussion from the Bon
side with an account of the wondrous regalia of the royal dynasty, how assemblies in ancient days were
marked by magical happenings, how funeral practices were instituted in the time Lha tho tho ri snyan
shal,
27r
and how the rites included funeral feasts and the construction of tombs at Ra ba thang. The king propitiated the tutelary deity Yar la sham po of awesome power and the kingdom, once small, is now much
expanded, its statecraft exalted. The Bon priests are commendable in action and ideology while
28r
their rites for the transfer of dead souls are effective and beneficial; he warns that the Indian system
should not be followed otherwise the long-standing Tibetan understanding between king and subject is
certain to decline.
28r
Vairocana appeals to the king as one who belongs to an august lineage of bodhisatva-s and, presenting
himself as humble yet experienced, asks to submit a few key points informed by wider realities:
28v
the auspiciousness arising from the propitiation of Yar la sham po, the building of tombs and so forth
is much exaggerated; Nālandā is far more auspicious. Steadfast adherence to the dharma gave Indian
rulers and their teachers lifetimes that extended to 1500 years.
29r
Moreover, the lineages of Indian kings, such as Indrabhūti, were uninterrupted for fourteen generations
and they benefitted from a Buddha-field where virtue ripened instantaneously. Vairocana then gives a
description of the Dharmadhātu palace of Akaniṣṭha (see folio 26r) which is more wondrous and auspicious than anything Bon has to offer; the awesome power of Yar la sham po is also exaggerated because
the four guardian kings in Akaniṣṭha are more so;
29v
Vairocana (the main Buddha in Bsam yas albeit not reported in the Dba’ bzhed) is skilled in means and
controls all conditioned existence. Turning to ritual matters, Vairocana observes that the assertion that
Bon practices are good is a further exaggeration; he cites examples of how kings propitiated cruel gods,
supported Bon animal sacrifice and piled up sin to such an extent that they lost their kingdoms and
seats of power.
Vairocana replies
32
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
DBA’ BZHED
Theme
Vairocana concludes
folio
Summary of episodes
30r
Vairocana continues the examples, extending them to relatives of the Yarlung kings who lost their
territories as a result of following their local Bon tradition. He concludes his case with Sribs po, lord of
Snubs, who offered dark Bon funeral rites and then came under the sway of Tibet. Vairocana finally notes
that virtue leads to higher births, unwholesome acts to lower realms; Khri Srong lde btsan being an
enlightened being in human form accrued merit through his acts.
30v
The funeral arrangements of Khri Srong lde btsan should thus be in accord with pure Buddhist practice:
to do otherwise would be like putting a black blanket on a white horse.
Response and conclusion
Btsan bzher legs gzigs responds with exasperation: he complains that the Buddhists are otherworldly
and that their arguments are derived from thin air; he facetiously demands that monks attend the king,
run the palace council and guard the border. When Vairocana retorts that monks will happily do so, the
king is delighted.
Funeral rites
31r
Monks perform the funeral in accord with the Devaputravimala Sūtra; a maṇḍala of Vajradhātu is made;
a feast is offered; the Prajñāpāramitā is recited.
Texts translated and
protagonists depart
31r
Texts are translated by Mu ne btsan po, Vairocana and G.yu sgra snying po; some are hidden away at
Bsam yas in a black box. G.yu sgra departs for the Tsha ba country (for which folio 26v).
31v
Vairocana goes to Gyad, but others report his going to marry the daughter of the king of Khotan and
reviving the temple of Lha khang gi sgo can in the north.
31v
Thereafter, funerals are performed according to the Buddhist system. In lieu of the supposed Bon custom of concealing wealth of the deceased as hidden treasure, masters of the dharma institute the ritual
food offering.
Closing summary
and, in folio 26r, the spacing between the lines is wide and
studied (see Figure 2.3). The definitive end to the sentence
about ’Ba’ Sang shi—marked in our illustration—shows
that this was drawn from an outside source or is imitating
a narrative in the grand manner: “Thus it was that the saddharma was first founded.”
The wording of this passage gives the impression that
the scribe was drawing in material to forge a narrative
bridge from the end of the Dba’ bzhed to the funeral of Khri
Srong lde btsan. Further, the way it is written shows that
this bridge was composed expressly for this copy of the
manuscript. Once we get to the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus, the
scribe picks up the pace: the words are written without
hesitation and he appears to be copying from his source
with confidence (folio 26r:2 onward, see Figure 2.3). In
addition, the author of this transitional section shows
himself to know the contents of the earlier portion—what
we call the Dba’ bzhed proper—and to know what was
needed to form a viable narrative bridge to the Zas gtad
kyi lo rgyus. The author has carried the narrative forward
to the death of the key protagonists: Khri Srong lde btsan,
Ācārya Bodhisatva (=Śāntarakṣita), Ye shes dbang po and
’Ba’ Sang shi.9 Their deaths pave the way for the introduc-
9 We use Bodhisatva and bodhisatva throughout this chapter based
on the spelling in the manuscript of the Dba’ bzhed; for wider dis-
tion of Vairocana and the funeral of Khri Srong lde btsan
that is given in the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus. Two conclusions
may be drawn: (a) the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was copied
from an exemplar that might be early, but the narrative
bridge was written later to allow that text to be added in
a way that harmonised with the Dba’ bzhed, and (b) the
formation process around the Dba’ bzhed as a text—what
might be added and what might be excluded—was still
under development when the narrative bridge and this
actual copy of the Dba’ bzhed was compiled. We will come
to the dating problem below; for the moment, we turn to
the multiple endings of the text and their chronological
implications.
Endings 1 and 2 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2)
The way that the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus has been added is
indicative of how many Tibetan texts were compiled. In
addition to colophons—sometimes giving the title and circumstances surrounding the copy—paragraphs or nota-
cussion, Gouriswar Bhattacharya, “How to Justify the Spelling of
the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Term Bodhisatva?’ in From Turfan to
Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Eli Franco and Monika Zin, (Rupandehi: Lumbini
International Research Institute, 2010), vol. 2, 35–50.
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
33
Figure 2.1: Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 25r with the closing sentences of the text proper marked (ending 1)
tions were occasionally appended to include information
that was deemed relevant. In subsequent copies, this additional material is often written in a continuous fashion,
without breaks. This results in the appended materials
being incorporated into the running text, effacing the
historical layers. Evidence of the same process is found in
several places in the Dba’ bzhed manuscript. Despite this,
a reasonably close reading shows where the old endings
fall, and thus how materials were added over time.10 In
the case of the main text of the Dba’ bzhed, the first ending
comes in folio 25r. This is shown in Table 2.1 and illustrated
in Figure 2.1. The corresponding place in our Tibetan text
and the translation may also be consulted. At this point,
the Dba’ bzhed states the following: “Whereas the dharma
could not be established during the reign of the five previous kings, the devaputra Khri Srong lde btsan, Ācārya
Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye shes dbang po, and ’Ba’ Sang shi—
those four—established seats for the triple gem (and) the
noble holy dharma was propagated widely in the region
of Tibet.”11
This summarises what has been recorded in the narrative overall and is the logical end of the story. There
can be little doubt that this signals the end of the text
proper in the original version. However, as can be seen
from Figure 2.1, the text continues without a break in the
way it is written. The writing style is uniform and continuous. The literary style, however, is at variance with what
has come before. The story continues with a somewhat
cryptic account of the death of Ye shes dbang po, fol-
10 Multiple endings have also been noted in the work of Nyang ral,
see Daniel Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born Padmasambhava
in the History of Tibet’s Golden Age (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2016), 141–75.
11 A version of this ending appears in the text published by Mgon
po rgyal mtshan under the title Sba bzhed issued from Beijing in 1980
and 1982 (see BDRC W20000), but the nature of edition precludes definitive conclusions about the relationship. This version is available
here: Sba bzhed. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.437874.
lowed by reflections on the part of Khri Srong lde btsan.
This coda is then closed with punctuation marks and
the statement rdzogs s+ho: “This is the end.” This is
shown here in Figure 2.2 (line 1, with words marked). The
main point here is that the lines from folio 25r to folio
25v—the sentences that describe the death of Ye shes
dbang po and reflections of Khri Srong lde btsan—were
added at a later date, i. e. they are newer than the narrative proper.
This newer portion (from folio 25r to folio 25v:1) contains some historical information that helps fix the date
of the addition. In these lines, king Khri Srong lde btsan
laments that his life will end soon and that, due to the
fire at Nālandā, only a portion of the dharma could be
translated. He further laments that the complete canon
in China was not translated. These anachronistic remarks
reflect the chronological horizon of canon formation in
Song China, on one side, and the destruction of Nālandā,
on the other.12 The fire at Nālandā referred to here is the
great fire that destroyed the monastery sometime between
1197 and 1206.13 This is not going to be some sort of other
fire—about which we have no historical record. The Dba’
bzhed has no close knowledge of day-to-day happenings
in medieval Bihār, any more than other Tibetan historical
works. Rather, it sees India from a distance and takes only
major events into account. The chronological implication,
therefore, is that this portion of the text was added after
circa 1200 and that the earlier portions of the Dba’ bzhed—
what we call the Dba’ bzhed proper—predate the early
years of the thirteenth century. We will address shortly by
just how much they predate it. For the moment, the main
observation is that this additional portion of the text was
12 Jiang Wu and Lucille Chia, Spreading Buddha’s Word in East Asia:
The Formation and Transformation of the Chinese Buddhist Canon
(New York: Columbia, 2015), all of Part 1 is relevant, probably the best
current overview in English.
13 Harmut Scharfe, Education in Ancient India (Leiden: Brill, 2002),
150.
34
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Figure 2.2: Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 25v with the two stated endings of the text marked (ending 2 and 3)
being transmitted within the Dba’ bzhed proper by the
early years of the thirteenth century. Moreover, this was
already embedded in the exemplar on which the present
manuscript was based.
Endings 3 and 4 (Figures 2.2 and 2.4)
As if two endings were not enough, further endings are
found as we read on in folio 25v. As can be seen from
Figure 2.2 (line 1 onward), the scribe has again continued his copying with a small break after the ending in
the first line. The narrative continues to the reign of Khri
Gtsug lde btsan and after the short summary of what was
done for the dharma in his time, the texts states: “So ends
the Dba’ bzhed—the account from the Dba’ perspective—
the text of the noble narrative of how the dharma of the
Buddha came to the region of Tibet.” This is shown and
marked in Figure 2.2. The text is actually named in this
third ending. As the consistent writing style indicates,
this sentence belonged to the exemplar on which our
manuscript was based. This means that the name the
Dba’ bzhed was attached to the main text from the time
of the exemplar.
Folio 25v:3, rather than the title page, is the earliest
internal evidence for the name in this manuscript. With
the name Dba’ bzhed appearing in an added section—and
after the part that belongs to circa 1200—it seems likely
that this section is again somewhat later. Naturally, we
should like to know the date. An external fix is provided
by Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251). He refers to a Dpa’ bzhed
or Dba’ bzhed and ’Ba’ bzhed, as well as Rgyal bzhed.14
Barring later extrapolations, this points to the name being
14 David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, Mind and the Problem of
Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and
Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1989), 68, n. 136 for which reference we are
grateful to Lewis Doney.
current in the first half of the thirteenth century. Bu ston
(1290–1364) knows the title Rba bzhed,15 and that title
appears in one of the oldest manuscript copies of the text,
as noted in Chapter 1.
The above evidence thus attests that the title Dba’
bzhed and its variants were in circulation during the first
half of the thirteenth century.16 The passage containing
the title in our manuscript was also in the exemplar on
which the present copy was made. We know this because,
after the third ending, the text gives a series of awkward
transitions to the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus and the scribe of
these subsequent parts is different. To restate and summarise the matter another way: everything up to and
including the third ending (“So ends the Dba’ bzhed” on
folio 25v:3) was by the first scribe. Everything after was
by the second scribe (see Figure 2.2). Of course, composition and copying are different things, and the copy before
us may have drawn on old material. Based on his analysis
of the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus and its narrative connections
with earlier texts, Dotson concluded that the Zas gtad kyi
lo rgyus is no earlier “than the end of the intermediate
period,” thus no earlier than the early eleventh century.17
However, our analysis of the first and second endings
shows that the manuscript was copied out—with the Zas
gtad kyi lo rgyus added—no earlier than the thirteenth
century.
15 Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 68, n. 136.
16 Older attestations may be found but are not known to us. Per
K. Sørensen, Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror Illuminating the
Royal Genealogies—An Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century:
rGyal-rabs gsal-ba’i me-long (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 10,
n. 24 says that the work was earlier called the Rgyal po’i (or Bsam
yas) Bka’ gtsigs (chen mo). The Me tog snying po borrows the final
self-reference from the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma (corresponding
to SBA 1961.1–2, 91.10–92.1). However, this appears to be a later extrapolation inserted into Nyang ral’s core text and anyway does not
actually use the title Sba bzhed. Thus, we are no further back in
time for the title.
17 Dotson, “The Dead and Their Stories,” 69, 77.
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
35
Figure 2.3: Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 26r with the closing sentence of the supplementary text marked (ending 4)
To round off this part of our discussion, we turn to
the fourth ending. It comes in the transition to the Zas
gtad kyi lo rgyus. As noted before, this appears in folio
26r:2 where the text reads: “Thus it was that the saddharma was first founded.” See Figure 2.3. This ties in
with the first ending, where the contribution of Khri
Srong lde btsan, Ācārya Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye shes dbang
po and ’Ba’ Sang shi are mentioned. The fourth ending
recounts their deaths.
Date(s) of the Dba’ bzhed Proper
The discussion given above provides a platform for determining the date of the core text, the Dba’ bzhed proper.
By this we mean the text before the material added in the
supplements at the end. To state the essence of our conclusions thus far: the supplements give the terminus ante
quem in that one of these mentions the fire at Nālandā,
showing that the Dba’ bzhed proper must be earlier than
circa 1200 CE. This is confirmed by the name or title Dba’
bzhed which appears in one of the supplements and also
externally, in several variants, in the writing of Sa skya
Paṇḍita and Bu ston.
While this pins down the core text to before 1200—a
date that will not be controversial—the matter is complicated by the fact that subsequent writers have interpolated
material into the Dba’ bzhed proper in a number of ways.
This gives the Dba’ bzhed proper a chronological density
that is often difficult to assess. As we shall see, this has
some bearing on how we read, understand and use the
text.
The Kriyāsaṃgraha
Textual links with the Kriyāsaṃgraha—a ritual text from
Nepal describing the construction and consecration of
religious buildings—confirms a chronological horizon in
the 1200s. In this work, mention is made of the inauspicious items that might be encountered in a building site,
such as bones, chaff, ashes and charcoal, iron, broken
clay pots, pebbles and lead.18 In folios 15r-15v of the Dba’
bzhed we find a parallel. At this point in the narrative, the
exploration of the site of Bsam yas is described and it is
noted that “pebbles, bone, pot shards and the like were
not found.” The king’s digging with a golden hoe and the
subsequent discovery of barley and rice also find parallels in the Kriyāsaṃgraha, which recounts how the earth
should be turned with a golden plough and the ground
ritually struck.19
It is not surprising that these parallels should be
found in the Dba’ bzhed, because the text itself reports that
a divination expert came from Nepal to examine the site of
Bsam yas (see folio 14v). According to Tadeusz Skorupski,
the oldest manuscript of the Kriyāsaṃgraha is dated to
1277 and a translation into Tibetan was made in the same
century. This presents a chronological problem because
the supplementary endings of the Dba’ bzhed show that
the core narrative was already in place by circa 1200. There
are two possible explanations. The first is that the Dba’
bzhed was influenced by the milieu of the Kriyāsaṃgraha
rather than directly by it, and thus drew on materials that
were available in the early 1200s if not before. This position can be supported by the fact that the Kriyāsaṃgraha
is an anthology and that the individual rituals were neces-
18 Tadeusz Skorupski, Kriyāsaṃgraha: Compendium of Buddhist Rituals: An Abridged Version (Tring: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2002),
31. The parallels with the Kriyāsaṃgraha noted first in Willis, “From
World Religion to World Dominion,” but here the implications are
reassessed.
19 Skorupski, Kriyāsaṃgraha, 38–39. Michael Walter, Buddhism
and Empire: The Political and Religious Culture of Early Tibet (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 186–89 for a wider context, albeit anachronistic
in many places. Note Walter, Buddhism and Empire,” 243: Tibetan
sa zhag refers to a pliable grey clay used to fashion the faces of the
images.
36
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
sarily well established before they were assembled in the
collection.
However, such an interpretation, namely of indirect
influence in the early 1200s, is based on the working
assumption that the Dba’ bzhed proper is a single unit,
undisturbed by redaction. This is unlikely. When we
look at the notations added to the manuscript of the
Dba’ bzhed, it is clear that readers had no qualms about
adding comments and making corrections. There can be
little doubt that earlier readers did the same, and that
these earlier additions are now submerged in the running
text. We will return to this below in our discussion of
Nyang ral and note further instances in the folio-by-folio discussion that appears later in this chapter. For the
moment, we need only note that the paragraph describing the ritual digging of the site in folios 15r-15v can be
read as extraneous to the general thread of the narrative.
As can be seen from our text and translation, this part of
the story comes in the middle of a series of choppy transitions. One could skip easily from the king and his retinue
inspecting the temple site from the hilltop (folio 15r) to
the construction of the first shrine (folio 15v) without
the narrative substance of the Dba’ bzhed being affected.
Thus, actual sources, rather than supposed antecedents
for which there is no evidence, show that the portion
mentioning what was uncovered while turning over the
soil at the temple site was inserted into the Dba’ bzhed at
a time when the Kriyāsaṃgraha was available in Tibetan,
i. e. in the second half of the thirteenth century. This may
not be what we would like: a neat distinction between
the supplements and the text proper. In terms of chronology, the parallels in the Kriyāsaṃgraha actually tell
us nothing about the dates of the earlier parts of the Dba’
bzhed, except that they are before the second half of the
thirteenth century, a dating already known from the evidence set out above.
Dharmasvāmin
The supposition that material was inserted into the
Dba’ bzhed proper during the thirteenth century is supported by a short episode that appears shortly after the
consecration of Bsam yas. At this juncture, Śāntarakṣita
takes the opportunity to tell Khri Srong lde btsan that
the goddess Tārā stimulated his first wish for enlightenment in a former life, just as Tārā instigated the turning
of the wheel of dharma when the Buddha tarried at the
vajrāsana (folio 16r). This is a manifest insertion, inconceivable before the thirteenth century in that it draws on
Dharmasvāmin’s account of a miraculous Tārā at Bodh-
gayā.20 The known facts that Dharmasvāmin travelled to
India in the 1230s, and died in 1264, points to this material entering the Dba’ bzhed in the middle of thirteenth
century.21
Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus
The interface between the Dba’ bzhed proper and the Zas
gtad kyi lo rgyus corroborates the chronology established
to this point. As noted above in our opening remarks about
the organisation of the text, the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was
not simply appended to the Dba’ bzhed in a random way,
but was in narrative dialogue with it.22 The chronological point here is that, if the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was in
dialogue with the Dba’ bzhed, the Dba’ bzhed must have
existed when the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was added. Dotson’s
conclusion, outlined earlier in our discussion of the organisation of our text, is that the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus can be
no older than the early eleventh century. This is the earliest possible date for the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus and thus for
the Dba’ bzhed.
A more precise dating can be offered in the light of
our codicological observations, also given before. To
repeat: the scribe who added the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was
responsible for composing the narrative bridge, i. e. what
we see in our manuscript was composed at the same time
that the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus was added, and the text in
the Dba’ bzhed is the prime copy (and indeed only copy)
of the bridging sentences and the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus
itself. Now, the Kriyāsaṃgraha and Dharmasvāmin’s
account of Tārā in the running text, coupled with the multiple endings added to the Dba’ bzhed proper, tells us that
additions were being made in the thirteenth century. In
terms of our main concern—dating the Dba’ bzhed—the
only thing that really matters is when the Zas gtad kyi lo
rgyus and the narrative bridge were added. Because the
narrative bridge was written to interface the Zas gtad kyi
lo rgyus with the Dba’ bzhed in the form it had in about
1250, the Dba’ bzhed necessarily existed at that time. This
20 Chag-lo-tsā-ba and George Roerich, Biography of Dharmasvāmin
(Chag Lo Tsa-Ba Chos-Rje-Dpal): A Tibetan Monk Pilgrim, transl.
George Roerich with a historical and critical introduction by Anant
S. Altekar (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959), available
online at Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1213643
21 The passage about Tārā is contextualised in Stephan Beyer, Magic
and Ritual in Tibet: The Cult of Tara (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1988), 237.
22 See the section above called ‘General organisation: Two Texts.’
We have drawn on and extended the idea of ‘narrative dialogue’
based on Dotson, “The Dead and Their Stories,” 78.
Chapter 2
may seem a disappointing result of the above investigation, but the evidence of the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus carries
us no further.
Nyang ral
The author, Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124–c.1192), knew
elements of the Testimony of Ba and quotes or paraphrases
it in his writing. In our earlier work, we used these connections to date the Dba’ bzhed between circa 1000 and
1100.23 However, since we published those observations in
2013, the study of Nyang ral has progressed substantially
and this requires a reappraisal of the evidence. Indeed, we
shall see below that our earlier conclusion about the date
is overturned by the new research. The key monograph
is Remembering the Lotus-Born by Daniel Hirshberg.24
This book argues that Nyang ral used the biography of
Padmasambhava to elaborate his identity as an enlightened personality and key player in the establishment of
Buddhism in Tibet. Hirshberg’s thinking developed concurrently and in dialogue with that of Lewis Doney. The
latter’s work has appeared in a series of publications that
provide analyses of the literary output of Nyang ral and
how his work was transmitted in the Tibetan tradition.
The most useful for our purposes is Doney’s examination
of the relationship between Nyang ral and the Dba’ bzhed
and its sister texts.25 Also relevant is Doney’s study of the
earliest recensions of the Zangs gling ma, Padmasambhava’s biography by Nyang ral.26 Developing his interest in
problems of religion and polity, Doney published a study
of bodhisatva-kingship and an exploration of the role
played by the king’s preceptor.27 All these works will be
used here for the chronological and inter-textual evidence
they provide.
Striking differences exist between the Zangs gling ma
and the Dba’ bzhed in their description of the events and
23 See Willis, “From World Religion to World Dominion,” drawing on
internal evidence and Dan Martin, Tibetan Histories (London: Serindia, 1997), no. 18 and Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 76.
24 Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born, published in 2016 and
cited above.
25 Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer and the Testimony of Ba,” Bulletin of Tibetology 49, no. 1 (2013): 7–38.
26 Doney, The Zangs gling ma: The First Padmasambhava Biography: Two Exemplars of the Earliest Attested Recension (Andiast: IITBS
GmbH, International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies,
2014).
27 Lewis Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship in Tibet: The Case of
Tri Songdétsen,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 24 (2015): 29–47; Doney,
“Narrative Transformations.”
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
37
personalities of the Tibetan imperial period—as scholars
interested in this subject have long been aware.28 In the
Zangs gling ma, Padmasambhava comes to Tibet to control
evil forces and participate in the building and consecration of the temple at Bsam yas. He bestows Tantric teachings on Khri Srong lde btsan and leaves Tibet only after the
king’s death.29 This course of events is at variance with the
Dba’ bzhed and its sister versions. As can be seen from our
translation—and the chart outlining the narrative (Table
2.1)—the Dba’ bzhed has Padmasambhava sent back to
India after some of the ministers become suspicious and
the king, yielding to political pressure, agrees that Padmasambhava should return. The temple at Bsam yas is finished after Padmasambhava leaves and Dba’ Gsas snang
takes the lead in religious matters. He attains supernormal
insight and assumes the ordination name Ye shes dbang
po, becoming the king’s preceptor (kalyāṇamitra) and the
guiding force in the organisation of endowments for Buddhist institutions and other protocols.30 These differences
have a number of literary and historical implications, but
for the moment our focus is chronology. We want to know
whether Nyang ral can be used to date the Dba’ bzhed.
Shared motifs and stories might be one way to determine a chronological relationship. Yet, it is difficult to
determine if one text is based on another or if both draw
on common sources. The only way to decide if there is
a dependent relationship is to trace direct borrowings.
Examples of such borrowings are found in the closing
portion of the Zangs gling ma as it appears within the
Chos ’byung Me tog snying po, the larger religious history
of Tibet written by Nyang ral. Doney and Hirshberg have
discussed how phrases from the appendicised Testimony
of Ba were interwoven with the text of the Me tog snying
po.31 In this passage, the portions in bold come from the
Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma.32
28 A useful summary is Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer,” 10–11 and
Doney, The Zangs gling ma, 4–6.
29 See Doney, The Zangs gling ma.
30 See Table 2.1 for the place of these events in the narrative, and
Doney, “Narrative Transformations,” for the role of kalyāṇamitra.
31 Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer,” and Hirshberg, Remembering
the Lotus-Born, 171.
32 This passage is translated by Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born, 171. For the present purpose, Lewis Doney has provided a
re-translation. Flemming Faber, “The Council of Tibet according to
the sBa bzhed,” Acta Orientalia 47 (1986): 44 pointed to elements
where Nyang ral appeared to draw on the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma,
i. e. SBA 1961.1–2, but at the time he was writing the complexities surrounding the transmission and redaction of Nyang ral’s work were
not well understood.
38
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Although many variant chronicles of the history of Buddhism have appeared, and some disparage them, some
wish for them, some summarise them, some split them up,
and some take them to be contrived, this history is free from
impurities and is genuine, well understood and well written,
well taught and artfully constructed. What has been compiled
by ordinary people can be mistaken. Genuine textual traditions are exceedingly difficult. If something is present in all
the oral instructions, who among the scholars has fabricated it? Do not give it to others, but keep the text in mind
and teach it. Having been written, when held in a [suitable]
vessel, it is a jewel treasury. All noble people by necessity
must keep it in mind! [This is] the detailed appendicised
text of the proclamation.
This borrowing comes in a section that Hirshberg has
called the “fourth coda.” He regards this as the last addition and not the work of Nyang ral himself. As he says
with precision and elegance: “… while the addendum
now appears as single unit … it is, in fact, composed of
at least five parts accumulated over at least four redactions by at least four redactors, which is evidenced by its
four distinct colophons, each with a variant compound
of Nyangrel’s name. Like waves lapping at the shore in
a rising tide, each colophon represents a high-water
mark left by a distinct wave of redaction before it receded
behind another.”33 And indeed, it appears indisputable
that the portions at the end of the Me tog snying po were
inserted by the followers of Nyang ral sometime after his
death, i. e. sometime after 1192. In terms of dating, Hirshberg notes that some of the individuals involved were contemporaries of Nyang ral, notably Zhig po bdud rtsi (1141–
1199) and ’Jig rten mgon po Rin chen dpal (1143–1217).34 At
the very least, the first colophons show redaction in the
late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. However, the
redactor who has drawn on the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma
for the fourth colophon comes at the end of the process
and was probably active in the first decades of the thirteenth century. As a working hypothesis, the work can be
attributed to the next generation of Nyang ral’s followers
and assigned to circa 1225.
This evidence means that the Sba bzhed zhabs btags
ma was available for reference and quotation in the first
decades of the thirteenth century, a date that coincides
with the evidence we have adduced for additions to, and
interventions in, the Dba’ bzhed. The Sba bzhed zhabs
btags ma is not, of course, the oldest form of the narrative—as explained here in Chapter 1—so the Dba’ bzhed
33 Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born, 174.
34 Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born, 162–172, all of which is
relevant.
proper is necessarily earlier in time. Just how much earlier
than circa 1225 is a matter of opinion and the chronological conclusions reached thus far do not help directly. At
the risk of testing our reader’s patience, we summarise the
evidence: (a) the sequence of colophons added to the Dba’
bzhed date after the Nālandā fire, so after circa 1200, (b)
the Kriyāsaṃgraha points to material being inserted into
the Dba’ bzhed proper in the second half of the 1200s, (c)
the account of a miraculous Tārā image appears to come
from Dharmasvāmin (d. 1264), so was inserted in circa
1250 or somewhat later, (d) the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus, itself
not before the early eleventh century but more likely of the
1100s, was added to the Dba’ bzhed no earlier than the late
1200s. The Dba’ bzhed proper is older than all these additions. The writing of Nyang ral, as redacted, shows that the
Sba’ bzhed existed in circa 1225. In terms of date, therefore,
the evidence from Nyang ral carries us no further. All that
can be said for certain on this evidence is that Dba’ bzhed
proper predates circa 1200. The question arises: Can we
squeeze anything further from the evidence? While this
question has to be answered, most probably, in the negative, in the following section, we propose to examine the
narrative relationship between Nyang ral and the Dba’
bzhed in an effort to probe the lower chronology and—
more generally—explore the wider agendas of history
writing in medieval Tibet.
Reading Nyang ral against the Dba’ bzhed
The relationship between Nyang ral and the Dba’ bzhed—
and the date of the latter—can be understood from an
overview of the competing nature of the two narratives.
We start with Nyang ral. His work belongs to a turbulent period when different families and individuals were
making claims to religious and political authority.35 As
a descendent in the Myang clan, Nyang ral belonged to
an ancient and noble lineage, one long associated with
Buddhism (as mentioned in the Dba’ bzhed, e. g. folio 14v,
15r). However, Nyang ral offers not only a different history
than the Dba’ bzhed—in terms of the sequence of events
and Padmasambhava’s place in them—but a different
vision of himself as an author and historical actor. In his
representation, as touched on before, Padmasambhava
comes to Tibet and initiates Khri Srong lde btsan in the
ways of Tantra. He then conceals the guidebooks to these
practices as hidden text treasures (gter ma). In a dramatic
35 For the context in this paragraph we draw on Doney, The Zangs
gling ma, 8–10.
Chapter 2
narrative twist, Nyang ral inserts himself into the story
as a reincarnation of Khri Srong lde btsan. As the king’s
reincarnation—and so the direct recipient of Tantric initiations three centuries before—Nyang ral recovers the gter
ma composed by his master in the eighth century. By effectively bending time through a series of pre-incarnations—
what Hirshberg aptly describes as catenations—Nyang ral
links himself to the establishment of Bsam yas and the
imperial past. In fact, this is an understatement of Nyang
ral’s position: he is not simply linked to the imperial past,
he is the imperial past pure and simple—a living witness
to Padmasambhava, the introduction of Tantra and the
building of the great temple. The boldness of this claim is
astonishing, if somewhat surreal to modern eyes.
The historical vision of Nyang ral stands against the
Dba’ bzhed. Our text has little place for Padmasambhava
and seeks to discount his importance. When we look at
the organisational structure of the Dba’ bzhed (see, again,
Table 2.1), the entire Padmasambhava episode could
have been dropped: his presence in Tibet has no lasting
impact—aside from subduing a few malevolent deities. The
narrative could have run easily from the mission of Dba’
Gsas snang in China and the summoning of Śāntarakṣita
(folio 10v) to the defeat of Bon in debate and the foundation of Bsam yas (folio 14r). Why, then, does the Dba’ bzhed
bother with recounting the activities of Padmsambhava if
there is no enduring place for him? The reason is that the
writers who assembled the Dba’ bzhed could not ignore
him. As we know from documents found at Dunhuang,
Padmsambhava was already remembered as a significant
figure in the religious landscape of the dynastic period by
the late tenth century.36 If the vision of history set out in
the Dba’ bzhed was to have authority—and determine how
historical precedent was to be used to guide the present—
it had to find a place for Padmasambhava, appropriately
acknowledging his powers, yet relegating him to a place
beneath the institutions and ordination lineages set in
place by Śāntarakṣita and Dba’ Gsas snang.37
Re-reading the Padmasambhava sections of the
Dba’ bzhed with this in mind, we note that the text does
not involve Padmasambhava on the site of Bsam yas
or the defeat of the anti-Buddhist deities there. Rather,
36 Perspectives on the Padmasambhava episode vary and the literature is extensive: Matthew T. Kapstein, Gray Tuttle, and Kurtis R.
Schaeffer, Sources of Tibetan Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013); Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur Pa from Dunhuang (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008); Wangdu and Diemberger,
Dba’ bzhed, 13–14.
37 See Doney, “Narrative Transformations,” 315.
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
39
Śāntarakṣita and Padmasambhava recommend that a
divination expert from Nepal supervise the temple construction—a suggestion to which the king immediately
agrees (folio 12r). Padmasambhava’s performance of the
divination ritual of the four great kings, used to subdue
evil forces, is contextualised by Śāntarakṣita as a rite of
state protection following precedents set in China (folio
11v). The text does not change the location of events from
the royal palace and it is there that the divination is performed, duly witnessed by the court chamberlain (folio
12r). The Dba’ bzhed thereby distances Padmasambhava
from the site of Bsam yas.
Later in the story, Padmsambhava castigates the king
for his narrow-minded attitude, sneers at the petty politics
of the Tibetan court and makes derisory remarks about the
king’s gift of gold to him (folio 13v). From the late-twelfth
century onwards, this could be read as a veiled criticism
of Nyang ral—he is, after all, none other than Khri Srong
lde btsan incarnate. The criticisms come directly from
the mouth of his own master and rightly so: in violation
of all teacher-student protocol, the king has the temerity
to say that his master should return home to India. This
encounter can be usefully contrasted with the deferential
exchange between Dba’ Gsas snang and Śāntarakṣita,
when they first meet (folios 5v-6r). There the master-disciple relationship is a glowing picture of things as they
should be.
Subsequent interactions between Khri Srong lde btsan
and Dba’ Gsas snang (who by this time has taken the name
Ye shes dbang po, folio 17r) could be read as criticisms of
Nyang ral also. Later in the story, the king is depicted as a
hopeless character, unable to control the squabbling Buddhist monks (folio 18v-19r). With no idea what to do, he
sends a desperate message to Ye shes dbang po who has
gone into retreat for meditation: “Here all the monks are in
conflict due to opposing (views). What should be done?”
(folio 19r). When Ye shes dbang po refuses to budge, the
king resorts to threats of violence: the hapless courtier
Gnon Kham pa is told to go and fetch Ye shes dbang po; his
certain death awaits if he fails. Out of compassion, Ye shes
dbang po agrees to come, and so saves the poor man’s life,
but he does not hide his displeasure (folio 19r). He bluntly
tells Khri Srong lde btsan that he should not have been disturbed over such a trivial matter, and that the disruption
of his meditation will impact the king’s life span and the
stability of the dharma in Tibet. He then recommends that
Kamalaśīla—Śāntarakṣita’s disciple—be summoned from
Nepal so that doctrinal differences can be judged in the
Bsam yas Debate (folio 19v). This representation of events
lays the source of the whole problem on the doorstep of
the king—and so Nyang ral—and places the solution neatly
40
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
in the hands of Kamalaśīla and the designates of Ye shes
dbang po. This confirms the stability and authority of their
religious lineage. The Dba’ bzhed even has the king (i. e.
Nyang ral) declare that Ye shes dbang po is his teacher
after his doubts are removed by “a proper account of the
views of Bodhisatva and of the gradualists” (folio 19v).
Similar agendas can be seen in a part of the text dealing
with the construction and consecration of Bsam yas (folio
16r). As noted above, Śāntarakṣita tells Khri Srong lde
btsan that Tārā stimulated his first wish for enlightenment, just as Tārā prompted the Buddha to begin turning
of the wheel of dharma.38 Why has this curious passage
been added to the Dba’ bzhed in the thirteenth century?
Its manifest purpose is to detach Khri Srong lde btsan from
the Mahāyoga of the Rnying ma and remind him, anachronistically, of his allegiance to the Bka’ gdams pa school
in which Tārā is venerated—notably by Atīśa (982–1054).39
This school advocated the gradualist approach, and it
is the gradualists who are set to triumph in the coming
debate at Bsam yas (folio 24v). The Dba’ bzhed clarifies
textual matters immediately after the debate: “From the
Tantra corpus, Mahāyoga, taught without differentiating
between pure and impure and meant for guiding non-Buddhists to virtue, was not translated suspecting that an
erroneous understanding would arise from an improper
comprehension of the basic elements of the dharma (dharmadhātu). Additionally, it was not translated for lack of
a competent person in Tibet to serve (in the use of) the
mantra-s.” Although Padmasambhava was skilled in the
use of mantra-s (openly admitted in folio 11v), there was
no competent person subsequently and those outside the
mainstream simply have no case and no texts. The Rnying
ma are likely implied, but the Dba’ bzhed is not going to
dignify opponents by name: it is for readers to draw a line
between the dots—or not—depending on their knowledge
and inclination.40
38 See the section above on Dharmasvāmin.
39 As evidenced by the Tārā temple (Sgrol ma lha khang) built by
Atīśa’s disciple ’Brom ston pa in the eleventh century at Snye thang,
outside of Lhasa. Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, trans.
George N. Roerich (Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, 1949; Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1969), 263.
40 For example, in folio 16r, after Khri Srong lde btsan receives instructions in the worship of Tārā and is meditating in the Ārya Palo
shrine, “the inner courtiers and temple guards actually heard Ārya
Hayagrīva neigh three times.” The vignette confirms the king’s religious direction because Hayagrīva is an esoteric form of Padmasambhava and that deity empowers Padmasambhava in later redactions of
the Zangs gling ma. The simple point here is that the worship of Tārā
by the king (and by extension Nyang ral) is shown to be confirmed by
Much of the cross-referencing in the Dba’ bzhed may
be hard to detect and we can claim to have tracked only
the most basic and obvious links. Like every classic, the
Dba’ bzhed yields new meanings with each reading and
like every classic it has inspired discussion through the
centuries. What emerges is a work that is informed by the
religious currents of the time, a text that was constituted
in the dynamic world of medieval Tibet. The histories of
the post-dynastic age are grappling with events long past,
but they are not arguing about the basic facts—the temple
at Bsam yas, King Khri Srong lde btsan, Padmasambhava
and so forth. Rather, the issue is how these facts might
be sequenced and interpreted, and how individuals and
institutions might position themselves against the facts in
a compelling way. If we accept that there is a narrative dialogue between the Dba’ bzhed and Nyang ral with regard
to these matters, this has implications regarding the date
of the Dba’ bzhed.
As noted in the previous section, based on the citation of the Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma in circa 1225, the
Dba’ bzhed proper dates before this time. With Nyang
ral born in 1124, the core of the Dba’ bzhed proper—if
it is understood as responding in part to Nyang ral as a
charismatic leader—should have been assembled when
Nyang ral was emerging as a powerful religious figure in
the mid-twelfth century.41 Our view is that the Dba’ bzhed
took shape rapidly at this time. The Dba’ bzhed is not a
text that evolved slowly, with accretions added here and
there as the decades slowly passed. Rather, it is a text that
formed quickly to meet the challenges facing those vying
for the possession of Bsam yas in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The cluster of chronological evidence
for the Dba’ bzhed points in this direction: the colophons
added just after circa 1200, Kriyāsaṃgraha material
inserted in the late 1200s, the account of the miraculous
Tārā inserted after circa 1250, the Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus
appended toward the end of the 1200s. The Me tog snying
po history, as redacted, then quotes the Sba bzhed zhabs
btags ma in circa 1225. There cannot be much distance
between circa 1200 and Dba’ bzhed proper because the
additions point to a flurry of text activity in the thirteenth
century. And the fabric of the Dba’ bzhed itself gives the
Padmasambhava. See Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer,” 13; Doney,
“Narrative Transformations,” 318.
41 Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born, 52 gives an outline of
his life, noting that he received empowerments at the age of 13 (thus
about 1137); two decades later he was probably at the height of his
influence. Hagiographies often make their figures child prodigies, but
a sceptical view leads us to temper the biographic representation, not
dismiss it.
Chapter 2
impression of text compiled in haste, with awkward juxtapositions, disjointed transitions and contradictions
that are only seldom resolved. There is even uncertainty
hovering over what to include and what to reject in the
text proper, a point that is made especially clear in the
case of the long insertion in a minute hand on folio 17r,
discussed below in our folio-by-folio analysis. The rapid
compilation of the Dba’ bzhed from circa 1150 would help
account for the other recensions of the Testimony of Ba,
each seeking to expand or improve the narrative. The relationship between these many versions is not clear, but it is
certain that there were a substantial number of them and
that more copies of the recensions are likely to be found
with the passage of time. An especially poignant indicator of the number and complexity of versions is the fact
that the Dba’ bzhed recension itself has no extant textual
descendants.
Older Elements from the Dunhuang Fragment
and Mādhyamika Philosophy
The information given in the foregoing sections show that
the Dba’ bzhed existed in the late thirteenth century and—
if our further observations are accepted—that it was compiled rapidly from circa 1150. Yet, somehow, it seems much
older, or presents itself as much older. As Louis Renou
famously remarked: “Everything is much older and much
newer than it seems.” This is especially so in a text that
attempts to map key moments from centuries before and
draws on pre-existing texts to constitute its narrative. With
many texts, there is a tendency among scholars to expect
a long process of textual development behind the earliest
version. Outside the Tibetan field, a good example is The
Book of Enoch, an ancient Jewish work known only through
secondary references in medieval sources for many centuries. In the 1700s, the first manuscripts were found—Ge’ez
translations in Ethiopia.42 The Ethiopian manuscripts do
not pre-date the seventeenth century, but a papyrus folio
of Enoch, found in the nineteenth century and now in
the Chester Beatty Library, belongs to the fourth century
CE. This is impressively early, but the situation was transformed in 1948 when Aramaic fragments were discovered
in the caves at Qumran.43 These pushed back the manuscript history of Enoch to the first century BCE.
42 Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917).
43 Józef Tadeusz Milik and Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch:
Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1976).
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
41
What Qumran is for The Book of Enoch, the famous
‘library cave’ at Dunhuang is for the Dba’ bzhed. Among
the manuscripts found at Dunhuang is a fragment reproduced and discussed in Chapter 3 of this volume by Sam
van Schaik.44 The physical manuscript fragment cannot
be later than circa 1000, since it had been re-used by the
time that the cave was closed in the early 1000s. Given
that the text on that fragment is close to what is found in
the Dba’ bzhed, the fragment suggests that the Dba’ bzhed
narrative, or its prototype, predates circa 1000. It is also
important to remember that the Dunhuang fragment was
out of reach for centuries, sealed in a cave until modern
times. With the parent manuscript destroyed long ago, the
certain conclusion is that there were other copies of the
same text in circulation and that one these copies (or a
fragment of it) informed the exemplar on which the Dba’
bzhed was based in the twelfth century. However, before
we proceed with the implications of these facts, we are
obliged to ask what we mean by the Dba’ bzhed. To put
the matter in a more precise way, what is the purpose of
the Dba’ bzhed as it stands in the manuscript presented
in this volume and in the other versions of the Testimony
of Ba?
While the scope of the original Dunhuang text is
unknown to us, Śāntarakṣita’s existence is verified externally by Dunhuang documents (see, again, Chapter 3).
It is not surprising to find other accounts of his arrival
in Tibet in the genres of literature that are found at Dunhuang. What makes the fragment notable is the close correspondence of its wording to the Dba’ bzhed (folios 7r-7v).
This shows that a copy of the Śāntarakṣita narrative was
available and incorporated as a vignette within the Dba’
bzhed (and Testimony of Ba tradition). However, the Śāntarakṣita narrative cannot be construed necessarily as an
early form of the Dba’ bzhed because it does not document
Dba’ Gsas snang—or any other member of his family—as a
protagonist. The Śāntarakṣita episode was certainly taken
into the Dba’ bzhed, but it was redacted in the process.
This is shown by the wording: the repeated assertion that
three men went to interview Śāntarakṣita—said thrice in
as many lines—reveals a level of insistence that immediately prompts us to doubt the testimony: “The lady doth
protest too much methinks.” RBA 2011.1—discussed in
Chapter 1, above, and itself redacted but preserving a more
archaic version of the story—gives a different account
of the individuals present at this key historical event: it
44 First discussed in Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, “Fragments
of the Testament of Ba from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 3 (2009): 477–487.
42
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
says that the initial encounter with Śāntarakṣita involved
Rgyal Sbrang legs gzigs and Gnyer bskyum pa.45 The team
increases to three a little later in the story, among them
’Ba’ Sang shi, as in the Dba’ bzhed. This shows that there
were disagreements about the people who were present
at the investigation of Śāntarakṣita, even among manuscripts of the same date. The repeated insistence in the
Dba’ bzhed on three people was made against texts that
stated otherwise. However, no matter how we read the relative relationship of the Dba’ bzhed to other versions of
this event, they do not change the fundamental nature of
the evidence from Dunhuang: the fragment simply does
not document the presence of the Dba’ family. It cannot,
therefore, be regarded as part of the text we now call the
Dba’ bzhed without corroborating evidence. To us, the
only thing that the Dunhuang fragment shows is that
earlier post-dynastic materials were available to the compilers the Dba’ bzhed.
Another old motif within the Dba’ bzhed is found in
folio 22v, where Sang shi discusses doctrinal issues as
part of the great debate. The nature of the text in this and
adjacent folios is discussed in Chapter 6. From the chronological point of view, the only matter of concern is the
fact that Sang shi refers to the three schools of Mādhyamika. These three schools find first mention in the work Pa
tshab Nyi ma grags (circa 1055–1145).46 This portion of the
text is thus an anachronism and cannot predate the first
half of the eleventh century. This is the earliest possible
date; it could have been added subsequently. The date of
the incorporation could perhaps be traced from the circulation and citation of the work of Pa tshab Nyi ma grags.47
In our discussion of Nyang ral (given above) we argued
that the evidence suggests that the Dba’ bzhed took shape
around 1150. The mention of the three schools in Sang
shi’s speech thus seems to represent developments that
were emerging in Tibetan thinking in the second half of
the eleventh century. The reference to the three schools is
accordingly part of the oldest materials assembled in the
Dba’ bzhed.
45 The version we term RBA 2011.1; see “Rba bzhed (Zi ling 2011):
Annotated Transcription.” Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
3359899. See also discussion under folio 7v below.
46 Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 80 and Chapter 5.
47 A start may be had from Leonard van der Kuijp, “Notes on the
Transmission of Nagarjuna’s Ratnavali in Tibet,” The Tibet Journal
10, no. 2 (1985): 3–19; David P. Jackson, “Madhyamaka Studies Among
the Early Sa-skya-pas,” The Tibet Journal 10, no. 2 (1985): 20–34.
Compilation, Notation, Redaction
The discussion so far has helped frame the textual processes taking place in the Dba’ bzhed and the ways in
which source materials were redacted as they were
pulled into its narrative. The folio-by-folio notes given
below provide specific examples as well as further
observations. The ways in which primary sources were
used shows how the authors and redactors of the Dba’
bzhed drew conclusions from the evidence before them
that accorded with their readings, their world views and
their historical ambitions. The history of the imperial
age in Tibet is not a set piece: from the eleventh century
to the present, different narratives of the Yar lung past
have existed side-by-side and in dialogue. This is because
medieval religious histories, including the Dba’ bzhed,
have a purpose. They are concerned, at their heart, with
describing the individuals, institutions, texts, and ritual
practices in which the dharma properly resides. This
is a key point. Historical narratives are used to name
the legitimate dharma-holders who merit the trust and
support of the faithful and exclude those who are not.
With regard to some, such as the followers of the instantaneous path and Bon, one side may have sought to show
themselves perfectly right and the other side hopelessly
wrong. Yet, within the closer community and religious
fold, the texts have a nuanced rhetorical and hierarchical
relationship in which each side seeks to absorb, surpass
and subordinate the other.
As the composition and redaction of the texts continued, an important part of the process was the understanding that writers had of themselves as authors and
commentators. If we look at the pages of the Dba’ bzhed
manuscript we see this seemingly abstract idea in action
before our very eyes: individuals have not just read the
text, they have picked up their pens and inserted corrections and explanations. They have done this because they
knew that they had valid points to make: in essence, they
knew they were right. There is simply no other reason
for the notations we see in the manuscript. This means
that the text was fluid, and that its transmission involved
alteration, correction and supplementation. One of the
clearest statements of this in mainstream Buddhist literature is found in the Milindapañha, from the early centuries of the Common Era, where the protagonist Nāgasena
outlines his vision of textual sources and his relationship
to them.48
48 V. Trenckner, The Milindapañho: Being Dialogues Between King
Milinda and the Buddhist Sage Nāgasena (Oxford: Pali Text Society,
Chapter 2
As sire, all the water that has rained down on the low-lying
and elevated, the even and uneven, and the swampy and dry
parts of a district, on flowing away from there collects together
in the ocean of great waters—even so, sire, if there be a recipient, whatever are the sayings on the nine-limbed word of the
Buddha that relate to submissive habits, to the practice and to
the noble limbs of the special qualities of asceticism, all will be
collected together here. Illustrations for the reasons out of my
wide experience and discernment will be collected here also,
sire, and by means of them the meaning will be well analyzed,
ornamented (vicitta, suvicitta), filled out (paripuṇṇa), and completed (samānīta or pūrita samattita). As, sire, a skilled teacher
of writing, on showing some writing if he is requested to do
so, fills out the writing with illustrations for the reasons out of
his own experience and discernment, so that that writing will
become finished and accomplished and perfect (anūnika), even
so, illustrations for the reason out of my wide experience and
discernment will be collected together here also, and by means
of them, the meaning will become well analyzed, ornamented,
filled out, quite pure, and completed.
This passage in the Milindapañha is essential for cultural
historians who seek to understand the evolving place of
a text in a Buddhist society. To return to our archaeological analogy: there is no essential core behind the accretions, extrapolations and representations. A habitation
site is an accumulation of many layers, built up over time.
Each layer is simply one in the sequence. A controlled
excavation involves a recognition and description of the
sequence, not judgements about what is good or bad.
In a similar way, our approach does not deny the
validity of text-critical methods or stemmatics. It hardly
needs saying that texts are related to other texts and that
the differences have chronological implications. Thus
here we have sought to show how the Dba’ bzhed evolved
with time and in relation to other works. We set out this
thinking—perhaps somewhat basic in theoretical terms—
because it determines how we should assess and use the
Dba’ bzhed and its sister versions. In the remaining parts
of this chapter, we make a number of observations on the
text and draw conclusions that seem relevant with this
position in mind. Given that the assessment of the Dba’
bzhed, its notations and its sister versions is still in its
infancy, hopefully this will open new avenues of analysis
for the future.
1997), 349, Isaline B. Horner, Milinda’s Questions (London: Luzac,
1963), vol. 2, 202 with her footnotes that are essential for the understanding of this difficult passage.
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
43
Observations
Folio 1r49
The first folio carries the title and a subsequent library
notation. A similar notation appears on the first folio of
the RBA 2011.1, discussed in Chapter 1.50 These notations
suggest that both manuscripts were held in the Gnas bcu
lha khang, located on the second floor of the main assembly hall within the ’Bras spungs monastery, but were collected, perhaps before the eighteenth century, from libraries outside (phyi) ’Bras spungs.51
Folio 1v
The first page of proper text displays notations and erasures that are indicative of what we encounter throughout
the rest of the manuscript. The first page of the scribe’s
exemplar was evidently in a poor state and the person who
wrote the manuscript before us faced problems making
sense of his source and what he should write. Notably, in
line 5, there is a space in the running text. Although no
words are missing, some letters have been scrubbed out,
leaving a smudge; no text is written in the space. This may
be simply a badly corrected mistake, yet it seems more
likely that the source manuscript was damaged and that
the scribe anticipated the wording incorrectly.
The opening page provides a synopsis of the work as
a whole with an abbreviated account of the dharma kings:
1) Lha Tho do re snyan btsan, in whose time texts were
first found, 2) Khri Srong btsan, in whose time traditions
were instituted for practising the dharma, 3) Khri Srong
lde btsan, in whose time the dharma was propagated, and
4) Khri Gtsug lde btsan, in whose time the dharma was
codified fully.
When we turn to related versions of the Testimony of
Ba, the enumeration is different. In RBA 2011.1—an old
49 Throughout this section, readers are referred to the archived version of the Dba’ bzhed manuscript with each folio and line numbered:
Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3359902.
50 Photo-lithograph facsimiles available at Rba bzhed (Zi ling 2011),
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3359897 and a transcription prepared
from them at Rba bzhed (Zi ling 2011): Annotated Transcription.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3359899. Hereinafter referred to as
RBA 2011.1.
51 These observations drawn from Cécile Ducher, “A Lineage in
Time: The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa bka’ brgyud from the 11th
through 19th Centuries” (Thèse de doctorat, l'Université de recherche
Paris Sciences et Lettres, 2017), 41–45, for which reference I am grateful to Lewis Doney.
44
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
copy of about the same date as the manuscript under
study—an earlier king is inserted at the start: Khri Thog je
thog btsan. In his time, we are told, cymbals sounded from
the realm of the gods, presaging the coming of the dharma.
The next king, Lha Tho do re snyan btsan, is denied the
epithet lha and is called simply Tho tho re snyan btsan,
while Khri Srong btsan is given the epithet sgam po (‘the
profound’).52 This reveals something of the nature of RBA
2011.1, in that those who copied and redacted the text felt
compelled to name the king with his post-dynastic title,
rather than allowing the story to explain how Khri Srong
btsan acquired the name sgam po (as in the Dba’ bzhed).
Line 6: The position of the Dba’ bzhed against other
versions is also shown by the notation khri btsun added
below line 6. This is an epithet of the Nepalese queen
known as Bal mo bza’ or Bhṛkuṭī. The point here is that
the person who complied the Dba’ bzhed did not have any
further particulars of the queen in the exemplar, so this
was supplied subsequently when the epithet khri btsun
was known and used. In RBA 2011.1, we find that the detail
about the queen is not yet added.53 This means that the
absence of an epithet for the queen in the Dba’ bzhed is
not an incidental or idiosyncratic omission and that, at
the earliest level of this historical tradition, the queen was
known simply as Bal rje’i bu mo.
Also of note, the following sentence in line 6 is absent
in RBA 2011.1: “Furthermore, the temples of the four
administrative divisions were constructed at the king’s
behest.”54 The word gzhan yang in the Dba’ bzhed shows
that this is a supplement and that RBA 2011.1 preserves an
earlier version of the text that did not contain this statement. The notation to line 6 in the Dba’ bzhed then raises
the number of temples to forty-two. The literature on this
point is given by Wangdu and Diemberger, who note that
the Ma ṇi bka’ bum knows a scheme of twelve temples.55
This heterogeneous collection of ‘treasure texts’ was found
by Grub thob dngos grub at Lhasa in the 1100s.56 The text
then passed to Nyang ral and Rje btsun Shakya bzang
po (the latter lived to the mid-thirteenth century). In the
assessment of Matthew T. Kapstein, the Ma ṇi bka’ bum
collection was in existence by 1250.57 The scholar Mkhas
pa lde’u, whose histories date to the second half of the thirteenth century, adduced that king Khri Srong btsan built
forty-two temples.58 The trajectory of the textual tradition is
accordingly clear. At the earliest level in RBA 2011.1, there is
no tradition, or at least none deemed worthy of record, but
by the time of the Dba’ bzhed, there are four royal temples.
Concurrently, according to Nyang ral and his followers,
there were twelve temples, but by the second half of 1200s,
forty-two temples were recorded. This indicates that the
notation mentioning forty-two temples in the Dba’ bzhed
belongs to the late thirteenth century or somewhat later,
and that it was added by someone who likely knew the histories of Mkhas pa lde’u or the latter’s source.
Folio 3r
Line 1: After the success of the Tibetan mission to China,
the ambassadors stay on. It seems unlikely that the envoys
would be “detained” for two months following their audience; accordingly, we understand bton as ston, both pronounced the same in modern speech. This yields the probable meaning of the mission being “entertained” for two
months.
Line 3: When they return, the name of the palace in
which the king resides is Lhan kar ta mo ra. This name
is probably based on a middle Indo-Aryan word akin to
alaṃkārottama (the ‘uppermost ornament’). The name
appears in folio 31r as Lhan dkar ta mo ra.
Line 4: Here begins a story inserted from an external
source, named below in folio 4r as the Lung bstan chen
po (“Great Prophecy”). This is the first indication of the
older sources that are brought into the Dba’ bzhed, with
this portion naming the title of the work quoted.
Folio 4r
52 RBA 2011.1, 1v.
53 The absence is seen at RBA 2011.1, 1v:5.
54 The absence is seen at RBA 2011.1, 1v:5. The four temples are
discussed in Michael Willis and Tsering Gonkatsang, “Armlet of the
Pinnacle of the Noble Victory Banner: Locating Traces of Imperial
Tibet in a Dhāraṇī in the British Museum,” in Locating Religions, ed.
Reinhold Glei and Nikolas Jaspert (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 351–52, see
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004335066_013. As noted in this
paper, the four temples betray the idea of a maṇḍala arrangement,
something more associated with Khri Srong lde btsan, see Skar cung
Inscription, line 12 (see online at SIDDHAM INTIB1.1.8).
55 Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 26, n. 17.
56 Martin, Tibetan Histories, no. 16.
Line 1: The end of the vignette from the Lung bstan chen po is
marked with double shad or daṇḍa marks and spaces, supporting the assessment that this is a genuine insertion from
an outside source, and so indicated in the exemplar, rather
than being a literary device introduced to excuse the dra57 Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory (Oxford: University Press, 2000),
146.
58 Sørensen, Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 568.
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
45
Table 2.2: Lists of temples in the source texts
DBA’ 2000
Temples
RBA 2011.1
Temples
Skar cung
Temples
Khri Srong brtsan
(SIDDHAM INTIB
1.1.8, line 4)
Ra sa and others
Khri ’Dus srong (SIDDHAM INTIB 1.1.8,
line 12)
Gling gi khri rtse and
others
Khri Lde gtsug brtan
(SIDDHAM INTIB
1.1.8, line 10)
Mching phu and Kwa
cu in Brag mar
Khri thog je thog
btsan
Lha tho do re snyan
btsan
Tho tho re snyan
btsan
Khri Srong btsan
(MS folio 1v., line 6)
Ra sa, Brag mar
image and four temples
’Dus sro po rje rlung
nam (MS folio 4r,
line 2)
Glang gi ri rtse, anno- [’Dus is not listed]
tations: གླིིང་གི་ཁྲིི་རྩེེ་
Khri Lde gtsug brtan
(MS folio 4r., line 3)
’Ching bu nam ra,
Khri Gtsug btsan
Kwa chu in Brag
(MS folio 2v., lines
dmar, ’Gran bzangs, 8–10)
’Khar brag, and Smas
gong
Lha sa ’Khar phug,
Brag dmar ’Gran
bzan, Ma sa gong,
’Ching pha naṃ rar
Khri Srong lde btsan
(MS folio 6r., etc.)
Bsam yas in Brag
dmar
Khri Srong lde btsan
[MS breaks off at
Khri Srong lde brtsan Bsam yas in Brag mar
Śāntarakṣita’s stay at (SIDDHAM INTIB
and others
Lhasa]
1.1.8, line 12)
Khri Gtsug lde btsan,
annotation: རལ་པ་ཅན
(MS folio 1v., line 2
and MS folio 25v.,
line 1).
No temple; texts
translated and old
translations revised;
Vinaya tightened
[last portions of text
not preserved]
[not named in the
inscription]
Khri Lde srong btsan No temple; Shes rab
(MS folio 25v., line 6) ’bum translated
[last portions of text
not preserved]
Khri Lde srong brtsan Skar cung and others
(SIDDHAM INTIB
1.1.8, line 15)
Mu ne btsan po
(MS folio 26r)
Khri Srong bstan
Ra sa, Brag mar
gam po (MS folio 1v., image
line 5)
Appears in the annex
as the son of Khri
Srong lde btsan
[not named in the
inscription]
conian measures of King Khri Srong btsan on the grounds
that he is Avalokiteśvara. The compilers of the Dba’ bzhed
evidently saw this as a sufficient appeal to textual authority
to explain the king’s policies (repealed subsequently in the
time Khri Srong lde btsan, see folio 17v).
Line 2: Here we have brief mention of the ruler ’Dus
sro po rje rlung nam. This king is not listed in the opening
summary (folio 1v above), giving this the appearance of an
inserted portion of text. His building of the Glang gi ri tse
is recorded, but this information is subject to several notations in the manuscript. The name is corrected to Gling gi
khri tse and we are told in a further notation that this place
was in Khams. As Per K. Sørensen notes, this geographical information was known to Bu ston, so the origin of the
notations may date to the fourteenth century.59
’Dus sro(ng Mang) po rje rlung nam was followed on
the throne by Khri Lde gtsug brtan. He is credited with five
temples (see Table 2.2). As can be seen from the table, the
spelling of his name conforms to that given in the Skar cung
Inscription. Slightly later in the Dba’ bzhed (line 5), brtan
has become btsan. The older spelling has been replaced by
the standard later form. The same orthography is found in
RBA 2011.1 too, also shown in the table. This confirms our
earlier conclusion that RBA 2011.1, although based on an
archaic prototype, was subject to redaction.
The temples that Khri Lde gtsug brtan built are listed
in Table 2.2 and, as this shows, only two of these are listed
in the Skar cung Inscription. Comparison with RBA 2011.1
reveals how two temples developed into five. RBA 2011.1
has only four and does not mention Kwa chu, a temple
59 Sørensen, Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 569; Wangdu
and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 33, n. 53 notes that this temple is as-
signed to Khri Lde gtsug btsan in a number of sources rather than
’Dus srong.
46
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
that appears consistently in later versions of the Testimony
of Ba.60 This is telling because although RBA 2011.1 shows
itself redacted in a number of places, the omission indicates that the listing of the temples attributed to Khri Lde
gtsug brtan was in formation when the texts were being
complied. Moreover, the absence of Kwa chu in RBA 2011.1
shows the list was developed textually, without reference
to epigraphic records.61
Folio 4v
Line 2: Here begins the story of the old Hwa shang sent
back to China during the reaction against Buddhism after
the coronation of Khri Srong lde btsan. He drops one of
his shoes along the way. When this is discovered, it is
understood as an omen presaging the future return of the
dharma to Tibet. In the sixteenth century, Dpa’ bo Gtsug
lag phreng ba declared this episode to be a later addition.62
While a comprehensive study of his readings is beyond the
scope of the present discussion, we note that the story is
in place in RBA 2011.1. This shows that it was embedded
across several versions of the text by the end of the twelfth
century.63 What seems to inspire Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng
ba’s statement is the comment at the end: mchis skad, i. e.
“So it is said.” Perhaps this signalled that the story was not
based on textual authority.
Line 5: The interdiction against Buddhism here can be
glossed: “In the event that anybody is found practising the
dharma, he shall be banished alone (i. e. without family
and property) forever,” (brgya la chos byed pa cig yod na
pho reng du gtan spyug go zhes). Wangdu and Diemberger
proposed that the reading be corrected to: rgya’i chos la
byed pa cig yod na based on SBA 1982 where the reading
is: rgya’i lha chos bgyid pa gcig mchis na.64 The use of the
word brgya la is archaic but clear; in RBA 2011.1 this is rendered in a more updated fashion: rgya la chos byed pa zhig
mchis na pho reng du gtan nas spyug go.65 The Dba’ bzhed
reading is thus preferable in terms of the first compila-
60 Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 34, n. 57 contains a list of
the variants.
61 Compare Kapstein, Tibetan Assimilation, 35 where he posits that
the Testimony of Ba was influenced by a pillar inscription.
62 Cited in Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 2.
63 RBA 2011.1, 3r:10.
64 SBA 1982.1–3, 9.14–15. Online at Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.833781. Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 37, n. 71. There,
they also give the reading in Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston.
65 RBA 2011.1, 3r:6. The word rgya la is written in an abbreviated
way, but the reading is confirmed in line 8 of the same folio: sha kya
mune’i mes po rgya gar.
tion: the proclamation circumscribes all forms of dharma
practice, not just Chinese. In later times, as brgya la fell
out of use, there may have been a development of some
kind of anti-Chinese sentiment, as Sørensen has suggested.66 Yet, it is also possible that the correction comes from
the Chinese content of the surrounding text: the Chinese
image is ordered back to China, the old Hwa shang is sent
back to China but leaves behind a shoe that hints at the
return of Buddhism, temples are damaged and the tshe
ritual suppressed. After some people are brutally eliminated, discussion turns to whether the Chinese image was
threatening or harmful. As the text was transmitted, this
content may have led to the assessment that brgya la—
probably available to later scribes in copies that mostly
read rgya la—really meant rgya’i lha. This change was in
place by the time of Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba, thus in
the early sixteenth century.
Line 7: In the context of the elimination of some apparently non-Buddhist Tibetans, we find the reading skams for
which we understand skam. This generally means ‘desiccated’ or ‘dried out’ which might make sense if the person
was exposed and died of dehydration. However, the word
could also be understood as representing the Indo-Aryan
root śuṣ-, ‘afflict,’ ‘injure,’ ‘destroy,’ which seems to make
sense here.
Folio 5r
Line 1: At this point, the Buddha image from China is
discussed: “The question arose among everyone, high
and low, whether the Chinese devatā was threatening
or harmful in accord with divination and omens.” The
wording shows that these concerns were in wide circulation and publicly voiced. This finds a parallel the Skar
cung Inscription. From line 29 onwards, the inscription
explains of how attacks on the triple gem were to be refuted.67
As a result, the seats for the triple gem that were established
and the dharma of the Buddha that was embraced by successive generations of the dynasty—by my father and the ancestors—were lovingly protected in all circumstances; [and if] on
account of omens in dreams, divination etc., or some other
means [it was said]: “They are evil” or “They are inauspicious,”
that was not acted on and these words were said by great and
small men alike: “They shall not be destroyed,” “They shall not
be renounced.”
66 Sørensen, Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 596, cited
and endorsed by Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 37, n. 71.
67 The text now online as SIDDHAM INTIB1.1.8.
Chapter 2
The similarity suggests that the Dba’ bzhed is drawing on a
source text that is related to the Skar cung Inscription but
not directly from it.
Line 3: Here, Dba’ Gsal snang—the main protagonist—is introduced suddenly for the first time. Throughout the rest of the text, the spelling of his name is Dba’
Gsas snang. Moving to RBA 2011.1, there are two forms. At
his first appearance, he is called Sba Gsas snang.68 Later,
we have Dba’ Gsas snang.69 Naturally, we should like to
know the historical reasons for these variations. Firstly,
the use of Sba when the protagonist is introduced in RBA
2011.1 can be explained as reflecting a redaction that happened when Sba was circulating as the dominant form
of the name. As noted above in our discussion of Nyang
ral, this spelling was current during the opening part of
the thirteenth century. The redactions in RBA 2011.1 thus
relate to the textual milieu of that time. The use of Dba’
Gsas snang at RBA 2011.1 folio 4v:1 appears in the context
of the king’s command and seems to represent a fossilised borrowing from the parent text. This parent is not
the Dba’ bzhed as we have it, but a related version that
has not been traced or has not survived. By the mid-fourteenth century, the accepted form was Sba Gsal snang,
and so it has remained.70 This shows that the first use of
Dba’ Gsal snang in the Dba’ bzhed—at folio 5r:3—betrays
the textual currency of the time of the copy of the manuscript before us, probably in the late fourteenth or early
fifteenth century. It is also possible that the reading comes
from the exemplar, meaning that Dba’ Gsal snang and Dba’
Gsas snang were available variants in the twelfth century.
However, by the mid-fourteenth century, as just noted,
both had fallen from use. For allied problems about Gsas
snang’s ordination name, see notes to folio 6r:3.
Line 6: In the episode involving the insertion of a
pearl in the mouth of Gsas snang’s deceased child, the
meaning is made difficult by the introduction of the Indic
term śarīraṃ.71 The sense is that relics (śarīraṃ) of a bodily
nature emerged from the bones of the children. Perhaps
when their bones were broken open small spherical
objects, normally identified as śarīradhātu, were found.
For this context see Dan Martin’s work on relics.72
68 RBA 2011.1, 3r:9 = DBA’ 2000, 5r:3
69 RBA 2011.1, 4v:1 = DBA’ 2000, 7r:2.
70 Sørensen, Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 367,
71 For this episode see Kapstein, Tibetan Assimilation, all of is chapter 3 is relevant.
72 Dan Martin, “Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and
Tongues from Fire: Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History,”
in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International
Association for Tibetan Studies, ed. Shōren Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi (Naritasan Shinshoji: Narita, 1992), vol. 1, 183–191.
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
47
Folio 5v
Lines 3–4: Gsas snang performs pūjā in India and rain
falls in the middle of winter, i. e. December-January, an
unusual occurrence. New leaves also appear; normally
they come with the Monsoon in June. In Nepal, a ritual
is performed called sarva wang se. This appears to represent Indic sarvavaṃśe and be a śraddha connected with all
forebears. In other versions the term is qualified with ston
mo, a feast or banquet.73
Folio 6r
Line 1: When Gsas snang meets Bodhisatva (=Śāntarakṣita), the latter uses the term śrī śrī btsan po (“his
noble majesty”), a particularly Indic wording and thus an
early form.
Line 3: The phrase ye shes dbang po dbyangs su dgags
so is explained with the notation: dbang po dgags so zer.
The hand of the notation and main text are the same,
showing the notation was probably in the exemplar. In
this instance, the notation is telling us that ye shes dbang
po is meant, i. e. that dbyangs is extra. Although dbyangs
(or ghoṣa) appears often in Buddhist contexts as the last
part of a name (notably Dba’ bzhed folio 15r, where Dba’
Lha btsan takes the name Dba’ Dpal dbyangs on ordination), it is not testified otherwise for Ye shes dbang po. This
is the earliest appearance of the name Ye shes dbang po in
the Dba’ bzhed and what we see here documents an early
form of his name that disappears later in this text and in
other versions. We have already noted early variations in
the name of Dba’ Gsas snang above, while discussing folio
5r:3.
Folio 7v
Line 2: Here is the crucial moment when the king sends
envoys to meet with Bodhisatva. The members of the team
are three in number: (1) Sbrang Rgyal sbra legs gzigs,
(2) Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs and (3) ’Ba’ Sang shi. There
are slight but significant differences in RBA 2011.1 (folio
4v:2). Before the envoys are sent, Gsas snang returns to
the palace. This statement is inserted to make Gsas snang
present when the king orders two men to go and interrogate Śāntarakṣita. Then, these men are named as (1) Gnyer
bskyum pa and (2) Rgyal Sbrang legs gzigs.
73 As noted in Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 39, n. 81.
48
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
As noted in our discussion of the Dunhuang fragment, above, the Dba’ bzhed is redacted at this point. The
three names are emphasised in a way that raises suspicions; RBA 2011.1 with its two names appears to offer a
more antique reading. This assessment is supported by
the name Rgyal Sbrang legs gzigs. A comparison of the
names in the two versions suggests that Sbrang has been
added as a clan name in the Dba’ bzhed to clarify his position as a minister. This is confirmed by the witness of the
Dunhuang fragment, which gives the name of the minister as Rgyal sgra legs [*gzigs]: zhang lon chen po rgyal sgra
legs [*gzigs].74
Slightly later in RBA 2011.1, three men return a positive verdict to the king after several months of questioning: (1) Sbrang legs gzigs, (2) Seng mgo Lha lung gzigs,
and (d) Dba’ Sang shi.75 The corresponding passage is in
Dba’ bzhed folio 8r, where only “Sang shi and others” are
mentioned.
The varying details raise some points of interest. The
name of one envoy is confirmed as Sbrang legs gzigs or,
to give the more archaic form in the Dunhuang fragment,
(Rgyal) Sgra legs [*gzigs]. The addition of Sbrang at the
start of his name in the Dba’ bzhed is thus demonstrated
to be a redaction. RBA 2011.1 is not entirely innocent of
this process: Sang shi is given Dba’ as a clan name. Some
light is thus shone on the position and nature of RBA
2011.1. It is based on an old prototype, written in a simple
style with none of the fine phrases in the Dba’ bzhed.
However, it has been redacted at a time subsequent to
the Dba’ bzhed, influenced by later manuscripts and subsequent religious concerns. This is shown particularly in
folio 4r, where a brief account of Khri Lde gtsug btsan
is given. In RBA 2011.1 we find the following additional
statement inserted: “In Tibet, the noble doctrine of the
Sūtra of Golden Light from China was rendered in ten
volumes and due portions of the ritual performances
were obtained; many musical techniques were adopted
from China.”76
74 van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba,” 484.
We add [*gzigs].
75 RBA 2011.1, 4v:7–8. More on the clan name in the next paragraph.
76 RBA 2011.1, 2v:10 onward. For comments on the Sūtra of Golden
Light, see Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, “A Perusal of Early Tibetan Inscriptions in Light of the Buddhist World of the 7th to 9th Centuries
A.D.,” in Epigraphic Evidence in the Pre-modern Buddhist World, ed.
Kurt Tropper (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien, Universität Wien, 2014), 117–166.
Folio 9v
Sang shi meets Hwa Shang in China and receives a number
of instructions for introducing the dharma into Tibet. The
exchange concludes (line 6) with the remark that Sang
shi received many prophecies like those just given. At this
point, a double shad or daṇḍa marks the opening of a separate section, indicating the combination of two sources
here.77
Folio 10r
Continuing from the last line of the previous folio, the
following sentences, down to line 5, use the double shad.
Here further detailed prophecies and instructions are
given, with the end shown by the comment “so it was said”
(graso, with notation g to make gragso, i. e. grags so). Such
abbreviations, not seen earlier in the manuscript, highlights that this material has been drawn from a separate
source.
Folio 11r
After briefly mentioning that the king spoke in favour
of the dharma while the envoys were away in China (in
folio 10v), the narrative moves on quickly to Bodhisatva’s invitation of Padmasambhava. Concurrently, Gsas
snang invites a divination expert for the building of Bsam
yas. The term rlungs la used in connection with Gsas
snang’s invitation is explained by Dotson in Chapter 4 of
this volume. The expert does not reappear until folio 12r
and the narrative turns to an account of the events that
marked Padmasambhava’s arrival in Tibet. Thematically
the Padmasambhava episode is self-contained. This has
been pulled into the running narrative, as highlighted by
the use of the verb form red (line 3). The same words are
repeated in folio 11v:1. These are the only appearances of
this verb form in the entire manuscript.78
77 This device is also used to set apart the Lung bstan chen po, see
folio 4r above.
78 For the history of this form, Mingyuan Shao, “The Grammaticalization of the Copula Verb red in Tibetic Languages,” Language and Linguistics 17 (2016): 679–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X16645742
for which reference we are grateful to Nathan Hill.
Chapter 2
Folio 12r
Line 7: Calamitous events are described as having taken
place, repeating the phrases given in folio 11v:4. However,
folio 11v describes them as having happened “last year”
(na ning), while folio 12r says “previously” (gshe ni). The
second seems slightly archaic, suggested also by the use
of Ra sa (against Lha sa) in the same passage. The notation in folio 12r, written in dbu can, makes the correction to
gzhe ning. This makes sense in itself but introduces a contradiction: in folio 11v the events occurred last year, but in
folio 12r the events happen, with the notation, in the year
before last. This reveals two points: (1) the first account of
these events was corrected as the text before us was being
copied out and edited (as recorded in folio 25v), so we find
“last year” and Lha sa (as we might normally expect). The
repetition has not enjoyed the same level of attention, so
archaisms survive and the respectful adjective sku for the
citadel has been omitted. This gives us some measure of the
changes introduced across the whole of the present copy:
when passages are repeated, it is always the first that is
corrected, while the second is often left as it stands. (2) One
of the notations in folio 12r adds sku, to match the previous page. This was done in a different hand and style than
the notation changing gzhe ni to gzhe ning. This means that
an earlier wave of notations makes folio 12r match folio
11v, but the second corrects a point in isolation, without
reflecting on the implications of the change. This suggests
that the later notations in dbu can, while perhaps correct
in themselves, reveal the tendency of this commentator to
impose hyper-corrections without a wider overview.
Folio 13r
In this folio, the water for the king’s lustration, brought
magically from Aśvakarṇa by Padmasambhava, is rejected
summarily by the chief ministers and poured out. Without
a transition, Padmasambhava begins a disquisition about
how Tibet could be made fertile and enters into meditation
to effect the necessary changes. The non sequitur indicates
that the two parts have been pulled into the narrative from
separate sources. The rejection of Padmasambhava’s proposals lead to his departure from Tibet.
Folio 14r
Line 6: After an account of the failed assassination attempt
on Padmasambhava, the king feels despondent. The close
of the story is indicated by a double shad. Moving abruptly
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
49
to a new theme, probably from different source material, a
debate is convened in the Pig Year.
Folio 14v
Line 5: Changing theme again, the Dba’ bzhed records the
founding of Bsam yas is announced in the spring of the
Hare Year. Wangdu and Diemberger calculate that this
corresponds to 763 or 775, with the completion in 779.79
The divination expert examines the site to good effect,
but in line 7 the narrative breaks (by means of a double
shad again) to give an account of conversions and ordinations.
Folio 15r
Continuing the discussion of conversions and ordinations,
the text mentions that Gsas snang built a temple at Glag
and that the Buddha image was brought back to Ra mo che
from Nepal (see folio 5r for its removal).
Line 3: The story returns to the decision to build Bsam
yas in the Hare Year, showing the foregoing paragraphs
have entered the text from a separate source. The continuing story adds further information about the temple’s plan
and construction.
Folio 15v
While describing the ritual examination and consecration of the site, this folio shows parallels with the Kriyāsaṃgraha. The chronological implications of this are
discussed above in the main part of this chapter.
Line 4: The preceptor addresses the king’s worries
about the lack of an image-maker for the temple and says
that only the requisites have to be supplied. The word used
for requisites is yo byad (Skt. deyadharma), a well-known
Buddhist monastic term that appears in the Bsam yas
Inscription.80
79 Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 63, n. 201, with further
notes.
80 Text and translation of Bsam yas Inscription online at SIDDHAM
INTIB1.1.3. For the term see Michael Willis, “Offerings to the Triple
Gem: Texts, Inscriptions and Ritual Practice,” in Relics and Relic Worship in Early Buddhism: India, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma, ed.
Janice Stargardt and Michael Willis (London: British Museum, 2018),
66–73. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249658
50
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
Line 5: Here, Śāntarakṣita poses a question about the
images and whether they should be Indian or Chinese.
In response, the king says that Tibetan models should
be followed because these will inspire greater faith in
Buddhism among his subjects. Where the text mentions
Indian and Chinese (models), the word rgya’i (Chinese)
is circled and corrected in a notation to bod gyi (Tibetan).
This has been done to match the king’s statement that
the sculptures should be in the Tibetan style. We see here
the process of redaction, carried out in order to give logic
and symmetry to the text. However, there is rather more
to the change than narrative consistency. The author of
this notation cannot countenance the original because
the text is reporting that the king overruled Śāntarakṣita.
As an individual with a wide knowledge of Buddhism,
Śāntarakṣita knows of two possible sources for Buddhist
imagery: India and China. More to the point, Śāntarakṣita
is a bodhisatva and the fountainhead of traditions in
Tibet, especially from the perspective of the Dba’ bzhed.
For the commentator who has written the notation, the
idea that this great sage should be contradicted or wrong
is impossible.
The commentator’s point of view reflects a later time,
when great religious leaders were deemed infallible for
all practical purposes. The style of writing of this notation is different from most of the other notations and
subsequent to the present manuscript copy. This means
that the notation was added after the text was copied out,
so after circa 1400. The writing style is distinctive, being
done with a fine-tipped pen in a learned style. Particularly indicative are the sharp ends to the ya letters. This
same commentator has written notes on folio 17v:5, folio
22v:5, folio 23v:3, folio 24r:1 and 5 and folio 25v:6. The
intervention on folio 22v is especially important from the
historical point of view and will be dealt with below. At
folio 25v, we see him correcting a statement concerning
the translation of the Shes rab ’bum and the transformation of Tibet into a pure land of the Buddha. These
notations show that the remark in folio 15v is not incidental. Rather, it comes from the hand of an individual
who knows his religion, his history and his position. 81
We dwell on this notation because it shows the problems
of attempting a critical edition and, behind that, assuming that the reductive undertaking of a critical edition
serves any useful purpose. From the historical perspec-
81 The commentator was probably a man but not necessarily so,
see Dan Martin, “The Woman Illusion?” in Women in Tibet, ed. Janet
Gyatso and Hanna Havnevik (London: Hurst & Company, 2005),
49–82.
tive, there is no wrong or right in the readings: this text
is showing us how readers approached the Dba’ bzhed
and interpreted it with the passage of time. Perspectives
evolved and, with that, the text itself.
Folio 16r
In this folio, the temple’s completion and consecration are
mentioned. This is followed by a series of disjoined statements: there are a number of auspicious signs, the Chinese
vermillion seller who made the images is found to have
been an emanation and the preceptor speaks of Tārā’s role
in the instigation of the dharma. The chronological implications of the last point are explored in the main part of
this chapter.
Folio 16v
With folio 16v:1, we come to the construction of the central
shrine (dbu rtse). The king, once again, starts to wonder
about the images. He has a dream in which a white man
appears. Leading him to Khas po ri, the white man points
to various rocks that have the appearance of buddhas
and bodhisatva-s. When the king wakes in the morning,
he proceeds immediately to the mountain where the rocks
are seen to correspond to the dream. Craftsmen from
Nepal are summoned to make the images and these are
transported to the temple. They are installed amid auspicious signs; the upper parts of the images are dressed
with clay (line 7).
This narrative is notably different from the earlier
account of how the images were modelled on handsome
young nobles, and the king’s certain opinion that sculptures based on their appearance would inspire faith
among his subjects. Although the architectural focus has
shifted from the Ārya Palo shrine to the central shrine,
two sources are indicated: a dream-dependent methodology as opposed to a practical choice based on living
people. To keep both sources and harmonise their differences, the Dba’ bzhed shifts the location. This is a useful
device but the names demonstrate that we are dealing
with a conflation of two narrative visions: the central
shrine is called the Dri gtsang khang in line 6, but it is
called the Gtsug lag khang in the context of the consecration in folio 17r.
One of the most remarkable features of the Dba’
bzhed is that, despite the lengthy discussion of the Bsam
yas temple and the pooling of source texts to give a full
account, it makes no mention of the fact that the main
Chapter 2
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
51
Figure 2.4: Dba’ bzhed manuscript, folio 17r showing the description of the Bsam yas temple inserted between line 5 and line 6 of the
running text with further notations
image in the central shrine was Vairocana (Tib. Rnam par
snang mdzad). This form of the Buddha was associated
with an imperial cult, the foundational text being the
Mahāvairocanatantra. This work—which took shape in the
mid-seventh century—focuses on Vairocana, the first or
primordial of the five wisdom buddhas.82 Śubhakarasiṃha
translated the Mahāvairocanatantra into Chinese in 724 as
大毘盧遮那成佛神變加持經 (Da piluzhena chengfo shen
bian jiachi jing); a Tibetan version was prepared slightly
later by Śīlendrabodhi and Dpal brtsegs. These literary
activities shed light on the kind of Buddhism advanced in
eastern India, Tibet and Japan from the seventh century. It
was, at heart, a royal cult centred on Vairocana with this
all-seeing buddha at the centre of a circle of royal power.83
The absence of any mention of this in the Dba’ bzhed
shows the text is not concerned with giving an account of
the political and religious matrix of the Yar lung dynasty,
but more with establishing the authority of the abbots and
ordination lineages in control of Bsam yas in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries.84
Folio 17r
In this folio, the architectural setting shifts again, this time
to the four stūpa-s built around the main shrine of Bsam
yas. Only one of them is described, the blue stūpa, though
82 Stephen Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra, with
Buddhaguhya’s Commentary (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003),
11–14.
83 First explored in Hugh Richardson, “The Cult of Vairocana in
Early Tibet,” in High Peaks, Pure Earth, ed. Michael Aris (London:
Serinda, 1998), 177–181, elaborated in Willis, “From World Religion to
World Dominion,” with wider context outlined in Scherrer-Schaub,
“A Perusal of Early Tibetan Inscriptions.” See also Lewis Doney, “The
Degraded Emperor: Theoretical Reflections on the Upstaging of a Bodhisattva King,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 49 (2019): 13–66.
84 For the transformation, Doney, “Degraded Emperor.”
it is unclear why.85 Perhaps the magical installation of
the dharma-cakra on top of the shrine, thanks to the four
great kings, ties it to the divination of the four great kings
performed in folio 12r. The patron of the blue stūpa is not
stated.
The most conspicuous feature of folio 17r is the long
insertion of an independent description of the Bsam yas
temple in a minute hand (see Figure 2.4). This has even
displaced the running text. We offer the following translation.86
Surrounded by a dark perimeter wall with gates in the four cardinal directions and four platforms for dismounting from horses.
In the interior, the plaster floor (was) bright like a mirror upon
which broad-beans rolled from the south reached the north
gate. Inside the perimeter wall, not counting birds, animals
were not allowed in and out.87 If people entered, they had to
wash their feet. The outer temple Khams gsum was [donated]
by Tshe spong za, the Sbu tshal by Pho Long za, the Dge rgyas
by ’Bro za, [and] all the scriptures by Khri bzang yab lhag. That
[i. e. the Bsam yas temple] which was thrice consecrated by
Bodhisatva in the Sheep Year was like a heap of turquoise on
the earth placed on a foundation of gold;88 finally, having gone
to each and every image in the precinct of the central temple
(dbu rste), he performed a religious ceremony (and) thereafter
returning, everyone was seated in their respective seats. As a
consequence the king was delighted.
As can be seen from Figure 2.4 and our transcription of
the Tibetan, the place where this passage is supposed
to be interpolated into the main text is marked clearly.
85 An interlinear note to 16v:7 contains details on the stupa-s also
found in the later Testimony of Ba tradition, but this may be a coincidence rather than a sign that this information was originally in the
main text of the Dba’ bzhed (see Doney, “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer,”
27–28, n. 51).
86 Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 67–69 identify and discuss
the individuals mentioned.
87 Here ’grong can be understood as short for ’gro ’ong.
88 We understand sa bkod pa lta ba as pṛthivīsamūheva.
52
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
The reason for the configuration of the manuscript can
be understood from the narrative context. As just noted,
the previous sections of the story describe the creation of
images for the main temple and completion of the blue
stūpa. Folio 17r and 17v follow this with mention of the
people who were ordained and those who were taught
the language of India. The text then moves to the king’s
proclamation and the steps taken to spread the dharma. It
seems that the scribe of the current copy had the exemplar
before him, but he noticed that there was no description
of the temple there. He therefore turned to a text (perhaps
a fragment) containing a description. To accommodate
this, he left a blank. The end of line 5 says: “the Gtsug lag
khang (gtsug lag khang),” and the start of line 6 says: “it
was built (ni brtsigs).” Between these words, the scribe
skipped a line for the extra material. Thanks to a slight
miscalculation, the last part of the insertion spilled down
to the foot of the folio (Figure 2.4). Matters are complicated
by sub-notations, but the process of compilation is clear
nonetheless: while the Dba’ bzhed was copied from the
exemplar, the text was being supplemented from other
sources.
Folio 17v
In this folio, the account of those ordained concludes
with a double shad. Then in line 3 we are told that the
great consecration (pra ti chen po) was conducted in the
Sheep Year. This is an unnecessary repetition given that
the lengthy insertion on folio 17r has already recorded the
temple consecration in the Sheep Year by Bodhisatva. The
duplication, and lack of redaction, helps to confirm that
the consecration did indeed take place in the Sheep Year:
it is said in the exemplar and in the external source represented by the notation.
Line 5: The Dba’ bzhed here describes the king’s proclamation repealing the harsh punishments instigated by
Khri Srong bstan. In a notation, it is said that oaths were
taken and a stone pillar raised as a record (rdo ring btsugs).
This is the only reference to a pillar inscription in the Dba’
bzhed.89 This is written in a hand subsequent to the main
copy of the manuscript, so it can be assigned to a period
subsequent to circa 1400. Although this shows knowledge
of a stone pillar inscription, presumably the one at Bsam
yas, there is no intertextuality showing that the epigraphic
text was consulted.
89 The text and translation of the Bsam yas Inscription is online at
SIDDHAM INTIB1.1.3.
Folio 18v
After discussion at court, Ye shes dbang po gives a ruling
about monastic property: two hundred servants should be
assigned to each monastery and three households to each
monk. This refers to the ‘upper share’ or surplus assigned
to the donee and documented by the copper-plate charters
of the Pāla period in India.90
Ye shes dbang po then goes into retreat and, shortly
after, sectarian conflicts begin to arise. Concerns about the
role of the kalyāṇamitra and claims that he should exercise
his authority and attend to the affairs of the religious community find an echo in the Skar cung Inscription but direct
reference to the epigraphic text by the authors of the Dba’
bzhed is not certain.91
Those causing particular sectarian trouble are mentioned, but the names Gnyags Bi ma la and Gnyags Rin
po che look like a duplication: they both crushed their
genitals, and below (in folio 20r) where the name and
actions are given again Gnyags Rin po che is omitted. As
seen elsewhere in the text, when sentences are repeated
for the sake of the narrative, the second reading generally
preserves an older or less redacted reading. In any event,
the conflicts set the stage for a debate between the gradualists and those following the instantaneous path.
Folio 20v
Line 6: After Hwa Shang has set out his views, Kamalaśīla
begins a long rebuttal; this runs to folio 22r (line 5). Parallels are found in Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama texts of
which this appears to be a digest. Chapter 5 in this volume
is given over to an analysis of these passages and the way
in which the Dba’ bzhed has pulled in source material to
structure the narrative. A few supplementary remarks are
added here.
90 Ryosuke Furui, Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India
400–1250 AD (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020). A translation of the passage and an assessment of the Dba’ bzhed in this regard
was first given in Willis, “From World Religion to World Dominion,”
249–50.
