CHOD TRANSMISSIONS AND LINEAGES
by Michelle Janet Sorensen
In this chapter, I will be examining various textual sources that provide indications of the lineages of Buddhist Chod teachings. There are contradictory and diverse transmission lineages presented in the various emic sources that we have on the Chod tradition, suggesting conflicting ideas about the development of the tradition and authority. Understanding transmissions of Chod teachings is particularly difficult because they represent two different
means of authenticating the tradition. Transmission lineages record the actual passing on of teachings, thus representing the renewal of the tradition, but they also retrospectively associate Chod teachings with precursor figures, thus legitimating Chod through its association with existing traditions. As with Machik Labdron's development of teachings that were both innovative and traditional, the lineage histories of Chod both reinterpret and affirm the existing tradition. As a corrective to the prevailing image of Chod as an ahistorical and uniform system, the critical comparison of transmission sources can help to build a complex picture of this development and legitimation of Chod traditions.
Chod lineages have been examined by other scholars, most extensively by Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (1993; 227ff). As is made evident by Kollmar-Paulenz's schematics diagramming the transmissions of Chod according to the various source texts she surveys, there are a variety of opinions about the transmission history of this tradition. While several lineages of Chod have been traced, these lineages have not been considered in terms of their historical contexts, with attention to the tradition(s) of the author(s) and the period of composition. In order to understand both how Chod legitimated itself as a tradition and how it was regenerated, these lineages must be analyzed in terms of dates of transmissions (if they can be gleaned), identities of recipients, and doxological considerations.
Although much more work needs to be done to complete a comprehensive analysis of Chod sources, this chapter will outline some of the important historical developments and different tangents in the lineage transmissions of Chod. In general, although there is agreement that Chod has been adopted by various Tibetan schools, many scholars represent Chod as a unitary and unified tradition, without concern for how, when and to whom Chod was transmitted, nor for
the temporal and practical differences between the transmissions. The role of interpretation in the transmission of Chod has thereby been obscured. In this chapter, I consider a range of presentations of transmission lineages in terms of chronology and institutional affiliations. These documents help us to identify key figures and to trace lineages and traditions in the development and transmission of Buddhism in Tibet. This survey will help to undergird further analyses of the “movement” of Chod and the stakes for legitimation of the tradition. Ultimately, this study will pave the way for future analysis of shifts in doxa and praxis depending on the author and his institutional affiliations during the period of composition.
I begin here with a brief overview of precursor texts and Chod transmission lineages. Next, I survey a number of chos ‘byung (Dharma histories) and rnam thar (spiritual biographies) to outline key issues in legitimating and renewing the tradition. I then examine three texts central to considering Chod lineages: The Great Explanation rnam thar, which appears to be the earliest extant text (ca. 14th century with possible inclusion of earlier elements)
discussing transmission lineages of Chod; The Blue Annals, a highly-regarded 15th-century chos ‘byung text discussing a wide range of figures and teachings, including Machik Labdron and Chod transmissions; and the lineage list contained in another 15th-century text, the Ring brgyud gsol ‘debs, which is important to my project since it explicitly contextualizes the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje within a Chod transmission lineage. These texts chart key developments in the transmission of Chod teachings. The chapter concludes with my own provisional genealogy of key figures in the development of Chod up to Rangjung Dorje.
CHOD PRECURSORS
While in the next chapter I will be considering how elements of Buddhist philosophy were incorporated into Chod teachings, here I will evaluate how a range of texts associated the development of Chod with extant Buddhist traditions. For Machik and later Buddhist Chod teachers, it was crucial to situate Chod in relation to established Buddhist teachings. Tibetan authors have identified a variety of different teachings as precursors to the Chod teachings of Machik. In his The Blue Annals, Go Lotsawa Zhonnupel cites Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa (V.34) as a fifth century Indic source for Chod: “Mental afflictions are
generated from holding on to tendencies (phra rgyas), from the presence of external objects, and from inappropriate mental activities.” (2003, 1139-62; 1976, 980-99). Go Lotsawa Zhonnupel's commentary then links the Abhidharmakosa to the system of Chod: “What should be cut are emotional reactions. If these emotional reactions are generated from tendencies, and objects, and mental fabrications of inappropriate mental activities, when the yogin has contact with an object, karmic propensities (bag chags) are taken on. It is called ‘gcod yul' because one precisely cuts through the emotional reactions preceded by the
mental fabrication of inappropriate mental activities and objects.” In The Blue Annals, and in Thu'u bkwan's grub mtha', the authors point to the Hevajratantra as influencing Chod's concern about place. Go Lotsawa Zhonnupel maintains that Chod praxis conforms to Tantra because it conforms to the Hevajratantra. He cites three passages from the Hevajratantra which resonate with three fundamental principles of Chod: “Good meditation is [practiced] at
first [near] a solitary tree, in a charnel ground, at the household of the Terrible mothers, at night, and then ultimately at a remote place” (V1.6); “having generously given one's body, after that one can correctly perform the practice” (VI.19), and “truly whatever asura is before one, even if it comes like Indra, moving with a lion's form one is not afraid of it” (VI.25). These three themes in the Hevajratantra— appropriate space for practice, the offering of one's body, and the development of fearlessness— are elemental in Chod.