91 The text and translation are online at SIDDHAM INTIB1.1.8 (line
37 on): “…the kalyāṇamitra will be selected from the devout guided
toward mokṣa and from among those the most able, always selecting
one whose doctrine is that of the Lord and one who is heeded also in
(his) commands regarding the activities of the religious community of
those who follow the doctrine of the Lord, and one who will exercise
authority and attend to the affairs of the religious community.”
Chapter 2
Folio 22r
Lines 5–6: A statement by the king is given in the text
after Kamalaśīla’s discourse: “The devaputra responded,
ordering: ‘The followers of the instantaneous and gradualist paths, as they please, must present their arguments
in turn.’” After shal nas, a later hand has inserted khyed as
an interlinear annotation. This form of the pronoun is honorific, softening the nature of the command. This suggests
that the individual who wrote the notation was uncomfortable with the king’s seeming lack of deference. The finely
written letters show the intervention of the same person
who commented on folios 15v and other pages. His meticulous interpolations, and the nature of his historical and
doctrinal views, have already been noted and will draw
attention in folio 22v.
The statement by Sang shi (from line 6) has been
read as an elaboration of the gradualist position.92 It is,
however, a moderate statement of instantaneous views,
as explained here in Chapter 5. This created a problem for
the compilers of the text and the general coherence of the
narrative. Sang shi’s key role in the history of Buddhism
in Tibet—his presence at the first interview of Śāntarakṣita
at the command of the Tibetan king, his being part of the
mission the king sends to China, his being recognised
there as a bodhisatva, his receipt of good prophecies from
an eminent sage in China and the gifts made to him by the
Chinese emperor, and his participation with Śāntarakṣita
and the Tibetan king in the foundation of Bsam yas—all
make it rather hard to place him in the opposing, and
ultimately defeated, theological camp. This apparently
explains the cryptic wording of Sang shi’s speech and his
conciliatory tone: he that may be close to the Chinese position philosophically, but the narrative has been arranged
so he is not made part of the instantaneous faction and
their extremist activities and threats.
Folio 22v
In this folio, Sang shi completes his theological statement
with comments on the cause of sectarianism within the
Buddhist tradition (line 4). Although these concerns are
a recurrent theme in Buddhist histories, the statement
is unique to the Dba’ bzhed and its sister texts and does
not seem to have a scriptural source. It is therefore worth
noting, especially since it marks a moment of historical
reflection.
92 Faber, “The Council of Tibet,” 49.
An Archaeology of the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
53
The context (of these misunderstandings) is that after the Teacher
had passed beyond sorrow, there were no doctrinal differences
for a long time. Later on there emerged disagreements in the
three schools of Mādhyamika in India and the fissure between
the gradualist and instantaneous paths in China—not encountering (the Buddha), all the misunderstandings emerged. Otherwise, even though the approaches vary, the state of non-conceptualisation and non-observation are one. The result also, the
striving for nirvāṇa, is one. This is universally agreed.
The gradualist and instantaneous paths are named here in
abbreviated form (as in folio 22r:5 and folio 23r:2): ton tsen
for ston mun pa (instantaneous) and rtsen min pa or rsten
mun pa (gradualist). As noted in our discussion of chronology, above, the three schools of Mādhyamika are known
only from the late eleventh century. Codicologically, the
notations made on the original text are revealing. Because
the verb (zhig par gyur) describing the break between the
gradualist and instantaneous paths also technically applies
to the schools of Mādhyamika, the commentator—whom
we described in our discussion of folio 15v—has inserted a
phrase giving an additional verb to describe the emergence
of incompatible views. He then reorganises the sentence
using superscript numbers. In his view the text should read
as follows: kun ma mjal ba dang ma rtogs pa las gyur gyi.
This can be glossed: “All emerged from the misunderstanding and the absence of encounters (with the Buddha).” The
difference is subtle, but the scholar making these notations
clearly felt that intervention here was needed.
Folio 25v
As noted in the main part of this chapter, this and the
preceding folio carry the supplementary codas appended
to the Dba’ bzhed proper. At the start, it is reported that
new texts were translated for the first time during the reign
of Khri Gtsug lde btsan. The names of the three translators are given in abbreviated form: ka cog rnam 3. The full
names may or may not have been known at the time that
this manuscript was copied, but by the fourteenth century
the complete names are recorded: “The translators [s]Ka
ba dpal brtsegs, Klu’i rgyal-mtshan [of] Cog ro and bandhe
Ye shes sde translated the Dharma [i. e. Buddhist treatises
into Tibetan].”93 The name of the last mentioned appears
elsewhere as Sna nam Ye shes de,94 so here Rnam is probably a mistake for Sna nam.
93 Sørensen, The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 412.
94 Sørensen, The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, 399, n.
1359 and 412, n. 1430. Further observations are found in Wangdu and
Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 90, n. 346 and 96, n. 380
54
Michael Willis, Tsering Gonkatsang
In line 6, it is said that the Shes rab ’bum was translated first in the time of Khri Lde srong btsan. The text was
already recorded as being in Tibet and consulted for the
Bsam yas Debate, see folio 19v. Taking the Dba’ bzhed at
face value, it seems to be saying the text was in Chinese
because it was consulted by followers of the instantaneous
path on that occasion.
Folio 26 r to 31r
Folio 26r contains the final coda recounting the death of
’Ba’ Sang shi, followed by a separate section describing
the funeral rites of Khri Srong lde btsan as organised by
his son Mu ne btsan po. This section of the text, as noted
above, has been discussed in detail by Brandon Dotson.
The remaining folios of the manuscript have relatively
few erasures, corrections or notations. All features are
given in our transcription, which can be compared to the
original folios. The only point we would make in conclusion regards folio 31v. In line 1, exceptionally for the manuscript, a correction on a small slip of paper is pasted over
one of the letters, giving the reading za. The person named
has not been identified.
Sam van Schaik
Chapter 3
Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of
Ba From Dunhuang
How the fragments were found
The manuscript from the Dunhuang ‘library cave’ containing a portion of the narrative found in the Testimony of
Ba was discovered by Kazushi Iwao and myself, and the
textual features of the manuscript have been discussed in
a jointly-authored article.1 Named the BL fragment in this
book, I shall also refer to it as the Testimony fragment in
this chapter in order to distinguish it from other fragments
from the British Library’s Dunhuang collection. It remains
the earliest exemplar of any portion of the text. My intention here is to complement that earlier work by looking
more closely at the manuscript itself, using palaeography
and codicology to enquire into its original form, the date of
its creation, and the social context in which it functioned.
I will also consider the relationship between the BL fragment and the later texts of the Testimony, extending earlier
comparisons with the Dba’ bzhed by bringing in the manuscript recently published under the name Rba bzhed in the
Dpal brtsegs series.2
The manuscript actually comprises two fragments,
clearly from the same original piece, that were separately
numbered in the British Library sequence Or.8210 (See
Figure 3.1) This sequence was intended for the Chinese
scrolls acquired by Aurel Stein from Cave 17 in Dunhuang,
and sent to the British Museum for cataloguing and numbering. The first part of the sequence (S. 1–6890) contains
scrolls mainly from Stein’s first Central Asian expedition,
with some 600 at the end from his third expedition. These
are followed by twenty printed documents (Or.8210/P.1–
1 Sam van Schaik and Iwao Kazushi, “Fragments of the Testament of
Ba from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no.
3 (2008): 477–88. See also the catalogue of the Tibetan manuscripts in
the Or.8210 sequence: Kazushi Iwao, Sam Van Schaik and Tsuguhito
Takeuchi, Old Tibetan Texts in the Stein Collection Or. 8210 (Tōkyō:
Tōyō Bunko, 2012).
2 This Rba bzhed, RBA 2011.1, is reproduced on pages 64–110 of volume 36 of the Dpal brtsegs Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs
series, though it is actually two texts conflated in one (see also Chapter 1 in this volume). The Testimony portion ends abruptly at the end
p. 70 (folio 4v), whereas p. 71 (folio 5r) contains a different text that
continues to the end of the manuscript. The passage corresponding
to the BL fragment is on p. 70.
Open Access. © 2020 Sam van Schaik, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-003
20).3 After this, the sequence continues from S. 7009
onwards, with mostly smaller scrolls. Many of these
were neither catalogued nor numbered until much more
recently. This sequence includes smaller pieces that were
either neglected because of their size, or only came to light
during the conservation of the larger scrolls, since they
were folded into or pasted onto the more complete scrolls.
After recent conservation work, the fragments in the latter
part of the Or.8210 sequence are now preserved in clear
plastic Melinex sheets, often with several manuscripts in
each sheet. The Testimony fragments belong to this latter
part of the Or.8210 sequence.
The first, larger fragment is numbered Or.8210/S. 9498.
It is composed of four parts, distinguished by the letters A
to D (see Figure 3.2), of which A has the text of the Testimony. Though we do not have any conservation records
for this item, the four manuscripts were probably pasted
together when recovered from the Dunhuang cave, and
then removed from each other in the modern conservation
process. Parts B, C and D look to have originally been a
single manuscript fragment composed of three layers of
fine paper. Given that the recto (the side with text) is darkened, apparently with dried glue, it seems that this fragment was pasted written-side-down onto Parts B, C and D,
probably as a support for them.4
On part D, we can see what remains of a printed
design, with curling foliage and two human figures probably representing babies with the traditional three tufts of
hair on their heads (see Figure 3.3). These resemble the
auspicious babies of the nianhua (年画) genre. Thus, this
seems to have been a print with a talismanic function,
on weak paper that was repaired at some point by addition of the Testimony fragment, glued face-down. These
nianhua type prints are known to have been in circulation
from the eleventh century onwards, so this may be an early
example of the genre, dating from the late tenth century.5
3 The Buddhist manuscripts from the first part of the sequence were
catalogued by Lionel Giles, Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tun-hung in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1953).
4 Several other Tibetan documents apparently cut up and used as
patches are found in this sequence; e. g. Or.8210/S. 9323.
5 See Sung-nien Po and David Johnson, Domesticated Deities and
Auspicious Emblems: The Iconography of Everyday Life in Village
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
56
Sam van Schaik
Figure 3.1: The two fragments of the Testimony of Ba manuscript, shown together
The smaller fragment, which fits at the bottom left of
the larger fragment, is numbered Or.8210/S. 13683. This
is also in four parts, distinguished as A to D, with the
Testimony fragment being Part C (See Figure 3.4). Part A
is a fragment of a Chinese document. Part B is a blank
fragment of the same type of paper as Or.8210/S. 9498B,
and Part D is a wooden roller, similar to scroll rollers, but
without any lacquer or other treatment. One possibility is
that it was the support used to hang the print onto which
the Testimony fragments were pasted.6
Not a great deal can be concluded from all this, except
that we would expect some time to have passed between
the creation of the Testimony manuscript, which was (as
will be discussed below) an expensive and carefully produced object, and its re-use as backing for a talismanic
print. By the time the manuscript was put to this use, it
was no longer valued enough to repair; instead its only
value was as material with which to repair other items.
Moreover, there was another stage subsequent to this
repair involving the ripping of the print into fragments
(unless that happened after the manuscript was acquired
by Stein, which is unlikely). Given that an expensively
China (Berkeley: The Chinese Popular Culture Project, 1992), 10. Several other illustrated fragments are found in the latter part of the
Or.8210 sequence, both printed and hand-illustrated, including a
deity in a Chinese style in Or.8210/S. 9497.
6 Several illustrated paper panels from the Dunhuang cave possess
string-holes, presumably for hanging. At least one of these, Pelliot
tibétain 1122, retains a loop of string through one hole.
produced manuscript should not become repair material
immediately, we can estimate the passage of at least some
decades between the creation of the manuscript, its later
re-use, and the subsequent closing of the Dunhuang cave
in the early eleventh century.
Palaeography and Codicology
The size of the Testimony fragment as we have it now is
24 cm long at its top edge, and 9.5 cm high at its right edge.
It was obviously once both longer and higher. The length
was probably a little more than double the current longest
edge, at 48–52 cm, the length of many of the loose-leaf
pothi manuscripts from Dunhuang. This measurement
makes it highly unlikely that the original format was a
scroll, and is also wider than the usual size of concertina
manuscripts. Therefore, it seems that we have a folio from
a pothi volume. The height, if there was one more line at
the top, would have been some 1.5 cm higher, at roughly
11 cm, also a common height for pothi pages. This would
mean the folios contained seven lines of text. The folio
could have been even higher, but more than eight lines of
text would result in unusual proportions for a pothi page.
Thus, it is likely that there were 7 or 8 lines of text per page
in the original.
The verso of the folio is blank, which suggests that
the original folio was composed of two pieces of paper
pasted together. This method is seen in the large Perfec-
Chapter 3 Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of Ba From Dunhuang
Figure 3.2: British Library fragments, Or.8210/S. 9498A–D, in Melinex sheet
Figure 3.3: British Library fragments, detail from Or.8210/S. 9498D
57
58
Sam van Schaik
Figure 3.4: British Library fragments, Or.8210/S. 13683A–D, in Melinex sheet
tion of Wisdom manuscripts made during the first half of
the ninth century, and suggests that the original manuscript was a relatively expensive production. It also raises
the possibility that the manuscript was made during
the Tibetan imperial period, since most of the Tibetan
pothi-format manuscripts from the tenth century are made
with only one layer of paper.7
Turning to the original mise-en-page or layout of the
folio, we can see that horizontal guidelines were ruled in
red ink. This feature is common in the Tibetan Dunhuang
manuscripts, perhaps more so in the earlier pothi manuscripts. Furthermore, red guidelines can be seen in some
folios found in the Central Asian site of Miran, which was
probably abandoned soon after the mid-ninth century.
One example of this style is Or.15000/332, a folio from a
manuscript of the Pratimokṣa sūtra (see Figure 3.5). This
latter manuscript also has string-holes surrounded by red
circles, a feature found in both early and late Dunhuang
manuscripts. It is quite possible that the Dunhuang manuscript containing the Testimony of Ba narrative originally
had either one or two of these holes and circles, though
they are not seen on the Testimony fragment.
The writing style of the Testimony fragment is somewhat puzzling. It does not fit into any of the common
styles of the imperial-period manuscripts, which I have
described elsewhere.8 On the other hand, neither does
7 On the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā) manuscripts, see
Kazushi Iwao, “The Purpose of Sūtra Copying in Dunhuang under
the Tibetan Rule,” in Dunhuang Studies: Prospects and Problems for
the Coming Second Century of Research, ed. Liu Yi and I.F. Popova (St
Petersburg: Slavia Publishers, 2012), 102–105.
8 See Sam van Schaik, “Towards a Tibetan Paleography: A Preliminary Typology of Writing Styles in Early Tibet,” in Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field, ed. Jan-Ulrich Sobisch and Jörg B. Quenzer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 299–338 and Sam van Schaik, “Dating
Early Tibetan Manuscripts: A Paleographical Method,” in Scribes,
Chapter 3 Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of Ba From Dunhuang
59
Figure 3.5: British Library fragments, Or.15000/332, a fragment of a sūtra page from Miran Fort (first half of ninth century)
it show the characteristic features of the post-imperial
Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang. The writing shows
most of the archaic orthographic features found in the
Dunhuang manuscripts, including the inverse gi gu, the ya
btags under the ma, and the upper hook on the ’a. Though
the latter feature is not found in some later texts, it is used
by some scribes through to the tenth century, so this is not
(on its own) proof of an early date but should be considered alongside other indicators of dating.
The closest example of this writing style in another
manuscript is seen in Pelliot tibétain 1064, and also IOL Tib
J 480, another folio from the same manuscript (see Figure
3.6). This interesting manuscript was also re-used. In its
original condition it was a concertina manuscript containing regulations for the local Buddhist communities. Each
section of regulations was sealed with an official stamp,
of the kind seen only in imperial-period manuscripts. Like
the Testimony manuscript, this was constructed by gluing
together two sheets of paper; the later re-use of the manuscript involved separating these sheets and pasting them
back together with the blank sides facing outwards.
There are many shared characteristics between the
writing style of Pelliot tibétain 1064/ IOL Tib J 480 and
the Testimony fragment, though the hand is clearly different. The inverse gi gu and ya btags under ma appear,
but more specifically, key letter forms such as ga, cha and
zha are formed with exactly the same ductus. On the other
hand, the Testimony manuscript is more carefully written,
with greater attention to consistency of letter forms, and
Texts and Rituals in Early Tibet and Dunhuang, ed. Brandon Dotson,
Kazushi Iwao and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (Weisbaden: Reichert Verlag,
2013), 119–35.
making a more careful distinction between heavy and light
strokes. In short, it is still not possible to date the Testimony fragment through analysis of its format and script,
but several indicators point towards it being a product of
the late imperial era or the decades following, that is, midto late-ninth century.
Comparison with Dba’ bzhed and
Rba bzhed
The Testimony fragment or BL fragment is similar enough
to the same passage in the Dba’ bzhed manuscript, DBA’
2000, that these two may be considered (in the passage
represented in the fragment) to be variants of the same
text.9 Later versions of the Testimony diverge much
further from the BL fragment. However, the newly published manuscript of the Rba’ bzhed, RBA 2011.1, is also
similar to the fragment (see Appendix 2 ending this
chapter). The Rba bzhed diverges from the BL fragment
to about the same extent as the Dba’ bzhed, though often
in different ways, and in places the Rba’ bzhed is closer
to the fragment (see Appendix 3). For example, at the
beginning of line 2 the BL fragment has bcugs na “when
he entered,” whereas the Dba’ bzhed gives mjal nas “after
meeting.” The Rba’ bzhed is much closer here with gzhugs
na, “when he went in.”
Both later manuscripts contain significant interpolations into the passage in the BL fragment. The longest
interpolation occurs in the first line of the fragment,
9 See van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba,” 484.
60
Sam van Schaik
Figure 3.6: British Library fragments, IOL Tib J 480, monastic regulations (first half of ninth century)
where the Dba’ bzhed inserts a line repeating Khri Srong
lde brtsan’s doubts about whether Śāntarakśīta is bringing
foreign black magic. The Rba bzhed also inserts text here,
but it is completely different: a statement that Gsal snang
returned to the palace.10
RBA 2011.1 also throws an interesting new light on a
problem that was raised in van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of the Testament of Ba”: the Dba’ bzhed contains
too much text (at 42 syllables) to fit in the lacuna between
lines 1 and 2 of the BL fragment. The text in DBA’ 2000, 7v:
2–3 reads (in translation):
10 At other points, the Dba’ bzhed and the Rba bzhed both differ from
the BL fragment in much the same way: (i) Both refer to the temple
as Ra sa pe har rather than Ra sa ben khang. (ii) Both state that Śāntarakśīta was “asked to remain” in the temple rather than that he
“was placed” there, though the Dba’ bzhed further softens this by
the addition of “a little while” (cung zhig). (iii) Both change the skills
of Ānanta from gtsug lag and smrang rabs to sgra and sman brlabs.
… Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs and ’Ba’ Sang shi, “You three ministers, go to Ra sa Pe har (vihāra) to meet A tsa rya Bo dhi sa twa
and prostrate in front of him.”
There must be some interpolated text in this passage,
and in the previous article, we suggested that it might
be the part “… Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs and ’Ba’ Sang shi,
‘You three ministers … .’” This would mean that the Dba’
’bzhed adds two extra ministers to the earlier version, in
which only one minister, Rgyal sgra legs, is mentioned.
This raised in our minds the interesting possibility that
members of the Ba clan were inserted into the narrative
at some point during the evolution of the text after the
BL fragment (or its exemplar) was written. The Rba bzhed
now appears to support this, since it mentions only one
minister at this point, just like the BL fragment. It does go
on to mention the three ministers at a slightly later point,
which corresponds to the lacuna in the fragment between
lines 2 and 3. Also RBA 2011.1 at this point where the three
ministers are enumerated contains too much text to fit the
Chapter 3 Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of Ba From Dunhuang
lacuna in the BL fragment (31 syllables, in comparison to
23 in DBA’ 2000), suggesting that the extra ministers were
not mentioned in the fragment lacuna at this point either.
This strongly suggests that the two extra ministers’ names
were indeed inserted into the text as part of the later development of the narrative, at different points in the Dba’
bzhed and Rba bzhed.11
Original Context and Function
The key remaining question is, how much of what we
now call The Testimony of Ba narrative, as represented in
the early manuscript tradition of the Dba’ bzhed and Rba
bzhed, was found in the complete manuscript of which the
Dunhuang fragments were once a part? There is, unfortunately, nothing in the BL fragment itself that might offer
a clue to this. Perhaps the expensive and finely-produced
nature of the manuscript suggests that it would not have
been merely a couple of folios, since such expense would
only be justified in the production of a significant manuscript object. Nevertheless, the Testimony text might only
have been one of many in a compendium, which is often
the case with the Dunhuang manuscripts.
It might be better to look for clues in the earliest version
of the fuller narrative, the Dba’ bzhed. Given that the narrative written on the BL fragment is also found in the middle
of the Dba’ bzhed section on the reign of Khri Srong lde
brtsan, perhaps the original narrative corresponded to the
portion of the Dba’ bzhed that deals with Khri Srong lde
brtsan’s establishment of a Buddhist orthodoxy in Tibet.
This would begin with his ascension to the throne (folio 4v:
5), continue through the invitation of Śāntarakṣita to the
building of the Bsam yas monastery. It might have ended
with the description of the emperor’s edict (bka’ shog), i. e.
the text of the pillar at Bsam yas pledging his support to the
Buddhist establishment (folio 17v: 6).
Of course, even if this was the full extent of the original Dunhuang manuscript, we would expect that the Dba’
bzhed would contain further interpolations into the text
of the kind described above. If it is true that members of
the Ba clan were inserted into the narrative at a later date,
then it is possible that the Dba’ bzhed episode in which
11 The number of syllables corresponding to the lacunae in the BL
fragment are as follows:
DBA’ 2000, between lines 1–2: 42; between 2–3: 23; between 3–4: 16;
between 4–5: 23; between 5–6: 24.
RBA 2011.1, between lines 1–2: 30; between 2–3: 31; between 3–4: 17;
between 4–5: 25; between 5–6: 30.
61
Dba’ Gsal snang and ’Ba’ Sang shi travel to China would
not have been present in the hypothetical original Dunhuang manuscript narrative. This episode sits uneasily
in the Dba’ bzhed between the expulsion of Śāntarakṣita
from Tibet and his return with Padmasambhava. The later
Testimony of Ba tradition places it in a different part of the
narrative, during the period when Khri Srong lde brtsan
is still a child and Buddhism is banned in Tibet. Thus, it
appears to be a separate mini-narrative that was inserted
into the main narrative at different points in different later
versions of the text (compare the insertion of the extra
ministers names into the BL fragment passage, discussed
above, which occurs at different points in the Dba’ bzhed
and Rba bzhed).
It is generally accepted that the Testimony of Ba served
the interests of the Ba clan itself, by placing their ancestors front and centre at the key moments of the establishment of Buddhism in the text. If the narrative represented
by the BL fragment was not written in order to put forward
the interests of the Ba clan in this way, it nevertheless
would have had a function when the original manuscript
was produced. This was perhaps to reiterate the imperial
support for the Buddhist monastic community at the time
of Khri Srong lde brtsan and his immediate successors,
making this past event present in the act of reading the
narrative.
The justification of a practice or tradition through narrative is a widely spread phenomenon. Sources can be seen
among two types of text also found among the Dunhuang
manuscripts: the nidāna (gleng gzhi) or introductory narratives of the Indian Buddhist tradition, and the smrang
or ritual narratives of the non-Buddhist Tibetan tradition.
Two specific examples are particularly apposite to the BL
fragment: Pelliot tibétain 149 and 996.12 The first is a narrative introduction to the Ārya-bhadracaryā-praṇidhāna
prayer, set in the same period and milieu as the fragment
(the Pelliot tibétain 149 manuscript probably dates from
the tenth century). Here the practice of the regular recitation of the prayer is sanctioned by a story involving the
emperor, his priest Dba’ Dpal byams (sic) and Śāntarakṣita.
Other figures associated with the succession of spiritual
heads of Bsam yas also figure in the narrative.
12 On Pelliot tibétain 149, see Sam van Schaik and Lewis Doney,
“The Prayer, the Priest and the Tsenpo: An Early Buddhist Narrative
from Dunhuang,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 30, no. 1–2 (2007): 175–217. On Pelliot tibétain 996, see Marcelle Lalou, “Document tibétain sur l’expansion du dhyāna chinois,”
Journale Asiatique (1939): 505–23 and Sam van Schaik, Tibetan Zen:
Discovering a Lost Tradition (Boston: Shambhala, 2016), 163–82.
62
Sam van Schaik
The second narrative, found in Pelliot tibétain 996
(probably also dating to the tenth century), is an account
of a lineage of Buddhist Chan masters that culminates
with the composition of the Tibetan Chan treatise Mdo
sde bgyad bcu khungs. Royal patronage forms an important theme of the text, and one of the masters, Nam ka’i
snying po (sic), is stated to have taken ordination during
the reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan. Thus, both narratives
invoke the imperial patronage of Buddhism and are
clearly written as justifications of their associated texts
and practices.
It seems reasonable, then, to suggest a similar function for the narrative of which we now have only the part
represented in S. 9498 and S. 13683: as a justification or
ratification of a religious tradition and its representatives.
This becomes even more evident with the later incorporation of the text of these Dunhuang fragments into the full
Testimony narratives in the following centuries.
Appendix 1:
Transliteration and Translation of the BL Fragment
Or.8210/S. 9498A and Or.8210/S. 13683C (the latter in italics)
1: […’I] lags gtol ma mchIs / ra sa’I beng gang du bzhag / / zhang lon chen po blon rgyal sgra legs […]
2: […] du bcugs na / lha bal gyI ngan sngags dang / ’phra men lta bu yod dam myed / / thugs phrI[g][…]
3: […][l]o ts[a][pa] [m]a mchIs te / / tshong dus kha drug du / kha che dang yang lI lo tsa pa ’tshal […]
4: […]e [sby]In che chung gnyis dang / / kha che a nan ta dang gsum rnyed ma […]
5: […] bram ze skyes zang kha che yul na / stson rngams po che […]u[…]
6: […]u lags st[e] / [/]bram z[e]’I [g]tsug lag dang / smrang lugs da[ng][…]
Translation
1: […] He was uncertain whether […] was placed in the Ra sa Beng khang. To the great minister Blon rgyal sgra legs […]
2: […] he ordered: “Investigate whether there are any foreign evil spirits or black magic.” […]
3: […] there was no interpreter. […] interpreters of Kashmir and Yang li at the six market-places […]
4: […] Three interpreters were found: the two […]e sbyin brothers and A-nan-ta from Kashmir. […]
5: […] the son of the brahman Skyes zang who was a serious convicted criminal in Kashmir. […]
6: […] sacred scriptures of the brahmans and the tradition of ritual exposition […]
Appendix 2:
Corresponding Passages from the Dba’ bzhed and Rba bzhed
The passages in which the ministers are mentioned are marked in bold.
DBA’ 2000, 7v:1–7: … ci lags gtol ma mchis te/ ra sa pe har du cung {zhig} bzhugs su gsol {te}/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags
dang phra men dag yod par thugs ’phrig bzhes nas/ zhang blon chen po sbrang rgyal sbra legs gzigs dang/ seng ’go
lha lung gzigs dang/ ’ba’ sang shi dang gsum la bka’ stsal pa/ blon po khyed gsum ra sa pe har du song la/ atsarya bo
dhi sa tva’i zhal sngar phyag ’tshal zhing mjal nas/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men lta bu yod daM med thugs
’phrig bzhes dgos sam mi dgos khyed kyis rtogs shig ces bka’ stsal nas/ de gsuM gyis ra sa pe har du mchis te/ lo tsa ba
ma mchis te tshong ’dus kha drug tu kha che dang yang le’i lo tsa ba ’tshal ba su mchis zhes tshong dpon so sor rmas
nas/ ra sa’i tshong ’dus nas kha che lhas byin che chung 2 dang/ kha che a nan ta dang gsum rnyed pa las/ lhas byin
che chung 2 kyis ni tshong gi lo tsa ba tsam las rngo ma thog/ a nan ta ni phra bram ze skyes bzang bya ba 1 kha che’i
yul du nyes pa rngams chen zhig byas pa las lho bal kha che’i chos lugs kyis bram ze dgum du mi rung nas/ bod yul du
spyugs pa’i bu lags te bram ze’i gtsug lag dang sgra dang sman bslabs pas chos sgyur ba’i rngo thog nas/
RBA 2011.1, 70:5–10 (4v:5–10):
… da rung gang lags ci gtol ma mchis nas ra sa pe har du bzhugs gsol te/ gsas snang ni pho brang du mchis
nas/ gnyer bskuM pa dang/ zhang blon chen po rgyal sbrang legs gzigs la bka’ stsal pa/ blon chen po ra sa’i pe har
Chapter 3 Reflections on the Original Form and Function of the Testimony of Ba From Dunhuang
63
du song la/ a rya bo dhi sa tva btsan po’i spyan sngar phyag tshal du gzhug na/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang ’phra len
ma lta bu yod dam med kyi thugs ’phrig dgosaM mi dgos rtog dpyod gtong bar chad nas/ sbrang legs gzigs dang/ seng
mgo lha lung gzigs dang/ dba’ sang she dang 3 ra sar mchis pa las/ lo tsha ba ma mchis te tshong dus kha drug kha
che dang/ yang le’i phru gu lo tsha ba ’tshal na ci mchis zhes tshong dpon so sor smras pa las/ ra sa’i tshong dus nas
kha che lha sbyin che chung 2 dang/ kha che a n+han ta 3 rnyed pa las/ lha sbyin che chung 2 kyis ni tshong brang(?)
gi lo tsha ba las sngo ma thog/ kha che a nan+ta ni kho’i pha braM ze skye bzang zhes bya ba zhig gis/ kha che’i yul
du nyes pa chaM song ci chig byas pa las/ lho bal kha che’i chos lugs kyis braM ze dguM du mi rung bas/ bod yul du
spyugs pa’i bu a nan+ta lags te/ a nan+ta braM ze’i gtsug lag sgra dang sman bslabs pas chos bsgyur ba’i rngo thog ste/
Appendix 3:
Comparison Between (A) the BL Fragment, (B) DBA’ 2000, 7v:1–7, and (C)
RBA 2011.1, 70:5–10 (4v:5–10)
Interpolations marked in bold. Significant alternative readings marked with italics.
Line 1
A: [c]’I lags gtol ma mchIs/ ra sa’I beng gang du bzhag// zhang lon chen po blon rgyal sgra legs
B: ci lags gtol ma mchis te/ ra sa pe har du cung {zhig} bzhugs su gsol {te}/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men
dag yod par thugs ’phrig bzhes nas/ zhang blon chen po sbrang rgyal sbra legs
C: gang lags ci gtol ma mchis nas ra sa pe har du bzhugs gsol te/ gsas snang ni pho brang du mchis nas/ gnyer bskuM
pa dang/ zhang blon chen po rgyal sbrang legs
Line 2
A: du bcugs na / lh[o] bal gyI ngan sngags dang / ’phra men lta bu yod dam myed / / thugs phrI[g]
B: zhing mjal nas/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra men lta bu yod daM med thugs ’phrig
C: du gzhug na/ lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang ’phra len ma lta bu yod dam med kyi thugs ’phrig
Line 3
A: [l]o ts[a] pa [m]a mchIs te / / tshong dus kha drug du / kha che dang yang lI lo tsa pa ’tshal
B: lo tsa ba ma mchis te tshong ’dus kha drug tu kha che dang yang le’i lo tsa ba ’tshal
C: / lo tsha ba ma mchis te tshong dus kha drug kha che dang/ yang le’i phru gu lo tsha ba ’tshal
Line 4
A: […]e [sby]In che chung gnyis dang / / kha che a nan ta dang gsum rnyed ma
B: lhas byin che chung 2 dang / kha che a nan ta dang gsum rnyed pa
C: lha sbyin che chung 2 dang/ kha che a nan ta 3 rnyed pa
Line 5
A: bram ze skyes zang kha che yul na / stson rngams po che […]u
B: bram ze skyes bzang bya ba 1 kha che’i yul du nyes pa rngam chen
C: braM ze skye bzang zhes bya ba zhig gis/ kha che’i yul du nyes pa chaM song
Line 6
A: […]u lags st[e] / [/]bram z[e]’I [g]tsug lag dang / smrang lugs da[ng]
B: bu lags te bram ze’i gtsug lag dang sgra dang sman bslabs pas
C: bu a nan+ta lags te/ a nan+ta bram ze’i gtsug lag sgra dang sman bslabs pas
Brandon Dotson
Chapter 4
Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
The investigation of archaisms in the Dba’ bzhed rests on
a number of assumptions.1 In the first place, there is the
assumption that the concept of ‘archaism’ is relevant to
the transmission and editing of the Dba’ bzhed. This is
to assert that the editors of the Dba’ bzhed were aware
of a difference between the past that they curated and
described and the present that they inhabited, expressed
on a linguistic level. Such an assertion may seem innocuous enough, but precisely this sort of assumption has been
challenged as a potentially anachronistic projection in the
context of the use of archaisms in Homeric epic.2 Considering the Dba’ bzhed, however, there is no question that the
imperial period became an important site of myth making
when it came to be viewed as a heroic age from at least
the tenth century onwards. The question of the appropriateness of the concept of archaism nonetheless reminds
us that our own awareness of the periodization of Tibetan
language and history is not that of the Tibetan historiographical tradition. Nowhere is this more evident than in
the way in which these differing epistemologies approach
language and linguistic change. Modern scholars attempt
to identify orthographic and phonological developments
and to locate these in time and place. Traditional Tibetan
scholarship, on the other hand, has tended to hem in the
rough edges of the variants that one finds in early Tibetan
writing, altering unrecognizable terms and phrases
until they take a shape more recognizable to the Classical Tibetan lexicon. (There are some notable exceptions
within the brda gsar rnying traditions of textual scholarship in Tibet, a good example of which is the Li shi’i gur
khang of 1536.3) Unpicking some of these rough edges that
1 I am indebted to Cathy Cantwell, Ruth Gamble, Diana Lange and
Rob Mayer for their observations and suggestions, and I am especially
grateful to Lewis Doney for his perceptive comments offered in the
course of editing this paper. Any errors and misunderstandings are
of course my own. I gratefully acknowledge the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research, who supported the research project “Kingship and Religion
in Tibet,” under whose auspices this research was conducted.
2 Jonas Grethlein, “From ‘Imperishable Glory’ to History: The Iliad
and the Trojan War,” in Epic and History, ed. David Konstan and Kurt
A. Raaflaub (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 128–29.
3 See Manfred Taube, “Zu einige Texten der tibetischen brda-gsarrnying-Literatur,” in Asienwissenschaftliche Beiträge: Johannes Schubert in memoriam, ed. Eberhardt Richter and Manfred Taube (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1978), 169–201.
Open Access. © 2020 Brandon Dotson, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-004
the Dba’ bzhed’s editors have been good enough to leave
only partly hemmed, one can examine the use and misuse
of archaisms and their relevance to dating the Dba’ bzhed.
The titles Dba’ bzhed and Sba bzhed (as I shall call the later
Testimony of Ba tradition), as well as the history’s subtitles, are also relevant to the question of archaisms, and to
the origins of this historiographical tradition.
Dba’ bzhed and Bka’ mchid:
What’s in a Name?
The Dba’ bzhed contains several orthographical and lexicographical enigmas. The most obvious of these is its
title, “The Testimony of Dba’: the Text of the Royal Narrative Concerning How the Buddhist Religion Came to Tibet”
(Sangs rgyas kyi chos bod khams su ji ltar byung ba’i bka’
mchid kyi yi ge dba’i bzhed pa), which pertains to its genre
and also advertises its location between imperial-period
sources and later religious histories. The most insightful
work to date on this issue, and one which is exemplary
for the study of Old Tibetan archaisms in Classical Tibetan
sources, is Philip Denwood’s “Some Remarks on the Status
and Dating of the Sba bzhed.”4 Here Denwood considers
the tradition, found in SBA 1961.1–2 and elsewhere, according to which the text is a “royal edict” (bka’ gtsigs). After
carefully establishing the normative use of the term gtsigs
in imperial-period documents, where it is used consistently in official documents and treaties to mean “charter”
or “edict,” Denwood demonstrates how by the time of
Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124–1192), gtsigs and the related
term bka’ gtsigs were no longer understood, and were
glossed by Nyang ral and others with terms like rtsis and
dkar chag.5 Denwood proposes that the use of bka’ gtsigs in
the colophon of SBA 1982.1–3, 82.11—“the bka’ gtsigs given
to, or associated with Sba gsal snang” (sba gsal snang gi
bka’ gtsigs kyi yi ge)—is relevant to dating the origin of the
work. Making allowances for a long process of subsequent
transmission and edition, Denwood concludes that the
designation of this work as a bka’ gtsigs must date to the
4 Philip Denwood, “Some Remarks on the Status and Dating of the
sBa bzhed,” Tibet Journal 15 (1990): 135–48.
5 Denwood, “Some Remarks on the Status and Dating of the sBa
bzhed,” 143–44.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Chapter 4 Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
imperial period or shortly thereafter.6 In this, he hypothesizes that the imperial germ of the text might have been a
royal decision following the Bsam yas Debate, over which
Emperor Khri Srong lde btsan (742–c.800) presided.7
Denwood’s essay demonstrates the value of lexicography to dating Tibetan writing, and provides valuable leads
to follow in considering the term bka’ mchid in the Dba’
bzhed’s title. Per Sørensen has already explored this line
of enquiry in his insightful preface to Pasang Wangdu and
Hildegard Diemberger’s annotated translation of the Dba’
bzhed. He writes that the Dba’ bzhed, “presumably in some
original form, may have contained the detailed wording of
the royal edict (bka’ gtsigs kyi ye ge zhib mo) that may have
been issued in the wake of the Bsam yas Debate, as well
as the wording of the accompanying royal narrative (bka’
mchid kyi yi ge) that provided the aetiology, the rationale
(gtan tshigs) and the history (lo rgyus) behind the solemn
decrees, in casu the introduction of Buddhadharma to
Tibet.”8 Behind these remarks, and Denwood’s hypothesis, stand two important documents—a “royal edict” (bka’
gtsigs) and a “royal narrative” (bka’ mchid), preserved in
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag’s sixteenth-century work, the Mkhas pa’i
dga’ ston.9 Presumed to be genuine copies of imperial-pe-
6 Denwood, “Some Remarks on the Status and Dating of the sBa
bzhed,” 143–44.
7 The orthography of the name Khri Srong lde(’u) b(r)tsan is itself
an important shibboleth, on which see Brandon Dotson, “Naming
the King: Accession, Death, and Afterlife Through the Re- Un- and
Nick-Naming of Tibet’s Kings,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 24 (2015): 22.
For the purposes of this article I use the Dba’ bzhed’s spelling of this
name, which reflects a post-imperial orthography.
8 Per K. Sørensen, “Preface: dBa’/sBa bzhed: The dBa’[s]/sBa [Clan]
Testimony Including the Royal Edict (bka’ gtsigs) and the Royal Narrative (bka’ mchid) Concerning the bSam yas Vihāra,” in dBa’ bzhed:
The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine
to Tibet, ed. Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger (Vienna:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000),
x–xi. See also the similar conclusions, along with further perceptive remarks concerning, among other things, archaisms in the Sba
bzhed, in David Seyfort Ruegg, “On the Tibetan Historiography and
Doxography of the ‘Great Debate’ of bSam yas,” in Tibetan Studies.
Proceedings of the Fifth Seminar of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989. Volume One, ed. Shōren Ihara and Zuihō
Yamaguchi (Tokyo: Naritasan Shinchoji, 1992), 239–40.
9 Hugh Richardson, “The First Tibetan chos-’byung,” in High Peaks,
Pure Earth: Collected Writings on Tibetan History and Culture, by Hugh
E. Richardson, ed. Michael Aris, 89–99 (Parkfields: Serindia, 1998); W.
South Coblin, “A Reexamination of the Second Edict of Khri-sronglde-btsan,” in Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, ed. Lawrence Epstein and Richard Sherburne (New York:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 165–85; Matthew T. Kapstein, “The
Conversion Edict of Tri Songdetsen,” in Sources of Tibetan Tradition,
ed. Kurtis Schaeffer, Matthew T. Kapstein and Gray Tuttle (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2013), 60–64.
65
riod sources, these two documents accompanied the publication in stone of the Bsam yas Edict, probably dating
to 779, that proclaimed royal and official support for Buddhism. The bka’ gtsigs gave some background to the decision, and included the text of the oath and the names of
those who swore it. As such, it performs a binding legal
function. The bka’ mchid, on the other hand, is devoted
entirely to giving the narrative background and rationale
for the decision. Hugh Richardson for this reason aptly
dubbed it “the first Tibetan chos ’byung” or religious history.10 Its title closely resembles that of the Dba’ bzhed: “The
Text of the Royal Narrative Concerning How the Dharma
Came to Tibet in Early and Later Times” (chos bod yul du
snga phyir ji ltar byung ba’i bka’ mchid kyi yi ge), a point
already noted by Wangdu and Diemberger.11
These documents in fact built upon an earlier binding
decision that was born of a consultation (bka’ gros) that
Khri Srong lde btsan held in order to root out opposition
to Buddhism shortly after the law banning its practice was
overturned, probably in 761. Here, too, the emperor had
his vassals and councilors swear an oath not to persecute
Buddhism, as related in his brief recounting of the affair in
the Bsam yas bka’ mchid.12
The Old Tibetan Chronicle also reflects the fact that
bka’ mchid were narratives as opposed to binding legal
records. A short eulogy to Emperor Khri ’Dus srong
(676–704) in the Chronicle draws on and refers to a bka’
mchid concerning this ruler. One sentence reads, “being
noble unlike to mankind, all the kings under the sun
and the black-headed subjects gave him the name-moniker ‘Sacred King’ (’phrul gyi rgyal po), as it is said in the
bka’ mchid.”13 Unfortunately, such a bka’ mchid, if it ever
existed, is no longer extant. From the quotation, however,
one can assume that it would have had a narrative histor-
10 Richardson, “The First Tibetan chos-’byung,” 96.
11 Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1962, 110r:2. The text that follows further
describes it as “The text of the history of the construction of the supports for the triple gem, and the practice of the Buddhist religion
in Tibet, from early times until the present” (gna’ da ’chad bod yul
du dkond cog gsum gyi rten bcas te/ sangs rgyas kyi chos mdzad pa’i
lo drung gi yi ge.) Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, dBa’
bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s
Doctrine to Tibet (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2000), 23, n. 1.
12 Richardson, “The First Tibetan chos-’byung,” 93–95; Coblin, “A
Reexamination of the Second Edict of Khri-Srong-lde-btsan,” 170–73;
Kapstein, “The Conversion Edict of Tri Songdetsen,” 62–64.
13 ’bangs mgo nag pyogs kyis / / mtshan bla dags ’phrul gyi rgyal po
zhes / btagste / bka’ mchid kyi dper brjod do /; Pelliot tibétain 1287,
ll. 330–31; Jacques Bacot, Frederick W. Thomas and Charles-Gustave
Toussaint, Documents de Touen-houang relatifs a l’histoire du Tibet
(Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1940–1946), 149.
66
Brandon Dotson
ical flavor and would have essentially extended the sorts
of royal eulogies that are found in the Inscription at the
Tomb of Khri Lde srong brtsan (d. 815) and in the ’Phyong
rgyas Bridge Head Inscription.14 A narrative bka’ mchid
is closer to the Dba’ bzhed’s genre than is an administrative bka’ gtsigs. A shared genre designation also links the
dBa’ bzhed with the bSam yas bka’ mchid, and situates it
in proximity to the royal eulogies of the inscriptions and
the Old Tibetan Chronicle. This is not to deny that the Dba’
bzhed/ Sba bzhed dovetails with other genres as well,
which it patently does.
Both Denwood and Sørensen look to a bka’ gtsigs following the Bsam yas Debate as the putative ancestor to
the Dba’ bzhed and its bka’ mchid, or as the ancestor to
the Dba’ bzhed as a bka’ mchid. This decision comes just
before the “first ending” of the Dba’ bzhed, but it is not
in fact referred to as a bka’ gtsigs or a gtsigs.15 Despite the
importance of the Bsam yas Debate, one might contend
that the construction and consecration of Bsam yas Monastery was in fact the central event of the Dba’ bzhed.
Indeed the emperor’s proclamation upon its consecration
in the year of the sheep is referred to as a bka’ shog, and an
annotation adds that he issued a chos gtsigs and erected
a pillar.16 Therefore the putative origins of the Dba’ bzhed
may lie in the edicts following the consecration of Bsam
yas—or, more accurately, its accompanying bka’ mchid—
which would double as a history of the establishment and
the fate of Buddhism in Tibet. Such a document would
have drawn on the consultation of c.761, when Buddhism
was adopted as one of Tibet’s official religions. It might
also have been further updated in the wake of a pivotal
event such as the Bsam yas Debate. In such a manner, the
narrative account of the dharma’s fate in Tibet would be
successively updated and disseminated in official documents. These royally commissioned accounts and their
focus on the advent of Buddhism in Tibet could in such
a way provide a plausible crucible for the development of
the chos ’byung genre.
The Dba’ bzhed’s proposed genesis in successively
updated bka’ mchid-s concerning the Buddhadharma in
Tibet does nothing to account for the text’s other title, the
14 See Fang Kuei Li and W. South Coblin, A Study of the Old Tibetan
Inscriptions (Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1987), 227–60. On the close
relationship between the eulogies published in stone and those collected in the Old Tibetan Chronicle, see Hugh Richardson, A Corpus
of Early Tibetan Inscriptions (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1985), 37;
and Rolf Stein, Rolf Stein’s Tibetica Antiqua, with Additional Materials, trans. Arthur McKeown (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 197.
15 DBA’ 2000, 24v.
16 DBA’ 2000, 17v:4.
“Testimony of the Dba’ Clan” (Dba’ bzhed), since there is
no obvious reason why this or any clan should be inextricably linked to this narrative. Here once more the term
gtsigs offers a possible explanation. As Denwood notes,
a gtsigs in Old Tibetan sources is issued to a person and
to his descendants, usually granting them privileges.
In fact there is one such instance of a gtsigs in the Dba’
bzhed itself, and it happens to implicate the Dba’ clan in
a way that might account for their centrality in the transmission of this narrative. After Dba’ Gsas snang escorts
Śāntarakṣita back to Nepal after this Indian master’s first,
somewhat unsuccessful trip to Tibet, Gsas snang returns
to Tibet and Khri Srong lde btsan entrusts the Dba’ bzhed
protagonist and reputed author with another mission:
For the sake of the dharma, the emperor ordered Gsas snang to
act as a messenger to China, and he accepted. [He also promised Gsas snang that] if he subsequently accomplished the task
according to [Khri Srong lde btsan’s] wishes, he would grant him
a decree (gtsigs) awarding him the great silver [insignia].
chos kyi slad du gsas snang rgya yul du pho nyar btsan pos bka’
stsal nas/ mchid kyis ’tshal te slad nas dgongs pa bzhin du grub
na dngul chen po stsal bar gtsigs gnang/.17
The most intriguing thing about this promised decree to
the Dba’ bzhed’s central Dba’ clan protagonist is that it
appears that it is forgotten or never fulfilled. When Gsas
snang returns from China, for example, he has surely
enjoyed great success, but he does not receive his promised reward. Ahead of the Buddhist contest with the Bon
po-s, Gsas snang is awarded several positions, including
chos kyi bla and snam phyi’i sa g.yas kyi tshugs dpon, but no
mention is made of a decree (gtsigs) awarding him insignia.18 After the foundation of Bsam yas, he is appointed
the “representative of the Bhagavat” (bcom ldan ’das kyi
ring lugs), and is treated as the highest-ranking official
in Tibet, but still there is no explicit mention of a decree
or insignia, and no reference to the emperor’s pledge.19
After Gsas snang is called back from his meditation-retreat-cum-self-imposed-exile, he plays a minor role in the
Bsam yas Debate by recommending that Khri Srong lde
btsan invite the Indian master Kamalaśīla to refute Hwa
shang Mahāyāna (Heshang Moheyan) and his Chan proponents. The main narrative of the Dba’ bzhed then ends with
Khri Srong lde btsan’s decision and a quasi-colophon, but
17 DBA’ 2000, 8v:6. On the translation of mchid kyi ’tshal with “to
accept” or “take responsibility,” see Tsuguhito Takeuchi, Old Tibetan
Contracts from Central Asia (Toyko: Daizo Shuppan, 1995), 143.
18 DBA’ 2000, 14r:6–7.
19 DBA’ 2000, 17v:6–7.
Chapter 4 Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
without any explicit mention of a decree to Gsas snang.
The first addendum to the Dba’ bzhed—or its “second
ending” (see Chapter 2 in this volume)—includes a visit by
Khri Srong lde btsan to Gsas snang’s death bed, but it does
not mention any decision or insignia either, even though
this would appear to be the ideal setting for the king to
grant a decision bestowing privileges on Gsas snang’s
descendants.20 Intriguingly, there seems to be an acknowledgement of a lack of closure concerning Gsas snang’s
mission to China: before the colophonic “This is the end”
that closes the Dba’ bzhed’s “second ending,” Khri Srong
lde btsan laments, among other things, that the scriptures
of China were not translated (rgya’i dar ma ma ’gyur ba yid
la gcags gsung ngo/ /).21
What is the significance of this withheld edict and
unfulfilled promise from the emperor to Dba’ gSas snang?
One can read this in a number of ways. It may, for example,
simply constitute a narrative blind spot. It could also indicate that other imperatives, such as the “decline of the
dharma motif” took precedence and that their expression
was more important than tying up the loose ends of the
relationship between the emperor and Gsas snang.22 The
deathbed scene between the two men tends to suggest,
however, coming as it does following the first ending of
the Dba’ bzhed, an addendum offering closure and an
evaluation of Gsas snang’s deeds upon his death. Ironically, this evaluative statement takes the form of the
emperor’s expression of regret, which does not resolve but
rather extends the sense of indeterminacy or open-endedness with which the Dba’ bzhed’s “first ending” closes.
It strongly suggests that Gsas snang’s mission to transmit
Buddhism to Tibet, particularly from China, was not fulfilled, and/or that the Dba’ bzhed’s authors and editors
chose to cultivate this sense of a lack of fulfillment.
Dba’ Gsas snang’s promised but withheld decree contrasts with Khri Srong lde btsan’s manifest edict upon
the consecration of Bsam yas Monastery. Both of these
edicts—the one that was given and the one that was withheld—help us to think about the nature and genesis of the
Dba’ bzhed and its two titles. It is this withheld decree to
Gsas snang and the Dba’ clan’s postponed fulfillment of
20 See, for example, chapter five of the Old Tibetan Chronicle, where
Srong brtsan sgam po grants privileges to the aged councilor Dba’s
Dbyi tshab and his descendants; Bacot et al., Documents de Touenhouang, 143–47.
21 DBA’ 2000, 25r:7–25v:1. Note that Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’
bzhed, 90, translate this passage following Khri Srong lde btsan’s
direct speech not as indirect speech, but as a mixture of prose and
direct speech. I think it is clear that that it is all indirect speech, and
that the king is detailing his regrets about the state of the dharma.
22 See Chapter 5 in this volume.
67
his task to bring the dharma to Tibet that might account
for the history being not just a royal bka’ mchid, but
also a testimony of the Dba’ clan. As caretakers of Gsas
snang’s legacy, the Dba’ may have been motivated to fulfill
his destiny, so to speak, and to succeed in the task that
the emperor entrusted to him. Although Gsas snang and
Padmasambhava may belong to different strata of the
narrative, the motivating power of an ancestor’s lack of
fulfillment recalls Hildegard Diemberger’s remarks on
Padmasambhava’s “unfinished job” in the Dba’ bzhed,
namely his failure to bind Tibet’s indigenous deities by
oath for a third and final time before he departed Tibet for
Nepal.23 This, Diemberger argues, explains the partly wild
nature of Tibet’s dharma protectors (dharmapāla), but it
also leaves Padmasambhava’s successors with the task of
fulfilling the work left undone.24 In the context of the study
of Tibetan aetiological myths, it is a reminder that present-day success is not always underwritten by mimetic
antecedents of success performed by heroic or mythical
predecessors. Myths of failure, or of partial success, can
also empower and motivate.
Had Gsas snang been granted an edict, then the
accompanying narrative—or the narrative element of
the edict—could, given Gsas snang’s career, double as a
history of the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet. The
same, or indeed a greater sense of responsibility to narrate
the story of Buddhism in Tibet, might also be kindled by
a sense of partial failure, and of unfinished business,
and this seems to be the charter that the Dba’ clan set for
themselves: despite all of his great achievements, Gsas
snang does not receive the royal edict, and the king even
expresses disappointment at Gsas snang’s deathbed. This
aspect of their self-identity, and the belief that they were
destined to fulfill Gsas snang’s mission, may account for
the Dba’ clan’s leading role when, leading up to and then
following the collapse of the Tibetan empire, royal historiography of the Tibetan adoption of Buddhism was decentralized and taken over by aristocratic clans who promoted
and preserved the imperial legacy in their own ways.
23 See Hildegard Diemberger, “Padmasambhava’s Unfinished
Job: The Subjugation of Local Deities as Described in the dBa’
bzhed in Light of Contemporary Practices of Spirit Possession,” in
Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion
of his 70th Birthday, ed. Birgit Kellner et al. (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2007), 85–93.
24 Note the symmetry between Padmasambhava’s twice taming the
demons and the two binding decisions described in Khri Srong lde
btsan’s Bsam yas edicts: he bound his councilors by oath to protect
Buddhism in the consultation of c.761, and again at the consecration
of Bsam yas in c.779.
68
Brandon Dotson
The Dba’ bzhed is an artifact of this process, and, as
a religious act, its composition and transmission is part
of the Dba’ clan’s fulfillment of their ancestor’s task. This
process offers insight into the meaning of the name Dba’i
bzhed pa, which essentially modifies the royal narrative
referred to in the long title: the narrative is not a verbatim rendering of the imperial source itself, but is rather
an adjustment of it. It tells not only of the unfolding of the
fate of Buddhism in Tibet, but also of the unfolding of the
Dba’ clan’s relationship with it: Dba’i bzhed pa is simultaneously “The Wish (or Mission) of Dba’ [Gsas snang]” and
“The Wish [Fulfillment] of the Dba’ Clan.”
*Dba’s bzhed
There is an archaism of sorts in the Dba’ bzhed’s short title.
The title Dba’ bzhed, as opposed to Sba bzhed, reflects an
orthographic change that happened over time. A famous
and powerful clan in Tibet was known first as Dba’s, and
then as Dba’, Dbas, Sbas, Sba and Rba. The process of
orthographic and phonological change did not happened
overnight, and it should be generally datable. This sort
of orthographic change is relevant to other clan names,
whose changing orthographies are also pertinent to historical phonology more generally. The Myang, for example,
become the Nyang; the Mnon become the Snon, and the
Mchims become the ’Chims.25 The changing orthographies
also map a gradual decline in the importance of clans
in Tibet, as is well known. One consequence is that the
misspelling or misuse of imperial Tibetan names, which
are fairly different from post-tenth-century names, can
advertise a text’s distance from the events it purports to
narrate. Such considerations may be relevant to the name
of the story’s protagonist, who is called Gsas snang in
the Dba’ bzhed and Gsal snang in the Sba bzhed.26 These
25 Changing orthographies are particularly evident in the spellings
of personal and place names; see, for example, my brief remarks on
some orthographic differences between the thirteenth-century Rgya
bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa of Mkhas pa Lde’u and the sixteenth-century Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston of Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba; Brandon
Dotson, “At the Behest of the Mountain: Gods, Clans and Political
Topography in Post-Imperial Tibet,” in Old Tibetan Studies Dedicated
to the Memory of R.E. Emmerick, ed. Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 163, n. 8.
26 The form Gsal snang appears once in the DBA’ 2000, 5r:3; see
Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 38, 39, n. 77. This is in the context of the episode concerning Chinese zhai rituals and the vermillion
pearl, on which see Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of
Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 38–41. The fact
that this episode is a stand-alone “set piece” could be taken to be an
orthographic changes are not necessarily categorical and
consistent: editors fail to standardize divergent spellings
such that of Dba’ and Sba, or Sba and Rba that appear
side-by-side. This can reflect both the various strata of
the text and the editors’ ignorance of the proper name of
a moribund clan.
Were Gsas snang granted the insignia with a decree
(gtsigs) like those inscribed on a few central Tibetan steles,
the privileges would have been granted to himself and
to his descendants in the clan then known by the name
Dba’s. In whatever manner the clan associated itself with
the royal narrative, if this happened in the imperial period
it would have done so as the Dba’s clan. In the Old Tibetan
Annals, the Annals of the ’A zha Principality, Pelliot tibétain
1290, the Inscriptions at Zhwa’i Lha khang, the name of this
clan is spelled Dba’s. In our extant manuscript of the Old
Tibetan Chronicle, Dba’s appears thirty-three times against
a single occurrence of Dba’.27 In Dunhuang manuscripts
most certainly dating to the tenth century, the appearance
of both Dba’ and Dbas is more common. In Pelliot tibétain
149, a text that Sam van Schaik and Lewis Doney date
to the tenth century, the form Dba’ appears in the name
Dba’ Dpal byams.28 The forms Dba’ and Dbas occur side
by side in a lineage of imperial Tibetan religious officials
that includes Dba’ btsun ba Ye she [sic] dbang po, Dba’
Dpal dbyangs and Dbas Byang chub rin cen (IOL Tib J 689,
2v:4–6).29 This, too, may date to the tenth century. Thus,
while the use of the term bka’ mchid in the longer title
mirrors the use of this term in the similarly titled Bsam yas
bka’ mchid, and could therefore be said to reflect imperial
usage, the main title of the text, if it existed in the imperial
period, would have probably been *Dba’s bzhed.
The very name of our document therefore sets it apart
as reflecting an old, but not an imperial orthography. Even
so, the fact is that the name of the text was updated to
accord with changing orthographies. This is why it is best
known as the Sba bzhed or Rba bzhed. Reciprocally, the
fact that the text is not called the *Dba’s bzhed does not
indication that it was inserted into the narrative from another source
with differing orthographies.
27 On the uncertain date of the Old Tibetan Chronicle, see Brandon
Dotson and Agnieszka Helman-Waẓny, Codicology, Paleography, and
Orthography of Early Tibetan Documents: Methods and a Case Study
(Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2016), 128–36.
28 Sam van Schaik and Lewis Doney, “The Priest, the Prayer and the
Tsenpo: An Early Buddhist Narrative from Dunhuang,” Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 30, nos. 1–2 (2007): 192.
29 Samten Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Second Edition
(Leiden: Brill, 2007), 78.
Chapter 4 Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
constitute proof that such a text never existed; its title may
simply have been updated in the same fashion as Dba’
bzhed was updated to Sba bzhed. One can also observe this
process of updating at work in the case of the Dba’ bzhed’s
use of imperial-period archaisms.
Three Men in a Boat:
the Consequences of ‘Correction’
One principle of Denwood’s essay on gtsigs and bka’ gtsigs
is that it is not the mere presence, but rather the misuse
or emendation of an archaism that can help to date a text.
Another way to put this is to state that the misuse of an old
term constitutes an innovation, and innovations, unlike
the conservative preservation of archaisms in formulae
and so forth, have the potential to be dated. As Denwood
demonstrates, one must establish a term’s normative use
in its earlier context (such as royal inscriptions) and its
normative use in a later context (such as the Sba bzhed)
before one can judge whether or not the latter misuses
an archaism and thus represents an innovation. This is a
painstaking process, and there is no question of surveying all of the extant material in which a single term might
appear, nor is it possible here to perform such an analysis on every archaism in the Dba’ bzhed. Instead, one can
begin with an example that compares the Dba’ bzhed and
the Sba bzhed, and then investigate a few intriguing archaisms in the former with respect to Old Tibetan materials.
To illustrate how archaisms are glossed over in the
transmission of a text over centuries one need look no
further than the passage cited above concerning the
decree (gtsigs) promised to Dba’ Gsas snang. For the sake
of convenience, I repeat it here, alongside the corresponding passage in SBA 1982.1–3:
DBA’ 2000, 8v:6: For the sake of the dharma, the emperor ordered
Gsas snang to act as a messenger to China, and he accepted. [He
also promised Gsas snang that] if he subsequently accomplished
the task according to [Khri Srong lde btsan’s] wishes, he would
grant him a decree awarding him the great silver [insignia].
chos kyi slad du gsas snang rgya yul du pho nyar btsan pos bka’
stsal nas/ mchid kyis ’tshal te slad nas dgongs pa bzhin du grub
na dngul chen po stsal bar gtsigs gnang/.
SBA 1982.1–3, 23.11–14: The emperor appointed Sba Gsal snang
overseer of the dharma, and Gsal snang agreed to go to China
as a messenger. He decided that if [Gsal snang] completed this
according to the intention from above/ from the authority/ from
the emperor, he would construct and spontaneously grant to
him a great silver.
69
btsan pos sba gsal snang chos kyi spyan par bkos (bskos) nas/
gsal snang rgya nag yul du pho nyar ’chi (mchi) bar mchid kyis
’tshal te/ bla nas dgongs pa bzhin ’grub na dngul chen po bla
thabs su bstsal bar brtsigs bcas nas chad byas so/.
The first problem comes with slad, which means “subsequent,” and which, in the expression slad du, means “for
the sake of.” SBA 1982.1–3’s replacement of slad with spyan
has resulted in Gsal snang being given yet another post.
Then slad nas (“subsequently”) is replaced with bla nas,
which means “from above,” but which in Old Tibetan—
perhaps irrelevant here—means “from the authority” in
the context of a royal or official decision.30 The sentence
is changed irrevocably by the glossing of gtsigs (“decree”)
with brtsigs bcas (“built”). This bedevils the word order
and presumably leads to the insertion of bla thabs, which
might be further evidence that the editor does not know
that dngul chen po refers to insignia or that thabs refers to
rank.31 The result is nearly gibberish, and highlights some
of the problems facing both those who would read this text
at face value and those who would try to read between the
lines to get at the original intended meaning.
In the Dba’ bzhed similar deformities arise when an
archaic technical term is misused. Such is the case with
slungs. As established by Jian Chen (alias Bsod nams skyid),
slungs refers to the distance between the way-stations
of imperial Tibet’s corvée and transportation network.32
It thus refers to a stretch of largely uninhabited territory
traversed by messengers and others, which Chen states
measured thirty li (approximately fifteen kilometers).33 Our
most detailed information comes from a judicial document
(Pelliot tibétain 1096) regarding the loss and supposed
theft of a horse at a way-station. This document makes it
clear that the way-stations were known as tshugs or slungs
tshugs, and that among the officials in charge were the
30 In their translation of the phrase bka non bla nas mdzad in the
west inscription at Zhva’i Lha khang (line 35) with “shall be suppressed by the authorities,” Li and Coblin correctly understand the
use of bla to mean “authority”; Li and Coblin, A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, 278.
31 On insignia, see below.
32 See Bsod nams skyid, “Gna’ bo’i bod kyi yig rnying las ‘slung
tshang’ dang ‘slungs dpon’ zhes pa’i tha snyad la rags tsam dpyad
pa,” in Bod kyi yig rnying zhib ’jug, ed. Kha sgang Bkra shis tshe ring
(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003), 266–71; see also Brandon
Dotson, The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s
First History. With an Annotated Cartographical Documentation by
Guntram Hazod (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1999), 56.
33 Bsod nams skyid, “Gna’ bo’i bod kyi yig rnying las ‘slung tshang’
dang ‘slungs dpon,’” 276.
70
Brandon Dotson
slungs pon and the tshugs pon.34 Other Old Tibetan documents also use slungs in the same administrative context.
A fragment in Pelliot tibétain 1290, for example, mentions
stamps and seals borne by those who use the network of
way-stations and traverse the wastes (slungs la mci ’o ’tshal
gyi bka’ rtags dang phyag rgya).35 The Old Tibetan Chronicle
also refers to Srong brtsan sgam po’s (d. 650) standardization of the distances between stations.36
Apart from these and a few other similar uses of the
term, slungs also appears in Old Tibetan ritual texts (see
Pelliot tibétain 1134, ll. 123–24; Pelliot tibétain 1136, l. 29;
and Pelliot tibétain 1285, recto: 55–56), where it apparently
has a different meaning that is of no relevance here. In
an administrative context in documents dating from the
imperial period or shortly thereafter, however, one can
safely conclude that the term slungs indicates the stretches
between the way-stations of the imperial Tibetan transportation network.
Looking at the Dba’ bzhed, it is apparent that this
meaning is only imperfectly retained. When Gsas snang
goes to meet Khri Srong lde btsan, the text states, “… he
arrived at Slungs tshugs court” (slungs tshugs pho brang
du mchis).37 There are surely a variety of court and council
sites, some with very interesting names, but “Way-Station
Court” stretches the bounds of plausibility. One might
speculate as to how this monstrous place name came into
being. A nas or a kyis, for example, may have been deleted
between slungs tshugs and pho brang (“proceeded along
the way-stations to the court”). Whatever the case, the
result clearly calls into question the writer(s)’ and scribes’
awareness of the meanings of slungs and tshugs. Nevertheless, slungs and tshugs, understood as vaguely lexical
items but certainly as signifying archaic language of the
imperial period, must have seemed appropriate to the
Dba’ bzhed’s editors as elements of the name of a royal
residence, and were left to stand as such.
34 See Brandon Dotson, “Introducing Early Tibetan Law: Codes and
Cases,” in Secular Law and Order in the Tibetan Highland, ed. Dieter
Schuh (Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies, 2015), 285–87.
35 Pelliot tibétain 1290, recto: 10. Cf. Ariane Macdonald, “Une lecture
des Pelliot Tibétain 1286, 1287, 1038, et 1290: Essai sur la formation et
l’emploi des mythes politiques dans la religion royale de Srong bcan
Sgam po,” in Études Tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle
Lalou, ed. Ariane Macdonald (Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1971), 325.
36 Pelliot tibétain 1287, ll. 453: “slungs kyi go bar bsnyams.” Bacot
and Toussaint gloss slungs with klung, and mistranslate “l’égale
répartition des eaux,” Bacot et al., Documents de Touen-houang, 161,
n. 5. This is precisely the mistake that the SBA 1982.1–3 editors made
when faced with their own incomprehension of this term.
37 DBA’ 2000, 6r:4–5; Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 41, n. 88.
In another passage in the Dba’ bzhed, it appears that
the editors emended slungs with a noncommittal gloss,
rlungs, which seems not to be a word. They may also have
simply misread the sa mgo as a ra mgo. Again it is a matter
of transportation, or of coming to the royal court from an
outlying area. The context is Gsas snang’s task of bringing
Śāntarakṣita, Padmasambhava and a Nepalese architect
for the foundation of Bsam yas Monastery.
Gsas snang returned from China and saluted the presence [of
the emperor]. [The emperor] had decided to invite Bodhisatva
[Śāntarakṣita], and he requested that [Gsas nang] go to Mang yul
and, via the rlungs, bring [Śāntarakṣita,] Padmasambhava, who
had accepted Bodhisatva’s invitation to Tibet, and the Nepalese
architect who would build the foundation of Bsam yas and build
the Lce ti sgo mangs. [Gsas snang did so.] They arrived at Snyi
mo Thod kar.
gsas snang yang rgya yul nas mchis te zha sngar phyag bgyis pa
dang /bo d+hisa twa spyan drang bar chad nas yang mang yul
du phyin $///pa dang bo d+hi sa twas pad ma sa b+ha ba bod
yul du spyan drangs nas bzhes pa dang /bsam yas rmang rtsig
pa dang lce ti sgo mangs rtsig pa’i phya mkhan gsas snang gis
rlungs la drangs nas gshegs par gsol ba dang /snyi mo thod kar
du gshegs te.38
Here I read slungs for rlungs, and assume that the meaning
is that Gsas snang is to guide the three men via the transportation network or over the wastes. It is not at all clear,
however, that the Dba’ bzhed’s editors understood the
term this way, and it is likely that they did not.
The other versions of the Sba bzhed emend this word to
chu klung, and therefore understand that Gsas snang/ Gsal
snang conducted the great men via a river or rivers. The
emendation of *slungs—or the Dba’ bzhed’s rlungs, which
is a sort of nonsensical middle ground—to chu klung had
immediate consequences for the editors of the various Sba
bzhed-s: now faced with a river, had to insert the acquisition or construction of a boat into the narrative. In some
cases, the passage only mentions “two teachers,” which
calls into question whether or not the editors have forgotten about the Nepalese architect such that Gsas snang,
who is apparently now well versed in boat building as well
as being a great religious adept, guides only two passengers. For example:
SBA 1961.1–2, 20.10–11: There, in Mang yul, [Gsal snang] built a
boat and conducted [the three men] on the river to Snye mo Thod
dkar (der mang yul nas rdzing bcas nas chu klung la spyan drangs
te/ snye mo thod dkar du byon pa dang/).
38 DBA’ 2000, 10v:7–11r:2.
Chapter 4 Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
SBA 1982.1–3, 25.20–21: Gsal snang built the two teachers a boat
in Mang yul and conducted them on the river to Thod dkar in
Snye mo (mkhan po gnyis ka gsal snang gi39 mang yul nas rdzings
bcas nas chu klung las spyan drangs nas snye mo’i thod dkar du
gshegs pa dang/).
SBA 1962, 85r:1–2: Gsal snang built the two teachers a boat in
Mang yul and conducted them to Thad ka in ’U yug40 (mkhan po
gnyis ka gsal snang gis mang yul nas gzings bcas nas chu klung la
spyan drangs ’u yug gi thad kar gshegs pa dang/).
This seems to be one of the many cases in which an
element of a narrative owes its existence to a folk etymology or to a misunderstood archaism. Supposing *slungs
la drangs was opaque to an editor or compiler as a result
of their temporal remove from the phenomenon of the
imperial transportation network, the closest sensible
option would be to transform the phrase into [chu] klung
las spyan drangs. This editorial choice poses serious problems for the itinerary of Padmasambhava and the others,
however, which the editors seem to have left unchanged.
The route is from Mang yul to Snye mo (misspelled Snyi
mo in the Dba’ bzhed), and then from Snye mo via Gal ta
la Pass to Snying drung, near the source of the Lha chu
River south of Lake Gnam mtsho in modern ’Dam gzhung
county.41 Only after a month’s stay at Snying drung does
Padmasambhava—the others aren’t mentioned at this
point—arrive at the royal court. Considering such a route,
once one reaches the Gtsang po from Mang yul—no small
feat—it would in fact be possible to take the river to Snye
mo. From there, however, one would have to walk to
Snying drung, crossing more than one pass. It may be the
case that historical and geographical realities are open to
adjustment in a work such as the Sba bzhed, but it is also
the case that while some long-distance boat travel existed
in Tibet, particularly between Lhasa and Bsam yas, the
proposed routes are impossible unless one imagines these
august travelers carrying their boat for long distances over
difficult terrain.42 Additionally, there does not appear to
be any strong narrative motive for interpolating a boat into
39 Read gis.
40 The meaning could also be “straight to ’U yug.”
41 For Snying drung, see Guntram Hazod, “Imperial Central Tibet:
An Annotated Cartographical Survey of its Territorial Divisions and
Key Political Sites,” in The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First History. With an Annotated Cartographical Documentation by Guntram Hazod, ed. Brandon Dotson (Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, 2009), 202 (map),
217. On Gal te in the vicinity of Snying drung, see Hazod, “Imperial
Central Tibet,” 218 (in the entry on Lha sgal).
42 I am grateful to Diana Lange for information about travel by boat
in Tibet.
71
this story. The geographical and logistical embarrassment
of constructing a river cruise itinerary from Mang yul in
southwestern Tibet to northern central Tibet is rather
the price that the editors had to pay for not knowing the
meaning of the term slungs.
Gilded Silver, Therianthropic
Deities and Sorcerers
The Dba’ bzhed’s treatment of the term, phra men/ ’phra
men is more complex than the straightforward misunderstanding and deformation of an archaism. The Dba’ bzhed
is generally correct in its references to the imperial system
of insignia. The ministerial aristocracy held ranks that
were organized according to precious metals, which likely
formed part of their epaulets or similar visible markers of
rank. In descending order, they are turquoise (g.yu), gold
(gser), gilded silver (phra men), silver (dngul), brass (ra gan)
and copper (zangs). The next rank down is called gtsang
chen, which seems not to refer to a precious metal.43 Gilded
silver (phra men) is used in this context to refer to the precious metal, and, by metonymy, to the rank associated
with this metal. A councilor of such a rank was called, for
example, a “gilded silver insignia-holder” (phra men gyi
yi ge pa). In the Rkong po Inscription there is also a reference to precious documents kept in a chest made of gilded
silver.44 And the Bsam yas bka’ mchid claims to have been
written with phra men ink and kept in a golden box.45
Appearing as it does between silver and gold, and
described in the New Tang History (Xin Tangshu) as jin tu
yin 金涂銀 “silver coated with gold,” it is clear that the
primary meaning of phra men is silver gilded or cladded
with gold.46 A tradition of metalwork involving just such
43 The system of rank, which has distinct parallels in China, was
analyzed in Paul Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa. Une controverse sur
le quiétisme entre Bouddhistes de l’Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe siècle de
l’ère Chrétienne (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1952), 284–
86, n. 2. More recently, see Dotson, The Old Tibetan Annals, 60–64.
44 Li and Coblin, A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, 206.
45 Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1962, 110r:3. This is either a misuse of the
word, since ink cannot be easily gilded or cladded, or it is evidence to
support Dan Martin’s suggestion that phra men is electrum, an alloy
of silver and gold; see Dan Martin, A History of Buddhism in India and
Tibet: An Expanded Version of the Dharma’s Origin in India and Tibet
Made by the Learned Scholar Lde’u (Boston: Wisdom Publications,
forthcoming).
46 See Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa, 284–86, n. 2. Previously, in a
long book review published in 1941, Rolf Stein discussed the New Tang
History’s passage on Tibetan insignia; Rolf Stein, “Houa-si Hie-ho tahio Tchong-kouo wen houa yen-kieou-souo tsi-k’an, vol. I, parts 1–3,”
72
Brandon Dotson
materials and employing the technique of gilding is well
known from some extraordinary objects including gilded
ewers and bowls dating to the imperial period. These
objects have been the subject of several studies, and it
has been argued that they either came to Tibet as gifts
from Sogdians or others influenced by Sasanian metalwork, or that the objects were manufactured in Tibet at
royal ateliers consisting of Sogdians, Chinese, Turkic, or
even Iranian artisans, or that Tibetan artisans learned
and practised these gilding and cladding methods.47 It
is therefore no stretch to propose that phra men refers to
silver gilding, a technique transmitted to Tibet ultimately
from the Iranian world.
Before introducing the secondary meanings of phra
men, one should note the word’s peculiar orthography,
specifically the preference for men rather than myen. All
of the documents in which phra men appears consistently
attach the ya btags to mi and me, i. e., myi and mye, with
few exceptions. This is in accordance with a rule, well
observed in Old Tibetan writing, that mi and me are palatalized, and the presence of a suffix, as in the word myed,
does not change this. In its many occurrences in official
and legal documents, only twice does the second syllable
of the term phra men appear in the “expected” form, myen.
This is also true of the term nu men (variant: no men; IOL
Tib J 723, recto: 21; IOL Tib J 739, 8r:12; Pelliot tibétain 1105,
l. 6; Pelliot tibétain 1051, l. 39), which, like mu men (lapis
lazuli), is a precious jewel. This irregular orthography,
along with the fact that gilded silver is likely an imported
technology, probably brought to Tibet by Sogdian crafts-
Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême Orient 41 (1941): 436. There he
further adds the Comprehensive Institutions (Tongdian) history’s gloss
on金涂銀, which it explains as “argent orné d’or” 金飾銀上, or, more
literally, “silver with gold ornamented on top of it.” Relating this to
the insignia as they are found in Old Tibetan sources, he translates
phra men with “pierres précieuses” without comment, probably because this is one of the secondary meanings of phra on its own (Stein,
“Houa-si Hie-ho ta-hio Tchong-kouo wen houa yen-kieou-souo tsik’an,” 436). Helga Uebach unfortunately mistook Stein’s translation
of the Tibetan for his translation of the Comprehensive Institutions
history’s金飾銀上, and thus wrongly adduced “that another Chinese
manuscript kept in Paris provides the meaning ‘pierres précieuses’”;
Helga Uebach, “Two Indian Loanwords in Old Tibetan: Men-tri and
Phra-men,” in From Bhakti to Bon: Festschrift for Per Kvaerne, ed.
Hanna Havnevik and Charles Ramble (Oslo: Novus Press, 2015), 546.
47 On these objects, see Martha L. Carter, “Three Silver Vessels from
Tibet’s Earliest Historical Era: A Preliminary Study,” Cleveland Studies in the History of Art 5 (1998): 22–47; Amy Heller, “The Silver Jug
of the Lhasa Jokhang: Some Observations on Silver Objects and Costumes from the Tibetan Empire (7th-9th century),” Silk Road Art and
Archaeology 9 (2003): 213–37; and Michael Henss, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet (Munich: Prestel, 2014), vol. 1, 77–79.
men, suggests that phra men is a loanword.48 Looking to
other instances of non-palatalized men, the most obvious
and most prevalent is men tog (“flower”).49 Another is
men tri, a type of woven silk (Pelliot tibétain 1109, ll. 11,
26; Pelliot tibétain 1128, ll. 17, 22). One also finds men as
the second syllable in the compounds ba men and rta men
(IOL Tib J 731, recto: 27; Pelliot tibétain 1060, l. 35). Without
claiming that all of the above are necessarily loanwords,
the suggestion that phra men is a loan is bolstered by the
appearance of the less common form, ’phra men, where
the ’a prefix might signal that it is a foreign word, perhaps
with an initial f.50
Recently Helga Uebach proposed that phra men is “an
Indian loanword connected to Skt. pramaṇḍita = ‘ornamented,’ ‘adorned’ corresponding to Tibetan rab tu rgyan
pa.”51 This may indeed be the source of the loan, but the
proposed solution introduces a few puzzles. First, why was
a very general Sanskrit adjective borrowed into Tibetan as
a noun for a very specific technique of gilding that was
likely introduced by Sogdians? Uebach’s statement of
the problem is extremely valuable for further research
on phra men, and the suggestion concerning the Sanskrit
pramaṇḍita may prove to be correct, but questions still
remain, and one wonders if another solution may lie in
Middle Persian or Inner Asian languages. In considering
this question, one should also attend to phra men’s secondary meanings besides gilded silver, which also appear
in the Dba’ bzhed.
Phra men can mean something quite different from
gilded silver when it appears in a ritual context. In the
Dunhuang manuscript ’Phags pa thabs kyi zhags pa pad
ma ’phreng gi don bsdus pa and its commentary (IOL Tib J
321), studied by Cathy Cantwell and Rob Mayer, the terms
’phra men and ’phra men ma refer to male and female
“magical hybrid deities.” These figures have human bodies
and animal heads, and perform various tasks such as
“seizing and offering the evil spirits to the wrathful deities
48 On Sogdian influence on Tibetan metallurgy, see, most recently
Amy Heller, “Tibetan Inscriptions on Ancient Silver and Gold Vessels
and Artefacts,” Journal of the International Association of Bon Research 1 (2013): 285. For a semantic analysis of the term, see Uebach,
“Two Indian Loanwords in Old Tibetan,” 545–47.
49 See Nathan Hill, “Old Chinese *sm- and the Old Tibetan Word for
‘Fire,’” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 42 (2013): 67–68.
50 On this function of the ’a prefix, see W. South Coblin, “On Certain
Functions of ’a-chung in Early Tibetan Transcriptional Texts,” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 25, no. 2 (2002): 169–85. For a more
comprehensive view, see Nathan Hill, “Once More on the Letter ’a,”
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 28, no. 2 (2005): 107–37.
51 Uebach, “Two Indian Loanwords in Old Tibetan,” 547.
Chapter 4 Archaisms and the Transmission of the Dba’ bzhed
as food.”52 The Dunhuang manuscript of this Mahāyoga
tantra likely dates to the tenth century, and is thus later
than the administrative documents discussed above. The
tantra itself, on the other hand, predates its extant Dunhuang manuscript exemplar. One might therefore tentatively propose that the use of the term (’)phra men (ma)
for a hybrid deity is a secondary development, and one
that moreover applies the concept of ‘hybridity’ inherent
in the gilding or cladding of gold onto silver to that of an
admixture of human and animal. The two meanings of
the term would have existed alongside one another until
the primary meaning of phra men as gilded silver was forgotten, and its previously marked orthography of men (as
opposed to myen) came to appear commonplace as it converged with new orthographic norms, such that “magical
hybrid deity” became its normative meaning, and phra
men its normative orthography.
In the Dba’ bzhed, phra men means gilded silver
where it appears in the context of gifts that the Chinese
emperor bestows on Gsas snang and Sang shi. Alongside
bolts of silk and pearl rosaries, the emperor gives them
“gilded silver birds” (phra men gyi bya).53 In a subsequent passage, phra men appears to be used in the sense
of gilded silver insignia: when an official succeeds in
summoning Gsas snang in order to deal with the antics of
Hwa shang Mahāyāna’s followers, he “arrived at court and
was immediately granted the rank of gilded silver and the
status of great rgya bye’u” (pho brang du mchis na ’phral
du thabs phra men dang rgya bye’u che thang du gnang/).54
There is a good parallel to this passage in a decision on
rank in Shazhou (an area including Dunhuang) dating
to the imperial period: “appointed as attaché to the town
prefect and granted the rank of gilded silver …” (rtse rje’i
zlar bskoste / thabs phra men stsal nas; Pelliot tibétain
1089, l. 29).55 Here it seems to be a case of the Dba’ bzhed
getting it half right, but perhaps of doing so unwittingly.
No known early source mentions the rank of rgya bye’u,
which means either “pheasant chick” or “Chinese birdy.”
52 Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, A Noble Noose of Methods,
The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and its Commentary
(Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
2012), 76–78. For further details on such therianthropic deities, see
Ivette Vargas, “Snake-Kings, Boars’ Heads, Deer Parks, Monkey Talk:
Animals as Transmitters and Transformers in Indian and Tibetan
Buddhist Narratives,” in A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics, ed. Paul Waldau and Kimberley Patton (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 229–30, 236, n. 60.
53 DBA’ 2000, 10v:5.
54 DBA’ 2000, 19r:5.
55 See also Marcelle Lalou, “Revendications des fonctionnaires du
grand Tibet au VIIIe siecle,” Journal Asiatique 243 (1955): 181.
73
Here one wonders if the Dba’ bzhed’s editors had in mind
the Chinese silver-gilt bird from Gsas snang’s trip to China.
Extending the benefit of the doubt, rgya bye’u could be an
error of hearing for the phonologically similar diphthong
brgye’u rje meaning “head of a little hundred[-unit].”56
Even so, a brgye’u rje would not hold such a high-ranking
insignia as gilded silver. This also casts some doubt on the
editors’ understanding of phra men, even if they qualify it,
correctly, as a “rank” (thabs). SBA 1982.1–3 has in the corresponding place the following, slightly less garbled sentence that avoids the term phra men by substituting copper:
“[he] returned to court and was immediately granted the
great copper and the status of great rewards” (pho brang
du slar ’ongs pas/ ’phral du zangs chen po dang bya dga’
che thang du bstsal/).57 This is also incorrect in so far as
thang (“status, level, rank”) should apply to zangs chen po
(“great copper [insignia]”) and not to bya dga’ (“reward”).
One assumes that the editors found opaque the meaning
of the latter term, if not the meanings of all three.
There is another use of phra men in the Dba’ bzhed
that appears to correspond to neither of the two meanings
discussed above. When Śāntarakṣita first arrives in Tibet,
Khri Srong lde btsan has him questioned in order to ascertain what sort of a teacher he is. His principal concern is
that Śāntarakṣita’s teachings might contain “barbarian
spells and sorcery” (lho bal gyi ngan sngags dang phra
men).58 After questioning, it is clear that the king’s doubts
are unfounded. The same doubts are raised in the BL fragment of the Dba’ bzhed, with the almost identical phrase
lha bal gyi ngan sngags dang ’phra men.59 Phra men is also
used for sorcery in a Dunhuang invocation to Mahābala:
among the things that might harm a person, the verse
names “perverse mantras” (sngags log pa) and phra men
ma (Pelliot tibétain 443, l. 8).60 It is interesting that the
etymology of “spells” is “wicked mantras”; similarly, phra
men as “sorcery” might derive from, or extend from, the
misuse by tantrists of the hybrid deities for nefarious ends.
Were this so, it would be a tertiary meaning derived from
“hybrid deities,” a term which itself might come from the
“hybridity” of gilded silver.
56 Géza Uray, “Notes on the Thousand-Districts of the Tibetan Empire in the First Half of the Ninth Century,” Acta Orientalia Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, nos. 1–3 (1982): 545–48.
57 SBA 1982.1–3, 65.20–21.
58 DBA’ 2000, 7v:2, 7v:3, 8r:2.
59 Or.8210/S. 9498A, l. 2; Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, “Fragments of the ‘Testament of Ba’ from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 3 (2008): 480–81; 484; see also Chapter
3 in this volume.
60 Stein, Rolf Stein’s Tibetica Antiqua, 54.
74
Brandon Dotson
Conclusion
Introducing these brief remarks on archaisms in the Dba’
bzhed, I have proposed a scenario in which the conditions
of the text’s origin and early transmission as a bka’ mchid
or royal narrative concerning the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet—and as a promised but unfulfilled edict
to Dba’ Gsas snang—account for its location between the
genres of royal history and religious history and for the
central role of the Dba’ clan. Linguistically, it also lies
between Old Tibetan and Classical Tibetan, and the title
of the work, Dba’ bzhed, as opposed to *Dba’s bzhed or
Sba bzhed, is emblematic of this. In the Dba’ bzhed’s use
of terms such as slungs and phra men, as well as gtsigs,
thabs and bya dga’, archaisms are 1) employed correctly;
2) deformed; or 3) glossed over. While these three types
of usage are found in various Sba bzhed-s, the propensity
towards deformity, rather than revisionist glossing, seems
to be more characteristic of the Dba’ bzhed and of its temporal location. This is most apparent in the case of slungs
(“wastes” or “stretches between stations”), which, rather
than being glossed with chu klung (“river”) as in the Sba
bzhed, and as echoed in Bacot and Toussaint’s efforts to
grapple with the same term in the Old Tibetan Chronicle,
is deformed as rlungs. The latter doesn’t seem to mean anything, but must have somehow seemed an improvement
on slungs, assuming the result is not simply a scribal error
in which one superscript has been mistaken for another.
From the perspective of the Sba bzhed editors, who ‘corrected’ slungs or rlungs to chu klung, one can assume that
rlungs would be viewed as sloppy work. From our vantage
point, by contrast, it is valuable information that allows
us to discern the outline of the word slungs, and the original, prosaic narrative behind the interpolated boat trip. In
this instance, to gloss an unknown term like slungs was to
take one’s protagonists on a logistically impossible river
cruise. The Dba’ bzhed spares us this delightful narrative
folly, and it reminds us of the value, not only in medieval
Tibetan editing, but also in contemporary scholarship, of
laying bare the obscurity and complexity of difficult terms
and phrases rather than glossing them over with a misplaced sense of certainty at the expense of the integrity of
one’s sources. Down that route lie stranger tales than Gsas
snang’s river cruise.
Serena Biondo
Chapter 5
Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
The ‘Great Debate’ at Bsam yas (called variously the ‘Lha sa
Debate,’ the ‘Council of Lha sa’ or the ‘Council of Tibet’) has
attracted much scholarly attention from the mid-twentieth
century up to the present.1 The aim of this chapter is not
to give a definitive reading of the key issue of the debate,
i. e. the contest between the gradual and sudden paths to
enlightenment. Rather, it is to examine how the narrative
of the debate in the Dba’ bzhed was assembled and the
function this narrative played in this version of the text.
1 The secondary literature up to 2000 is summarised in Matthew T.
Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 220, n. 71. The
key sources are listed here for ready reference: Paul Demiéville, Le
concile de Lhasa; une controverse sur le quiétisme entre bouddhistes
de l’Inde et de la Chine au VIII. siècle de l’ère chrétienne (Paris: Impr.
nationale de France, 1952); Giuseppe Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts. Part
II, First Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla. Sanskrit and Tibetan texts with
introduction and English summary (Rome: IsMEO, 1958); Yoshiro Imaeda, “Documents Tibétains de Touen-Houang Concernant le Concile
du Tibet,” Journal Asiatique 263 (1975): 125–46; Alex Wayman, “Doctrinal Disputes and the Debate of bSam yas,” Central Asiatic Journal
21, no. 2 (1977): 139–44; Luis O. Gómez, “The Direct and the Gradual
Approaches of Zen Master Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of
Mo-ho-yen,” in Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen, ed. Robert M. Gimello &
Peter N. Gregory (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), 71–167;
Flemming Faber, “A Tibetan Dunhuang Treatise on Simultaneous
Enlightenment: The dMyigs su myed pa tshul gcig pa’i gzhung,” Acta
Orientalia 46 (1985): 47–77; Flemming Faber, “The Council of Tibet According to the sBa bzhed,” Acta Orientalia XLVII (1986): 33–61; Leonard van der Kuijp, “On the Sources for Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Notes on the
Bsam yas Debate,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 9, no. 2 (1986): 147–53; David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-Nature,
Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective.
On the Transmission of Buddhism in India and Tibet (London: SOAS,
1989); David Seyford Ruegg “On the Tibetan Historiography and Doxography of the Great Debate of bSam yas,” in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, ed. Shōren Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi (Narita-shi, Chiba-Ken,
Japan: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), vol. 1, 237–44; Sven Bretfeld, “The
‘Great Debate’ of bSam yas: Construction and Deconstruction of a Tibetan Buddhist Myth,” Asiatische Studien 58, no.1 (2004): 15–56. Tom
J.F. Tillemans, “Yogic Perception, Meditation, and Enlightenment,” in
A Companion of Buddhist Philosophy, ed. Steven M. Emmanuel (West
Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 290–306. Further philosophical issues
concerning the debate were also discussed in 2014 at the Congress of
the International Association of Buddhist Studies in a panel called
“The Bsam yas Debate: Challenges and Responses.” The papers of this
panel have been published in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39 (2016): 339–518.
Open Access. © 2020 Serena Biondo, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-005
While discussing the sources that were used to build
the account of the debate in the Dba’ bzhed, I will digress
to explain the identity and stance of Sang shi, one of the
disputants. The Dba’ bzhed sheds a new light on Sang shi’s
words and his philosophical alignment. This prompts a
reconsideration of later versions of the Testimony of Ba and
also of previous scholars’ interpretations of Sang shi’s identity and position. These problems led me to add a further
section called “Further Complexities: Sang shi in the Testimony of Ba.” This moves away from the narrative of the Dba’
bzhed proper but provides useful information regarding the
later Testimony of Ba tradition on this important figure.
The dispute between those who believed in an instantaneous approach to enlightenment and those who advocated a gradual path that led step-by-step to realisation
belongs to the main narrative of the Testimony of Ba in
all its known versions. As the text declares in its opening
lines, the core of the story concerns the first appearance
and establishment of Buddhism in Tibet. Such a narrative
could not but describe the construction of the Bsam yas
temple and the institution of the Buddhist saṃgha. Therefore, the kind of dharma and the monastic traditions that
were adopted—as well as the reasons for their adoption—
were unavoidable subjects of discussion. However, it is
unclear when the debate came to be part of this narrative.
The patchwork nature of this section of the narrative makes
it improbable that the earliest compilers of the Testimony
had a ready-made description of the debate on which they
could draw. Despite the philosophical nature of the discussion, the debate has a strong political dimension, which
suggests that compilers and redactors of the Testimony
created an account that was inflected by their own positions, interests and agendas. The Dba’ bzhed compilers
must have arranged the sources at their disposal—in addition to what they knew—in a way that was conducive to
their point of view. That the debate was put together on the
basis of different records is reasonably evident. The ‘bricks’
used to form the structure are clear, yet their arrangement
reveals a number of ‘weak points’ in the fabric suggesting
that the compilers were not completely free in their choice
of material and that some of their sources might have contained unwelcome information.2
2 In the field of Buddhist studies, one of the first to speak of authorship as the ability to assemble new structures from old building
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
76
Serena Biondo
The following pages seek to identify as many building
blocks as possible to see how and why they were brought
together and to explain, moreover, the different understanding of the parts that have emerged over time. In doing
this, I will follow the sequence of debate events. Table 5.1
below aims to identify the main sections of the debate
and it provides a guide to the discussion that follows. The
events that lead to the debate are numbered 1 to 6 in the
table; for the sake of convenience I refer to these as the
‘introduction to the debate.’
Table 5.1: Key episodes of the debate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Heshang Moheyan3 arrives in Tibet
18v:5
Conflict between Moheyan’s followers and Śāntarakṣi- 18v:6
ta’s followers
The king summons Ye shes dbang po back from his
19r:2
retreat
Ye shes dbang po recites Śāntarakṣita’s prophecy
18v:7
Kamalaśīla is summoned to Tibet
19v:3
Moheyan and his disciples prepare for the debate. They 19v:3
study the Prajñāpāramitā sūtra in one hundred thousand verses and reject the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra.
The king opens the debate stating the reasons why the 20r:2
debate was hold
Moheyan speaks (3rd Bhāvanākrama + unidentified
20v:1
passage)
Kamalaśīla speaks (3rd Bhāvanākrama)
20v:6
The king opens the discussion to the followers of the 22r:5
two factions
Sang shi speaks (historical/doctrinal remarks + sum- 22r:6
mary of the Six Perfections + remarks on the instantaneous and gradual approaches)
Dpal dbyangs speaks (remarks on the instantaneous
22v:6
and gradual approaches + Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra + a
final attack to the instantaneous approach)
The king proclaims the gradualists to be victorious
24v:2
blocks was Jonathan Silk, “Establishing/ Interpreting/ Translating: Is
It Just That Easy?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 36–37, nos. 1–2, (2015): 205–26. Several publications have appeared on the subject of intertextuality and authorship in the past
few years. Among these, see the articles under the heading of “Authors and Editors in the Literary Traditions of Asian Buddhism” in the
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 2015 and
under “Reuse and Intertextuality in the Context of Buddhist Texts” in
Buddhist Studies Review, 2016. In this short chapter, I shall sidestep
theoretical questions on the identity and nature of authorship, and
simply call those who assembled the various texts of the Testimony
of Ba ‘compilers.’
3 The spelling used for the Chinese master in the Dba’ bzhed is “Hwa
shang Mahayana,” often shortened as “Mahayana” or simply “Hwa
shang.” Here I call him Heshang Moheyan which corresponds to the
Chinese 和尚 摩訶衍. When capitalised ‘Heshang’ refers to Moheyan.
Introduction to the Debate
The narrative of the debate starts after the account of the
construction of Bsam yas and settlements for the sponsorship of the monks; this results in Ye shes dbang po’s
meditative retreat in Lho brag. The text states that most
monks at that time became followers of a Chinese master
named Heshang Moheyan. Moheyan—according to the
Testimony—teaches a doctrine based on absence of dualistic thought and the instantaneous attainment of nirvāṇa.
This doctrinal position disagrees with that of the Indian
side, put forward by Śāntarakṣita, and endorsed by the
king, which asserts that nirvāṇa can be achieved only
through gradual stages. As friction between these two
parties increases, the followers of Moheyan cause disturbances by self-harming and threatening violence against
those following the gradual path.
The king then calls Ye shes dbang po—who has gone
into retreat—to solve the conflict. The latter, though
unwilling to interrupt his meditation, eventually agrees
to return. Once he arrives, he reprimands the king for
not being able to sort out the matter on his own. Ye shes
dbang po then recites the last words Śāntarakṣita pronounced before his death. These announce that during
the last five hundred years of the dharma disagreements
were bound to arise among the Buddhist saṅgha. At that
time Śāntarakṣita’s disciple Kamalaśīla should be summoned to correct the monks who have gone astray. Śāntarakṣita’s words therefore link the well-known theory
of the last five hundred years of the Buddha dharma on
earth—believed to have been first pronounced by the
Buddha himself—to the present disagreement between
Indian and Chinese monks in Tibet.4 In this way, the
text prepares the stage for the debate and confers on it a
higher significance.
While Kamalaśīla is being fetched from Nepal, Ye shes
dbang po explains the gradualist approach to the king
who in turn proclaims Ye shes dbang po his spiritual
teacher. The followers of the instantaneous path lock
themselves in the Bsam gtan gling to study the Prajñāpāramitā in a hundred thousand verses in preparation
4 The best study to date on the development of the theory of the last
five hundred years of the doctrine is Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future
Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley, Calif: Asian
Humanities Press, 1992). It would be difficult, however, to understand
which source the Dba’ bzhed used for Śāntarakṣita’s prophecy as
there is no specific detail in the story to link it to a particular account
concerning the last five hundred years of the dharma. A discussion
concerning the five-hundred years prophecy in this context can be
found in Chapter 6 in this volume.
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
for the debate. The text explicitly says they set aside the
Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra.
The Debate
The debate starts with the instantaneous and gradualist
parties entering the temple; the king seating in the centre,
the instantaneous party on the right and the gradualists
on the left. The main followers of Heshang Moheyan and
Kamalaśīla are introduced. Heshang’s disciples are: Jo
mo Byang chub, Sru Yang dag and the monk Lang Ka.
Kamalaśīla’s disciples are Dba’ Dpal dbyangs, Dba’ Rad na
and “a few ordained monks” (dge slong mi mang ba zhig).5
A garland is presented to Heshang and Kamalaśīla. The
king opens the discussion by explaining that the debate is
held because disagreement has arisen between the followers of the Indian master and those of the Chinese master.
The first to speak is Heshang Moheyan. His speech
spans from folio 20v, line 2 to folio 20v, line 5. Flemming
Faber first recognised that the Heshang’s words come from
Kamalaśīla’s third Bhāvanākrama.6 In fact, the passage
from folio 20v line 2 to folio 20v, line 4 corresponds quite
closely to the third Bhāvanākrama’s passage stretching
from 122:1 to 122:2.7 This section of the Bhāvanākrama
discusses the wrong views professed by “someone” (gang
zhig)8 but it is uncertain whether Kamalaśīla wrote it after
the debate—and therefore gives us Kamalaśīla’s understanding of Moheyan’s view—or if the compiler of the Dba’
bzhed put these words in Moheyan’s mouth. The final
passage of Moheyan’s speech in the Dba’ bzhed (20v:4–
20v:5) is not attested in Kamalaśīla’s work. This runs as
follows: “For the intelligent, purified in previous births,
virtuous and sinful deeds obscure [the mind] equally, just
as the sky is obscured equally by black and white clouds.
Those who do not do anything, do not conceptualise and
do not focus, they instantaneously attain the level similar
to the tenth stage [on the path of enlightenment].”9 The
source of this passage is not known but these words are
5 DBA’ 2000, 20r:1.
6 Faber “Council,” 49. Faber refers to the Sba bzhed-s he had at his
disposal, but as the two quotations are very similar his remarks also
apply to the Dba’ bzhed; see also Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard
Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed: the Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing
of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 81, n. 313.
7 Bsgom pa’i rim pa, in Bstan ’gyur (Sde dge). Delhi: Sde dge par
khang, 1982–1985, vol. 110.
8 Bsgom pa’i rim pa 122:1.
9 The translations in this chapter follow that by Gonkatsang and Willis in Part Two of this volume.
77
found in both SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1982.1–3 and Dpa’ bo
Gtsugs lag phreng ba’s Chos byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston
(SBA 1980).10
There are minor differences between the version of the
Bhāvanākrama that is found nowadays in the Bka’ ’gyur
and the version quoted in the Dba’ bzhed. Thus, it could
be surmised that the compiler of the latter text was in possession of a different copy of Bhāvanākrama than the one
now available. However, it is noteworthy that, among the
different versions found in the Testimony, the Dba’ bzhed
is closest to the Bhāvanākrama as presently preserved. It
would be difficult to decide whether the last sentences
of Heshang Moheyan (cited in the previous paragraph)
appeared in an earlier version of the Bhāvanākrama—now
lost but available to the compiler of the Dba’ bzhed—or
whether the compiler, having copied the relevant section
of the Bhāvanākrama, decided to supplement it by adding
words attributed to Heshang that he had heard or read. The
latter hypothesis (i. e. that the compiler added material)
gains extra weight when we consider that some Tibetan
texts connected with Moheyan and his instantaneous
approach were created by assembling passages from the
Bhāvanākrama and words attributed to him found in Dunhuang manuscripts.11 However, I was unable to locate this
passage in the Dunhuang materials, so the source remains
unknown for the present.
10 This sentence is subject to a slight variation in SBA 1961.1–2,
SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 1980. While DBA’ 2000, 20v:4 records that the
clouds obscure the sky (nam mkha’), SBA 1961.1–2, 58.6, SBA 1982.1–3,
68.18 and SBA 1980, 383:2, record that the clouds obscure the sun (nyi
ma). As the later versions of the Testimony of Ba had a larger diffusion
than the Dba’ bzhed ever did, almost all the subsequent texts quoting
this passage have the sun rather than the sky. A couple of exceptions
are Bu ston’s chos ’byung and Padma dkar po’s Phyag rgya chen po’i
man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod in Gsung ’bum Padma
Dkar po. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973–1974. vol.
21, 331: 5). The structure of this sentence in the Bu ston chos ’byung
and the Dba’ bzhed is too different to suppose any relationship between the two, but Pad ma dkar po’s sentence is very close to the Dba’
bzhed’s. However, as the rest of the debate does not match—and sun
and sky are easily interchangeable—it is impossible to say if Padma
dkar po had access to a version of the Testimony of Ba closer to the
Dba’ bzhed or it was more simply Padma dkar po’s emendation.
11 For example, the Cig car ’jug pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i sgom don. On
this text, see Luis O. Gómez, “Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlightenment,” in Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, ed. Whalen Lai
and Lewis R. Lancaster (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1983),
393–434; Faber, “A Tibetan Dunhuang Treatise”; Joel Gruber, “The
Sudden and Gradual Sūtric (and Tantric?) Approaches of the Rim gyis
’jug pa’i bsgom don and Cig car ’jug pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i bsgom
don,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39
(2016): 405–27.
78
Serena Biondo
After the Chinese monk has made his statement,
Kamalaśīla replies (20v:6–22r:5). This section corresponds
to 122:3–125:2 of the third Bhāvanākrama and consists of
Kamalaśīla’s answer to the wrong views of an unnamed
opponent.12 Thus, except for the last passage of Heshang’s speech, the compiler of the Dba’ bzhed copied the
whole section from the Bhāvanākrama, i. e. the wrong
thesis and the correct thesis. Kamalaśīla’s speech and the
Bhāvanākrama run closely parallel, although two quotations from the Gayaśīrṣa and the Tathāgathaguhya sūtra
reported in the Bhāvanākrama do not appear in the Dba’
bzhed.13 Again, the question remains whether the Dba’
bzhed was quoting an earlier version of the Bhāvanākrama
(which did not contain these quotations) or, more simply,
the compiler decided not to include the quotations. If the
first case, it would suggest that Kamalaśīla, or some later
compilers of the Bhāvanākrama, added the quotations at a
later phase after finding scriptural corroboration for these
arguments. If the second, the Dba’ bzhed compiler either
wished to shorten Kamalaśīla’s speech (which is disproportionally long compared with that of Moheyan) or preferred not to make Kamalaśīla explicitly quote other texts
during his speech.
12 Bsgom pa’i rim pa, 122:1. A few folios below, Kamalaśīla says that
those who claim that nirvāṇa is obtained without practising generosity and so forth are accepting the view of the Ājīvaka but whether he
is referring to some Indian Buddhist scholar who propounded this
Ājīvaka view or to the Chinese monk is unclear. Bsgom pa’i rim pa
127:5: yang dge ba la sogs pa’i las ci yang mi bya’o zhes zer ba de ni de
skad smra bas las zad nas grol bar ’gyur ro zhes mu stegs can kun tu
tshol ba’i smra ba khas blangs par ’gyur ro. As Ruegg notices the term
“Ājīvaka” in the Tibetan version of the Bhāvanākrama is translated
“mu stegs can kun tu tshol ba”; Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 142, n. 271.
13 A few sentences are also missing in Kamalaśīla’s speech in the
Dba’ bzhed, mainly where he references the two quotations. The quotations are found in the Bhāvanākrama, 122:5–7. Both the translations
of the Gayaśīrṣa and the Tathāgataguhyasūtra are found in the Bka’
’gyur. According to the colophons of these two texts, the Gayaśīrṣa
and the Tathāgataguhyasūtra were translated during the first diffusion by the famous translator and compiler of the Mahāvyutpatti, Ye
shes sde. The colophon of the Gayaśīrṣa also gives the name of the
Indian master Surendrabodhi, who also was involved in the compilation of the Mahāvyutpatti and whose duty was to correct the translations made by Ye shes sde and the other Tibetan translators. The
passage of the Gayaśīrṣa quoted in the Bhāvanākrama is to be found
in Ga yā mgo’i ri’i mdo: Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge: Sde dge par khang chen
mo, 1733), vol. 49, 575:7 and 576:1 (CA, 288v:7 and 289r:1). The very
short passage quoted by Kamalaśīla from the Tathāgataguhyasūtra
finds an approximate parallel in De bzhin gshegs pa’i gsang ba bsam
gyis mi khyab pa bstan pa’i mdo: Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge par khang chen
mo, 1733), vol. 39, 207:5–6 (KA, 103r:5–6).
Changing Speakers and Changing
Positions
When the representative of the two factions end their
presentations, the king opens up the debate to include
the leading disciples of the instantaneous and gradual
approach. Only two people speak, but the names of those
two people change depending on which version of the Testimony of Ba we read. In DBA’ 2000 and SBA 1961.1–2, these
are Sang shi and Dpal dbyangs, while in SBA 1982.1–3
and Gtsug lag phreng ba’s SBA 1980, Dpal dbyangs and
Ye shes dbang po speak. It should be noted that neither
Sang shi nor Ye shes dbang po appear among the disciples who followed the two masters at the beginning of the
debate, either in the Dba’ bzhed or in SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA
1982.1–3.14 The only exception is Gtsug lag phreng ba’s SBA
1980, which replaces the usual Dba’ Ratna or Sba Ratna
with Ye shes dbang po.15 Table 5.2 below first compares
the names of Moheyan’s and Kamalaśīla’s followers in the
different exemplars of the Testimony of Ba, and then compares them with the names of the people who eventually
spoke at the debate.
Sang shi appears, though there is no mention of him
in the lists of the two masters’ disciples.16 He commences
his talk by giving a short recapitulation of the Six Perfections (pāramitā)—dāna, śīla, kṣānti, vīrya, dhyāna and
prajñā—after which he comments on the formation of new
schools after the death of the Buddha.
Sang shi’s intervention is somewhat peculiar. Earlier
scholars, who had only later versions of the Testimony to
guide them, agreed on the basis of his speech that Sang
shi or Dpal dbyangs (depending on the version) was on
the side of the gradualists. However, there is enough
evidence to suppose that originally Sang shi’s argument
was either on the side of Moheyan or that it represented
a more moderate and conciliatory group. Several points
suggest this. For example, we know from the introduction to the debate that the proponents of the instantaneous party spent two months reading the Shes rab
’bum in preparation. Therefore, we would expect them
14 SBA 1961.1–2, 57.2–5; SBA 1982.1–3, 67.8–12.
15 SBA 1980, 381:6–7.
16 One could argue that the compiler of the text confused Dba’ Rad
na with ’Ba’ Sang shi, as at the end of the Testimony we find Rad na
called ’Ba’ Rad na. However, this does not seem to be the case, since
Rad na’s clan name is only spelled ’Ba’ instead of Dba’ in the Zas gtad
appendix (25v:6). There is no confusion with regard to Dba’ Ratna’s
clan name in the main text of the Dba’ bzhed. For a discussion on the
names see below.
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
79
Table 5.2: List of Heshang’s and Kamalaśīla’s disciples as given in the introduction to the debate and list of the people who intervened in
the debate after Moheyan and Kamalaśīla’s speeches
DBA’ 2000
SBA 1961.1–2
SBA 1982.1–3
SBA 1980
Moheyan’s disciples
Jo mo Byang chub
Sru Yang dag
Lang ka
Jo mo Byang chub rje
Sru Yang dag
Lang ka
Jo mo Byang chub
Bsru Yang dag
Lang+ga
Jo mo Byang chub
Sru Yangdag
Lang+ka
Kamalaśīla’s disciples
Dba’ Dpal dbyangs
Dba’ Rad na
Unnamed ordained monks
Dbal dbyangs
Bai to tsa na
Rat+na
Sba Dpal dbyangs
Bai ro tsa na
Sba Rat+na
Rba Dpal dbyangs
Bai ro tsa na
Ye shes dbang po
Speakers at the debate
Sang shi
Dpal dbyangs
Sang shi
Dpal dbyangs
Dpal dbyangs
Ye shes dbang po
Dpal dbyangs
Ye shes dbang po
to use aspects of this text to substantiate their point of
view.
The way Sang shi presents the Prajñāpāramitā echoes
what we know of Heshang Moheyan’s teachings: Sang
shi’s explanation of the Six Perfections is that each of the
Perfections is in its highest form when the practitioner is
able to go beyond the dichotomy of that Perfection and
its reverse. Later texts, including SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA
1982.1–3 slightly modify the text so that Sang shi seems
to claim that what he said about the Perfections represents the wrong view of the Heshang, and not his own.
This is clear if we look at the first few words of Sang shi’s
speech. The Dba’ bzhed simply starts with “rgya’i cig car
’jug cing rim gyis sbyor ba …” (“The Chinese instantaneous
entrance and the application through stages …”). In SBA
1961.1–2 Sang shi is still the speaker, but the beginning
of his speech slightly changes: “rgya’i ltar na cig car ’jug
cing rims gyis sbyongs mchis …” (“According to the Chinese
there are the simultaneous entrance and the application
through stages …”). SBA 1982.1–3 puts these words into
the mouth of Dpal dbyangs and the following speech of
Dpal dbyangs is then pronounced by Ye shes dbang po. To
make even clearer that Sang shi and Dpal dbyangs are on
the gradualist side, SBA 1982.1–3 begins with khyed rgya’i
bzhed pa (“You, holders of the Chinese [position]”).17 Bu
17 The beginning of Sang shi’s talk affects the reading of the whole
speech, so it is worthwhile to look at it a bit more closely. SBA 1982.1–
3, 70.9–10 says: khyed rgya’i bzhed pa ltar na/ cig char ’jug cing rim gyis
sbyong mchi na/ pha rol tu phyin pa ’dzin pa ma mchis pa’i slad du … .
After this sentence, the explanation of the Six Perfections begins. As
the first words directly address the Heshang’s party, it is clear that
“because you do not even understand the Prajñāpāramitā” (pha rol
tu phyin pa ’dzin pa ma mchis pa’i slad du) refers to them. The result
is that the following explanation of the pāramitā-s reports Moheyan’s
mistaken understanding of the Six Perfections. The Dba’ bzhed (22r:6)
only reports: rgya’i cig car ’jug cing rim gyis sbyor ba mchi [ba]/ pha
rol du phyin pa drug kyang ’dzin pa ma mchis pa’i phyir … . If we were
ston’s account seems to be closer to SBA 1961.1–2 because,
although it puts this speech in the mouth of Dpal dbyangs,
like SBA 1982.1–3, it starts with rgya’i ltar.18 Yet, the following passage concerning the Six Perfections is worded differently from all the Testimony of Ba versions.19 SBA 1980
follows SBA 1982.1–3 (or Bu ston) in making Dpal dbyangs
reading presupposing that, as Moheyan spoke first at the debate, so
his disciple was the first to speak after the king opened the discussion
to the others, we could easily read this sentence “because you [gradualists] do not even understand the Prajñāpāramitā” and then the
natural explanation of the real, correct meaning of the Perfections,
i. e. Moheyan’s view explained by one of his disciples. The reasons
why this second option is more plausible are discussed below but it
is clear from this that, if Sang shi was reporting the Heshang’s wrong
reading of the pāramitā-s, he should have at least ended his speech
by giving the right reading or a remark of some sort. Instead, after this
lengthy exposition (of theoretically wrong views) he drops the subject
without any criticism and picks up another theme.
18 Chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i gter mdzod in Gsung
’bum/ rin chen grub, ed. Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi: Zhol bka’ ’gyur
par khang, 1965–1971) vol. 24, 889:4.
19 Bu ston’s account is different from the others, and slightly closer
to Gtsug lag phreng ba’s narration. For example, where the Testimony of Ba tradition says: “if [you] do not even understand the Six
Perfections …” Both Bu ston and Gtsug lag phreng ba supplement
the sentence by adding that, according to the Chinese, the Six Perfections should be understood as their reverse (… pha rol tu phyin
pa drug mi mthun phyogs las gdags par gsung te). Then Gtsug lag
phreng ba goes on to give the shortened explanation of the Six Perfections that we find in the Sba bzhed-s. Bu ston, on the other hand,
explains his statement further by taking as an example the Perfection of generosity and saying that this concept holds true also for the
other Perfections rather than discussing the other five Perfections individually. According to him: “Highest Charity is thus viewed only as
the absence of greediness. The fact of abstaining from every kind of
appropriation thus represents the Highest Transcendental Charity”
Bu ston Rin chen grub, History of Buddhism (Chos-ḥbyung,) trans.
Eugéne Obermiller (Heidelberg: In kommission bei O. Harrassowitz,
1931), 194.
80
Serena Biondo
speak instead of Sang shi.20 It also includes Ye shes dbang
po in the list of Kamalaśīla’s disciples.21 Besides distancing the speaker from the Chinese side, SBA 1961.1–2, SBA
1982.1–3 and SBA 1980, by naming the Chinese at the
beginning of the speech, are able to attribute to them the
wrong understanding of the pāramitā-s that follows. Compared to the Dba’ bzhed, the later versions give a truncated
explanation of the Perfections so that the Chinese reading
of the pāramitā-s becomes a mere negation of the Perfection in question. Thus, generosity is simply giving up
craving; forbearance is the mere lack of wrath; diligence is
the lack of laziness and so forth. This is not the case with
the Dba’ bzhed, where the explanation of each Perfection
is elaborated on, and it is said that that the best form of
generosity, forbearance etc., is the one that transcends
that Perfection and its reverse. At the end, Sang shi (or
Dpal dbyangs) does not attempt, even briefly, to correct
the Chinese wrong understanding of the Perfections, but
goes on explaining how the schools formed after the death
of the Buddha. Thus, although SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 1982.1–3
and SBA 1980 are similar in wording to the Dba’ bzhed,
their meaning changes.
In his closing remarks, Sang shi seems to propose that
both the approaches —gradual and instantaneous— are
genuine methods to reaching enlightenment. By comparing the emergence of the three Mādhyamika schools with
that of the sudden and gradual approaches, he appears
to grant orthodoxy to both. The reason that is given for
the appearance of all these schools is that the death of the
Buddha left his disciples without anyone who could clarify
their doubts and keep the saṃgha united. As already
noted, the purport of this claim is not very different from
what we find in Śāntarakṣita’s prophecy about the degeneration of the dharma during the last five hundred years.
Yet here, Sang shi presents the issue in a more positive
light. What Śāntarakṣita announces as a quarrel among
Buddhists—in which one side is irrevocably wrong and the
other right—Sang shi explains as the formation of different
schools, all tending to the right end.
Finally, Sang shi’s assertion (and in other versions
that of Dpal dbyangs) that the “the goal is one” for both
gradualist and instantaneous schools is afterwards contradicted by Dpal dbyangs (and in other versions Ye shes
dbang po) who asserts most clearly that “the instantaneous entrance and the application through gradual stages,
20 SBA 1980, 384:6.
21 SBA 1980, 381:6–7 (see Table 5.2 above). Bu ston does not name
the disciples at all. Instead he reports a list of text titles that Heshang
Moheyan wrote at the time when he was preparing for the debate
(Chos kyi ’byung gnas, 887:5–6).
these two should be spoken of distinctly” and a few lines
later: “the two paths, gradualist and instantaneous, are
totally different.” The words of Dpal dbyangs, when read
after Sang shi’s, as they appear in the text, sound like an
attack on Sang shi’s position. This would not make sense,
of course, if Sang shi was putting forward a gradualist
position.
In terms of general structure, Sang shi’s intervention
fits more appropriately if it stands on the Chinese side: the
king opens the debate to the teachers; the instantaneous
side speaks; the gradualist side responds; the king then
opens the debate to the disciples; the instantaneous side
speaks; and the gradualist side responds. The fact that
Sang shi does not appear among the disciples of either
party introduced at the beginning of the debate is somewhat peculiar. It may suggest either that the writer was
not inclined to class Sang shi on the Heshang’s side, or
that Sang shi was above factionalism.22 On the contrary,
Dpal dbyangs—who speaks after Sang shi—is introduced
as Kamalaśīla’s disciple.
Further complexities: Sang Shi in
the Testimony of Ba
The Dba’ bzhed does not provide any information on Sang
shi’s background. He appears first as one of the ministers
who are sent to investigate Śāntarakṣita’s intentions and
then he becomes one of the most prominent delegates
in the China expedition. SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 1982.1–3 and
SBA 1980, however, give an interesting history of Sang
shi’s origin. Here he is presented as the son of a Chinese
envoy named ’Ba’ De’u who is in Tibet during the reign of
Khri Srong lde btsan’s father, Khri Lde gtsug btsan. ’Ba’
De’u leaves his son in Tibet as companion to the young
prince. Sang shi is thus able to speak both Chinese and
Tibetan and for this reason is sent to China to look for
the dharma. In SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1982.1–3 Sang shi
goes on two expeditions to China, rather than just one.23
The first is during the reign of Khri Lde gtsug btsan and
the second—which happens at the time of Khri Srong lde
22 This matter is discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume, in Willis and
Gonkatsang’s remarks on folio 22r.
23 This section comes in the very first pages of the later Testimony
of Ba versions. SBA 1961.1–2, 4.11; SBA 1982.1–3, 5.4. Several scholars
questioned Sang shi’s identity, see Jeffrey L. Broughton, “Early Ch’an
Schools in Tibet,” in Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen, ed. Richard M.
Gimello & Peter N. Gregory (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1983), 54; Kapstein, Tibetan Assimilation, 71.
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
btsan—corresponds with the expedition narrated in the
Dba’ bzhed. We do not know whether the compiler of the
Dba’ bzhed knew the story of Sang shi’s origins, or if it was
a later addition in SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1982.1–3 taken
from a later source. Nonetheless, Sang shi—who travels to
China and receives the instructions of revered Kim—does
not seem to be right person to argue against the Chinese
Heshang.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume, the narration
of Śantarakṣita’s first arrival in Tibet differs between RBA
2011.1 and the Dba’ bzhed. RBA 2011.1 does not list Sang
shi as one of the ministers who the king sends to interrogate the Indian master, while the Dba’ bzhed emphasises
the fact that three ministers are sent. The BL fragment
also contains this story but the section of the manuscript
that should include the names of the ministers is missing.
Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, however, counting the
number of syllables that could be missing from the folio
reporting the story in question, show that the Dba’ bzhed
contains many more syllables than the missing section of
the BL fragment.24 They thus suggest that what is missing
are the names of the second and third ministers together
with the words “you three ministers.” It is clear therefore
that Sang shi was not originally one of the ministers who
interviewed Śāntarakṣita. Although at this point only
speculation is possible, it seems that, in the process of
transcription of the narrative, redactors tried to associate
Sang shi with the key figures of the gradualist school. In
this way he could first be presented as someone with moderate feelings concerning the dispute between Moheyan
and Kamalaśīla, and then as a proponent of the gradualist school, until his name was displaced by that of Dpal
dbyang.25
Some scholars have proposed that the exchange of
Sang shi for Dpal dbyangs in the debate was caused by
the fact that the identity of Sang shi throughout the text is
unclear, and that sometimes he was identified with Dpal
dbyangs.26 There is no doubt that a number of misidentifications occurred during the transmission of this text,
which eventually led to the replacement of Sang shi with
Dpal dbyangs. The source of the problem was the insertion
of a certain Sang shi ta among the names of the first Tibetans who learned Sanskrit and took monastic vows. This
24 See Sam van Schaik and Kazushi Iwao, “Fragments of the ‘Testament of Ba’ from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Royal Society
128, no 3 (2008): 483. On this point see also Chapter 3 in this volume.
25 It is also possible that Sang shi acted only as the translator and
did not express his own opinion at the debate, but the present text
does not give any evidence to support this turn of events.
26 See Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 83, n. 318;
81
Sang shi ta —according to SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 1982.1–3 and
several other later sources—took the ordained name Dpal
dbyangs. Thus, when Sang shi was equated with Sang shi
ta, Sang shi’s ordained name also became Dpal dbyangs.
The narrative concerning the establishment of the Tibetan
saṃgha is reported in many chos ’byung and it is subject to
a number of variations. Beside Sang shi ta, the identities
of many other characters and their presence or absence in
the narrative, varies from text to text. The number of lists
reciting the names of the first ordained Tibetans increased
to the point that some authors—unable to choose among
so many different narratives—found it expedient to
include more than one list in their histories. Although the
Testimony of Ba is the locus classicus for this narrative, and
many later chos ’byung drew their accounts from this tradition, it is equally true that later versions of the Sba/Rba
bzhed were informed by outside narratives.27 How much
other sources were responsible for the final identification
of Sang shi, Sang shi ta and Dpal dbyangs is difficult to
determine. Yet, even if one could trace the source of this
identification it would not necessarily mean that the same
source would be responsible for the substitution of discussants in the debate. At present I shall mainly deal with
what SBA 1961.1–2, SBA 1982.1–3, SBA 1980 and DBA’ 2000
say concerning Sang shi/ Sang shi ta’s identity. Table 5.3
below keeps track of the following discussion. To simplify
a complex situation, I only look at the names that are
of interest for Sang shi ta’s identification, and thus this
table cannot be used for any comparative study about the
names of the first Tibetans who learned Sanskrit and/or
took monastic vows.28 Everything added in curly brackets
is found as gloss in the text.
SBA 1961.1–2 refers to a person named Sba Khri bzher
sang shi ta, who learned Sanskrit,29 and to a ’Ba’ Khri bzher
sang shi ta, who became a monk.30 These two—despite the
discrepancy in the clan name—are understood to be the
same person.
SBA 1961.1–2’s list of the first Tibetans who took
monastic vows runs as follows: Sba Gsal snang, ’Ba’
Khri zher sang shi ta, Vairocana, son of Pa gor Na ’dod,
Ngan lam Rgyal ba mchog yangs, Sma A tsa ra Rin chen
27 On this point, see Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks on
the Textual Transmission and Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos
’byung, a Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet,” Revue d’études
Tibétaines, no. 25 (April 2013): 149–51.
28 For a more inclusive discussion, see van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks” (especially pp. 182–89) and Tucci, Buddhist Minor Texts II,
13–15.
29 SBA 1961.1–2, 50.3.
30 SBA 1961.1–2, 51.1–2.
82
Serena Biondo
Table 5.3: Sang shi ta, Dpal dbyangs and Ratna’s names in DBA’ 2000, SBA 1961.1–2, SBA1982.1–3 and SBA 1980’s quotation of the Rba
bzhed che ba
Among the Tibetans who
learned Sanskrit
DBA’ 2000
SBA 1961.1–2
SBA 1982.1–3
SBA 1980
Reporting large version
of the Testimony of Ba
No Sang shi ta
Sba Khri bzher sang
shi ta
Ratna, son of Sba Rma
gzigs {also known as Khri
bzher}, was also known
as Sang shi ta son of Sba
Khri bzher
Rba Khri gzigs Sangs shi
ta son of Rba Khri bzher
’Ba’ Khri gzigs becomes
known as ’Ba’ Ratna
Sba {also known as Sang
shi ta} Khri gzigs took
the ordained name Sba
Dpal dbyangs. He also
becomes known as Sba
Ratna
Rba Khri gzigs took
the ordained name
Dpal dbyangs. He also
becomes known as Rba
Ratna
Rad na son of Dba’ Rma
gzigs. He was given the
name Rad na with his
ordination
First Tibetan to become
a monk
No Sang shi ta
Dba’ Lha btsan: ordained
name Dpal dbyangs
In the list of the ordained
men (sad mi)
only two names are
given and none of them
is connected with Sang
shi ta
Sba Khri bzher sang shi
ta: ordained name Dpal
dbyangs
Sba Khri bzher
No Sang shi and no
Ratna
Kamalaśīla’s disciples
(for a complete list see
Table 5.2)
Dba’ Dpal dbyangs
and
Dba’ Rad na
Dpal dbyangs
and
Ratna
Sba Dpal dbyangs
and
Sba Ratna {Ye shes
dbang po}
Rba Dpal dbyangs
and
Ye shes dbang po
Discussants at the
debate
Sang shi and
Dpal dbyangs
Sang shi and
Dpal dbyangs
Dpal dbyangs and
Ye shes dbang po
Dpal dbyangs and
Ye shes dbang po
mchog and La gsum Rgyal ba’i byang chub.31 At the end of
the list, the text reports that they received the ordained
names of Ye shes dbang po, Dpal dbyangs, and so forth (la
sogs pa). Therefore, if the identification is one-to-one, Ye
shes dbang po and Dpal dbyangs would be the ordained
names of Sba Gsal snang and ’Ba’/Sba Khri bzher sang shi
ta respectively. All the sources agree that Ye shes dbang
po was the name of Dba’ Gsal snang after ordination, thus
it would make sense if Sang shi ta’s ordained name was
Dpal dbyangs. In this way, SBA 1961.1–2 equates Sba/’Ba’
Khri bzher sang shi ta with Dpal dyangs. If the compiler
of SBA 1961.1–2 understood this Sang shi ta to be none
other than ’Ba’ Sang shi, the son of the Chinese envoy, the
identification Sang shi = Dpal dbyangs would be accomplished. Yet, SBA 1961.1–2 does not mistake Sang shi ta
for Sang shi and—like the Dba’ bzhed—has Sang shi and
Dpal dbyangs as two different individuals speaking at the
debate.
31 SBA 1961.1–2, 51.1–4.
SBA 1982.1–3, in its list of the Tibetans who learn
Śāntarakṣita’s language, also has a Sang shi ta but he is
not named ’Ba’ Khri bzher sang shi ta as in SBA 1961.1–2.
Instead it is said that Sba Khri bzher is the father of Sang
shi ta, so that instead of one person (Sba Khri bzher sang
shi ta) we have two: ’Ba’ Khri bzher and his son, Sang shi
ta.32 Here Sang shi ta is also identified with Ratna, who
is said to be the son of Sba Rma gzigs. However, if Ratna
and Sang shi ta were the same person, they could not be
born from two different fathers. Thus, a note was added, in
parentheses and in a smaller font, claiming that Sba Rma
gzigs was also known as Khri bzher. In this way, Sba Khri
bzher and Sba Rma gzigs become the same person in order
to identify Sang shi ta with Ratna.
One cannot be surprised that the annotator decided
to identify the two fathers. It is curious that the main text,
while claiming Ratna and Sang shi to be the same person,
32 SBA 1982.1–3, 58.7–8 reads: sba rma gzigs {khri bzher yang zer} kyi
bu rat+Nar/ sba khri bzher gyi bu sang shi ta yang zer ba ….
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
specified that they were the sons of two different fathers.
As their names appear in a list, it would seem logical to
speculate that in an earlier version the two names were
distinct, and only later someone modified the text in order
to identify them.33
Below, on the same page, the text states that a certain
Sba Khri gzigs was the first Tibetan to be ordained and
that his name as a monk was Sba Dpal dbyangs. The king
was so happy about his ordination that he proclaimed him
to be the jewel of Tibet and bestowed on him the name
Ratna. Thus he came to be known as Sba Ratna.34 Another
gloss informs us that this Sba Khri gzigs is none other
than Sang shi ta. As previously noted, the text claims
that the son of Sba Rma gzigs was a certain Sba Ratna,
who was also named Sang shi ta. The annotator could
not but assume that this Sba Ratna was the above-mentioned Ratna, son of Sba Rma gzigs and therefore Sang
shi ta himself. Interestingly, SBA 1961.1–2 has a virtually
identical passage, recognising ’Ba’ Khri gzigs as the first
Tibetan to be ordained—and uses almost the same words
as SBA 1982.1–3—but Dpal dbyangs does not feature in
it: ’Ba’ Khri gzigs is only given the name Ratna by the
king and no further identification takes place.35 Thus,
although SBA 1961.1–2 still identifies Khri bzher sang
shi ta with Dpal dbyangs, it draws a distinction between
Sang shi ta/ Dpal dbyangs and ’Ba’ Khri gzigs/ Ratna. SBA
1982.1–3, on the other hand, goes a step further and iden-
33 This impression is reinforced by the way the text was typed. Although the grammatical structure is clear, the names of Ratna and
Sang shi are divided by a shad, giving the impression that once these
were two separate individuals and that, instead of the terminative
particle at the end of Ratna’s name and yang zer ba de at the end of
Sang shi’s name, there were only two dang-s.
34 SBA 1982.1–3, 58.18–23.
35 Compare SBA 1982.1–3, 58.18–23 with SBA 1961.1–2, 50.13–16.
SBA 1982.1–3 reads: btub bam sad par bya gsungs nas skad lobs
pa tsho las thog mar bod la dad pa che ba’i sba {sang shi ta yang
zer} khri gzigs dge slong byas ma thag tu mtshan sba dpal dbyangs su btags/ mngon par shes pa lnga dang ldan pas/ btsan po
dgyes te de’i zhabs spyi bor blangs te khyod bod kyi rin po che yin
no zhes bka’ bstsal nas mtshan kyang Sba rat+Na zhes btags te … .
SBA 1961.1–2 reads: btub bam sad par bya gsung nas/ bod la dad
pa che ba ’ba’ khri gzigs dge slong byas ma thog tu mngon par shes
pa dang ldan pas/ btsan po dgyes te de’i zhabs spyi bor blang nas
khyod bod kyi rat+na yin no ces bka’ stsal bas ming kyang sba
rat+na ces btags te … .
Bu ston has an even shorter version of this episode, and calls Sba Khri
gzigs, Bya Khri gzigs. It only says: mkhan po bo d+hi satwas byas nas
tog mar bya khri gzigs rab tu phyung bas mngon shes lnga dang ldan
par gyur te (Bu ston chos ’byung, 885:4). He is not exactly the author
of this account however, as before he clearly says that he is reporting
what he has heard from other sources.
83
tifies Sang shi ta with Sba Ratna, Sba Dpal dbyangs and
Sba Khri gzigs.
On the next page, SBA 1982.1–3 lists the Tibetans who
received ordination after Ratna.36 It runs as follows: Sba
Gsal snang, Sba Khri bzher, Vairocana, son of Pa gor Na
’dod, Ngan lam Rgyal ba mchog dbyangs, Rma A tsa ra Rin
chen mchog, La gsum Rgyal ba’i byang chub. This—contrary to SBA 1961.1–2 and most other texts37—only reports
one of the ordained names, Ye shes dbang po. Again if
the reference is one-to-one, Ye shes dbang po is the name
assigned to the first of the list: Sba Gsal snang.38 Thus,
while SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1980 give also Dpal dbyangs
as the ordained name of the second Tibetan in the list,
SBA 1982.1–3 gives only one. It is logical to conclude that
the name Dpal dbyangs was omitted because the text had
already assigned it to Sba Khri gzigs Ratna/ Sang shi. As
SBA 1961.1–2 does not contain the passage that gives to
Sba Ratna the name Dpal dbyangs—and this story is not
recounted in Bu ston—this was probably an interpolation. In fact, not only do most sources report two of the
ordained names (Ye shes dbang po and Dpal dbyangs)
and not just one, but Sba Khri bzher, when understood
to be the father of Sang shi ta, as in this case, does not
take monastic vows. Sba Khri bzher is listed as one of the
Tibetans who became monks only when his name is one
and the same with Sang shi ta’s, i. e. when he is Sba Khri
bzher sang shi ta.
These interpolations created inconsistencies that the
person who wrote the annotations—probably Mgon po
rgyal mtshan (on whom, see Chapter 1 above)—tried to
smooth out. He did so by adding glosses that kept track of
the different names that were assigned to each character,
and also sometimes by writing longer annotations that
explained difficult points. SBA 1982.1–3 already has Dpal
dbyangs and Ye shes dbang po speaking at the debate.
It also identifies Sba Ratna with Sang shi ta and both
with Dpal dbyangs. Thus, it is possible that even before
glosses were added, the equation Sang shi = Sang shi ta
= Dpal dbyangs had already taken place. However, the
main text does not explicitly say that the Chinese Sang
shi is Sba Sang shi ta. It is the annotator that, drawing his
own conclusions from the text, in a longer note declares
36 SBA 1982.1–3, 59.1–5.
37 e. g. SBA 1980, 351:3–4; and Bu ston chos ’byung, 885:5.
38 SBA 1982.1–3, 59.1–6: sad cig gsungs nas sba gsal snang dang/ sba
khri bzher dang/ pa gor na ’dod {he ’dod kyang zer} kyi bu bai ro tsa na
dang/ ngan lam rgyal ba mchog dbyangs dang/ rma a tsa ra rin chen
mchog dang/ la gsum rgyal ba’i byang chub dang drug dge slong byas
te/ ming yang ye shes dbang po dang/ de la sogs par btags nas sad mi
drug rab tu byung ngo.
84
Serena Biondo
that Sang shi ta is a Chinese name and thus implicitly
identifies the two. This annotation reads:39
Sba Dpal dbyangs was called Sang shi ta in Chinese; some say
that Sang shi ta was the son of Khri bzher. Sba Gsal snang was
[Ye shes dbang po’s] name when a layman, after he had developed an enlightened frame of mind and took monastic vows, the
preceptor Bodhisatva named him Ye shes dbang po … .40
Thus, it is certain that the annotator at least understood
Dpal dbyangs and Sang shi to be interchangeable, and
also that he made a one-to one association between the
names in the list of ordained monks and the examples of
ordination names given after it (Sba Gsal snang = Ye shes
dbang po).41
The idea that originally there was no identification
of Sba Ratna with Sang shi and Dpal dbyangs seems also
to find some corroboration in the subsequent narrative.
In SBA 1982.1–3’s account of Heshang Moheyan’s arrival
in Tibet, it is said that at that time only a few Tibetans
continued studying with Śāntarakṣita. Three names are
given: Sba Ratna, Vairocana and Dpal dbyangs.42 Thus,
here the main text distinguishes between Sba Ratna and
Dpal dbyangs. However, the annotator realised that if Sba
Ratna was Dpal dbyangs he could not be named twice
in the list and so added “Ye shes dbang po” next to Sba
Ratna’s name in order to identify the two.43 This further
identification complicated matters rather than simplifying them, being in stark contrast with the narrative of the
main text, which clearly states that Ye shes dbang po was
the ordained name of Sba Gsal snang. Moreover, given the
previous identification of Sba Ratna with Dpal dbyangs it
is evident that the scenario here proposed by the anno-
39 SBA 1982.1–3, 59.6–8. van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks,” 158–59
notes this gloss and translates it. I have reformulated his translation
in order to emphasise that, at least on this occasion, the annotator
seems to have distinguished between Dpal dbyangs and Gsal snang.
However, the sentence is open to interpretation. For the Tibetan, see
the footnote below.
40 SBA 1982.1–3, 59.6–10: sba dpal dbyangs la rgya nag skad sang shi
ta zer/ la la khri bzher gyi bu sang shi ta zer/ sba gsal snang skya ba’i
dus ming/ de nas sems bskyed zhus nas dang rab tu byung nas ming ye
shes dbang por slob dpon bod+hi satwas btags … .
41 However, the remark “some (la la) allege that Sang shi ta was the
son of Khri bzher” is baffling because this is exactly how SBA 1982.1–3
presents these two people. van der Kuijp noted that the Dba’ bzhed
contains a similar account concerning the time of the sad mi’s ordination; van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks,” 159, n. 89. In the Dba’ bzhed,
this passage is found at DBA’ 2000, 17r:5–17v:5.
42 SBA 1982.1–3, 64.15–18.
43 SBA 1982.1–3, 64.16–17: sba rat+Na {ye shes dbang po} dang/ bai+’
ro tsa na dang/ dpal dbyangs la sogs nyung shas gcig bo d+hi satwa’i
chos slob.
tator is unfeasible: how could Sba Ratna/ Sang shi/ Dpal
dbyangs and Ye shes dbang po be the same person and be
consistently treated as two different men in the main narrative? A plausible reason why the annotator might have
identified Sba Ratna with Ye shes dbang po at this point is
because Dpal dbyangs and Ye shes dbang po were already
the two people who, according to the main text, spoke at
the debate in favour of the gradual approach. It was thus
logical to find them among the students who were loyal to
Śāntarakṣita.
We know that SBA 1982.1–3 was compiled by collating
three different manuscripts, but it is not possible—in its
present typed format—to distinguish if one, two or more
hands wrote the annotations or even if these two sections
(the ordained men and the Heshang’s arrival in Tibet until
the end of the debate) were drawn from two different
sources that contained two different sets of annotations.
Yet, before drawing any conclusion from this one needs to
address a problem that lies even deeper than the appended
annotations. This is the fact that earlier annotations/interpolations were included into what is now the main text
of SBA 1982.1–3. The section that identifies Ratna with
Sang shi ta, but attributes to them different fathers, and
the section that identifies Sba Ratna with Dpal dbyangs,
which is not found in SBA 1961.1–2, appear in the main
body of SBA 1982.1–3 but they do not fit with the overall
narrative. Thus we see (at least) two layers of annotations/
interpolations, one hidden and one overt.44
It is probable that the ‘original’ ‘ordained men’ (sad
mi) section in SBA 1982.1–3 did not identify Sba Ratna with
Sang shi, and thus presented them as the sons of two different fathers: Sba Rma gzigs and Sba Khri bzher. Like in SBA
1961.1–2, Sba Ratna’s name as a layman was Sba Khri gzigs;
he was the first Tibetan who received ordination. It is also
possible that this earlier recension of SBA 1982.1–3, after
listing the Tibetans who took monastic vows after Ratna,
provided two (rather than one) ordained names the sad mi
received, i. e. Ye shes dbang po and Dpal dbyangs. If this
were the case, Dpal dbyangs would be the ordained name
of the second name in the list Sba Khri bzher (Sang shi’s
father) who is the second in the list. However, this sounds
improbable. It is more likely that the text, at that stage,
instead of Sba Khri bzher, had either “Sba Khri bzher kyi bu
Sang shi ta” or even “Sba Khri bzher sang shi ta”; thus recognising Dpal dbyangs as the ordained name of Sang shi ta
but not linking these two names to those of Sba Ratna/ Sba
Khri gzigs. When Moheyan came to Tibet three people
44 The hands that wrote these two layers of annotations could also
easily be more than two.
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
remained faithful to the gradualist side: Sba Ratna, Vairocana and Sba Dpal dbyangs, and these three are exactly
the same people who are listed as Kamalaśīla’s disciples
at the beginning of the debate. According to this ‘earlier’
reading, this situation presents no difficulties: Sba Ratna is
not Dpal dbyangs/ Sang shi ta and thus the narration proceeds smoothly. Dpal dbyangs, as one of the ordained men
and loyal to Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, naturally speaks
in favour of the gradualist side at the debate.
At a later stage, interpolations found their way into
the main text: Sba Khri gzigs Ratna was identified with
Sang shi ta and then with Dpal dbyangs. Dpal dbyangs
was then omitted from the list of ordained names because
Ratna/ Sang shi ta had already been identified with him.
Yet, the section concerning Śāntarakṣita’s three faithful
students—Sba Ratna, Vairocana and Dpal dbyangs—was
left unchanged although problematic since at that point
Ratna and Dpal dbyangs had already been equated.45 The
same thing happened for the list of Kamalaśīla’s disciples,
where again these two were written down as two different
individuals. Hence, we can think of at least two scenarios:
1. the copies of the Testimony that the editor assembled
did not agree concerning these people’s identities and the
editor simply reported them as he found them trying to
reconcile them through his annotations; 2. some of the
annotations do not belong to the editor but were found in
the manuscript he copied and he left them as glosses to
the main text.
As the number of texts that discussed the early spread
of the dharma increased, confusion about the identity of
Sang shi (and several other characters of the narrative)
became greater.46 For example, Mkhas pa Lde’u in the
“royal genealogies” section of his chos ’byung writes that
a Sba Khri bzher sang shi ta introduced three texts from
China (i. e. Las kyi sgrib pa rgyun gcod pa, Sa lu ljang pa
and Rdo rje gcod).47 The connection of this Sang shi ta with
China seems to imply that Sang shi ta and Sang shi were
one person.
45 Bu ston, who does not identify Sba Ratna with Dpal dbyangs,
writes that the Tibetans who continued studying with Śāntarakṣita
after Moheyan’s arrival were Dpal dbyangs and Bha Ratna, but omits
Vairocana (Bu ston chos ’byung, 887:2).
46 Tucci attributed the addition of two people in Bu ston’s list of the
first Tibetans to be tried for ordination to political reasons; Tucci,
Minor Buddhist Texts II, 16. van der Kuijp demonstrated that these
additions were already attested in older texts and there was therefore
no political motivation behind it. See van der Kuijp, “Some Remarks,”
174–189.
47 Mkhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa in
Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung pa (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun
khang, 1987), 302:7–8.
85
At the time Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba wrote, in
the sixteenth century, the situation was such that he felt
these issues had to be addressed. In SBA 1980 he quoted
at length from an “extended version of the Rba bzhed.”48
The long citation from this manuscript is very similar to
both SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1982.1–3, but there is no doubt
that the manuscript Gtsug lag phreng ba was consulting
was, in this case, closer to SBA 1982.1–3.49 This quotation
is once again the famous passage concerning the Tibetans who learned Sanskrit, the first who took monastic
vows and the subsequent list of sad mi. The quotation is
faithful to SBA 1982.1–3 in all salient points and, in short,
it presents Sba Khri gzigs sang shi ta as the son of Rba
Khri bzher and identifies him with Dpal dbyangs and Rba
Ratna. The only difference of any consequence is that
Sba/’Ba’ Khri bzher is omitted in SBA 1980’s list of sad mi.
Gtsug lag phreng ba’s comments follow the quotation.
According to him, the report of these events is corrupted.50 His first example of such corruption is that someone
(including the extended version of the Sba bzhed he had
just cited) claimed that Sang shi, the Chinese dancing
child, was named Rba Sang shi and that someone even
said that he was one and the same as Rba Ratna, the son
of Rba Khri bzher. Gtsug lag phreng ba rightly remarks
that, as Sang shi was the son of a Chinese envoy, he could
48 SBA 1980, 355:3–356:3, which is then followed by Gtsug lag phreng
ba’s comment.
49 However, Gtsug lag phreng ba had access to more than one version of the Sba/Rba bzhed. This can also be easily deduced from the
fact that Gtsug lag phreng ba previously quotes from a Rba bzhed
’bring po, SBA 1980, 354:6. Yet, the following quotation from the large
Rba bzhed is closer in five points to SBA 1982.1–3: One is that there
is a section reporting the invitation of twelve Sarvāstivāda monks
to Tibet, which in SBA 1961.1–2 comes later in the narrative than in
SBA 1982.1–3 and Gtsug lag phreng ba has it at the same point as SBA
1982.1–3. The second is that he identifies Khri bzher as the father of
Sang shi ta and not Sang shi ta himself as SBA 1961.1–2 does. The
third point concerns the already discussed passage where the first
monk Ratna is identified with Dpal dbyangs. As discussed above, SBA
1961.1–2 does not contain this passage, while Gtsug lag phreng ba includes it, even if only to criticise it later as spurious. The fourth point
is that, because Gtsug lag phreng ba’s quotation like SBA 1982.1–3
identifies Dpal dbyangs with Ratna with Gtsug lag phreng ba, Dpal
dbyangs is then omitted from the list of ordained names that the sad
mi received. Fifth, both SBA 1982.1–3 (58.21–23) and SBA 1980 (356:1–
2), in reporting the story of how Ratna got his name from the king,
have the king say that Khri gzigs is the “rin po che” of Tibet and so he
was given the name “Ratna” In SBA 1961.1–2 (50.14–15), instead, the
shift from the Tibetan word and its Sanskrit equivalent to the name
is lost as both instances are documented as “Ratna.” Except for these
five points, however, SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA 1982.1–3 are more closely
related to each other than to SBA 1980.
50 SBA 1980, 356:4 (for the Tibetan, see the footnote below).
86
Serena Biondo
not be a descendant of the Rba’ clan. He also points out
that Rba Khri gzigs could not be named Bya Khri gzigs,
as many people spelled his name.51 He then shows how
the names of certain individuals in the list of sad mi had
been modified and how sometimes people were added to
it, referring more specifically to some mistakes that he had
found in Bu ston’s chos ’byung.52 Later on, he also claims
that there was a certain amount of confusion about Sba
Ratna’s identity, and that some believed him to be Ye shes
dbang po.53 Bu ston does not seem to connect these two
characters, and although Gtsug lag phreng ba might have
referred to what he found written in other texts, the identification of Sba Ratna with Ye shes dbang po reminds one
of the annotation in SBA 1982.1–3. Thus, it is possible that
the gloss next to Sba Ratna’s name was there by the middle
of the sixteenth century, or even earlier.
Although Gtsug lag phreng ba was aware that the identification of Sang shi with Sang shi ta was wrong, in the
version of the debate he had at his disposal, Dpal dbyangs
already takes Sang shi’s place.54 SBA 1980 follows SBA
1982.1–3 in this, and starts what was Sang shi’s speech
with the words: “khyed rgya’i bzhed pa ltar na … .” It is
possible that in the sixteenth century, sources mostly
agreed that these two were the interlocutors at the debate
and Sang shi’s speech had already been established to be
on the gradualist side.
The Dba’ bzhed narrative of these events is much
shorter and simplified. Interestingly, as in the later redaction of SBA 1982.1–3 the first monk to be ordained takes
the name Dba’ Dpal dbyangs. The Dba’ bzhed, however,
says that this person’s name before ordination was Dba’
Lha btsan and not Ratna or Khri gzigs.55 Two folios below,
the Dba’ bzhed reports that Dba’ Gsal snang took monastic
vows and the name Ye shes dbang po was bestowed on
51 On this see van der Kuijp “Some Remarks,” 171; SBA 1980, 356:4–5:
’di dag du yi ge ma dag pa ’phel ba las sngar gyi rgya phrug gar mkhan
de la yang rba sang shi zhes bris pa sogs snang ya+ng rba rat+na ni rba
khri bzher gyi bur bshad la rgya phrug sang shi ni rgya nag gi pho nya’i
bu yin pas rba’i rus su mi ’ong la/ yang bya khri gzigs ces bris pa du ma
yod kyang yi ge nyams pa ste rus de gnyis kyi gzhi mthun mi srid to.
52 Gtsug lag phreng ba in this case does not blame Bu ston for the
mistakes in the text; he rather hypothesises that these were added at
the time of carving the woodblocks for the printing of the chos ’byung.
SBA 1980, 356:6–7 reads: bu ston chos byung du’ang par brko dus zhus
dag pas nyams pa yin nam … . This section has been already analysed
by van der Kuijp, see “Some Remarks,” 172–174. See also Tucci, Minor
Buddhist Texts II, 20–21.
53 SBA 1980, 357:2. rba rat+na’i ming ye shes dbang po yin pa ’dra
ba sogs nag nog che bar snang ngo. See also van der Kuijp, “Some
Remarks,” 172–173.
54 SBA 1980, 384:6.
55 DBA’ 2000, 14v:7–15r:1.
him.56 Later, the Dba’ bzhed relates that among the people
who were taught Sanskrit, such as Mchims legs gzigs etc.,
only some eventually learned it. These were: Śākyaprabha
son of Mchims Anu, Vairocana son of Pa ’or Na ’dod, Rad
na (i. e. Ratna) son of Dba’ Rma gzigs, Lha bu son of Zhang
Nya bzang, Bse btsan and Shud pu Khong slebs. Finally,
it remarks that: “The son of Dba’ Rma gzigs was given
the name Rad na (i.e Ratna) upon his ordination.”57 The
Testimony of Ba versions therefore have many points in
common: with some spelling variation, Śākyaprabha, Vairocana, Rad na and Shud pu khing slebs also appear in
SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 1961.1–2. SBA 1982.1–3 also agrees
with the Dba’ bzhed in reporting that Ratna’s father was
named Dba’ Rma gzigs; and in relating that Mchims Legs
bzang (i. e. Dba’ bzhed’s Mchims Legs legs gzigs) did not
learn Sanskrit. Yet, the Dba’ bzhed mentions no Sang shi
ta, no Sba Khri bzher and does not identify Dpal dbyangs
either with Ratna or Sang shi ta/ Khri gzigs.
It is unclear on which sources SBA 1961.1–2 and SBA
1982.1–3 drew for depicting Sang shi ta and all the other
characters that do not feature in the Dba’ bzhed. Considering that SBA 1961.1–2 does not replace Sang shi with Dpal
dbyangs—although Sang shi ta features in the narrative of
the sad mi—we can conclude that originally the inclusion
of Sang shi ta in the Testimony of Ba had nothing to do
with the debate. The identification happened later in the
history of transmission of SBA 1982.1–3.
One question remains: why all this confusion about
Sang shi’s affiliation with the Chinese side? Sang shi
plays an important role in the establishment of Buddhism
in Tibet.58 In the Dba’ bzhed, he is one of the ministers
who goes to China to meet master Kim and the Chinese
emperor. In the later Testimony of Ba tradition, he is the
son of a Chinese envoy and he is also the person who introduces Buddhism to king Khri Srong lde btsan. Throughout
the narratives he is crucial to the king’s decision to adopt
Buddhism and he carries out tasks that are necessary to
achieve this end. Sang shi could not be on the side of the
56 DBA’ 2000, 17r:6.
57 DBA’ 2000, 17r:6–17v:3. It is interesting that the monk who acted
as a preceptor for the second set of ordinations in the Dba’ bzhed is
a certain Dba’ Rin po che, which seems to refer to Dba’ Ratna who is
introduced two lines above. This recalls SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 1980’s
double rendering of his name in Sanskrit and Tibetan (see footnote
48, above). In this instance, SBA 1961.1–2, 51.10–11 refers to this person as “Sba Rat+na” rather than “Rin po che.”
58 See DBA’ 2000, 25r:1–3: “Whereas the dharma could not be established during the reign of the five previous kings, the devaputra Khri
Srong lde btsan, Ācārya Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye Shes dbang po and ’Ba’
Sang shi—those four—established seats for the triple gem (and) the
noble holy dharma was propagated widely in the region of Tibet.”
Chapter 5 Narrative Sources of the Great Debate
defeated Chinese, so he could only take the stance of the
winners in the debate. Thus, it is possible that successive
compilers of the Testimony of Ba progressively distanced
Sang shi from the Chinese side, which in some textual traditions somehow resulted in the replacement of Sang shi
with Ye shes dbang po.
Dpal dbyangs and the Saṃdhinirmocana
sūtra
After Sang shi’s speech, Dpal dbyangs intervenes by saying
that the gradual and instantaneous approaches should be
spoken of distinctly, thus replying to Sang shi’s last sentence. Then, after having emphasized this point through
metaphors, he starts with an exposition of the stages of
the bodhisatva path (23r:3–23v:6). This section is extracted
from the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra—the text that Heshang
Moheyan and his followers had dismissed during their
preparation for the debate in preference for the Shes rab
’bum.59 At the end of this quotation Dpal dbyangs attacks
the instantaneous approach directly, asserting that they
lack scriptural knowledge and that a person who follows
their path is unable to help himself, let alone others. As
Moheyan and his followers are unable to answer Dpal
dbyangs, the gradualists win the debate by quoting the
very text the Chinese monk had rejected.
The quotation from the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra is curtailed in the following versions of the Testimony. Only a
few sentences remain of the quotation found in the Dba’
bzhed (folio 23r line 4 to folio 23v, line 6). This makes the
link between the introduction of the debate and the debate
itself less evident. The reason for shortening the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra’s quotation in the later versions of the
Testimony of Ba is unclear.60 We can only assume that the
importance given to the philosophical dispute decreased
as time passed.
59 See Mdo sde dgongs pa nges ’grel (Ārya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra)
in Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge: Sde dge par khang chen mo, 1733), vol. 49. The
quotation from this sūtra runs from pp. 79:6 to 81:4. Although the
quotation is mostly linear and the two works are very close in wording, it should be noted that the person who wrote this section of the
Dba’ bzhed did not copy it completely from the sūtra. The Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra uses a very repetitive structure when writing about the
ten bodhisatva stages, which the writer of the Dba’ bzhed curtailed
probably for the sake of space. In his Bhāvanākrama, Kamalaśīla
often quotes the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra, however, this specific quotation does not feature in his text.
60 For connections between the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra and Atiśa,
the Bka’ dam pas and later Tsong kha pa see Alex Wayman, “Doctrinal Disputes.”
87
Final Remarks
This overview shows that the debate—like the rest of the
Testimony and the majority of Tibetan Buddhist texts—was
created by combining a variety of sources and that much
thought was given to the assemblage of the units. Each
string that we find in the Introduction to the debate is tied
to a section of the debate itself. Śāntarakṣita’s prophecy
is picked up by Sang shi’s view of school formation. The
Shes rab ’bum studied by the instantaneous party is then
quoted in Sang shi’s speech. The Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra,
dismissed by the instantaneous party, is then picked up
by Dpal dbyangs who wins the debate by quoting from it.
As the transcription of the Dba’ bzhed in Part Two of
this volume shows, the scribe does not seem much interested in the philosophical dispute. That he was copying
the debate from a parent manuscript is evident from the
number of mistakes that he makes in transcribing the text.
Twice he copied the wrong sentence because the passage
that he was supposed to write started with the same word
as the next sentence.61 Thus, we can conclude that he did
not know the source by heart and that he was not writing
under dictation. Therefore, although it seems likely that
the Dba’ bzhed compiler had some sort of agency over the
text, by adding bits and pieces he found useful into the
main narrative, it is improbable that he assembled the
debate narrative. He simply copied it.
David Seyfort Ruegg identified one interesting clue
about the date of the compilation of the debate.62 Since
the third of the three Mādhyamika schools mentioned in
Sang shi’s speech originated in Tibet through the work
of Pa tshab Nyi ma grags—who was born around 1055—
the text could not have been written before the eleventh
or twelfth century. As the writer of the manuscript of the
Dba’ bzhed does not seem to be the person who collated
the text part, we may conclude that the manuscript he
was drawing from (or even a progenitor of the manuscript
he was drawing from) was probably written around or
after the eleventh or twelfth century. The original narrative must have looked similar to what we read in the Dba’
bzhed today although some points might have been added
or cut during the transmission and copying of the text after
the twelfth century.
61 DBA’ 2000, 19v:6 and 21r:7.
62 Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, 80.
Lewis Doney
Chapter 6
History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri
Srong lde btsan
Emperor Khri Srong lde brtsan (742–c.800) ruled over the
Tibetan empire from 756 CE, expanding it to its greatest
extent. In the northwest, the Tibetans threatened the
Abbasid Caliphate of Hārūn al-Rashīd on the banks of the
Oxus; in the east, they sacked and briefly occupied the
Chinese capital Chang’an (present day Xi’an) in 763. Khri
Srong lde brtsan also presided over the growing institutionalisation of Buddhism in Tibet, epitomised by his patronage
of Bsam yas Monastery. In later histories and biographies,
he is said to have invited Śāntarakṣita, Padmasambhava,
and a growing list of masters from outside Tibet in order
to fulfil his pious wish to firmly establish the dharma. The
sources generally report that he acted in emulation of his
royal ancestor, Khri Srong brtsan (d. 649), later known as
Srong btsan sgam po.1 The mature historiographical tradition identifies both emperors as emanations of celestial bodhisatva-s, respectively representing the wisdom
of Mañjuśrī and the compassion of Avalokiteśvara.2 As I
discuss below, the Dba’ bzhed describes Khri Srong btsan
revealing himself as Avalokiteśvara to monks from Khotan
(3v:1–5) in the seventh century. Yet, its depictions of the
eighth-century ruler are more ambivalent.
The Dba’ bzhed includes conflicting representations
of Khri Srong lde btsan, some positive but others less flattering and suggestive of a more human and fallible form
of kingship. The former strata of representations may be
the oldest, either reflecting an Old Tibetan proto-Dba’
bzhed, drawing on narratives also found in the imperial
inscriptions and Dunhuang documents, or copying earlier
sources—as yet unidentified—into its compiled text. The
latter strata, I argue here, are influenced by later intrusions into the narrative, such as the inclusion of Padmasambhava and the prophesied decline of the dharma
that is blamed on the emperor by Dba’ Gsas snang (as his
name is spelled almost exclusively in this manuscript).
Given the influence of this narrative on later historiography, the less than perfect depiction of Khri Srong
1 From here onwards, I shall use the spellings found in the Dba’
bzhed, Khri Srong lde btsan and Khri Srong btsan.
2 See Lewis Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship in Tibet: The Case
of Tri Songdétsen,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 24 (2015). Just to reiterate,
here I write bodhisatva following its spelling in the Dba’ bzhed; see
also Michael Willis and Tsering Gonkatsang’s discussion in Chapter 2.
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-006
lde btsan has caused some problems for those recounting the spread of Buddhism under imperial rule. Tibetan
philologists have tried to overcome the contradictions in
various ways, mostly typically by a selective use of different threads in the narrative. However, the strata in the text
all have value as expressions of different cultural milieux
within Tibet and we should not seek to privilege one over
the other or, more especially, jettison the later strata to
regain an Ur text—a text that probably never existed in any
case. Rather, each stratum represents an important part of
the evolving culture of Tibet and should be appreciated in
its own right and compared with the other strata. In order
to do this, it is vital first to distinguish the strata, as set out
in the conclusion to Chapter 1.
The aim of this chapter is to bring out some of the
tensions in the portrayal of Emperor Khri Srong lde btsan
arising from the accretion or compilation of various strata
in a single manuscript. The oldest narratives contained in
the Dba’ bzhed appear to represent Khri Srong lde btsan
in ways akin to the Dunhuang texts’ portrayals, while the
interpolations depict him from slightly different perspectives. The eleventh-century redaction of the Dba’ bzhed
brings together these divergent descriptions of the emperor
in one narrative, while also adding its redactors’ own representation of Khri Srong lde btsan. The extant Dba’ bzhed
thus presents a number of vignettes that each favour one
or more of the different redactors’ visions of Khri Srong
lde btsan. By retaining the episodic style of creative compilation, at times perhaps even a ‘scissors-and-paste’ historiographical method, the Dba’ bzhed juxtaposes these
different representations in one text.3
New eleventh-century themes are also evident, especially the rise of religious power in Tibet. This means that
the Dba’ bzhed goes beyond the ninth/tenth-century laudatory descriptions of Khri Srong lde btsan. It portrays him
occasionally as inferior in status to the narrative’s main
Buddhist masters, Śāntarakṣita and Dba’ Gsas snang/ Ye
shes dbang po. I believe that this is due to the increasingly
3 See Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Tibetan Historiography,” in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger
Jackson (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1996), 44–45, who borrowed the term
‘scissors-and-paste’ from R.C. Collingwood and used it in another
context within his discussion of Tibetan historiography.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
religious-focused, rather than royal-centred, trajectory of
Tibetan histories in the eleventh century and beyond—a
process I have mapped out in other publications.4 Here,
I shall focus on the supposed decline of the dharma in
Tibet. From the perspective of the ongoing project of Tibetology, the Dba’ bzhed should not be misunderstood as
either representing the ‘historical’ Khri Srong lde btsan
or as a single work of literature by an author. Rather, the
text should be seen as a collection of different representations of varying dates and affiliations. The resulting composite depiction of Khri Srong lde btsan arising from the
core eleventh/twelfth-century narrative of the Dba’ bzhed
is at once problematic and pivotal, when viewed from the
perspective of his changing portrayal in the increasingly
pious histories and biographies of subsequent centuries.
The History of Buddhism in Tibet
The earliest Tibetan documents describing Khri Srong
lde btsan, dating from the eighth to the tenth century,
present wholly positive appraisals of his reign.5 One of
the oldest of these is an imperial ‘self-presentation,’ the
almost first-person proclamation (gtsigs) in support of
Buddhism recorded in the Bsam yas Inscription.6 Its short
text promises that he and future emperors will continue to
protect the main shrines of the religion—including Bsam
yas Monastery—with the requisites for continuing dharma
practice there in perpetuity.7 Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba’s
sixteenth-century Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston contains, alongside
quotations from the Testimony of Ba, a faithful transcription of both this and longer versions of the proclamation,
including the ‘authoritative exposition’ (bka’ mchid), in
4 Lewis Doney, “Narrative Transformations: The Spiritual Friends of
Khri Srong lde brtsan,” in Interaction in the Himalayas and Central
Asia: Processes of Transfer, Translation and Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity, ed. Eva Allinger, Frantz Grenet, Christian Jahoda, Maria-Katharina Lang and Anne Vergati (Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017), 311–20;
Lewis Doney, “The Degraded Emperor: Theoretical Reflections on
the Upstaging of a Bodhisattva King,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 49
(May 2019): 13–66.
5 Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship,” 29–47.
6 Michael L. Walter, Buddhism and Empire: The Political and Religious Culture of Early Tibet (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 7 raised the issue of
the imperial “self-presentation.” On the inscriptional (self-) presentation of Khri Srong lde btsan’s rule as mighty and beneficent, see Lewis
Doney, “Emperor, Dharmaraja, Bodhisattva? Inscriptions from the
Reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan,” Journal of Research Institute, Kobe
City University of Foreign Studies 51 (2013): 63–84.
7 Doney, “Emperor, Dharmaraja,” 69–70.
89
which Khri Srong lde btsan narrativises his decision to
give state sanction to the practice of Buddhism in Tibet.8
He recounts how the ministers opposed his enthronement
in 756 and sought to block Buddhism’s rise in Tibet; how
Khri Srong lde btsan heeded the bad omens arising from
their calumny and the teachings of kalyāṇamitra-s; and
how, in response, he increased the practice of Buddhism
in Tibet and built Bsam yas Monastery so that it would
continue in perpetuity—in a manner vowed in the Bsam
yas Inscription.9
Over the generations, Tibetan historians augmented
the imperial image of Khri Srong lde btsan with a complementary and likewise idealised Buddhist portrayal of
the emperor, akin to that of the legendary Buddhist ruler,
Aśoka. One Dunhuang document, IOL Tib J 466/3, actually makes a direct and positive comparison between the
two as Buddhists teaching the dharma,10 while another,
IOL Tib J 370/6, contains a similarly glorified image of both
Khri Srong lde btsan and his ancestor Khri Srong btsan.11
A bodhisatva status of some description (whether enlightened or on the path to Buddha-hood) is accorded to Khri
Srong lde btsan at the borders of the empire, and in the
post-imperial Dunhuang text Pelliot tibétain 840/3.12
One proximate source of inspiration for such descriptions (apart from the more well-known Buddhist works
of South and East Asia) was the Central Asian kingdom
of Khotan, either in the late imperial period or shortly
8 See Hugh E. Richardson, “The first Tibetan chos-’byung,” in High
Peaks Pure Earth, ed. Michael Aris (London: Serindia, 1998 [1980]),
89–99. The text of this edict is found in Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng
ba’s Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1962; Lokesh Chandra, ed., Mkhas-paḥidgaḥ-ston of Dpaḥ-bo-gtsug-lag (also known as Lho-brag-chos ḥbyuṅ)
Part 4 (ja) (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1962), 108vf.
9 Richardson, “The first Tibetan chos-’byung,” 93.
10 None of the truly old texts discovered in the Dunhuang library
cave date from after the early part of the eleventh century according to Yoshiro Imaeda, “The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang Documents,” Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 66 (2008): 98. Sam
van Schaik, who until recently worked every day with this manuscript
treasure trove, discovered the reference to Khri Srong lde btsan in
IOL Tib J 466/3 and a transliteration and translation of its narrative
was published in Sam van Schaik and Lewis Doney, “The Prayer,
the Priest and the Tsenpo: An Early Buddhist Narrative from Dunhuang,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
30, nos. 1–2 (2007): 195–96. Greater context on this prayer is provided
in Lewis Doney “Imperial Gods: A Ninth-Century Tridaṇḍaka Prayer
(rGyud chags gsum) from Dunhuang,” Central Asiatic Journal 61, no.
1 (2018): 71–101.
11 This work is known as The Single Volume of Scriptures that Fell
from Heaven. For a transliteration, translation and discussion of this
depiction, see van Schaik and Doney, “The Prayer,” 196–97.
12 See Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship,” 36–39 and 41–46.
90
Lewis Doney
after.13 Khotan was first conquered by the Tibetans around
670,14 and monks from Khotan, perhaps even indigenous
Khotanese, appear to have settled in Central Tibet by the
eighth century at least.15 Khotanese Buddhism exerted
influence on the form of dharma adopted at the Tibetan
court.16 According to the Khotanese history translated into
Tibetan as the Prophecy of Khotan (Li yul lung bstan pa),
the founder and first ruler of Khotan is the miraculous
child of King Aśoka and his chief consort, born with the
signs (lakṣaṇa) of a great being.17 The narrative then identifies the next—perhaps also mythic—generation of Khotanese royalty as bodhisatva-s—and also their ordained
preceptors. A king and a monk, Vijaya Saṃbhava and Ārya
Vairocana, are said to be emanations of the bodhisatva-s
Mañjuśrī and Maitreya, building vihāra-s and stūpa-s in
the area.18 All later kings, from Vijaya Jaya downwards, are
not referred to as bodhisatva-s,19 while the text describes
an arhat spreading the dharma during the reign of King
Vijaya Kīrti as an emanation of Mañjuśrī.20 Another text,
the ninth or tenth-century Prophecy of the Khotanese
Arhat (Li yul gyi sgra bcom pas lung bstan pa), speaks of an
unnamed Tibetan emperor as an emanation of a celestial
bodhisatva, spreading the dharma in Tibet.21
Just as the Khotanese histories increasingly focus on
the religious rather than royal acts of their rulers, over
time Tibetan historians forgot the battles and even victories of the emperors (such as that in 763 over the Tang).
Instead, they expanded the details of acts that they and
their spiritual preceptors and ministers performed on
13 These themes are explored in more detail in Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship,” but I shall outline some of the most salient connections here.
14 Christopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A
History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs,
and Chinese During the Early Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 30–34.
15 Sam van Schaik, “Red Faced Barbarians, Benign Despots and
Drunken Masters: Khotan as a Mirror of Tibet,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 36 (2016): 54.
16 Tao Tong, The Silk Roads of the Northern Tibetan Plateau During
the Early Middle Ages (from the Han to Tang Dynasty): As Reconstructed from Archaeological and Written Sources (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), 21–22.
17 Ronald E. Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Tibet (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 14–15.
18 Emmerick, Tibetan Texts, 24–25.
19 Emmerick, Tibetan Texts, 32 ff.
20 Emmerick, Tibetan Texts, 46–47.
21 IOL Tib J 598, see Frederick William Thomas, Tibetan Literary
Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan. Selected and
Translated by F. W. Thomas (London: Luzac & co., 1935), 73–87; and
van Schaik, “Red Faced Barbarians.” van Schaik gives tentative dates
to his sources in “Red Faced Barbarians,” Appendix I.
behalf of the dharma. As such, twelfth-century Tibetan
histories omit mention of Khri Srong lde btsan’s military
might, which was lauded in earlier sources, in favour of
recording his acts as a Buddhist patron.22 Parts of the Dba’
bzhed may date from around this period (see Chapter 2 in
this volume) and express a similar shift in values.23
Much the same narrative arc of the imperial-period
Bka’ mchid is present in the core narrative of the Dba’
bzhed, which likewise recounts how opposition to Buddhism at court was overcome and how its practice and
teachings received state sanction through proclamations
and the construction of Bsam yas Monastery.24 Further, the
descriptive sub-title in the first line of the Dba’ bzhed is
“the authoritative exposition (bka’ mchid) describing how
the dharma of the Buddha came to the region of Tibet.”25
This encapsulates the frame narrative of the text, which
focuses on Tibet (without any preceding chapters on the
history of either Indian or Chinese Buddhism or the cosmogonic beginnings of Buddhism or the world) and tells
its story through narratives of the royal propagators of the
22 The capture of Chang’an in 763, for instance, is described in glorious terms in version II of the Old Tibetan Annals, Or.8212/187, line
55 ff., see Brandon Dotson, The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated
Translation of Tibet’s First History, With an Annotated Cartographical
Documentation by Guntram Hazod (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), 132. Early Chinese sources
on Tibet are more mixed in their portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan and
the Tibetan empire more generally. The Old Tang History (Jiu Tang
Shu) describes the generals under his reign briefly seizing Chang’an
in 763, saying that “the Tibetans, taking advantage of our difficulties,
daily encroached on the borders, and the citizens were either carried
off to be massacred or wandered about to die in ditches… .” (Kurtis
R. Schaeffer, Matthew T. Kapstein, and Gray Tuttle, eds. Sources of
Tibetan Tradition. [New York: Columbia University Press, 2013], 16).
23 In general, the Dba’ bzhed records only Tibet’s cordial diplomatic
relations with China and, when ’Ba’ Sang shi and Dba’ Gsas snang
visit China, the Chinese praise the Tibetan emperor as a bodhisatva
rather than as a worthy opponent. A Chinese Buddhist patriarch
prophesies Khri Srong lde btsan as “the bodhisatva who will bestow
the noble dharma on the land of Tibet.” (DBA’ 2000, 9v:4–5 reads:
khyed kyi btsan po ni bod yul du dam pa’i chos ’byin pa’i byang chub
sems dpa’ yin te /). This prophecy does not appear to be given in the
later Testimony of Ba tradition, and so may be unique to this recension or even this exemplar.
24 As I noted in Chapter 1, Philip Denwood, “Some Remarks on
the Status and Dating of the sBa bzhed,” The Tibet Journal 15, no. 4
(1999): 135–48 argues that the Testimony of Ba may have originally
been a charter (bka’ gtsigs) that Khri Srong lde btsan disseminated to
the Dba’(s) clan and/or after the Bsam yas Debate that was expanded
over the centuries (Denwood, “Some Remarks,” 146), though probably not the actual Bsam yas Inscription or Bka’ mchid. See also Chapter 4 in this volume.
25 DBA’ 2000, 1v:1: sangs rgyas kyi chos bod khams su ji ltar ’byung
ba’i bka’ mchid kyi yi ge /
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
Buddha’s teachings in Tibet. However, we should be cautious here because the Testimony of Ba tradition is documented by the name Dba’ bzhed/ Rba’ bzhed/ Sba’ bzhed
only from late twelfth century, as indeed is its description
as an ‘authoritative account.’
The same caveat should be attached to the opening
descriptions of previous Buddhist rulers of Tibet in the
Dba’ bzhed up to the middle of folio 4r, since these are not
found in the later Testimony of Ba tradition and may be
unique to the shared narrative of DBA’ 2000 and RBA 2011.1.
Nonetheless, like the imperial bka’ mchid, the opening of
the Dba’ bzhed appears to regard the most note-worthy act
of an emperor to be temple building. These acts also live
on as tangible artefacts within the Tibetan landscape and
often continue to be a part of Tibetan ritual or pilgrimage
practice. Thus, linking these sacred sites with their alleged
founders may also have served to connect the history’s
‘present’ with the imperial Buddhist past that its compiler(s) sought to recreate. The Dba’ bzhed states that all of
the Buddhist rulers before Khri Srong lde btsan performed
the task of constructing temples. It goes into more detail
on the four main Tibetan Buddhist emperors, adding to
their characters in line with the Dba’ bzhed’s overarching
message about exemplary Buddhist kingship.
The Dba’ bzhed devotes less than two lines to the
Tibetan ruler named in the historiographical tradition as
Lha tho do re. It merely relates that he received and treated
with care (scriptures concerning) the six syllables oṃ maṇi
pad me hūṃ. An interlinear note to line 1v:3 states that he
also worshipped them and, although eighty years old,
became like a youth of sixteen. This miracle is a literary
topos of Indian Buddhist narratives, such as the story of
Tantipa, the thirteenth of the eighty-four Mahāsiddhas.26
The important point here is that the emperor not only patronised, but also worshipped, the dharma. In fact, even
the main text has Lha tho do re advocating the practice of
the dharma “regardless of whether the kingdom prospers
or declines.” In contrast, the Dba’ bzhed does not mention
any of the secular acts of this ruler, such as internal peacekeeping or international empire building. In only two
lines, this section of the Dba’ bzhed fulfils the promise of
its sub-title by focusing on rulers only in as much as they
were focused on the dharma.
The Dba’ bzhed’s biography of the seventh-century
Khri Srong btsan broadens its conception of kingship
slightly. It describes how he earned the title “wise” ([b]sgam
26 James B. Robinson, Buddha’s Lions: The Lives of the Eighty-Four
Siddhas (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 1979), 67 (translation) and
328 folio 67:2 (Tibetan text).
91
po) by displaying tact and authority in internal politics
(2r–2v), supernatural knowledge and a sense for the dramatic in foreign policy (2v–3r) and divine authority in religious affairs (3r–3v).27 This latter quality is demonstrated
in the most famous episode from Khri Srong btsan’s life,
where he meets the two monks from Khotan (Li yul) and
shows them that he is an emanation of Avalokiteśvara
(3v:1–5). The Dba’ bzhed makes an important connection
between the emperor as bodhisatva and as legislator in
that episode, which I explored in more detail in a previous article.28 The Dba’ bzhed cites an apparent Khotanese
source for this narrative, but it is not found in any exemplar of this work that we possess.29 As Martin Mills has
already pointed out in his discussion of this vignette in
many versions, the narrative is a Tibetan adaptation of an
episode from the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra.30 However, the Dba’
bzhed incorporates the narrative in such a way that Khri
Srong btsan’s corporal punishments are not mere display
(as in the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra).31 The punishments that the
monks witness being inflicted in the Dba’ bzhed are apparently in line with the emperor’s legislation according to
other relatively early sources—and indeed the text itself,
which recounts how Khri Srong btsan devised a legal
decree and ordered his subjects to follow it in no uncertain
27 Only the first of these three descriptions ends with the emperor’s
subjects explicitly declaring him to be the “wise” Khri Srong btsan
(khri srong btsan bsgam po, DBA’ 2000, 2v:2), after he responds to his
ministers’ doubts about his control of the empire with a complete set
of laws to bind all his subjects under him.
28 Lewis Doney, “The Glorification of Eighth-Century Imperial Law
in Early Tibetan Buddhist Historiography,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 26
(2017): 14–16. See also Fernanda Pirie, “Buddhist Law in Early Tibet:
The Emergence of an Ideology,” Journal of Law and Religion 32, no. 3
(2018): 14–17.
29 See van Schaik, “Red Faced Barbarians,” 52–54.
30 Martin Mills, “Ritual as History in Tibetan Divine Kingship: Notes
on the Myth of the Khotanese Monks,” History of Religions 51, no. 3
(2012): 235–36. On the popularity of the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra in early Tibetan Buddhism, including as the first half of the narrative whose
second half concerns Tibetan Buddhism under Khri Srong lde btsan
in Pelliot tibétain 149 (by the same scribe who copied the Prophecy
of the Tibetan Arhat), see van Schaik and Doney, “The Prayer.” It is
easy to see why this Indian narrative would have been ripe for adaptation into a Buddhist history of kingship, and in the Dunhuang
manuscripts we see the collection of historiographical material that is
focused on Tibet as the heir to Buddhist tradition that (as circulating
in other Tibetan areas) may well have been known to the compilers
of the Dba’ bzhed.
31 The episode cites a certain Great Prophecy (lung bstan chen po;
DBA’ 2000, 4r:1–2) as the source of this tale, and whether this intermediary work (if it really existed) or the Testimony of Ba tradition
is responsible for this amendment will have to remain a matter of
conjecture for now.
92
Lewis Doney
terms (folio 2r). As we shall see below, the Dba’ bzhed, as it
is constructed in this exemplar, creates a narrative ‘set up’
for an indirect comparison between Khri Srong btsan and
Khri Srong lde btsan as Buddhist rulers.
Royal and Religious Identity of Khri
Srong lde btsan
In the core narrative of the Dba’ bzhed, Khri Srong lde
btsan plays an important role in internal politics, international diplomacy and religious affairs. Yet, his depiction is
not as uniformly positive as that of Khri Srong btsan and,
in this section, other characters besides Khri Srong lde
btsan perform actions on behalf of the dharma. Indeed,
a few of these characters show themselves to be in some
sense superior to the ruler of Tibet.
When the thirteen-year-old Khri Srong lde btsan takes
over the governance of the realm (4r:6), the narrative shifts
from the emperor to the Tibetan ministers and their conspiracies against the dharma. Here, the Dba’ bzhed deals
first and foremost not with Buddhist building projects
but with the destruction of all that the previous Buddhist
rulers had achieved. From a narratological perspective,
perhaps this desecration of the earlier (Chinese-inspired)
temples clears the way for Bsam yas Monastery to take
centre stage. One of the Dba’ bzhed’s principal protagonists in this section is the Buddhist minister, Dba’ Gsas
snang. Despite the other ministers’ interdiction against its
future practice, he goes in search of the dharma to India
and Nepal where he worships at Buddhist pilgrimage and
monastic sites.32 He then travels to China, a wellspring of
Tibet’s older Buddhist tradition, but it is India that appears
to offer new hope for the spread of the dharma.
Khri Srong lde btsan takes on an important role in that
spread of Buddhism, though it is largely limited to acting
as a royal patron. Dba’ Gsas snang convinces the emperor
to invite the Indian abbot Śāntarakṣita to Tibet. The ruler
is sceptical at first, (7v–8r), displaying the kind of worldly
wisdom that Khri Srong btsan showed in internal affairs
but this time with respect to religious matters. The abbot
proves himself through dramatically revealing supernatural knowledge of his past lives, akin to Khri Srong btsan’s
displaying his pre-knowledge of the Chinese emperor’s
replies to his questions before hearing them (2v–3r). Śāntarakṣita then transmits the dharma through abbatial
succession to Tibetan religious figures, Dba’ Gsas snang
32 See DBA’ 2000, 5v:1–2.
and then Dba’ Dpal dbyangs. This transmission obviously bypasses Khri Srong lde btsan, but he is also not
represented as either an active practitioner of Buddhism
or an advanced bodhisatva.33 Although the Dba’ bzhed
recounts that the emperor made aspirational prayers with
Śāntarakṣita during a former life, and later appears to
maintain some connection with the horse-headed deity
Hayagrīva (16r:6–7), he does not actively practise the doctrine during this life. He is a lay patron of Buddhism rather
than a devotee—in this regard he is less self-consciously
divine than his ancestor Khri Srong btsan, whom the Dba’
bzhed portrays as fully-cognisant of his identification
with Avalokiteśvara. The rest of the Dba’ bzhed cements
this teacher-disciple relationship; the lineage transmission from India bypasses the emperor and flows instead
to Dba’ Gsas snang. In fact, far from depicting the emperor
practising the dharma, the Dba’ bzhed indicates that Khri
Srong lde btsan is inferior in spiritual attainments not only
to Śāntarakṣita but also to Padmasambhava and Dba’ Gsas
snang under his ordination name Ye shes dbang po. Both
of the latter figures actually blame the emperor for the
decline of Buddhism, as we shall see below.
In the same year that Bsam yas monastery is consecrated (17v:3), Khri Srong lde btsan outlaws certain seemingly barbaric corporal punishments or, by implication,
all corporal punishments. He proclaims that “henceforth,
among the subjects under the rule [of the emperor] men
might not have their eyes put out, women might not have
their noses cut off.”34 The Dba’ bzhed thus depicts him as
repealing the corporal punishments that Khri Srong btsan
instigated earlier in the manuscript. As I have argued elsewhere, the references in both Dba’ bzhed episodes to severe
corporal punishments appear to reflect the earlier associ-
33 Note that, in contrast, Śāntarakṣita is given the epithet-title “Bodhisatva” both in the Dba’ bzhed and in other works from the Dunhuang corpus. He is named Mkhan po Bo de sva dva at the head of the
list of Spiritual Friends (dge ba’i bshes gnyen) of Bsam yas and ’Phrul
snang temples in IOL Tib J 689/2, and in the narrative Pelliot tibétain
149, where he performs the same role of spiritual preceptor to the emperor; see van Schaik and Doney, “The Prayer,” 191–92 and 205–206.
It should be noted that the same scribe who wrote out Pelliot tibétain
149 also copied the Prophecy of the Khotanese Arhat (mentioned at the
beginning of this chapter) from IOL Tib J 598 into IOL Tib J 597 (van
Schaik and Doney, “The Prayer,” 180–81). In depicting Khri Srong
lde btsan as more of a patron than a practitioner, this part of the Dba’
bzhed again mirrors the narrative in Pelliot tibétain 149 (see the comparison in Doney, “Narrative Transformations,” 314–17). Thus, there
is a striking continuity of themes between Pelliot tibétain 149’s ninth/
tenth-century lineage history’s depiction of Khri Srong lde btsan and
this Dba’ bzhed portrayal.
34 DBA’ 2000, 17v:4 reads: slan chad chags ’og gi ’bangs la pho mig mi
dbyung / mo sna mi gcad par gnang /.
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
ations of emperors with rewards and punishments.35 The
Dba’ bzhed manuscript, as it stands, highlights the differences between the characters of Khri Srong btsan and
Khri Srong lde btsan and how they embody contrasting
values of Tibetan bodhisatva-kingship.36 We should be
aware that the Testimony of Ba tradition in general does
not recount the narrative of the Khotanese monks in Tibet,
and so does not make this contrast possible; however, the
existence of RBA 2011.1 does show that the Dba’ bzhed is
not an isolated manuscript carrying this opening section.
The Dba’ bzhed’s citation of the source of the Khotanese monks episode as The Great Prophecy (4r:1–2) and
its ostensive quotation from an imperial edict (17v:4–6),
appears to conform to our modern western concept of
writing history. Yet, the lack of the above episode in Khotanese history and the divergence of the Dba’ bzhed’s
proclamation from known imperial proclamations, alert
us to the fact that something more literary is happening
here. It seems that the two episodes are linked by more
than a ‘use’ of primary sources. Their connection lies in
their comparable depictions of two bodhisatva-kings: Khri
Srong btsan is a self-aware emanation who displays divine
wisdom but also punishes; Khri Srong lde btsan is on the
bodhisatva path but more reliant on others, yet is a more
humane ruler of his subjects.
Religious Dynamics and the Decline
of the dharma
Surprisingly, the Dba’ bzhed places the beginning of the
dharma’s decline during the reign of Khri Srong lde btsan.
Śāntarakṣita even recommends a mantrin, Padmasambhava, to help halt the decline of the Buddha’s power in the
35 See Doney, “The Glorification,” 16–18.
36 In this way, the Dba’ bzhed again builds on themes seen in Dunhuang documents, for instance IOL Tib J 370/6 mentioned at the
beginning of this chapter (and covered in inter alia van Schaik and
Doney, “The Prayer,” 196–97). This source also deifies both emperors,
stating that they “had the bodies of men but their ways were those of
gods.” (IOL Tib J 370/6, line 12 reads: myi lus thob kyang lha’i lugs / /).
It also records an edict written on a pillar to record their commitments
to Buddhism (IOL Tib J 370/6, lines 6–7). IOL Tib J 370/6 does not describe the content of Khri Srong lde btsan’s inscription. Instead, it
mentions his proclamations as symbolic of his attempt to transmit
the dharma from India to Tibet. As we have just seen, the Dba’ bzhed
continues this trend. It describes one of Khri Srong lde btsan’s edicts
in a way that differs from the actual eighth-century inscription but
that stresses its ‘civilising’ effect of Indian Buddhism in Tibet, like
IOL Tib J 370/6.
93
world.37 He says that the Bhagavat’s power was unlimited
across India (’dzam bu gling), causing peace throughout
the region. Whether due to Tibet’s inferiority as a ‘borderland’ to India, or a decline in the Buddha’s doctrine after
his death, untamed forces hinder the spread of the dharma
in eighth-century Tibet. As with Śāntarakṣita’s revelations
of Khri Srong lde btsan’s previous life in Magadha, his
comparison here shows India’s superiority to untamed
Tibet, and the past to the eighth-century state of Buddhism, according to this part of the Dba’ bzhed.
Śāntarakṣita therefore recommends a master from
India, not from Tibet, to restore order. He holds that only
mantra(yāna practices) can bind the gods and nāga-s to
an oath that they will protect Buddhism. Śāntarakṣita
compares Padmasambhava to the Buddha. Though Padmasambhava’s powers are limited to the use of mantra, he
is as accomplished in this practice as any of his contemporaries (in this time of general decline). The Dba’ bzhed
thus recommends the Vajrayāna as a means of enabling
Buddhism to spread in Tibet. This contrasts with the more
conservative view of esoteric Buddhism displayed by
members of the dynastic line and their ancestors down
to the tenth century.38 Khri Srong lde btsan is ultimately
responsible for inviting Padmasambhava to Tibet, creating something like a ‘golden age.’ Unlike in the Dunhuang
text Pelliot tibétain 840/3 though, the Dba’ bzhed does not
describe the emperor as a tantrika.39
37 Dba’ bzhed 11v:2–7. On the early portrayal of Padmasambhava before the Dba’ bzhed, see Lewis Doney, The Zangs gling ma: The First
Padmasambhava biography: Two Exemplars of its Earliest Attested
Recension (Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies, 2014), 1–22; Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, “Representations of Padmasambhava in Early Post-Imperial Tibet,” in Tibet after
Empire: Culture, Society and Religion Between 850–1000, Proceedings
of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2011, ed. Christoph Cüppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2013), 19–50; Zentralasiatische Studien 45
(2016): 41–76. Citations refer to the journal edition.
38 Here, I am thinking of the lack of advanced esoteric Buddhist
works in the imperial library catalogues, on which see Adelheid
Herrmann-Pfandt, “The Lhan kar ma as a Source for the History of
Tantric Buddhism,” in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, ed. Helmut Eimer and David Germano
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 129–51, and the famous injunction (bka’ shog)
of King Lha bla ma Ye shes ’od, written against tenth-century tantric
practices; Samten G. Karmay, The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in
History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet. Volume 1 (Kathmandu:
Mandala Book Point, 1998), 3–16; Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship,” 44–46.
39 Pelliot tibétain 840/3, dating probably to the tenth century, identifies Khri Srong lde btsan as a tantrika (tantric practitioner) and likens
him to a legendary Indian tantric practitioner, Mahāyoga’s King Tsa.
94
Lewis Doney
Willis and Gonkatsang suggest in Chapter 2 that the
Padmasambhava section of the Dba’ bzhed may not be
original to the Testimony of Ba, though it was interpolated
early on in the compilation process.40 If so, it is perhaps no
coincidence that we find the first open criticism of Emperor
Khri Srong lde btsan in this portion of the narrative. Here
and at a later point that echoes this, the Dba’ bzhed claims
that the dharma will still begin to decline during the
emperor’s reign. This is because Khri Srong lde btsan asks
Padmasambhava to leave Tibet before he has fully bound
the spirits to protect Buddhism.41 Padmasambhava, as he
leaves Tibet (causing Khri Srong lde btsan great sorrow),
blames the emperor for causing division among Buddhists
in the future:
“If the devatā-s, nāga-s and demons in the region of Tibet were
bound under oath three times, then his majesty too would live
long, the political power of his descendants would also be great,
strife in the land of Tibet would also cease [and] the dharma of
the Buddha would be established for a long time. This being so,
bear in mind there is unfinished work! In the realm of Tibet,
as the final five hundred years of the dharma draws near, the
attacks of the unbelievers will not take place. [Rather,] {a time
will come when} the Buddhists will dispute among themselves
[and] a huge turmoil in the realm of Tibet will come to pass.”42
This “dispute” is the Bsam yas Debate, a division in the
saṃgha that the Dba’ bzhed views as a sign of the doctrine’s decline. Ye shes dbang po later quotes Śāntarakṣita
as saying:
It then contrasts the idyllic period in which Khri Srong lde btsan lived
with the later decline in standards of tantric practice. See Karmay,
The Arrow and the Spindle, 76–93; Doney, “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship,” 41–44.
40 See also Penghao Sun, “The Metamorphoses of the Testimony
of Ba: Notes on the Padmasambhava Episode of the Dba’/Sba/Rba
bzhed,” (M.A. thesis: Harvard University, 2015), 24–29, who notes
the almost complete absence of certain ministers, named frequently
elsewhere in the text, from the part of the Dba’ bzhed recounting Padmasambhava’s visit.
41 DBA’ 2000, 13r:6–13v:6. See also Chapter 4 in this volume. Note,
too, that Padmasambhava is not recorded as burying treasure texts
or objects (gter) during his sojourn in Tibet. This suggests that the
source of this narrative of Padmasambhava’s invitation predates or
lies outside of the so-called testament’ (bka’ thang) genre of literature.
42 DBA’ 2000, 14r:2–5 reads: bod khams su lha klu dang ’dre srin dam
’og tu lan gsum bcug na btsan po yang sku tshe ring / dbon sras kyang
chab srid che / bod khams su ’khrug pa yang med par ’gyur / sangs
rgyas kyi chos kyang yun ring du gnas pa zhig na ’phro lus thugs la
gcags / bod khams su chos lnga brgya tha ma la nye ba na byung ba mu
stegs kyi rgol ba ni mi ’byung / {naM zhig} sangs rgyas pa nyid rtsod pa
zhig tu ’gyur / bod khams su ’khrug pa chen po zhig kyang ’byung bar
’gyur zhes bka’ stsal nas / … .
“Tibet lacks good fortune, because, generally speaking, wherever the Buddhist teachings emerge, there will be attacks from
non-Buddhists. Since we are in the final five hundred years of
the teachings in Tibet, attacks from non-Buddhist will not arise.
Rather, Buddhists themselves will dispute due to conflicting
views. When that situation transpires, summon my disciple
Kamalaśīla, resident in Nepal, and let him to do the debating.”43
The beginning of the final five-hundred-year period is
here placed in the eighth century. The Dba’ bzhed therefore depicts the Bsam yas Debate as falling within the
degenerate age. In this way, Padmasambhava’s sojourn
in Tibet is not completely unrelated to the narrative of
the Dba’ bzhed, even if it was perhaps not original to it.
Another connection is a mention of Padmasambhava after
he has left Tibet, describing the continuing benefit of his
mantric rituals (14v:5). However, though Śāntarakṣita portrays Padmasambhava as equal to the Buddha in mantric
power, after he leaves the emperor raises Ye shes dbang po
to the highest Buddhist position in the land, because he is
“like the Buddha’s presence” (sangs rgyas kyi zhal dang
’dra ba; 17v:6–7).
Ye shes dbang po uses his service of increasing the
longevity of the emperor and Buddhism, then the prophecy of his predecessor Śāntarakṣita, to assert his own
religious superiority over his royal patron. In this episode
(19r:6–19v:3), Ye shes dbang po complains that his solitude, which was supposed to be of benefit to Khri Srong
lde btsan and the dharma, has been interrupted. Śāntarakṣita, the personification of Buddhism’s triumphal
arrival in Tibet, has also seen that the introduction of the
dharma will lead to not only redemption but also discord
between adherents of Buddhism.
In the Bsam yas Debate itself, it is noteworthy that
Heshang Moheyan’s side is subtly depicted as the threat,
for which Kamalaśīla is the solution. This does not reflect
an anti-Chinese sentiment, since China is portrayed positively elsewhere in the Dba’ bzhed, but rather an indication that the future of Tibetan Buddhism lies with gradualism and perhaps India—the land of the Buddha. The
above quote of Śāntarakṣita in the mouth of Ye shes dbang
po seemingly privileges the Indian side, represented by
Kamalaśīla, as the prophesied victors. Most importantly,
however, the reference to Kamalaśīla places his contemporary, Khri Srong lde btsan, in the age of decline. Śāntarakṣita foretells the Bsam yas Debate as part of a trying
43 DBA’ 2000, 19v:1–2 reads: bod yul du bstan pa lnga brgya tha ma la
nye ba na byung ste mchi bas mu stegs kyi rgol ba ni mi ’byung / sangs
rgyas pa nyid lta ba mi mthun pas rtsod par ’gyur gyis de lta bu byung
na nga’i slob ma ka ma la shi la bal yul na ’dug pa khug la shags ’debs
su chug la.
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
time for Tibet’s Buddhicisation, a solution to an internal feud with which Khri Srong lde btsan finds it hard
to deal. Thus, the emperor calls Ye shes dbang po, who
rebukes him for interrupting his meditation and makes it
clear that the emperor will die and Buddhism will decline
earlier because of it. Although Kamalaśīla’s side later
wins the Bsam yas Debate and the emperor declares that
his gradualist approach helps to halt the decline of the
dharma (24v:2–3)—this is, over all, a positive narrative of
the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet—his preceptor’s
rebuke marks the beginning of the emperor’s final aporia,
whereas Ye shes dbang po has fully assumed the mantle
of his predecessor as superior in spiritual status to the
mundane ruler.
In a coda to the main text, as the death of Khri Srong
lde btsan approaches, the Dba’ bzhed describes his final
sense of doubt. Ye shes dbang po dies first and the emperor
says: “reflecting on the fact that the ācārya passed away,
my own life cannot last long.”44 This remark mirrors
Ye shes dbang po’s last recorded words just preceding
the ruler’s, which describe the emperor’s food as divine
and fitting for his final earthly meal (25r:4). Further, and
despite this section being added on to the core narrative,
the ruler’s final thoughts appear to allude to the fact that
Ye shes dbang po is no longer helping to keep Khri Srong
lde btsan and himself alive through his meditation (19r:7).
Their deaths bind the two men together again, as they
were in life and in their previous lives.
Yet another way in which this coda rounds out themes
in the earlier narrative is that, at the very end, Khri Srong
lde btsan voices a deep uncertainty over his final decision
in the Bsam yas Debate: “‘[I] regret the fact that the doctrinal scriptures (dar ma) of China were not translated.’
This is the end [of the main text].”45 Behind the triumph
of the powerful emperor is a poignant expression of regret
and self-doubt. The Dba’ bzhed here portrays Khri Srong
lde btsan as a frail human figure. However, as a good Buddhist, he is most concerned for the future of the dharma,
rather than of the empire or his dynastic lineage.
The Tibetan emperor’s representation in the Dba’
bzhed constitutes a literary construct, rather than an
attempt to find the ‘historical emperor.’ Many of the Dba’
bzhed’s less flattering depictions of him are also contained in the Indian literary tradition of the ‘Death of the
Dharma,’ which is told as a prophecy in five-hundred-year
periods. Jan Nattier gives this precis of the prophecy:
44 DBA’ 2000, 25r:5–6 reads: btsan po’i zhal nas a tsarya tshe ’das pa
dang sbyar na kho bo’i tshe yang ring po mi thub ces gsung.
45 DBA’ 2000, 25r:7–25v:1 reads: rgya’i dar ma ma ’gyur ba yid la gcags
gsung ngo / / rdzogs so / /
95
[A king,] fearing the karmic consequences of his bloody military campaign, will turn to his Buddhist preceptor for advice.
Anxious to gain merit, the king will follow the advice, inviting
all the Buddhist monks in the known inhabited world to a great
religious feast… . But by bringing together monks from many
separate lineages, the king will inadvertently create conflict in
the Sangha. On the occasion of a great religious assembly, this
conflict escalates into open warfare, resulting in the death of
the last remaining arhat. The monks in turn all kill each other,
leaving not a single one of their number alive. And with that,
the history of the Buddhist religion on earth comes to an end,
leaving the good king to mourn the results of his well-intentioned actions.46
This tale strongly resembles the main elements of the final
folios of the Dba’ bzhed. It only diverges at two points,
both of which are easily explained. Khri Srong lde btsan
fights no bloody military campaign, perhaps since all later
post-imperial histories are loath to attribute such bloodshed to Khri Srong lde btsan’s reign.47 Ye shes dbang po
only metaphorically represents the last arhat, since the
Dba’ bzhed is not a narrative of total apocalypse set in the
future, but a history of the rising and falling fortunes of
Buddhism in Tibet. These two differences are outweighed
by numerous similarities between the two narratives.
These suggest that those Dba’ bzhed episodes that show
Khri Srong lde btsan following Śāntarakṣita’s advice or
his doubt about the outcome of the Bsam yas Debate may
be based on literary tradition rather than dimly remembered facts about his actual reign. The Dba’ bzhed’s creator
apparently saw enough similarities between Khri Srong lde
btsan and the king in the ‘Death of the Dharma’ narrative
to place the period of decline during the eighth century.48
46 Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley, Calif: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), 3.
47 See the beginning of this chapter on this tendency. Nattier, Once
Upon a Future Time, 130, notes that the military prelude “does not
seem to be decisive” for the decline of the dharma narrative. Thus,
the Dba’ bzhed can omit it without creating a contradiction in its narrative.
48 However, the ninth and tenth-century texts, above, placed the
decline in their age. Two possibilities present themselves, of which
I favour the latter. Either:
a) This narrative represents one of the earliest strata of the Dba’
bzhed, dating to the ninth century. In which case it places the
decline in its own age, just after Khri Srong lde btsan’s death.
b) This narrative represents an eleventh-century gloss on an older
history on Khri Srong lde btsan, which alters its depiction in line
with the increasingly influential ‘decline’ genre entering Tibet.
In this case it places the decline in the eighth rather than the
eleventh century in order to make the tale consistent with its
exemplar, which places the Bsam yas Debate and decline of the
dharma together.
96
Lewis Doney
The decline narrative was evidently popular in Tibet,
since it is included in several versions in the Tibetan
canon and at Dunhuang.49 One version is contained in
the Li yul lung bstan pa, a prophecy text with a similar
title to the Dba’ bzhed’s cited source on Khri Srong btsan
and the Khotanese arhats.50 The Dba’ bzhed’s decline
narrative necessitates depicting Khri Srong lde btsan as
responsible for causing a division in the saṃgha. Whether
the Dba’ bzhed bases this narrative on a specific text or on
a more diffuse Indic/Khotanese tradition remains to be
investigated. Yet, it seems to mark a watershed moment:
the first crack in the façade of Khri Srong lde btsan’s idealised image.
In each episode, the Dba’ bzhed invests key characters with roles related to the main concerns of the Buddhist communities flourishing contemporaneously with
its various stages of production between the ninth and
twelfth century. It incorporates both historical details and
supra-mundane metaphysics in its account, as does the
earlier historiography evidenced in the Dunhuang Tibetan
corpus (such as IOL Tib J 370/6 and IOL Tib J 466/3). Also,
it promotes the practice of Tantra in Tibet while simultaneously warning of Buddhism’s inevitable decline
(like Pelliot tibétain 840/3) and describes Khri Srong lde
btsan as an important patron but not as an apotheosised
religious figure (in a way that resembles Pelliot tibétain
149). The Dba’ bzhed neither overrides these concerns nor
wholly harmonises their depictions of Khri Srong lde btsan
into its narrative, leading to an episodic blend of literary
genres where the emperor is first prophesied as destined
to spread the dharma, but then blamed for accelerating
its decline.
This patchwork narrative gives Khri Srong lde btsan
a multifaceted and complex character. In the Dba’ bzhed,
the emperor initially takes most responsibility for spreading Buddhism in Tibet. He outlaws corporal punishment,
suggesting that he is a humane ruler who acts according
to Buddhist principles of non-violence. Yet the text also
focuses on Śāntarakṣita and Ye shes dbang po, reflecting
the true succession of Tibet’s spiritual preceptors or a wish
to maintain an authentic Indian Buddhist lineage. The
resulting narrative partially eclipses the emperor and robs
him of his previous infallibilty in the later part of the nar-
49 See Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, 228–38 on the Tibetan
versions of the Candragarbhasūtra, and Nattier, Once Upon a Future
Time, 239–77 for her transliteration and translation.
50 On variations of this theme in Tibetan translations of Khotanese
texts, again found in Dunhuang and in the Tibetan Canon, see Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, 188–204; van Schaik, “Red-faced Barbarians,” 53–57.
rative of his reign. Finally, in a coda to the main narrative,
Khri Srong lde btsan is filled with doubt over his unfinished work and the decisions he has made with respect to
Tibetan Buddhism.
The Testimony of Ba Tradition
Over the following centuries, this important narrative of
Khri Srong lde btsan’s establishment of Buddhism in Tibet
grew through interpolation and redaction. Comparing the
Dba’ bzhed with three previously-known versions—SBA
1961.1–2, SBA 1982.1–3 and SBA 1962—sheds light on the
recension process. Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger began this work, outlining the Dba’ bzhed’s relationship to later versions of the same narrative in copious
notes to their translation of the text.51
Tibetan historical editors of the Testimony of Ba
interpolated large sections into the patchwork, and even
rewrote some important passages to reflect an increasingly Buddhist historiography. Despite these alterations,
the core story remained the same. This depiction of Khri
Srong lde btsan influenced many portrayals of the emperor
in later histories as a human patron of Buddhism rather
than an apotheosised practitioner. However, this changing tradition slightly alters the Dba’ bzhed’s description
of Khri Srong lde btsan. For example, it presents him as
a more faithful Buddhist by ascribing the doubts that he
has about Śāntarakṣita to his ministers (see Chapter 2,
above). This ‘pious alteration’ suggests the influence of
growing Tibetan religiosity on historiography. It further
emphasises that the emperor’s conversion and the transmission of the dharma from India to Tibet was predestined
from a previous lifetime.52 Finally, the later Testimony of
Ba tradition reduces Khri Srong lde btsan’s responsibility
for dismissing the increasingly popular Padmasambhava,
whom I shall focus on here. It seems that the redactors
reworked those parts of the Dba’ bzhed that depict the
51 Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed: The
Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to
Tibet (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 23–105.
52 See Doney, “Narrative Transformations,” 315–17 for a discussion
of the way that Śāntarakṣita’s revelation of his previous life with Sba
Gsal snang and Khri Srong lde btsan are combined in the later Testimony of Ba tradition, strengthening the karmic bond of these three
important figures. This depiction stands in contrast to accounts in
the biographies of Padmasambhava, which replace Sba Gsal snang
in this triad with Padmasambhava himself (Doney, “Narrative Transformations,” 317–18).
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
97
emperor as a shrewd, secular ruler, in order to create an
equally positive image of Khri Srong lde btsan as a religious king.
In one of the most conspicuous examples of the later
alteration of the core Dba’ bzhed narrative, Khri Srong lde
btsan’s ministers, rather than the emperor himself, are
made responsible for Padmasambhava’s dismissal from
Tibet.53 SBA 1982.1–3 reads:
SBA 1962 follows this version closely;55 so does SBA 1961.1–
2, except that its ending is rather different. SBA 1961.1–2,
25.14–16 reads:
The ministers said; “If [Tibet] is connected with the power of
the one skilled in mantra, [Padmasambhava, although he] is
acting for the good [of] Tibet, India is going to seize the [Tibetan]
realm.” Having discussed in a small committee, [his work] was
left unfinished. Since Master [Padmasambhava] said “now I
shall make a field,” [the ministers] said “Yar klungs [valley] is
enough for a field.” Then, having prostrated (phyag byas) and
offered great gifts [they] asked him to return back to India. So
King [Khri Srong lde btsan] was upset, and offered the master a
full bre-measure of gold [and] made circumambulations. Since
[the ministers] requested as before, the master said “without
desiring gold (i. e. payment), I subjugated the harmful demons
in the borderland, Tibet, and enabled the emperor to practise
the dharma. [I] acted for the good [of] Tibet, and happiness
and jollity then arose [among your] subjects. But, if I desired
gold, it would be sufficient to act in this manner.” Then the
one skilled [in mantra] grabbed stones, wood, straw and sand
with his hand [and] that amount became the same amount of
gold dust. In order to please the emperor, [Padmasambhava]
took a handful of the gold dust [Khri Srong lde btsan had
offered, then] offered it back to the emperor with his other
hand.54
I believe that the latter difference is not the result of a
line-skip or a misreading of the text, i. e. a transmitted
error. Rather, it may constitute an extended hypercorrection, necessitated by an earlier transmitted error, or it
may equally be another sign that SBA 1961.1–2 represents
a different recension to SBA 1982.1–3 or SBA 1962. These
alterations do not change the overall narrative, however,
wherein Padmasambhava is dismissed after an argument
with Khri Srong lde btsan’s ministers rather than with the
king himself.
This shift of blame in the later Testimony of Ba tradition notwithstanding, it agrees with the Dba’ bzhed in
recounting that Padmasambhava leaves Tibet less than
halfway through the narrative of Buddhism’s establishment there. The later Testimony of Ba’s redactors do not
omit his dismissal entirely, or even have him then return to
Comparing this to the Dba’ bzhed version (13r:6–13v:5), it
is obvious that SBA 1982.1–3 has the ministers become suspicious of Padmasambhava’s dangerous character; it even
omits the ruler’s request for the master to return home.
53 Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 58, n. 177 already briefly
noted this discrepancy.
54 SBA 1982.1–3, 31.15–32.5 (with what remains of the main text of
the DBA’ 2000, 13r:6–13v:5 in bold) reads: blon po dag na re / bod
yul bzang por byas pa’i sngags mkhan gyi mthu dang sbyar na rgyal
srid rgya gar gyis phrogs te ’gro / zhes mdun sa chung ngur gros byas
nas ’phro dgum par chad / slob dpon gyi zhal nas / da zhing bya’o
gsungs pas / zhing yar klungs gis chog / zer nas sngags mkhan la phyag
byas te bya dga’ chen po phul nas slar rgya gar du bzhud par zhu ba
phul bas / rgyal po ma dgyes nas / slob dpon la gser phye bre gang
phul / bskor ba byas / sngar ltar zhus pas slob dpon gyi zhal nas / nga
gser ’dod pa ma yin te / bod mtha’ ’khob du ’dre srin gdug pa can btul la
btsan po chos byar btub par bya / bod yul bzang por byas la / ’bangs
bde ba la dgod pa’i phyir ’ongs na / gser ’dod na ’di tsug byas pas chog
gsungs nas / mkhan pos rdo dang / shing dang / rtswa dang / bye ma la
sogs pa phyag gis bzung tshad reg tshad gser phyer red do / btsan po’i
thugs bsrung pa’i ched du gser phye khyor gang zhig bsnams / lhag
ma gzhan slar btsan po rang la phul nas / … .
That amount of straw (tsa = rtswa), earth and stones, etc. turned
into gold. However, in order that the emperor should save face,
[Padmasambhava] took a handful in his hand and offered it
back to the btsan [po] by hand.56
55 SBA 1962, 88r:2–5 reads: blon po dag na re bod yul bzang por byas
pa’i sngags mkhan gyi mthu dang sbyar na chab srid rgya gar gyis
phrogs te ’gro zhes ’dun sa chung ngur gros byas nas ’phro ’gum par
chad ste / slob dpon gyis de zhing bya’o gsungs pas zhing yar lungs kyis
chog zer te sngags mkhan la phyag byas te bya dga’ chen po phul nas
slar rgya gar du bzhud par zhu ba phul bas rgyal po ma dgyes nas slob
dpon la gser phye bre gang phul phyag dang bskor ba byas te sngar
ltar zhus pas slob dpon gyi zhal nas nga gser ’dod pa ma yin te bod
tha khob tu ’dre srin gdug pa can btul la btsan po chos byar btub par
bya / bod yul bzang por byas la ’bangs bde ba la dgod pa’i phyir ’ongs
kyi gser ’dod na ’di tsug byas pas chog gsungs nas mkhan pos rdo dang
shing dang rtsa dang bye ma sogs phyag gis bzung tshad reg tshad gser
phyer red ste btsan po’i thugs bsrung ba’i ched du gser phye khyor gang
bsnams lhag ma btsan po rang la phul te … .
56 The whole passage, SBA 1961.1–2, 25.8–16, reads: blon dag na
re / bod yul bzang por byas nas / sngags mkhan gyi mthu dang sbyar
na rgyal srid rgya gar gyi pho brang te ’gro zhes mdun ba chu ngur gros
byas nas ’phro dgum par chad / slob dpon gyis zhal nas da zhing bya’o
gsungs pas / zhing yar lungs kyi chog zer nas sngags mkhan la bya
dga’ cher phul nas / slar rgya yul du bzhud par zhu ba phul bas / btsan
po de la thugs ma dgyes nas slob dpon la bskor ba byas nas gser bre
gang phul bas / slob dpon gyi zhal nas gser ’dod pa ma yin te / bod
thang khob tu ’dre srin gdug pa bstul la btsan po chos byar btub bar
bya / bod yul bzang po byas la / ’bangs bde ba la ’god pa’i phyin ngas
’ongs na / gser ’dod na ’dug byas pas chog gsungs nas / tsa dang sa
rdo la (= la sogs pa) reg tsad gser du song / ’on kyang btsan po’i ngo
bsrung ba’i phyir khyor gang tsam phyag tu bzhes te / lhag ma phyir
btsan la phul /.
98
Lewis Doney
Tibet.57 As in the Dba’ bzhed, Śāntarakṣita takes over religious authority in Tibet, especially the building of Bsam
yas, which the later Testimony of Ba describes in much
greater detail than the Dba’ bzhed. In fact, it is not so much
Padmasambhava’s image that benefits most from the later
Testimony of Ba’s alteration, but rather Khri Srong lde
btsan’s character.
While the later Testimony of Ba blames the ministers,
and thus removes the stigma of being dismissed by the
emperor, Padmasambhava still leaves Tibet; whereas
Khri Srong lde btsan is almost completely purified of
the stain of dismissing such a great master. By altering
the Dba’ bzhed’s text here, as in the above two episodes,
the redactors of the later Testimony of Ba apparently
seek to improve the image of Khri Srong lde btsan in line
with the prevailing religious sensibilities of their time.
Whereas the Dba’ bzhed showed the emperor’s specifically royal power by having him ask Padmasambhava
to leave Tibet (despite its consequences for the dharma),
the later Testimony of Ba saves Khri Srong lde btsan’s
religious credentials by placing the blame on his ministers. Both accounts show the ruler in a positive light, but
their archetypal source for positive characterisation had
shifted from the emperor to the Buddha over the centuries.58 The growing religiosity of histories necessitated a
change in the content of these key episodes and the portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan. In the later Testimony of
Ba, Khri Srong lde btsan is already beginning to embody
dharmic values rather than the qualities of an emperor
that are evident in the Old Tibetan Annals and Chronicle
and imperial-period inscriptions.59
Conclusion
Every age reinvents its ‘national’ story to suit the tastes
of its contemporary audience. This involves processes of
accretion or alteration, perhaps stemming from oral retellings and ad hoc adaptations to the penchants of particular patrons. Each reiteration has value as an expression
of a particular cultural milieu. In the Tibetan context and
57 Wangdu and Diemberger, dBa’ bzhed, 67, n. 221 claim that in the
later Testimony of Ba, after Padmasambhava leaves Tibet, the contents of a stūpa are brought from India according to his instructions.
However, the nameless slob dpon (‘religious master’) consulted according to the earliest extant version (SBA 1982.1–3, 50.14–19) is most
likely Śāntarakṣita (who has just been called a slob dpon, SBA 1982.1–
3, 49.15), rather than Padmasambhava.
58 See further discussion in Doney, “The Degraded Emperor,” 30 f.
59 On these sources, see Chapter 1.
the tradition of the Testimony of Ba, I have resisted the
long-standing practice of discarding more recent strata in
a pursuit of an Ur text and a ‘real’ or ‘historical’ Khri Srong
lde btsan. The redactors of the Testimony of Ba interwove
their interpolations into a pre-existing and seminal narrative fabric rather than creating completely new histories
of the imperial period. Furthermore, the imperial-era metaphors that the redactors incorporated into the Testimony
of Ba resisted complete Buddhicisation. The earliest strata
in the Dba’ bzhed, such as the invitation of Śāntarakṣita,
appear to express ninth/tenth-century concerns and, concomitantly, greater pride in the power of the emperor. The
later Testimony of Ba’s redactors depict Khri Srong lde
btsan from a more religious perspective, removing his
ambiguous proclamations and adding their own lengthy
digressions concerning other characters. Perhaps the
redactors were too conservative to invent many new scenes
for him or, more likely, there were more highly valued,
religious aspects of his reign—such as his construction
of Bsam yas—already in existence that cried out for inclusion. These episodes suggest the growing veneration for
Bsam yas or the burgeoning cult of Padmasambhava. Yet,
Khri Srong lde btsan seems not to have flourished as a
focus of religious attention between the Dba’ bzhed and
its redaction in the later Testimony of Ba. In some respects,
we might conclude that the core story of Khri Srong lde
btsan ossified with reiteration.60
Tibetan histories’ depictions of his ancestor, Khri
Srong btsan, remain positive throughout the premodern
period. The biographies of the seventh-century emperor
transform him into a monumental religious figure. In
contrast, from the eleventh century, Khri Srong lde btsan
becomes fallible. In Buddhist cosmology, Padmasambhava and Srong btsan sgam po are more similar to each
other than to Khri Srong lde btsan is to either. Both of the
former are traditionally considered to be the nirmāṇakāya
60 In contrast, Khri Srong lde btsan is reimagined in the works of
Nyang ral Nyi ma od zer (1124–1192) and those he inspired; see Daniel
A. Hirshberg, Remembering the Lotus-Born: Padmasambhava in the
History of Tibet’s Golden Age (Somerville, MA: Wisdom). For example,
the Zangs gling ma biography attributed to him depicts Khri Srong
lde btsan as an emanation of Mañjuśrī (Doney, The Zangs gling ma,
120–22, 19v:3–20v:2; 241–42, 17r:1–18r:2). Interestingly, there Mañjuśrī
emanates as Khri Srong lde btsan in order to spread Buddhism in
conscious emulation of Avalokiteśvara-Khri Srong btsan. It may be
that the narrative, not only the protagonist’s narrated motivation, is
inspired by the example of the earlier bodhisatva-king. Also, despite
being an emanation of a celestial bodhisatva, Khri Srong lde btsan is
still a fallible figure in this incarnation (Doney, “The Degraded Emperor,” 45–46).
Chapter 6 History, Identity and Religious Dynamics in the Portrayal of Khri Srong lde btsan
emanations of Amitābha/Avalokiteśvara.61 This incarnational status allows the royal figure, Srong btsan sgam
po, to become a religious figure, the embodiment of
Avalokiteśvara, and so continue to be idealised in histories that postdate the Dba’ bzhed. In mainstream Tibetan
historiography, Khri Srong lde btsan is never a self-aware
bodhisatva, whereas Padmasambhava is fully enlightened
and thus takes over the main role as the ruler’s master and
wrathful converter of non-Buddhist forces in Tibet. This
trend appears to have begun with the main narrative of the
Dba’ bzhed, which is presented in Part Two of this volume.
61 See Per K. Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror
Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, An Annotated Translation of the
XIVth Century Tibetan Chronicle Rgyal-rabs Gsal-ba’i Me-long (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 7–8.
99
Part Two
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Text and Translation
Folio 1r
ཕྱི
ར
༡༧༥
༄། དབའ་བཞེེད་བཞུགས་སོ༎
Folio 1v
༡
༢
༄༅།།
།།སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་ཇི་ལྟིར་བྱུང་བའི་བཀའ་མཆོིད་ཀྱི་ཡིི་གེ། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་དང་པོ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་བཙན་པོ་ལྷ་ཐོ་དོ་རེ་སྙིན་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་དབུ་བརྙེེས།
བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པའི་སྲོོལ་བཏོད། བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་དར་ཞེིང་རྒྱས་པར་མཛད། བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་གཙུག་ལྡེེ་བཙན་[1]གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་[2]ཤིན་དུ་
གཏན་
༣ ལ་ཕབ་པ་ལགས་པ་ལས། ལྷ་ཐོ་དོ་རེ་སྙིན་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་དབུ་བརྙེེས་པ་དེ་ལ༴ [3] གཉན་པོ་གསང་བ་ཞེེས་མིང་བཏགས་ཏེ་གཡུ་མངོན་དང་[4]གསེར་སྐེམས་ཀྱིས་མཆོོད། [5] བཙན་པོ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་
དུས་དུས་སུཾ་
༤ ཞེལ་ཕྱེ་ཞེིང་གཟིགས། [6] ཞེལ་ཆོེམས་སུཾའང་ངའི་དབོན་སྲོས་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ཆོེ་ན་ཡིང་འདི་ཞེལ་ཕྱེ། ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ཆུང་ནའང་འདེ་ཞེལ་ཕྱེ་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་བསྩལ་ཏོ།། དབོན་སྲོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་
༥ ཆོེ་རབ་ཏུ་གྱུར་ཏེ། གཉན་པོ་གསང་བ་ཞེལ་ཕྱེ་བ་ལས་ཟ་མ་ཏོག་གི་སྙིིང་པོ་[7]རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡིི་གེ་གསེར་གྱིས་[8] བྲིས་པ་ཅིག་དང་མུ་ཏྲའི་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་[9]ཅིག་བྱུང་ངོ།།
།།དེ་ནས་བཙན་
༦ པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་བལ་རྗེེའི་བུ་མོ་[10]ཁབ་ཏུ་བཞེེས་ནས་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་གླིིང་བརྩེིགས། གཞེན་ཡིང་རུ་བཞེིའི་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་[11]བཞེེངས་སུཾ་གསོལ། བྲག་ལྷ་བགྱིས། རྒྱ་
གར་
༧ གྱི་ཆོོས་དང་ཡིི་གེའི་དཔེ་ལེན་པར་ཐོན་མི་གསམ་པོ་ར་ལ་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ་བཏང་ནས། ཡིིག་མཁན་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ལི་བྱིིན་ཞེེས་བགྱི་བ་ཞེིག་ཀྱང་ཁྲིིད་དེ་མཆོིས། ཆོོས་དཀོན་མཆོོག་སྤྲིིན་དང་[12]དགེ་བ་
བཅུ་
1 Insertion below: རལ་པ་ཅན་
2 Insertion below: སྐད་གསར་ཅད་ཀྱིས་
3 Insertion top of page keyed to a symbol: རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡིི་གེ་དྲུག་པ་ (further below མ་ཎི་པད་མེ་) གསེར་ལས་བྲིས་པ་ སྒྲོཾ་བུར་ (further above བཅུག་) ནས་ནམ་མཁའ་ལས་མངའ་བདག་
གི་ – – – – – [five ‘hyphens’] དྲུང་དུ་བབས་པ་ཆོོས་དང་ བོན་དུ་ངོ་མ་ཤེས་ ཏེ་དེ་ལ་
4 Insertion below: སོ་ཟེར་ཏེ་ནས་ཡིིན་ i. e. “Means blue turquoise, referring to barley.”
5 Insertion bottom page (middle), keyed to a symbol: ཡུན་བུ་གླི་སྒཾང་གཉན་གྱི་མཛོད་དུ་སྦས་ཏེ་
6 Insertion bottom page (left) keyed to a symbol: དེ་ལ་མཆོོད་པ་བྱིས་པས་རྒྱལ་པོ་དགུང་ལོ་བརྒྱད་བཅུ་པ་སྐུ་འགྲོེ་སེ་བ་ཅིག་དགུང་ལོ་བཅུ་དྲུག་པ་ལྟི་བུར་གྱུར་ཏེ་
7 Insertion above: ཡིི་གེ་དྲུག་པ་
8 Part of line smudged and letters erased with a blank left.
9 Insertion above: གཙུག་ཏོར་དྲིི་མེད་
10 Insertion below: ཁྲིི་བཙུན་
11 Insertion below: ༤བཅུ་རྩེ་གཉིས་
12 Insertion below: པད་མ་དཀར་པོ༴རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་ཏོག༴གཟུགས་གྲྭ་ལྔ་དང་།
Open Access. © 2020 Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis, published by De Gruyter.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-007
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Text and Translation
103
(folio 1r)
Dba’ bzhed bzhugs so/
(folio 1v)
(This is) the text of the authoritative exposition describing how the dharma of the Buddha came to the region of Tibet,
according to which, during the reign of his majesty Lha tho do re snyan btsan, noble dharma (texts) were first found
and, during the reign of his majesty Khri Srong btsan, a tradition was instituted for practising the holy dharma and,
during the reign of his majesty Khri Srong lde btsan, it was propagated widely (and), during the reign of his majesty
Khri Gtsug lde btsan, it was codified completely.
That which was found during the reign of Lha tho do re snyan btsan was named the ‘Absolute Secret’ and propitiated with roasted barley and libations. Also, from time to time the emperor would respectfully open and look upon it.
Moreover, in his last will he declared: “Open this even if my heirs are great in political power and open this even if they
are not very great in political power.” The heirs becoming very great in political power, the ‘Absolute Secret’ was then
opened and a copy of the Basket of Essence (Za ma tog gi snying po) was found written in Indian letters of gold, together
with the Mu tra’i phyag rgya. Then during the reign of his majesty Khri Srong btsan, after the princess of the lord of
Nepal was taken in marriage, the sanctuary of Ra sa pehar was built. Furthermore, the temples of the four administrative divisions were constructed at the king’s behest. (And) the Brag devatā was made. For the dharma of India and the
writing system, (the king) gave an order and dispatched ’Thon mi Gsam po ra. He returned, bringing with him Kaṃśadatta, an Indian man of letters, having located the Ratnameghasūtra
104
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 2r
༄༅༎
༎བཙལ་ནས་མཆོི་ཏེ། ཆོོས་ནི་[13]ཕྱིང་པའི་ཕྱག་མཛོད་དུ་ཕྱག་རྒྱས་སྩལ་ཏེ་བཞེག་ནས། ངའི་གདུང་རྒྱུད་ལས་དབོན་སྲོས་ཀྱི་མི་རབས་ལྔ་ན་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་རྒྱས་པར་བྱིེད་པ་ཅིག་
འབྱུང་
༢ གིས༴ དེའི་ཚེ་སྒྲོམ་བུ་འདི་ཁ་ཕྱེ་ཅིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཡིི་གེ་ནི་ཞེ་14འབྲིང་ནང་པ་བཞེི་ལ་བསླེབས། དེའི་[15]རྒྱལ་པོ་ཕོ་བྲང་ན་བཞུགས་ཏེ་དགུང་ལོ་བཞེིའི་བར་དུ་ཆོབ་སྒཾོར་ཡིང་མ་གཤེགས་[16]
པ་དང་། འབངས་ཀུན་
༣ གྱི་མཆོིད་ནས་བཙན་པོ་ནི་ཕོ་བྲང་སྒཾོར་ཡིང་མི་གཤེགས་ཏེ་ཅིའི་ཆོ་ཡིང་མེད་པ་ཞེིག། བློན་པོ་ནི་འཛངས་པ་ཞེིག་གོ་ཞེེས་འབངས་བྱིིན་གྱིས་གཡིར་ནས་གླིེངས་ཞེེས་བཙན་པོའི་སྙིན་དུ་གདས་ནས། ཞེ་
འབྲིང་
༤ ནང་པ་ཡིི་གེ་བསླེབས་[17]བཞེི་དང་མོལ་ཏེ། བཙན་པོས་དགོངས་ནས་ཟླ་བ་བཞེིའི་བར་དུ་[18]བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་དགེ་བ་བཅུ་ལས་གཞེི་བླངས་པ་ཞེིག་མཛད་དེ་ཡིི་གེ་བྲིས་སོ༎ དེ་ནས་ནང་ཅིག་འབངས་
ཀུན་བསོགས་ཏེ་བཀའ་
༥ སྩལ་པ། ངས་ཕོ་བྲང་འཕོ་སྐས་མ་བྱིས་པར་མལ་༡་ན་འདུག་སྟོེ་བྱི་བ་བསྐྱུངས་ཏེ་འབངས་རྣམས་དལ་ཞེིང་སྐིད་པར་འདུག་པ་ལས། ཁྱིེད་ན་རེ་བཙན་པོ་ནི་ཕོ་བྲང་སྒཾོར་ཡིང་མི་གཤེགས་ཅིའི་ཆོ་ཡིང་
མེད་པ་ཞེིག༴
༦ བློན་པོ་ནི་འཛངས་པ་ཞེིག་ཟེར་བ་བློན་པོ་འཛངས་པ་ངས་བསྐོས་སམ་ཁྱིེད་ཀྱིས་བསྐོས་པ་ཡིིན། དེ་ལྟིར་འབངས་ཁྱིེད་མི་དགའ་ན༴ ངས་ཟླ་བ་བཞེིར་བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་བཅས་པ་ཞེིག་ཡིོད་ཀྱིས་དེ་བཞེིན་
དུ་གྱིས་ཤིག། དེ་
༧ ལྟིར་མ་བྱིས་ན་ད་ལྟིར་རྒྱལ་ཕྲན་བཅུ་༢་སྲོིད་ཁྱིམས་པ་ཡིང་བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་མེད་པ་ལས་གྱུར་པས། ཕྱི་རྗེེས་སུཾ་ཉེས་པ་མང་བར་འགྱུར་ཞེིང་། ངའི་དབོན་སྲོས་རྗེེ་འབངས་ཁྲིིམས་སྲོིད་ཀྱང་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་
བས་བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་
༡
Folio 2v
༡
༢
༣
བརྩེན་པར་གྱིས་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ། བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་དང་བཀའ་ནན་གྱིས་རྩེིས་མགོ་དང་ཆོོས་ལུགས་བཟང་པོ་རིལ་མ་ནོར་བར་ས་དྲིོ་ཐོག་ཐག་འབངས་འཚོགས་པ་ལ་བཀའ་ཞེལ་གྱིས་སྩལ་ཏོ།།
དེ་ནས་འབངས་ཡིོངས་ཀྱིས་གཏང་རག་བཏང་སྟོེ། བཙན་པོ་ཁྱིོད་ལས་བསྒཾམ་པ་མི་བཞུགས་པས་མཚན་ཡིང་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་བསྒཾཾ་པོ་ཞེེས་བགྱིའོ་ཞེེས་འབངས་ཀྱིས་མཚན་གསོལ་ཏོ༎ ཞེང་བློན་གྱིས་
བུ་ཚ་ལསོགས་པ་ཀུན་འཐོན་མི་གསམ་པོ་ར་དང་། རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ལི་བྱིིན་ལ་ཡིི་གེ་སླེོབ་ཏུ་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཡིི་གེ་ནི་དེ་ཚུན་ཆོད་བོད་ལ་གདའ་བ་ལགས། སླེད་ཀྱི[19]་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་[20]སྲོས་མོ་[21]ཁབ་ཏུ་བཞེེས་པའི་
མཇལ་
༤ དུམ་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉར་འགར་སྟོོང་བཙན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་ནི་དེའ་ི ཁད་དཔོན། སྙིི་བ་སྙི་དོ་རེ་སྣང་བཙན་གྱི་སྤྱན་དབང་། འབྲོ་ལྡེེ་རུ་གུང་སྟོོན་ནི་འོག་དཔོན་དུ་བསྐོས་པ་ལ་བཀའ་འཕྲིན་གྱི་སྒྲོམ་བུ་གསུཾཾ་བསྐུར་ཏེ་
ཕོ་ཉ་
༥ དཔོན་གཡིོག་སུཾམ་བརྒྱ་བཏང་བ་ལས། ཀེང་ཤིར་ཕྱིན་ ནས་རྒྱ་རྗེེ་ལ་བཀའ་སྒྲོམ་ཅིག་ཕུལ་བ་དང་། རྒྱ་རྗེེས་ལན་བྲིས་ཏེ་འདི་ཡིར་ཁྱིེར་ལ་འདིའི་ལན་ཅི་ཟེར་བ་དང་སྦྱོོར་གསུཾང་བ་དང་། ཕོ་ཉས་
གསོལ་པ།
༦ འདི་ཡིར་བསྐུར་མི་འཚལ་ཏེ་དེའི་ལན་འདི་ལགས་སོ་ཞེེས་དེའི་ལན་༢་པ་ཕུལ་བ་དང་། ཡིང་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་ཞེལ་ནས་དེའི་ལན་འདི་ ཡིིན་པས་འདི་ཡིར་འགས་ཁྱིེར་ལ་ལན་མ་འོངས་ཀྱི་བར་དུ་ཕོ་ཉ་ཁྱིེད་
རྣཾས་འདིར་སྡིོད་
༧ ཅིག་གསུཾང་བ་ལ༴ ཕོ་ཉས་གསོལ་བ། འདི་ཡིར་བཀྱེར་མི་འཚལ་ཏེ་དེའི་ལན་འདི་ལགས་ཤེས་གསོལ་ནས་སྒྲོམ་བུ་གསུཾམ་པ་ཕུལ་བ་ལས། དེ་ཀླགས་ནས་རྒྱ་རྗེེ་ཡི་མཚན་ཆོེར་སྐེས་ནས་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་ཞེལ་ནས།
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Insertion above: སྒྱུར་བྱིེད་ཀྱི་ལོ་ཙ་མེད་ནས་
Insertion at top of the folio (middle), keyed to a symbol: ལི་བྱིིན་དང་གསམ་པོ་རས་རྒྱ་ཡིིག་བོད་ཡིིག་ཏུ་བསྒྱུར་
Insertion below in dbu can: ཚེ་
Insertion below: མཚམས་མཛད་
Insertion below in dbu can: པ་
Insertion bottom of page: སྲོོག་གཅོད་སྤོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་སྟོོང་གསོས༴ རྐུ་འཕྲོག་སྤོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རྐུ་འཇལ༴ ལོག་གཡིེཾ་སྤོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་སྣ་མིགཾ་ཆོལ༴ བརྫུན་སྤོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་མནའ་ ཀར་སོགས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས་
Insertion above: དིང་ང་དིང་བཙུན་
Insertion below: ཨོང་ཅོ་
Text and Translation
105
(folio 2r)
and Daśakuśalāni (Ten Virtues). The dharma-texts were sealed by order and deposited in the royal treasury of (the fortress of) Phying pa. And (the king) proclaimed: “After five generations of my heirs in the (royal) lineage, there will come
someone who shall promote the dharma of the Buddha and, at that time, open the box!” As to the writing system, four
trusted attendants were taught. At that time, the king resided inside the palace for a period of four full years, not deigning to go even to the main gate. Consequently, all the subjects speculated: “His majesty doesn’t even come to the palace
gate and nobody knows anything, but the minister is the wise and capable one!” Such rumours, circulated openly by the
ordinary subjects, were brought to his majesty’s attention. Having conferred with the four trusted attendants who were
being taught writing, his majesty, after cogitating for four months, devised a legal decree, the basic ideas of which were
drawn from the Ten Virtues, (and) he had it put in writing. Then, one morning, all the subjects were assembled and (the
king) pointedly declared: “While I remained in a single bed chamber without moving palaces, leaving aside the affairs
of state, you subjects were able to relax and be happy; yet you allege: ‘His majesty doesn’t even come to the palace gate
and nobody knows anything, but the minister is the wise and capable one.’ Now, the minister that you describe as wise
and capable—did I appoint him or did you appoint him? If you subjects are discontent with this situation, then here is a
decree which I have prepared over four months—follow it exactly! If you do not follow it, then just as the political system
of the twelve principalities had disintegrated from lack of law, many troubles will follow. Moreover, my (royal) lineage,
the ruler and (his) subjects and the rule of law would also disintegrate,
(folio 2v)
so follow the edict exactly!” Declaiming thus throughout the morning before his assembled subjects, the king in person
unerringly explained the written edict, the administrative aspects of his commands that were to be followed assiduously
and the noble system of dharma. Thereafter, all the subjects gave thanks and offered him a title saying: “Your majesty!
Since there is none more profound (sgam pa) than you, we shall also call you Khri Srong btsan the profound (sgam
po).” The children of the ministers and others were all ordered to learn writing from ’Thon mi Gsam po ra and Kaṃśadatta from India—and since then writing came into existence in Tibet.
Subsequently, ’Gar Stong btsan yul zungs was appointed as the khad dpon (‘chief envoy’) to mediate and seek
the daughter of the emperor of China in marriage. Snyi snyi ba snya do re snang btsan was appointed the spyan
dbang (‘chief observer’) (and) ’Bro Lde ru gung ton as the ’go dpon (‘head of the mission’). And entrusting them with
three boxes containing royal letters, the mission was dispatched with an entourage numbering three hundred. Having
reached (the court) at Keng shi, they presented one dispatch box to the emperor. The emperor, writing a reply, said:
“Take this up (to Tibet) and I shall respond in accord with whatever the answer to this is.” The envoys submitted: “It is
not necessary to send this up (to Tibet), this is the reply to that,” and offered the second message. When the emperor
again spoke, he declared: “This is (my) response to that (second message). Send it and until a reply comes you envoys
stay put here!” To this the envoys submitted: “It is not necessary to send this up (to Tibet), this is the reply to that.” So
saying they offered the third box. After reading that (third reply) and becoming amazed, the emperor declared:
106
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 3r
༡
༢
༄༅༎ ༎ངའི་བུ་མོ་དབུལ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས་སྟོོང་བརྩེན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་ལ་རྒྱ་རྗེེས་བློན་ཆོེ་བའི་ཐབས་སྩལ་ནས། ཕོ་ཉ་རྣཾས་ཟླ་བ་༢་ཀྱི་བར་དུ་བཏོན་ཏེ༴ མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་རྗེེ་འབངས་སུཾཾ་བརྒྱ་
ཡིར་བརྫངས། རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་དབོན་མོ་སུཾཾཾ་བཅུ་ཡིང་[22]མཆོིས་འབྲང་དུ་སྩལ་ཏེ༴ རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་ཞེལ་ནས་[23]བོད་ཀྱི་བཙན་པོ་དང་རྒྱ་རྗེེ་༢་འདྲི་བར་གྱིས་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས་བྲོ་ཡིང་སྩལ་ཏེ་[24]བརྫངས་
ནས་སླེར་བོད་ཡུལ་
༣ དུ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ཁབ་ཏུ་ཕུལ། དེ་ནས་བཙན་པོ་ཕོ་བྲང་ལྷན་ཀར་ཏ་མོ་ར་ན་བཞུགས། ཨོང་ཅོ་ནི་ཕོ་བྲང་ལྷ་ས་ར་མོ་ཆོེ་ན་བཞུགས། ཨོང་ཅོས་གསེར་གྱི་ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་ཅིག་རྒྱ་
༤ ཡུལ་ནས་[25]སྤྱན་དྲིངས་པ་ཡིང་ར་མོ་ཆོེར་བཞུགས་ཏེ། མེས་སྲོོང་བཙན་བསྒཾམ་པོ[26]་ནི་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་མཛད་པའི་སྲོོལ་དེ་ཙམ་ཞེིག་བཏོད་དོ༎ ལི་རྣཾས་ནི་བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་ཨརྱ་པ་ལོ་
ལགས་སོ་
༥ ཞེེས་མཆོི་སྟོེ༴ དེ་ལྟིར་ཅི་མངོན་ཞེེ་ན། སངས་རྒྱས་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་ནས་ལོ་བརྒྱ་ན་ལི་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་འབྱུང་། དེའི་ཚེ་ལིའི་བན་དེ་༢་ཀྱིས་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་མཐོང་བར་
༦ འཚལ་ཏེ། དགུང་ལོར་མཆོོད་པ་དང་བསྙིེན་པ་བགྱིས་པ་ལས་ འཕགས་པ་འཇམ་དཔལ་བྱིོན་ནས་རིགས་ཀྱི་བུ་དག་ཅི་འདོད་ཅེས་གསུཾང་ནས། བདག་ཅག་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་
མཐོང་བར་
༧ འཚལ་ལོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། བཀའ་སྩལ་པ༴བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཡིིན་པས་བོད་ ཡུལ་དུ་སོང་ཤིག་ཞེལ་མཐོང་བར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་ནས། མོད་ལ་གསེག་ཤང་རེ་རེ་
ཐོགྶྶ་
Folio 3v
ནས་ཡིས་ཀྱིས་མཆོིས་ཏེ་བོད་ཡུལ་བཙན་པོའི་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ་མཆོིས་ན། བཙན་པོའི་བཀའ་ཁྲིིམས་དང་པོ་འཆོའ[27]་བའི་དུས་སུཾ་ཕྱིན་ཏེ་ལ་ལ་ནི་བཀུམ། ལ་ལ་ནི་སྤྱུགས། ལ་ལ་ནི་བཟུང་ནས་ཚེར་ཐག[28]་
སུཾ་སྩལ། ལ་ལ་ནི་སྣ་མིག་ལ་ཕབ་པ་མཐོང་སྟོེ། ལི་བན་དེ་༢་དེ་ལ་མ་དད་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ་འདི་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཅང་མ་ཡིིན་པས་སླེར་འདོང་ཞེེས་རང་ཡུལ་དུ་འགྲོོ་བར་བགྱིས་པ་ལས།
བཙན་པོས་དེ་མཁྱིེན་ནས་བཀའ་ལུང་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཕོ་བྲང་གི་ཆོབ་སྒཾོ་བཞེི་ནས་བན་དེ་༢་ལ་བོས་ནས་བཙན་པོའི་བཀའ་ཞེལ་[29]ཕོ་བྲང་གི་ནང་དུ་སྤྱན་སར་མཆོི་ཞེེས་ནང་དུ་བཀུག་ནས་སྤྱན་སར་ཕྱག་
འཚལ་
ྶ ་
༤ བ་དང་། ཁྱིེད་འདིར་ཅི་ལ་འོངས་ཤེས་བཀས་རྨས་པ་དང་། བདག་ཅག་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་མཐོང་བར་འཚལ་ཏེ་འདིར་མཆོིས་པ་ལགས་ཅེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། བཙན་པོ་བཞེེངྶ[30]
༥ ནས་འདེང་ཞེེས་གསུཾངས་པ་དང་། ལི་བན་དེ་༢་ཁྲིིད་དེ་གཤེགས་ནས་ ཐང་དབེན་པ་ཞེིག་ཏུ་བྱིོན་ནས་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་བསྟོན་པ་དང་། དེ་༢་དགའ་སྟོེ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་བ་དང༴ ད་
༦ ཁྱིེད་ཅི་འདོད་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་ན་བདག་ཅག་སླེར་ལིའི་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་པར་འཚལ་ལོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེབས་ལ་བཟུང་སྟོེ་ངུས་ནས་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ་གཉིད་ལོག་སྟོེ་འདུག་པ་དང་ལྡེན་
༧ པ་ལ་ཉི་མ་དྲིོ་བགྱིད་དེ་སད་པ་དང༴ འཕགས་པ་ནི་མི་བཞུགས་བན་དེ་༢་ནི་ལི་ཡུལ་ན་མཆོིས་ནས་གདའ། སར་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་མ་ལགས་སྙིམ་ནས་སླེར་ལི་ཡུལ་དུ་འགྲོོ་
༡
༢
༣
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Insertion below: སྟོོང་བཙན་ལ་
Insertion below: བུ་མོ་ལ་
Insertion above: སྟོོང་བཙན་ལ་
Insertion above: རྟ་པ་༡་གི་པང་དུ་ཁྱིེར་ནས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
The འ is written in a lighter ink.
Insertion below: ས
Insertion below in a later dbu can: ནས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Text and Translation
107
(folio 3r)
“My daughter will be offered in marriage!” After this announcement, the emperor bestowed the title ‘Great Minister’ on
Stong btsan yul zungs and for two months the envoys were entertained. (Then) princess Muṃ shang Ong co and her
royal entourage, numbering three hundred, were sent up (to Tibet). Moreover, the emperor, offering thirty concubines
as consorts, declared: “Let his majesty in Tibet and the emperor in China be two equals!” After declaring (that) and
swearing (to it), he dispatched them. (Stong btsan yul zungs) once again arriving in the land of Tibet, Muṃ shang Ong
co was presented as a bride (to the king). Thereafter, his majesty resided in the palace of Lhan kar ta mo ra, whereas
Ong co resided in Lha sa at the palace at Ra mo che. A gold image of Lord Śākyamuni, brought by Ong co from the
land of China, was also placed at Ra mo che. Thus, all this was done by the ancestor Srong btsan sgam po to promote
the tradition of the practice of the noble dharma.
The people of Khotan, it is said, declare: “His majesty Khri Srong btsan is surely Ārya palo.” If asked what the evidence for that is (they say): “One hundred years after the passing of the Buddha, the excellent dharma arrived in Khotan.
At the time (of Khri Srong btsan), two monks aspired to see the countenance of Avalokiteśvara. As a result of worship
and making propitiatory offerings for a year, Ārya Mañjuśrī appeared and asked: “Oh noble sons, what do you desire?”
When they replied: “We beg to see the face of Avalokiteśvara,” (Mañjuśrī) pronounced: “Since the king of Tibet is Ārya
Avalokiteśvara, go to the land of Tibet (and) you will come to see (his) face.” Each carrying a staff,
(folio 3v)
(the monks) set off immediately (and) arrived at the palace of his majesty in Tibet. That time happened to be the period
when his majesty’s edict was enforced for the first time (and) witnessing some people executed, some banished, some
arrested and held for life and some with their eyes and noses removed, the two monks from Khotan, losing faith,
remarked: “Since he does not seem to be Avalokiteśvara, let’s go back.” As they make preparations to return to their
homeland, his majesty came to know that and issued a command that was announced from the four gates of the palace,
ordering the two monks: “Submit to the royal presence in the palace according to his majesty’s order!” Once summoned
inside, as (they) prostrated before the royal presence, (the king) demanded: “Why have you come here?” They submitted: “We have come here aspiring to see the face of Avalokiteśvara.” His majesty arose and said: “Come along!” Leading
the two Khotanese monks away to a secluded place and (after) arriving there, he manifested himself in the form of
Avalokiteśvara. The two, delighted, bowed down. When he asked: “What do you wish now?” they submitted: “We pray,
have us sent back to the country of Khotan.” Back in the palace, whereas they had fallen asleep, weeping and grasping
his majesty’s feet, when the warmth of the morning sun woke them, the Noble One had vanished, and the two monks
found themselves in the country of Khotan. “Formerly, with the thought that he was not Avalokiteśvara and intent on
returning to the country of Khotan,
108
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 4r
༡
༢
༄༅༎ ༎བ་འབའ་ཞེིག་སཾས་པ་བལྟིས་ནས་དངོས་གྲུབ་གཞེན་མ་སྤོོབས་པ་ལས། ཐེ་ཚོམ་མ་མཆོིས་པར་འཕགས་པ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ལགས་ངེས་ཟེར་རོ།། ལུང་བསྟོན་ཆོེན་པོ་
ལས་ཀྱང་ལེགས་པར་འབྱུང་ངོ༎ ༎དེ་ནས་བཙན་པོ་འདུས་སྲོོ[31]་མང་པོ་རྗེེ་རླུང་ནམ་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ། [32]གླིང་གི་[33]རི་རྩེེ་[34]བཞེེངས་སུཾ་གསོལ། དེ་ནས་དེའི་སྲོས་བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་གཙུག་
བརྟན་
༣ གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་ཁབ་ཏུ་རྒྱ་ཟ་གྱིམ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་བཞེེས་ནས། འཆོིང་བུ་ནམ་ར་དང་། བྲག་དམར་དུ་ཀྭ་ཆུ་དང་། འགྲོན་བཟངས་དང་། འཁར་བྲག་དང་། སྨས་གོང་དུ་ལྷ་ཁང་རེ་རེ་བཞེེངས་སུཾ་
གསོལ། གྱིམ་
༤ ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ལོ་རེ་ཞེིང་ལྷ་ས་ར་མོ་ཆོེར་ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་ལ་བསྐོར་བ་མཛད། [35] ནེ་ནེ་མོ་མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ནི་ཞེལ་ལྟི་གསོལ[36]། ལྷ་མི་སྟོོང་ལ་ཆོོས་སྟོོན་གསོལ། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་གུམ་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་བསོད་
ནམས་སུཾ་
༥ འཚལ་མ་མི་གསོལ་དུ་མི་གནང་། དེའི་མིང་ནི་ཚེ་ཞེེས་བགྱི། བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་གཙུག་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་དེ་ཙམ་ཞེིག་མཛད་དེ། བཙན་པོ་དང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ནི་སྐུ་འདས་སོ༎ ༎སྲོས་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་
༦ ལྡེེ་བཙན་གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ༴ དགུང་ལོ་བཅུ་གསུཾཾ་ལོན་པ་ན་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ཕྱག་ཏུ་བཞེེས་མ་ཐག་ཏུ་[37]སྣ་ནམ་མ་ཞེཾ་ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་ཀྱིས་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ལ་བཀྱོན་ཕབ། [38] ལྷ་ས་ར་མོ་ཆོེ་ནས་རྒྱའི་ལྷ་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་
བསྐལ་
༧ དགོས་མཆོི་ནས་བཏེག་པས་དང་པོ་རྟ་པ་༡་གིས་པང་དུ་ཐེག་པ་ལས། འབྲེང་པའི་དྲི་བར་བཅུག་སྟོེ་མི་སུཾཾ་བརྒྱས་སྒཾོར་ཕྱུང་སྟོེ་དེ་ནས་མི་སྟོོང་གིས་དྲུད་བཀལ་ནས་[39]འབལ་རྗེེ་ཁོལ་ལ་གཏད་དེ་
བཞེག་ནས་ནུབ་
Folio 4v
༡
མོ་སས་གཡིོགས་ཏེ་བཞེག་ན་ནང་པར་སྐུ་སྟོོད་ཡིན་ཆོད་ཟང་ངེ་བྱུང་ཞེིང་གདའ་བར་གྱུར། རྒྱའི་ཧྭ་ཤང་རྒོད་པོ་ཞེིག་ཨོང་ཅོའི་ཞེ་འབྲིང་དུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དེ་ར་མོ་ཆོེ་ན་མཆོིས་པ་ཡིང་སླེར་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་
བཏང་བ་
༢ རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་བཏང་བ་[40]རྒྱ་བོད་ཀྱི་འཚམས་སུཾ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་ལྷམ་ཡི་ཅིག་ཁར་སང་གི་ཧྲོོ་ལམ་དུ་ལུས་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ། ཧྭ་ཤང་དེའི་མཆོིད་ནས་ངའི་ལྷཾ་ཡི་༡་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་ཁར་སང་གི་ཧྲོོ་ལམ་
དུ་ལུས་
༣ པའི་ལྟིས་ཀྱིས་ད་དུང་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་མེ་སྟོག་ཙམ་ཞེིག་འབྱུང་ངོ་ཞེེས་མཆོི་སྐད། གཞེན་ཡིང་ར་ས་འཁར་བྲག་གི་ལྷ་ཁང་དང༴ བྲག་དམར་འདྲིན་བཟང[41]་གི་ལྷ་ཁང་བཤིག་ནས་གཅོང་
འཆོིང་
༤ བུའི་གཡིའ་ལ་སྦས་ཏེ་ད་ལྟི་བསམ་ཡིས་ཀྱི་གཅོང་ལགས། ཞེང་མ་ཞེང་གིས་ཆོོས་བཤིག་པའི་ཚེ་ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་དུ་བཟོ་གྲོ[42]་ཆོེན་པོ་བགྱིས་ཏེ། སྐུ་གཟུགས་ལྟིེར་ཙོ་ཀུན་གྱི་ཕྱག་ལ་ནི་ལུག
༥ ཁོག་བཀལ། སྐེ་ལ་རྒྱུ་མ་དཀྲིིས། ཞེང་གིས་[43]ཡིོངས་ལ་བསྒཾོ་བ། ད་ཕྱིན་ཆོད་མི་ཤི་ན་ཚེ་བགྱིད་དུ་མི་གནང་། བརྒྱ་ལ་ཆོོས་བྱིེད་པ་ཅིག་ཡིོད་ན་ཕོ་རེང་དུ་གཏན་སྤྱུག་གོ་ཞེེས་ལུང་སྩལ་
༦ ཏེ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་བཤིག་གོ༎ དེ་ནས་རིང་པོ་མ་ལོན་པར་ཞེང་སྣ་ནམ་ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ནི་ཐང་ལྷའི་རྩེར་བསྐལ་ཏེ་ཀྭ་ཀྭ་ཞེེས་ཡུན་རིང་དུ་འབོད་དེ་ གུམ། ཅོག་རོ་སྐེས་བཟང་རྒྱལ་གོང་ནི་ལྕེ་
དང་
༧ རྐང་ལག་ཀུན་སྐམས་ནས་གུམ། ཞེང་མ་ཞེཾ་ནི་འཆོི་ལྟིས་ཆོེན་པོ་བྱུང་ནས་བླའི་སྐུ་ཕྱ་ངན་ནོ་ཞེེས་མོ་མ་ལ་རྔན་པ་བསྩལ་ཏེ། སྐུ་གླུད་ཀྱི་ཚུལ་བསྟོན་ཏེ་གསོན་ཁུང་དུ་སྩལ། བླ་འོག་ཀུན་
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Insertion below in dbu can: ང་
Insertion above: ཁཾས་སུཾ་
Insertion below: གླིིང་ཟེར་
Insertion ཁྲིི་ཟེར་ full correction at the top right of the page: གླིང་གི་ཁྲིི་རྩེེ་ཟེར་
Traces of writing visible above the line.
The word གསོལ་ is dotted above to indicate it is superfluous (see next phrase).
Insertion top of page (left): སྣ་ནཾ་མ་ཞེང་ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་དང༴ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་དང༴ཅོག་རོ་སྐེས་བཟང་རྒྱལ་གོང་༣་ལས་ངན་གྱི་དབང་དང་བདུད་ཀྱི་བྱིིན་གྱིས་བརླབས་པས་སྣ་ནཾ་ཅོ་རོ་༢་གྲོོས་བྱིས་ཏེ་དང་པོར་
Insertion bottom page (left): བོད་ལ་བཀྲི་མི་ཤིས་པ་འབྱུང་བ་ཤཱཀྱ་ (insertion below: མུ་ནེ་) དང་ཆོོས་བྱིས་པས་ལན་ཟེར་ནས་
Insertion below: འཁར་བྲག་གི་ཐང་གྲོོང་གི་ཐད་ཀར་ཕྱིན་པ་དང༴མི་སྟོོང་གིས་ཀྱང་མ་ཐེག་པ་དང༴དེ་ཉིད་དུ་དོང་གི་ནང་དུ་སྦས་ནས་
The words རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་བཏང་བ་ are dotted above to indicate they have been copied twice.
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
The གྲོ is corrected to: གྲྭ
Insertion above: འབངས་ and the first letter of the next syllable erased.
Text and Translation
109
(folio 4r)
we were not bestowed any other special favours, but now without doubt he is certainly Avalokiteśvara.” Exactly this is
found in the Lung bstan chen po—The Great Prophecy.
Then during the time of his majesty ’Dus sro po rje rlung nam, the Glang gi ri rtse was built at the king’s behest.
Thereafter, in the time of his son his majesty Khri Lde gtsug brtan, after he took the Chinese Gyim shang Ong co as
his queen, in each of the following places, temples were built at the king’s behest: ’Ching bu nam ra, and Kwa chu in
Brag dmar, and ’Gran bzangs, and ’Khar brag, and Smas gong. Each year Gyim shang Ong co made a round of the
(image of) Lord Śākyamuni in Ra mo che at Lha sa, while Nene mo (maternal aunt) Muṃ shang Ong co gazed on the
face, (and) a religious feast for a thousand religious and lay people was held. In the land of Tibet, for the merit of the
dead, they did not refrain from giving food and they called this ritual tshe or ‘Life.’ Contributing that much to the holy
dharma during their lifetimes, his majesty Khri Lde gtsug btsan and Ong co duly passed away.
In the lifetime of (their) son, Khri Srong lde btsan, when he reached the worthy age of thirteen, as soon as he took
the kingdom in hand, Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes denounced Thang la ’bar and ordered the Chinese devatā
escorted back to China from Ra mo che in Lha sa. Initially a single horseman could carry (the image) in his lap, (but)
when lifted it was placed in a mesh of leather straps by three hundred men and swung out the (temple) door. Then a
thousand people drag-loaded it away, entrusting it to ’Bal rje khol.
(folio 4v)
Although the whole statue was buried with earth, the following morning the upper part of the torso had clearly emerged.
An old Chinese Hwa shang, who was resident at Ra mo che and had gone as an attendant of Ong co, was also sent
to China. At the border of Tibet and China, one of his pair of shoes was left behind at the resting place on the previous
day’s route and pronouncing on that the Hwa shang said: “My leaving behind one shoe at the resting place on the previous day’s route portends that there will be a spark of the noble dharma once again in the land of Tibet.” So it is said.
Furthermore, after the Ra sa ’khar brag devagṛha and the Brag dmar ’dran bzang devagṛha were destroyed, the
bell which is presently the bell in Bsam yas was concealed among the rocks of ’Ching bu. When Zhang Ma zhang
was dismantling the dharma, the Ra sa pehar became a workshop and sheep carcasses were hung on all the arms of
the holy images and the necks wound with intestines. Zhang (also) announced: “Henceforth, when death occurs the
performance of the tshe (ritual) is not allowed. In the event that anybody is found practising the dharma, he shall be
banished alone (i. e. without family and property) forever.” Giving such orders, the excellent dharma was undermined.
Not long after, Zhang Sna nam Khri thong rje thang la ’bar was escorted to the foot of Thang lha and died there
wailing kwa kwa for a long time. As for Cog ro Skyes bzang rgyal gong, he died after his tongue and all his limbs were
mutilated. As for Zhang Ma zhang, he was buried alive in a pit on the pretext that he was the (king’s) scapegoat after a
female diviner received a bribe to pronounce: “Due to the appearance of terrible omens of death, there is a bad prognosis
for the life of the king.”
110
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 5r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅༎ ༎གྱི་མོ་དང་ལྟིས་འཐུན་པར་རྒྱའི་ལྷ་སྡིིག་གམ་གནོད་ཅེས་མཆོི་སྟོེ། རྒྱའི་མེས་པོ་དང་ཕྱི་མོ་དང་པོ་རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་ནས་འོངས་སོ་ཞེེས་གྲོགས་པས། ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་མེས་
པོའི་ཡུལ་དུ་རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་དང་ཉེ་བའི་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་[44]དྲིེའུ་༢་ལ་ཁྱིོགས་བགྱིས་ཏེ་བསྐལ་བའི་ཚེ་ནི་ཡུལ་ངན་ཆོེན་པོ་བྱུང༴ མི་གུམ་པ་རྣཾས་ལ་ཅི་ཡིང་བྱིེད་དུ་མ་གནང་བར་ལུང་སྩལ། དེའི་རྗེེས་ལ་
དབའ་གསལ་སྣང་གི་བུ་ཚ་མིང་སྲོིང་༢་དུས་༡་ཏུ་གུམ་པའི་དུས་སུཾ་ སྒཾོར་ནི་བོན་བགྱིད་དུ་སྩལ། ནང་དུ་གྱོད་དང་བསྡིོས་ཏེ་ལྷ་མི་སྟོོང་འཚལ་མ་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཚེ་བགྱིས། ར་མོ་ཆོེ་ན་ཧྭ་ཤང་རྒོད་པོ་
ཅིག་བཀུག་ནས་བུ་ཚ་༢་[45]བསྟོན་པར་གསོལ་བ་ལས། ཧྭ་ཤང་ན་རེ་བུ་[46]ཀུན་ལྷར་སྐེ་བ་དགའམ་སླེར་ཁྱིེད་རང་གི་བུར་སྐེ་བར་དགའ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་། ཕས་ནི་ལྷར་གཏང་བར་གསོལ། མས་ནི་སླེར་
བདག་རང་གི་
བུར་སྐེ་བར་གསོལ་བ་དང་། ཧྭ་ཤང་གིས་བུ་མོའི་ཁར་མུ་ཏིག་ལྡེན་ཡིོན་སྲོན་མ་ཙམ་ཞེིག་ལ་ངོས་ཅིག་ཏུ་མཚལ་ཆུ་བསྐུས་པ་ཅིག་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཆོོ་ག་བགྱིས་ནས་། ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཁྱིེའུ་
ནི་ལྷ་ཡུལ་དུ་སོང་། བུ་མོ་ནི་སླེད་ཁྱིེད་རང་གི་བུར་སྐེ་ཞེེས་ལུང་སྩལ་རྟགས་དང་མཚན་མ་ཡིང་མང་དུ་བྱུང་། ཁྱིེའུའི་རུས་བུ་ལ་གདུང་ཤ་རི་རཾ་མང་དུ་བྱུང༴ དེ་ནས་དགུང་ལོ་༡་ན་གསས་
སྣང་གི་བུ་ཁྱིེའུ་ཞེིག་བཙས་[47]ན༴ དེའི་གཉིལ་[48]གྱི་སྟོེང་ན་མུ་ཏིག་ལྡེན་ཡིོན་ངོས་ཅིག་དམར་བ་ཅིག་གདའ་བ་ཀུན་གྱིས་མཐོང་། བཙས་ནས་ཞེག་བཞེི་བཅུ་ལོན་ནས་ནེ་ནེ་མོ་ཡིང་ངོ་འཚལ། མི་
Folio 5v
གཞེན་དག་ཀྱང་སོ་སོར་ངོ་འཚལ་ཏེ་སོན་མ་གུམ་པ་བཞེིན་དུ་འབོད། ཧྭ་ཤང་དེ་ལ་དབའ་གསས་སྣང་གིས་སྒཾོམ་ལུང་མནོས་ཏེ་གསང་ཞེིང་རྟག་ཏུ་བསྒཾོམས་ཏེ་གསང་ཞེིང་རྟག་ཏུ་སྒཾོམ[49]་པའི་རྗེེས་ལ་
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་
༢ ཆོོས་བཙལ་བའི་སླེད་དུ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡུལ་དང་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕོ་ཉར་མཆོི་བར་ངོས་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བ་ལས་ཐུགས་དཔག་མཛད་ནས་མང་ཡུལ་གྱི་སོ་བློན་དུ་བསྐོས་ཏེ་མང་ཡུལ་དུ་མཆོིས། དེ་ནས་སར་མ་
ཞེཾ་
༣ གྱིས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་བགྱིད་དུ་མི་གནང་བའི་ལུང་ཡིང་བཅག་ནས། རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་དུ་མ་ཧཱ་བོ་དྷི་དང་ཤི་ལེ་ན་ལེན་ཏྲ་ལ་མཆོོད་པ་བགྱིས། ཡིོན་ཕུལ་ནས་དགུན་ཟླ་འབྲིང་པོ་ལ་ཆོར་བབ། མ་ཧཱ་བོ་དྷའི་བྱིང་
ཆུབ་ཀྱི་
༤ ཤིང་ལ་ལོ་འདབ་བྱུང་། བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་སརྦ་ཝང་སེ་བགྱིས། ཧེམ[50]ཁང་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་དུ་ཡིོན་ཕུལ་ནས་མཆོོད་པ་བགྱིས་པའི་ཚེ་ནི་ནམ་མཁའ་ལས་དགེ འོ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བའི་སྒྲ་དང་འོད་བྱུང་། མང་ཡུལ་
དུ་གཙུག
༥ ལག་ཁང་༢་བརྩེིགས། རྐྱེེན་རིས་བཅད། རྒྱ་གར་དང་བལ་པོའི་མཁས་པ་ཀུན་ལ་ཆོོས་བསླེབས། བལ་རྗེེས་ངོ་ཆོེན་བགྱིས་ནས་མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་མང་ཡུལ་དུ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ཏེ། གསས་སྣང་གི་ཁྱིིམ་དུ་
༦ བཤོས་གསོལ་ནས་ཆོོས་ཞུས། དེའི་རྗེེས་ལ་བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོའི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་མཛད་ཅིང་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་གཤེགས་པར་ཅི་གནང་ཞེེས་གསོལ་བ་ལས། ཡིོན་ཕུལ་ཅིག་ཅེས་གསུཾང་ནས་ཟོ་རིད་དང་
ཟ་འོག་དང་དར་དང་
༧ གསེར་རྔུལ་དང་སྣམ་གོས་ལསོགས་པ་རུང་ངོ་ཅོག་མ་ལུས་པར་ཕུལ་བ་ལས། ད་རུང་ཕུལ་ཅིག་གསུཾང་ནས་ལུས་ལ་འཚལ་བའི་གོས་དང་ཐོད་དང་སྐེ་རགས་ཀུན་ཡིང་ཕུལ་བས། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་
ཁྱིོད་ཀྱི་
༡
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Insertion below: བསྐལ་བར་མོ་བཟང་མཆོི་ནས་མང་ཡུལ་དུ་
Insertion below in dbu can: ལ་ལམ་
Insertion below: ཚ་
Insertion below: པ་
Amendment of གཉིལ་ inserted below: རྙེིལ་
Insertions below in bdu can to make the reading: བསྒཾོམས་
Insertion below: ་ (tsheg)
Text and Translation
111
(folio 5r)
The question arose among everyone, high and low, whether the Chinese devatā was threatening or harmful in accord
with divination and omens. Because it was widely agreed that the progenitor of the Chinese (devatā) and its copies had
initially come from India, the Lord Śākyamuni (image) was carried on a litter on two mules to Nepal near to India, its
ancestral land. At the time it was carried away, a terrible plague arose (and), for the people who died, it was ordered that
nothing (i. e. tshe rituals) should be done. After that, when both the daughter and elder son of Dba’ Gsal snang died
at the same time, for appearance’s sake a Bon (ritual) was ordered to be performed. Secretly, in contrast to the sham, a
thousand monks and lay folk were fed and the tshe (ritual) performed. An old Hwa shang in Ra mo che, having been
summoned, was asked to illuminate (the destiny) of both children and said: “Would you be happy for both children to
be born as gods or happy for them to be reborn as your own children?” The father requested: “Kindly have them sent to
be gods,” whereas the mother requested: “Kindly have them reborn as my very own children.” The Hwa shang thereon
performed the (funeral) ritual, having placed in the mouth of the girl an offering decorated with a pea-sized pearl one
side of which was coloured with vermillion. The Hwa shang then prophesied: “The boy has gone to the land of the gods;
the girl will be born again as your boy.” Many signs and omens simultaneously appeared, (for example) there emerged
many body relics in the tiny pieces of bone of the (dead) children. Then, in the middle of the (next) year, when a boy
was born to Gsas snang, everyone saw the offering with the pearl, red on one side, on his gum. On reaching the fortieth
day after birth, he was even able to recognise his aunt,
(folio 5v)
as well as calling out for other people individually as he used to do before his death. Dba’ Gsas snang, receiving instructions in meditation from that Hwa shang, meditated at all times in secret and, having meditated at all times in secret,
subsequently petitioned the king to become the envoy to Nepal and India for the sake of seeking out the dharma of the
Buddha. (His majesty) thereon gave it solemn consideration and appointed him ‘Chief of Intelligence’ in Mang yul, and
(Dba’ Gsas snang) proceeded to Mang yul.
Then, breaking the earlier proscription forbidding the practice of the divine dharma made by Ma zhang, he performed pūjā at Mahābodhi and Śrī Nālandā in the land of India. Having presented donations in the middle of winter,
rain fell. On the Bodhi tree at Mahābodhi fresh foliage sprouted. In Nepal, the feast-offering for the entire lineage (sarva
waṃ se) was performed. At the time of conducting a pūjā by presenting donations in the Hem Khang temple, there was
light in the sky and a voice declared: “It shall be propitious!” In Mang yul, two temples were built and the necessary
entitlements allotted. The teachings of all the Indian and Nepalese preceptors was learnt (by Dba’ Gsas snang).
With the recommendation of the lord of Nepal, (he) invited the preceptor Bodhisatva to Mang yul. After Gsas snang
made a welcoming feast in his house, he sought dharma teachings. After that he requested: “What do you think about
going on to Tibet to be the kalyāṇamitra of the king of Tibet?” To which (Bodhisatva said): “Make donations!” whereupon (Gsas snang) presented everything suitable such as cosmetic ointment, brocades, cloth, gold and silver, woollens
etc. But (Bodhisatva) demanded: “Make further donations!” So he offered the precious clothes on his body, even his
sash and turban. Consequently the preceptor declared: “Since the time is ripe and
112
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 6r
༄༅༎ ༎བཙན་པོ་[51]ཤྲིི་ ་བཙན་པོ་དང་ཁྱིོད་༢་ནར་སོན་ཏེ་དུས་ལ་བབ་པས་ཆུ་བོ་ལོ་ཧི་ཏའི་འགྲོམ། རི་ཁས་པོ་རིའི་དྲུང་དུ། བྲག་དམར་དུ་བསམ་ཡིས་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ་ཅེས་བྱི་བའི་གཙུག་ལག་
ཁང་རྩེིགས་ཤིག། ཁྱིེད་ཅག་གི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་ངས་བྱིའོ༴ ཁྱིོད་ནི་ཚེ་འདི་ལ་གདོད་ཤེས་ཤིང་སཾས་བསྐེད་པ་མ་ཡིིན་གྱི། ཚེ་རབས་དུ་མའི་སོན་རོལ་ནས་སཾས་བསྐེད་པའི་ངའི་སྲོས་ཀྱི་ཐུ་བོ་ཡིིན་
ཏེ་མིང་ཡིང་
༣ ཡིེ་ཤེས་དབང་པོ་[52]དབྱིངས་སུཾ་གདགས་སོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་ནས་ཕྱག་གིས་སྤྱི་བོ་ལ་བྱུགས་ཏེ་གནང་བ་སྩལ་ཏོ༎ དེའི་ཚེ་ནམཁའ་ལ་དགེའོ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བའི་སྒྲ་དང་འོད་བྱུང་ངོ།། དེ་ནས་ཡིོན་ཀུན་སླེར་ཚུར་
གནང་སྟོེ། ༡་
༤ ཀྱང་མ་བཞེེད་པར་མཁན་པོ་ནི་སླེར་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་གཤེགས་སོ།། དེ་ནས་གསས་སྣང་ནི་བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་མཐོང་དུ་ཅག་[53]ཅིག་[54]མཆོི་བར་མཁན་པོའི་སྙིན་དུ་ཞུ་བ་གསོལ་ནས་གནང་སྟོེ། སླུངས་
ཚུགས་ཕོ་
༥ བྲང་དུ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་བཙན་པོའི་སྤྱན་སར་ཕྱག་འཚལ་མ་ཐག་ཏུ་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་ཆོོས་ཤ་སྟོག་[55]ཟེར་ན་ཁོང་གིས་མ་སྤྱུགས་སམ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། བལ་ཡུལ་གྱི་ཁ་ན་མཆོིས་པས་སྤྱུགས་པ་དང་འདྲི་
༦ ལགས་ཤེས་གསོལ། དེ་ནས་ཕན་ཕབས་གནང་བའི་ཚེ༴ དབེན་གནས་སུཾ་དམ་པའི་ལྷ་ཆོོས་བཟང་པོ་མཛད་པ་དང་། [56] རིགས་པ་དང༴ ལྷ་ཆོོས་བཟང་བ་དང༴ དེ་ལྟིར་མཛད་པ་དང་། ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་མཁན་
༧ པོ་བོ་དེ་ས་ཏྭ་ཞེེས་བགྱི་བ་ད་ལྟིར་བལ་ཡུལ་ན་མཆོིས་ཏེ། ཚེ་ས་མ་དྲིན་བ་དང་ཡིོན་ཏན་ཞེིབ་ཏུ་རྗེོད་[57]ནས་བཙན་པོའི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་དུ་ཞུས་པ་ཡིང་ཞེིབ་ཏུ་གསོལ་ནས། མཁན་པོའི་སྤྱན་
སར
༡
༢
Folio 6v
༡
མཆོིར་འཚལ་བའི་རིགས་ཅེས་གསོལ་བ་ལས། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཁྱིོད་ལྟིར་བྱིས་ན་ཞེང་བློན་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་ཁྱིོད་བསད་པར་འོང་བས་ཉ་བཟང་ལ་བསྒཾོ་སྟོེ་གསོལ་དུ་གཞུག་གིས་ཁྱིོད་རེ་ཤིག་ཡུལ་དུ་
སོང་ཤིག་ཅེས་
༢ བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། གསས་སྣང་ཡུལ་དུ་མཆོིས། རྗེེ་བློན་འཚོགས་ཤིང་གདན་འཛོམ་པའི་དུས་ཤིག་གི་ཚེ། ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་གིས་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བ། མེས་སྲོོང་བཙན་དང་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་ཡིབ་ཀྱི་དམ་པའི་
༣ ལྷ་ཆོོས་སྲོོལ་བཏོད་ནས་མཛད་པ་ལས་ནོངས་པའི་འོག་ཏུ་ཞེང་བློན་གདུག་པ་ཅན་གྱིས་བཤིག་སྟོེ་རྒྱའི་ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་དང་[58]སྤྱན་དྲིངས་པའི་ཚེ་རྟ་པ་ཅིག་གིས་ཐེག་པ་ལས་སླེར་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་བསྐལ་
བར་ཆོད་པའི་ཚེ་
༤ ན་མི་སྟོོང་གིས་ཀྱང་མ་ཐེག། མང་ཡུལ་དུ་བསྐལ་བའི་ཚེ་ན་ནི་རྟ་དྲིེའུ་༢་ཀྱིས་ཐེག། ཆོོས་འཇིག་འཇིག་པའི་ཞེང་བློན་རྣཾས་ཀྱང་ཚེ་འདི་ལ་ཡིང་སྡུག་བསལ་མི་བཟད་པས་གུམ་ཞེིང་བཀྲི་མི་ཤིས་པ་ཡིང་
མང་
༥ དུ་བྱུང་། བླ་འོག་ཀུན་གྱི་ཕྱག་སྦྱོིད་དང་མོ་ལྟིས་ཀུན་འཐུན་པར་ཡིང་རྒྱའི་ལྷ་ཁྲིོས་ཞེེས་མཆོི་སྟོེ། དེ་དང་སྦྱོར་ན་སྐུ་དང་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ལ་ཡིང་གནོད་པར་ བཞེིན་དུ་མཛད་པ་ལེགས་སོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་བ་དང་
[59]
།
༦ མཆོི་ངེས་པར་གླིོ་[60]ཆུང་བས༴ རྒྱའི་ལྷ་ཡིང་སླེར་བླངས་ལ་མཆོོད་ཅིང་། སོན་ལྷ་སྲོས་[61]ཡིབ་ཀྱིས་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་མཛད་པ་བཞེིན་དུ་མཛད་པ་ལེགས་སོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་བ་དང་། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་
ཞེང་ཟེར་
༧ བ་ལྟིར་བདེན་ཏེ། ང་ཡིང་དེ་ལྟིར་དགོངས་པས་ཞེང་བློན་དག་གི་སཾས་ལ་ཡིང་དེ་ལྟིར་ཞེོག་ལ། གྲོོས་དེ་ལྟིར་བྱི་དགོས་སོ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ། ཡིང་སླེད་ཀྱིས་རྗེེ་བློན་ཚོགས་པ་དང་བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས།
51 The first བཙན་པོ་ is crossed out.
52 Insertion at top left of page: དབང་པོར་གདགསོ་ཟེར
53 The word ཅག་ is dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
54 Insertion below: ཅར་
55 Insertion below in dbu can: སྤྱད་
56 Insertion above: པར་ with dots above to indicate the reading should be: མཛད་པར་རིགས་པ་དང་
57 Insertion below in dbu can: བ་
58 Insertion below in dbu can: པོ
59 The phrase བཞེིན་དུ་མཛད་པ་ལེགས་སོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་བ་དང་ has been misplaced and appears again in the next line. The copyist has indicated the mistake
with dotting above the words.
60 Insertion below in dbu can: བ་
61 Insertion below in dbu can: ཀྱི
Text and Translation
113
(folio 6r)
both his noble majesty and you have reached the right age, build a temple called Bsam yas lhun gyis grub (on) the
banks of the Lo hi ta river at foot of the hill of Khas po ri in Brag dmar! I shall be your kalyāṇamitra—as for you, this
life is not the first time for learning and the awakening of thoughts of enlightenment—previously, in many earlier lives,
you were my principal spiritual son in the awakening of thoughts of enlightenment and now I give you the name Ye shes
dbang po dbyangs.” And touching the crown of his head with his hand, (Bodhisatva) bestowed a gift of blessings. At
that time, there was light in the sky and a voice declared: “It shall be propitious!” Then all the donations (made earlier)
were given back (and) the preceptor, not taking a single one, returned once again to Nepal.
At that point, because Gsas snang asked the preceptor that he be allowed to go immediately to see his majesty (in
Tibet) and was permitted, he went to the palace of Slungs ’tshugs. As soon as he had bowed before his majesty, the
latter declared: “I understand that you have been openly practising the dharma. Did he (Ma zhang) not banish you?” To
which (Gsas snang) replied: “Going to the border of Nepal is certainly akin to banishment.” Later, during the course of
conducting the phan phabs ritual, (Gsas snang) reported in detail about the preceptor of Za hor—known as Bodhisatva
and living now in Nepal—his good qualities and his memory of past lives and how he thoroughly practised the holy
dharma that is intrinsically rational and has excellent moral qualities and how the preceptor acted according to them.
Moreover, he informed his majesty of the request (made to Bodhisatva) to be the kalyāṇamitra and said that it is (now)
opportune to meet
(folio 6v)
personally with the preceptor. His majesty said: “If things are done as you say, the ministers will come to slay you, so
I will advise Nya bzang to make the case, (whereas) you must go home for the time being.” Thus Gsas snang left for
home.
On one of the occasions when the king and ministers congregated in state, Zhang Nya bzang submitted to their
notice: “Whereas the ancestor Srong btsan and his sons promoted the holy dharma of the father (i. e. Lha tho do re)
and practised it, wicked ministers, under some kind of delusion, undermined it and the Chinese image of Śākyamuni—
at the time agreed to be returned to China—could not be carried even by a thousand men whereas when first brought it
was carried by a single horsemen. But when (the image) proceeded to Mang yul, two mules were able to carry it. Moreover, the ministers who continually destroyed the dharma experienced excruciating suffering even in this life and died
and, furthermore, many bad signs appeared. In addition, everyone’s phyag sbyrid—high and low—and all the divinations and signs agreed that the Chinese devatā has been angered. Considering that, we fear that harm is bound to come
to your royal person and the state, thus it will be good to fetch the Chinese devatā and to offer worship and to practise
the dharma just as our father and the royal sons did in the past.” Speaking thus, his majesty then commanded: “What
Zhang has said is true and since I also feel the same, all you ministers bear that in mind. We must discuss accordingly.”
Later, when the council of the king and ministers met again, his majesty said:
114
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 7r
༄༅༎ ༎ཞེང་མ་ཞེཾ་ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་ཀྱིས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་བཤིག་པ་དེས་ཤིན་དུ་མ་ལེགས་པར་གྱུར་པ་དང་། ད་ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་ཡིང་དེ་སྐད་ཟེར་བས་རྒྱའི་ལྷ་ཡིང་སྤྱན་དྲིང་དགོས། རྒྱ་གར་དང་བལ་པོ་[62]ཆོོས་
མཁས་པ་སུཾ་ཡིོད་རྨ་དགོས་ཀྱིས་དབའ་གསས་སྣང་ཁུག་ཅིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ། དེ་ནས་གསས་སྣང་བཀུག་ནས་སྤྱ་ངར་མཆོིས་པ་ལ་བཀས་རྨས་པ་དང་། གསས་སྣང་གི་གསོལ་པ༴ ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་རྒྱལ་པོའ་ི
[63]
བུ་བོ་
༣ དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ཞེེས་བགྱི་བ་མཁས་པ་ཞེིག་སོན་རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་ན་མཆོིས་པ་དེ་ད་ལྟི་ནི་བལ་ཡུལ་ན་མཆོིས་སོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་དེ་མི་དགུག་ཏུ་མི་རུང་གིས་ཡུལ་དུ་མ་འགྲོོ་བར་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་སོང་ལ༴
༤ བལ་རྗེེ་ལ་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་གཏམ་གྱིས༴ ངའི་བཀའ་སྒྲོམ་འདི་ཡིང་བྱིིན་ལ། ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་དེ་ཅི་ཁུག་དུ་སྒྲུབས་ལ་ཆོ་ལན་ཁྱིེར་ལ་ཤོག་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས། གསས་སྣང་གིས་ཐལ་བྱུང་དུ་བལ་
༥ ཡུལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་ཏེ་བཀའ་སྒྲོམ་ཡིང་བལ་རྗེེ་ལ་ཕུལ་ནས། མཁན་པོ་ལ་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་གཤེགས་པར་ཞུས་པས་གནང་ནས་མང་ཡུལ་དུ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་སོ༎ དེ་ནས་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ་ཕོ་ཉ་བརྫངས་ཏེ། མཁན་པོ་བྱིོན་
༦ པར་གནང་སྟོེ་ད་ལྟི་མང་ཡུལ་ན་སྡིོད་ཅིང་བདོག་ཅེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། བཙན་པོས་ནང་འཁོར་ལང་འགྲོོ་སྣང་ར་ལ་བཀའ་ལུང་བརྫངས་ཏེ་ཁྱིེད་གསས་སྣང་དང་༢་ཀྱིས་མཁན་པོ་ལ་རིམ་གྲོོ་ཆོེར་གྱིས་
ལ་ལྷ་ས་པེ་ཧར་
༧ དུ་ཤོག་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། དེ་བཞེིན་དུ་ཡིས་ཀྱིས་བལ་པོའི་ལོ་ཙ་བ་ཞེ་འབྲིང་དུ་ཁྲིིད་དེ་བྱིོན། མཁན་པོ་[64]ལང་གྲོོ་སྣང་ར་ཞེ་འབྲིང་དུ་ཁྲིིད་དེ་ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་དུ་བཞུགས། དེའི་ཚེ་བཙན་པོ་
ནི་ཕོ་
༡
༢
Folio 7v
༡
བྲང་བྲག་དམར་ན་བཞུགས་ཏེ། མཁན་པོས་བཙན་པོའི་སྤྱན་སར་མཇལ་ཞེིང་ཕྱག་འཚལ་བའི་ཕོ་ཉ་བརྫངས་ཏེ་སྙིན་དུ་གདས་ནས་མཁན་པོ་ད་ལྟི་ཁོ་ན་མཇལ་བ་རུ་ཅི་ལགས་གཏོལ་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ། ར་
ས་པེ་
༢ ཧར་དུ་ཅུང་[65]བཞུགས་སུཾ་གསོལ[66]༴ ལྷོ་བལ་གྱི་ངན་སགས་དང་ཕྲ་མེན་དག་ཡིོད་པར་ཐུགས་འཕྲིག་བཞེེས་ནས། ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོ་སྦྲང་རྒྱལ་སྦྲ་ལེགས་གཟིགས་དང་། སེང་འགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་
དང་། འབའ་
༣ སང་ཤི་དང་གསུཾམ་ལ་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། བློན་པོ་ཁྱིེད་གསུཾམ་ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་དུ་སོང་ལ། ཨཙརྱ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭའི་ཞེལ་སར་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ཞེིང་མཇལ་ནས། ལྷོ་བལ་གྱི་ངན་སགས་དང་ཕྲ་མེན་ལྟི་བུ་ཡིོད་དཾ་མེད་
༤ ཐུགས་འཕྲིག་བཞེེས་དགོས་སམ་མི་དགོས་ཁྱིེད་ཀྱིས་རྟོགས་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས། དེ་གསུཾཾ་གྱིས་ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་དུ་མཆོིས་ཏེ། ལོ་ཙ་བ་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་ཚོང་འདུས་ཁ་དྲུག་ཏུ་ཁ་ཆོེ་དང་ཡིང་ལེའི་ལོ་ཙ་
༥ བ་འཚལ་བ་སུཾ་མཆོིས་ཞེེས་ཚོང་དཔོན་སོ་སོར་རྨས་ནས། ར་སའི་ཚོང་འདུས་ནས་ཁ་ཆོེ་ལྷས་བྱིིན་ཆོེ་ཆུང་༢་དང་། ཁ་ཆོེ་ཨ་ནན་ཏ་དང་གསུཾམ་རྙེེད་པ་ལས། ལྷས་བྱིིན་ཆོེ་ཆུང་༢་ཀྱིས་ནི་ཚོང་གི་ལོ་ཙ་བ་
༦ ཙམ་ལས་རྔོ་མ་ཐོག། ཨ་ནན་ཏ་ནི་ཕ་བྲམ་ཟེ་སྐེས་བཟང་བྱི་བ་༡་ཁ་ཆོེའི་ཡུལ་དུ་ཉེས་པ་རྔམས་ཆོེན་ཞེིག་བྱིས་པ་ལས་ལྷོ་བལ་ཁ་ཆོེའི་ཆོོས་ལུགས་ཀྱིས་བྲམ་ཟེ་དགུམ་དུ་མི་རུང་ནས། བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་
༧ སྤྱུགས་པའི་བུ་ལགས་ཏེ་བྲམ་ཟེའི་གཙུག་ལག་དང་སྒྲ་དང་སྨན་བསླེབས་པས་ཆོོས་སྒྱུར་བའི་རྔོ་ཐོག་ནས། དེས་ལོ་ཙ་བ་བགྱིས་ཏེ་དགུང་ཟླ་༢་གྱི་བར་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་བརྟགས་ན། དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་ནི་
མདོ་སྡིེའི་
Folio 8r
༡
༢
༄༅༎ ༎ལུགས་སུཾ་ལགས་ངེས་ཏེ། ཉེས་སོ་ཅོག་ནི་མི་གཏང་བ་མེད། ལེགས་སོ་ཅོག་ནི་མི་བྱི་བ་མེད། སྲོོག་ཆོགས་ཀུན་ལ་ཕན་པ་ནི་ལྷུར་བྱིའོ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་ལསོགས་པའི་དོན་རྒྱ་ཆོེར་
བཤད་པས་སང་ཤི་ལསོགས་པ་ཡིིད་ཆོེས་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ། བཙན་པོའི་སྤྱན་སར་ཕྱིན་ནས་མཁན་པོ་འདི་ལ་ཕྲ་མེན་ནམ་ངན་སགས་སུཾ་གྱུར་པའི་བག་ཅུང་ཟད་ཀྱང་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་ཐུགས་འཕྲིག་བཞེེས་མི་
འཚལ་
༣ ཞེེས་གསོལ་ནས། བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་བྲག་དམར་དུ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ཏེ་ལོ་ཙ་བཙལ་ནས་བཙན་པོ་དང་ཕྱག་མཇལ་མ་ཐག་ཏུ་མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བདག་ངོ་མཁྱིེན་ནམ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་སར་
༤ ཞེལ་མ་འཛོམ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་སངས་རྒྱས་འོད་སྲུང་གི་བསྟོན་པ་ལ་འོ་སྐོལ་གྱི་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་གི་རྒྱན་སྲུངས་བགྱིས་པའི་ཚེ་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་[67]ཆོོས་ཅིག་
62
63
64
65
66
67
Insertion above: འབིནརྡོེལ
Insertion below: སྲོས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ནི་
Insertion below: ཞེིག་
Insertion below: ཏེ་
Insertion below in dbu can: ལྷ་
Text and Translation
115
(folio 7r)
“Zhang Ma zhang khrom pa skyes’s persecution of the holy dharma turned out to be extremely deleterious, and now
that Zhang Nya bzang says the same, it is imperative to bring back the Chinese devatā once more. Since we need to be
informed of any Indian or Nepalese learned in the dharma, summon Dba’ Gsas snang!” Then Gsas snang, having been
summoned to the royal presence, was asked (about this). Gsas snang replied: “The son of the king of Za hor, known as
Bodhisatva, is highly learned—he was previously in India and is presently in Nepal.” Whereupon (his majesty) ordered:
“It will not be acceptable for you to fail to invite that man, so go to Nepal, rather than home, and give this dispatch box
of mine to the lord of Nepal and also explain the details yourself. Do everything possible to somehow invite that preceptor of Za hor, and bring back a reply!” Gsas snang went straight away to Nepal and offered the dispatch box to the
Nepalese lord; assent being given to the request that the preceptor be allowed to go to Tibet, he was invited to Mang yul.
Then a messenger was dispatched to the palace (in Tibet with a message saying): “The preceptor having consented
to come, is now present and staying in Mang yul.” His majesty dispatched a written order through the inner courtier
(nang khor) Lang ’Gro snang ra: “You and Gsas snang, the two of you, shall make extensive offerings to the preceptor
and proceed to the Lha sa vihāra.” Accordingly they came, bringing along a Nepalese translator from up there as an
attendant. The preceptor stayed in Ra sa vihāra, waited on by Lang ’Gro snang ra as an attendant. At that time,
(folio 7v)
his majesty was resident at the palace in Brag dmar. The preceptor dispatched a messenger to prostrate and have audience before his majesty and petitioned: “Should the preceptor come for an audience immediately?” Being uncertain, he
replied: “Please remain in Ra sa pehar for a while.” Concerned about the likelihood of black magic, sorcery and so on
from Lho bal, (the king) commanded three men—the great ministers Sbrang Rgyal sbra legs gzigs, Seng ’go Lha lung
gzigs and ’Ba’ Sang shi—(saying): “You three ministers go to Ra sa pehar and after meeting and paying your respects
to Ācārya Bodhisatva, investigate whether or not there is alien black magic, sorcery and so forth and whether I need to
be concerned or not.” The trio went to Ra sa pehar. Not having a translator, the traders in each of the six main markets
were asked: “Is there a competent translator from Yang le and Kashmir?” As a result, three were found from the Ra sa
market: two Devadatta brothers and Ananta the Kashmīrī. Among them, the Devadatta brothers were not competent
apart from commercial translation. As for Ananta, he was the son of a certain brāhmaṇa named Janitabhadra who, in
the land of Kashmir, had committed a heinous crime but since the alien system of law in Kashmir makes it improper to
put brāhmaṇa-s to death, he was banished to the land of Tibet. Because he had studied Brahmanical scripture, grammar
and medicine, he was found competent to translate the dharma. When they investigated the noble dharma for a period
of two months with him as translator, they ascertained that, as far as the noble dharma is concerned,
(folio 8r)
it conforms to the tradition of the sūtra-s and because (the preceptor) gave a detailed exposition as follows: “There
is nothing evil that I have not eschewed; there is nothing virtuous that I do not practise; in anything that benefits all
sentient beings I strive wholeheartedly,” and more, Sang Shi and the others were convinced. Going to the presence of
his majesty, (they said): “Since this preceptor does not have the slightest tinge of sorcery or black magic, your majesty
need not be concerned.”
Thereafter, Bodhisatva was invited to Brag dmar. After finding a translator, the preceptor, as soon as he had paid
his respects, asked: “Do you know me?” His majesty replied: “We have not met before.” The preceptor said: “Did you
forget that, while we were guarding the ornament that was our temple in the days of the doctrine of Kaśyapa Buddha,
we prayed together that the doctrine might take root in Tibet?” After remembering his primordial lifetime, (the king)
declared: “That is true.” Subsequently, with Ananta of Kashmir translating, the Ten Virtues, the Eighteen Constituents
and so forth were presented flawlessly (to his majesty) for six months. Fully convinced that it was sound, he wished for
much more translation of the Indian scriptures. However, because a great flood entered the ’Phang thang (palace), the
116
༥
༦
༧
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
གཟུགས་པར་སྨོན་ལམ་བཏབ་པ་མཉེལ་དམ་ཞེེས་གསུཾངས་པས༴ གདོད་སོན་གྱི་སྐུ་ཚེ་[68]དགོངས་ནས་དེ་ལྟིར་མད་ཅེས་གསུཾང་ངོ་།། དེའི་ཚེ་ཁ་ཆོེ་ཨ་ནན་ཏས་ལོ་ཙ་བགྱིས་ནས་དགུང་ལོ་ཕྱེད་ཀྱི་
བར་དུ་
དགེ་བ་བཅུ་དང་ཁམས་བཅྭ་བརྒྱད་ལསོགས་པ་མ་ནོར་བར་གསོལ་ན་བཟང་བར་ཐུགས་ཤིན་དུ་ཆོེས་ཏེ༴ རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་དར་མ་མང་དུ་བསྒྱུར་བར་དགོངས་པ་ལས། འཕང་ཐང་དུ་ཆུ་བོ་ཆོེ་བྱུང་། ལྷ་སའི་
མཁར་
དུ་ཐོག་བབས་ནས་སྐུ་མཁར་ཚིག། མུ་གེ་ཆོེན་པོ་དང་། མི་ནད་དང་ཕྱུགས་ནད་ཀྱང་བྱུང་ནས་བོད་ཀྱི་ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོ་རྣམས་ཆོོས་སྤྱད་པས་ལན་པར་གླིེང་ཞེིང་རྟོག་པ་སྐེས་པས་ཆོོས་བཞེག་སྟོེ་རེ་
ཤིག་མི་
Folio 8v
༡
མཛད་པར་ཆོད་པ་ལས། ཞེང་ཉང་བཟང་དང་སེང་འགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་ཞེ་འབྲིང་དུ་ཁྲིིད་ཏེ། མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་གཟིམས་ས་གུར་ཁང་ན་སྒཾོམ་པ་ལ་ཕྱག་བཞེེས་ལན་གསུཾམ་བསྐོར་བ་མཛད༴ དཔྱར་
ལག་ནས་
༢ གསེར་ཕྱེ་བྲེ་གང་མཁན་པོ་ལ་ཕུལ་ཏེ། མཁན་པོས་པང་དུ་བླངས་ཏེ་བསོ་བ་མཛད། དེ་འདྲི་བ་ནུབ་གསུཾམ་མཛད་པའི་རྗེེས་ལ་མཁན་པོ་ལ་བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བདག་སྐལ་བ་ཆུང་སྟོེ། བོད་རིལ་
༣ ནག་པོ་ལ་ཡུན་རིང་པོར་ལོན་ཞེིང་[69]ཞེེན་པས་དེ་ལས་བཟློག་པ་རབ་ཏུ་དཀའ་སྟོེ་ཐབས་ནོངས་ན་མི་འགྲུབ་ཀྱང་སྲོིད་པས་རེ་ཤིག་སླེར་མཁན་པོ་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་བཞུད་ཅིག། བདག་གིས་སླེད་ནས་ཞེང་
བློན་
༤ དག་ལ་ཆོོས་མི་བགྱིར་མི་རུང་བར་ཐབས་ཀྱིས་དལ་བུས་གླིེངས་ལ་བཏུབ་མ་ཐོག་སྤྱན་འདྲིེན་གཏང་ངོ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ། མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོའི་ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་དང་མཁན་པོ་༢་[70]སྣཾ་ཕྱི་བ་སེང་འགོ་ལྷ་
ལུང་
༥ གཟིགས་ཀྱིས་གླིང་སྣའི་གྲུ་ཚུགས་སུཾ་བསྐལ་ཏེ། སེང་འགོ་ཤ་ཆོང་མི་འཚལ་བ་ལས་མར་ཡིང་མི་འཚལ་བའི་ཁྲིིམས་མནོས། དེ་ནས་ལང་གྲོོ་སྣང་ར་དང་[71]གསས་སྣང་༢་ཀྱིས་མཁན་པོ་བལ་ཡུལ་
༦ དུ་བསྐལ། སླེར་ལོག་ནས་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་སླེད་དུ་གསས་སྣང་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕོ་ཉར་བཙན་པོས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས། མཆོིད་ཀྱིས་འཚལ་ཏེ་སླེད་ནས་དགོངས་པ་བཞེིན་དུ་གྲུབ་ན་དངུལ་ཆོེན་པོ་སྩལ་བར་གཙིགས་
གནང་།
༧ བཙན་པོ[72]་ཞེང་བློན་རྣཾས་ལ་ཡིང་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་ཐབས་ཀྱིས་མོལ་ནས། སྦྲང་གཙང[73]་བཞེེར་ཕོ་ཉའི་ཁད་དཔོན། འབའ་སང་ཤི་ནི་འོག་དཔོན། དབའ་གསས་སྣང་སྤྱན་དབང་། སྤྱིར་དཔོན་
གཡིོག་སུཾཾ་བཅུ་
Folio 9r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༄༅། །མཆོི་བར་ཆོད་དེ་བོད་ཡུལ་ན་སྤོགས་ཏེ་མཆོི་བ་ཙམ་གྱི་དུས་ཚོད་ན། རྒྱའི་མཁན་པོ་ཧྭ་ཤང་བདུན་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་ཐི་ལྟིག་གྱིམ་ཧ་ཤང་བྱི་བ་ཅིག་ཨེག་ཆུ་ན་བཞུགས་པའི་ཞེལ་
ནས་ད་སྟོེ་ཟླ་བ་བཞེི་ན་ཨེག་ཚེའི་དབང་པོའི་[74]དྲུང་ན་གཙུག་ལག་མཁན་མཁས་པ་ཞེིག་[75]ཉིན་རེ་ཞེིང་གཙུག་ལག་རྩེི་བའི་སྐད་ནས་ཀྱང་ དབང་པོ་ལ་གསོལ་པ༴ ནུབ་ཕྱོགས་ནས་ཕོ་ཉ་དག་
ཅིག་དེང་
སང་ཤུལ་དུ་ཞུགས་ཏེ། ཟླ་བ་དང་ཉི་མའི་དུས་འདི་ཙཾ་ན་བུཾ་སང་དུ་ཕྱིན་པར་མཆོི། ཕོ་ཉ་དེ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་ནང་ནས་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའི་སྤྲུལ་པ་༢་ཤིག་བྱིོན་པའི་ཤ་ཚུགས་འདི་འདྲིའོ་ཞེེས་འབག་ཏུ་བྲིས་
ཏེ་གསོལ་
ཏེ༴ བུཾ་སངས་ཀྱི་དབང་པོས་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་སྤྱ་ངར་ཕོ་ཉ་བཏང་སྟོེ་གཙུག་ལག་མཁན་མཆོི་བ་༤ན་གསོལ་པ་དང་། བཀའ་ལན་སྩལ་པ། འབག་དང་འཐུན་པར་བོད་ཀྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་དེ་[76]འོངས་ན་བསྙིེན་བཀུར་
བསྐེད་ལ་ཐོང་
Insertion below: ས་མ་དག་
The words ལོན་ཞེིང་ are circled to indicate it is redundant.
Insertion below: བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་གཤེགས་པའི་ཚེ་
Insertion below: དབའ་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
The ག written in dbu can over an older letter.
Insertion at top of page: ཐད་དུ་བོད་ཀྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་དག་འོང༴ཕོ་ཉ་དེ་རྣཾས་ཀྱི་ནང་ནས་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སེཾས་དཔའི་སྤྲུལ་པ་༢་བྱིོན་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ༴ དེའི་ཆོ་ལུགས་དང་ཤ་ཚུགས་འདི་འདྲིའོ་ཞེེས་ (insertion above: སང་
ཤི་དང་གསསསྣངགི) གཟུགས་འདྲི་འབག་ཏུ་བགྱིས་ཏེ་བཞེག་གོ།། བུམ་སངས་ཀྱི་དབང་པོའི་
75 Insertion below: མཆོིས་པ་
76 Insertion below: ༢
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Text and Translation
117
king’s tower in the Lha sa citadel burnt after a lightning-strike and an extensive famine accompanied with epidemics
arose among the people and their livestock, the great ministers of Tibet alleged that these (problems) had arisen as a
consequence of practising the dharma. On account of doubt arising (in the king’s mind), he decided not to practise the
dharma
(folio 8v)
for a while. Taking Zhang Nyang bzang and Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs as attendants, (the king) went to the sleeping tent
of the preceptor Bodhisatva who was in meditation and circumambulating thrice with one bre measure of gold dust from
Dpyar lag, he offered it to the preceptor. The preceptor took it on his lap and blessed it. Repeating this for three nights,
the king said to the preceptor: “Such is my unfortunate lot. For a long time, all of Tibet has pursued dark (Bon practices)
and become so attached that it is hard to reverse. If the strategy is wrong, then it is possible that our aim (to introduce
the dharma) may not be realised; so, as a temporary measure, the preceptor should return to Nepal for a while. Later on I
shall speak skilfully with the ministers and slowly convince them that it is not advisable to not practise the dharma and,
as soon as I am successful, I will send an emissary to invite (you back).” The preceptor and the Lord Śākyamuni of Muṃ
shang Ong co—both—were escorted by Seng ’go Lha lung gzigs, (who held the title) Snam phyi ba to (the place called)
Glang sna’i gru tshugs. Seng ’go, who had taken a vow not to consume meat and beer, further promised not to take
even butter. Then, after that, Lang Gro snang ra and Gsas snang—the two of them—escorted the preceptor to Nepal.
On his return, Gsas snang was ordered to China by the king as an envoy for the sake of (finding) the dharma, which
he accepted. If successful according to his (majesty’s) intention, he was promised the decree of the ‘great silver insignia’
(dngul chen po). Concurrently, the king discoursed skilfully on the practice of the dharma with the ministers. A total of
thirty officials and servants—(with) Sbrang Gtsang bzher as the khad dpon (‘chief envoy’), ’Ba’ Sang shi as the ’og dpon
(‘deputy’), and Dba’ Gsas snang as spyan dbang (‘chief observer’)—
(folio 9r)
were selected to go. At the time they were setting off in Tibet, a Chinese preceptor in Eg chu—the last in the line (?) of a
series of seven Hwa shangs—Gyim Hwa shang by name—declared: “Four months hence, in the presence of the prince
of Eg chu, a scholar versed in the science of astrology will, in addition to his daily calculations, inform the prince: ‘A
group of envoys from the west are presently on their way and on a particular month and day they will arrive at Buṃ
sangs. Among those envoys, two are Bodhisatva emanations.’ Presenting a representation that he will have drawn, he
will say: ‘The appearance of those coming will be like this.’” The prince of Buṃ sangs sent a messenger to the emperor
of China who reported just what the scholar of astrology said. The reply came: “If Tibetan envoys have come conforming
to the representation, organise a welcome-party to receive them.” When the Tibetan envoys reached China, based on a
close check of the envoys who matched what had been said by the scholar of astrology and by Gyim Hwa shang and on
the representation made—based on both—the appearance of ’Ba’ Sang shi and Dba’ Gsas snang—those two—matched
and, as a consequence, they were given a great reception. They were put on a horse carriage with a silk canopy (while)
the khad dpon and the envoys went on horse. On reaching Eg chu, they bowed to the prince of Eg chu and conversed.
When they came out, they met Gyim Hwa shang and Gyim Hwa shang prostrated, embracing the feet of Sang shi with
his hand. Sang shi also grasped the foot of Hwa shang
118
༥
༦
༧
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། བོད་ཀྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་རྣམས་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་། གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་དང་གཙུག་ལག་མཁན་མཆོི་བའི་འབག་ཏུ་བགྱི[77]་བ་༢་དང་ཕོ་ཉ་རྣཾས་གང་དང་འཐུན་བསྡུར་བས་འབའ་
སང་ཤི་དང་
དབའ་གསས་སྣང་༢་ཀྱིས་ཤ་ཚུགས་དང་འཐུན་ནས་བསྙིེན་བཀུར་ཆོེར་བགྱིས༴ ཤིང་རྟ་ལ་བསྐོན་དར་གྱི་ལྡེིང་ཁང་དུ་བཅུག། ཁད་དཔོན་དང་ཕོ་ཉ་གཞེན་ནི་རྟ་འཚལ་ཏེ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་ཨེག་ཆུར་ཕྱིན་ནས་
ཨེག་
ཆུའི་དབང་པོ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ཏེ་གཏམ་བགྱིས་ནས་ཕྱི་རོལ་དུ་བྱུང་བ་དང་། གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་དང་མཇལ་ཏེ། གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་གིས་སང་ཤིའི་རྐང་པ་ལ་བཟུང་ནས་ཕྱག་བཞེེས། སང་ཤིས་ཀྱང་ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་ཞེབས་
ལ་
Folio 9v
བཟུང་སྟོེ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་བ་དང༴ ཧྭ་ཤང་གིས་སང་ཤི་ལ་ལུང་བསྟོན་པ། ཁྱིོད་ནི་རྟ་རྒོོད་[78]ཅེས་བྱི་བའི་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའི་[79]ཡིིན་ཏེ༴ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་བོད་ཁཾསུཾ་ཐེག་པ་ཆོེན་པོའི་ཆོོས་རྒྱས་པར་བྱིེད་དེ་
བྱིང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཁྱིོད་
༢ ཀྱིས་[80]ཚུགས་པའི་ཕྱིར༴ཁྱིོད་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ་ཞེེས་ལུང་བསྟོན་པ་དང༴ སང་ཤིས་ཀྱང་ཧྭ་ཤང་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ཏེ་སླེར་གསོལ་པ། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་དམ་པའི་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་སྙིན་དུ་ཞུ་
བར་
༣ བདག་གི་བློ་བ་ལ་དགོངས་ཏེ། ཀེང་ཤིར་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་ནས་ཐེག་པ་ཆོེན་པོའི་ཆོོས་མདོ་སྡིེ་བཾ་པོ་སྟོོང་ཙམ་ཞེིག་ཀྱང་མནོས་ནས་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕྱུང་ནས་མཆོིས་ན༴ ད་ལྟི་ཁ་ན་བཙན་པོའང་སྐུ་
༤ གཞེོན་པས་གསོལ་དུའང་མི་རུང་། སྐུ་ནར་སོན་ནས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་མཆོིས་གྲོོས་གསོལ་ན་བདག་སྟོབས་ལས་འགུཾ་མི་འགུམ་ཞེེས་ཞུས་པ་ལས་ཧྭ་ཤང་གིས་ལུང་བསྟོན་པ། ཁྱིེད་ཀྱི་བཙན་པོ་
༥ ནི་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་འབྱིིན་པའི་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའ་ཡིིན་ཏེ། ད་ཕྱིན་ཆོད་ལོ་གྲོངས་འདི་ཙམ་ཞེིག་ན་བཙན་པོའ་ི སྐུ་ནར་སོན་པ་ན་མུ་སྟོེགས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་ཤིག་བཀས་རྨེད་པར་འགྱུར་གྱིས༴ དེ་ལ་
ཁྱིོད་
༦ ཀྱིས་ཤགས་འདི་སྐད་ཐོབ་ཤིག་པའི་ལུང་མང་པོ་ཞེིག་སང་ཤིས་ཐོབ་པོ༎ སྣ་ནམ་ཉ་བཟང་དང༴ མཆོིམས་མེས་སླེེབས་དང་། སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་དང་༣་དེའི་ཚེ་གནང་ཆོེན་དུ་འགྱུར་ལ། མི་འདི་
༣་
༡
Folio 10r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
༄༅། །ཀ་ལ་ཚེ་ས་མཱཱིི་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཡིོད་པས༴ ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་མི་དེ་༣་[81]ས་ནས་ཆོོས་ཤོད་ལ། དེ་༣་དད་པ་སྐེས་པ་དང་ཁྱིེད་༤་སྡིོངས་ལ་བཙན་པོ་སྐུ་ནར་སོན་པ་དང༴ མུ་སྟོེགས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་
བཀས་རྨེད་པའི་ཚེ་དེའི་ལན་ཐོབ་ལ། དེ་ནས་ཐོག་མར་ལས་རྣཾ་པར་འབྱིེད་པ། བར་དུ་ས་ལུ་ལྗང་པ་། ཐ་མ་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་གཅོད་པ་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་ཅིག། འོན་ཀྱང་ཐུགས་དད་ནས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པ་ལ་
དགེས་པར་འགྱུརོ༎ དགེས་པར་གྱུར་མ་དག་ཏུ་ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་བལ་ཡུལ་ན་རྟག་ཏུ་བཞུགས་ཀྱིས༴ དེ་བོད་ཀྱི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་དུ་སྤྱན་དྲིོངས་ཤིག། བོད་ཀྱི་འདུལ་
སྐལ་མཁན་པོ་དེ་ཡིིན་ནོ་ཞེེས་ལུང་ཕོག་གོ༎ དེ་ནས་ཕོ་ཉ་དེ་རྣཾས་ཀེང་ཤིར་མཆོི་བའི་ཚེ་སར་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའི་སྤྲུལ་པ་༢་ཤིག་མཆོི་བར་གྲོགས་པས་ཤུལ་ཐོག་ཐག་ཏུ་ཧྭ་ཤང་དང་རྒྱ་འབངས་
དད་པ་ཅན་ཀུན་སྤྲིིན་བཞེིན་དུ་འདུས་ནས༴ ཕོ་ཉ་ལྡེིང་[82]ཅན་ལ་མཆོོད་པ་བྱིེད་དོ་ཞེེས་གྲོསོ[83]༎ ཀུན་གྱིས་མཆོོད་པ་བགྱིས་ཏེ་ཀེང་ཤིར་བསྐལོ༎ དེའི་ཚེ་རྒྱ་རྗེེ་[84]རྩེིག་པ་དང་ཀྭ་བ་དང་ནམཁའ་
ཀུན་
དར་གྱིས་གཡིོགས་དེ་བསུཾ་ནས་བདུག་སྤོོས་དང་རོལ་མོས་མཆོོད་དེ་ཅི་དགའ་དང་ཉམས་རང་དུ་གནང་ངོ་།། རྒྱ་རྗེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ༴ ཁྱིེད་༢་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའ་ཡིིན་པར་ངེས་ཏེ། ཀེའུ་ལིའི་གླུངས་
ལ་ཕྱིན་ན་ཡིང་ཀེའུ་ལིས་མ་ཟོས་པར་རིམ་འགྲོོ་བྱིས། བུཾ་སངས་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་མཁན་ན་རེ་ཡིང་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའ་༢་ཤིག་དུས་འདི་ཙ་ན་འོང་ཟེར་བ་ཡིང་ཁྱིེད་ཡིིན། གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་ཡིང་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Insertion below: སྐད་ཟེར་
Insertion below: སྤྲུལ་པ་
Insertion below: དཾ་པའི་ཆོོས་
Insertion below: ལ་
Insertion below: ཁང་
Insertion below: ག to make: གྲོགསོ
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Text and Translation
119
(folio 9v)
and bowed. Hwa shang then prophesied to Sang shi: “You are the bodhisatva called ‘Wild Horse’ and you will spread
the Mahāyāna dharma in the Tibet region and by you, Bodhisatva, it will be established (there). Because of that I bow
to you.” Having so prophesied, Sang shi bowed and replied in turn: “In order to promote the practice of the noble holy
dharma in the Tibet region, I had it in mind to report (the matter) to the devaputra and also to request the emperor of
China at Keng shi for some one thousand Mahāyāna sūtra volumes and, after they were received and taken up to Tibet,
made available (there). However just now, because his majesty is young, it is not opportune to make the request. If I
were to propose the practice of the holy dharma after he reaches a respectable age, would I have the fortune and karma
to be alive or not?” The Hwa shang prophesied: “Your king is the bodhisatva who will bestow the noble dharma on the
land of Tibet. In a certain number of years from now, when his majesty has reached maturity, he will issue a command
for the dismemberment of the non-Buddhist dharma and at that time you will argue in these ways!” Sang Shi obtained
much prophetic advice (such as this).
(The Hwa shang continued:) “Sna nam Nya bzang, Mchims Mes slebs and Seng mgo Lha lung gzigs—these
three—at that time (of the debate) will rise to prominence.
(folio 10r)
Since they have residual karma from former lives, you should teach the dharma to all three of these men before anyone
else. Then these three, finding faith, shall work together with you as (a team of) four. When his majesty reaches the age
of maturity and speaks against the non-Buddhist dharma, you will offer arguments in support. And then give him the
teachings according to the Karmavidbhaṅga, at the start, according to the Śālistamba in the middle, (and) according
to the Vajracchedika at the end. As his faith develops, notwithstanding, circumstances will become conducive to the
practice the holy dharma. As soon as the situation becomes favourable, you must invite the preceptor of Za hor called
Bodhisatva, who regularly resides in Nepal, as the kalyāṇamitra of Tibet. He is the preceptor destined to tame Tibet!”
So the prophecy was received.
When the envoys set off toward Keng shi, word had already spread that two bodhisatva-s were arriving. Wherever
they stopped, all the Hwa shang-s and Chinese subjects who were so destined gathered like clouds and made offerings
to the envoys’ covered carriage—so it is said. After they were worshipped by everyone, they were escorted to Keng shi.
At that time, the Chinese emperor, welcoming them with silk banners festooning the walls, pillars and the whole sky
and, worshipping them with incense and music, made the occasion as dignified and colourful as possible. The Chinese
emperor declared: “You two are surely bodhisatva-s. As the preceptor of astrology of Buṃ sangs said, even though you
passed through the gorges of Ke’u li, by reciting protective prayers you were not eaten by the Ke’u li, and further he said
that a pair of bodhisatva-s would arrive around this time. So you are the ones.
120
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 10v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཁྱིེད་ལ་སྔུན་བསུཾ་སྟོེ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་བ་དང་། ཁྱིེད་ཀྱི་སྤྱོད་ལམ་དང་སྦྱོར་ན་སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་ལུང་བསྟོན་པ་ལས་ལྔ་བརྒྱ་ཐ་མ་ལ་ཉེ་བའི་དུསུཾ་གདོང་དམར་གྱི་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་འབྱིིན་པའི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་
གཉེན་ཅིག་འབྱུང་བར་གྲོགས་པ་ཡིང་གོར་མ་ཆོགས་[85]པར་ཁྱིེད་ཡིིན་[86]ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། གསས་སྣང་གིས་གསོལ་པ། རྗེེའི་ཞེལ་མཐོང་སྟོེ་གླིོ་བ་དགའ་བའི་སྟོེང་དུ་གཞེན་དང་མི་འདྲི་
བར་
བཀའ་སྙིན་པ་གནང་བ་དེ་ལས་བྱི་དགའ་ཆོེ་བ་མ་མཆོིས་ན༴ གཞེན་ནི་མི་འཚལ། སྒཾོམ་ལུང་འབོགས་པའི་ཧྭ་ཤང་ཅིག་དང་སྤྲིད་པར་ཅི་གནང་ཞེེས་གསོལ་ཏེ། ཕོ་ཉ་མྱུར་བ་ཅིག་རྒྱ་རྗེེའི་
གོར་བུ་ལ་བསྐོན་ཏེ་བཏང་བ་དང༴ ཨེག་ཆུ་ནས་གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་བཀུག་སྟོེ་མཆོིས་པ་དེ་ལས་སྒཾོམ་ལུང་དང་མན་ངག་མནོསོ༎ དེ་ནས་སང་ཤི་དང་གསས་སྣང་༢་ལ་ཕོ་ཉ་གཞེན་པས་སྤོགས་ཏེ༴ རྒྱ་
བེའུ་ཤོག་གི་ཁྲིབ་ཅིག་དང་མན་ངག་མནོསོ༎ དེ་ནས་སང་[87]དར་ཡུག་ལྔ་བཅུ༴ ཕྲ་མེན་གྱི་བྱི་དང་གཞེོང་པ་སྲོང་བརྒྱ། མུ་ཏིག་གི་ཕྲེང་བ་འདོམ་རེ་བ་བཅུ༴ ཟ་འུག་བེའུ་ཆོེན་ཡུག་༡༴ སླེ་
འོར་གྱི་གཞེོང་པ་སྦོམས་སུཾ་འདོམ་དོས་འཁོར་[88]བོག་རེ་ཅན་ལ་རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་ལྔས་སྤྲིས་པ་ལསོགས་པ་སྩལ་ཏེ་ཕོ་ཉ་དེའི་ལན་དང་སླེར་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་མཆོིས། བཙན་པོས་ཀྱང་ཞེང་བློན་དག་དང་
ཐབས་ཀྱིས་མོལ་ནས་སྤྱིར་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་ཆོད་དེ། གསས་སྣང་ཡིང་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་ནས་མཆོིས་ཏེ་ཞེ་སར་ཕྱག་བགྱིས་པ་དང་། བོ་དྷིས་ཏྭ་སྤྱན་དྲིང་བར་ཆོད་ནས་ཡིང་མང་ཡུལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་
Folio 11r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །པ་དང༴ བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭས་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ནས་བཞེེས་པ་དང་། བསམ་ཡིས་རྨང་རྩེིག་པ་དང༴ལྕེ་ཏི་སྒཾོ་མངས་རྩེིག་པའི་ཕྱ་མཁན་[89]གསས་སྣང་གིས་
རླུངས་ལ་དྲིངས་ནས་གཤེགས་པར་གསོལ་བ་དང་། སྙིི་མོ་ཐོད་ཀར་དུ་གཤེགས་ཏེ༴ པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བའི་ཞེལ་ནས་སང་གི་དྲིོ་ལམ་ན་ཉི་ཚེ་བའི་དམྱལ་ཅིག་ཡིོད་དེ༴ དེར་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་ཅིག་བྱི་
དགོས་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ་སྣཾ་གྱི་ཆུ་ཁོལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་ཏེ། དེར་ས་དྲིོ་ཅིག་དགོངས་པ་མཛད་ནས་གཏོར་མ་ཆུར་བཏང་བས་ཆུའང་འཇམ་ཙམ་དུ་རེད། རླངས་པ་ཡིང་ཞེག་༣་དུ་ཆོད[90]། དེ་ནས་
གལ་ཏ་ལ་ལ་གཤེགས་པ་དང་། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་ཆོོས་མཛད་དུ་མི་སྟོེར་བའི་ཀླུ་དཀར་པོའི་ཕྲུག་གུ་མི་སྲུན་བ་ཅིག་ཡིོད་དེ་དེ་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་གཞུག་ཅིང་གདུལ། དེའི་
དྲུང་ན་ཡིང་ཉི་ཚེ་བའི་དམྱལ་བ་ཞེིག་ཡིོད་དེར་ཡིང་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་ཅིག་བྱི་དགོས་གསུཾང་ནས་སྙིིང་དྲུང་དུ་བྱིོན་པ་དང་༴ རླུང་ཚ་བ་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་མཁན་པོ་ལ་ཐབ་བལྟིའོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ། མཁན་པོས་ཟངས་
ཁལ་ཚད་མ་ཅིག་གི་ནང་དུ་ལུང་བོང་༡་གི་རོ་བཙོས་ནས་ཟངས་ལ་རྡོོག་པ་ཅིག་བསྣུན་ཏེ་སྤུབ་པས༴ དགུན་ཟླ་འབྲིང་པོ་ལ་ཐང་ལྷའི་[91]རྩེེ་ནས་སྤྲིིན་ཅིག་ཀྱང་ཆོགས། ཀློག་དང་འབྲུག་སྒྲ་
དྲིག་པོ་ཡིང་བྱུང་། སེར་བ་དང་ལུས་བངས་བབ་པ་ཅིག་ཀྱང་བྱིས། དེ་ཚུན་ཆོད་ཡུལ་ཕྱོགས་དེ་ཐུལ་ཏེ་ ཐབ་ཀྱང་སར་བས་གཡུང་བར་གྱུར་། དེ་ནས་དེ་ཉིད་དུ་དགུང་༣་དགོངས་པ་མཛད་དེ་
Folio 11v
༡
༢
༣
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
གཏོར་མ་བཏང་བས་སྙིིང་དྲུང་གི་ཆུ་ཁོལ་ཡིང་གླིངས་པ་ཆོད་ནས་འཇམ་ཙམ་དུ་རེད། ཟླ་བ་༡་ཙམ་གྱིས་དེ་ནས་མཁན་པོ་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ་གཤེགས་ཏེ་བཙན་པོ་ལ་ཕྱག་བྱིས་ནས། བཙན་པོའི་
སྙིན་དུ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭས་གསོལ་པ། སོན་བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་བཞུགས་པའི་ཚེ་འཛམ་བུའི་གླིིང་གི་ལྷ་ཀླུ་ཐཾད་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་བཀའ་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་མ་ཆུད་པ་ཡིང་མ་མཆོིས་པར་
རིགས[92]་པ་ལས༴ བོད་ཡུལ་འདིར་ལྷ་ཀླུ་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་མ་ཆུད་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ༴ བཙན་པོའི་ཞེ་ས་ནས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་དུ་སྟོེར་བ་ཡིང་མི་འདྲི་ན་གསུཾང་བས། ད་ལྟིའི་དུས་ན་དབུ་རྒྱན་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་
The ས is dotted above to indicate it is redundant.
Insertion below: པར་ངེས་
The words མན་ངག་མནོསོ༎ དེ་ནས་སང་ are dotted above to indicate that they are copied from the previous line and are superfluous.
Insertion below in dbu can: བ་
Insertion below: ༣
Insertion below: མ་
Insertion below: གངས་
The ས is written below, attached to right-hand descender of the ག
Text and Translation
121
(folio 10v)
Gyim Hwa shang also welcomed and prostrated to you and (said), judging from your deportment, you are the kalyāṇamitra widely believed to bring the noble dharma to the land of the red-faced (Tibetans) toward the end of the five-hundred
year period according to the prophecy of the Buddha. So you are the ones undoubtedly.” Gsas snang submitted: “On
top of the heart-felt joy in seeing the countenance of your majesty and, unlike others, there is no greater reward than
being honoured with your kind words. Nothing else is sought, simply help us meet a Hwa shang who gives instructions
in meditation.” Sending a speedy messenger in the emperor’s palanquin, Gyim Hwa shang was summoned from Eg
chu. After he arrived, instructions in meditation and oral precepts were received from him.
Then (the emperor) presented gifts to Sang shi and Gsas snang which were brought by envoys: a protective coat of
thin Chinese leather, fifty bolts of silk, birds and basins of precious stones weighing 100 srang, ten pearl rosaries, each
a span in length, one large bolt of brocade, a damascene vessel two span in circumference studded with gems each
encrusted with the five precious things and so forth. Dispatching a message through the envoys, they set off for Tibet. His
majesty (in Tibet) too spoke adroitly with the ministers to reach an agreement to practise the holy dharma in principle.
When Gsas snang also returned from China and submitted himself to his majesty, it was agreed to invite Bodhisatva
and once again he proceeded to Mang yul.
(folio 11r)
Bodhisatva (then) invited Padmasambhava to Tibet and he accepted; moreover, Gsas Snang asked a preceptor of geomantic signs to travel by the post route for laying the foundation of Bsam yas and building the multi-doored caitya.
Coming to Snye mo thod kar, Padmasambhava announced: “On tomorrow’s path, there is a little hell and there I need
to perform a rite of compassion.” Arriving at the hot spring of Snam, he meditated there for the morning, after which,
by offering a bali in the water, the water cooled considerably and for three days the steam stopped as well. Then, coming
to Gal ta la pass, the preceptor said: “There is a troublesome young white nāga who does not allow the practice of the
dharma in the land of Tibet. It needs to be brought under an oath and subdued. And nearby, there is also a little hell and
toward that I need to perform a rite of compassion.” So saying, he arrived at Snying drung and the hot-headed spirits
asked the preceptor: “Let’s fight and see!” The preceptor cooked the body of an ox in a caldron measuring one khal (in
size), then, when he gave the caldron a kick and overturned it, a cloud also appeared from the peak of Thang lha even
though it was the middle of the winter month. There was, as well, terrible lightning and thunder. In addition, there was
hail and body-drenching (sleet). Ever since, that region was subdued and even when (the spirits) caused trouble, they
were much more docile than before. Then he meditated right there for three days.
(folio 11v)
As a result of offering a bali to the hot spring of Snying drung, the steam ceased and it cooled considerably.
After about a month, the preceptor went from there to the palace and paid his respects to his majesty. After that
Bodhisatva petitioned his majesty: “Long ago when Lord Buddha was residing in the world, one can say that there were
among all the devatā-s and nāga-s of Jambudvīpa none who had not been taken under the Buddha’s teachings by oath
(however) in this land of Tibet the devatā-s and nāga-s have not been brought under control.” His majesty said: “It looks
like they will not allow us to practise of the holy dharma.” (Bodhisatva responded): “There is, at the present time, no one
of greater power in Jambudvīpa than the preceptor of Oḍḍiyāna called Padmasambhava. In whatever way the practice of
the dharma under his majesty’s grace is prevented by vicious and unsubdued devatā-s and nāga-s—such as last year’s
great flood at ’Phang thang and the fire in the royal citadel at Lha sa—this master of mantra is capable of subduing
most of the hostile devatā-s and nāga-s, bringing them under oath and firmly instructing them by consulting divination
texts and casting the divination of the four great kings and gazing in the oracular mirror, thereby bringing peace to the
country for the practice the holy dharma from that (very) moment. Hence this course should be followed. In the past,
122
༤
༥
༦
༧
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་འདི་ལས་[93]མཐུ་ཆོེ་བ་འཛམ་བུའི་གླིིང་ན་མི་བཞུགས་ཏེ༴ སགས་མཁན་འདིས་ནི་ན་ནིང་འཕང་ཐང་དུ་ཆུ་བོ་ཆོེ་བྱུང་བ་དང་ལྷ་སའི་སྐུ་མཁར་མེས་ཚིག་པ་
ལསོགས་ཏེ༴ ལྷ་ཀླུ་གནག་ཅིང་མི་སྲུན་བ་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་བཙན་པོའི་ཞེ་ས་ནས་ཆོོས་མཛད་དུ་མི་སྟོེར་བ་འདྲི་ན་གསུཾང་བ་[94]གང་ལགས་པ་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཆོེན་པོ་བཞེིའི་པྲ་ཕབ་སྟོེ་དྲིི་བ་དང་། པྲ་
སེ་ན་ལྟི་བ་དང་། ལྷ་ཀླུ་མི་སྲུན་པ་ཕལ་[95]བ་གནད་ལ་དབབ་ཅིང་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་སྩལ་ཅིང་མནའ་བསྒཾག་པ་དང༴ བསྒཾོ་ཞེིང་ནན་ཏུར་བགྱིས་ན་ཡུལ་ཞེི་སྟོེ་སླེན་ཆོད་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་སགས་
མཁན་འདིས་རྔོ་ཐོག་ན་དེ་ལྟིར་མཛད་པའི་རིགས། སོན་ཡིང་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་[96]བྱུང་བའི་ཚེ༴ རྒྱ་རྗེེ་ཨེག་མེན་ཏེའི་རིང་ལ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་འབའ་ཏིང་དང་། བྷ་རླན་ཏ་དང་། ཀཾ་ཤང་༣་གྱིས་
Folio 12r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །གེ་གསར་དུ་ཆོོས་བསྟོན་པའི་ཚེ་རྒྱའི་མུ་སྟོེགས་ཀྱིས་ཕྲག་དོག་བགྱིས[97]་བགྱིས་པ་ལས༴ རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་རྣམས་དང༴ རྒྱའི་མུ་སྟོེགས་རྣཾས་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་གཏན་ཚིགས་དང་རྫུ་
འཕྲུལ་གྱི་རླབས་དག་འགྲོན་ཏེ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་ལ་གཉི་གས་མ་ཐུབ་སྟོེ་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་བཟང་བར་བྱིེ་བྲག་ཕྱེད་དེ་ཀུན་ཡིིད་ཆོེས་བརྟན་[98]པས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་འདི་དེང་སང་གི་བར་དུ་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་བརྟན་
པར་གྱུར་པ་ལགས། ད་བོད་ཡུལ་འདིར་ཡིང་དམ་པའི་ལྷ་ཆོོས་ཞེིག་མཛད་ན་ཚུལ་དེ་༤ན་དུ་བགྱིས་ན་བོད་ཁཾས་ཀུན་ཡིིད་ཆོེས་པས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་འདི་ནམ་ཞེར་ཡིང་བརྟན་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། བོད་ཀྱི་མུ་
སྟོེགས་ཀུན་དང་གཏན་ཚིགས་ནི་བདག་དང་འགྲོན་ལ༴ རྫུ་འཕྲུལ་ནི་ཨུ་རྒྱན་[99]སགས་མཁན་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་དང་འདྲིན་ཏེ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་ན་[100]ལགསོ༎ དེ་ལྟིར་ལྷ་ཆོོས་མཛད་པར་ཆོད་ནས་
དཀོན་མཆོོག་
༣་གྱི་རྟེན་གཙུག་ལག་[101]ཞེིག་ཀྱང་བརྩེིག་འཚལ་ཏེ། དེའི་བཟོ་བོ་ནི་བལ་པོའི་ཕྱྭ་མཁན་འདི་ཙམ་ལ[102]་བཟོ་བ་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ༴ གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་དང་ལྕེ་ཏི་མཚན་དང་ལྡེན་པ་ལ་མཁསོ་ཞེེས་མཁན་
པོ་༢་ཀྱིས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། དེ་༤ན་དུ་མཛད་པར་ཆོད་ནས་མཁན་པོས་དེའི་གདུགས་ལ་གཟིམས་མལ་བ་གནང་ཆོེན་སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་འཚོ་བཞེེར་གཉན་ལེགས་ལ་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཆོེན་པོ་༤འི་པྲ་ཕབ་སྟོེ་སྨྲར་
སྩལ། གཞེེ་ནི[103]་འཕང་ཐང་དུ་ཆུ་བོ་ཆོེ་འབེབས་པ་དང་། ར་སའི་[104]མཁར་མེས་ཚིག་པར་བྱིེད་པ་དང༴ མི་ནད་ཕྱུགས་ནད་དང་མུ་གེ་གཏོང་བའི་རྒྱུ་བགྱིད་པའི་ལྷ་ཀླུ་གང་ལགས་པ་རྨས་ནས༴ མི་
སྲུན་པ་ཀུན་གྱི་མིང་
Folio 12v
༡
༢
༣
རུས་བཟུང་ནས་དངོས་སུཾ་བཀུག་སྟོེ། མི་ལ་ཕབ་ནས་བསྡིིགས་ཤིང་ནན་ཏུར་བགྱི་[105]་བ་ནི་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བས་བགྱིས། དེ་རྣཾས་ལ་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་བཤད་ཅིང་བདེན་པ་བདར་བ་ནི་[106]བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭས་
ལོ་ཙ་བ་ལ་སྤྲིིང་
སྟོེ་བོད་སྐད་དུ་ཆོོས་བཤད་ཅིང་བསྒཾོ། དེའི་རྗེེས་ལ་མཁན་པོ་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བས་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བ་ད[107]་སླེན་ཆོད་བོད་ཁམསུཾ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་ཅི་དགྱེས་པར་མཛོད་ཅིག༴ ལྷ་ཀླུ་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་ ནི་ཆུད་ལགས་ན་
འོན་ཀྱང་ལྷ་ཀླུ་ལ་བསྒཾོ་ཞེིང་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་སྩལ་པའི་ཆོོ་ག་འདི་དང་འདྲི་བ་ད་རུང་ལན་༢་ཤིག་བགྱི་འཚལོ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་[108]གསོལ་ཏོ།། དེའ་ི རྗེེས་ལ་དེ་རིང་བཙན་པོ་དབུ་ཁྲུས་མཛད་ པར་མཁན་པོས་
ཐོས་
93 Insertion below: སགས་ཀྱི་
94 The words འདྲི་ན་གསུཾང་བ་ are circled to indicate they are redundant; the same words appear in line 3, above.
95 Insertion below in dbu can: ཆོེ་
96 Insertion below: ཆོོས་
97 The word བགྱིས་ is circled to indicate it is redundant.
98 The word བརྟན་ is dotted above to indicate it is redundant.
99 Insertion below: གྱི་
100 The first vowel (’greng bu) of ལེགསོ་ rubbed out and insertion at top right of page: བླ་འོག་ཀུན་ཐུགས་ཡིིད་ཆོེས་པས་ནཾ་ཞེར་ཡུན་དུ་དཾ་པའི་ཆོོས་བརྟན་པར་འགྱུར་བ་
101 Insertion below: ཁང་
102 Insertion below: ས་
103 Insertion below in dbu can: ང་
104 Insertion below: སྐུ་
105 The ས is erased.
106 Insertion below: ཨཙརྱ་
107 It seems that གསོལ་བ་དང has been amended to གསོལ་བ༴ད
108 The word བཀའ་ is dotted above to indicate it is redundant.
Text and Translation
123
when it (the dharma) arrived in the land of China, in the reign of emperor Eg Men te, when the three Indian preceptors
’Ba’ ting, Bha rlan ta, and Kam shang
(folio 12r)
taught the dharma in Ge gsar, the Chinese non-Buddhists were persistently jealous, so the Indian preceptors competed with the Chinese non-Buddhists in logical disputation about the dharma and in displays of supernormal abilities. Unable (to defeat) the Indian preceptors in both, the dharma of the Buddha emerged as distinctly superior and
because everyone was fully persuaded, this holy dharma remained firmly established in the land of China up to the
present. Should your majesty now wish to propagate the holy dharma here in the land of Tibet as well, and if things are
done in the same manner, the entire realm of Tibet will be persuaded and thereby this holy dharma will become firmly
established forever. Therefore, if the holy dharma is propagated after the non-Buddhists of Tibet have challenged me
in logical disputation and tested in supernormal powers with Padmasambhava, the mantra-knower of Oḍḍiyāna, the
dharma will be firmly established.”
After (his majesty) agreed to act toward the holy dharma in that way, the two preceptors requested that a temple for
the worship of the triple gem also be built saying: “As far as its construction is concerned, there is no one other than this
Nepalese divination expert; he is skilled in building standard vihāra-s and caitya-s.” After (his majesty) agreed to act
accordingly, the preceptor, on that afternoon, performed the mirror divination of the four great kings in the presence of
the chamberlain Seng mgo lha lung ’tsho bzher gnyan legs and asked him to report which among the devatā-s and
nāga-s had earlier caused the great flood in ’Phang thang, gave rise to the burning of the Ra sa citadel, and caused the
famine and epidemics among the people and cattle. Identifying all the names and clans of the malicious ones,
(folio 12v)
Padmasambhava summoned them to his presence and, changing them into human form, castigated and punished them.
As for establishing the truth and explaining the doctrine of cause and effect, Bodhisatva counselled them, explaining
the dharma in the Tibetan language with the help of a translator who was summoned. After that, the preceptor Padmasambhava submitted to his majesty: “Henceforth practise the holy dharma in the land of Tibet as you please! Notwithstanding the fact that I have the devatā-s and nāga-s under oath, I humbly implore that the devatā-s and nāga-s be
counselled and brought under oath through two further rituals of the same kind.”
The preceptor later heard that the ablution of his majesty’s hair was being performed and that day he enquired:
“From where was the water scooped up for the washing of his majesty’s hair?” Bzhes zla made the reply: “It was
brought from the (river) Rtsang chab in the Tamarisk Forest.” The preceptor said: “There will be no benefit from this.
On the summit of Sumeru there is a spring called Aśvakarṇa. If it is brought from there for hair washing, it will profit his
majesty in terms of long life, supreme political authority as well as numerous progeny.” After making this request, the
preceptor Padmasambhava produced, from under his cloak, an empty bird(-shaped) vase in silver embossed with the
eight auspicious emblems in relief. After muttering something, he threw it right up into the sky and it went higher and
higher in the northern direction without stopping. Later, the preceptor, after taking his meal, was absorbed in muttering
mantra-s in the early hours and called back the vase with the auspicious symbols that (very) morning. When he opened
it and looked, it was filled with a light milky water. He enjoined: “Use that water to wash the (king’s) hair.”
124
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
༤ ནས༴ བཙན་པོའི་དབུ་ཁྲུས་མཛད་པའི་ཆུ་གང་ནས་བཅུས་ཤེས་རྨས་པ་དང་། བཞེེས་ཟླས་འོམ་བུ་ཚལ་གྱི་རྩེང་ཆོབ་ལས་བཅུས་ཤེས་བགྱིས་པ་དང་། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་དེས་མི་ཕན་ཏེ་རི་[109]རབ་
ཀྱི་
༥ རྩེེ་ན་ཆུ་མིག་རྟ་རྣ་ཞེེས་བགྱི་བ་མཆོིས་ཏེ། དེ་ལས་བླངས་ཏེ་དབུ་བསིལ་ན་སྐུ་ཚེ་རིང་ཞེིང་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་མཐོ་ལ་སྐུ་འཕན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་ནས་མཁན་པོ་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བའི་[110]ག་ཤའི་འོག་ཏུ་
དངུལ་
༦ གྱི་བྱི་བུཾ་སྟོོང་པ་བཀྲི་ཤིས་ཀྱི་རྫས་བརྒྱད་འབུར་དུ་བཏོད་པ་ཅིག་སྩལ་ཏེ༴ འཛབ་བགྱིས་ནས་ནམཁའ་ལ་འཕངས་ཏེ་བཏང་བས་ཇེ་མཐོ་ཇེ་མཐོ་ལ་བྱིང་ཕྱོགས་ལྟིར་ཕྱད་ཀྱིས་སོང་། དེའི་རྗེེས་ལ་མཁན་
༧ པོ་བཞེེས་པ་གསོལ་ནས་ས་དྲིོ་སགས་ཀྱི་འཛབ་པར་བཞུགས་པ་དང་། ད་ནང་གི་བཀྲི་ཤིས་ཀྱི་བུཾ་པ་སླེར་ཁུགས་ནས་ཁ་ཕྱེ་སྟོེ་བལྟིས་ན་ཆོབ་འོ་མ་འདྲི་བ་སླེ་བ་ཅིག་གིས་བཀང་སྟོེ་བྱུང་ནས་ཆོབ་
Folio 13r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །དེས་དབུ་བསིལ་ཞེེས་གསུཾངས་པ་དང་། ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་གཡིར་སར་བྲིམས་ན་ཞེང་བློན་རྣམས་ཀྱི་མཆོིད་ནས་འདི་མོན་གྱི་བསྙིོན་ཆུ་ནམཁའ་ལ་ཁུགས་ཏེ་
འོངས་པ་འདི་དགོས་པ་མེད་ཀྱིས་ཕོ་སྟོེ་ཐོང་ཤིག་ཅེས་མཆོི་ནས་ཕོ་སྟོེ་བཏང་བའི་རྗེེས་ལ༴ སགས་མཁན་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བས་གསོལ་པ། ངམ་ཤོད་སྟོོད་སྨད་ཀྱི་བྱིེ་མ་འདི་ཀུན་གསིང་ཚལ་དུ་བགྱི༴
དྲྭ་ྭ དང་དོལ་དང་གཞུང་གི་ཕུག་ཤོད་དང་སྟོག་ལ་མན་ཆོད་ཆུ་མིག་ཆོེར་ཕྱུང་ལ་བོད་ཞེིང་གིས་མི་བྲེལ་ཞེིང་འཚོ་བར་བྱི། གཙང་པོ་དང་མཚོ་ཀུན་སྒྲོམ་བུར་བཅུག་ལ་མཆོོང་དུ་ཐར་པར་བྱི། བོད་ཡུལ་
ངན་པ་བཟང་པོར་བྱིས་ལ་ཉམས་དགའ་བར་བྱི་བ་ལསོགས་ཏེ་མཁན་པོས་རྒྱ་ཆོེར་གསོལ་པ་དང་། མད་དམ་ཤོའི་[111]རྟགསུཾ་ཟུ[112]་མཁར་གྱི་མདར་བྱིེ་མ་ལ་འཛབ་བཟླས་ཏེ་དགུང་༡་ཆོོ་ག་བགྱིས་
པས་
བྱིེ་མ་ནེའུར་གྱུར་ཏེ་ཆུ་མིག་ས་དྲིོ་བྱུང་། ཕྱི་འབྲེད་ཅིག་བསྒཾོམས་པས་མཚོ་མོ་མགུར་གྱི་ཞེབས་དང་བླ་བ་ཚལ་གྱི་སྨད་ནར་གྱུར། ཀླུ་སྡིིངས་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་སྐམ་སར་ཆུ་རྡོོལ་བ་དང་། མདུན་ས་ཆུ་
ངུ་ནས་[113]འཕྲོ་བཀུམ་སྟོེ། ཞེང་བློན་དག་གིས་[114]སྙིན་དུ་ཞུས་པས་བཙན་པོ་ ཐུགས་འཕྲིག་ བཞེེས་ཏེ། གོང་དུ་མཁན་པོས་གསོལ་བའི་ལྷ་ཀླུ་ཀུན་ད་རུང་ལན་༢་དམ་རྩེལ་ཞེིང་ནན་ཏུར་བྱི་རྒྱུ་ཡིང་
བོར་ཏེ་མ་བགྱིས་པར་མཁན་པོ་ལ་བྱི་དགའ་སྩལ་ནས་བཙན་པོས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། མཁན་པོ་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་འབྱུང་བ་དང༴ ངའི་ཡིིད་ལ་བསམས་པ་༤ན་བསྒྲུབས་
Folio 13v
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཏེ༴ ལྷ་ཀླུ་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་གཞུག་པ་ལསྭོོགས་པ་ཡིང་[115]དེས་ཆོོག་སྟོེ་ཡུལ་ངམ་ཤོད་ཀྱི་བྱིེ་མ་ཚལ་དང་ནེའུ་[116]དང་ཆུ་མིག་ཀྱང་དབྱུང་མི་དགོས་ཏེ་ངའི་[117]ཡིར་ཁྱིིམ་ཆུ་བོ་ཞེེས་བྱི་བས་ཆོོག་སྟོེ།
ཨཙརྱ
སླེར་ཡུལ་དུ་བཞུད་ཅིག་ཅེས་ལུང་སྩལ་བ་དང་། ཨཙརྱ་[118]ས་བྷ་བའི་ཞེལ་ནས་ངའི་བསམ་བ་ལ་ནི་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་རབ་ཏུ་བརྟན་ཞེིང༴ བོད་ཁམས་ཡིོངས་དགེ་བ་ལ་གཟུད་པ་དང་། ཡུལ་
ཡིང་བཟང་ཞེིང་བདེ་བར་དགོངས་པ་ན༴ བོད་ཀྱི་བཙན་པོ་སེམས་ཆུང་ལ་ཕྲག་དོག་ཆོེ་བས་སྐལ་བ་ཆུང་བ་དག་གི་སཾས་ལ་ངས་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་ཕྲོགས་ཀྱིས་དོགས་པར་[119]གདའ་སྟོེ། ང་རྒྱལ་པོ་འདི་འདྲི་
བའི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་པས་འཁོར་ལོས་སྒྱུར་བའི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་ཀྱང་མི་འདོད་དོ་[120]གསུཾང་ནས་རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་དུ་ཆོས་པ་ན་བཙན་པོས་མཁན་པོའི་ཐུགས་བསྲུང་བའི་སླེད་དུ་ལན་༣་བསྐོར་བ་མཛད་ནས་གསེར་
ཕྱེ་མང་པོ་ཞེིག་མཁན་པོ་ལ་ཕུལ་བས༴ གསེར་ཕྱེ་འདོད་ན་འདེ་རེ་གསུཾང་ནས་བྱིེ་མ་ཕུ་རུང་གང་བླངས་ཏེ་བྱིེ་མ་རིལ་གསེར་ཕྱེར་བསྒྱུར། བཙན་པོའི་ཐུགས་བསྲུང་བའི་སླེད་དུ་གསེར་ཕྱེ་ཁྱིོར་གང་
ཞེིག་སྣོམས་ནས་རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་དུ་གཤེགསོ།། དེ་ནས་མདུན་ས་ཆུ་ངུ་ནས་བགྲོོས་ནས་[121]མ་བསད་ན་བོད་ལ་གནོད་པ་བགྱིད་པར་དཔྱད་དེ་གསོད་མི་བཀྱེ་སྟོེ། དོང་འཕམས་ཀྱི་འཕྲང་དུ་བསྒུགས་པ་དང་
མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་སང་ནི་ང་ལ་གནོད་པ་བྱིེད་པ་འོང་ངོ་ཞེེས་སྐེལ་མ་བྱིེད་པ་[122]རྣཾས་ལ་གསུཾང་། དེ་ནས་དོང་འཕམས་ཀྱི་འཕྲང་དུ་བྱིོན་པ་དང༴ གསོད་མི་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་མདའ་བཀང་བ་ལས་མཁན་
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
A cross mark has been written but there is no annotation.
Insertion below: ན་བཟའི་
Insertion at bottom of the page: བདེན་ནཾ་བརྫུན་
Insertion below in dbu can: ར
Insertion left of bottom page: བློན་པོས་མཛད་དུ་མ་སྟོེར་ཏེ་
Insertion bottom of page: འདི་ནི་མཐུ་ཆོེ་བས་སྲོིད་འཕྲོག་ཅེས་
Insertion below: སར་བྱིས་པ་
Insertion above: སིང་
Insertion below: ཡུལ་
Insertion below: པད་མ་
Insertion below: ལྟི་ with the following word གདའ་ dotted above, indicating the scribe questioning the reading.
Insertion below: ཞེེས་
Insertion below: པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་
The word བྱིེད་པ་ is circled to indicate it is redundant.
༡
Text and Translation
125
(folio 13r)
When it was presented before the great ministers, they conferred and said: “There is no need for this is dubious water
from Mon that has been summoned through the sky. Pour it out and renounce it!” After it was poured out and renounced,
the mantra-knower Padmasambhava spoke at length: “All the sandy ground of upper and lower Ngam shod will be
turned into a green meadow and large numbers of springs will appear in the inner valleys of Drwa, Dol and Gzhug as
far as (the mountain of) Stag la. And because of the fertile fields of Tibet, the people will be busy with fieldwork. All the
rivers and lakes will be contained by gabions and made passable. Barren Tibet will be made productive, happy and so
forth.” To prove if this was true or not, he muttered a japa on the sandy lowland of Zu mkhar for the whole night and, as
a result of the ritual, turned the sandy lowland into a meadow and a spring appeared the next morning. With a half-day
meditation, the bottom of Mtsho mo and the lower part of Bla ba tshal were turned into wetlands and he made water
gush in the dry land called Klu sdings.
The inner assembly cut short the rest and the ministers made his majesty suspicious through their counsel. Not performing—and even abandoning—the essential practice of imposing oaths two further times on the all the devatā-s and
nāga-s mentioned earlier by the preceptor, his majesty, after bestowing presents on the preceptor, ordered: “Preceptor!
It is enough that you have brought the noble dharma to the region of Tibet and done just what I wished,
(folio 13v)
such as bringing the devatā-s and nāga-s under oath as well as other things. It is not necessary to make the sandy
lowland of Ngam shod into parks and meadows and make springs as well, since it is enough that I have the river called
the Yar khyim. Ācārya! Return back to your country!” So his majesty commanded. Ācārya Sambhava replied: “I was of
the view, actually, that you believed the noble dharma would be most firmly established in the land of Tibet, the entire
region of Tibet led to virtue and the land, moreover, made prosperous and peaceful. However, the king of Tibet is smallminded as well as very jealous and it seems the unfortunates harbour a suspicion that I will seize political power. I do
not desire even the political power of a cakravartin never mind the political power of a king like you!”
Having said that, as he was setting out for India, his majesty, in order to placate the preceptor, circumambulated
him thrice and offered much gold dust. Taking a sleeve full of sand and turning it all into gold dust he said: “If I were to
desire gold dust, here it is!” But in order to placate his majesty, he took a scoop of gold dust and departed for the land
of India.
Thereafter, in a meeting of the inner assembly, it was adduced that if (Padmasambhava) was not murdered, he
would do harm to Tibet, so assassins were dispatched to wait in the gorge of Dong ’phams. The preceptor said to the
escorts: “Tomorrow, people will come to harm me.” As he arrived in the gorge of Dong ’phams, the assassins drew their
arrows
126
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 14r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །པོས་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་བསྡིཾས་པས་[123]ཉི་ཤུ་ཙམ་སྨྲ་ཡིང་མ་ཤེས་འགྲོོ་ཡིང་མ་ནུས་ཏེ་འབག་ལ་བྲིས་པ་༤ན་དུ་འདུག་པའི་ནང་ནས་ཡིར་གཤེགས་ཏེ། དེ་ནས་མང་ཡུལ་ཁར་བྱིོན་ནས་སྐེལ་
མ་རྣཾས་སླེར་བཀྱེ་སྟོེ༴ མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་ལྷ་ཀླུ་དང་འདྲིེ་སྲོིན་དམ་འོག་ཏུ་ལན་༣་བཅུག་ན་བཙན་པོ་ཡིང་སྐུ་ཚེ་རིང༴ དབོན་སྲོས་ཀྱང་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ཆོེ། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་འཁྲུག་པ་
ཡིང་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་ཀྱང་ཡུན་རིང་དུ་གནས་པ་ཞེིག་ན་འཕྲོ་ལུས་པ་ཐུགས་ལ་གཅགས། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་ཆོོས་ལྔ་བརྒྱ་ཐ་མ་ལ་ཉེ་བ་ན་བྱུང་བ་མུ་སྟོེགས་ཀྱི་རྒོོལ་བ་
ནི་མི་འབྱུང་། [124]སངས་རྒྱས་པ་ཉིད་རྩེོད་པ་ཞེིག་ཏུ་འགྱུར། བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་འཁྲུག་པ་ཆོེན་པོ་ཞེིག་ཀྱང་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས། སྐེལ་མ་ལ་ཉུངས་ཀར་ཞེིག་བརྫངས་ཏེ་ང་ལ་མདའ་
འཕེན་པ་རྣམས་ལ་[125]ཐོབ་ཤིག་དང་འགྲོོ་ནུས་པར་འགྱུརོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་། དོང་འཕམས་ཀྱི་གསོད་མི་འབག་[126]བཞེིན་དུ་འདུག་པ་ལས་ཉུངས་ཀར་བཏབ་པ་དང་གདོད་འགྲོོ་ནུས་པ་དང་སྨྲ་ཤེས་
པར་གྱུར་ཏོ།། སྐེལ་
མ་རྣམས་སླེར་ལོག་ནས་ལོ་རྒྱུས་རྣཾས་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བ་དང་། བཙན་པོ་ཐུགས་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་གཅགས་པར་གྱུར་ཏོ༎ དེ་ནས་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་མདུན་ས་ནི་བྲག་དམར་མཚོ་མོའི་གུར་དུ་ཕུབ། གསས་སྣང་ནི་སྣམ་
ཕྱིའི་ས་གཡིས་ཀྱི་ཚུགས་དཔོན་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་བླར་བསྐོས་སོ༎ སླེད་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་དང་བོན་འགྲོན་པར་ཆོད་ནས་ཕག་གི་ལོ་ལ་ཕོ་བྲང་ཟུས་ཕུག་སྐང་བུ་ཚལ་དུ་འདུས་ནས། ཆོོས་ཀྱི་ཤགས་མཁན་ནི་མཁན་
Folio 14v
པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་དང༴ མྱང་ཤ་མི་གོ་ཆོ་དང༴ ཞེང་རྒྱལ་ཉ་བཟང་དང༴ ཞེང་[127]མེས་སླེེབས་དང༴ སྙིེར་སྟོག་བཙན་ལྡེོང་གཟིགས་དང༴ སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་དང༴རྩེིག་རྨ་རྨ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་བགྱིས། བོན་
གྱི་
༢ ཤགས་མཁན་ནི་སྟོག་ར་ཀླུ་གོང་དང༴ རྩེིས་པ་ཆོེན་པོ་ཁྱུང་པོ་དུན་ཙུག་དང་རུ་དཔོན་ཆོེན་པོ་[128]ཚེ་ཐེ་དང༴གཟིམས་མལ་བ་གཙོ་སྨོན་ཙ་ར་ལསོགས་པས་བགྱིས་ནས་གཏན་ཚིགས་འདྲིན་པར་
བགྱིས་༴
༣ རྫུ་འཕྲུལ་གྱིས་འགྲོན་པར་མ་བགྱིས་ན[129]༴ ཁྱིད་ཆོེ་ཞེིག་ཆོོས་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཆོེ་བར་གྱུར་ཏེ། བཟང་ལ་རྒྱ་ཆོེ༴ ཟབ་ལ་གཏིང་རིང་སྟོེ་བོན་པོ་ཤགས་ངན་པར་གྱུར་ཏོ༎ འཕན་ཡུལ་གྱི་བྱིི་
༤ བོན་པོས་བདུར་བ་རྣཾས་བསེ་རེགས་སུཾ་གྱུར་ཏེ། ཕྱིན་ཆོད་[130]བོན་[131]བགྱིད་དུ་མི་གནང་བར་བཅད། གཤིན་གྱི་ཕྱིར་གནག་རྟ་མང་པོ་དང་སྲོོག་ཆོགས་མང་པོ་གསོད་ཅིང་སས་སུཾ་ཤ་འབེབས་སུཾ་མི་
གནང་བར་
༥ བཅད། མཁན་པོ་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བས་ཆོོ་ག་ལན་༡་བགྱིས་པས་ཀྱང་སྨན་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་ཚུན་ཆོད་ཆོར་ཡིང་དུས་སུཾ་བབ། མི་ནད་ཕྱུགས་ནད་རྒྱུན་ཆོད་ནས་ བསམ་ཡིས་ཡིོས་བུའི་ལོ་
༦ ལ་དཔྱིད་ཨ་ཙརྱ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭས་རྨང་བཏིང་བ་ཡིང་བལ་པོའ་ི ཕྱྭ་མཁན་གྱིས་ཆོོ་ག་བགྱིས་ཏེ་རྟགས་དང[132]་མཚན་མ་དག་བརྟགས་ན༴ བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་ཚུགས་པའི་ལྟིས་བཟང་པོ[133]་འོག་ནས་
རིན་པོ་
༧ ཆོེའི་གཏེར་བྱུང་བ་ལསོགས་པ་དང་། ལྷ་ཆོོས་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་དར་བར་འགྱུར་བའི་བཟང་ལྟིས་ཕལ་ཆོེར་བྱུང་ངོ་༎ བོད་ལ་དགེ་སླེོང་གི་མིང་ཡིང་མ་མཆོིས་པ་ལས་དབའ་ལྷ་བཙན་བན་དྷེར་ཕྱུང་ནས་
༡
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Insertion below: མི་
Insertion below: ནཾཞེིག
Insertion below: འདི་
Insertion below: ཏུ་བྲིསཔ
Insertion below: མཆོིམས་
Insertion below: ཁྱུང་པོ་
Insertion below: འང་
Insertion above: བདུར་ཤིད་
Insertion below: གྱིས་
It appears that ཀྱི(ས)་ has been erased and replaced with དང་
Insertion below: ས་
Text and Translation
127
(folio 14r)
and the preceptor made the twenty-some unable to move or speak like painted figures by binding them with a mudrā—
and he walked through them.
After that, just before arriving to Mang yul, the preceptor once again gave a message to the escorts: “If the devatā-s,
nāga-s and demons in the region of Tibet were bound under oath three times, then his majesty too would live long, the
political power of his descendants would also be great, strife in the land of Tibet would also cease (and) the dharma
of the Buddha would be established for a long time. This being so, bear in mind there is unfinished work! In the realm
of Tibet, as the final five hundred years of the dharma draws near, the attacks of the unbelievers will not take place.
(Rather) a time will come when the Buddhists will dispute among themselves (and) a huge turmoil in the realm of Tibet
will come to pass.” So saying he sent some mustard seed with the escorts and added: “Cast this at those who would
shoot arrows at me, and they will be able to move.” The assassins at Dong ’phams, who were still like figures, were able
to move and speak as soon as the mustard seed was cast.
When the escorts returned and submitted the full account to his majesty, he felt utterly despondent.
After that a dharma council was convened in the valley of Brag dmar mtsho mo and Gsas snang was appointed
head of the dharma (with the title of) tshugs dpon (‘trusted head’ in protocol) standing on the right of the Snam phyi.
Having agreed to hold a debate in future between the Bon and the dharma of the Buddha, they assembled in the Pig Year
at the palace of Zus phug skyang bu tshal. For the dharma (of the Buddha), the debaters were represented
(folio 14v)
by the preceptor Bodhisatva, Myang Sha mi go cha, Zhang rgyal Nya bzang, Zhang Mes slebs, Snyer Stag btsan
ldong gzigs, Seng mgo Lha lung gzigs, Rtsig rma rma. For Bon, the debaters were represented by Stag ra klu gong,
Rtsis pa chen po khyung po dun tsug, Ru dpon chen po tse the, Gzims mal ba gtso smon tsa ra and others. Then
they entered into logical debate. Since they did not contend in the miraculous, the logical debate of the dharma (of the
Buddha) emerged stronger in a conspicuous way, being superior, broader, deeper and more profound. The Bon po-s
were worsted as a result.
Those whose last rites were conducted by the Byi Bon po-s of the ’Phan country turned into essence-eating demons
because of which the Bon po’s performance was proscribed. Since there was large-scale slaughter of cattle, horses
and many other creatures for the sake of the dead, from then on meat-offerings were proscribed. Even the single ritual
performance conducted by the preceptor Padmasambhava turned out to be beneficial because ever since the rain fell in
time (and) epidemics among the people and livestock ceased.
In the spring of the Hare Year at Bsam yas, Ācārya Bodhisatva laid the foundation (of the temple) and the Nepalese
divination expert also performed a ritual; when he scrutinised the various omens and signs, there were good portents for
the establishment of the holy dharma in the land of Tibet, such as the appearance of hidden treasure from the ground
etc., and many other propitious indications that augured well for the spread of the holy dharma in the land of Tibet.
Whereas even the word Dge slong did not exist in Tibet, when Dba’ Lha btsan became a Buddhist monk,
128
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 15r
༡ ༄༅། །མིང་ཡིང་དབའ་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་སུཾ་བཏགས། ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་བལ་ཡུལ་དུ་བསྐལ་བ་ཡིང་སླེར་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་སྟོེ༴ རྟ་པ་[134]ཅིག་གི་པང་དུ་བླངས་ཏེ་སླེར་ར་མོ་ཆོེར་བཞུགས། དེ་ནས་གསས་
༢ སྣང་གིས་བླའི་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་མ་བརྩེིགས་པར་གླིག་གི་ལྷ་ཁང་བཞེེངས་སུཾ་གསོལ། དབའ་ཕ་ཚན་བོན་བཞེག་ནས་ཆོོས་བགྱིད་དུ་སྩལ། དབའ་ལྷ་གཟིགས་ཀྱིས་གྲོོགས་པོ་མྱང་རོས་ཀོང
༣ གི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་བྱིས། ཆོོས་བསླེབ[135]་ཁྲིིམས་ལྔ་ཕོག། རོས་གོང་གིས་ཀྱང་ཕུ་ནུ་བོའི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་བྱིས་ཏེ་དཀར་པོར་བསྒྱུར་རོ༎ དེ་ནས་ཡིོས་བུའི་ལོ་ལ་བསམ་ཡིས་རྩེིག་
༤ པར་བཅད་དེ། གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་རྨང་འདིངས་པའི་ཚེ་ མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་དང༴ བཙན་པོ་དང༴ འབའ་སང་ཤི་དང༴ སྙིེར་སྟོག་བཙན་ལྡེོང་གཟིགས་དང་དེ་རྣམས་བྲག་དམར་ཁས་པོ་རིའི་རྩེེ་མོར་
༥ ཕྱིན་ཏེ་མཁན་པོས་བལྟིས་ན། དེ་ཙམ་ན་སྒུང་པ་དང༴ སྐང་ཀལ་མ་དང༴རྩེི་སྐ་ཅན་དུ་མཆོིས་པ་ལས། སྙིེར་སྟོག་བཙན་ལྡེོང་གཟིགས་རྩྭའི་ཐོ་ཡིོར་བགྱིད་དུ་སྩལ་ཏེ་ས་བཅད་ནས༴ སྙིད་ནི་
༦ ཆོིབས་བྲེས་ཀྱི་ར་བ་རྩེིག་ཅེས་གླིེངས་ཏེ། རྩེའི་ཐོ་ཡིོར་གྱིས་ས་བཀུམ་པ་༤ན་ཕྱིའི་ལྕཌ[136]་རིས[137]་བརྩེིགས། ས་བརྟག་པ་དང་ས་གཞེི་བྱིིན་གྱིས་རློབ་པའི་ཆོོ་ག་བགྱིས་པའི་ཚེ་ནང་བློན་གྱི་བུ་ཚ་
༧ ཕ་མ་འཆོམ་པ་༤་དང་། བཙན་པོ་ཉིད་དང་ལྔས་གསེར་གྱི་ནན་ཏི་བཙན་པོའི་སྐུ་ལ་གསོལ་ཏེ། གསེར་གྱི་གཞེོར་ཕྱག་ཏུ་བཞེེས་ནས་བཙན་པོའི་ཞེ་ས་ནས་ཕྱག་དར་དེ་གཞེོར་
Folio 15v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཐབས་བདུན་ཞེིག་བརྐོས། དེ་ནས་ཞེང་བློན་གྱི་བུ་ཚ་༤ས་རེ་མོསུཾ་བརྐོས་པ་དང་། ཕྲུ་གང་གྲུ་༤ར་པྱིན་པ་དང༴ འབྲས་དཀར་མོ་དང༴ ནས་དཀར་མོ་ཕུལ་དོ་ཙམ་འདུག་པ་དག་བྱུང་སྟོེ༐
གྲོམ་པ་དང༴ རུས་པ་དང༴ གྱོ་མོ་དང༴ སོལ་བ་ལྟི་བུ་ནི་མ་བྱུང་། སང[138]་ཡིང་ས་ཞེག་སྐ་སྣར་དུ་མང་པོ་ཞེིག་བྱུང་སྟོེ༴ མཁན་པོའང་དགའ་སྟོེ༴ བཙན་པོའི་སྤྱི་བོ་ལ་བྱུགས་ཏེ་སི་ཏི་སི་ཏི་ཕ་
ལ་ཕ་ལ་བཟང་པོ་གྲུབ་པོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་སྟོེ༴ ཐོག་མར་ཨརྱ་པ་ལོའི་གླིིང་བརྩེིགས། གཟུགས་མཁན་མེད་ཅེས་བཙན་པོས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་དཔལ་
ལྷ་བཙན་པོ་ཡིོ་བྱིད་སྡིོགས་ཤིག་དང༴ གཟུགས་མཁན་འོང་ངོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། རྒྱ་ཚལ་བུ་ཅན་ཞེིག་ཚོང་དུས་ན་མར་བོད་ཀྱི་བཙན་པོ་ལྷ་ཁང་རྩེིག་ཟེར་ན་ང་ནི་སྐུ་གཟུགས་
ལ་མཁས་སོ་ཤེས་མཆོི་བ་དེ་བཀུག་སྟོེ། མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་རྒྱ་གར་དང་རྒྱའི་[139]གཟུགས་གང་ལྟིར་བྱི་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་བ་དང་། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བོད་ཀྱི་གཟུགས་ཀྱི་ཆོ་ལུགས་
དང་འཐུན་པར་བྱིས་ན་ནག་པོའི་ཕྱོགས་པ་ཐཾད་དད་པ་སྐེ་བར་ཐུགས་རེ་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏེ༴ བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་༤ན་དུ་བོད་ཀྱི་ཞེང་བློན་རྣཾས་ཀྱི་གཟུགས་ཀྱི་ཆོ་ལུགས་བགྱིས་པའི་དཔེ་ནི་
བོད་འབངས་ལ་[140]བཟང་སྡུག་ཆོེ་བ་ཁུ་སྟོག་ཚབ༴ ཐག་བཟང་སྟོག་ལོད༴ རྨ་གསས་ཀོང་དེ་༣་ལ་དཔེ་བླངས། ལྷ་མོའི་དཔེ་ནི་[141]ཅོ་རོ་[142]ལྷ་བུ་སྨན་ལ་དཔེ་བླངས་ཏེ་བགྱིསོ༎ སྐུ་གཟུགས་
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Insertion below in dbu can: ག
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
The ཌ is dotted above to indicate it was read as ང and corrected below to: གས thus giving ལྕགས་
The ས is dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
The ས is rubbed out.
The word རྒྱའི་ is circled to indicate it is a mistake; corrected in a cursive hand below to: བོད་ཀྱི་
Insertion bottom left: གཟུགས་ཀྱི་དཔེ་བླང་བའི་ཕྱིར་ཐཾད་བསོགས་ཏེ་སྐེས་པ་ལ་
Insertion below: བུད་ཎ་ [= མེད་] ལ་གཟུགས་བཟང་བ་
Insertion below: ཟ་
Text and Translation
129
(folio 15r)
his name too was changed to Dba’ Dpal dbyangs. The Śākyamuni (image) that had been escorted to Nepal, carried by
a single horseman, was brought back again and reinstalled in the Ra mo che. Then the devatā shrine of Glag was built
at Gsas snang’s behest instead of constructing the temple of Bla. He exhorted the paternal side of the Dba’ (clan) to
give up Bon and follow the dharma of the Buddha. Dba’ Lha gzigs became the kalyāṇamitra of his friend Myang Ros
kong, instructing him in the five fundamental vows of the dharma. Ros gong, in his turn, became the kalyāṇamitra of
his elder and younger brothers and they converted to the pure (or white religion, i. e. Buddhism).
Then, having decided to construct Bsam yas in the Hare Year, while the temple foundation was being laid out,
the preceptor Bodhisatva, his majesty, ’Ba’ Sang shi and Snyer Stag btsan ldong gzigs went to the summit of Khas
po ri in Brag dmar. When the preceptor looked down, there were sgung pa and skyang kal ma (types of grass), grey in
colour, round about the site. Marking the ground, he asked Snyer Stag btsan ldong gzigs to make sheaves of the grass,
saying: “Make an enclosure as you would for a horse corral.” The outer enclosure was made with the sheaves of grass
as instructed.
When the time came for the performance of the ritual for the examination and consecration of the site, four sons of
the nobles with living parents—including his majesty—those five (together) put a Nan ti of gold on the royal person of
the king. Then, after picking up a golden hoe in his hand, his majesty dug seven times just in front of him
(folio 15v)
with that hoe which had been decorated with silk ribbons. After that, the sons of the ministers each dug in turn. When
they had dug a square to the depth of one span, about two small measures of white rice and barley were found. Pebbles,
bone, pot sherds, charcoal and the like were not found. Moreover, the earth yielded an abundance of pliable grey strips
of clay. The preceptor was delighted and, smearing the head of his majesty, said: “siddhi, siddhi, phala, phala, it will be
accomplished well!”
To begin, the caitya of Ārya palo was built. His majesty announced: “There is no image-maker.” The preceptor said:
“My Lord and noble majesty, (just) arrange the requisites; the image-maker will come!” He then summoned a Chinese
vermillion seller who had been proclaiming in various markets: “If his majesty of Tibet decides to build a temple, I am
an expert in statues.” When the preceptor asked: “Which sort of image should we make—Indian and Chinese?” His
majesty then deemed: “If the accoutrements of the images conform to (the custom) in Tibet, the hope is that all those
on the dark side (of Bon) will be inspired with faith (in Buddhism).” In accord with his command, the model was based
on the accoutrements of the Tibetan ministers and among the Tibetan subjects, Khu Stag tshab, Thag bzang stag lod,
and Rma Gsas kong—being the most handsome—where chosen as models. As for the model for goddesses, Co ro Lha
bu sman was chosen as the model (and the work) was undertaken. The images,
130
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 16r
༡ ༄༅། །དང་རི་མོ་དང་བཟོ་ཀུན་ལགས་ནས་དྲིལ་ཚེས་ཉི་ཤུ་དགུའི་གདུགས་ལ་ཞེལ་བསྲོོ་བགྱི་བར་བགྱིས་པ་ལས། ཕྱི་འབྲེད་དགུང་རྨོངས་པ་དང༴ལྷ་ཁང་གི་སྟོེང་ནས་འོད་ཅིག་
༢ ཇེ་ཆོེ་ཇེ་ཆོེ་བྱུང་སྟོེ། བྲག་དམར་གྱི་ཕུ་མདས་སུཾ་འོད་ཀྱིས་ཁྱིབ་པར་ཟླ་བ་ཤར་བ་༤ན་དུ་སྣང་[143]སྟོེང་དུ་ཨ་མི་ད་བའི་ལྷ་ཁང་ཡིང་ཐོག་ཏུ་བྱིས་པ་ཅིག་རྩེིག་དགོས་སོ་ཤེས་གསུཾང་ནས༴ དེ་༤ན་
༣ དུ་ལྷ་ཁང་ཆུང་ངུ་ཡིང་ཐོག་ཅིག་མོད་ལ་བརྩེིགས་ནས་སྟོོད་ཞེལ་བསྲོོསོ༎ ཨརྱ་པ་ལོའི་ཞེལ་བསྲོོ་ཆོེན་པོའི་ཚེ་སྐུ་གཟུགས་མཁན་རྒྱ་ཚལ[144]བུ་ཅན་ལ་འཚལ་མ་དང་བྱི་དགའ་
༤ སྩལ་བར་བགྱིས་ཏེ། སྟོན་བེག་ཙོ་བཏིང་ནས་གཡིར་འདྲིེན་དུ་བཏང་པ་ལས༴ གར་ཐལ་གཏོལ་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་སྤྲུལ་པ་ཞེིག་ལག[145]་པར་དཔྱད་དོ༎ མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་བཙན་པོ་ཁྱིོད་དང་པོ་
༥ བྱིང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་སེམས་བསྐེད་པའང་ལྷ་མོ་སྒྲོལ་མས་བྱིས། ནམ་ཞེིག་སངས་རྒྱས་ནས་རྡོོ་རྗེེའི་གདན་ལ་བཞུགས་པའི་ཚེའང་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་འཁོར་ལོ་སྐོར་བའི་སྐུལ་མ་ཡིང་ལྷ་མོ་སྒྲོལ་མས་བྱིེད་པས་
༦ ད་ཡིང་ལྷག་པའི་བསམ་པ་ལ་བགེགས་དང་བར་ཆོད་མི་གཏང་[146]བར་ལྷ་མོ་སྒྲོལ་མ་དེ་ལ་གསོལ་བ་གདབ་པ་དང་བསྙིེན་པ་གྱིས་ཤིག་པར་གསུཾང་སྟོེ། བཙན་པོས་མཁན་པོ་ལ་ལུང་མནོས་ན་ཨརྱ་པ་
༧ ལོ་གླིིང་དུ་བསྒཾོམས་པའི་ཚེ་ཉིན་ལན་༣་མཚན་ལན་༣་དུ་འཕགས་པ་རྟ་མགྲོིན་གྱིས་རྟ་སྐད་ཕྱུང་བ་ཞེ་འབྲིང་ནང་པ་དང༴ ལྷ་ཁང་སྲུང་བ་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་མངོན་སུཾམ་དུ་ཐོསོ༎ ས་བརྟགས་ཏེ་
Folio 16v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཆོོ་ག་བགྱིས་པའི་སར་ནི་དབུ་རྩེེ་བརྩེིགས། ཁང་པ་ནི་བགྱིས[147]་ལགས་ནས་སྐུ་གཟུགས་ཇི་ལྟི་བུ་ཞེིག་བྱི་སྙིཾ་ནས་བཙན་པོ་དགོངས་པ་ལས། རྨང་ལམ་དུ་མི་དཀར་པོ་ཞེིག་གི་
མཆོིད་ནས༴ རྒྱལ་པོ་ཁྱིོད་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་གཟུགས་ཇི་ལྟི་བུ་དང་ཅི་ལས་བྱི་སཾས་པ་ངས་བསྟོན་གྱིས༴ སོན་བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་ཀྱིས་བྱིིན་གྱིས་བརླབས་པ་ཡིོད་ཀྱིས་འདོང་
ཞེེས་ཟེར་ཏེ་ཁས་པོ་རིར་ཕྱིན་པ་དང༴ བྲག་ཀུན་ལྟིར་བཅུག་པ་དང༴ འདི་དང་འདི་ནི་དེ་༤ན་གཤེགས་པའི་མཚན་འདི་དང་འདི་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་དང༴ བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའི་མཚན་འདི་དང་
འདི་ཞེེས་བྱི་བ་དང་ཞེེས་མཚན་སྨོས་སོ༎ ཁྲིོ་བོ་ཀུན་ཡིང་བསྟོན་ཏེ་དགུང་སངས་མ་ཐག་ཏུ་གཤེགས་ཏེ་རྨང་ལམ་དུ་བསྟོན་པ་དེ་གཟིགས་པ་དང་། རྨང་ལམ་དང་འཐུན་པར་བྲག་ལ་
ལྷའི་གཟུགས་འོལ་བྱིི་ཙམ་གདའ་ནས་ཤིན་ཏུ་དགྱེས་ཏེ་བལ་པོའི་རྡོོ་མཁན་འགུགས་པ་བཏང་ནས༴ མཆོིས་མ་ཐག་ཏུ་སྐུ་གཟུགས་རིལ་དེ་ཉིད་དུ་བགྱིས་ཏེ། ཤིང་རྟ་ལ་བཞེག་
པའི་དུས་སུཾ་ས་གཡིོས་སོ༎ ཤར་སྒཾོའི་ཐེམ་ཀར་ཕྱིན་པའི་ཚེ་ས་ལན་༡་གཡིོས་སོ༎ དྲིི་གཙང་ཁང་གི་ནང་དུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་གདན་ལ་བཞུགསུཾ་གསོལ་བའི་ཚེའང་ས་གཡིོས་སོ། །
དེ་ནས་ན་བཟའ་གསོལ༴ གསེར་གྱི་སྐ་རགས་བཅིངས་པའི་སྟོེང་དུ་འཇིམ་པ་གཡིོགསོ༎ དེ་ནས་གླིིང་གཞེན་[148]དང་མཆོོད་རྟེན་༤འང་[149]བརྩེིགས་ཏེ། ལྷོ་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་མཆོོད་རྟེན་མཐིང་
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Insertion top of page: སྟོེ་མཁན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་འོད་འདི་ནི་ཨ་མི་ད་བ་གཤེགས་པའི་འོད་ཡིིན་ཏེ༴ སང་གི་ཉི་མ་ལ་ལྷང་ [= ལྷ་ཁང་] གི་དབུ་རྩེེའི་
Insertion below: ་ (tsheg)
Insertion below: ས
Insertion below indicating the word གཏང་ should be replaced with: འབྱུང་
The word བགྱིས་ is dotted above and stroked through to indicate it is superfluous.
Insertion below: ༤གླིིང་ཕྲན་བརྒྱད་ཡིག་ཤ་ལྟི་འོག་
Insertion bottom left: མཆོོད་རྟེན་དཀར་པོ་ཤུད་པུ་རྒྱ་ལྟིོ་རེ་ང་མིས༴ ནག་པོ་ངན་ལཾ་སྟོག་ར་ཀླུ་གོང་གིས༴ དམར་པོ་སྣ་ནཾ་རྒྱལ་ཚ་ལྷ་སྣང་གིས༴ སོན་པོ་མཆོིམས་མདོ་༤་སྤྲིེ་ཆུང་གིས་
Text and Translation
131
(folio 16r)
painting and building all being complete, at noon on the twenty-ninth day, the performance of the consecration that
had been scheduled was done. As a result, in the evening, as the sky darkened, a light shone forth from the top of the
devagṛha and grew brighter and brighter, and the light illuminated the upper and lower parts of the valley of Brag
dmar like a rising moon. Seeing (that) on the roof-top, (the king) commanded: “On the uppermost storey, a devagṛha
of Amitābha should be built!” and accordingly a small upper storey for the devagṛha was immediately built and consecrated.
At the time of the great consecration of the Ārya palo, it being decided to offer food and a reward to the Chinese
vermillion seller, a special carpet was laid out, and people sent to invite him, but nobody knew where he had gone. So
it was concluded that he was an emanation.
The preceptor said: “Oh king! The goddess Tārā stimulated your first wish for supreme enlightenment and, in the
past, after attaining enlightenment, even while tarrying at the vajrāsana, it was also the goddess Tārā who instigated
the turning of the wheel of dharma. So, once again, to eliminate obstacles and impediments to altruism, to that same
Tārā you should pray and make offering. When the king requested the instruction from the preceptor, while he was
meditating in the Ārya palo caitya, the inner courtiers and temple guards actually heard Ārya Hayagrīva neigh three
times successively in the day and three times in the night.
On the ground
(folio 16v)
where the ritual examination of the site was done, the central shrine (dbu rtse) was built. When the building was done,
after his majesty wondered what the images should be like, a white man (appeared) in a dream (and) said: “Oh king! I
will instruct you regarding your concerns about which images of the Buddha should be made and from what material,
because there is (a place) once blessed by the Lord—let’s proceed (there).” So saying (they) went to Khas po ri and,
making (the king) look at all the rock faces, he invoked the holy names saying: “This and that are the Tathāgatas named
such and so, and (this and that) are the bodhisatva-s named such and so.” Having been shown all the wrathful deities
as well, as soon as day broke, he set off and saw what had been shown in the dream. And because images of the gods on
the rocks roughly corresponded to the dream, he was much pleased and sent for Nepalese stone masons who, on arrival,
immediately made all the images on the spot. At the time when these were placed in a horse-cart, the earth shook. When
they reached the threshold of the east gate, the earth shook once. When they were taken and installed on their seats
inside the Dri gtsang khang, the earth shook again. Then they were respectfully given clothing tied with a gold sash,
while the upper parts were dressed with clay.
Then four stūpa-s and other shrines were built. The cakra
132
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 17r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༄༅། །ཁའི་འཁོར་ལོ་ཤིང་མཁན་དང༴ མགར་བས་ཁས་པོ་རིའི་[150]དུ་ལགས་ནས་སང་དྲིང་རྒྱུ་ལས་སྟོོར་བ་[151]ནི་མཆོོད་རྟེན་ལ་བཙུགས་ནས་གདའོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་། ལྷ་སྲོས་
ཀྱི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཤིང་མཁན་དང་མགར་བ་ལ་[152]བྱི་དགའ་ཆོེར་སྩལ་ཏོ༎ དེའི་ནུབ་མོ་ཕྱྭ་མཁན་བལ་པོའི་གཡིར་ལམ་ན་མི་གསེར་ཁྲིབ་ཅན་༤ས་འཁོར་ལོ་ཁྱིེར་ཏེ་བཙུགས། མི་
དེ་རྣཾས་ན་རེ་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱི་མཆོོད་རྟེན་འདི་ད[153]་བདུན་བརྩེིགས་ན་འདི་ཡིང་ལེགས་རབ༴ བྱི་དགའ་གསེར་ཁྲིབ་འདི་ཁྱིེར་ཅིག་ཅེས་པ་དང་། མཆོོད་རྟེན་འདི་ལ་བསྐོར་བ་བྱིས་པ་ནི་ཅི་འདོད་
འགྲུབ་པོ་ཞེེས་སྨྲ་ བ་ རྨིས་ནས་དགུང་སངས་པ་དང༴ དེར་བལྟིས་ཙ་ན་མི་ནི་མི་གདའ༴ ཁྲིབ་ནི་དངོསུཾ་གདའ༴ དེ་༤ན་དུ་[154]ཕྱྭ་མཁན་གྱིས་བཙན་པོའི་སྙིན་དུ་ཞུས་[155]དང་བྱི་དགའ་
ཡིང་འཁོར་དང་བཅས་པ་ལ་ཆོེ་ཐང་དུ་གནང་། དེ་སྐད་དུ་སྟོོན་པ་ནི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཆོེན་པོ་༤་ལགས་ཏེ༴ རྒྱལ་པོ་ཆོེན་པོ་༤འི་གཟུགས་ཀྱང་བུཾ་པའི་སྟོེང་དུ་མཛད་དོ༎ [156] གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་
ནི་བརྩེིགས༴ ཞེལ་ནི་མ་བསྲོོས་པའི་སྐབས་སུཾ་[157]གསས་སྣང་རབ་ཏུ་བྱུང་བའི་མིང་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོར་བཏགསོ། [158]ཞེང་བློན་གྱི་བུ་ཚ་མཆོིམས་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ལསོགས་པ་མང་པོ་ཞེིག་
Folio 17v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
རྒྱ་[159]སྐད་དུ་[160]བསླེབས་པ་ལས། མཆོིམས་ཨ་ནུའི་བུ་ཤཱཀྱ་ པྲ་བྷ་དང་། པ་ འོར་ན་འདོད་ཀྱི་བུ་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་དང་། དབའ་རྨ་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་བུ་[161]རད་ན་དང་། ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་གི་བུ་[162]ལྷ་
བུ་དང༴ [163]བསེ་བཙན་དང༴ ཤུད་པོ་ཁོང་སླེེབས་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ནི་སྐད་ལོབསོ༎ གཞེནི་རྒྱུགསོ།། སྐད་ལོབས་པ་[164]དང་དབའ་རྨ་གཟིགས་ཀྱི་བུ་[165]རབ་ཏུ་བྱུང་བའི་མི[166]་ནི་རད་ནར་བཏགསོ༎
ལུག་གི་ལོ་དགུན་ཟླ་འབྲིང་པོ་ལ་ཞེལ་བསྲོོས་པྲ་ཏི་ཆོེན་པོ་མཛད་པའི་ཚེ། ཇོ་བོ་[167]གཅེན་ཁྲིི་རྒྱལ་དང་། སྲུ་བཙན་མོན་རྒྱལ་ལསོགས་ཏེ་རྗེེ་འབངས་བརྒྱ་རབ་ཏུ་བྱུང་བའི་མཁན་
པོ་ཡིང་དབའ་རིན་པོ་ཆོེས་བགྱིས། བཀའ་ཤོག་ཆོེན་པོ་བཏང་། སླེན་ཆོད་ཆོགས་འོག་གི་འབངས་ལ་ཕོ་ མིག་མི་དབྱུང་། མོ་སྣ་མི་གཅད་པར་གནང་། འབངས་ཕྱོགས་སུཾ་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་
བཀའ་[168]ཆོེན་པོ་སྩལ་བར་བཀས་གནང་། བློན་ཆོེ་མན་ཆོད་སྣ་ལ་གཏོགས་པ་འབངས་རིལ་པོས་[169]སྦྱོོར་ཏེ་ཆོ་ལས་གསོལ༴ན་བཟའ་ནི་མང་ལ་འཕན་གྱི་བྲུངས་པས་སྦྱོོར། བན་དེ་རེ་རེ་
150 Insertion below in dbu can: དྲུང
151 Insertion below: དང་དེ་བཙལ་བས་དེ་
152 Insertion at top of page: ལྟིོས་དང་ཞེེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང༴ བལྟིས་པ་དང་བཙུགས་པར་མཐོང་སྟོེ་དགའ་ཆོེས་ནས་སྙིན་དུ་ (struck out text: གསོལ་དུ་) གསོལ་བ་དང་ ཤིང་མཁན་དང་མགར་བ་ལ་
153 Insertion below in dbu can: ང་
154 Insertion below in dbu can: བྱིང་བ་
155 Insertion below: པ་
156 Insertion between lines 5 and 6: ཁོར་ཡུག་ལྕཌ་རི་ནག་པོས་ (བ added) སྐོར་ཕྱོགས་༤ར་སྒཾོ་༤་རྟ་བབས་༤་བྱིས༴ནང་དུ་མེ་ལོང་ལྟི་བུའི་དཀར་ཞེལ་བྱིས༴སྲོན་མ་ལྷོ་ནས་ (བ added) སྒྲིལ་བ་བྱིང་
(insertion above: སྒཾོར་འགྲོོ་བ་བྱིས༴) ་ལྕཌ་རིས་ནང་དུ་བྱི་བྱིེ་མ་གཏོགས་པ་དུད་འགྲོོ་འགྲོོར་མི་གནང༴ མི་འགྲོོ་ན་རྐང་པ་བཀྲུས་ནས་འགྲོོ༴ ཕྱིའི་ལྷ་ཁང་ཁམས་༣་ཚེ་སྤོོང་ཟས༴ དབུ་ཚལ་ཕོ་ཡིོང་ཟས༴ དགེ་རྒྱས་འཕྲོ་ཟས༴ གཙུག་ལག་
(insertion below: ཁང་) ཀུན་ཁྲིི་བཟང་ཡིབ་ལྷག་ཡིིན༴ གསེར་གྱི་གཞེི་ལ་ གཡུའི་ (འ added) ཕྲ་བཀོད་པ་ལྟི་བུ་དེ་ལུག་ལོ་ལ་ (insertion below: གྲུབ་ནས) བོ་དྡིིི་ས་ཏྭས་རབ་གནས་ལན་༣་བྱིས་༴ ཐ་མའི་དུསུཾ་སྐུ་
གཟུགས་ཐཾད་དབུ་རྩེེ་ཐང་ལ་བྱིོན་ནས་ཆོོས་སྟོོན་ (insertion below: ནས་) གསོལ་སླེར་གཤེགས་ཏེ་རང་རང་གི་གདན་ལ་བཞུགས་པས་བཙན་པོ་དགྱེས་སོ༎
157 Insertion below: དབའ
158 Insertion below: གསུཾང་གི་རྟེན་ཆོོས་རྒྱས་པར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་
159 Insertion above: གར་གྱི་
160 The དུ is dotted above to indicate it is redundant.
161 Insertion below: དབའ་
162 Insertion below: ཞེང་
163 Insertion below: སྣ་ནམ་
164 Insertion top page: ལོ་ཙ་ (insertion above: བ་) དྲུག་པོ་དེས་བོད་ལ་འཇམ་དཔལ་ཀྲིི་ཡི༴ ཨུ་པ་ཡི་རྒྱ་གར་དུ་མ་ལུས་ (insertion below: པ་) ཙམ་ (insertion below in dbu can:
བ་) སྒྱུར༴ རྒྱའི་མཁན་པོ་མེ་ ཀོང་ དང་ལོ་ཙ་བ་ལྷ་ལུང་ཀླུ་གོང་ འགོ་བོམ་ (insertion above: ལྡེན་མ་) ཡུལ་གོང་བྲན་ཀ་ལེགས་གོང་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་མདོ་ས་ལུང་ལྗ་པ་སོགས་པ་ (insertion above: མང་དུ་བསྒྱུརོ།། (continuing on the bottom of folio 17v:) རྒྱ་ལས་སྒྱུར་བའི་ལོ་ཙྪ་བ་ལྷ་ལུང་ཀླུ་གོང༴ བེག་ཟླ་གོང༴ བྲན་ཀ་ལེགས་གོང༴ མགོ་འབོམ་ཡུལ་གོང༴དང༴ ལོ་ཙྪ་བའི་མཆོན་བུ་མཁས་པ་འདན་མ་རྩེེ་རྨ༴ འགག་ཉ་བཙན༴ ལོ་ཁྱིི་ཆུང༴
འབིག་ཁྱིིའུ༴ ཁྱིི་ཆུང་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་དང་པོ་ལས་རྣཾ་འབྱིེད་༴ བར་དུ་ས་ལུ་ལྗང་པ༴ (continuing on the top of folio 18r:) མཐར་རྡོོེ་གཅོད་པ་རྣཾས་བསྒྱུར་ཞེིང༴ དེ་ཡིང་ཕལ་ཆོེར་བེག་ཟླ་གོང་༡་པུས་བསྒྱུར་བའི་དུསུཾ་ས་ལུ་ལྗང་པ
(insertion below: འི་མཇུག་) ལས་འཇིག་རྟེན་དུ་འཁོར་བའི་རྐྱེེན་དང་འདུ་བའི་ཚོགས་ཏེ་བྱུང་བའི་ཆོོས་ནི་ཐ་མར་ཆོོས་ལྔའི་ཕྱིར་བལྟི་སྟོེ༴ ལྔ་གང་ཞེེ་ན༴ རྟག་པར་མ་ཡིིན༴ (continued on bottom of page 18r:)
ཆོད་པར་མ་ཡིིན༴ འཕོ་བར་མ་ཡིིན༴ རྒྱུ་ཆུང་ངུ་ལས་འབྲུས་ཆོེན་པོ་འབྱུང་བ་དང༴ དེ་འདྲི་བའི་རྒྱུད་དུ་བལྟིའོ་ཞེེས་འབྱུང་བའི་སྐབསུཾ་བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་གྱིས་གནཾ་དུ་གཏང་རག་བཏང་བའི་ཚིག་ལ༴ གནཾ་བྱིཾས་ལྷ་བྱིཾས་ནས་འདི་ལྟི་བུའི་
ཆོོས་ (continued on top of page 18v:) བཟང་པོ་ཐོས་སོ།། བློན་པོ་འབའ་སང་ཤི་དང་དབའ་གསས་སྣང་ཟེར་བ་ལྟིར་བདེན་པས་ལྷ་ཆོོས་ནི་མི་བྱིར་རུང་ངོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾངོ་༎
165 Insertion top right: མཁན་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ལས་
166 Insertion below in dbu can: ང
167 Insertion below: བོ་ to indicate that it should be replaced by མོ་
168 Insertion below: དྲིིན་
169 Insertion middle of bottom page: བྲོ་འཚལ་ཆོོས་གཙིགས་མཛད་དེ་རྡོོ་རིང་བཙུགས༴ དེ་མན་ཆོད་དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་དང༴ དགེ་འདུན་གྱི་བཤོས་ནི་ཁབ་སོ་ཆོེན་པོས་
Text and Translation
133
(folio 17r)
made by a carpenter and smith in the shadow of Khas po ri was meant to be brought and installed the following day on
the blue stūpa in the southern direction (but it) went missing. When it was reported to be installed already on the stūpa,
the devaputra said: “Bestow a great reward on the carpenter and smith!” That night, the Nepalese divination expert
dreamt that the cakra was carried and installed by four men in gold chain-mail. Those men said: “Since you built (the
blue) stūpa and seven more, it is well and good. As a reward, take this gold chain-mail. Those who circumambulate this
(blue) stūpa will achieve whatever they desire.” As day broke and he looked about, the men were not there, but the suit
of mail was actually there. The divination expert informed his majesty exactly what had passed and he and his retinue
were given a reward and duly recognised. What was said and seen in that (dream) were the four great kings, so images
of the four great kings were also engraved on a vase.
The Gtsug lag khang was completed (and) just before the consecration was carried out, Gsas snang was given the
name Ye shes dbang po with his ordination. Whereas many sons of the ministers, such as Mchims Legs gzigs and
others
(folio 17v)
were taught the language of India, only Śākyaprabha—son of Mchims A nu, and Vairocana—son of Pa ’or Na ’dod, and
Rad na—son of Dba’ Rma gzigs, and Lha bu—son of Zhang Nya bzang, and Bse btsan and Shud po khong slebs
became proficient in the language, while the others ran away. After he became proficient in the language, the son of
Dba’ Rma gzigs was given the name Rad na with his ordination.
In the Sheep Year, in the middle of the winter month, at the time of the performance of the great Pra ti (pratiṣṭha)
consecration, Jo bo gcen khri rgyal, Sru btsan mon rgyal and others—lord and servants one hundred in all—were
ordained by Dba’ Rin po che as preceptor.
A proclamation was issued that thenceforth among all the subjects under the sway (of the Tibetan king), men’s
eyes would not be plucked out, women’s noses would not be cut off (and it was) ordained that the great teachings of the
dharma be generously conferred on every subject. All those dependent on the higher echelon adhered, from the great
minister downward, and the destitute in their multitudes, who benefit from apportioned food and clothing, adhered. In
one year each monk was allotted twelve khal of fresh barley as a standard allowance.
Subsequently, Ye shes dbang po came to be possessed of supernormal insight. When his lordship assembled with
the ministers he himself announced: “He is our kalyāṇamitra—of both lord and people—(and) because he is akin to a
living Buddha he is appointed as the Bhagavat. (We are) bound to (his) teachings on the dharma. As for seating protocol,
he shall be higher than the great ministers. Moreover, the religious council
134
༦
༧
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
ཞེིང་ལོ་༡་ལ་ནས་ཁལ་བཅུ་༢་ཐང་དུ་སྩལ། སླེད་ཀྱིས་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་མངོན་བར་ཤེས་པ་དང་ཡིང་ལྡེན་། [170]ངེད་རྗེེ་འབངས་ཀྱི་དགེ་བའི་བཤེས་གཉེན་ཡིིན་ཏེ། སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་དང་
འདྲི་བས༴ བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་ཀྱི་རིང་ལུགས་སུཾ་བསྐོས་ཏེ། ཆོོས་ཀྱི་བཀའ་ལས་བཏགས། དྲིལ་ཡིང་ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོའི་གོང་དུ་འདུག་ཤིག། ཆོོས་ཀྱི་འདུན་ས་ཡིང་འདུན་
Folio 18r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །ས་ཆུང་ངུའི་གོང་དུ་ཕུལ་ལ། སྤྲིིང་པ་ཡིང་རིང་ལུགས་ཀྱིས་ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོའི་འདུན་ས་ཆུ་ངུན་ལ་གསོལ་བ་གྱིས་ཤིག་ཅེས་རྗེེ་བློན་ཚོགས་པའི་ཚེ་བཀའ་
ཞེལ་གྱིས་སྩལ་ཏོ༎ བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་ཀྱིས[171]་རིང་ལུགས་སུཾ་བསྐོས་ནས༴ དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་གྱི་རྟེན་བརྟན་པ་དང༴ ནཾ་དུ་ཡིང་མི་གཞེིག་པའི་སླེད་དུ་དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་དང་དགེ་འདུན་
གྱི་བཤོས་ཆོ་ལས་མི་གསོལ་བར་རྐྱེེན་རིས་སུཾ་བཀུམ་ན་སླེད་རྗེེས་སུཾ་ལེགས་པར་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོས་རྟན་དུ་[172]སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བས༴ རྐྱེེན་རིས་བཅད་པ་བཙན་པོས་ནི་བན་དེ་རེ་རེ་ལ་འབངས་
མི་ཁྱིིམ་བདུན་བདུན༴ ཞེང་བློན་གྱིས་འབངས་ཁྱིིམ་ལྔ་ལྔ་རིང་ལུགས་ལ་རྨས་ན། མི་ཕ་ཚན་འགའ་རླག་པ་དང༴ ལུང་ཕུ་རལ་འགའ་ཕུང་པ་དང་། གནང་ཆོེན་འགའ་ལ་
སྣེ་བྲན་གྱིས་བཅད་པ་དང༴ མི་༡་གི་སྒཾོར་བྲན་ཁྱིིམ་དགུ་བརྒྱ་སྩལ་བ་དང་སྦྱོར་ན༴ སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་བཟང་པོ་འདི་སྐུ་དང་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་ལ་སྨན་པས་མ་འཚལ་ཏེ། མཐའ་ཡུན་གྱི་རྗེེ་
འབངས་ཀྱི་ཤུལ་བཟང་པོ་ནི་ཕྱེ། ངན་སོང་༣་གྱི་སྒཾོ་ནི་བཀུཾ་པ་ལསོགས་པ་ཡིོན་ཏན་སྨོས་ཀྱིས་མི་ལང་བ་ཞེིག་འབྱུང་བར་མཛད་པར་ ཀུན་བཀས་བཀུཾ་པ་བཞེིན་བགྱིས་ན་
སླེར་རྗེེསུཾ་ཐུགས་གནོད་ཆོེན་པོ་བརྟུད་མར་ཕྱུང་ངམ། མི་ཕྱུགས་ལ་བྲོ་ནད་ཆོེན་པོ་ཞེིག་བྱུང་ངམ། ཉི་འོག་གི་དགྲོ་ཞེིག་[173]དབོན་སྲོས་རྗེེ་འབངས་ལ་ཡིང་དངོས་སྡིིག་ཆོེན་པོར་
Folio 18v
༥
༦
༧
འགྱུར་བ་ལསོགས་པ་[174]མང་པོ་ཞེིག་འབྱུང་ བས༴ དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་ལ་འབངས་[175]ཉིས་བརྒྱ༴ གང་ཟག་བན་རེ་རེ་ལ་ཁྱིིམ་༣་༣་ཐང་དུ་བཅད་དེ་དབང་དགེ་འདུན་ལ་བསྐུར་ནས་རྐྱེེན་རིས་
ཀྱི་འབངས་རྒོོད་དང༴ རང་རྗེེའུ་དང༴ ཁབ་སོ་གནང་ཆོེན་ཅན་དང༴ ཐུགས་གཉེན་དང་༤་[176]བཟང་ངོ་འཚལ་ནས་སྤུ་བཏུས་བཟུང་། རྗེེ་ཞེིང་ནི་བཟང་ངོ་འཚལ་ལས༴ གནང་ཆོེན་འབྲོ་ཁྲིི་འཇམ་
གུང་རྟོན་གྱིས་ཡུལ་བཟུང་བ་༤ན་བཅད་པ་ན་བན་དེ་མྱང་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ལསོགས་པ་ཡིིད་མ་རངས་ཏེ༴ ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་ལ་ཡིང་གཡིར་མི་སྙིན་པ་མི་མཆོི་དགུ་མཆོི་སྐད། དེ་ནས་ཡིཻ་དབང་པོ་
[177]
སྒཾོམ་བར་གསོལ་ཏེ༴ དབེན་ས་ལྷོ་བྲག་ཏུ་མཆོིས་པའི་སླེད་ནས་བཙན་པོ[178]་[179]དཔལ་དབྱིངས་རིང་ལུགས་[180]སུཾ་བསྐོས་ཏེ༴ ཡིཻས་དབང་པོས་ལྷོ་བྲག་ཏུ་བསྒཾོམས་ན་སྟོག་ལ་ག་ཤ་བཀལ་བའི་
འོག་
སྦ་ཟམ་བཏགས་ཏེ་བཙན་གྱི་བྲག་ཏུ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་རི་བྱི་སྣ་ཚོགས་རྡོོ་ཤིང་ལ་འབབས་པ་༤ན་དུ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོའི་ལུས་ལ་[181]བབས། ཁྲིིམས་ཟླ་དག་ལ་ཉེར་ཡིང་མི་བཏུབ། དེའི་ཚེ་རྒྱ་ཡུལ་
ནས་རྒྱའི་[182]ཧཱ་ཡི་ན་བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་མཆོིས་པ་ལས་བོད་ཀྱི་བན་དྷེ་ཕལ་[183]བསླེབས་ཏེ། ལྟི་བ་མ་མཐུན་ནས་འཁྲུགས་པ་དང་། བཙན་པོས་ཇི་ལྟིར་མཛད་ཀྱང་མ་མཁྱིེན་ཏེ་མ་ཧཱ་ཡིན་གྱི་སླེོབ་
མ་ལས་མྱང་ཤ་མིས་རང་གི་ཤྭ་གཏུབས། གཉགས་བི་མ་ལ་དང༴ གཉགས་རིན་པོ་ཆོེས་རང་གི་ཕོ་མཚན་བརྡུངས། རྒྱས་ནི་རང་གི་མགོ་ལ་མེ་བཏང་སྟོེ༴ གཞེན་ཡིང་ཆུ་གྲོི་རེ་རེ་སྲོེལ་
170
171
172
173
Insertion above: བཙན་པོ་ན་རེ་
The ས is dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
The རྟན་དུ་ is dotted above to indicate it is a mistake.
Insertion bottom of page (middle): དབུས་སུཾ་བྱུང་ངམ༴ མུ་གེ་ཆོེན་པོ་བརྟུད་མར་བྱུང་ངམ་ [ངམ་ dotted above and crossed out] ན་དགོས་པ་མཐར་མི་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་ དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་གྱི་རྟེན་
༡
༢
༣
༤
མི་གནས་པ་དང་
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Insertion below: མི་ལེགས་པ
Insertion below: ཁྱིིམ་
Insertion below: གཞེི་
Insertion above: མྱང་ལཌ་པས་མི་ཉན་པ་བརྗེོད་པས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Insertion below: དབའ་
Insertion above: དགེ་བཤེས་
Insertion below: འ
Insertion below: ཧྭ་ཤང་མ་
Insertion below: གྱིས་ཆོོས་
Text and Translation
135
(folio 18r)
is deemed higher than the inner council and the Principal shall also direct communications to the assembly of ministers.”
After he was appointed the Bhagavat, Ye shes dbang po suggested to his majesty: “For the sake of the stability
of the seats for the triple gem and the eternal continuity of the triple gem, instead of the triple gem and the saṃgha
relying on the designated allotment of alms, it will be good in the long term if an endowment is set aside.” His majesty
proposed that seven subject households be set aside for each monk as an endowment, (while) the ministers (proposed)
five subject households each. When this was put to the Principal (he said): “Considering the (old) practice of assigning
serfs to a privileged few or the granting of nine hundred serf households to one person’s estate which resulted in the disappearance of various paternal lineages, the crumbling of various communities in the upper gorges, the noble dharma
of the Buddha will not merely be beneficial for the king’s person and (his) polity, but also usher in a lasting tradition for
the king and his subjects and close the door to the three lower births and such other indescribable merits. Nevertheless,
if everyone were to follow the royal proposal, it might induce repeated long-term woes for the king in future, give rise to
great epidemics among the people and their livestock or bring an enemy to the western frontier as well as harm to the
king and his subjects, give rise to the destruction of the (royal) lineage
(folio 18v)
or many other undesirable consequences. Therefore, to each (monastery for) the triple gem, two hundred servants
should be assigned (and) to each monk three households.” After control (in accord with this plan) was conferred on the
saṃgha, tax-paying subjects making up the endowment were selectively picked from the best (estates) of four (officers
of state): the rgod, the rang rje’u, the khab so gnang che can and the thugs gnyen. When Gnang chen ’Bro Khri ’jam
gung rton identified the best lands from the royal estate as specified (in the plan) for the division of land, the monk
Myang Ting nge ’dzin and others, being dissatisfied, are said to have cast all sorts of aspersions on Ye shes dbang
po and others. Then, Ye shes dbang po, asking to go into meditation, went to a solitary place in Lho brag and his
majesty appointed Dpal dbyangs as Principal. While meditating at Lho brag, Ye shes dbang po, having fashioned a
bamboo bridge below the cliff (called) Stag la ga sha bkal ba, remained in that inaccessible place. Various wild birds,
as if landing on trees and rocks, perched on the (unmoving) body of Ye shes dbang po. He did not go anywhere near
his companions or the authorities.
At that time, because a Hwa (shang) called (Mahā)yāna had come from China and was present in Tibet, most of
the Tibetan monks studied (with him). Due to incompatible views, conflicts arose and his majesty, despite efforts, did
not know what to do. It came to his ears that, from among the disciples of Mahāyāna, Myang Sha mi gashed his own
body, Gnyags Bi ma la and Gnyags Rin po che crushed their own genitals, while Rgya set his own head on fire. Others,
moreover, each taking up a knife, threatened:
136
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 19r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །ཞེིང་ཙེན་མེན་པ་རིལ་བསད་ལ༴ ངེད་ཀྱང་རིལ་ཕྲུ་མེའི་ངོས་སུཾ་མཆོིའོ་ཞེེས་མཆོི་ཞེིང་སྙིན་དུ་གདས་ནས༴ འདིར་བན་དེ་ཀུན་མ་མཐུན་པས་འཁྲུག་པ་ལངས་ཇི་ལྟིར་[184]ཞེེས་
བཀས་མ་སྤྲིིང་[185]། ཡིཻས་དབང་པོའི་སྤྱ་ངར་མཆོི་ཞེེས་ཕོ་ཉ་ཞེིག་བཏང་བ་ལས། སྤྱ་ངར་མ་མཆོིས་ནས༴ ནང་འཁོར་གནོན་ཁམ་པ་བཏང་སྟོེ། མཁན་པོ་ཁུགས་ན་ཟངས་ཆོེན་པོ་སྦྱོིན་མ་
ཁུགས་ན་གསད་དོ་ཞེེས་ལུང་སྩལ། [186]མཁན་པོ་ལ་བཀའ་སྒྲོམ་བྲག་ཕུག་ཏུ་བསྐུར་ཏེ། [187]བཀའ་ཞེལ་གྱིས་སྩལ་[188]བཞེིག་དངོས་གསོལ་ཏེ་སྤྱ་ངར་མཆོི་བར་སྤྲིིང་བ་ལས་བྲག་ཕུག་ཏུ་བཀུག་
ནས་བཀའ་སྩལ་གཞེན་ནི་མ་མཆོིས། མ་ ཁུགས་ན་གསད་དོ་ཞེེས་མཆོི་བས་གཤེགས་སུཾ་མི་གནང་ན་བྲག་ལ་མཆོོངས་ཏེ་འགུམ་ཞེེས་བགྱིས་པ་དང་། འདི་ཁོ་བར་ཆོད་བྱིེད་པའི་
བདུད་ཆོེན་པོ་ཞེིག་འོངས་ཏེ༴ ད་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱི་སྲོོག་གདོན་གྱིས་རྟ་དེད་ལ་ཤོག་ཅེས་གསུཾངས་ནས༴ དགའ་ཆོེས་ཏེ་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ་མཆོིས་ན་འཕྲལ་དུ་ཐབས་ཕྲ་མེན་དང༴ རྒྱ་བྱིེའུ་ཆོེ་ཐང་དུ་གནང་།
ཆོིབས་བཅྭ་ལྔ་བསྟོད་དེ་བཏང་བས། ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་སྤྱན་ངར་མཆོིས་ཕྱག་བཙལ་བ་དང༴ [189]བན་དེ་དག་འདི་ལྟིར་འཁྲུགས་པས་ད་ཇི་ལྟིར་བྱི་གསུཾང་། [190]དེ་ལ་བདག་འདིར་དགུག་མི་འཚལ།
བདག་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་སྒཾོམ་བའི་བར་ཆོད་མ་བྱུང་ན་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་ཚེ་དང༴ བདག་གི་ཚེའང་ཡུན་རིང་དུ་གནས། ལྷ་ཆོོས་ཀྱང་བྱིམས་པ་གཤེགས་ཀྱི་བར་དུ་གནས་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ཞེིག་ན༴ བོད་[191]
Folio 19v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
སྐལ་བ་མ་མཆོིས་ཏེ་ཡིོང་ནི་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་བསྟོན་པ་གང་བྱུང་བར་མུ་སྟོེགས་ཀྱི་རྒོོལ་བ་ཡིང་འབྱུང་བས། བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་བསྟོན་པ་ལྔ་བརྒྱ་ཐ་མ་ལ་ཉེ་བ་ན་བྱུང་སྟོེ་མཆོི་བས་ མུ་སྟོེགས་
ཀྱི་རྒོོལ་བ་ནི་མི་འབྱུང༴ སངས་རྒྱས་པ་ཉིད་ལྟི་བ་མི་མཐུན་པས་རྩེོད་པར་འགྱུར་གྱིས་དེ་ལྟི་བུ་བྱུང་ན་ངའི་སླེོབ་མ་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་བལ་ཡུལ་ན་འདུག་པ་ཁུག་ལ་ཤགས་འདེབས་སུཾ་ཆུག་ལ༴
རྒྱལ་པོས་སྡུམས་གྱིས་ཤིག་ཅེས་མཁན་པོ་[192]འདའ་ཀར་མཆོི་བས། ད་ཡིང་དེ་༤ན་དུ་མཛད་དུ་གསོལ་ཞེེས་ནས་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་འགུགས་སུཾ་བཏང་བ་དང་། ཏོན་མུན་པས་ཤེས་རབ་འབུམ་
བླངས་ཏེ་བསམ་གཏན་གླིིང་གི་སྒཾོ་བཅད་ནས་ཟླ་བ་༢སུཾ་ཤགས་བསླེབས། དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲོེལ་པ་རྡོོག་པས་དྲིིལ་ཏེ་བོར། དེའི་ཚེ་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་མ་མཆོིས་ཀྱི་བར་དུ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོས་
བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭའི་ལྟི་བ་དང་། ཙེན་མེན་གྱི་ལྟི་བ་ཇི་ལྟིར་ལགས་པ་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་བས༴ ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་དགོངས་པ་ཡིང་གྲོོལ་ཏེ་དགྱེས་ནས་དབུ་བཏུད་ཏེ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་ནི་ངའི་ཨཙརྱའོ་ཞེེས་
བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས་ཕྱག་བཞེེས། དེ་ནས་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་འོངས་ནས༴ བྱིང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་གླིིང་དུ་གུང་ལ་ནི་བཙན་པོ་བཞུགས། ཧྭ་ཤང་དང་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་འོངས་ནས་བྱིང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་གླིིང་དུ་[193]
༢་གཡིས་གཡིོན་དུ་སེང་གེའི་ཁྲིི་ལ་བཞེག། མཇུག་ལ་སླེོབ་མ་རྣམས་དངར་ཏེ༴ ཏོན་མུན་པའི་སླེོབ་མ་ནི་ཇོ་མོ[194]བྱིང་ཆུབ༴ སྲུ་ཡིང་དག༴ བན་དེ་ལང་ཀ་ལསོགས་པ་མང༴ ཙེན་མེན་པའི་
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
Insertion below: བྱི་
Insertion below: བར་
Insertion above: ནང་འཁོར་གྱིས་
Insertion above: བཙན་པོའི་
Insertion of ་ (tsheg) between བ and ཞེི and to the left is a rubbed བ
Insertion above: བཙན་པོ་ན་རེ་
Insertion above: ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་ན་རེ་
Insertion to right: ལ
Insertion below: བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་
The phrase འོངས་ནས་བྱིང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་གླིིང་དུ་ is stroked out.
Insertion below: ་ (tsheg)
Text and Translation
137
(folio 19r)
“Kill all the gradualists and we will all march on the palace!” So a messenger was sent to Ye shes dbang po’s presence
to deliver a written communication saying: “Here all the monks are in conflict due to opposing (views). What should be
done?” When he did not come to the royal presence, the courtier Gnon Kham pa was sent with the order: “If you can
persuade the preceptor to come, the great copper (insignia) will be conferred on you, if you cannot persuade him, you
will be executed.” When the dispatch box was sent to the preceptor in the cave asking him to appear before the royal
presence just as his majesty had commanded, (the courtier) was called into the cave. (He said): “I don’t have any other
order. Since I have been told that I will be killed if I cannot persuade you, if you are not persuaded to come, I will jump on
the rocks and die.” (Ye shes dbang po said:) “All this is like a great demon arising to cause an interruption (to my meditation), nevertheless I will save your life. Fetch the horses!” When he said this, (the courtier) was elated and when he
reached the royal palace he was immediately rewarded with Chinese birds and enriched with multi-coloured gemstones.
Ye shes dbang po arrived in the royal presence and prostrated. (The king) said: “What should I do given this uproar
among the monks?” (The preceptor replied): “For that, certainly, I should not have been called here! If I had not come,
(and) my meditation not been interrupted, the devaputra—and myself too—would have lived for a long time. Moreover,
the holy dharma would have lasted until the coming of Maitreya.
(folio 19v)
The preceptor said at the time of his death: ‘Tibet lacks good fortune, because, generally speaking, wherever the Buddhist teachings emerge, there will be attacks from non-Buddhists. Since we are in the final five-hundred years of the
teachings in Tibet, attacks from non-Buddhist will not arise. Rather, Buddhists themselves will dispute due to conflicting views. When that situation transpires, summon my disciple Kamalaśīla resident in Nepal and let him do the debating, with the king, of course, adjudicating.’ So now please act accordingly.”
After he made this request, someone was dispatched to summon Kamalaśīla. The followers of the instantaneous
path (Ton mun pa) then took the Shes rab ’bum (Prajñāpāramitā in a hundred-thousand verses) to the Bsam gtan gling
and, closing the door, practised debate on that for two months. The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra was wrapped up and set
aside. Before Kamalaśīla arrived, Ye shes dbang po provided a proper account of the views of Bodhisatva and of the
gradualists (Tsen men) to his majesty. His doubts removed, the devaputra rejoiced and, touching foreheads, declared:
“Ye shes dbang po is my Ācārya” and he took him warmly by the hand.
Then, after Kamaśīla arrived, his majesty sat elevated in the centre of the Bodhi caitya. When Hwa shang and
Kamalaśīla entered, the two were shown to their places on lion thrones to (the king’s) right and left in the Bodhi caitya;
the students were properly arranged alongside. The followers of the instantaneous path (Ton mun pa) were Jo mo
byang chub, Sru yang dag, the monk Lang ka, and many others. The gradualist (Tsen men)
138
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 20r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༄༅། །སླེོབ་མ་ནི་དབའ་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་དང༴ དབའ་རད་ན་ལསྭོོགས་པ་དགེ་སླེོང་མི་མང་བ་ཞེིག་སྟོེ། [195]མཁན་པོ་༢་དང་བན་དེ་ཀུན་ལ་མེ་ཏོག་གི་ཕྲེང་བ་རེ་རེ་ལག་ཏུ་བསྐུར་
ནས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། ངའི་མངའ་རིས་ཀྱི་འབངས་ཀུན་བོད་ནག་པོ་ལ་ཞེེན་པའི་དོན་[196]བལ་ཡུལ་ནས་ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་རྒྱལ་པོའི་བུ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ཏེ་དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་གྱི་རྟེན་
བཙུགས་ནས་འབངས་ཀུན་ལྷ་ཆོོས་སླེོབ་ཏུ་བཅུག་པ་ལ༴ ཉུང་ཤས་ཅིག་རབ་ཏུ་བྱུང་བའི་འོག་ཏུ་ཧྭ་ཤང་མ་ཧཱ་ཡིན་འདིར་ཕྱིན་ཏེ༴ བོད་ཀྱི་[197]རབས་ཤིག་གིས་ཧྭ་ཤང་ལ་བསླེབས། ཁ་
ཅིག་ནི་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭའི་སླེོབ་མ་ཡིིན་པས་ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་ལྟིར་སླེོབ་ཏུ་མ་བཏུབ་སྟོེ་འཁྲུགས་པ་ལ་ངས་ཞེལ་ཆོེ་བཅད[198]ན་ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་སླེོབ་མ་རྣཾས་མ་རངས་ཏེ༴ མྱང་ཤ་མིས་ནི་རང་གི་ཤ་གཏུབས་ཏེ་
ཤི༴ རྒྱས་ནི་རང་གི་མགོ་ལ་མེ་བཏང་སྟོེ་ཤི[199]། གཉགས་བི་མ་ལས་ནི་རང་གི་ཕོ་མཚན་བརྡུངས། གཞེན་ཡིང་ཆུ་གྲོི་རེ་རེ་སྲོེལ་ཞེིང་ཙེན་མིན་རིལ་བསད་ལ་ཕྲུ་མིའི་ངོས་སུཾ་མཆོིའོ་
ཞེེས་ཟེར་ནས༴ དེ་ལྟིར་བྱིེད་དུ་མི་གནང་བར་གཡིོན་བསྐོས་པ་ཡིིན། ད་ཙེན་མེན་པའི་མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ཡིིན་བས༴ དེ[200]འི་སླེོབ་མ་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་ཡིིན་པབ་[201]འོངས་པ་དང༴ ཧྭ་ཤང་གཉིས་
Folio 20v
༡ ཤེས་པ་སྡུར་ལ་གཏན་ཚིགས་གང་ཆོེ་བ་ལ་ང་རྒྱལ་མ་བྱིེད་པར་ཆོོས་ལུགས་༤ན་དུ་མེ་ཏོག་གི་ཕྲེང་བ་ཕུལ་ཅིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང་། ཧྭ་ཤང་གིས་ཚིག་ལ[202]་སཾས་ཀྱི་རྣཾ་པར་
༢ རྟོག་པ[203]་བསྐེད་པ་དགེ་བ་དང་མི་དགེ་བའི་ལས་ཀྱི་དབང་གིས་སཾན་རྣཾས་ངན་འགྲོོ་དང་མཐོ་རིས་ལསོགས་པའི་འབྲས་བུ་མྱོང་ཞེིང་འཁོར་བ་ན་འཁོར་རོ༎ གང་དག་ཅི་ལ་ཡི[204]་མི་
༣ སཾས༴ ཅི་ཡིངམི་བྱིེད་པ་དེ་དག་ནི་འཁོར་བ་ལས་ཐར་བར་འགྱུར་རོ།། དེ་ལྟི་བས་ན་ཅི་ཡིང་མི་བསམ་མོ༎ སྦྱོིན་པ་ལསོགས་པའི་ཆོོས་སྤྱོད་པ་རྣམ་པ་བཅུ་བཤད་པ་ནི་སྐེ་བོར[205]་
༤ བ་ལས་ཐར་བར་འགྱུརོ༎[206] དགེ་བའི་ལས་འཕྲོ་མེད་པ་མ་རབས་དབང་པོ་བརྟུལ་པོ་བློ་ཞེན་པ་རྣཾས་ཁོ་ན་ལ་བསྟོན་པ་ཡིིན་ནོ།། སོན་སྦྱོངས་པ་དབང་པོ་རྣོ་བ་རྣམས་ལ་ནི་ནམཁའ
༥ ལ་སྤྲིིན་དཀར་ནག་༢་ཀ་སྒྲིབ་པ་དང་འདྲི་བར་དགེ་སྡིིག་༢་ཀ་སྒྲིབ་པར་འདྲི་བས་ཅི་ཡིང་མི་སྤྱོད༴ ཅི་ཡིང་མི་སཾས། མི་རྟོག་མི་དམིགས་པ་ནི་༡་ཆོར་འཇུག་པས་ས་བཅུ་པ་དང་འདྲིའོ
༦ ཞེེས་སྨྲས་པ་དང་། ཨཙརྱ་ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལས་སྨྲས་པ། དེ་ལྟིར་ཅི་ཡིང་མི་བསམ་ཞེེས་ཟེར་བ་ནི་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་སྤོངས་པ་ཡིིནོ༎ ཡིང་དག་པའི་ཡིཻས་ཀྱི་རྩེ་བ་
Folio 21r
༡
༢
༄༅། །ནི་དོན་དམ་པར་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་ཡིིན་བས་དེ་སྤོངས་པ[207]་ནི་རྩེ་བ་བཅད་པའི་ཕྱིར་འཇིག་རྟེན་ལས་འདས་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱང་སྤོངས་པ་ཡིིན་ནོ༎ སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ[208]
མེད་པར་རྣལ་འབྱིོར་པ་ཐབས་གང་གིས་མི་རྟོག་པ་ཉིད་ལ་གཞེག་པར་བྱི། གལ་ཏེ་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་དྲིན་པ་མེད་པར་དང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱི་བ་མེད་པར་རྣལ་འབྱིོར་པ་ཐབས་གང་གིས་མི་རྟོག་
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
Insertion above: དེ་ནས་བཙན་པོས་
Insertion below: དུ་
Insertion below:་བན་དྷེ་
Insertion between བཅད and ན: ་ (tsheg)
Two roughly horizontal strokes are attached to the right-hand descender of the ཤ
The words ཡིིན་པས༴ དེ dotted above to indicate that they are superfluous.
Insertion below in dbu can: ས and དེ་ to make the reading བས་དེ་
Insertion in dbu can: ས; also ཚིག་ལས་ dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Insertion below in dbu can: ང་
The ར་ has been partly erased.
The words in the line up to this point repeat what is above in line 3 and are stroked out.
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Insertion to the right: འིཤེས་རབ
Text and Translation
139
(folio 20r)
followers comprised Dba’ Dpal dbyangs, Dba’ Rad na, and a few ordained monks. After a garland was handed to the
two preceptors and to each monk, (the king) announced: “Due to the fact that all the subjects under my dominion are
deeply attached to the dark (Bon faith) of Tibet, Bodhisatva, the son of the king of Za hor, was invited from Nepal and,
after seats for the triple gem were established, all my subjects were encouraged to learn the holy dharma. Thereafter a
few ordained monks had gone to Hwa shang Mahāyāna (seated) here, and a group from Tibet studied with Hwa shang.
Others were not able to learn the way of Hwa shang being students of Bodhisatva. Disputes arose and, when I passed
judgements, the students of Hwa shang were not satisfied. Myang Sha mi died having gnashed himself, Rgya died
having set fire to his own head, Gnyags bi ma la crushed his own genitals, while others, each taking a knife, declared:
‘Kill all the gradualists and march on the palace!’ In order to prevent such actions, I have invited those (sitting here) on
the left. Now given that Bodhisatva was the preceptor of the gradualists and his disciple Kamalaśīla has come and is
here with Hwa shang,
(folio 20v)
the two of you must compare your knowledge and whoever is better in rational disputation must be offered a garland,
with due humility, in accord with traditional religious practice!”
Hwa shang spoke: “Due to virtuous and non-virtuous acts generated by the workings of the mind, sentient beings
circle round in the endless cycle of rebirth experiencing higher and lower realms. Whosoever does not think anything
or do anything will escape from the cycle of rebirth. This being the case, do not think anything at all. As for the teaching
of the ten aspects of religious practice, such as charitable giving and so forth, it is to be taught solely to those lacking
karmic virtue—the vulgar, the feeble-minded, the foolish. For the intelligent, purified in previous births, virtuous and
sinful deeds obscure (the mind) equally, just as the sky is obscured equally by black and white clouds. Those who do
not do anything, do not think anything, do not conceptualise and do not focus, they instantaneously attain the level
similar to the tenth stage (on the path to enlightenment).”
When he said that, Ācārya Kamalaśīla replied: “This claim that one should not think anything whatsoever amounts
to denying the insight of discriminative ability.
(folio 21r)
Discrimination is actually the root of true wisdom. Denying this is tantamount to cutting that root and hence even a
denial of supramundane knowledge. Without discrimination, by what means will the yogin establish non-conceptualisation itself? As far as the proposition goes that without the memory of all worldly phenomena there is no mental
activity in one’s mind, (the reality is that) you will not be able to avoid remembering all the worldly phenomena you have
experienced and you will not be able to avoid mental activity. Supposing one thinks: ‘I will not remember all worldly
phenomena and I resolve not to think,’ then meditating along those lines, when one concentrates on not remembering, then, at that moment, that very (thought) will prompt a memory in the mind. If mental activity and memory are to
cease, by what means will one stop these two arising? It is imperative to examine these two because it is untenable to
have conditions (arising) from nothing. Without an absence of conditional characteristics and mental activity, by what
means can one attain total non-conceptualisation? If you people attain total non-conceptualisation merely through
that (i. e. stopping memory and mental activity), then the fallacy follows that someone who has fainted should also
attain non-conceptualisation! In reality, there is no way to avoid memory and mental activity without discrimination.
So without memory and mental activity, they (i. e. Hwa shang’s followers)
140
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
པ་ཉིད་ལ་གཞེག་པར་[209]ནི་ཉམས་སུཾ་མྱོང་བའི་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་[210]དྲིན་པར་བྱི་བ་དང་། ཡིིད་ལ་མི་བྱི་བར་ཁྱིོད་ཀྱིས་མི་ནུསོ༎ གལ་ཏེ་བདག་གིས་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་དྲིན་པར་མི་བྱིའོ༴ ཡིིད་
ལ་མི་བྱིའོ་སྙིམ་སྟོེ༴ དེ་ལྟིར་བསྒཾོམས་ཤིང་དེ་དག་ལ་དྲིན་པ་མེད་པར་བསྒཾོམས་ན༴ དེའི་ཚེ་དེས་དྲིན་པ་[211]ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིས་པར་འགྱུརོ༎ ཇི་སྟོེ་དྲིན་པ་དང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མེད་ན་
དེའི་ཚེ་དེ་༢་རྣཾ་པ་གང་གིས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། དེ་༢་དཔྱད་དགོས་ཏེ༴ མེད་པ་ལས་ནི་རྒྱུར་མི་རུང་སྟོེ༴ གང་གིས་མཚན་མ་མེད་པ་དང༴ ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མེད་པར་རྣཾ་པར་མི་རྟོག་
པར་འགྱུར། དེ་ཙམ་གྱིས་ཁྱིེད་རྣམས་རྣཾ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པར་འགྱུར་ན་བརྒྱལ་བ་ཡིང་རྣམ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པར་ཐལ་བར་འགྱུརོ༎ ཡིང་དག་པར་ན་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་མེད་པར་རྣཾ་པ་གཞེན་
གྱིས་དྲིན་པ་མེད་ཅིང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱི་པ[212]་མེད་པ[213]འི་ཐབས་མེདོ༎ དྲིན་པ་མེད་ཅིང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱི་བ་མེད་པའི་ཐབས་མེདོ༎[214] དྲིན་པ་མེད་ཅིང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱི་བའི་ཐབས་མེད་པས་དེ་དག་གིས་
Folio 21v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
སྟོོང་པ་ཉིད་རྟོག་པར་མི་འགྱུརོ།། [215] ཇི་སྟོེ་མ་རྟོགས་ཀྱང་སྒྲིབ་པ་སྤོོང་ན་དུས་ཐཾད་དུ་རང་ཐར་བར་འགྱུརོ་རོ༎ ཡིང་གལ་ཏེ་རྣལ་འབྱིོར་པ་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་དྲིན་བ་ཉམས་པའི་རྨོངས་པས་
དྲིན་པ་དང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མི་འཇུག་ན། དེའི་ཚེ་ཤིན་དུ་རྨོངས་པ་ཡིིན་པས་རྣལ་འབྱིོར་པར་ཅི་ལྟིར་འགྱུར། ཡིང་དག་པར་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་མེད་ན་དྲིན་བ་མེད་པ་དང་ཡིིད་
ལ་བྱིེད་པ་ལ་གོམས་པར་བྱིེད་པས༴གླིེན་པ་ཉིད་ལ་གོམས་པར་བྱིེད་པ་ཡིིན་ནོ༎ དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཡིང་དག་པའི་ཡིཻས་ཀྱི་སྣང་བ་རྒྱང་རིང་དུ་བསྲོིངས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ༎ ཇི་སྟོེ་དྲིན་པ་
ཉམས་པ་ཡིང་མ་ཡིིན༴ གླིེན་པ་ཡིང་མ་ཡིིན་ན་ནི་དེའི་ཚེ་ཡིང་དག་པར་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་མེད་པར་ཇི་ལྟིར་དྲིན་བ་མེད་པ་དང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མེད་པར་[216]ནུས་པར་འགྱུར། དྲིན་༤ན་
དུའང་མི་དྲིན༴ མཐོང་༤ན་དུའང་མི་མཐོང་བ[217]་ནི་མི་རུང་ང་�ོ༎ དྲིན་པ་མེད་ཅིང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མེད་པ་ལ་གོམས་པར་བྱིས་ན་ཇི་ལྟིར་སོན་གྱི་གནས་རྗེེསུཾ་དྲིན་བ་ལསོགས་
པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་དྲིོ་བ་དང་འགལ་བ་གྲོང་པ་སྟོེན་པའི་ཚེ༴ [218]མི་འབྱུང་བ་༤ན་ནོ༎ དེ་ལྟི་བས་ན་དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་དྲིན་བ་མེད་པ་དང་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་[219]
མེད་པ་འབྱུང་བ་དེ་ཡིང་དོན་དམ་པར་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་སོན་དུ་འགྲོོ་བ་ཡིིན་བར་བལྟི་བར་བྱི་སྟོེ། གང་གི་ཕྱིར་ཡིང་དག་པར་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་དྲིན་པ་མེད་པ་དང་ཡིིད་
Folio 22r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །ལ་བྱིེད་པ་མེད་པར་ནུས་ཀྱི༴གཞེན་དུ་ནི་མ་ཡིིན་ཏེ༴ ཇི་ལྟིར་རྣལ་འབྱིོར་པས་གང་གི་ཚེ་ཡིང་དག་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱིས་བརྟགས་ན་དོན་དམ་པར་དུས་༣་དུ་
ཆོོས་སྐེ་བ་འགའ་ཡིང་མ་མཐོང་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་ཇི་ལྟིར་ཡིིད་ལ་དྲིན་པར་བྱི། དོན་དམ་པར་དུས་༣་དུ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་མྱོང་བ་མེད་པ་གང་ཡིིན་པ་དེ་ཇི་ལྟིར་དྲིན་པར་བྱི། དེའི་[220]སྤྲིོས་
པ་ཐཾད་ཉེ་བར་ཞེི་བས་རྣཾ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཡིཻས་ལ་ཞུགས་པ་ཡིིན། དེ་ལ་ཞུགས་པས་སྟོོང་པ་ཉིད་རྟོགས་པར་འགྱུརོ༎ དེ་རྟོགས་པས་ལྟི་བ་ངན་པའི་དྲི་བ་མཐའ་དག་
སྤོངས་པ་ཡིིན་ནོ༎ ཐབས་དང་ལྡེན་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱིས་བརྟགས་པས་ཀུན་རྫོབ་དང་དོན་དམ་པའི་བདེན་པ་ལ་ཡིང་[221]མཁས་པ་ཡིིན་ནོ༎ དེ་ལས་ནི་སྒྲིབ་པ་མེད་པའི་ཡིཻས་
ཐོབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་ཐོབ་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེེས་གསོལ[222]། ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་ནས་[223]ཏོན་ཙེན་གང་ལྟིར་དགའ་བ་ཡིང་མཆོིད་ཤགས་སོ་སོ་ནས་ཐོབ་ཤིག་
ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ་དང༴ སང་ཤིའི་མཆོིད་ནས་རྒྱའི་ཅིག་ཅར་འཇུག་ཅིང་རིམ་གྱིས་སྦྱོོར་བ་མཆོིས[224]། ཕ་རོལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དྲུག་ཀྱང་འཛིན་པ་མ་མཆོིས་པའི་ཕྱིར་སྦྱོིན་པར་
མིང་བཏགས་ཏེ༴ ཁམས་༣་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་བཏང་སྟོེ༴ བདག་དང་བདག་གིར་འཛིན་པ་མ་མཆོིས་ན་སྦྱོིན་པའི་ནང་ན་ཐཾད་བཏང་བ་ཡིིན། སྒཾོ་༣་གྱི་ནོངས་པ་འགོག་པ་ནི་ཚུལ་ཁྲིིམས་
209 Beginning in the previous line from རྣལ་ the words are crossed out to ཉིད་ལ་གཞེག་པར་ The phrase has been recopied by mistake from the beginning of line 2.
210 Insertion below: མི
211 Insertion below: ཤིནདུ༴
212 It appears that བྱི་པ has been amended to བྱིེདཔ
213 Insertion below: པརབྱིབ
214 This whole sentence has been crossed out.
215 Insertion above: སྟོོང་པ་ཉིད་མ་རྟོགས་པར་ནི་སྒྲིབ་པ་སྤོོང་བར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ།།
216 Insertion below: བྱིེད་
217 Insertion below in dbu can: ར
218 Insertion below: དྲིོ་བའི་ཚོར་བ་
219 Insertion below: པ་དང༴ སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་མཁྱིེན་པ་ལསྭོོ་པར༴
220 Insertion below: ཕྱིར་
221 Insertion below: དག་པར་
222 Insertion below: པ་དང་
223 Insertion below: ཁྱིེད
224 Insertion below: བ་ with ས་ dotted above to make the reading མཆོི་བ་
Text and Translation
141
(folio 21v)
will not understand emptiness (śūnyatā). Supposing mental obscurations could be overcome even without an understanding (of emptiness), then they might be liberated at any given moment. Moreover, suppose a yogin is unable to
engage with memory and mental activity due to oblivion arising from a loss of memory of all worldly phenomena, then,
in that case, since he is totally oblivious, how can he be deemed a yogin? In reality, lacking discrimination yet practising mental activity without memory is tantamount to practising foolishness itself. As a consequence, any sense of true
wisdom will be cast into the distance. Even if (a yogin) is neither a fool nor suffers from memory loss, then, in that case,
without perfect discrimination, how will he be able to attain a state of absence of memory and mental activity? It is
impossible to not remember while remembering and to not see while seeing! If a person practises the absence of memory
and mental activity, how will that person remember former situations later on? Consequently, this is a contradiction,
akin to when someone staying in the cold—the opposite of warm—does not become warm. This being the case, the fact
is (that your position) negates the memory of the noble dharma and mental activity. In actuality, discrimination should
be viewed as a prerequisite. Because of this, it is only through pure discrimination that the
(folio 22r)
absence of memory and the absence of mental activity can be experienced—not otherwise! So, for example, if a yogin,
using pure wisdom (alone), tries to examine (reality), ultimately he will not see the occurrence of certain phenomena in
the past, present or future and, in that situation, how could there be a memory (of those things) in his mind? In actual
fact, things that do not exist in the past, present or future are not experienced. Therefore, how can (the yogin) remember that which he has not experienced? So, completely pacifying all these mental constructs, one enters the state of
non-conceptual wisdom. By virtue of entering that, one can understand emptiness. Understanding that, the entire web
of faulty views is abandoned. By examining (reality) using wisdom endowed with the method (of discrimination), one
becomes a (genuine) expert in conventional and ultimate truth. Thereupon, because one has attained wisdom unblemished by obscurations, one will attain all the qualities of the Buddha.”
The devaputra responded, ordering: “The followers of the instantaneous and gradualist paths, as they please, must
present their arguments in turn.”
Sang shi then said: “There is the application through gradual stages and the instantaneous entrance of the Chinese.
By totally abandoning the three realms (of form, the formless and desire) in the name of charitable giving, clinging not
even to the Six Perfections, it follows that under the rubric of charitable giving everything is abandoned since there is
no sense of self and belonging to self.
Preventing faults in body, speech and mind constitutes moral conduct,
142
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 22v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཏེ༴ རྣཾ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པ་ལ་ནོངས་པ་མ་མཆོིས་ན་ལྷག་པའི་ཚུལ་ཁྲིིམས་བསྲུང་མི་འཚལོ༎ ཆོོས་གང་ལ་ཡིང་བཟོད་པ་དང་མི་བཟོད་པ་མེད་ན་བཟོད་པའི་མཆོོག་ལགས།
ལེ་ལོ་ཡིོད་པས་བརྩེོན་འགྲུས་སུཾ་མིང་བཏགས། བརྩེོན་པ་དང་མི་བརྩེོན་པ་མེད་ན་བརྩེོན་འགྲུས་ཀྱི་མཆོོག་མི་ཤིགས་པ་སྲོ་བ་ཞེེས་བྱི་སྟོེ་བརྩེོན་འགྲུས་ཀྱི་མཆོོག་ལགས།
སེམས་གཡིེངས་པ་ཡིོད་པས་བསམ་གཏན་དུ་མི་ གདགས[225]། སེམས་གཡིེང་བ་མེད་ན་བསམ་གཏན་དུ་མིང་[226]འདོགས། ཆོོས་ཉིད་མི་ཤེས་པས་ཤེས་རབ་ཏུ་མི[227]་བཏགས། ཆོོས་རང་དང་
སྤྱིའི་མཚན་ཉིད་མ་ནོར་བར་ཤེས་ན་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་མཆོོག་ལགསསྟོེ[228]་[229]སྟོོན་པ་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་ནས་རིང་ཞེིག་ཏུ་ལྟི་བ་མི་མཐུན་པ་ཡིང་མེད་ན། སླེད་ཀྱིས་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་དབུ་
མ་རྣཾ་༣་མ་མཐུན་པ་དང༴ རྒྱའི་ཏོན་ཙེན་ཞེིག་[230]པར་གྱུར་ཏེ་མ་མཇལ་བ་[231]ཀུན་མ་རྟོགས་པ་ལས་གྱུར་གྱི། འཇུག་པའི་སྒཾོ་ཐ་དད་ཀྱང་དོན་མི་རྟོག་མི་དམིགས་པར་༡། འབྲས
བུ་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་པ་འཚལ་བ་ཡིང་༡་ཅེས་སྤྱི་འཐུན་པ་སྐད་དུ་གསོལ། [232]དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ཀྱིས་སྨྲས་པ། ༡་ཅར་འཇུག་ཅིང་རིམ་གྱིས་སྦྱོོར་མཆོི་བ[233]འི་ཚིག་འདི་༢་དཔྱ་
རལ་དུ་སྨྲ་སྟོེ། རིམ་གྱིས་སྦྱོོར་བར་འཚལ་ན་ནི་ཙེན་མེན་[234]དང་མི་འདྲི་བའི་རྒྱུ་ཡིང་ཅི་མཆོིས། ༡་ཅར་འཇུག་[235]སླེན་ཆོད་ཅི་བྱིེད་ཁྱིེད་ད་ལྟི་ཁོ་ན་སངས་རྒྱས་ན་ཅི་ཉེས།
Folio 23r
༡ ༄༅། །དཔེར་ན་རི་ལ་འཛེག་ན་གོམ་པ་རེ་རེས་བགྲོོད་ན་[236]དཀའ་ཆོེས་ཏེ། སྐད་ཅིག་མཆོོང་བའི་མཐུ་མེད་པ་དང་འདྲི་བར། ས་དང་པོ་ཐོབ་པ་ཡིང་ཤིན་དུ་དཀའ་ན་
༢ སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་སར་༡་ཅར་འཇུག་[237]པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་གང་ཡིིན། ལུང་བསྟོན་པའི་ཁུངས་བཙལ[238]། ཏོན་ཙེན་༢་ཤིན་དུ་མི་འདྲི་སྟོེ། ཙེན་མེན་ནི་གསུཾང་རབ་ཀུན་ལ་མཁས
༣ པར་བསླེབས་ཤིང་སྦྱོངས་ཏེ༴ ཤེས་རབ་རྣམ་པ་༣་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་མ་ནོར་བར་རིག་ཅིང་མི་སྐེ་བའི་བཟོད་པ་ཐོབ་པོ༎ དོན་དམ་པར་ས་དང་པོ་ཐོབ་པ་ཡིང་ཆོོས་སྤྱོད་རྣམ་
༤ པ་བཅུ་ལ་མོས་པ་ཤིན་དུ་བསྒཾོམས་པའི་ཕྱིར་བཟོད་པ་ནི་ས་དེ་ལས་ཡིང་དག་པར་འདས་ནས་ཡིང་དག་པའི་སྐོན་མེད་པར་འཇུགོ།། ལྟུང་བ་ཕྲ་མོའི་འཁྲུལ་པ་[239]ཤེས་༤ན་
༥ གྱིས་[240]ཡིོང་བར་མི་ནུས་པས༴ དེ་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་རྫོགས་པར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་འབད་པས་ས་༢་པ་[241]ཐོབ་པོ༎ འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་དང་སྙིོམས་པར་འཇུག་པ་དང༴ ལུང་དང་རང་གི་རྟོགས་
༦ པ་མཐའ་དག་པ་[242]ཐོབ་པས་ཆོོག་མི་ཤེས་ཏེ་ཕྱོགས་བཅུའི་སརྒྱས་ལ་ཆོོས་ཞུ་ཞེིང་སླེོབ་པོ། ཐོས་པའི་གཟུངས་[243]རྫོགས་པར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་འབད་པས་ས་༣་པ་འཐོབ་པོ༎ བྱིང་
༧ ཆུབ་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་དང་འཐུན་པའི་ཆོོས་ཐོས་པས་དེ་དག་གིས་དེ་ལ་གོམས་པར་བྱི་བ་དང་། སྙིོམས་པར་འཇུག་པ་ལ་སྲོེད་པ་དང༴ ཆོོས་ལ་སྲོེད་པའི་སཾས་ལྷག་པར་བཏང་སྙིོམསུཾ་
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
Original reading: མིང་བཏགས་ copied from line above and later corrected.
A mark above indicates that there was an insertion, but it has been erased.
The ང has been erased.
The first ས is written below, attached to right-hand descender of the ག
A small stroke placed below in a lighter hand indicating that ༴ might be appropriate at this point.
Insertion below: ཀྱང་བར་དུ་བྱུང་
Insertion below: དང་ Moreover the words in this phrase have been numbered to correct the word-order to: ཀུན་མ་མཇལ་བ་དང་མ་རྟོགས་པ་ལས་གྱུར་གྱི།
Insertion below: དབའ་
Insertion below: ཅེས་པ
The word མེན་ is bracketed to indicate it is superfluous.
Insertion below: ན་
Insertion below: ཡིང་
The word འཇུག་ is circled and corrected below to: ཞུགས་
Several insertions above and below to correct the reading to: ཁུངས་ཀྱང་འཚལ་དགོས་ལ་ཟེར
Insertion below: ཀུན་དུ་འབྱུང་པ་
The གྱིས་ has been dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
Insertion in dbu can below: འ
The པ་ has been dotted above to indicate it is superfluous.
Correction of ཐོས་པའི་གཟུགས་ by an erasure.
Text and Translation
143
(folio 22v)
but since there is no fault when there is no conceptualisation, (it follows that) abiding by higher moral conduct is not at
issue. Since forbearance and lack of forbearance do not exist whatever the circumstance, (it follows that the absence of
both) has to be the best of forbearance. Diligence is named so because of laziness, but since effort and non-effort do not
exist, (it follows that the absence of both) has to be the best form of diligence which, by definition, is firm and unchanging. One-pointed concentration is so named because of distraction, but since distraction does not exist, (it follows that)
concentration cannot be defined as such. Wisdom is so named in contradistinction to an inability to comprehend the
intrinsic nature of phenomena. If the difference between the reality of phenomena and their visible characteristics is
properly understood, that would surely be the best wisdom.
The context (of these misunderstandings) is that, after the Teacher had passed beyond sorrow, there were no doctrinal differences for a long time. Later on, there emerged disagreements in the three schools of Mādhyamika in India
and the fissure between the gradualist and instantaneous paths in China—not encountering (the Buddha), all the misunderstandings emerged. Otherwise, even though the approaches vary, the state of non-conceptualisation and non-observation are one. The result also, the striving for nirvāṇa, is one. This is universally agreed.”
Dpal dbyangs replied: “There being terms for instantaneous entrance and the application through gradual stages,
the two should be spoken of distinctly. If one seeks (enlightenment) through gradual stages, how could there possibly
be a cause for differences with the gradualists? For you following the instantaneous path, what does the future matter?
What is the harm if you can attain Buddha-hood right now?
(folio 23r)
Take the example of climbing a mountain: just as one does not have the capacity to jump up in an instant, so every
step taken can be extremely hard. Similarly, because it is extremely difficult to attain even the first level (of spiritual
development), can you tell us which Buddha has attained Buddha-hood instantaneously? Find and show evidence in
scriptural sources! The gradualist and instantaneous—the two paths are totally different because as far as the gradualists are concerned, all the Buddha’s words have to be properly taught and thoroughly learnt. By relying on the three
types of wisdom (derived from hearing, reflection and meditation), one attains an unerring understanding of all worldly
phenomena and an acceptance of (the Mādhyamika position regarding) the lack of inherent causality. As a matter of
fact, because even the attainment of the first level (of spiritual development) is due to the whole-hearted application of
the ten religious practices, the acceptance (of the truth about causality) carries well beyond that level to perfected realisation. Because one is not able to attain full awareness wherever there is the slightest misunderstanding, persevering
to correct this fully, the second level is attained. By not being content merely with the attainment of mundane contemplations (laukikasamādhi), absorption (samāpatti), proper instruction (upadeśa), and one’s own discursive reflection,
one seeks teachings from the Buddhas of the ten directions and studies it. Persevering to perfect the retention of what
one has heard without forgetting, the third level is attained. Those who have heard the teachings conducive to enlightenment, when they (try to) assimilate and meditate on them, are particularly disturbed in mental equipoise due to cravings
and attachments to worldly phenomena.
144
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 23v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
མི་འཇོག་པས། དེའི་ཡིན་ལག་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་རྫོགས་པ་ལ་འབད་པས་ས་༤་པ་འཐོབ་པོ༎ བདེན་པ་རྣཾ་པར་དཔྱད་པ་དང་འཁོར་བ་དང་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་པ་ལས་༡་ཏུ་མི་འཇོག་
པར་མངོན་སུཾམ་དུ་བྱིས་པའི་རྗེེས་ལ་ལྷག་པར་བཏང་སྙིོམསུཾ་གཞེག་པའི་ཐབས་ཀྱིས་ཡིོངསུཾ་ཟིན་པའི་བྱིང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་དང་འཐུན་པར་མི་ནུས་པྶྶ[244]་དེ་ཡིོངསུཾ་རྫོགས་པ་མ་ཡིིན་ཏེ་
འབད་པས་ས་ལྔ་པ་འཐོབ་པོ༎ འདུ་བྱིེད་ཅི་ལྟི་བ་༤ན་[245]དུ་བྱིས་ན་དེ་ལ་སྐོ་བ་མང་བ་དང་། མཚན་མ་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་ལ་གནས་པར་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཕྱིར་མང་དུ་གནས་[246]པའི་ཕྱིར་
འབད་པས་ས་དྲུག་པ་འཐོབ་པོ༎ བར་ཆོད་མེད་པ་དང་རྒྱུན་མི་འཆོད་པར་མཚན་མ་མེད་པ་ཡིིད་ལ་བྱིེད་པ་ལ་གནས་པར་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཕྱིར་འབད་པས་ས་བདུན་པ་འཐོབ་པོ༎
མཚན་མ་མེད་པ་ལ་གནས་པ་དེ་ལྷག་པར་བཏང་སྙིོམས་སུཾ་བཞེག་པ་དང་། མཚན་མ་ལ་དབང་ཐོབ་པ་མི་དམིགས་པའི་ཕྱིར་[247]ས་བརྒྱད་པ་[248]འཐོབ་པོ༎ ཤེས་བྱི་ཐཾད་ལ་ཆོས་
པ་མེད་པ་དང་ཐོགས་པ་མེད་པ་མཐོང་བར་མི་ནུས་པས་དེའི་ཡིན་ལག་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་རྫོགས་པར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་འབད་པས་ཐཾད་མཁྱིེན་པའི་གོ་འཕང་འཐོབ་པ་ནི་ས་བཅུ་པའོ། །
ས་བཅུ་ལ་སྦྱོངས་ཤིང་བགྲོོད་ནས་བརྙེེས་པ་ལགས་ན་ཁྱིེད་ཏོན་མུན་པས་མ་བསླེབས་མ་སྦྱོངས་པར་ནི་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་བྱི་བ་ཐཾད་ཀྱང་མི་ཤེས་ན་ཐཾད་མཁྱིེན་པའི་ཡིཻས་རིག་པྶཱི་
Folio 24r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །གནས་ལྔ་ལ་འཇུག་ཅིང་ཤེས་བྱི་ཐཾད་ཀྱི་མཐར་ཕྱིན་པ་ཅི་ལྟི་བུ་[249]ཅི་ཡིང་མི་བྱིེད༴ མ་བྱིས་ན་བདག་རང་གི་ཟན་ཡིང་མི་འགྲུབ་སྟོེ་ལྟིོགས་ཏེ་མཆོི་ན༴ བླ་ན་
མེད་པའི་སདྱས་སུཾ་ལྟི་ག་ལ་འགྲུབ། བདག་རང་ལ་ཡིང་མི་ཕན་ན་གཞེན་[250]ལྟི་ག་ལ་ནུས། བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའ་ནི་སཾས་དང་པོ་བསྐེད་པ་ནས་སཾན་གྱི་དོན་ལྷུར་བྱིས་པས་བསོད་
ནཾས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་སུཾ་འགྱུར། ཤེས་རབ་རྣཾ་༣་ལ་བརྟེན་པས་ཡིཻས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་སུཾ་འགྱུར། ཉོན་མོངས་པ་དང་ཤེས་བྱིའི་སྒྲིབ་པ་སྦྱོངས་པས་ཐབས་ཀྱིས་འཁོར་བ་མི་གཏོང་། ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱིས་
ཉོན་མོངས་པས་མི་གོས། མཐར་སངས་རྒྱས་ནས་ཀྱང་འཁོར་བའི་མཐར་མ་ཐུག་གི་བར་དུ་སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་མཛད་པ་བསམ་གྱིས་མི་ཁྱིབ་པ་སཾན་གྱི་དོན་མཛད་ཅིང་འཁོར་བ་ལས་བསྒྲལ
ནས་ཐཾད་མཁྱིེན་པའི་གོ་འཕང་ལ་འཇོག་ན། མ་བསླེབས་མ་སྦྱོངས་[251]ན་བདག་དང་གཞེན་གྱི་དོན་ཡིང་མི་བྱིེད་ལ། ཅི་ཡིང་མི་ཤེས་[252]པ་ཀུན་[253]སྒཾོང་ང་དང་འདྲི་བས་སརྒྱས་སུཾ་འགྲུབ་པཾ༴།
མ་བརྟགས་མ་བལྟིས་པར་ནི་ཐ་མལ་དུ་འགྲོོ་ན་ཡིང་རྟབ་འཆོོས་པར་འགྱུརོ༎ དེ་བས་ན་སརྒྱས་འཐོབ་པར་འཚལ་བས་ཞེི་གནས་དང་ལྷག་མཐོང་ལ་གོམས་པར་བགྱིས་ཚལ
ཏེ༴ གང་དེ་༢་ལ་མ་གོམས་པ་ནི་དངོས་པོའི་མཐའ་ཡིང་མི་རྟོགས། བསམ་པ་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་རྫོགས་པར་ཡིང་མི་འགྱུར་བར་བསྟོན་ཏེ། དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་ལ་སཾས་ཤིན་དུ་གསལ་བར་
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
Insertion in dbu can below: ས་
Insertion below: མངོན
Insertion below: པར་མི་ནུས་
Insertion below: འབད་པས་
Later insertion below in dbu can: དང་དགུ་པ་
Insertion above: ལྟིར་རུང་། ཟེར་ and ལྟི་བུ་ has a line above to indicate it is superfluous; the reading is thus: ཅི་ལྟིར་རུང་། ཟེར་
Insertion above: གྱི་དོན་
Insertion below: ཅི་ཡིང་མི་ཤེས
Insertion below: སེཾས་ and a line drawn above both ཅི་ཡིང་ and ཤེས་ which indicates the words are superfluous.
The word ཀུན་ is dotted above to indicate it is superfluous. The corrected reading is thus: མི་སེཾས་སྒཾོང་ང་
Text and Translation
145
(folio 23v)
Persevering to totally perfect these aspects (of assimilation and meditation), the fourth level is attained. Since one is
unable to apply the special equipoise that is the essential means for attaining enlightenment, even after one actually
realises that the analysis of the (four noble) truths, liberation from suffering and the cycle of rebirth cannot be considered as one, persevering to perfect that incomplete (application), the fifth level is attained. If one realises the conditions
of existence and experience just as they are, and that they are fraught with sorrow, persevering so that pre-conceptions
do not remain in the mind for a long time, the sixth level is attained. Persevering because one cannot remain mentally focused continually free of pre-conceptions and without interruptions, the seventh level is attained. Maintaining
the state of being free from pre-conceptions in special equipoise (is the eighth level) and persevering further because
mastery over pre-conceptions is imperceptible, the ninth level is attained. Because it is not possible to see all that is
knowable free from attachment and hindrance, persevering to thoroughly perfect this aspect (of knowing) and attaining
the state of supreme omniscience is the tenth level. If the tenth level is attained through practice and following each
step, how could you followers of the instantaneous path, who cannot learn even about any worldly matter without
teaching and learning, possibly gain mastery
(folio 24r)
of the five sciences of omniscient wisdom and mastery of all that is knowable? Moreover,” he said, “if you do nothing,
and having done nothing, you won’t obtain even your own food and you will be hungry, so how could you possibly
obtain the state of supreme Buddha-hood? If you do not help yourself, how is it possible to look after (the welfare of)
others?
Since by definition a bodhisatva, after first generating bodhicitta, through dedicated service to sentient beings and
their benefit, accumulates merit and, through reliance on the three-fold wisdom (of learning, reflection and meditation),
accumulates wisdom, he does not exploit his purging of negative emotional afflictions and obstructions to knowledge
to abandon (those caught up in) the cycle of existence. Thanks to wisdom he remains untainted by negative emotional
afflictions and, even after enlightenment, until the very end of the cycle of worldly existence, continues to perform
inconceivable Buddha acts for the welfare of sentient beings, liberating them from the cycle of re-birth until they attain
the state of omniscience. Consequently, when an ignoramus, untutored and untrained, acts neither for the sake of
himself or others and is as unfeeling as an egg, how could he ever achieve Buddha-hood? Without analysis, without
observation, proceeding in a prosaic way, he becomes perplexed. Hence it is proven that those aspiring for Buddha-hood
should assiduously practise the steps of meditative tranquillity (śamatha) and penetrative insight (vipaśyanā) because
those who don’t practise these two will not comprehend even the limits of ordinary phenomena and (their) minds will
not experience enlightenment. When the mind becomes very clear about reality as it is,
146
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 24v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
བྱུང་བའི་ཚེ་ཞེི་གནས་དང་ལྷག་མཐོང་ཟུང་དུ་འབྲེལ་པའི་ལམ་དུ་འགྲུབ་པ་ལགས་ཏེ༴ སྒཾོམ་ནའང་དེ་ལྟིར་ལེགས་ཞེེས་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ཀྱིས་སྨྲས་པ་དང་། ཏོན་མེན་གྱིས་ཙེན་མེན་ལ་
ཤགས་མ་ཐུབ་སྟོེ་མེ་ཏོག་དོར་ནས་འཕམ་བླངས་སོ༎ དེ་ནས་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཏོན་མུ་༡་ཅར་འཇུག་ཅེས་མཆོི་བ་༤ན་དུ་ཆོོས་སྤྱོད་རྣཾ་བཅུ་[254]སྐོན་སྐད།[255] དེ་མི་བགྱིད་ཅིང་བདག་
དང་གཞེན་གྱི་[256]སྒཾོ་བཀག་ན་སཾས་བྱིིང་ཞེིང་ཆོོས་ནུབ་པར་འགྱུར་བས་ལྟི་བ་ནི་ནཱ་གཱ་རྫུ་ནའི་ལྟི་བ་ལ་ལྟིོས་ཤིག། སྒཾོམ་བ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་རྣཾ་༣་ལ་བརྟེན་ཏེ་ཞེི་གནས་དང་ལྷག་མཐོང་[257]
སྒཾོམས་ཤིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ནས། སར་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་དང༴ བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭས་གསོལ་པ་༤ན་མཐར་གྱིས་འཇུག་པར་ཆོད་དེ་ སྒྲ་[258]བསྒྱུར་གྲྭ་བཙུགས་[259]ནས། [260]མདོ་སྡིེ་དང་ཐེག་པ་ཆོེན་པོའི་
མངོན་བའི་བསྟོན་བཅོས་རིལ་བསྒྱུར། ཏན་ཏྲ་ལས་མ་ཧཱ་ཡིོ་ག་མུ་སྟོེགས་དགེ་བ་ལ་གཟུད་པའི་སླེད་དུ་གཙང་རྨེ་མེད་པར་བསྟོན་པ་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་དབྱིིངས་ཇི་ལྟི་བ་ནི་མ་རྟོགས་པར་ལོག་པར
བཟུང་དུ་དོགས་ཏེ་མ་བསྒྱུར། སགས་གཡིོག་ནུས་པ་ཡིང་བོད་ལ་མི་འབྱུང་ནས་མ་བསྒྱུར། བྲམ་ཟེ་རྣཾས་དགེ་བ་ལ་གཟུད་པའི་དོན་དུ་ཀྲིི་ཡི་གསུཾངས་པ་དང༴ ཨུ་པ་ཡི་བོད་ལ་[261]འཚམ་
པར་གསོལ་ཏེ་བསྒྱུར། ཉན་ཐོས་ཀྱི་མདོ་སྡིེ་ལུང་རིང་པོ་དང༴ གང་པོ་རྟོགས་པ་ཉུང་ངུ་ཞེིག་བསྒྱུར། ཉན་ཐོས་ཀྱི་མངོན་བ་ཀོ་ཤ་བསྒྱུར། དབུས་མཐའ་ཀུན་དུ་འབངས་ཀུན་ལྷ་ཆོོས་
Folio 25r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །སླེོབ་ཅིང་དགེ་[262]མི་བགྱིད་དུ་མི་གནང་བའི་ཡུལ་ཡུལ་དུ་སླེོབ་དཔོན་[263]བསྐོས[264]། ཞེང་བློན་དང་བཙུན་མོ་ཀུན་ཡིང་ཀ་བ་ལི་རེ་རེ་ཐོགས་ནས་ཆོོས་སླེོབ་ཏུ་སྩལ། སོན་
རྒྱལ་པོ་གདུང་རབས་ལྔར་ཆོོས་མ་ཚུགས་པ་དེ་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་དང་། ཨཙརྱ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་དང་། དབའ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་དང་། འབའ་སང་ཤི་༤ས་དཀོན་མཆོོག་༣་གྱི་རྟེན་
བཙུགས༴ [265] བོད་ཁཾསུཾ་དམ་པའི་ལྷ་ཆོོས་རྒྱ་ཆོེར་བསྒྲགསོ༎ ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་ཚེ་འདའ་ཀར་མི་མ་ཡིིན་པ་དག་གིས་བསུཾ་ཞེིང༴ དྲིི་ཞེིམ་པོ་དང༴ ནམཁའ་ལས་མཆོོད་པ་དག་ཀྱང་བྱུངོ་༎
ཡིཻས་དབང་པོས་འཕགས་པ་ལ་ཐེ་ཙཾ་ཞུ་བའི་དྲུང་དུ་ལྷ་སྲོས་གཤེགས་ནས་འབྲས་ཐུག་གསོལ་བ་དང་། ཡིཻས་དབང་པོའི་མཆོིད་ནས་ལྷ་ཅིག་གི་ཕམ་ཕབས་འདི་[266]ནོས་ནས་སླེན་ཆོད་ཁཾ་
གྱི་ཟས་སྤོངས། ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་དང་ཟས་སུཾ་བརྗེེས། ཕུང་པོ་དང་ཆོོསུཾ་བརྗེེའོ་ཞེེས་མཆོི་སྟོེ་ཚེ་འདསོ། བཙན་པོའི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཨ་ཙརྱ་ཚེ་འདས་པ་དང་སྦྱོར་ན་ ཁོ་བོའི་ཚེ་ཡིང་རིང་
པོ་མི་ཐུབ་ཅེས་གསུཾང་[267]། དེ་ནས་རབ་ཏུ་བྱུང་བ་རྣམས་ཏོན་མེན་པའི་ཚིག་མ་ཉན་ཏེ་ཆོོས་སླེོབ་ཅིང་དཔེ་ལེན་དུ་ཡིང་མ་བཏུབ༴ རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་དར་མའི་དཔེ་ཐོག་ཐག་ཙམ་བླངས་ཏེ་བསྒྱུར
ན༴ ཤི་[268]ན་ལེན་ཏྲར་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་དར་མ་མེས་ཚིག་སྟོེ་མ་ཚང་བ་ལས༴ རྒྱ་ཡུལ་དུ་ལོ་སྟོོང་ཉིས་བརྒྱ་ལོན་ནས་ཆོོས་བྱུང་སྟོེ་གསུཾང་རབ་ཀྱི་དཔེ་ཚང་བར་བཞུགས་པ་ལ[269]༴ རྒྱའི་དར་མ་
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
Insertion below: ལ
Insertion to the right: ལ༴ to indicate the reading is སྐད་ལ༴
Insertion below: སླེོབ་སྦྱོོང་གི
Insertion: ལ༴
Text is corrected to: དེ་ སྒྲ་
Insertion on top of page: སླེོབ་སྦྱོོང༴ ལྟུང་འབུལ༴ སེཾས་འཆོོས་ (insertion above: ཀྱི་) གྲྭ་༣་བཙུགས་ ; གྲྭ may have first read ལ
Insertion on top of page: ལོ་ཙ་ (insertion above: བ་) དྲུག་པོས་མཚན་ཉིད་སྡིེ་སྣོད་༣་ལ་
Insertion bottom of page: རན་པར་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོས་གསོལ་ཏེ་བསྒྱུར༴ འདུལ་བ་ལུང་སྡིེ་༤་ལས་ཐཾད་ཡིོད་སྨྲའི་སྡིེ་པ་རྒྱུ་དང་འབྲས་བུ་སོན་དུ་སྟོོན་པས་བོད་ལ་
Insertion below: བ་
Insertion below: ལོགས་ན་
Insertion below: ཡིོད་
Insertion at the top of page: གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་བཞེེངས་པ་ལསྭོོ་པ་ལོགས་ན་ཡིོད༴
Insertion below in dbu can: མ
Insertion above: ནས་ཐུགས་ངན་ཆོེར་མཛད་
Insertion below: ལེ་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Text and Translation
147
(folio 24v)
then inherently one is on the path that combines both meditative tranquillity and penetrative insight. If one chooses to
meditate, this is good.”
When Dpal dbyangs spoke thus the followers of the instantaneous path were unable to refute the gradualists. Offering their flowers, they accepted defeat. Then the devaputra declared: “I understand that in following the instantaneous
path advocated by the Ton mun (followers), the criteria of the ten religious practices are undermined and therefore
that (path) shall not be followed. If the door (to religious study) is blocked for oneself and others, mental laxity will
emerge and the dharma will decline. So as far as the doctrine is concerned, study the doctrine of Nāgārjuna! As far as
contemplation is concerned, you must contemplate on meditative tranquillity and penetrative insight based on the
three-fold wisdoms!”
(The king) deciding to allow the implementation of the previous recommendations of Ye shes dbang po and
Bodhisatva, a translation school was established. The Sūtra-s and Abhidharma teachings of the Mahāyāna (tradition)
were translated in full. From the Tantra corpus, Mahāyoga, taught without differentiating between pure and impure
and meant for guiding non-Buddhists to virtue, was not translated, suspecting that an erroneous understanding would
arise from an improper comprehension of the basic elements of the dharma (dharmadhātu). Additionally, it was not
translated for lack of a competent person in Tibet to serve (in the use of) the mantra-s. The teaching of the Kriyā (Tantra),
meant to lead the priestly class to virtue, and the Ubhaya (Tantra), being deemed appropriate for Tibet, were translated.
Of the Śrāvakas, the Lung ring po sūtra (Dīrghāgama) and a small part of the Gang po rtogs pa were translated. The
Abhidharmakośa of the Śrāvakas was translated. Everywhere, in the centre and at the borders, all the subjects engaged
in studying the holy dharma
(folio 25r)
and Ācāryas were (individually) appointed in each and every place so they would not give up practising virtue. The
ministers and all the queens too, each carrying a book between boards, were encouraged to study the dharma. Whereas
the dharma could not be established during the reign of the five previous kings, the devaputra Khri Srong lde btsan,
Ācārya Bodhisatva, Dba’ Ye shes dbang po, and ’Ba’ Sang shi—those four—established seats for the triple gem (and)
the noble holy dharma was propagated widely in the region of Tibet.
Ye shes dbang po, nearing his death, was welcomed by non-human spirits and a fine fragrance, as well as offerings, streamed down from the sky. As Ye shes dbang po was wavering (about whether to depart this life) before (an
image of) Ārya (Avalokiteśvara), the devaputra approached, offering rice porridge. Ye shes dbang po accepted it saying:
“After receiving this prasāda from a lord, henceforth I shall give up morsels of food, switching from food to meditative
absorption (samādhi). And I will revert from the aggregates (that constitute mortal existence) to natural elements.” So
saying he passed away. His majesty proclaimed: “When I consider the demise of the Ācārya, then my life too cannot last
for long.” After that, the ordained monks disregarded the words of the instantaneous path; studying the dharma they
were, however, not able to fetch the (original) texts. When they managed to fetch and translate only a smattering of the
dharma of India (the king said): “Whereas the scriptures of India at Śrī Nālandā are incomplete due to the fire, in China
the whole canon of the dharma is complete since the scriptures had reached there one thousand two hundred years ago.
I regret that the scriptures of China
148
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 25v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
མ་འགྱུར་བ་ཡིིད་ལ་གཅགས་གསུཾང་ངོ་༎ རྫོགས་སྷོོོ་༎ ༈ ལྷ་སྲོས་ཁྲིི་གཙུག་ལྡེེ་བཙན་[270]གྱི་སྐུ་རིང་ལ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁས་པ་མང་པོ་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ཏེ་ཀ་ཅོག་རྣམ་༣་གྱིས་ས[271]་མ་
འགྱུར་བའི་ཆོོས་རྣམས་[272]བསྒྱུར། [273]འགྱུར་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱང་སྐད་གསར་ཆོད་ཀྱིས་གཏན་ལ་ཕབ། ལྷ་ཁང་བརྒྱ་རྩེ་བརྒྱད་ཀྱི་གྲོངས་ཀྱང་བསྲོང་། ཆོོས་ཁྲིིམས་དར་གྱི་མདུད་པའང་བསྐར་
ནས་བསྡིམས་ཏེ་ལྷ་ཆོོས་གཏན་ལ་ཕབ་པོ༎ སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོོས་བོད་ཁམས་སུཾ་ཇི་ལྟིར་བྱུང་བའི་བཀའ་མཆོིད་ཀྱི་ཡིི་གེ་དབའི་བཞེེད་པ་རྫོགས་སྷོོོ༎ [274] ༎
ཨཙརྱ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་འདས་ནས་སླེད་ཀྱིས་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོའི་བུ་མོ་དབའ་ཟ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱིས་ཇོ་མོ་བྱུབ་ཀྱི་སྙིན་དུ་གསོལ་ཏེ་རྗེེ་འབངས་ཀྱི་བསོད་ནམསུཾ་ཆོོས་སླེོབ་བཙུགས༴ སྤྱན་
རས་གཟིགས་ཀྱིས་བྲག་དམར་མ་མ་གོང་དུ་མཆོོད་རྟེན་བརྒྱ་རྩེ་བརྒྱད་ཅིག་བརྩེིགས་པའི་ཚེ་ཆུ་མིག་དང་ས་བཟང་པོ་ཀླུས་བསྟོངས༴ རྡོོ་བ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡིེ་གེ་ཅན་བྱུངོ་།། [275]དེ་ནས་བཙན་
པོའང་དགུང་དུ་གཤེགས་ནས༴ སྲོས་ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་སྲོོང་བཙན་གྱི་རིང་ལ་ཨཙརྱ་འབའ་རད་ནས་ཤེས་རབ་འབུཾ་[276]བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་ཐོག་མར་བསྒྱུར་བའི་ཚེ་སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཞེིང་དག་པ་ཅན་དུ་བསྒྱུརོ་ཞེེས
རྨྱིི་ལམ་དུ་འབའ་རད་ནས་ལུང་བསྟོན༴ དབའ་མཁན་པོ་མཉྫུས་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་སྙིན་དུ་འབུམ་བཤད་པ་དང་འོད་ཆོེའོ་ཞེེས་གསུཾངས་ནས་སྤྱི་བོ་ལ་བྱུགས་ཏེ་བྱི་དགའ་ཆོེར་སྩལ༴ ཇོ་མོ
Folio 26r
༩
༄༅༎ །།ལྷ་རྒྱལ་གྱི་ཞེལ་ནས་དེ་ལྟིར་ཆོོས་འཆོད་མཁས་པ་ཟས་སུཾ་ཅི་ཟ་[277]ཞེིག་འཐུང་ཞེེས་གསུཾང་གདའ༴ དེ་ནས་འབའ་སང་ཤི་ སླེད་ཀྱིས་ཚེ་འདའ་ཀར་འགྲོན་བཟངས་
ལྷ་ཁང་གི་ལྷ་ཡིིད་བཞེིན་འཁོར་ལོ་ལ་མཆོི་མ་བྱུང༴ མྱི་མ་ཡིིན་བ་རྒྱུ་བའི་སྒྲ་བྱུང་སྟོེ༴ དམ་པའི་ཆོོས་ནི་དང་པོ་དེ་ལྟིར་བརྙེེས་ཤེས་གདའོ༎
༎རྟའི་ལོའི་དཔྱིད
ཟླ་ར་བའི་ངོ་ལ་བཙན་པོ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་ནི་འདས༴སྲོས་མུ་ནེ་བཙན་པོ་ནི་སྐུ་ཆུངས༴ཆོོས་སྤྱོད་པ་ལ་དགའ་བའང་ཉུང་སྟོེ༴ལྷ་སྲོས་ཡིབ་ཀྱི་འདད་བགྱི་བར་བཅད་པ་ན༴མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས
གཟིགས་དང༴སྣ་ནཾ་རྒྱལ་ཚ་ ལྷ་སྣང་དང༴ ངན་ལཾ་སྟོག་ར་ཀླུ་གོང་ལསྭོོ་པ་བློན་པོ་ནག་པོ་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་ཆོོས་ནུབ་པར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་དང༴བོན་བཙུན་བར་བྱི་བའི་ཕྱིར་བྲག་དམར་མཚོ་མོའི་འགུར་དུ་རེའུ་
ཆོེན་པོ
ཕུབ་སྟོེ༴ཆོིབས་ལས་རྟ་བོ་ཆོེ་དང་མགྱོགས་པ་མང་པོ་དང༴ཆོིབས་ཀྱི་རྐྱེེན་པ་ར་ཆོས་དང༴ རིང་གུར་ལཌ་པའི་བཟོ་འདྲུབས་པས་གཞེི་བཟུང་སྟོེ༴བོན་པོ་ཡིང་འཕན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ཨ་གཤེན་དང༴བྱིི་སྤུ་དང༴མཚེ་
ཅོག་དང༴ཡི་ངལ་ལཌ་པ་བརྒྱ་ཉི་ཤུ་རྩེ་བདུན་བསོགས་ཏེ་འདད་བགྱིད་པར་བཅད་པ་ལས༴ སྲོས་མུ་ནེ་བཙན་པོས་ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོའི་མདུན་སར་སྤྲིིང་བ༴ ངའི་མདང་གི་རྨང་ལཾ་ན་འོག་མིན་གྱི
གནས་ལྕང་ལོ་ཅན་གྱི་ཕོ་བྲང་ཟེར་བ་ཞེིག་ན༴བཅཾ་ལྡེན་འདས་དཔལ་རྣཾ་པར་སྣང་མཛད་དང༴ ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོེ་རདདང༴ འཇམ་དཔལ་གཞེོནུ་[278]དང༴ ཡིབ་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་རྣཾས་ཐབས་གཅིག་ཏུ་
བཞུགས་ཏེ༴མདོ་སྡིེའི་
ལུང་ཁུངས་དང༴བསྟོན་བཅོས་ཀྱི་གཏཾ་རྒྱུད་མང་པོ་གསུཾང་ཞེིང་འདུག་པ་རྨིས་ཏེ༴ མཚན་ལྟིས་འདི་དང་སྦྱོར་ན་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཡིབ་ཀྱི་འདད་ནི་བོན་དུ་བྱིར་མི་རུང་གི༴དཀར་ཆོོསུཾ་བྱི་དགོས་པས་བཅཾ་ལྡེན་
འདས
ཀྱི་རིང་ལུགས་དང༴སྒྲ་སྒྱུར་གྱི་ལོ་ཙྪ་བ་དང༴མདུན་ས་ཆོེ་ཆུང་དུ་གཏོགས་པའི་ཞེང་བློན་ཆོེན་པོ་དག་ཞེིབ་ཏུ་མཆོིད་གྲོོས་འཐུན་བར་གཉེར་དུ་ཁུམས་ཅིག་ཅེས་བཀའ་སྩལ་བརྫངསོ༎
270
271
272
273
274
275
insertion above: རལ་པ་ཅན་
Insertion below in dbu can: ར
Insertion below in dbu can: ཀྱང་
Insertion below in dbu med: སར་
Insertion: ཞུས་དག་
Insertion below: འདི་ནོར་ (“this is wrong”) indicating the whole phrase highlighted and placed in brackets, དེ་ནས་བཙན་པོའང་དགུང་དུ་གཤེགས་ནས༴ སྲོས་ཁྲིི་
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༨
ལྡེེ་སྲོོང་བཙན་གྱི་རིང་ལ་
276 The words བོད་ཡུལ་དུ་ཐོག་མར་བསྒྱུར་བའི་ཚེ་སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཞེིང་དག་པ་ཅན་དུ་བསྒྱུརོ་ are also placed in brackets and highlighted, with insertion of a correction bottom
of page in a different hand: ཐོག་མ་བོད་ཁཾས་སུཾ་རྒྱས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ།། དེའི་ཚེ་དེའི་བྱིིན་རླབས་ཀྱིས་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཁམས་ཐེག་པ་ཆོེན་པོ་སྤྱོད་པ་ཤ་སྟོག་གི་ཞེིང་དག་པར་སྐེ་བར་འགྱུར་རོ་ ཟེར
277 Insertion below: སྐོམ་དུ་ཅི་
278 Insertion below: གྱུར་པ་
Text and Translation
149
(folio 25v)
were not translated.” This is the end.
In the reign of devaputra Khri Gtsug lde btsan, many scholars from India were invited and three—Ka, Cog and
Rnam—translated dharma-texts not previously translated. Moreover, (previously) translated texts were also revised
according to the new standardised language. A set of one hundred and eight temples were raised up. The knot of the silk
cord of Vinaya rules was also tightened and the holy dharma was codified. So ends the Dba’ bzhed, the account from the
Dba’ perspective, the text of the noble narrative of how the dharma of the Buddha came to the region of Tibet. Edited.
After Ācārya Ye shes dbang po has passed away, Ye shes dbang po’s daughter, Dba’ za Spyan ras gzigs asked Jo
mo byub to establish dharma-study centres for the merit of the king and his subjects. While Spyan ras gzigs erected a
set of one hundred and eight stūpa-s at Brag dmar ma ma gong, the nāga-s produced a spring and fertile earth. Tablets
with Indian writing appeared.
Then, after his majesty also went to heaven, his son Khri Lde srong btsan had, during his rule, a dream in which
’Ba’ Rad na prophesied that Ācārya ’Ba’ Rad na would translate the dharma-text Shes rab ’bum for the first time in Tibet
and Tibet would be transformed into a pure land of the Buddha. When preceptor Dba’ Mañju offered the teachings of
the ’bum to the devaputra, he said: “It is most illuminating!” and touching his head to the scripture he granted large
presents. Jo mo
(folio 26r)
lha rgyal was heard to have said: “What does such an expert in expounding the noble dharma eat?”
Later, when ’Ba’ Sang shi was passing away, the white Tārā in the temple of ’Gran bzangs shed tears and there was
a sound of non-human spirits moving about. Thus it was that the dharma was first founded.
During the first month of spring in the Horse Year, his majesty Khri Srong lde btsan died, (his) son Mu ne btsan
po was young and, what is more, those who delighted in the practice of the dharma were few in number, so when it
was decided to hold the funeral feast of (his) father the devaputra, evil ministers, such as Mchims Btsan bzher legs
gzigs, Sna naṃ Rgyal tsha lha snang and Ngan laṃ Stag ra klu gong, in order to cause the erosion of the dharma and
encourage respect for Bon, pitched a huge tent in the Mtsho mo valley in Brag dmar and filled it with big horses from
Chibs, speedy riders, corrals for the amenities of the Chibs and the master tent-makers required for the funeral tent.
(They) also gathered the expert Bon po-s from the ’Phan country—the A gshen, Byi sbu, Mtshe, Cog and Ya ngal—to
total of a hundred and twenty-seven.
When they decided to conduct the funeral feast, the (king’s) son Mu ne btsan po sent (this) communique to the
great ministers:
“In my dream last night, I dreamt that lord Śrī Vairocana, in a palace called Aḍakavatī in the Akaniṣṭha realm,
was residing together with Vajrapāṇi, Mañjuśrīkumāra and my father Khri Srong lde btsan and they were speaking
extensively about the authentic transmission of the sūtra-s and accounts of the śāstra-s. When this prophetic dream is
connected with the funeral feast of my father the devaputra, I find that it is unsuitable for it to be done in accord with
Bon because it must be done in accord with the white dharma (of Buddhism). Know, therefore, that the Bhagavat, the
scholars of translation, and the great ministers participating in the larger and smaller councils must gather and hold
a detailed discussion in order to arrive at a common agreement (in accord with my wish).” Thus he sent the command.
150
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 26v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
དེ་ནས་འཁོན་ཀླུའི་དབང་པོ་དང་ མཁས་པ་རྣ་ཆོ་ཅན་༢་ཀྱིས་ ཉིན་ལ་མཚན་དུ་[279]རྒྱུགས་ཏེ། ཚ་བ་ཚ་ཤོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་ ཁཾས་ནས་པ་གོར་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་དང་།
རྒྱལ་མོ་གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོ་༢་སྤྱན་དྲིངས་ཏེ། རིང་ལུགས་ཀྱི་བན་དེ་རྣཾས་དང་། ལྷ་ལུང་ལྷུན་གྱི་དཔལ་དང༴ ལོ་ཚ་བ་མཆོིམས་ཤག་ཀྱ་[280]དང། ཨཙ་ར་པ་
གོར་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་དང་། སྣ་ནམ་ཡིེ་ཤེས་སྡིེ་ལསྭོོ་པ་མཆོིད་གྲོོས་སུཾ་འཚལ་བ་ལས་། གཡིས་གྲོལ་བོན་པོས་བཟུང༴ གཡིོན་གྲོལ་བློན་པོས་བཟུང་། གུང་
ལ་རྒྱལ་བུ་བཞུགས་ཏེ་བན་དེ་ལ་གྲོལ་མ་སྟོེར་བས་འཚཾས་ཏེ། ཆོོས་དང་འཐུན་བའི་གྲོལ་མེད་པ་ལ༴ སླེཽན་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནས་བསྙུག་ཞེ་ཆོེན་པོ་ཅིག་གསོལ་།
སྤོ་གུག་རིང་པོ་༡་བསྣཾས༴ གསེར་ཐུམ་ཆོེན་པོ་༡༴གསོལ་ནས། རྒྱལ་བུ་ལ་ཞེེ་ས་གཞུ་བཞེིན་དུ་ཕུལ་ནས། མངའ་བདག་གི་འོག་གཡིས་གྲོལ་དང་པོ་ན་
མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ཡིོད་པའི་རྒྱབ་ཏུ་འཁར་བའི་ཨཾ་ཚུགས་མཛད་ནས་བཞུགས་པས། བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ཉཾས་
ལ་མ་བདེ་ནས་ཕྱིར་མིག་བལྟིས་པས་ བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནའི་སྨ་རའི་གསེབ་ན་ཁྲིོ་ཆུང་ཉུངས་དཀར་ཙམ་ཤིག་ཤིག་སྣང་བ་དང་། ཤིན་དུ་སྐྲག་ནས་ཀོག་
Folio 27r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །གིས་ལངས་པའི་ཤུལ་དུ་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནས་བཞུགས་པས་བན་དེ་ལ་གཡིས་གྲོལ་ཤོར་། དེ་ལྟིར་མདུན་སར་བགྲོིགས་ཏེ་བཞུགས་པའི་དུས་
སུཾ། རྒྱལ་བུའི་འཕྲིན་གྱི་བྱིང་བཟངས་སླེག་པར་གཟས་པ་དང་། ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ཀྱིས་འདི་སྐད་སྨྲས་ཏེ། ཨུཾ་ལགས་རིང་ལུགས་
ཀྱི་བན་དེ་ཆོེན་པོ་དང་། ཨ་ཙ་ར་དག་སྤྱིར་བདག་ཅག་གིས་གསལ་ནི་མི་འཚལ་ཞེིང་། མཐའ་བཞེི་ཉི་འོག་དང་བརྡོའ་མཇལ་ཏེ་གསང་སྒཾོ་ཕྱེ་
ནའང་། འོ་སྐོལ་མངའ་རི ས་བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་ཁཾས་སུཾ་ རྗེེ་མི་ལྡེེ༴ ལྷ་ལྡེེ་སྤུ་རྒྱལ་གཉའ་ཁྲིི་བཙན་པོ་ལྟི་བུ་ཞེིག་འགྲོེང་མགོ་ནག་གི་རྗེེར་གཤེགས་
པའི་ཚེ་ ཡི་མཚན་ཅན་གྱི་ཀོར་དུ་དུང་དཀར་ཆོེན་དཀར་ཆུང་། གཉན་གཡུ་རུ་ལྟིེ་མདོངས་། རྨོག་རྨུ་ལུགས༴ རྨུ་ཁྲིབ་ཞེོལ་མོ། གཞུ་རང་
བརྡུངས༴ རྨུ་མདུང་ཟང་ཡིག༴ རལ་གྲོི་གཤེན་གྱི་བླ་མཚོ༴ དམུ་ཕུབ་གོང་ཁྲི་ལསྭོོ་པ་མང་པོ་ནི་མངའ། དེ་ཙ་ན་འབངས་ཞེབས་འབྲིང་བ་སྐུ་གཤེན་ཚེ་ཆོོག་
དང་སྟོབས་ཅིག་ཏུ་བཞུགས་ཏེ༴ ཤིང་སྡིོང་པོ་ནི་སྐུ་དུད་དུད་། གོར་ཕ་བོང་ནི་འཕར་ཐང་ཐང་། རྫུ་འཕྲུལ་དང་ཡི་མཚན་ཆོེ་བའི་ཚར་༡་མཆོིས་སོ༎ དུས་
Folio 27v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
དེ་ཙམ་ན་མི་གུམ་ཀྱང་ས་ལ་འདད་གཏང་བ་དང་བང་སོ་བརྩེིག་མི་འཚལ། དེ་ནས་སྲོས་ཆོིབས་ཁ་ཐུབ་ནས་ཡིབ་དགུང་དུ་གཤེགས་ཏེ་འདད་བཏང་བ་ཚུན་
ཆོད་དུ། ལྷ་ཐོ་ཐོ་རི་སྙིན་ཤལ་དང་གྲོང་ལུང་གི་གུང་སྨན་དུ་བཤོས་ཏེ། གཏོང་འདད་གཏོང་བ་ཡིང་གྲོང་ལུང་གི་གུང་སྨན་གྱིས་གཏོང་ངོ༎ ལྷ་ལ་ལྷ་
འདུར་ཞེེས་ཀྱང་བགྱི་སྟོེ། རྗེེའི་གཏོང་འདད་དང་། འབངས་ཀྱི་འདུར་ལུགས་དེ་ཚུན་ཆོད་དུ་བྱུང་བ་ལགས་ཏེ་། འདད་བཏང་ཚུན་ཆོད་དུ་བཞུགས་ཀྱི་
སྐུ་འཁར་ནི་བཙན་ཐང་སྒཾོ་བཞེི་བརྩེིགས་པས་བཀྲི་ཤིས་ཞེིང་ཞེལ་གྲོོ་བ་ལགས། བསྟོེན་པའི་སྐུ་ལྷ་ནི་ཡིར་ལ་ཤམ་པོ༴ གྲོོངས་ཀྱི་བང་སོ་ར་བ་
ཐང་དུ་བཏབ་སྟོེ་། ཡིར་ལ་ཤཾ་པོ་ནི་གཉན་ཞེིང་མཐུ་ཆོེ༴ ཕྱི་ལུགས་ར་བ་ཐང་ནི་བཀྲི་ཤིས། དེ་ཙ་ན་གཡིོ་རུ་སྨད་ནས་ཉུང་ཤས་ཙཾ་༡་ལས།
ཟི་པོའི་རྗེེ་ཁྲིི་འཕང་༣་དང༴ ཞེང་ཞུང་གི་རྒྱལ་པོ་གཉའ་ཞུར་ལག་[281]ལསྭོོ་པ་རྒྱལ་རིགས་ཕྲ་མོ་མངའ་རིས་སུཾ་འདུས་པ་ལགས། མངའ་ཐང་ཆོེ་བ་དང་ཆོབ་
སྲོིད་མཐོ་བ་ནི་གཙུག་ལག་དང་ལྡེན་བས་བྱུང་སྟོེ། སྐུ་གཤེན་ ཚེ[282]་ཅོག་དག་གི་ལྟི་སྤྱོད་ཀྱང་ལེགས་པ་འདྲི་། ཕ་བ་སྐུ་གཤེན་པ་དག་གི་སྟོོང་འདད་
279
280
281
282
Insertion below in dbu can: བ
insertion below: པྲ་བྷ་
Insertion below in dbu can: མིག་
The ཚེ appears to have been corrected.
Text and Translation
151
(folio 26v)
Then ’Kon Klu’i dbang po and Mkhas pa Rna cha can, having run day and night to the kingdom of Tsha ba tsha
shog, invited Pa gor Vairocana and Rgyal mo G.yu sgra snying po. Buddhist monks, Lha lung Lhun gyi dpal, the
translator Mchims Shag kya, Ācārya Pa gor Vairocana, Sna nam Ye shes sde, and others went to the discussion,
whereupon the Bon po-s occupied the right hand row and the ministers the left hand row with the king’s son seated
in the centre. Because no row was given over to the monks, they took umbrage. When there was no row commensurate
to the dharma, master Vairocana, wearing a big bamboo hat, carrying a long crooked cane and wearing a great golden
cloak, offered his deep respects to the king’s son and stood in the first row to the right, leaning on his stick, below the
ruler’s throne behind Mchims Btsan bzher legs gzigs. Feeling a little uneasy, Btsan bzher legs gzigs looked back.
On seeing wrathful emanations teeming like mustard seeds visibly flitting about in Vairocana’s whiskers, he was quite
terrified and got up abruptly.
(folio 27r)
In his place Vairocana sat down and thus the right-hand row was lost to the monks. In that way, they were seated and
arrayed in the first row.
As the copper-plate communique of the king’s son was about to be read, Btsan bzher legs gzigs said these words:
“Sirs! Great monks of the doctrine and Ācāryas! Broadly speaking, even though we do not have clear knowledge, even
though we opened the secret doors (of knowledge), having encountered and communicated with the wider world, for
us subjects in the country of Tibet when Spu rgyal Gnya’ khri btsan po came to be the lord of the upright black-headed
Tibetan people, both laity and ecclesiastics, among the collection of wondrous things, there were the big and little white
conch shells, the peacock blazon of the Gnyan (clan of) the G.yu region, the helmet in the style of the Rmu (clan), the
skirt of Rmu chain mail, the self-made bow, the fabulous penetrating Rmu lance, the sword (named) the ‘spirit lake of
Gshen,’ the circular coloured shield of Rmu and much more. At that time, the subjects, courtiers and the Sku gshen
(priests)—the Tshe and Chog—assembled together (with the king), and the trees appeared to bow and round boulders
to bounce. It was a time of magical and wondrous things.
(folio 27v)
In those days, even when a man died, there was neither a custom of burial underground nor building a tomb. Then,
after (that king’s) son could command the bridle, (and his) father passed to heaven, funeral services were ever since
conducted, so when Lha tho tho ri snyan shal and Gung sman of Grang lung were united in marriage, funeral services were conducted by her also. It being performed for the lord, it was also known as ‘divine burial.’ The custom of
the funeral feast offering for the king and burial for subjects came into being from that time. Following the funeral rites,
because of the construction of the Btsan thang sgo bzhi as the royal dwelling, good fortune and prosperity ensued. The
tutelary deity propitiated (by the king) was Yar la sham po (and) tombs for the dead were built at Ra ba thang. Yar la
sham po is awesome and possessed of magical power; the (location of) Phyi lags ra ba thang is auspicious. Whereas
at that time, the kingdom was just a small area of lower G.yo ru, petty kingdoms such as Zi po’i rje khri ’phang gsum
and Gnya’ zhur lag, king of Zhang zhung, and others were subjugated. (His kingdom) came to be powerful and his
statecraft exalted due to high culture and knowledge. In addition, the ideology and actions of the Sku gshen (priests)—
the Tshe and Cog—appeared to have been commendable. The funeral rites of the two Sku gshen (priests) for transfer
of dead souls
152
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 28r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །ཆོེ་ཞེིང་ཞེལ་གྲོོ་བ་ལས། ད་འདི་ལས་བཟློག་སྟོེ་འདད་བན་དེས་མཛད་དེ༴ རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཆོོས་ལུགས་སཾ་མཛད་སྤྱོད་ལྟིར་བགྱིས་
ནས་ གལ་ཏེ་བཀྲི་མི་ཤིས་པ་དག་བྱུང་ན་ བླ་སྒཾོ་༢་བར་གྱི་ཆོབ་སྲོིད་དམས་པར་ངེས་པས་ རིང་ལུགས་ཀྱི་བན་དེ་ཆོེན་པོ་དང་བློ[283]་པོ་རྣཾས་འཐུན་
བར་གྱིས་ལ་འདད་བོན་ལུགས་སུཾ་བྱི་བར་རིགས་སོ་ཞེེས་གླིེངས་སོ༎ �� དེ་ནས་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནའི་ཞེལ་ནས་ཚིག་དེས་ལྟིང་ མི་ཆོོད་པས་ གཡིས་ཀླུ་
པོའི་ཡིི་གེ་ ཀླག་པ་ཤོལ་ཅིག་གསུཾང་ནས་ལན་བཏབ་པ། ཨུཾ་བྱིང་ཆུབ་སཾས་དཔའི་གདུང་རྒྱུད་། རིགས་༣་མགོན་པོའི་སྤྲུལ་པ། ཐུགས་རྗེེ་ཆོེན་པོའི་
མངའ་བདག་། མི་རྗེེ་ལྷའི་དབོན་སྲོས་ རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་གསེར་གྱི་གཉའ་ཤིང་ལྟི་བུ་དབུ་ལ་བཞུགས་ལགས། ཆོབས་འོག་ན་མཆོིས་པ་འབངས་
ཀྱི་རད་པ་མང་ཞེིག་མི་གསོལ། ཅུང་ཟད་ཞུ་བས་ས་ས་ནས་སྙིན་གསན་པར་ཞུ་ལགས། དངོས་ངན་པ་སུཾག་ལས་ཀྱི་སྐལ་བས་ལྷོ་བལ་གྱི་སྐད་
བསླེབས་ཏེ་མཐའ་བཞེི་ཉི་འོག་གི་རྒྱལ་རིགས་ཀུན་གྱི་ཁ་བརྒྱུད་ནས་ ཤིག་དོང་དང༴སྦྲུལ་གདུག་པ་ཅན་གྱི་དོང་དུ་སྩལ་བས་ཤ་སྲོབ་ཅིང་དབང་པོ་མི་གསལ་
Folio 28v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
བར་གྱུར་ཏེ་འཚལ་བའི་སྣོ་ཆུང་གིས་ཀྱང་ནི་ཐོས་པ་མང་པོའི་སྒཾོ་ནས་གཞེི་བླངས་ཏེ། སྤྱི་ཆོེད་ཉུང་ཤས་ཙཾ་༡་གསོལ་ན༴ ཡིོང་འཛཾ་བུའི་གླིིང་གི་འཇིག་རྟེན་
གྱི་ཁཾས་ན་ སྲོིད་པ་ཇི་ལྟིར་སྤྱོད་པ་ཅིག་ལགས་ཞེེ་ན། དཔེར་ན་བར་སྣང་འདི་རྡོོ་རྗེེའི་ཕ་བོང་ཅིག་གིས་རང་གིས་རང་འགྲོིལ་ཏེ་ས་[284]ཅིག་ནས་གཅིག་འདས་
ཀྱང་མི་འགྱུར་བ་བཞེིན་དུ༴ མི་གཅིག་ཁ་ཤར་ཕྱོགས་སུཾ་[285]ལྟིས་ཏེ་ལ་གཅིག་ རྒོལ། ཆུ་གཅིག་འབོགས་ཐང་གཅིག་ རྒོལ་ཏེ་ཚེའི་མཐར་ཐུག་
པར་སོང་ཡིང་མི་དང་ཡུལ་ལ་ཟད་པ་མ་མཆོིས་སོ།། དེ་ལ་ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་ན་རེ་ བཞུགས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་འཁར་ནི་བཙན་ཐང་སྒཾོ་བཞེི། སྟོེན་གྱི་སྐུ་
ལྷ་ནི་ཡིར་ལ་ཤཾ་པོ༴ གྲོོངས་ཀྱི་བང་སོ་ནི་ར་བ་ཐང་དུ་བཏབ་པས་བཀྲི་ཤིས་བགྱི་བ་དེ་ཤོ་པེ་བ་ལགས་ཏེ་། དེ་བས་བཀྲི་ཤིས་པ་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡུལ་ཤྲཱིི་ན་ལེན་
དྲིའི་གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་ན་ དཾ་པའི་ཆོོས་ལ་ཐུགས་ཆོེས་ཤིང་དཀར་ཕྱོགས་ལ་མོས་པའི་བྱིིན་ རླབས་ཀྱིས་ རྒྱལ་པོ་ད་ན་ཏ་ལོ་ལ་སྲོས་ཐུ་རེ་
ཛ་ཧ་ཏི་དང་། སྲོས་མོ་པ་ལ་ནི་ལསྭོོ་པ་པཎྜིིིཏ་ཉེར་ལྔས་ [286] ལོ་སྟོོང་ལྔ་བརྒྱ་དང༴ལོ་སྟོོང་སུཾཾ་བརྒྱ་ལོན་པ་བཞུགསོ༎ ཡིང་རྒྱ་གར་གི་རྒྱལ་པོ་
Folio 29r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། ། དྷརྨ་རཱཱ་ཛཱཱ་དང༴ ཨུ་རྒྱན་གྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཨིན་དྲི་བྷཱུ་ཏི་[287]ལ་མི་རབས་བཅུ་བཞེིའི་བར་དུ་ཕ་ཁུ་ཡིང་ཚེ་མི་རྗེེ་། བུ་ཚ་ཡིང་རབས་མི་
འཆོད༴ལེགས་པའི་ཡིོན་ཏན་དུས་༡་ལ་རྫོགས་པའི་སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཞེིང་གུད་པ་བ་ཞེིག་ཀྱང་མཆོིསོ༎ ཡིང་རི་རབ་ཀྱི་རྩེེ་མོ་སུཾཾ་བཅུ་རྩེ་གསུཾཾ་དགའ་ལྡེན་
ལྷའི་གནས་སྣཾ་པར་རྒྱལ་བའི་ཁང་བཟངས་[288]བྱི་བ་ན། གུང་ལ་ལྷའི་དབང་པོ་བརྒྱ་བྱིིན་བཞུགས། ཅོག་ཆོེན་པོ་བཞེི་ན་གནོད་སྦྱོིན་བཞེི་བཞུགས། བ་གཾ་
སུཾཾ་བཅུ་རྩེ་༢་ན་འཁོར་ཉེ་དབང་སུཾཾ་བཅུ་རྩེ་༢་བཞུགས་ཏེ་དགྱེས་པ་ལ་ལོང[289]་སྤྱོད་ཅིང༴ རིན་པོ་ཆོེའི་གཞེལ་ཡིས་ཁང་གདན་མནན་ན་ནེམ་[290]བྱིེད་ཅིང་།
བཏེག་ན་འཕར་བ་ལ་བཞུགས་པ་མཆོིས་སོ༎ ཡིང་འོག་མིན་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་དབྱིིངས་ཀྱི་ཕོ་བྲང་དང་ སརྒྱས་ཀྱི་ཞེིང་ཡིོངས་སུཾ་དག་པ་བདེ་བ་ཅན་ནམ།
པད་མ་ཅན་ཞེེས་པ་ན་ སྐེ་འཆོི་དང་འདུ་འབྲལ་མེད་པ་བཀྲི་ཤིས་པ་བགྱི་བ་དེ་ལྟི་བུ་ལགས་སོ༎ ཡིར་ལྷ་ཤམ་པོ་གཉན་བགྱི་བ་དེ་ཤོ་པེ་བ་ལགས་ཏེ༴
དེ་བས་གཉན་ཞེིང་མཐུ་ཆོེ་བ་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཆོེན་པོ་བཞེིའཾ། མཐུ་སྟོོབས་ཀྱི་བདག་པོ་ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་ལསྭོོ་པ་རིགས་གསུཾམ་འགོན་པོ་འམ༴ ཐུགས་རྗེེ་ཆོེ་ལ་
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
Insertion below in dbu can: ན
Insertion below in dbu can: ག
Insertion below in dbu can: བ་
Erased text, which appears to consist of words from the preceding text that were mistakenly repeated.
The Sanskrit names have been corrected orthographically.
Insertion below: ཞེེས་
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Insertion below: ཞེེས་
Text and Translation
153
(folio 28r)
were effective and beneficial. Now if this is reversed, and the funeral performed by monks then if disaster should strike,
after it is done in accord with Indian religious system or practice, the political understanding between king and subjects
is certain to decline. Therefore, it is certainly advisable that the Great Principal of the monks and the ministers come to
an accord and conduct the funeral according to Bon custom.
Then Vairocana replied saying: “Since your words don’t hold water, those (of us sitting on) the right shall postpone the reading of the text of the Klu po! King of great compassion—who belongs to the lineage of the bodhisatva, an
emanation of the three protectors (Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara and Vajrapāṇi)—(you are) the precious descendent of the
sublime forefathers and the lord of men who presides over our affairs like the proverbial golden yoke. I will not submit
much of the widely varying views of the subjects under your rule. Rather I shall highlight some salient aspects which I
humbly submit to your majesty’s attention. Due to my karmic destiny, akin to that of an emaciated animal, I learned the
language of Lho bal and came to wander through all kinds of kingdoms under the sun and was cast into pits infested
with lice and pits with poison snakes. As a result, I became thin and my senses
(folio 28v)
became numb. Though being a small vessel as well, drawing upon my learning from many avenues, I shall, if permitted,
submit a few general points. If it is asked: ‘In the physical universe, how does existence function in this wide world
called Jambudvīpa?’ Let me give an example: just as space does not change should an indestructible boulder roll ever
on from place to place, likewise, if a person faces east and crosses a pass, forges a river and crosses a plain, till the end
of his days, there will be no end of people and places. Although Zhang Btsan bzher says: ‘Auspiciousness arises from
the the royal dwelling at Btsan thang sgo bzhi, propitiating Yar la sham po as the tutelary deity, and building tombs
for the deceased at Ra ba thang,’ this is exaggerated. Far more auspicious is the temple of Śrī Nālandā in India. Through
blessings from steadfast faith and adherence to the noble dharma and to the path of virtue, Thu re dza ha ti, son of
king Da na ta lo, and his daughter Pa la ni and others, plus twenty-five pandits, lived from 1300 to 1500 years. Further,
the Indian king
(folio 29r)
Dharmarāja and the king of Oḍḍiyāna, Indrabhūti and their paternal clans were not interrupted to fourteen generations,
and they had offspring and grandchildren without a break, and there also existed a special Buddha field where all
virtues ripened instantaneously. What is more, on the summit of Sumeru in the Trayastriṃśā world of the Tuṣita heaven,
the abode of the gods, there is a storied palace of the Jina. In the middle resides Indra, lord of the gods. In four great
corners, four yakṣa-s reside. On thirty-two balconies, reside the thirty-two ministers of Indra, enjoying delight. And in
the vast celestial mansion, they are arrayed on cushions that sink when they sit and spring back when they get up. Such
indeed is the wondrously auspicious state in the Dharmadhātu palace of Akaniṣṭha and the pure Buddha realm known
as Sukhāvatī or Padmāvatī, where there is neither life nor death and neither union nor separation. The assertion that
Yar lha sham po is awesome is an exaggeration because compared to him more awesome and greater in magical power
are the four great kings, or the three protectors, namely Vajrapāṇi, the embodiment of magical power, and the others,
154
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 29v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
ཐབས་མཁས་པ་བཅཾ་ལྡེན་འདས་རྣཾ་པར་སྣང་མཛད་སྐུ་མདུན་རྒྱབ་མི་གསལ་བ་ སྲོིད་པའི་ཆོོས་ཐཾད་ལ་དབང་སྒྱུར་བ་མཆོིས་ཏེ། གཉན་ཞེིང་མཐུ་
ཆོེ་བ་དེ་ལྟི་བུ་ལགས་སོ།། བོན[291]་གྱི་ལྟིོ་སྤྱད་དང་གཙུག་ལག་ལེགས་བགྱི་བ་དེའང་ཤོ་པེ་བ་ལགས་ཏེ་། ཟིང་པོའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ ཁྲིི་འཕང་གསུཾཾ་གྱིས་
ལྷ་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་མེད་པའི་ཐང་ལྷ་ཡིར་ལྷ་གསོལ། འཕན་ཡུལ་གྱི་ཨག་གཤེན་རྣཾ་༢་ཀྱིས་གནག་ལུག་དང་རྟ་ལསྭོོ་པ་དུད་འགྲོོ་མང་པོ་ནི་བསད། འདྲིིད་
འགྲོིན་དང་གཅོ་མི་ལསྭོོ་པ་འདྲིེ་གསུཾར་འདོད་དང་། བོན་[292]ལྕགས་འདོད་མང་པོ་བསགས། སྡིིག་ས་མའི་སྟོེང་དུ་ཕྱི་མ་མནན་ཏེ་འཁྲུལ་པའི་ཆོོས་ལ་སྤྱད་
པས་ ཁོའི་བྲན་ཉང་སྦས་གནོན་དང་༣་། ཚེ་སྤོོངས་འཕྲིན་དང་བཞེི༴ མཁར་ཁུང་ལུང་རྒྱབ་བུ་སྣང་དང་ཆོས་ནས་སྤུ་རྒྱལ་བོད་ཀྱི་མངའ་རིས་སུཾ་འདུས་པ་
ལགས་ཏེ༴དེ་ལྟིོ་ཆོེ་ཞེིང་ཞེལ་བསོད་པ་ལགས་སཾ། ཞེང་ཞུང་གི་རྒྱལ་པོ་[293]གཉའ་ཞུར་ལག་མིག་གིས་ལྷ་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་མེད་པའི་གྱེ་གོད་དང་མུ་ཐུར་ནི་
གསོལ༴ ཞེང་ཞུང་གི་ཆོོས་ལུགས་རྣཾ་པ་བཞེིར་བོན་ ཤིད་བཏང་བས་ཞེང་ཞུང་གི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་བརླག་[294]ནས་ འཁར་རྩེེ་མཐོ་དང༴རྒོོད་ལྟིིང་ལསྭོོ་པ་
Folio 30r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅། །སྤུ་རྒྱལ་གྱི་མངའ་རིས་སུཾ་འདུས་པ་ལགསོ༎ དབོན་འ་ཞེའི་རྒྱལ་པོས་ལྷ་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་མེད་པའི་སྲོིབ་དྲིི་དཀར་པོ་ནི་གསོལ། དབོན་འ་ཞེ་རྗེེ་
ཉིད་ཀྱི་ལུགས་སུཾ་བོན་ ཤིད་ནག་པོ་བཏབ་པས་འ་ཞེའི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་[295]རླག་སྟོེ་སྤུ་རྒྱལ་གྱི་མངའ་རིས་སུཾ་འདུས་པ་ལགསོ༎ མཆོིམས་དགས་པོའི་རྒྱལ་པོས་བོན་ ཤིད་
ནག་པོ་བཏང་བས་མཆོིམས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་[296]རླག་སྟོེ་ད་ལྟི་ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་དག་ཀྱང་འབངས་ཚད་མར་གྱུར་པ་ལགས་སོ༎ སྣུབས་རྗེེ་སྲོིབས་པོས་ལྷ་སྙིིང་རྗེེ་
མེད་པའི་སྣུབས་ལྷ་མཐོན་དྲུག་ནི་གསོལ། བྱིར་མི་བཏུབ་པའི་བོན་ ཤིད་ནག་པོ་བཏང་བས་ སྣུབས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་སྲོིད་རླག་སྟོེ་སྣུབས་འཁར་སྐ་མོ་དང་ཆོས་
ཏེ་བོད་ཀྱི་མངའ་རིས་སུཾ་འདུས་པ་ལགས་སོ༎ དེ་ཙམ་དུ་ཉེས་པ་ཆོེ་བའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གྱིས་ ཤིད་བོན་ལུགས་སུཾ་བྱིར་མི་བཏུབ་པ་འདྲིའོ༎ དཾ་པའི་ཆོོས་
ནི་ལུང་ཚད་མས་ཟིན་ཏེ། དགེ་བ་བྱིས་པས་མཐོ་རིས་དང་། སྲོོག་གཅོད་སོགས་[297]མི་དགེ་བ་བྱིས་པས་ངན་སོང་དུ་ལྷུང་ཞེེས་འབྱུང་བས་ འོ་སྐོལ་གྱི་
རྗེེ་ཁྲིི་ སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་ལྟི་བུ་ཞེིག་གཟུགས་ཕུང་སྐད་ཅིག་མིའི་ལུས་བླངས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་ དགོངས་པ་སརྒྱས་སུཾ་བཞུགས་ཏེ་གཟུགས་བརྙེན་གྱི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་
Folio 30v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༅༎ །བརྒྱ་རྩེ་བརྒྱད་བཞེེངས་པ་དང་། ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པའི་མདོ་སྡིེ་བརྒྱ་རྩེ་བརྒྱད་བཞེེངས་ཏེ་དགེ་བའི་འཕྲོ་བཟང་བས་དེ་དང་རྗེེས་སུཾ་འཐུན་བར་བགྱིད་
འཚལ། འཁྲུལ་པའི་སྤྱོད་པ་ངན་པས་བསླུས་ན་དཔེར་ན་རྟ་དཀར་པོ་ལ་ སྟོན་ནག་པོ་བསྟོད་པ་ལྟིར་ སར་གྱི་སྒྲིབ་པ་དང་གེགས་སུཾ་འགྱུར་
ངེས་པས་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་གཏོང་འདད་འདི་ཆོོས་ལུགས་སུཾ་བགྱིད་པར་ཞུ་ཞེེས་གསུཾང[298]་པས། མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ན་རེ་
བན་དེ་དག་ཁྱིེད་ཀྱི་མཆོིད་ཤགས་དེ་ཁུངས་ནི་ནམ་མཁའ་སྟོོང་པ་ལས་བྱུང་། དུས་ཚོད་ནི་ཚེ་ཕྱི་མ་ལ་བཏབ༴ ཁ་ཟིན་ནི་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱིས་
མཛད། བདག་ཅག་གི་མཆོིད་གྲོོས་ལྟིར་མི་འགྱུར་ན་ཅི་ལེགས་པར་མངའ་གསོལ། ཕོ་བྲང་གི་མདུན་ས་ཡིང་བན་དེས་ཟུང་།
རྗེེའི་ཞེབས་ཐོག་ཀྱང་བན་དེས་གྱིས༴ མཐའི་སོ་ཁ་ཡིང་བན་དེས་སྲུངས་ཟེར་ཏེ་སྤྲུགས་རྡོབ་བྱིས་སོང་བས་ གཞེན་སུཾས་ཀྱང་མ་སྤོོབས་
ཏེ་སྨྲ་བ་མ་བྱུང་བ་ལ། སླེོབ་དཔོན་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནས་སླེར་གཉེར་ངེད་རང་བན་དེས་བྱིེད་ཅེས་གསུཾངས་པས་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱང་རབ་ཏུ་མཉེས་སོ།
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
The word བོན has been superimposed as an amendment.
The text is marked to be annotated below, but the words of the annotation are erased.
A letter has been scrubbed out here.
The word བརླག has been rewritten.
Insertion below in dbu can: བ
Insertion below in dbu can: བ
Insertion below: པ་ and the word སོགས་ marked to indicate it should be omitted.
Insertion below in dbu can: ས
Text and Translation
155
(folio 29v)
or Lord Vairocana, skilled in means as well as great compassion, whose form signifies emptiness and who controls
all conditioned existence. Such are those who are awesome and great in magical power. The assertion that the views,
practices and sacred sciences of Bon are good is an exaggeration because the king of Zing po, Khri ’phang gsum, propitiated the merciless god Thang lha yar lha, (and) the two noble Ag Gshen (priests) from the ’Pan country killed many
animals, such as cattle, sheep, horses and so forth, frequently undertaking the performance of the Bon Lcags (rites) and
the performance of burnt offerings to demons, such the ’Drid ’grin, Gco mi, etc. Thanks to this misguided religion, (the
king) piled new sins on old with the result that his three subjects, Nyang, Sbas and Gnon, with Tshe spongs ’phrin as
the fourth, together with the castle of Khung lung rgyab bu snang, were subsumed in the dominion of Spu rgyal Bod.
In view of this, would your majesty find that (Bon system) appetising and mouth-watering? The king of Zhang zhung,
Gnya’ zhur lag mig, propitiated the merciless gods Gye god and Mu thur, (and) offered Bon funeral rites in accord the
religious system of Zhang zhung, as a consequence of which the dominion of Zhang zhung was surely lost (and) the
castles of Rtse mtho and Rgod lting and others
(folio 30r)
fell under the dominion of Spu rgyal. A nephew (of the Yar lung kings), the king of ’A zha, propitiated the merciless
god Srib dri dkar po (and) offered dark Bon funeral rites in his own tradition, that of the lords of ’A zha, as a consequence of which the dominion of ’A zha was surely lost and fell under the dominion of Spu rgyal. As a consequence of
the dark Bon funeral rites offered by the king of Mchims dgas po, the dominion of Mchims was surely lost and today
Zhang Btsan bzher and others have been reduced to genuine subjects. Sribs po, lord of Snubs, propitiated the merciless god Snubs lha mthon drug (and) offering dark Bon funeral rites which are improper to practise, the dominion
of Snubs together with the castle of Skya mo was surely lost and fell under the dominion of Tibet. Given such severe
consequences, it would seem improper to conduct the funeral rites in accord with Bon tradition. The holy dharma,
being imbued with inherent logic and scriptural authority, states: ‘Virtuous acts lead to higher rebirth; unwholesome
acts, such as killing, cause descent into lower realms.’ Someone like our lord Khri Srong lde btsan, even though he
assumed a human form temporarily, spiritually being in an enlightened state, he accrued merit by making one hundred
and eight image-maṇḍala-s,
(folio 30v)
and one hundred and eight sets of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra, and so I exhort you to do what is consistent with that. If
one is duped by mistaken bad behaviour, it would be like, for example, putting a black blanket on a white horse. This
is bound to usher in the obscurations and obstacles of the past. I urge that the funeral feast offering of the devaputra be
performed in accord with the (Buddhist) religious system.”
Having so spoken, Mchims Btsan bzher legs gzigs said: “You monks! The source of your argument is derived from
empty sky! Your time orientation is the next life, and you want the devaputra to support your position. If things are not
going to happen according to our benevolent advice, let (the king) judge what is best! Let the palace council also be run
by the monks! Let the service of the lord also be done by the monks! Let the border post also be guarded by the monks!”
So saying, when he shook and stamped (his feet), no one dared utter a word. Ācārya Vairocana responded: “We monks
ourselves will do it!” When he said that, the devaputra was much pleased.
156
Tsering Gonkatsang, Michael Willis
Folio 31r
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
༧
༄༎ དེ་ནས་བན་དེ་རྣཾས་ཀྱིས་ལྷའི་བུ་དྲིི་མ་མེད་པའི་མདོ་[299]ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་འདད་ ཤིད་དཀར་ཆོོས་སུཾ་མཛད་དོ།། དེའི་དུས་སུཾ་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་དབྱིིངས་ཀྱི་
དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་བཞེེངས་ཏེ་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་གི་འདད་བཏང་། བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ནས་སགས་བདག་མཛད༴ གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོས་ཆོོ་ག་མཛད༴ ངན་ལཾ་
རྒྱལ་[300]མཆོོག་དབྱིངས་དང་། འཁོན་ཀླུའི་དབང་པོ་དང༴ སྣུཾས་ནམ་མཁའ་སྙིིང་པོ་ལ་སྭོོ་པས་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་དུ་ཕྱིན་པ་སྲོས་ཡུཾ་
མང་དུ་སླེགས་ཏེ་ལྷ་སྲོས་ཀྱི་འདད་རྒྱས་པར་བཏང་ངོ་༎ དེ་ནས་མངའ་བདག་མུ་ནེ་བཙན་པོ་དང་། བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་དང་། རྒྱལ་མོ་གཡུ་སྒྲ་
སྙིིང་པོ་ ༣་གྱིས་ ལྷན་དཀར་ཏ་མོ་རར་བཀའ་ངེས་པའི་ལུང་དོན་མན་ངག་རྣཾས་རྒྱ་སྐད་ལས་བོད་སྐད་དུ་བསྒྱུར། སྲོས་མུ་ནེ་བཙན་
པོས་བཀའ་ངེས་པའི་ལུང་དོན་མན་ངག་ཟབ་པ་རྣཾས་སྣོད་དང་ལྡེན་པ་ལ་གཏད། ལ་ལ་དབུ་རྩེེ་ཟངས་ཁང་གི་བསེ་སྒྲོམ་ནག་པོར་སྦས་ཏེ་
བཞེག་གོ༎ དེ་ནས་གཡུ་སྒྲ་[301]ཉིད་ཚ་བའི་ཡུལ་དུ་བཞུད་། བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་ནུབ་ཕྱོགས་གྱད་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་མ་ག་དྷའི་བྲག་ཕུག་ཏུ་ཡུན་གྱི་
Folio 31v
༡
༢
༣
༤
༥
༦
དགོངས་པ་ལ་གཤེགས་སོ༎ ལ་ལ་ན་རེ་ཤར་ཕྱོགས་ལིའི་ཡུལ་ཤེར་འཁར་དཀར་པོའི་ནང་ན་ ལི་རྗེེ་དཀར་པོའི་བུ་མོ་ལི་ཟ་[302]ཚུལ་ཁྲིིམས་
མཚོ་བྱི་བ་ཁྲིིད་ནས་བྱིང་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་ལྷ་ཁང་གི་སྒཾོ་ཅན་གསོས་ཀྱང་ཟེར་རོ༎ དེ་ནས་ཕྱིས་ངན་སོང་སྦྱོོང་རྒྱུད་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ ཀུན་རིག་དང་གཙུག་ཏོར་
དགུའི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ ཤིད་རྣཾས་བྱིས་སོ༎ གྲོིར་ཤི་བ་ལ་ཁྲིོ་བོ་ཉི་མའི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ ཤིད་བྱིས། དེའི་གཏད་ཡིར་དང༴གྲོི་
འདུལ་ལསྭོོ་པ་རྣཾས་མདོ་སྡིེའི་ཁུངས་དང་སྦྱོར་ནས་མཛད་། དུས་དེ་ནས་ ཤིད་ཐཾད་ཆོོས་ལུགས་སུཾ་བྱིེད་པ་བྱུང་སྟོེ། དེ་ཡིང་བོན་ལུགས་གླིེན་པ་དག་ནོར་
ལོངས་སྤྱོད་མང་པོ་གཏེར་དུ་སྦེད་པ་ཡིོད་སྐད། དེ་ནི་གོད་ཆོེ་ལ་ཕན་ཆུང་བར་དགོངས་ནས་ཆོོས་ལུགས་མཁས་པ་དག་གིས་ཟས་གཏད་ཀྱི་ཕྱག་བཞེེས་
འདི་མཛད་སྐད་དོ༎ ཟས་གཏད་ཀྱི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་ རྫོགསྷོོོ༎
༎
:
༎
299
300
301
302
Insertion above: གཙུག་ཏོར་དྲིི་མེད་ཀྱི་གཟུངས་
Insertion below in dbu can: བ
Insertion below: སྙིིང་པོ་
The word ཟ་ is written in dbu can on a small square slip of paper, pasted onto the page.
Text and Translation
157
(folio 31r)
Then the monks performed the funeral in the white system (of Buddhist) dharma in accord with the Devaputravimalasūtra.
At that time, a maṇḍala of Vajradhātu was set up, the funeral feast of the devaputra Khri Srong was offered. Vairocana
acted as master of the mantra-s, G. yu sgra snying po performed the ritual, Ngan lam Rgyal mchog dbyangs, and
’Khon Klu’i dbang po, and Snums Nam mkha’ snying po and others read the full and abbreviated versions of the Prajñāpāramitā at length and the funeral feast of the devaputra was offered in an elaborate manner. Then lord Mu ne btsan
po, Vairocana and G.yu sgra snying po from Rgyal mo (rong)—the three of them at Lhan dkar ta mo ra—translated
the definitive words and instructions (of the Buddha) from the language of India into Tibetan. The putra Mu ne btsan
po entrusted, to those who were worthy, the definitive words and instructions (of the Buddha). Some (texts) remained
in the Dbu rtse zangs khang, hidden away in a protective black box. Then G.yu sgra departed for the Tsha ba country.
(folio 31v)
Vairocana departed to meditate for a time in the cave of Ma ga dha, in the country of Gyad, in the west. Others hold
the view that after taking Li za Tshul khrims mtsho, the daughter of the Buddhist lord of Khotan resident in the white
crystal castle of Khotan in the east, he went on to revive the Lha khang gi sgo can temple in the north.
Thereafter, funerals were performed in accord with the tantra for rebirth in lower realms and in accord with the
maṇḍala-s of the nine uṣṇīṣa (Buddhas) and the all-knowing (Vairocana). In the case of those who died by the sword,
funerals were performed in accord with the wrathful Sūrya maṇḍala. As a preventative to that, the knife-taming ritual
and so forth, sourced from the sūtra-s, was performed. From that time onward, all funerals came to be performed according the dharma system. Moreover, foolish practitioners of Bon are supposedly said to have concealed much wealth (of
the deceased) as hidden treasure. In view of that, realising such a practice was very deleterious and of little benefit, the
masters of the dharma system instituted the ritual of food offering.
The account of the food offering ritual is finished.
Tibetan-Language Sources
Testimony of Ba
BL fragment
Or.8210/S. 9498(A–D) and Or.8210/S. 13683(C). Online on the IDP. http://idp.bl.uk/
DBA’ 2000
“dba’ bzhed.” In dBa’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet, edited by Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger, 123–156. Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.
RBA 2011.1
“rba bzhed.” In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe
rnying zhib ’jug khang, vol. 36, 63–110. Zi ling: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe krun khang, 2011.
RBA 2011.2
“rba bzhed.” In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe
rnying zhib ’jug khang, vol. 36, 111–143. Zi ling: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe krun khang, 2011.
SBA 1961.1–2
Stein, Rolf A., ed. Une Chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1961.
SBA 1962
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba (Lokesh Chandra, ed.). Mkhas-paḥi-dgaḥ-ston of Dpaḥ-bo-gtsuglag (also known as Lho-brag-chos-ḥbyuṅ) Part 4 (ja). Delhi: International Academy of Indian
Culture, 1962.
SBA 1968
Stag lha phun tshogs bkra shis, ed. Btsan po khri srong lde btsan dang / mkhan po slob dpon
padma’i dus mdo sngags so sor mdzad pa’i sba bzhed zhabs btags ma. Dharamsala: Shes rig
par khang, 1968.
SBA 1980
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba. 1980. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston: A Detailed History of
the Development of Buddhism in India and Tibet by the Second Dpa’-bo of Gnas-naṅ, Gtsuglag-’phreṅ-ba. Reproduced from Prints from the Lho-brag block from Rumtek Monastery. 2 vols.
Delhi: Karmapae chodey gyalwae sungrab partun khang, 1980.
SBA 1982.1–3
Mgon po rgyal mtshan, ed. Sba bzhed ces bya ba las sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs.
Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1980/1982.
SBA 2009.1
“rba bzhed.” In Rba bzhed phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Bde skyid, 80–158. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2009.
SBA 2009.2
“chos ’byung gi yi ge zhib mo.” In Rba bzhed phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Bde skyid, 159–236.
Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009.
Dunhuang Documents
The texts marked “IOL Tib J n” or “Or. n” in this volume
come from the Dunhuang cave complex in Mogao, China,
as do texts marked “Pelliot tibétain n.” The former two
types are now housed in the British Library, the latter in
the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Images of most of
these manuscripts can be found on the International Dunhuang Project website (http://idp.bl.uk), Gallica (https://
gallica.bnf.fr/) or Artstor (http://www.artstor.org/index.
shtml).
IOL Tib J 321
The ’Phags pa thabs kyi zhags pa pad ma ’phreng gi don bsdus pa Mahāyoga text and commentary.
IOL Tib J 370/6
The Single Volume of Scriptures that Fell from Heaven account of (Khri) Srong brtsan and Khri
Srong lde brtsan establishing the dharma in Tibet.
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-008
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Dunhuang Documents
159
IOL Tib J 466/3
A Tridaṇḍaka prayer paying homage to Buddhas, bodhisatva-s, Indian teachers and kings
supporting the dharma, including Khri Srong lde brtsan.
IOL Tib J 480
Regulations for local Buddhist communities.
IOL Tib J 597
Copy of The Prophecy of the Khotanese Arhat found in IOL Tib J 598.
IOL Tib J 598
The Prophecy of the Khotanese Arhat.
IOL Tib J 689/2
A list of the succession of Spiritual Friends (dge ba’i bshes gnyen) of Bsam yas and ’Phrul
snang temples.
IOL Tib J 723
An Old Tibetan poetic or ritual text.
IOL Tib J 731
The Tale of the Separation of the Horse and the Wild Ass narrative oriented towards funerary
rites.
IOL Tib J 739
A text on dice divination.
IOL Tib J 750
Version I of the Old Tibetan Annals (+PT 1288), containing the years 672–747.
IOL Tib J 1375
A fragment of the Old Tibetan Chronicle.
Or.8210/S. 9323
Fragments of Tibetan and Chinese text used as patches.
Or.8210/S. 9497
Paper fragment of a Chinese drawing of a deity.
Or.8210/S. 9498(A–D)
The larger fragments of the BL Fragment (see above under: Testimony of Ba).
Or.8210/S. 13683(C)
The smaller fragments of the BL Fragment (see above under: Testimony of Ba)
Or.8212/187
Version II of the Old Tibetan Annals.
Or.15000/332
The So sor thar pa’i mdo (Prātimokṣa Sūtra) fragment from Miran Fort.
Pelliot tibétain 44
An account of Padmasambhava’s introduction of Phur pa teachings in Tibet and description
of a Phur pa ritual.
Pelliot tibétain 149
The tale of the diffusion of the Ārya-bhadracaryā-praṇidhāna teachings from India to Tibet.
Pelliot tibétain 443
Invocation to Mahābala including spells.
Pelliot tibétain 840/3
A work recounting Khri Srong lde brtsan’s introduction of tantra in Tibet and its subsequent
gradual decline.
Pelliot tibétain 996
Nam ka’i snying po’s lineage of Buddhist Chan masters, followed by the Mdo sde bgyad bcu
khungs Tibetan Chan treatise.
Pelliot tibétain 1051
A text on dice divination.
Pelliot tibétain 1060
A ritual text related to horses that includes a catalogue of Tibetan principalities.
Pelliot tibétain 1064
A manuscript containing a text on veterinary science and a text concerning domestic rules
of the saṅgha.
Pelliot tibétain 1089
A petition concerning the hierarchy of administrators’ ranks around Dunhuang.
Pelliot tibétain 1096
A judicial document concerning the loss or theft of a horse at a way-station.
Pelliot tibétain 1105
Fragment of a text written on the verso of a scroll containing the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra in
eight thousand verses (小品般若波羅蜜經).
Pelliot tibétain 1109/2
Damaged document containing the names of different goods.
160
Tibetan-Language Sources
Pelliot tibétain 1122
Painting representing the Great King Vaiśravaṇa standing between two goddesses.
Pelliot tibétain 1128/2
A document related to taxation around Dunhuang.
Pelliot tibétain 1134/2
A narrative on the antecedent to certain funerary rites.
Pelliot tibétain 1136/1
The tale of securing a psychopomp horse, oriented towards funerary rites.
Pelliot tibétain 1144
A pothi manuscript containing a narrative connected to the Old Tibetan Chronicles.
Pelliot tibétain 1285
The account of a contest between Gshen and Bon priests.
Pelliot tibétain 1286
A genealogy related to the Old Tibetan Chronicle.
Pelliot tibétain 1287
The Old Tibetan Chronicle.
Pelliot tibétain 1288
Version I of the Old Tibetan Annals (+IOL Tib J 750).
Pelliot tibétain 1290
A fragmentary text containing information on the coronation of Khri Gtsug lde brtsan, principalities and way-stations.
Other Tibetan-Language Sources
Other Tibetan-Language Works
Bde skyid, ed. ‘Rba bzhed’ phyogs bsgrigs / bde skyid kyis
bsgrigs /. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe’i skrun khang, 2009.
Bis mdo Rdo rje rin chen. “‘Sba bzhed’ las ’byung ba’i don chen
’ga’i dogs dpyod.” In Bod kyi yig rnying zhib ’jug, edited by Kha
sgang Bkra shis tshe ring, 450–455. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 2003.
Bod kyi lo rgyus rags rim g.yu yi phreng ba: see under Chab spel
Tshe brtan phun tshogs.
Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs: see under Dpal brtsegs
bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, ed.
Bod kyi snga rabs dam pa rnams kyi gsungs chos phyag bris ma rin
chen gser phreng: see under ’Brug thar and Karma bde legs,
eds.
’Bri gung sKyabs mgon Che tshang. Tun hong bod kyi yig snying
las byung ba / bod btsan po’i rgyal rabs. Dehradun: Songtsen
Library, 2010.
’Brug thar and Karma bde legs, eds. Bod kyi snga rabs dam pa
rnams kyi gsungs chos phyag bris ma rin chen gser phreng.
Lanzhou: Kan su’u rig gnas dpe skrun khang, 2015.
Bsam yas rtsom pa: see under Span pa rdo rje.
Bsam yas dkar chag: see under Tshe ring don grub.
Bsod nams skyid. “Gna’ bo’i bod kyi yig rnying las ‘slung tshang’
dang ‘slungs dpon’ zhes pa’i tha snyad la rags tsam dpyad pa.”
In Bod kyi yig rnying zhib ’jug, edited by Kha sgang Bkra shis
tshe ring, 266–271. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Bu ston chos ’byung: Bu ston Rin chen grub. Chos kyi ’byung gnas
gsung rab rin po che’i gter mdzod. In Gsung ’bum / rin chen
grub, edited by Lokesh Chandra, vol. 24, 633–1055. New Delhi:
Zhol bka’ ’gyur par khang, 1965–1971.
Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs, ed., Bod kyi lo rgyus rags rim
g.yu yi phreng ba. 2 vols. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying
dpe skrun khang, 1989.
Chos ’byung me tog snying po: see under MTN.
Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston: see under Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston.
Chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i gter mdzod: see under
Bu ston chos ’byung.
De bzhin gshegs pa’i gsang ba bsam gyis mi khyab pa bstan pa’i
mdo. In Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge) vol. 39. Sde dge: Sde dge par
khang chen mo, 1733.
Dba’ bzhed (as 2010 publication): see under Longs khang Phun
tshogs rdo rje.
Dbyangs can mtsho. “‘Sba bzhed’ kyi rtsom pa po dang de’i lo
rgyus rig pa’i rin thang la dpyad pa.” Krung go’i bod kyi shes
rig/ China Tibetology 4 (1996): 79–86.
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba: see under Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston.
Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, ed. Bod kyi lo
rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs. 120 volumes. Zi ling: Mtsho
sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010–2015.
Duojie, Dongzhi. “Ton hong gter yig las sba bzhed kyi shog hrul yi
ge’i skor.” Bod ljongs slob grwa chen mo’i rig deb /. Journal of
Tibet University 4 (2012): 37–48.
Ga yā mgo’i ri’i mdo. In Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge) vol. 49. Sde dge: Sde
dge par khang chen mo, 1733.
Gna’ bo’i bod kyi yig rnying las ‘slung tshang’ dang ‘slungs dpon’
zhes pa’i tha snyad la rags tsam dpyad pa: see under Bsod
nams skyid.
Kamalaśīla. Bsgom pa’i rim pa. In Bstan ’gyur (Sde dge), vol. 110.
Delhi: Sde dge par khang, 1982–1985.
161
Lde’u Jo sras. Mkhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung
rgyas pa. In Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung pa. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi
dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987.
Lho brag chos ’byung: see under Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston.
Longs khang Phun tshogs rdo rje, ed. Dba’ bzhed. Lhasa: Bod ljongs
bod yig dpe rnying dpe skun khang, 2010.
MBNTH: “Mi rje lhas mdzad byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen
po chos rgyal mes dbon rnam gsum gyi rnam par thar pa rin po
che’i phreng ba.” In Rin chen gter mdzod chen po’i rgyab chos,
vol. 7. Paro: Ugyan Tempai Gyaltsen, 1980.
Mdo sde dgongs pa nges ’grel (Ārya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra). In
Bka’ ’gyur (Sde dge), vol. 49. Sde dge: Sde dge par khang chen
mo, 1733.
Mi rje lhas mdzad byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po chos
rgyal mes dbon rnam gsum gyi rnam par thar pa rin po che’i
phreng ba: see under MBNTH.
Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1962: Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba (Lokesh
Chandra, ed.). Mkhas-paḥi-dgaḥ-ston of Dpaḥ-bo-gtsug-lag
(also known as Lho-brag-chos-ḥbyuṅ) Part 4 (ja). New Delhi:
International Academy of Indian Culture, 1962.
Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 1980: Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba. Chos
’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston: A Detailed History of the
Development of Buddhism in India and Tibet by the Second
Dpa’-bo of Gnas-naṅ, Gtsug-lag-’phreṅ-ba. Reproduced from
Prints from the Lho-brag block from Rumtek Monastery. 2 vols.
New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun
Khang, 1980.
MTN: Meisezahl, Richard O. Die große Geschichte des Tibetischen
Buddhismus nach alter Tradition. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1985.
Padma dkar po. Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar
rgyal ba’i gan mdzod. In Gsung ’bum Padma dkar po, vol. 21.
Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973–1974.
‘Rba bzhed’ phyogs bsgrigs: see under Bde skyid.
Rme ru Yul lha thar. “Sba bzhed kyi dpar gzhi’i skor dang des bod
kyi lo rgyus rig gzhung la thebs pa’i shugs rkyen skor las ’phros
pa’i gtam.” Bod ljongs zhib ’jug 4 (2012): 85–92.
Sba bzhed kyi dpar gzhi’i skor dang des bod kyi lo rgyus rig gzhung
la thebs pa’i shugs rkyen skor las ’phros pa’i gtam: see under
Rme ru Yul lha thar.
‘Sba bzhed’ kyi rtsom pa po dang de’i lo rgyus rig pa’i rin thang la
dpyad pa: see under Dbyangs can mtsho.
‘Sba bzhed’ las ’byung ba’i don chen ’ga’i dogs dpyod: see under
Bis mdo Rdo rje rin chen.
Span pa rdo rje. Bsam yas rtsom pa. Sarnath, India: Central Institute
of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2005.
Tshe ring don grub, ed. Bsam yas dkar chag. Gansu: Kan su’i mi rigs
dpe skrun khang, 2009.
Ton hong gter yig las sba bzhed kyi shog hrul yi ge’i skor: see under
Duojie, Dongzhi.
Tun hong bod kyi yig snying las byung ba / bod btsan po’i rgyal
rabs: see under ’Bri gung sKyabs mgon Che tshang.
Zhu ston Nyi ma grag pa: see under Zhu yas nyi ma grags pas
mdzad pa’i zhang bod kyi sgra bsdebs.
Zhu yas nyi ma grags pas mdzad pa’i zhang bod kyi sgra bsdebs,
edited by Zhu ston Nyi ma grag pa. An undated xylograph
held in digital form in the BDRC, under Resource ID
W8LS16829.
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Bacot, Jaques, Frederick W. Thomas and Gustave C. Toussaint.
Documents de Touen-houang relatifs à l’histoire du Tibet.
Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1940–1946.
Beckwith, Christopher I. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A
History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks,
Arabs, and Chinese During the Early Middle Ages. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1987.
Beckwith, Christopher I. and Michael L. Walter. “On the Meaning of
Old Tibetan rje-blon During the Tibetan Empire Period.” Journal
Asiatique 298, no. 2 (2010): 535–548.
Beyer, Stephan. Magic and Ritual in Tibet: The Cult of Tara. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1988.
Bhattacharya, Gouriswar. “How to Justify the Spelling of the Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit Term Bodhisatva?” In From Turfan to Ajanta:
Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth
Birthday, edited by Eli Franco and Monika Zin, vol. 2, 35–50.
Rupandehi: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2010.
Blondeau, Anne-Marie. “Religions tibétaines.” Annuaire de École
pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses
99, 1990–1991 (1990): 69–74.
Bogoslovskij, Vladimir. Essai sur l’histoire du peuple tibétaine
ou la naissance d’une société de classes. Paris: Librairie C.
Klincksieck, 1972.
Bray, John. “Obituary | Tsering Dhundup Gonkatsang (1951–2018).”
HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and
Himalayan Studies 38, no. 2 (2018): 122–124.
Bretfeld, Sven. “The “Great Debate” of bSam yas: Construction and
Deconstruction of a Tibetan Buddhist Myth.” Asiatische Studien
58, no. 1 (2004): 15–56.
Broido, Michael. “Sa-skya Paṇḍita, the White Panacea and the
Hva-Shang Doctrine.” Journal of the International Association
of Buddhist Studies 10, no. 2 (1987): 27–68.
Broughton, Jeffrey L. “Early Ch’an Schools in Tibet.” In Studies in
Ch’an and Hua-yen, edited by Richard M. Gimello and Peter N.
Gregory, 1–68. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983.
Bu ston Rin chen grub. History of Buddhism (Chos-ḥbyung).
Translated by Eugéne Obermiller. Heidelberg: In kommission
bei O. Harrassowitz, 1931.
Cantwell, Cathy and Robert Mayer. Early Tibetan Documents on
Phur pa from Dunhuang. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Cantwell, Cathy and Robert Mayer. A Noble Noose of Methods,
The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and its
Commentary. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2012.
Cantwell, Cathy and Robert Mayer. “Representations of
Padmasambhava in Early Post-Imperial Tibet.” In Tibet after
Empire: Culture, Society and Religion Between 850–1000,
Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2011,
edited by Christoph Cüppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter,
19–50. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2013.
Reprint, Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016), 41–76.
Carter, Martha L. “Three Silver Vessels from Tibet’s Earliest
Historical Era: a Preliminary Study.” Cleveland Studies in the
History of Art 5 (1998): 22–47.
Chag-Lo-tsā-ba and George Roerich. Biography of Dharmasvāmin
(Chag Lo Tsa-Ba Chos-Rje-Dpal): A Tibetan Monk Pilgrim.
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-011
Translated by George Roerich, with a historical and critical
introduction by Anant S. Altekar. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research
Institute, 1959.
Coblin, W. South. “A Reexamination of the Second Edict of
Khri-srong-lde-btsan.” In Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays
in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, edited by Lawrence Epstein and
Richard Sherburne, 165–185. New York: The Edwin Mellen
Press, 1990.
Coblin, W. South. “On Certain Functions of ’a-chung in Early Tibetan
Transcriptional Texts.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
25, no. 2 (2002): 169–185.
Czaja, Olaf. Medieval Rule in Tibet: The Rlangs Clan and the Political
and Religious History of the Ruling House of Phag mo gru pa.
With a Study of the Monastic Art of Gdan sa mthil. Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013.
Davidson, Ronald. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the
Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2005.
Demiéville, Paul. Le Concile de Lhasa: une controverse sur le
quiétisme entre Bouddhistes de l’Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe
siècle de l’ère chrétienne. Paris: Impr. nationale de France, 1952.
Demiéville, Paul. “Récents travaux sur Touen-Houang.” T’oung Pao
56 (1970): 1–95.
Demiéville, Paul. “L’Introduction au Tibet du Bouddhisme Sinisé
d’apres les Manuscrits de Touen-Houang.” In Contributions
aux Études sur Touen-Houeng, edited by Michel Soymie, 1–16.
Paris: Librairie Droz, 1979.
Diemberger, Hildegard. “Padmasambhava’s Unfinished Job: The
Subjugation of Local Deities as Described in the dBa’-bzhed
in Light of Contemporary Practices of Spirit Possession.” In
Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the
Occasion of His 70th Birthday, edited by Birgit Kellner, Helmut
Krasser, Horst Lasic, Michael T. Wieser-Much and Helmut
Tauscher, 85–94. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007.
Denwood, Philip. “Some Remarks on the Status and Dating of the
sBa bzhed.” The Tibet Journal 15, no. 4 (1999): 135–148.
Doney, Lewis. “Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer and the Testimony of Ba.”
Bulletin of Tibetology 49, no. 1 (2013): 7–38.
Doney, Lewis. “Emperor, Dharmaraja, Bodhisattva? Inscriptions
from the Reign of Khri Srong lde brtsan.” Journal of Research
Institute, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies 51 (2013):
63–84.
Doney, Lewis. The Zangs gling ma: The First Padmasambhava
Biography: Two Exemplars of its Earliest Attested Recension.
Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies, 2014.
Doney, Lewis. “Early Bodhisattva-Kingship in Tibet: The Case of Tri
Songdétsen.” Cahiers d’Extême-Asie 24 (2015): 29–47.
Doney, Lewis. “A Richness of Detail: Sangs rgyas gling pa and the
Padma bka’ thang.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37 (2016): 69–97.
Doney, Lewis. “The Glorification of Eighth-Century Imperial Law in
Early Tibetan Buddhist Historiography.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie
26 (2017): 1–20.
Doney, Lewis. “Narrative Transformations: The Spiritual Friends
of Khri Srong lde brtsan.” In Interaction in the Himalayas
and Central Asia: Processes of Transfer, Translation and
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity,
edited by Eva Allinger, Frantz Grenet, Christian Jahoda,
Maria-Katharina Lang and Anne Vergati, 311–320. Vienna:
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017.
Doney, Lewis. “Revelation and Re-evaluation: The Flourishing of
Padmasambhava Biography after Yuan Mongol Decline.”
European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 52 (2018): 46–70.
Doney, Lewis. “Imperial Gods: A Ninth-Century Tridaṇḍaka Prayer
(rGyud chags gsum) from Dunhuang.” Central Asiatic Journal
61, no. 1 (2018): 71–101.
Doney, Lewis. “The Degraded Emperor: Theoretical Reflections
on the Upstaging of a Bodhisattva King.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines 49 (2019): 13–66.
Dotson, Brandon. “‘Emperor’ Mu-rug-btsan and the ’Phang thang
ma Catalogue.” Journal of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies 3 (2007): 1–25.
Dotson, Brandon. “Sources for the Old Tibetan Chronicle: A
Fragment from the Non-extant Chronicle pothi.” In New Studies
of the Old Tibetan Documents: Philology, History and Religion,
edited by Yoshiro Imaeda, Matthew T. Kapstein and Tsuguhito
Takeuchi, 231–244. Tokyo: Institute for the Languages and
Cultures of Africa and Asia, 2011.
Dotson, Brandon. “Administration and Law in the Tibetan Empire:
The Section on Law and State and its Old Tibetan Antecedents.”
D.Phil. thesis: Oxford University, 2007.
Dotson, Brandon. The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation
of Tibet’s First History, With an Annotated Cartographical
Documentation by Guntram Hazod. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Dotson, Brandon. “At the Behest of the Mountain: Gods, Clans and
Political Topography in Post-Imperial Tibet.” In Old Tibetan
Studies Dedicated to the Memory of R.E. Emmerick, edited by
Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, 159–204. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Dotson, Brandon. “The Victory Banquet: The Old Tibetan
Chronicle and the Rise of Tibetan Historical Narrative.”
Habilitationsschrift, Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 2013.
Dotson, Brandon. “Naming the King: Accession, Death, and Afterlife
Through the Re- Un- and Nick-Naming of Tibet’s Kings.” Cahiers
d’Extrême Asie 24 (2015): 1–27.
Dotson, Brandon. “Introducing Early Tibetan Law: Codes and
Cases.” In Secular Law and Order in the Tibetan Highland,
edited by Dieter Schuh, 267–314. Andiast: International
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2015.
Dotson, Brandon. “The Dead and Their Stories: Preliminary Remarks
on the Place of Narrative in Tibetan Religion.” In Tibet after
Empire: Culture, Society and Religion between 850–1000,
edited by Cristoph Cüppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter,
51–83. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2013.
Reprint, Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016): 77–112.
Dotson, Brandon and Agnieszka Helman-Waẓny. Codicology,
Paleography, and Orthography of Early Tibetan Documents:
Methods and a Case Study. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2016.
Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang. A History of the Tibetan Empire: Drawn
from the Dunhuang Manuscripts. Translated by Meghan
Howard with Tsultrim Nakchu. Dehradun: Songtsen Library,
2011.
Ducher, Cécile. “A Lineage in Time: The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa
bka’ brgyud from the 11th through 19th Centuries.” Thèse de
163
doctorat, l’Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres,
2017.
Emmerick, Ronald E. Tibetan Texts Concerning Tibet. London: Oxford
University Press, 1967.
Faber, Flemming. “A Tibetan Dunhuang Treatise on Simultaneous
Enlightenment: The dMyigs su snyed pa tshul gcig pa’i
gzhung.” Acta Orientalia 46 (1985): 47–77.
Faber, Flemming. “The Council of Tibet According to the sBa bzhed.”
Acta Orientalia XLVII (1986): 33–61.
Fujieda, Akira. “Une reconstuction de la “Bibliotheque” de
Touen-houang.” Journal Asiatique 269 (1981): 65–68.
Furui, Ryosuke. Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India
400–1250 AD. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020.
Giles, Lionel. Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from
Tun-hung in the British Museum. London: British Museum,
1953.
Gómez, Luis O. “The Direct and the Gradual Approaches of Zen
Master Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen.”
In Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen, edited by Robert M. Gimello
and Peter N. Gregory, 71–167. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1983.
Gómez, Luis O. “Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden
Enlightenment.” In Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, edited by
Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster, 393–434. Berkeley: Asian
Humanities Press, 1983.
Gos lo tsā ba, Gzhon nu dpal. The Blue Annals. Translated by
George N. Roerich. Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, 1949.
Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1969.
Grethlein, Jonas. “From ‘Imperishable Glory’ to History: The
Iliad and the Trojan War.” In Epic and History, edited by
David Konstan and Kurt A. Raaflaub, 122–144. West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Gruber, Joel. “The Sudden and Gradual Sūtric (and Tantric?)
Approaches of the Rim gyis ’jug pa’i bsgom don and Cig car
’jug pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i bsgom don.” Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 39 (2016):
405–427.
Gyalbo, Tsering, Guntram Hazod and Per K. Sørensen. Civilization at
the Foot of Mount Sham-po: The Royal House of lHa Bug-pacan and the History of g.Ya’-bzang. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.
Hazod, Guntram. “Imperial Central Tibet: An Annotated
Cartographical Survey of its Territorial Divisions and Key
Political Sites.” In The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated
Translation of Tibet’s First History. With an Annotated
Cartographical Documentation by Guntram Hazod, edited by
Brandon Dotson, 161–231. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenchaften, 2009.
Hazod, Guntram. “The Graves of the Chief Ministers of the Tibetan
Empire: Mapping Chapter Two of the Old Tibetan Chronicle in
the Light of the Evidence of the Tibetan Tumulus Tradition.”
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 47 (2019): 5–159.
Heller, Amy. “The Silver Jug of the Lhasa Jokhang: Some
Observations on Silver Objects and Costumes from the Tibetan
Empire (7th-9th century).” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 9
(2003): 213–237.
Heller, Amy. “Tibetan Inscriptions on Ancient Silver and Gold
Vessels and Artefacts.” Journal of the International Association
of Bon Research 1 (2013): 259–291.
164
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Henss, Michael. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet, vol. 1. Munich:
Prestel, 2014.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. “The Lhan kar ma as a Source for
the History of Tantric Buddhism.” In The Many Canons of
Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000,
edited by Helmut Eimer and David Germano, 129–151. Leiden:
Brill, 2002.
Hill, Nathan. “Once More on the Letter ’a.” Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 28, no. 2 (2005): 107–137.
Hill, Nathan. “Old Chinese *sm- and the Old Tibetan Word for ‘Fire.’”
Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 42 (2013): 60–71.
Hirshberg, Daniel. Remembering the Lotus-Born: Padmasambhava
in the History of Tibet’s Golden Age. Somerville, MA: Wisdom,
2016.
Hodge, Stephen. The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra, with
Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.
Houston, Garry W. Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate.
Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980.
Imaeda, Yoshiro. “Documents Tibétains de Touen-Houang
Concernant le Concile du Tibet.” Journal Asiatique 263 (1975):
125–146.
Imaeda, Yoshiro. “The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang
Documents.” Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 66 (2008): 81–102.
Iwao, Kazushi. “The Purpose of Sutra Copying in Dunhuang under
the Tibetan Rule.” In Dunhuang Studies: Prospects and
Problems for the Coming Second Century of Research, edited
by Liu Yi and I.F. Popova, 102–105. St Petersburg: Slavia
Publishers, 2012.
Iwao, Kazushi, Nathan Hill and Tsuguhito Takeuchi. Old Tibetan
Inscriptions: Old Tibetan Documents Online Monograph Series
II. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2009.
Iwao, Kazushi, Sam van Schaik and Tsuguhito Takeuchi. Old Tibetan
Texts in the Stein Collection Or. 8210. Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko, 2012.
Jackson, David. “Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Account of the bSam yas
Debate: History as Polemic.” The Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 5, no. 1 (1982): 89–99.
Jackson, David “Madhyamaka Studies Among the Early
Sa-skya-pas,” The Tibet Journal 10, no. 2 (1985): 20–34.
Kapstein, Matthew T. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism:
Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Kapstein, Matthew T. “The Conversion Edict of Tri Songdetsen.”
In Sources of Tibetan Tradition, edited by Kurtis Schaeffer,
Matthew T. Kapstein and Gray Tuttle, 60–64. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2013.
Karmay, Samten G. The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A
Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism.
Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988. Reprint, Leiden: Brill,
2007.
Karmay, Samten G. The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History,
Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, vol. 1. Kathmandu: Mandala
Book Point, 1998.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. “Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution
on/to the Bsam-yas Debate.” Kailash 9, nos. 3–4 (1984):
149–175.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. “On the Sources for Sa skya Paṇḍita’s
Notes on the Bsam yas Debate.” Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 9, no. 2 (1986): 147–153.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. “Tibetan Historiography.” In Tibetan
Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón
and Roger Jackson, 39–56. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1996.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. “A Hitherto Unknown Religious
Chronicle: from Probably the Early Fourteenth Century.” Bod rig
pa’i dus deb/ Zangxue xuekan/ Journal of Tibetology 7 (2011):
69–91.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. “Some Remarks on the Textual
Transmission and Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung,
a Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines 25 (2013): 115–193.
Lalou, Marcelle. “Document tibétain sur l’expansion du dhyāna
chinois.” Journale Asiatique (1939): 505–523.
Lalou, Marcelle. “Revendications des fonctionnaires du grand Tibet
au VIIIe siecle.” Journal Asiatique 243 (1955): 171–212.
Li, Fang-Kuei and W. South Coblin. A Study of the Old Tibetan
Inscriptions. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology,
Academica Sinica, 1987.
Macdonald, Ariane. “Une lecture des Pelliot Tibétain 1286, 1287,
1038, et 1290: Essai sur la formation et l’emploi des mythes
politiques dans la religion royale de Srong bcan Sgam po.”
In Études Tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou,
190–391. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1971.
Martin, Dan. “Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and Tongues
from Fire: Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History.”
In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, edited by Shōren
Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi, vol. 1, 183–191. Narita, Japan:
Naritasan Shinshoji: 1992.
Martin, Dan. Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language
Historical Works. London: Serindia, 1997.
Martin, Dan. Unearthing Bon Treasures: Life and Contested History
of a Tibetan Scripture Revealer. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Martin, Dan. “The Woman Illusion?” In Women in Tibet, edited by
Janet Gyatso and Hanna Havnevik, 49–82. London: Hurst &
Company, 2005.
Martin, Dan. A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet: An Expanded
Version of the Dharma’s Origin in India and Tibet Made by
the Learned Scholar Lde’u. Boston: Wisdom Publications,
forthcoming.
McGann, Jerome J. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Meisezahl, Richard O. Die große Geschichte des Tibetischen
Buddhismus nach alter Tradition. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1985.
Mills, Martin. “Ritual as History in Tibetan Divine Kingship: Notes on
the Myth of the Khotanese Monks.” History of Religions 51, no.
3 (2012): 219–238.
Nattier, Jan. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist
Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1992.
Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. A History of Tibet by Ṅag-dbang
Blo-bzaṅ rGya-mtsho, Fifth Dalai Lama of Tibet. Translated by
Zahiruddin Ahmad. Bloomington: Indiana University Research
Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1995.
Penpa Dorjee/ Span pa rdo rje. An Analytic Study on Samye
Debate/ bSam yas rtsom pa. Sarnath, India: Central Institute of
Higher Tibetan Studies, 2005.
Pirie, Fernanda. “Buddhist Law in Early Tibet: The Emergence of
an Ideology.” Journal of Law and Religion 32, no. 3 (2018):
1–17.
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Po Sung-nien and David Johnson. Domesticated Deities and
Auspicious Emblems: The Iconography of Everyday Life in
Village China. Berkeley: The Chinese Popular Culture Project,
1992.
Richardson, Hugh E. A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. London:
Royal Asiatic Society, 1985.
Richardson, Hugh E. “The first Tibetan chos-’byung.” The Tibet
Journal 5, no. 3 (1980): 62–73. Reprint, in High Peaks Pure
Earth, edited by Michael Aris, 89–99. London: Serindia, 1998.
Richardson, Hugh E. “The Cult of Vairocana in Early Tibet.” In High
Peaks, Pure Earth, edited by Michael Aris, 177–181. London:
Serinda, 1998.
Ricœur, Paul. Temps et récit. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983–1985.
Robinson, James B. Buddha’s Lions: The Lives of the Eighty-Four
Siddhas. Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 1979.
Ruegg, Seyford D. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of
Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective. On the Transmission
of Buddhism in India and Tibet. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies, 1989.
Ruegg, Seyford D. “On the Tibetan Historiography and Doxography
of the Great Debate of bSam yas.” In Tibetan Studies:
Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association
for Tibetan Studies, edited by Shōren Ihara and Zuihō
Yamaguchi, vol. 1, 237–244. Tokyo: Naritisan Shinshoji, 1992.
van Schaik, Sam. “Dating Early Tibetan Manuscripts: A
Paleographical Method.” In Scribes, Texts and Rituals in Early
Tibet and Dunhuang, edited by Brandon Dotson, Kazushi Iwao
and Tsuguhito Takeuchi, 119–135. Weisbaden: Reichert Verlag,
2013.
van Schaik, Sam. “Towards a Tibetan Palaeography: Developing a
Typology of Writing Styles.” In Early Tibet Manuscript Cultures:
Mapping the Field, edited by Jörg Quenzer, Dmitry Bondarev
and Jan-Ulrich Sobisch, 299–337. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.
van Schaik, Sam. “Red Faced Barbarians, Benign Despots and
Drunken Masters: Khotan as a Mirror of Tibet.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines 36 (2016): 45–68.
van Schaik, Sam. Tibetan Zen: Discovering a Lost Tradition. Boston:
Shambhala, 2016.
van Schaik, Sam and Lewis Doney. “The Prayer, the Priest and the
Tsenpo: An Early Buddhist Narrative from Dunhuang.” Journal
of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 30, nos.
1–2 (2007): 175–217.
van Schaik, Sam and Kazushi Iwao. “Fragments of the Testament of
Ba from Dunhuang.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
128, no. 3 (2008): 477–488.
Scharfe, Harmut. Education in Ancient India. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina. “A Perusal of Early Tibetan Inscriptions in
Light of the Buddhist World of the 7th to 9th Centuries A.D.” In
Epigraphic Evidence in the Pre-modern Buddhist World, edited
by Kurt Tropper, 117–166. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2014.
Shao, Mingyuan. “The Grammaticalization of the Copula Verb red
in Tibetic Languages.” Language and Linguistics 17 (2016):
679–715.
Silk, Jonathan. “Establishing/ Interpreting/ Translating: Is It Just
That Easy?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 36–37, nos. 1–2, (2015): 205–226.
Skorupski, Tadeusz. Kriyāsaṃgraha: Compendium of Buddhist
Rituals: An Abridged Version. Tring: Institute of Buddhist
Studies, 2002.
165
Snellgrove, David L. and Hugh E. Richardson. A Cultural History of
Tibet. New York: F.A. Praeger, 1968.
Sørensen, Per K. Tibetan Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror
Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, An Annotated Translation
of the XIVth Century Tibetan Chronicle Rgyal-rabs Gsal-ba’i
Me-long. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Sørensen, Per K. “Preface: dBa’/sBa bzhed: The dBa’[s]/sBa [Clan]
Testimony Including the Royal Edict (bka’ gtsigs) and the Royal
Narrative (bka’ mchid) Concerning the bSam yas Vihāra.” In
dBa’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of
the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet, edited by Pasang Wangdu
and Hildegard Diemberger, ix–xv. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, 2000.
Sørensen, Per K., Guntrum Hazod and Tsering Gyalbo. Thundering
Falcon: An Inquiry into the History and Cult of Khra-’brug,
Tibet’s First Buddhist Temple. Vienna: Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005.
Sørensen, Per K., Guntrum Hazod and Tsering Gyalbo. Rulers on the
Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval
Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007.
Stein, Rolf. A. “Houa-si Hie-ho ta-hio Tchong-kouo wen houa
yen-kieou-souo tsi-k’an, vol. 1, parts 1–3.” Bulletin de l’Ecole
française d’Extrême-Orient 41 (1941): 406–441.
Stein, Rolf. A. Une Chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed.
Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1961.
Stein, Rolf. A. La Civilisation Tibétaines. Paris: Dunod Editeur, 1962.
Stein, Rolf. A. Tibetan Civilization. Translated by J.E. Stapleton
Driver. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972.
Stein, Rolf. A. “Tibetica Antiqua I: Les deux vocabularies des
traductions Indo-tibétaine et Sino-tibétaine dans les
manuscripts des Touen-houang.” Bulletin de l’École Française
d’Extrême-Orient 72 (1983): 149–236.
Stein, Rolf. A. Rolf Stein’s Tibetica Antiqua, with Additional
Materials. Translated by Arthur McKeown. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Sun, Penghao. “The Metamorphoses of the Testimony of Ba: Notes
on the Padmasambhava Episode of the Dba’/Sba/Rba bzhed.”
M.A. thesis, Harvard University, 2015.
Synek, Michal “Doktrína a politika lhaské debaty: Obraz samjäské
tradice v kronice Baže.” Sacra 10, no. 1 (2012), 5–32.
Szerb, János. “Two Notes on the Sources of the Chos-’byung of
Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub.” In Reflections on Tibetan Culture:
Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, edited by Lawrence
Epstein and Richard Sherbourne, 143–148. Lampeter: Edwin
Mellen, 1990.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito. Old Tibetan Contracts from Central Asia. Tokyo:
Daizo Shuppan, 1995.
Taube, Manfred. “Zu einige Texten der tibetischen brda-gsarrnying-Literatur.” In Asienwissenschaftliche Beiträge: Johannes
Schubert in memoriam, edited by Eberhardt Richter and
Manfred Taube, 169–201. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1978.
Thomas, Frederick William. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents
Concerning Chinese Turkestan. Selected and Translated by F. W.
Thomas (London: Luzac & co., 1935).
Tillemans, Tom J. F. “Yogic Perception, Meditation, and
Enlightenment.” In A Companion of Buddhist Philosophy,
edited by Steven M. Emmanuel, 290–306. West Sussex: Wiley
Blackwell, 2013.
Tong, Jinhua. “Lun ‘Bashi.’” Zangzu Wenxue Yanjiu/ Bod kyi rtsom
rig zhib ’jug. Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1992.
166
Non-Tibetan Language Literature
Tong, Jinhua. The Silk Roads of the Northern Tibetan Plateau
During the Early Middle Ages (from the Han to Tang Dynasty):
As Reconstructed from Archaeological and Written Sources.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013.
Tong, Jinhua and Bufan Huang. Ba xie. Chengdu: Sichuan min zu chu
ban she, 1990.
Tsumagari, Shin’ichi. “Bashey With Supplement: A Critical Edition of
the Tibetan Text and an Annotated Translation (4).” 宗教学年
報/ Annual Review of Religious Studies 30 (2013): 193–210.
Tucci, Giuseppe. The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings. Rome: IsMEO,
1950.
Tucci, Giuseppe. Minor Buddhist Texts. Part I, First Bhāvanākrama
of Kamalaśīla. Sanskrit and Tibetan texts with introduction and
English summary. Rome: IsMEO, 1958.
Tucci, Giuseppe. Minor Buddhist Texts. Part III, Third Bhavanakrama.
Rome: IsMEO, 1971.
Tucci, Giuseppe. The Religions of Tibet. Translated by Geoffrey
Samuel. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.
Uebach, Helga. “Notes on the Palaeography of the Old Tibetan
lnscriptions: Zhol and bSam yas.” In Édition, éditions: l’ecrit
au Tibet, évolution et devenir, edited by Anne Chayet, Cristina
Scherrer-Schaub, Françoise Robin and Jean-Luc Achard,
411–428. Munich: lndus Verlag, 2010.
Uebach, Helga. “Two Indian Loanwords in Old Tibetan: Men-tri and
Phra-men.” In From Bhakti to Bon: Festschrift for Per Kvaerne,
edited by Hanna Havnevik and Charles Ramble, 543–549. Oslo:
Novus Press, 2015.
Ueyama, Daishun. “Donkō to Tonkō bukkyōgaku.” Tōhō gakuhō 35
(1964): 141–214.
Uray, Géza. “The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia
up to 751 A.D.: A Survey.” In Prolegomena to the Sources on
the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, edited by J. Harmatta,
275–304. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979.
Uray, Géza. “Notes on the Thousand-Districts of the Tibetan
Empire in the First Half of the Ninth Century.” Acta Orientalia
Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, nos. 1–3 (1982): 545–548.
Vargas, Ivette. “Snake-Kings, Boars’ Heads, Deer Parks, Monkey
Talk: Animals as Transmitters and Transformers in Indian and
Tibetan Buddhist Narratives.” In A Communion of Subjects:
Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics, edited by Paul Waldau
and Kimberley Patton, 218–237. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2006.
Verdery, Katherine. National Ideology Under Socialism: Identity and
Cultural Politics in Ceausescu’s Romania. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2010.
Vostrikov, Andrej I. Tibetan Historical Literature. Translated by
Harish C. Gupta. Calcutta: Indian Studies: Past & Present, 1970.
Reprint, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1994.
Walter, Michael L. Buddhism and Empire: The Political and Religious
Culture of Early Tibet. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Wangdu, Pasang. “King Srong btsan sgam po According to the
Dba’ bzhed: Remarks on the Introduction of Buddhism into
Tibet and on the Greatest of the Tibetan Royal Ancestors.” In
Territory and Identity in Tibet and the Himalayas, edited by
Katia Buffetrille and Hildegard Diemberger, 17–32. Leiden:
Brill, 2002.
Wangdu, Pasang and Hildegard Diemberger. dBa’ bzhed: The Royal
Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to
Tibet, with introduction by Per K. Sørensen. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.
Watson, Craig E. “The Introduction of the Second Propagation of
Buddhism in Tibet According to R.A. Stein’s Edition of the
Sba-bzhed.” Tibet Journal 5, no. 4 (1980): 20–27.
Wayman, Alex. “Doctrinal Disputes and the Debate of bSam yas.”
Central Asiatic Journal 21, no. 2 (1977): 139–144.
Willis, Michael. “From World Religion to World Dominion: Trading,
Translation and Institution-building in Tibet.” In Religions and
Trade Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural
Exchange between East and West, edited by Peter Wick and
Volker Rabens, 231–259. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Willis, Michael. “Offerings to the Triple Gem: Texts, Inscriptions and
Ritual Practice.” In Relics and Relic Worship in Early Buddhism:
India, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma, edited by Janice
Stargardt and Michael Willis, 66–73. London: British Museum,
2018.
Willis, Michael and Tsering Gonkatsang. “Armlet of the Pinnacle of
the Noble Victory Banner: Locating Traces of Imperial Tibet in a
Dhāraṇī in the British Museum.” In Locating Religions, edited
by Reinhold Glei and Nikolas Jaspert, 345–366. Leiden: Brill,
2016.
Wu, Jiang and Lucille Chia. Spreading Buddha’s Word in East Asia:
The Formation and Transformation of the Chinese Buddhist
Canon. New York: Columbia, 2015.
Zumthor, Paul. Essai de poétique médiévale. Paris: Seuil, 1972.
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
A note on the sigla used in this index: Tibetan characters provided within round brackets represent further information on the identity of
the person or place, e. g. “(བྲམ་ཟེ་)སྐེས་བཟང་,” as that information is found in the Dba’bzhed. Tibetan characters provided within square brackets
represent alternative orthographies for a name, e. g. “བུམ་སངས་ [/བུཾ་སངས་],” alternatives that are found in the Dba’ bzhed itself. Tibetan provided
within curly brackets represent additional parts of a given name, e. g. “མཆོིམས་ཤག་ཀྱ་{པྲ་བྷ་},” which are inserted into the Dba’ bzhed by means of
annotations.
ཀ་
ཀ་ (translator) [25v:1]
ཀ་མ་ལ་ཤི་ལ་ (Indian Buddhist master) [19v:2; 19v:3; 19v:4; 19v:6; 20r:6;
20v:6]
ཀཾ་ཤང་ (Indian preceptor) [11v:7]
ཀེའུ་ལི་ (deity/place) [10r:6; 10r:7]
ཀེང་ཤི་ (place) [2v:5; 9v:3; 10r:4; 10r:5]
ཀྭ་ཆུ་ (place) [4r:3]
ཀྲིི་ཡི་ (class of texts) [24v:6]
ཀླུ་སྡིིངས་ (place) [13r:5]
ཀླུ་པོ་ (deity) [28r:2–3]
དཀོན་མཆོོག་སྤྲིིན་ (text) [1v:7]
སྐ་མོ་ (place) [30r:4]
(བྲམ་ཟེ་)སྐེས་བཟང་ (a brahmin) [7v:6]
ཁ་
ཁ་ཆོེ་ (Kashmir) [7v:4; 7v:5; 7v:6; 8r:5]
ཁ་ཆོེའི་ཡུལ་ (Kashmir) [7v:6]
ཁམས་ (place) [interlinear annotation above 4r:2]
ཁམས་༣་ (temple) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
ཁས་པོ་རི་ (place) [6r:1; 15r:4; 16v:3; 17r:1]
ཁུ་སྟོག་ཚབ་ (person) [15v:7]
ཁུང་ལུང་རྒྱབ་བུ་སྣང་ (place/castle) [29v:5]
ཁྱིི་ཆུང་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to
17v:2]
(རྩེིས་པ་ཆོེན་པོ་)ཁྱུང་པོ་དུན་ཙུག་ (a Bon po) [14v:2]
ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་གཙུག་བཙན་ (king) [4r:5]
referred to as ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་གཙུག་བརྟན་ [4r:2]
referred to only as བཙན་པོ་ [4r:5]
ཁྲིི་ལྡེེ་སྲོོང་བཙན་ (king) [25v:6]
referred to only as ལྷ་སྲོས་ [25v:1; 25v:7; 30v:4; 30v:7]
ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ (person) [annotation at the top left of 4r. See also ཞེང་
སྣ་ནམ་ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ and ཐང་ལ་འབར་]
ཁྲིི་འཕང་གསུཾཾ་ [/ཁྲིི་འཕང་༣་] (king of Zing po) [27v:6; 29v:2]
ཁྲིི་གཙུག་ལྡེེ་བཙན་ (king) [1v:2; 25v:1; see also རལ་པ་ཅན་ and ལྷ་སྲོས་]
referred to as རལ་པ་ཅན་ [annotation at the top of 25v:1]
referred to as ལྷ་སྲོས་ [25v:1]
ཁྲིི་བཙུན་ (princess of Nepal) [interlinear note below 1v:6. See also བལ་
རྗེེའི་བུ་མོ་]
ཁྲིི་བཟང་ཡིབ་ལྷག་ (person) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5
and 6 referring to 17r:5]
ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ལྡེེ་བཙན་ (king) [1v:2; 4r:5–6; annotation at the bottom of 18r
referring to 17v:2; 25r:2; 26r:3; 26r:7; 30r:7]
referred to as ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་ [31r:2]
referred to only as རྒྱལ་པོ་ [13v:3; 16v:2; 19v:3]
referred to as བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ [5v:6]
referred to only as བཙན་པོ་ [6r:1; 6r:4; 6r:5; 6r:7; 6v:1;
6v:6; 6v:7; 7r:6; 7r:7; 7v:1; 8r:2; 8r:3; 8v:2; 8v:6; 8v:7;
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-009
9v:3; 9v:4; 9v:5; 10r:1; 10v:6; 11v:1; 11v:3; 11v:5; 12v:3;
12v:4; 13r:6; 13r:7; 13v:3; 13v:4; 13v:5; 14r:2; 14r:6; 15r:4;
15r:7; 15v:2; 15v:3; 15v:4; 15v:5; 16r:4; 16r:6; 16v:1; 17r:4;
annotation at the bottom right of 17r referring to 17r:5;
interlinear annotation above 17v:6; 18r:3; 18v:4; 18v:6;
interlinear annotation above 19r:3; interlinear annotation
above 19r:6; 19v:6; interlinear annotation above 20r:1;
25r:5; 25v:5–6]
referred to as ལྷ་སྲོས་ [17r:1; 19r:7; 19v:5; 22r:5; 24v:2; 25r:2;
25r:4; 26r:3; 26r:7; 30v:3; 31r:2; 31r:4]
ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་བསྒཾཾ་པོ་ (king) [2v:2]
referred to as ཁྲིི་སྲོོང་བཙན་ [1v:2; 1v:6; 3r:4]
referred to as རྒྱལ་པོ་ [2r:2]
referred to as བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ [3r:7]
referred to as བཙན་པོ་ [2r:3; 2r:4; 2r:5; 2v:2; 3r:2; 3r:3; 3v:1;
3v:3; 3v:4; 3v:5; 3v:6]
referred to as སྲོོང་བཙན་ [6v:2་]
referred to as སྲོོང་བཙན་བསྒཾམ་པོ་ [3r:4]
ཁྲིོ་བོ་ཉི་མའི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་ (maṇḍala) [31v:3]
མཁས་པ་རྣ་ཆོ་ཅན་ (person) [26v:1]
འཁར་བྲག་ (place) [4r:3]
འཁར་བྲག་གི་ཐང་གྲོོང་ (place) [annotation at the bottom of 4r referring to
4r:7]
འཁོན་ཀླུའི་དབང་པོ་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [26v:1; 31r:3]
ག་
གལ་ཏ་ལ་ (place) [11r:4]
གུང་སྨན་ (of གྲོང་ལུང་) (person) [27v:2]
གེ་གསར་ (place) [12r:1]
གྱད་(ཀྱི་ཡུལ་) (place) [31r:7]
གྱིམ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ (queen) [4r:3; 4r:3–4]
referred to only as ཨོང་ཅོ་ [4r:5; 4v:1]
གྱིམ་ཧྭ་ཤང་ (Chinese preceptor) [9r:5; 9r:7; 10r:7; 10v:4]
referred to as གྱིམ་ཧ་ཤང་ [9r:1]
referred to only as ཧྭ་ཤང་ [9r:7; 9v:1; 9v:2; 9v:4]
གྱེ་གོད་ (deity) [29v:6]
གྲོང་ལུང་ (place) [27v:2]
གླིག་(གི་ལྷ་ཁང་) (shrine) [15r:2]
གླིང་གི་རི་རྩེེ་ (temple) [4r:2]
referred to as གླིིང་གི་ཁྲིི་རྩེེ་ [annotation that corrects the
temple’s name below 4r:2]
referred to as གླིང་གི་ཁྲིི་རྩེེ་ [annotation at the top right of 4r
that corrects the temple’s name given on 4r:2]
གླིང་སྣའི་གྲུ་ཚུགས་ (place) [8v:5]
དགེ་རྒྱས་ (temple) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
དགེ་བ་བཅུ་ (text) [1v:7; 2r:4; 8r:6]
དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲོེལ་པ་ (text) [19v:4]
མགོ་འབོམ་ཡུལ་གོང་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring
to 17v:2]
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
168
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
འགག་ཉ་བཙན་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to
འཆོིང་བུ་ནམ་ར་ (place) [4r:3]
འགར་སྟོོང་བཙན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་ (minister) [2v:4. See also སྟོོང་བཙན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་]
འགོ་བོམ་{ལྡེན་མ་}ཡུལ་གོང་ (translator) [annotation at the top of 17v referring
ཇ་
17v:2]
to 17v:2]
འགྲོན་བཟངས་ (place) [4r:3; 26r:1]
རྒོོད་ལྟིིང་ (castle) [29v:7]
རྒྱ་ (student of Hwa shang Mahāyāna) [18v:7; 20r:5]
རྒྱ་གར་ཡུལ་ (India) [5r:1; 5r:2; 5v:3; 7r:3; 13v:4; 13v:6]
referred to as རྒྱ་གར་ [interlinear note at the top of 1v:3; 1v:5;
1v:6; 1v:7; 2v:3; 5v:5; 7r:1; 8r:6; 11v:7; 12r:1; 12r:2; 15v:5;
annotation at the top of 17v:2; 22v:4; 25r:6; 25r:7; 25v:1;
25v:5; 28r:1; 28v:7]
referred to as རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཡུལ་ [5v:2; 28v:5]
རྒྱ་རྗེེ་ (emperor of China during the reign of Khri Lde gtsug btsan)
[2v:3; 2v:5; 2v:6; 2v:7; 3r:1; 3r:2]
རྒྱ་རྗེེ་ (emperor of China during the reign of Khri Srong lde btsan) [9r:4;
9v:3; 10r:5; 10r:6; 10v:3]
རྒྱ་ཡུལ་ (China) [3r:3–4; 4r:6; 4v:1; 4v:2; 6v:3; 8v:6; 9r:5; 10v:7; 11v:7;
12r:2; 18v:6; 25r:7]
referred to as རྒྱ་ [2r:2; 4r:3; 4v:1; 4v:2; annotation at the
bottom of 17v referring to 17r:2]
རྒྱའི་ལྷ་ (deity/statue) [4r:6; 5r:1; 6v:3; 6v:5; 6v:6; 7r:1]
referred to as ལྷ་ཤཱཀྱ་མུ་ནེ་ [3r:3; 4r:4; annotation at the bottom
left of 4r referring to 4r:6; 5r:1; 6v:3; 8v:4; 15r:1]
རྒྱལ་ཕྲན་བཅུ་༢་ (place) [2r:7]
རྒྱལ་མོ་གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོ་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [26v:2; 31r:4–5. See also གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོ་]
སྒྲོལ་མ་ (deity) [16r:5; 16r:6]
བརྒྱ་བྱིིན་ (deity) [29r:3]
ང་
ངན་ལཾ་རྒྱལ་མཆོོག་དབྱིངས་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [31r:2–3]
ངན་ལཾ་སྟོག་ར་ཀླུ་གོང་ (a Bon po/minister) [annotation at the bottom of 16v
referring to 16v:7; 26r:4]
ངམ་ཤོད་ (place) [13r:2; 13v:1]
ཅ་
ཅོག་ (translator) [25v:1]
ཅོག་རོ་སྐེས་བཟང་རྒྱལ་གོང་ (person) [annotation at the top left of 4r referring
to 4r:6; 4v:6]
ཅོ་རོ་{ཟ་}ལྷ་བུ་སྨན་ (person) [15v:7]
ལྕང་ལོ་ཅན་ (Buddha field) [26r:7]
ཆོ་
ཆོིབས་ (place) [26r:5]
མཆོིམས་ (place) [30r:3 See also མཆོིམས་དགས་པོ་]
མཆོིམས་དགས་པོ་ (place) [30r:2. See also མཆོིམས་]
མཆོིམས་མདོ་༤་སྤྲིེ་ཆུང་ (minister) [annotation at the bottom of 16v referring
to 16v:7]
མཆོིམས་མེས་སླེེབས་ (person) [9v:6; he could be identified with ཞེང་{མཆོིམས་}མེས་
སླེེབས་, q.v.]
མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ (a Bon po) [26r:3–4; 26v:6; 30v:3. See also
བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་; he could also be identified with ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་
, q.v.]
མཆོིམས་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ (person) [17r:6]
མཆོིམས་ཤག་ཀྱ་{པྲ་བྷ་} (translator) [26v:2]
མཆོིམས་ཨ་ནུ་ (person) [17v:1]
འཆོིང་བུ་ (place) [4v:3–4]
ཇོ་བོ་གཅེན་ཁྲིི་རྒྱལ་ (person) [17v:3; 17v:3 annotation changes this to ཇོ་མོ་
གཅེན་ཁྲིི་རྒྱལ་]
ཇོ་མོ་བྱིང་ཆུབ་ [/ཇོ་མོ་བྱུབ་] (queen) [19v:7; 25v:4]
ཇོ་མོ་ལྷ་རྒྱལ་ (person) [25v:7–26r:1]
འཇམ་དཔལ་ཀྲིི་ཡི་ (text/class of texts) [annotation at the top of 17v
referring to 17v:2]
འཇམ་དཔལ་གཞེོནུ་ (bodhisatva) [26r:7]
ཉ་
ཉེ་དབང་སུཾམ་བཅུ་རྩེ་གཉིས་ (heaven) [29r:4]
ཉང་ (clan) [29v:5]
གཉགས་བི་མ་ལ་ (student of Hwa shang Mahāyāna) [18v:7; 20r:5]
གཉགས་རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་ (student of Hwa shang Mahāyāna) [18v:7]
གཉན་ (clan) [27r:5]
གཉན་པོ་གསང་བ་ (text) [1v:3; 1v:5]
(སྤུ་རྒྱལ་)གཉའ་ཁྲིི་བཙན་པོ་ (king) [27r:4]
གཉའ་ཞུར་ལག་ (king of Zhang zhung) [27v:6]
referred to as གཉའ་ཞུར་ལག་མིག་ [29v:6]
སྙིི་བ་སྙི་དོ་རེ་སྣང་བཙན་ (person) [2v:4]
སྙིི་མོ་ཐོད་ཀར་ (place) [11r:2]
སྙིིང་དྲུང་ (place) [11r:5; 11v:1]
སྙིེར་སྟོག་བཙན་ལྡེོང་གཟིགས་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [14v:1; 15r:4; 15r:5]
ཏ་
(འཕགས་པ་)རྟ་མགྲོིན་ (deity) [16r:7]
རྟ་རྒོོད་ (person) [9v:1]
སྟོག་ར་ཀླུ་གོང་ (a Bon po) [14v:2]
སྟོག་ལ་ (place) [13r:3]
སྟོག་ལ་ག་ཤ་བཀལ་བ་ (bridge) [18v:4]
སྟོོང་བཙན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་ (minister) [3r:1. See also འགར་སྟོོང་བཙན་ཡུལ་ཟུངས་]
referred to as སྟོོང་བཙན་ [annotation below 3r:2; annotation
above 3r:2]
ཐ་
ཐག་བཟང་སྟོག་ལོད་ (person) [15v:7]
ཐང་ལ་འབར་ (person) [4r:6. See also ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ and ཞེང་སྣ་ནམ་ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་
ཐང་ལ་འབར་]
ཐང་ལྷ་ (place/mountain) [4v:6; 11r:6]
ཐང་ལྷ་ཡིར་ལྷ་ (deity) [29v:3]
ཐཾད་ཡིོད་སྨྲའི་སྡིེ་པ་ (Mūlasarvāstivādin school) [annotation at the bottom of
24v referring to 24v:6]
ཐུ་རེ་ཛ་ཧ་ཏི་ (prince) [28v:6–7]
མཐུ་སྟོོབས་ཀྱི་བདག་པོ་ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་ (bodhisatva) [29r:7. See also ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་]
འཐོན་མི་གསམ་པོ་ར་ (person) [1v:6; 2v:3. See also གསམ་པོ་ར་]
ད་
ད་ན་ཏ་ལོ་ (king) [28v:6]
དིང་ང་དིང་བཙུན་ (emperor of China) [annotation above 2v:3]
དོང་འཕམས་ (place) [13v:6; 13v:7; 14r:5]
དོལ་ (place) [13r:3]
དྲྭ་ྭ (place) [13r:3]
དྲིི་གཙང་ཁང་ (shrine) [16v:6]
དྷརྨ་རཱཱ་ཛཱཱ་ (king) [29r:1]
བདེ་བ་ཅན་ (Buddha realm) [29r:5]
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
འདན་མ་རྩེེ་རྨ་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring
to 17v:2; the ལྡེན་མ་ added to the annotation at the top of 17v
referring to 17v:2 may also mean this person]
འདུལ་བ་ལུང་སྡིེ་༤་ (Vinaya scriptures) [annotation at the bottom of 24v
referring to 24v:6]
(བཙན་པོ་)འདུས་སྲོོ{ང}་མང་པོ་རྗེེ་རླུང་ནམ་ (king) [4r:2]
རྡོོ་རྗེེ་གཅོད་པ་ (text) [10r:2; annotation at the top of 18r referring to 17v:2]
རྡོོ་རྗེེ་དབྱིིངས་ཀྱི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་ (maṇḍala) [31r:1–2]
སྡིེ་སྣོད་༣་ (Tripiṭaka) [annotation at the top of 24v referring to 24v:4]
མདོ་ས་ལུང་ལྗ་པ་ (text) [annotation at the top of 17v referring to 17v:2]
ན་
ནཱ་གཱ་རྫུ་ན་ (Indian Buddhist philosopher) [24v:3]
གནོན་ (clan) [29v:5]
གནོན་ཁམ་པ་ (courtier) [19r:2]
referred only as ནང་འཁོར་ [interlinear note above 19r:3]
རྣམ་ (translator) [25v:1]
(བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་དཔལ་)རྣཾ་པར་སྣང་མཛད་ (Buddha) [26r:7; 29v:1]
སྣ་ནམ་ (person) [annotation below 17v:2. See also བསེ་བཙན་]
སྣ་ནཾ་རྒྱལ་ཚ་ལྷ་སྣང་ (a Bon po/minister) [annotation at the bottom of 16v
referring to 16v:7; 26r:4]
སྣ་ནམ་ཉ་བཟང་ (minister) [9v:6. See also ཞེང་རྒྱལ་ཉ་བཟང་; he could also be
identified with ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་, q.v.]
ཞེང་ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་]
སྣ་ནམ་ཡིེ་ཤེས་སྡིེ་ (person) [26v:3]
སྣཾ་ (hot spring) [11r:3]
སྣུབས་ (place) [30r:3; 30r:4]
སྣུབས་ལྷ་མཐོན་དྲུག་ (deity) [30r:4]
སྣུཾས་ནམ་མཁའ་སྙིིང་པོ་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [31r:3]
པ་
པ་གོར་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་ (translator) [26r:1; 26v:2–3. See also བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་]
པ་ལ་ནི་ (princess) [28v:7]
པ་འོར་ན་འདོད་ (father of Vairocana) [17v:1]
པད་མ་དཀར་པོ་ (text) [annotation at the bottom right of 1v]
པད་མ་ཅན་ (Buddha realm) [29r:6]
པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་ (tantric master) [11r:1; 11r:2; 11v:4; 12r:4; 12v:1; 12v:2;
12v:5; 13r:2; 14v:5; interlinear note below 13v:6]
referred to as པད་མ་ [interlinear note below 13v:2]
referred to as མཁན་པོ་པད་མ་ས་བྷ་བ་ [11v:3–4; 12v:5]
referred to only as མཁན་པོ་ [11r:4; 11r:5; 11v:1; 12r:5–6; 12r:6;
12v:2; 12v:3; 12v:4; 12v:6–7; 13r:4; 13r:6; 13r:7; 13v:4;
13v:5; 13v:7; 13v:7; 14r:1; 14r:2; 14v:5]
referred to as ཨ་ཙརྱ་ས་བྷ་བ་ [13v:2]
{དབའ་}དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ (monk) [18v:4, an interlinear annotation below 18v:4
adds དབའ་; 22v:6, an interlinear annotation below 22v:6 adds
དབའ་; 24v:1. See also དབའ་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ and དབའ་ལྷ་བཙན་]
དཔྱར་ལག་ (place) [8v:1]
སྤུ་རྒྱལ་ (place) [30r:1; 30r:2]
སྤུ་རྒྱལ་བོད་ (place) [29v:5]
(འཕགས་པ་)སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (bodhisatva) [3r:5; 3r:6; 3r:7; 3v:2; 3v:4; 3v:5;
3v:7; 4r:1]
སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (Ye shes dbang po’s daughter) [25v:4–5. See also དབའ་ཟ་
སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་]
ཕ་
ཕོ་ཡིོང་ཟ་ (person) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོ་རྗེེན་ (bodhisatva) [26r:7. See also མཐུ་སྟོོབས་ཀྱི་དབང་པོ་ཕྱག་ན་རྡོོ་རྗེེ་]
ཕྱི་ལུགས་ར་བ་ཐང་ (place) [27v:5]
169
ཕྱིང་པ་ (fortress) [2r:1]
འཕང་ཐང་ (place/palace) [8r:6; 11v:4; 12r:7]
འཕན་ཡུལ་ (place) [14v:3; 26r:5; 29v:3]
འཕྲོ་ཟ་ (person) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
བ་
བལ་རྗེེ་ (ruler of Nepal) [1v:6; 5v:5; 7r:4; 7r:5]
བལ་རྗེེའི་བུ་མོ་ (princess of Nepal) [1v:6. See also ཁྲིི་བཙུན་]
བལ་པོའི་ཕྱྭ་མཁན་(person) [12r:5; 14v:6]
referred to as ཕྱྭ་མཁན་བལ་པོ་ [17r:2]
བལ་ཡུལ་ (Nepal) [5r:2; 5v:2; 5v:4; 6r:4; 6r:5; 6r:7; 7r:3; 7r:4–5; 8v:3;
interlinear note below 8v:4; 8v:5; 10r:3; 15r:1; 19v:2; 20r:2]
as བལ་(པོ་) indicating country of origin [5v:5; 7r:1; 7r:7; 16v:5]
བུམ་སངས་ [/བུཾ་སངས་] (place) [9r:3; annotation at the top of 9r referring to
9r:2; 9r:4; 10r:7]
བེག་ཟླ་གོང་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to
17v:2; annotation at the top of 18r referring to 17v:2]
བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་ (translator) [17v:1; 26v:4; 26v:7; 27r:1; 28r:3; 30v:7; 31r:2;
31r:4; 31r:7. See also པ་གོར་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་]
བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ (Śāntarakṣita , Indian Buddhist master) [7r:2–3; 8r:3; 10v:7;
11r:1; 11v:2; 12v:1; annotation inserted into 17r between lines
5 and 6 referring to 17r:5; interlinear note below 19v:3; 19v:5;
20r:2; 20r:4]
referred to only as མཁན་པོ་ [5v:5; 5v:7; 6r:4; 6r:6–7; 6r:7;
7r:4; 7r:5; 7r:6; 7r:7; 7v:1; 8r:2; 8r:3; 8r:4; 8v:1; 8v:2; 8v:3;
8v:4; 8v:5; 10r:3; 10r:4; 12r:5–6; 14r:7; 14v:1; 15r:4; 15r:5;
15v:2; 15v:3; 15v:5; 16r top annotation referring to line
16r:2; 16r:4; 16r:6; 19v:3; 20r:6]
referred to as མཁན་པོ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ [5v:5; 8v:1; 10r:3; 15r:4;
annotation at the top right of 17v referring to 17v:2; 20r:6]
referred to as མཁན་པོ་བོ་དེ་ས་ཏྭ་ [6r:7]
referred to only as ཟ་ཧོར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་ [7r:4]
referred to as ཨ་ཙརྱ་བོ་དྷི་ས་ཏྭ་ [7v:3; 14v:6; 25r:2]
བོད་ཡུལ་ (Tibet) [3r:2; 3r:7; 3v:1; 4v:2; 4v:3; 5v:6; 7r:5; 7v:6; 8r:4; 9r:1;
9v:3; 9v:5; 10v:6; 11r:1; 11v:3; 12r:3; 13r:3; 13v:2; 14v:6; 14v:7;
18v:6; 19v:1; 25v:6]
referred to as བོད་ཁམས་[/བོད་ཁཾས་] [1v:1; 4r:4; 9v:1; 9v:2; 11r:4;
12r:3; 12v:2; 13r:7; 13v:2; 14r:2; 14r:3; 14r:4; 25r:3; 25v:3;
annotation at the bottom of 25v referring to 25v:6]
referred to as བོད་ [annotation at the top of folio 2r referring
to 2r:2; 2v:3; annotation at the bottom left of 4r referring
to 4r:6; 4v:2; 8r:7; 8v:2; 9r:2; 9r:4; 9r:5; 10r:3; 10r:3;
12r:3; 12v:2; 13r:3; 13v:6; 14v:7; interlinear note below
15v:5; 15v:5; 15v:6; 15v:7; annotation at the top of folio
17v referring to 17v:2; 18v:6; 19r:7; 20r:2; 20r:3; 24v:6;
annotation at the bottom of folio 24v, referring to 24v:6;
27r:4; 29v:5; 31r:5]
བྱིམས་པ་ (Buddha) [19r:7]
བྲག་དམར་ (place) [4r:3; 6r:1; 7v:1; 8r:3; 14r:6; 15r:4; 16r:2; 26r:4]
བྲག་དམར་འདྲིན་བཟང{ས}་ (temple) [4v:3]
བྲག་དམར་མ་མ་གོང་ (place) [25v:5]
བྲག་ལྷ་ (temple) [1v:6]
བྲན་ཀ་ལེགས་གོང་ (translator) [annotation at the top of 17v referring to
17v:2; annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to 17v:2]
བླ་ཁང་ (temple) [15r:2]
བླ་བ་ཚལ་ (place) [13r:5]
བྷ་རླན་ཏ་ (Indian preceptor) [11v:7]
དབའ་ (clan) [15r:2; 25v:3]
170
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
དབའ་མཉྗུ་ུ� (preceptor) [25v:7]
དབའ་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ (monk) [15r:1; 20r:1. See also དཔལ་དབྱིངས and དབའ་ལྷ་བཙན་]
referred to as རིང་ལུགས་ [18v:4]
དབའ་རྨ་གཟིགས་ (father of Rad na) [17v:1; 17v:2]
དབའ་བཞེེད་ (text) [1r:1]
དབའ་ཟ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (daughter of Ye shes dbang po) [25v:4. See also སྤྱན་
རས་གཟིགས་]
དབའ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་ (person) [25r:2. See also ཡིེ་ཤེས་དབང་པོ་]
དབའ་རད་ན་ (person) [20r:1. See also འབའ་རད་ན་ and རད་ན་]
referred to as དབའ་རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་ [17v:4]
དབའ་གསས་སྣང་ (a Tibetan preceptor/minister) [5v:1; 7r:2; 8v:7; 9r:6;
annotation at the top of 18v referring to 17v:2. See also གསས་སྣང་]
referred to as དབའ་གསལ་སྣང་ [5r:3]
referred to only as མཁན་པོ་ [19r:2; 19r:3]
དབའ་ལྷ་བཙན་ (monk) [14v:7. See also དཔལ་དབྱིངས་ and དབའ་དཔལ་དབྱིངས་]
དབའ་ལྷ་གཟིགས་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [15r:2]
དབུ་རྒྱན་ (Oḍḍiyāna) [11v:3. See also ཨུ་རྒྱན་]
དབུ་མ་ (school) [22v:4–5]
དབུ་རྩེེ་ (temple/central shrine) [annotation at the top of 16r referring to
16r:2; 16v:1; annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
དབུ་རྩེེ་ཟངས་ཁང་ (temple/shrine) [31r:6]
དབུ་ཚལ་ (place/temple) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5
and 6 referring to 17r:5]
འབའ་ཏིང་ (Indian preceptor) [11v:7]
འབལ་རྗེེ་ཁོལ་ (person) [4r:7]
འབའ་རད་ན་ (person) [25v:6; 25v:7. See also དབའ་རད་ན་ and རད་ན་]
འབའ་སང་ཤི་ (a Tibetan Buddhist/minister) [7v:2–3; 8v:7; 9r:5; 15r:4;
annotation at the top left of 18v referring to 17v:2; 25r:2; 26r:1.
See also སང་ཤི་]
འབིག་ཁྱིིའུ་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to
17v:2]
འབྲོ་ཁྲིི་འཇམ་གུང་རྟོན་ (person) [18v:2–3]
འབྲོ་ལྡེེ་རུ་གུང་སྟོོན་ (minister) [2v:4]
སྦས (clan) [29v:5]
སྦྲང་རྒྱལ་སྦྲ་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ (minister) [7v:2]
སྦྲང་གཙང་བཞེེར་ (envoy) [8v:7]
མ་
མ་ག་དྷ་ (place) [31r:7]
མ་ཧཱ་བོ་དྷི་ (place) [5v:3]
(ཧྭ་ཤང་)མ་ཧཱ་ཡིན་ (Chinese monk) [20r:3. See also ཧྭ་ཤང་མ་ཧཱ་ཡིན་]
མུ་ཏྲའི་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་ (text) [1v:5]
མུ་ནེ་བཙན་པོ་ (prince/lord) [26r:3; 26r:6; 31r:4; 31r:5–6]
མང་ཡུལ་ (place) [interlinear note below 5r:2; 5v:2; 5v:4; 5v:5; 6v:4;
7r:5; 7r:6; 10v:7; 14r:1]
མིག་རྟ་རྣ་ (spring) [12v:5]
མུ་ཐུར་ (deity) [29v:6]
མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་ (queen) [3r:1; 3r:3; 4r:4; 8v:4. See also ཨོང་ཅོ་]
(རྒྱའི་མཁན་པོ་)མེ་ཀོང་ (Chinese preceptor) [annotation at the top of 17v
referring to 17v:2]
མོན་ (place) [13r:1]
མྱང་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ (monk) [18v:3; an interlinear note referring to མྱང་ above
18v:4 may also mean this person]
མྱང་རོས་ཀོང་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [15r:2. See also རོས་གོང་]
མྱང་ཤ་མི་ (student of Hwa shang Mahāyāna) [18v:7; 20r:4]
referred to as མྱང་ཤ་མི་གོ་ཆོ་ [14v:1]
དམར་གྱི་ཡུལ་ (place) [10v:1]
རྨ་གསས་ཀོང་ (person) [15v:7]
རྨུ་ (clan) [27r:5; 27r:6]
སྨས་གོང་ (place) [4r:3]
སྨོན་ཙ་ར་ (a Bon po) [14v:2. See also གཟིམས་མལ་བ་གཙོ་སྨོན་ཙ་ར་]
ཙ་
གཙུག་ཏོར་དགུའི་དཀྱིལ་འཁོར་ (maṇḍala) [31v:2–3]
{མུ་ཏྲའི་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་}གཙུག་ཏོར་དྲིི་མེད་ (text) [interlinear note above 1v:5, an addition
above this annotation adds མུ་ཏྲའི་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་]
གཙུག་ཏོར་དྲིི་མེད་ཀྱི་གཟུངས་ (text/dhāraṇī) [annotation at the top of 31r:1]
བཙན་ཐང་སྒཾོ་བཞེི་ (royal palace) [27v:4; 28v:4]
བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ (a Bon po) [26v:6; 27r:2. See also མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་
གཟིགས་; he could also be identified with ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་, q.v.]
རྩེང་ཆོབ་ (river) [12v:4]
རྩེིག་རྨ་རྨ་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [14v:1]
རྩེེ་མཐོ་ (castle) [29v:7]
ཚ་
ཚ་བ(འི་ཡུལ་) (place) [31r:7]
ཚ་བ་ཚ་ཤོད་ (place) [26v:1]
ཚེ (ritual) [4r:5; 4v:5; 5r:3]
ཚེ་སྤོོང་ཟ་ (person) [annotation inserted into 17r between lines 5 and 6
referring to 17r:5]
ཚེ་སྤོོངས་འཕྲིན་ (place/person/clan) [29v:5]
མཚོ་མོ་མགུར་ (place) [13r:5]
referred to as མཚོ་མོའི་གུར་ [14r:6]
referred to as མཚོ་མོའི་འགུར་ [26r:4]
ཛ་
འཛམ་བུའི་གླིིང་ [/འཛཾ་བུའི་གླིིང་] (place) [11v:2; 11v:4; 28v:1]
ཧ་
ཧེམ་ཁང་(གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་) (temple) [5v:4]
ཞེ་
ཞེང་རྒྱལ་ཉ་བཟང་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [14v:1. See also སྣ་ནམ་ཉ་བཟང་; he could
also be identified with ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་ below]
ཞེང་ཉ་བཟང་ (minister) [6v:2; 7r:1; 17v:1; he could be identified with སྣ་ནམ་
ཉ་བཟང་/ ཞེང་རྒྱལ་ཉ་བཟང་ above]
referred to as ཉ་བཟང་ [6v:1]
referred to as ཞེང་ [6v:6]
referred to as ཞེང་ཉང་བཟང་ [8v:1]
ཞེང་སྣ་ནམ་ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར (person) [4v:6. See also ཁྲིི་ཐོག་རྗེེ་ཐང་ལ་འབར་ and ཐང་
ལ་འབར་]
ཞེང་མ་ཞེང་ [/ཞེང་མ་ཞེཾ་] (minister) [4v:4; 4v:7]
referred to as སྣ་ནམ་[/ནཾ་]མ་ཞེང་[/ཞེཾ་]ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་ [annotation at the
top left of 4r referring to 4r:6; 4r:6]
referred to as ཞེང་ [4v:5]
referred to as མ་ཞེཾ་ [4v:4; 4v:7]
referred to as ཞེང་མ་ཞེང་ཁྲིོམ་པ་སྐེས་ [7r:1]
ཞེང་{མཆོིམས་}མེས་སླེེབས་ (person) [14v:1; an interlinear note below 14v:1
adds མཆོིམས་, and thus he could be identified with མཆོིམས་མེས་སླེེབས་
, q.v.]
ཞེང་བཙན་བཞེེར་ (person) [28v:4; 30r:3; he could also be identified with
མཆོིམས་བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ and བཙན་བཞེེར་ལེགས་གཟིགས་, q.v.]
ཞེང་ཞུང་ (place) [27v:6; 29v:6; 29v:7]
གཞུང་ (place) [13r:3]
བཞེེས་ཟླ་ (person) [12v:4]
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
ཟ་
ཟ་མ་ཏོག་གི་སྙིིང་པོ་{ཡིི་གེ་དྲུག་པ་} (text) [1v:5, an annotation above 1v:5 adds ཡིི་
གེ་དྲུག་པ་]
ཟ་ཧོར་ (place) [6r:6; 7r:2; 7r:4;10r:3; 20r:2]
ཟས་གཏད་ (ritual) [31v:5; 31v:6]
ཟིང་པོ་ (place) [29v:2. See ཟི་པོ]
ཟི་པོ་ (place) [27v:6. See ཟིང་པོ]
ཟུ་མཁར་ (place) [13r:4]
ཟུས་ཕུག་སྐང་བུ་ཚལ་ (place/palace) [14r:7]
གཟུགས་གྲྭ་ལྔ་ (text) [annotation at the bottom right of 1v]
གཟིམས་མལ་བ་གཙོ་སྨོན་ཙ་ར་ (a Bon po) [14v:2. See also སྨོན་ཙ་ར་]
འ་
འ་ཞེ་ (place) [30r:1; 30r:2]
འོག་མིན་གྱི་གནས་ (Buddha realm) [26r:6–7]
འོག་མིན་ཆོོས་ཀྱི་དབྱིིངས་ཀྱི་ཕོ་བྲང་ (Buddha realm/palace) [29r:5]
འོམ་བུ་ཚལ་ (place/forest) [12v:4]
ཡི་
ཡིག་ཤ་ལྟི་འོག་ (place/temple) [interlinear note under 16v:7]
ཡིང་ལེ་ (place) [7v:4]
ཡིར་ཁྱིིམ་ (river) [13v:1]
ཡིར་ལ་ཤམ་པོ་ [/ཡིར་ལ་ཤཾ་པོ་] (deity) [27v:4; 27v:5; 28v:5; 29r:6]
ཡིིད་བཞེིན་འཁོར་ལོ་ (bodhisatva) [26r:2]
ཡིེ་ཤེས་དབང་པོ་ [/ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་] (preceptor) [17r:6; 17v:6; 18r:3; 18v:3; 18v:4;
18v:5;19r:2; 19r:6; interlinear note above 19r:6; 19v:4; 24v:4;
annotation at the bottom of 24v referring to 24v:6; 25r:3; 25r:4;
25v:4. See also དབའ་ཡིཻས་དབང་པོ་]
referred to as བཅོམ་ལྡེན་འདས་ཀྱི་རིང་ལུགས་ or རིང་ལུགས་ [17v:7; 18r:1;
18r:2; 18r:4]
referred to as ཡིེ་ཤེས་དབང་པོ་དབྱིངས་ [6r:3]
གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོ་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [31r:2. See also རྒྱལ་མོ་གཡུ་སྒྲ་སྙིིང་པོ་]
referred to as གཡུ་སྒྲ་ [31r:7]
referred to as གཡུ་སྒྲ་{སྙིིང་པོ་}ཉིད་ [31r:7, an annotation below
31r:7 adds སྙིིང་པོ་ to this name]
གཡུ་རུ་ (place) [27r:5; 27v:5]
ར་
ར་བ་ཐང་ (place) [27v:4–5; 28v:5. See also ཕྱི་ལུགས་ར་བ་ཐང་]
ར་མོ་ཆོེ་ (palace) [3r:3; 3r:4; 4r:4; 4r:6; 4v1; 5r:3; 15r:1]
ར་ས་ (city) [7v:5; 12r:7]
ར་ས་འཁར་བྲག་ (temple) [4v:3]
ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་ (temple) [1v:6; 4v:4; 7v:1–2; 7v:3; 7v:4. See also ལྷ་ས་པེ་ཧར་]
{དབའ་}རད་ན་ (person) [17v:1, an annotation below 17v:1 adds དབའ་;
17v:2. See also དབའ་རད་ན་ and འབའ་རད་ན་]
རི་རབ་ (Mount Meru) [12v:4; 29r:2]
རིན་པོ་ཆོེ་ཏོག་ (text) [annotation at the bottom right of 1v]
རུ་དཔོན་ཆོེན་པོ{ཁྱུང་པོ་}ཚེ་ཐེ་ (a Bon po) [14v:2; an interlinear note below
14v:2 adds ཁྱུང་པོ་ to this name]
རོས་གོང་ (a Tibetan Buddhist) [15r:3. See also མྱང་རོས་ཀོང་]
ལ་
(བན་དེ་)ལང་ཀ་ (monk) [19v:7]
ལང་གྲོོ་སྣང་ར་ (courtier) [8v:5]
referred to as ལང་འགྲོོ་སྣང་ར་ [7r:6; 7r:7]
ལས་རྣཾ་པར་འབྱིེད་པ་ (text) [10r:2. See also ལས་རྣཾ་འབྱིེད་]
171
ལས་རྣཾ་འབྱིེད་ (text) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to 17v:2.
See also ལས་རྣཾ་པར་འབྱིེད་པ་]
ལི་ཡུལ་ [/ལིའི་ཡུལ་] (Khotan) [3r:5; 3v:6; 3v:7; 31v:1]
ལི་བྱིིན་ (Indian scholar) [1v:7; annotation above 2r:1; 2v:3]
ལི་ཟ་ཚུལ་ཁྲིིམས་ (Khotanese princess) [31v:1–2]
ལུང་བསྟོན་ཆོེན་པོ་ (text) [4r:1]
ལོ་ཁྱིི་ཆུང་ (translator) [annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to 17v:2]
ལོ་ཧི་ཏ་ (river) [6r:1]
ཤ་
ཤཱཀྱ་པྲ་བ་ (translator) [17v:1]
ཤི་ན་ལེན་དྲི་ (place) [25r:7. See also ཤི་ལེ་ན་ལེན་དྲི་ and ཤྲཱིི་ན་ལེན་དྲི་]
referred to as ཤི་ལེ་ན་ལེན་དྲི་ [5v:3]
referred to as ཤྲཱིི་ན་ལེན་དྲི་ [28v:5–6]
ཤུད་པོ་ཁོང་སླེེབས་ (person) [17v:2]
ཤུད་པུ་རྒྱ་ལྟིོ་རེ་ང་མི་ (minister) [annotation at the bottom of 16v referring to
16v:7]
ཤེར་འཁར་དཀར་པོ་ (place/palace) [31v:1]
ཤེས་རབ་འབུམ་ [/ཤེས་རབ་འབུཾ་] (text) [19v:3; 25v:6]
གཤེན་གྱི་བླ་མཚོ་ (deity) [27r:5]
ས་
ས་ལུ་ལྗང་པ་ (text) [10r:2; annotation at the bottom of 17v referring to
17v:2; annotation at the top of 18r referring to 17v:2]
སང་ཤི་ (a Tibetan Buddhist/minister) [8r:2; 9r:7; 9v:1; annotation at
the top of 9r referring to 9r:2; 9v:2; 9v:6; 10v:4; 22r:6. See also
འབའ་སངས་ཤི་ and འབའ་སང་ཤི་]
སངས་རྒྱས་ (Śākyamuni) [3r:5]
སངས་རྒྱས་འོད་སྲུང་ (Buddha) [8r:4]
སུཾཾ་བཅུ་རྩེ་གསུཾཾ་དགའ་ལྡེན་ལྷའི་གནས་ (heaven) [29r:2–3]
སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་འཚོ་བཞེེར་གཉན་ལེགས་ (chamberlain) [12r:6]
སེང་འགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་ (a Tibetan Buddhist/minister) [7v:2; 8v:1; 8v:4–5]
referred to as སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་གཟིགས་ [9v:6; 14v:1]
referred to as སེང་འགོ་ [8v:5]
སྲོིབ་དྲིི་དཀར་པོ་ (deity) [30r:1]
སྲོིབས་པོ་ (ruler) [30r:3]
སྲུ་བཙན་མོན་རྒྱལ་ (person) [17v:3]
སྲུ་ཡིང་དག་ (person) [19v:7]
སླུངས་ཚུགས་ (place/palace) [6r:4]
གསམ་པོ་ར་ (person) [annotation above 2r:1. See also འཐོན་མི་གསམ་པོ་ར་]
{དབའ་}གསས་སྣང་ (a Tibetan preceptor/minister) [5r:6–7; 5v:5; 6r:4; 6v:2;
7r:2; 7r:4; 7r:6; 8v:5, an annotation below 8v:5 adds དབའ་; 8v:6;
annotation at the top of 9r referring to 9r:2; 10v:2; 10v:4;10v:7;
11r:1; 14r:6; 15r:1–2; 17r:6, an annotation below 17r:6 adds དབའ་
. See also དབའ་གསལ་སྣང་ and དབའ་གསས་སྣང་]
བསམ་གཏན་གླིིང་ [19v:4]
བསམ་ཡིས་ (place/temple) [4v:4; 11r:1; 14v:5; 15r:3. See also བསམ་ཡིས་ལྷུན་
གྱིས་གྲུབ་]
བསམ་ཡིས་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ་ (place/temple) [6r:1. See བསམ་ཡིས་]
བསེ་བཙན་ (son of a minister) [17v:2. See also སྣ་ནམ་]
ཧ་
ཧྭ་ཤང་མ་ཧཱ་ཡིན་ (Chinese monk) [20r:3. See also མ་ཧཱ་ཡི་ན་]
referred to only as ཧྭ་ཤང་ [19v:6; 20r:4; 20r:6; 20v:1]
referred to as {ཧྭ་ཤང་མ་}ཧཱ་ཡི་ན་ [18v:6]
ལྷ་ཁང་གི་སྒཾོ་ཅན་ (temple) [31v:2]
ལྷ་ཐོ་དོ་རེ་སྙིན་བཙན་ (king) [1v:1; 1v:3]
referred to as ལྷ་ཐོ་ཐོ་རི་སྙིན་ཤལ་ [27v:2]
172
Index to the Dba’ bzhed Manuscript
referred to as བཙན་པོ་ [1v:3]
referred to as རྒྱལ་པོ་ [annotation at the bottom left of 1v
referring to 1v:4]
{ཞེང་}ལྷ་བུ་ (translator) [17v:1–2, an annotation above 17v:1 adds ཞེང་]
(ལོ་ཙ་བ་)ལྷ་ལུང་ཀླུ་གོང་ (translator) [annotation at the top left of 17v,
referring to 17v:2]
ལྷ་ལུང་ལྷུན་གྱི་དཔལ་ (monk) [26v:2]
ལྷ་ས་ (city) [3r:3; 4r:4; 4r:6; 8r:6; 11v:4]
ལྷ་ས་པེ་ཧར་ (place) [7v:6. See also ར་ས་པེ་ཧར་]
ལྷན་ཀར་ཏ་མོ་ར་ (place/palace) [3r:3; 31r:5]
ལྷས་བྱིིན་ (person) [7v:5]
ལྷའི་བུ་དྲིི་མ་མེད་པའི་མདོ་ (text) [31r:1]
ལྷའི་དབང་པོ་ (deity) [29r:3]
ལྷོ་བལ་ (place) [7v:2; 7v:3; 7v:6; 28r:6]
ལྷོ་བྲག་ (place) [18v:4]
ཨ་
ཨ་ནན་ཏ་ (a Kashmiri) [7v:5; 7v:6; 8r:5]
ཨ་མི་ད་བ་ (deity) [16r:2; annotation at the top of 16r referring to 16r:2]
ཨརྱ་པ་ལོ་ (deity) [3r:4; 15v:3; 16r:3; 16r:6–7]
(རྒྱལ་པོ་)ཨིན་དྲི་བྷཱུ་ཏི་ (mythical king) [29r:1]
ཨུ་རྒྱན་ (Oḍḍiyāna) [12r:4; 29r:1. See also དབུ་རྒྱན་]
ཨེག་ཆུ་ (place) [9r:1, eg chu’i 9r:2; 9r:6; 10v:4]
ཨེག་ཆུའི་དབང་པོ་ (person) [9r:6–7]
ཨེག་མེན་ཏེ་ (king) [11v:7]
ཨོང་ཅོ་ (Queen Muṃ Shang Ong co) [annotation below 2v:3; 3r:3. See
also མུཾ་ཤང་ཨོང་ཅོ་]
ཨུ་པ་ཡི་ (class of texts) [annotation at the top of 17v referring to 17v:2;
24v:6]
Subject Index
Akaniṣṭha, see palaces
Amitābha 29, 98–99, 130–131
animal-headed deities 72–73
archaisms 11, 23, 41–42, 45–49, 59, 64 f.
Ārya palo (bodhisatva) 29, 106–107, 128–131
Ārya Palo (shrine), see Bsam yas
auspicious signs, see omens
autochthonous deities, see Bon
Avalokiteśvara 26, 45, 88, 91, 92, 98–99, 106–109, 146–149,
152–153
see also Ārya palo
’Ba’ Sang shi 9–11, 27, 42, 47–48, 60–62, 80–86, 82, 114–115
death of 31, 32, 33, 54, 148–149
involvement in construction of Bsam yas 31, 29,
128–129
part in establishing the dharma vi, 33, 35, 146–147
philosophical position of 10, 30, 42, 53, 75, 76, 78–80,
79, 86–87, 140–143
sent to China 27, 48, 53, 61, 73, 90, 116–121
Bal mo bza’ 44, 102
Bhāvanākrama, see Kamalaśīla
Bhṛkuṭī, see Bal mo bza’
Bibliothèque nationale de France xv, 159–160
Bka’ mchid v–vi, 64–68, 71, 74, 89–91, 102–103
BL fragment 14, 16, 18, 21, 22–23, 41–42, 56–63, 56–58, 73, 81
Bodhgayā, see vajrāsana
Bodhisatva, see Śāntarakṣita
bodhisatva kingship 31, 37, 53, 88–93, 98–99
see also Khri Srong btsan; Khri Srong lde btsan
bodhisatva-s 31, 50, 87, 106–109, 132, 148–149, 152–153, 159
see also Ārya palo; Avalokiteśvara; bodhisatva kingship
Bon 9, 10, 13
deities of (including autochthonous) 18–21, 27–28,
31–32, 39, 67, 93–94, 120–127, 130–131, 146–155
funerary practice 31–32, 148–55
priests 31, 148–151, 154–155
proponents of 42, 126–129, 108–113, 126–129, 138–139,
148–55
ritual, see ritual
see also debate; Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes
Book of Enoch 41
Brag dmar/mar 27–28, 31, 112–115, 126–131, 148–149
image at 45, 102–103
temple at 18–21, 45, 108–109
brides, see princesses/queens
British Library xv, 14, 16, 55–56, 158–159
Bsam yas 32, 40, 45, 50–51, 51, 88, 92, 109
abbots of, see Kalyāṇamitra
blue stūpa at 29, 51–52, 130–133
central shrine at 29, 50–51, 130–132, 156–157
consecration of 10, 29, 35–37, 40, 49, 50–52, 66–67, 92,
130–133
construction of 12, 28–29, 53, 61, 66, 90, 98, 112–113,
128–133
debate at, see debate
description of 51, 98, 132–133
Open Access. © 2020 Lewis Doney, published by De Gruyter.
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110715309-010
examination of site vi, 28–29, 35–36, 39–40, 48–49,
120–121, 126–129
importance in Dba’ bzhed 51–52, 66, 91–93
inscription at its entrance, see inscriptions
main deity in 31, 50–51
subsidiary shrines at 29, 36, 40, 50, 132, 156–157
Bu ston Rin chen grub xv, 11, 22, 34–35, 45, 77, 79–81, 83, 85–86
Buddhas
Buddha fields and heavens 31, 50, 148–149, 152–153
Buddha-hood 30, 89, 132–133, 140–145
the historical Buddha 18–21, 36, 40, 53, 76–80, 93–94,
98, 106–107, 120–121, 142–143
other Buddhas 4, 114–115, 136–137, 142–143
see also Amitābha; dharma; images; Maitreya; Vairocana
Buddhism, see dharma
Buddhist Digital Resource Center xv, 3, 14, 16–17
Chan Buddhism 8, 62, 66
see also debate
charitable donations/giving 29, 30, 108–109, 110–113, 132–133,
138–141
China v, 18, 53, 72–73, 82–87, 92, 94
Buddha image from 26, 46, 108–115
dharma established in China 18, 39, 122–123
Chinese historiography 7–10, 71, 90
emperors of 4, 27, 53, 73, 92, 104–109, 116–123
Hwa shang returns to China 46, 108–109
princesses/queens from 7, 13, 22, 104–109
Tang relations with Tibet v, 8–10, 12, 88, 90, 94
texts from 30, 33, 48, 53–54, 55–56, 67, 85, 95, 108–109,
118–119, 132, 146–149
Tibetan envoys sent to 26–28, 44, 61, 66–67, 69–70,
80–81, 86, 90, 92, 116–121
vermillion seller from 29, 50, 128–131
see also Dunhuang; Eg chu; Heshang Moheyan; Hwa
shang
clan/family identity 29, 48, 60–61, 66–68, 74, 128–129, 150–153
clan names 48, 68, 78, 81, 86
see also Dba’ clan; Myang/Nyang clan
coda, see colophons
codicology, see Dba’ bzhed
colophons
in Testimony of Ba 6, 30–31, 33–35, 33–35, 38, 54, 64,
66, 95–96, 146–149
in work of Nyang ral 12, 33, 37–38
corporal punishment, see law in Tibet
council of ministers 112–115, 126–127, 132–135, 154–155
Dba’ bzhed
date of 5, 14, 17–18, 20, 22, 24, 35–43, 87, 88–89, 95
editorial notations in vii, 5, 15, 20, 42–45, 47–50, 51,
51–54, 66, 91
library notations in 26, 43, 102
multiple colophons in, see colophons
name variation 5, 34–35, 68–69, 102–103, 148–149
organisation of v–vi, 5, 21, 23, 25, 26–32, 32, 36, 40,
90–91
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
174
Subject Index
palaeography of manuscript 25, 32–35, 42–43, 43–54, 87
relationship with BL fragment 22–23, 41–42, 59–63
relationship with inscriptions 12–13, 64–69, 90
relationship with Kriyāsaṃgraha 35–37, 40, 49
relationship with later Testimony of Ba tradition, see Sba
bzhed
relationship with Rba bzhed 14, 16, 17–18, 22–23, 41–42,
48, 59–63, 81
relationship with Zangs gling ma 37–41
relationship with Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus 5, 15, 16, 23, 25,
31, 32–36, 40
see also mimesisis; mouvance
Dba’ clan 12, 61, 68, 81, 85–86, 90
importance in Dba’ bzhed 24, 29, 48, 60–61, 66–68, 74,
78, 128–129
Dba’ Dpal dbyangs 11, 28–30, 47, 61, 68, 81–85, 82, 92, 126–129,
134–135
in the Great Debate 11, 30, 76, 77–81, 79, 82, 84–87,
136–139, 142–147
Dba’ Gsas snang 26 f. 10, 22, 48–49, 60–61, 64, 66–71, 73–74,
96, 110 f.
children of 26, 110–111, 148–149
death of 31, 33, 67, 95, 146–147
ordination name vi, 29, 37–41, 82, 82–84, 86, 132–133
relationship with Khri Srong lde btsan vi, 37, 39–40, 47,
60–63, 66–69, 73, 88, 92, 96
role in the Bsam yas Debate 76, 78, 79, 79–80, 92, 95,
136–137
variants of name vi, 24, 47, 68, 88, 110–111
Dba’ Ratna 29, 31, 77–78, 79, 82, 82–86, 132–133, 138–139,
148–149
Dbu rtse shrine, see Bsam yas
death/decline of the dharma vii, 31, 67, 76, 88–89, 92, 93–96,
146–147
debate
between Bon po-s and Buddhists 5, 14, 23, 25, 28, 31–32,
39, 42, 126–129, 148–155
between proponents of gradual and instantaneous
enlightenment 6–13, 23, 30, 39–40, 52–54, 65–66,
75–80, 84–87, 94–95, 134–47
decrees
of Khri Srong btsan (sgam po) 26, 91–92, 104–107
of Khri Srong lde btsan 7–8, 12, 49, 52, 61, 65–67, 91–92,
132–133
see also Bka’ mchid
delegations
sent to China 26–28, 61, 66–70, 73, 80–81, 86, 90, 92,
104–107, 116–121
sent to India vi, 26, 92, 102–105, 110–111
sent to interview Śāntarakṣita 27, 59–60, 62–63, 81,
114–115
dharma 38, 43, 142–143, 156–157
coming to Tibet v–vi, 26–27, 33–34, 44, 46, 48, 65–67,
88, 90–92, 98
final five hundred years of 28, 30–31, 67, 76, 80, 93–96,
126–127, 136–137, 146–147
practice of 18–20, 26–28, 40, 46, 89–92, 97, 106–107,
110–111, 116–121, 148–149
study of 27, 30–31, 76, 76–77, 87, 136–139, 142–143,
146–149
dharma kings vi, 4, 12, 43, 89–93, 102–109, 152–153
Dharmasvāmin 36–38
divination 28–29, 35, 39, 46, 48–49, 51, 112–113, 120–121,
126–127, 132–133
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba 7–8, 17, 21–22, 46, 68, 78–79, 85–86,
89
Dpal dbyangs, see Dba’ Dpal dbyangs
dreams 29, 31, 50, 130–133, 148–149
Dunhuang vii, 16, 39, 41, 55–59, 68, 72–73, 77, 89, 158–160
historiographical sources from, see historiography of Tibet
’Dus sro po rje rlung nam 26, 45, 45, 65, 108–109
Eg chu 27, 116–117, 120–121
emanations 26–27, 29, 50, 88–93, 98–99, 106–109, 116–119,
130–131, 152–153
empire of Tibet v, 3–4, 7, 9, 12, 39, 51, 61–62, 68–72, 89–91
emperors, see ’Dus sro po rje rlung nam; Khri Gtsug lde
btsan; Khri Lde srong btsan; Khri Srong btsan (sgam po);
Khri Srong lde btsan; Lha tho do re snyan btsan; Mu ne
btsan po
endowment
debate about 30, 37, 132–135
of temples, see temples
Enoch, book of, see Book of Enoch
epigraphy, see inscriptions
exemplars, see manuscripts
four great kings 28–29, 39, 51, 120–123, 132–133, 152–153
funeral rites 47, 68, 110–111
according to Devaputravimala sūtra 32, 148–149,
156–157
of Khri Srong lde btsan 5, 13, 31–32, 156–157
gradual enlightenment, see debate
Great Debate, see debate
Gsal/Gsas snang, see Dba’ Gsas snang
Gtsug lag phreng ba, see Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba
Guru Rinpoché, see Padmasambhava
Hayagrīva 29, 40, 92, 130–131
Heshang Moheyan 7, 30, 73, 76, 76–79, 79, 80–81, 87, 94,
138–141
historiography of Tibet, Preface 3–6, 10–13, 22–23, 42–43, 61–62,
64–67, 74, 75, 88–90, 98–99
historical sources from Dunhuang 3–5, 7, 10, 14, 42,
88–93, 96, 158–160
Hwa shang-s
present in China 27–28, 48, 90, 116–121
present in Tibet 7, 26, 30, 46, 52, 66, 76, 108–111,
136–141
prophecy of 27–28, 90, 110–111, 116–119
see also Heshang Moheyan
hybridity 71–73
images
at Bsam yas, see Bsam yas
from China 26–27, 29, 46, 49, 106–111, 128–129
prototypes for 50–51, 128–131
sent away to Mang yul 26, 110–113
inauspicious signs, see omens
Subject Index
India v, 12, 29, 31, 50, 72–73, 91, 94–95, 102–103
artistic style of 29, 50, 128–129
brahmans/scholars from 26, 27, 62–63, 102–105,
114–115, 148–149
home of Buddhist masters travelling to Tibet vi, 4, 7, 18,
22, 27, 77, 92, 114–117
home of preceptors establishing Buddhism in China 18,
39, 122–123
pilgrimage destination vi, 26, 92, 110–111
source of Buddhism v, 8, 31, 61, 76–78, 93–94, 96,
102–105, 110–111, 152–153
source of Tibetan script 26, 102–105
texts from v, 26, 28, 102–105, 114–115, 120–121, 132,
156–157
indigenous deities, see Bon
inscriptions 3–4, 8–9, 46, 52, 66, 68–69, 71, 88–89, 93, 98
at Bsam yas 7–8, 12, 49, 52, 61, 65, 89, 90
at Skar cung 44–47, 45, 52
insignia of rank 66–69, 71–73, 116–117, 136–137
instantaneous enlightenment, see debate
Kalyāṇamitra 120–121, 128–129
Dba’ Dpal dbyangs as 134–135
preceptor to the Tibetan ruler 37, 52, 89, 152–153
Śāntarakṣita as 26, 110–113, 118–119
Ye shes dbang po as 24, 29, 37, 132–133
Kamalaśīla 7, 52, 77–78, 79, 80–81, 82, 85, 95, 136–141
Bhāvanākrama of 30, 52, 77–78, 87
summoned to Tibet vi, 30, 39–40, 66, 76, 76, 94,
136–137
Kashmir v, 27, 62–63, 114–115
Keng shi court 27, 104–105, 118–119
Khotan
historiography of 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 108–109
monks from 26, 91–92, 93, 96, 106–109
princess of 32, 156–157
see also prophecy
Khri btsun, see Bal mo bza’
Khri ’Dus srong mang po rje, see ’Dus sro po rje rlung nam
Khri Gtsug lde btsan vi, 10, 12, 26, 34, 43, 45, 53, 102–103, 160
revision of language system 31, 148–149
Khri Lde gtsug btsan 10, 26, 45, 45–46, 48, 80, 108–109
Khri Lde srong btsan 31, 45, 54, 66, 148–149
Khri Srong btsan (sgam po) vi, 12, 18–19, 26, 29, 43, 44, 45, 96,
102–109
as a bodhisatva 44–45, 88, 91–93, 98–99, 106–109
depiction in Dunhuang literature 89, 98, 158
preparation of edict by 67, 70, 91–92, 104–105
Khri Srong lde btsan v–vi, 12, 26–32, 43, 45, 45, 61, 86, 88–89,
92–99
as a bodhisatva 4, 92–93, 98–99, 118–119
connection to Nyang ral 38–41
death and funeral 25, 31–32, 32–33, 35, 54, 67, 95–96,
146–149, 156–157
depiction in Dunhuang literature 4–5, 89–90
historical rule 7–9, 12, 14, 51, 44, 61, 65–67, 88–89
identity of mother 7, 10, 13, 22
relationship with ministers and religious masters, see
Dba’ Gsas snang; Kalyāṇamitra; Padmasambhava;
Śāntarakṣita; Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes
175
kings of Tibet, see ’Dus sro po rje rlung nam; Khri Gtsug lde btsan;
Khri Lde srong btsan; Khri Srong btsan (sgam po); Khri Srong
lde btsan; Lha tho do re snyan btsan; Mu ne btsan po
Kwa chu temple, see temples
law of Tibet 7–8, 12, 26, 52, 65–67, 70, 91–92, 93, 104–107,
132–133
Lha tho do re snyan btsan vi, 15, 26, 31, 43–44, 45, 91, 102–103,
112–113, 150–151
Lhasa 6, 13, 40, 44, 49, 71, 75, 106–109, 114–117, 120–123
Ra sa ’khar brag temple 45, 108–109
Ra sa ’Phrul snang temple 92, 159
Ra sa’i Beng gang/ Pe har 26–27, 60, 62–63, 102–103,
108–109, 114–115
abbots of, see Kalyāṇamitra
Li yul, see Khotan
library notations, see Dba’ bzhed
loanwords 72
Lung bstan chen po, see prophecy
Mādhyamika 8, 41–42
three schools of 42, 53, 80, 87, 142–143
magic 31, 72, 91, 102, 104–105, 112–113, 128–133, 150–151
magical deities 39, 51, 72–73, 150–155
magicians 31, 49, 60, 62–63, 114–115
see also Padmasambhava
Mahābodhi vi, 26, 92, 110–111
Mahāyāna (master), see Heshang Moheyan
Maitreya 90, 136–137
Mang yul 26–28, 70–71, 110–115, 120–121, 126–127
manuscripts 4, 10, 14–17, 41–42, 55–63, 68–69, 77, 84, 91,
158–161
meditation 26, 29, 40, 49, 116–117, 120–121, 124–125, 130–131,
156–157
instructions in 27, 110–111, 120–121, 138–139, 142–147
of Ye shes dbang po 26, 30, 39, 49, 66, 76, 95, 110–111,
134–137, 146–147
Melinex 55, 57, 58
mimesis 5
missions, see delegations
Mogao, see Dunhuang
monks 30, 52, 77, 132–139, 146–147
from Khotan 26, 90–92, 93, 96, 106–109
ordination of 13, 18–20, 28–29, 52, 77, 79, 81–86, 82,
132–133
see also Dba’ Gsas snang; Heshang Moheyan; Hwa shang;
Kalyāṇamitra
mouvance 5–6, 22
Mu ne btsan po 31–32, 45, 54, 116–117, 148–150, 152–153, 156–157
Myang/Nyang clan 30, 38, 68, 126–129, 134–135, 138–139,
154–155
see also Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer
Nālandā vi, 26, 31, 92, 110–111, 152–153
fire at 30, 33, 35, 38, 146–147
Nepal v, 29, 50, 110–111, 128–131
divination expert from 26, 28, 35, 39, 70, 122–123,
126–127, 132–133
Kamalaśīla invited from 30, 39, 76, 94, 136–137
pilgrimage destination vi, 92, 110–111
176
Subject Index
princess/queen from 44, 102–103
source of Buddhism and Buddhists v–vi, 26–27, 35, 47,
49, 66, 92, 110–111, 114–115, 138–139
nianhua woodblock genre 55
Nyang clan, see Myang/Nyang clan
Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer xv, 5, 10–12, 21–22, 33–34, 37–41, 44, 64,
98
Old Tibetan 18, 58–59, 64–72, 74, 88
omens
auspicious signs 27–28, 50, 90, 110–113, 120–121,
126–127
inauspicious signs 108–111
ordination, see monks
Padmasambhava 10, 27–28, 48, 70, 88, 92, 94, 98–99, 120–127
attempted assassination of 28, 49, 94, 126–127
castigates Tibetan ruler 28, 124–125
outside the Dba’ bzhed 13–14, 18–22, 37–40, 70–71,
96–98, 159
returns to India 28, 37, 39, 49, 67, 97–98, 124–127
subdues malevolent spirits vi, 20–22, 27–28, 39–40, 67,
93–94, 97, 120–123
transforms landscape 28, 49, 124–125
palaces
of Akaniṣṭha 31, 148–149, 152–153
of Lhan dkar/kar ta mo ra 44, 106–107, 156–157
of ’Phang thang 114–115, 120–123
of Ra mo che 26, 106–111
of Slungs ’tshugs 70, 112–113
unidentified (of the Tibetan ruler) 18–21, 28–30, 39, 47,
60, 104–105, 114–115, 120–121, 136–139, 152–155
of Zus phug skyang bu tshal 28, 126–127
palaeography vi, 14, 20, 24–35, 42–54, 58–59, 72, 83–84, 87,
91–92
phra men 62–63, 71–73
pothi, see manuscripts
Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s 30–32, 45, 50, 54, 76, 76–79, 87, 136–137,
148–149, 154–157
princesses/queens 7, 13, 22, 32, 44, 51, 102–109, 132, 156–157
prophecy 27–28, 90, 95–96, 110–111, 116–119, 148–149
about debates 76, 76, 80, 87–88, 94, 126–127, 136–137
Li yul (gyi sgra bcom pas) lung bstan pa 90–92, 96, 159
Lung bstan chen po 26, 44, 91, 93, 108–109
queens, see princesses/queens
Ra mo che temple, see temples
Ra sa, see Lhasa
Ratna, see Dba’ Ratna
Rba bzhed xv, 5–6, 17–19, 21, 23, 34, 55, 68, 82, 85, 91
redacted nature of 41–42, 59–61
relationship with Dba’ bzhed 14–16, 22–23, 43–48,
62–63, 81, 93
temples mentioned in, see temples
redaction, see Dba’ bzhed; Rba bzhed; Sba bzhed
regalia 31, 150–151
ritual
of Bon po-s 26, 31–32, 110–111, 116–117, 126–127, 148–55
of consecration, see temples
of four great kings 28, 39, 51, 120–123
of ruler’s ablution 28, 122–125
tshe 26, 46, 108–111
river travel 69–71, 74
Sang shi, see ’Ba’ Sang shi
Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra 77, 87, 136–137
Śāntarakṣita 13–14, 26–30, 32, 35, 39–42, 47–48, 66, 84–85,
110 f., 138–139
and the construction of Bsam yas 28–29, 50–53, 70, 98,
120–121, 126–133
debates with Bon po-s 28, 126–127
interview of in Lhasa 18, 27, 41–42, 53, 59–63, 73, 80–81,
92, 96, 98, 114–115
invitation to Tibet vi, 16, 26, 110–113
prophesies decline of the dharma 30, 76, 76, 80, 87,
94–95, 136–137, 146–147
recommends Padmasambhava vi, 18–22, 28, 93, 120–123
and Tārā 29, 36, 38, 40, 130–131
Śatasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra, see Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s
Sba bzhed xv, 6–14, 17–20, 21, 22–23, 24, 64–66, 68–71, 74, 91,
96–98
intertextuality with Bu ston chos ’byung 11, 22, 34–35, 77,
79–80, 83, 85–86
intertextuality with Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston 7–11, 17, 20–22,
77–83, 79, 82, 85–86, 89
intertextuality with Zangs gling ma 33–34, 37–41
Shes rab ’bum, see Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s
signs, see omens
Skar cung, see temples; inscriptions
Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes 26, 108–115
Srong btsan sgam po, see Khri Srong btsan (sgam po)
Stein, Aurel 55
Tārā 29, 31, 36, 38, 40, 130–131, 148–149
temples 31, 44–46, 45, 49, 60, 92, 114–115, 128–129, 148–149,
156–157
at Bsam yas, see Bsam yas
consecration of 10, 29, 35–37, 40, 49, 50–52, 66–67, 92,
128–133
desecration of 26, 92, 108–109
endowment of 44–46, 45, 51, 51, 91, 102–103, 108–111,
132
at Glang 26, 45, 45, 108–109
importance in Dba’ bzhed 51–52, 66, 91–93
at Kwa chu 45, 45–46, 108–109
at Lhasa, see Lhasa
Ra mo che 26–27, 29, 49, 106–111, 128–129
in Rba bzhed 45, 45–46
site inspection of vi, 28–29, 35–36, 48–49, 126–127,
128–131
at Skar cung 45
Testimony of Ba recensions 12, 16–17, 17–22, 21
see also Dba’ bzhed; Rba bzhed; Sba bzhed; zhabs btag
appendix
Tibetan writing system 26, 64–65, 72, 102–105
see also Old Tibetan; palaeography
Tibetan deities, see Bon
texts within the Dba’ bzhed 30–32, 42–43, 51, 53, 62, 76, 76–78,
87, 91, 102 f.
Subject Index
in China 27, 30, 48, 67, 95, 118–119, 146–149
in India v, 26, 28, 102–105, 114–115, 120–121, 146–149,
156–157
translated after the Great Debate 30, 146–147
see also China; Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s
tombs 31, 65–66, 150–153
transportation networks 69–71, 108–111, 120–121, 126–127
translation 78, 81, 90, 96, 122–123, 150–151, 156–157
during interview of Śāntarākṣita 114–115
of Shes rab ’bum, see Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s
revised system of 31, 45, 148–149
school of 30, 146–147
students of 29, 52, 81–82, 82, 132–133
tshe, see ritual
Vairocana (Buddha) 31, 51, 148–149, 154–157
at Bsam yas 50–51
177
Vairocana (master) 29, 81, 83–86, 90, 132–133
debates with Bon 25, 31–32, 32, 150–157
vajrāsana 29, 36, 130–131
Vinaya 31, 45, 59, 60, 75, 146, 148–149, 159
writing system, see Tibetan writing system
Yar la sham po, see Bon
Yar lung/klungs dynasty, see empire of Tibet
Ye shes dbang po, see Dba’ Gsas snang
Zangs gling ma 5–6, 8–9, 37–38, 40, 98
Zas gtad kyi lo rgyus 13, 16, 23, 25, 31–32, 32, 34–37, 78, 148–157
Zen, see Chan Buddhism
Zenodo 5, 16, 25, 33, 36, 42–43, 46, 49
zhabs btag appendix 6, 9–12, 14–16, 17, 20, 21–22, 34, 37, 38, 40
Zhang Ma zhang, see Sna nam Ma zhang khrom pa skyes