Karma chags med, in his 17th century text, Gcod kyi gdengs bshad nyung nyur bsdus pa bzhugs pa'i dbu phyogs, identifies four different Indic sources of Chod, which might be considered lineage, or perhaps proto-lineage, sources. These are Aryadeva the Brahmin's The Great Poem; Naropa's Ro snyoms; Orgyan's ‘Khrul Gcod; and Padampa Sangye's Zhije. Jamgon Kongtrul (1813-1899) has a similar list in his Treasury of Knowledge, differing only in the substitution of an unknown lineage or text referred to as the Bka' brgyud don gcod for Aryadeva's The Great Poem. However, Kongtrul is not consistent in which texts he
includes as relevant precursors to the Chod system. For example, he does not include the Bka' brgyud don gcod in his collection of Chod texts in the Treasury of Instructions, but he does include Aryadeva's The Great Poem. In his Treasury of Instructions, he lists the following texts as Chod “gzhung rtsa ba,” that is, root texts for the tradition of Chod: The Great Poem by Aryadeva, translated by Padampa Sangye and revised by Zhwa ma Lo tswa ba; The Great Speech Chapter by Machik Labdron; Shes rab kyi pha rol ty phyin pa gcod kyi gzhung dang man ngag mtha' dag gi yang bcud zab don thugs kyi snying po; Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag gcod yul gyi gzhung ‘grel zag med sbrang rtsi, by Drung pa Ru pa; A Commentary on The Great Speech Chapter by Rangjung Dorje; Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag gcod kyi gzhung shes rab skra rtse'i sa gzhung spel ba rin po che'i gter mdzod; and The
Supplementary Chapter of oral instructions of the Prajhaparamita. In his Zhije and Chod History, Dharmasengge, a near contemporary with Jamgon Kongtrul, mentions teachings by others which bear similarities to Machik's Chod teachings: the Khrul gcod gter ma cycles of Orgyan Rinpoche (n.d.); the pure visions received by Thang stong rgyal po (1361-1485); a Chod teaching on offering the aggregates articulated by Rgod tshang pa mgon po rdo rje (1189-1258);59
and the Ro snyoms teachings by Naropa (70a). In this same passage, Dharmasengge situates Rangjung Dorje as an important inheritor of Chod, explaining that he is responsible for having clarified previous erroneous ideas about Chod. In subsequent sections of this chapter and in chapter six, I explain why Rangjung Dorje is a pivotal figure in the development of the Chod tradition.
It appears that there were teachings in circulation explicitly using the trope of “Chod” as a technical term in practice from at least the time of Padampa Sangye's maternal uncle, Aryadeva the Brahmin, and his verse teaching entitled The Great Poem on the Prajnaparamita. This text is frequently associated with Chod by later authors, including Karma chags med and Jamgon Kongtrul, as a precursor to Machik's Chod teachings, or as a (or even the) “root text” for Chod. This piece of philosophical prose was transmitted to Tibet by Aryadeva's nephew, Padampa Sangye, who traversed the area giving his teachings on
Zhije. The recitation of this text to Machik by Padampa Sangye may have been the transmission of the teaching that became the basis of the Chod tradition. Padampa Sangye is famous for his development of the Zhije teachings, which are sometimes discussed in complement with Chod, whereas Machik is always spoken of as the female teacher of Chod. Both Zhije and Chod teachings are associated with Prajnaparamita teachings, with Zhije emphasizing practices which
pacify suffering and negativities, while Chod emphasizes cutting through the root of mind as a means for eradicating clinging. An abiding question in the study of Tibetan Buddhist Chod is the historical connection between Padampa Sangye and Machik Labdron. Not all Chod transmission lineages acknowledge either or both of these figures, although it is commonplace to posit that Machik Labdron received teachings known as “Chod” from Padampa Sangye. Some scholars have contested the historicity of this transmission. For example, Janet Gyatso argues that, although it is “summarily stated
that [[[Padampa Sangye]]] transmitted Gcod to the Tibetan yogini Ma-gcig Lab-sgron, [. . . ] in fact the histories of Gcod do not really support this.” Some sources present Padampa Sangye as the “founder” of the Chod teachings, with Machik as the authoritative source of “female Chod.” It is likely that Padampa Sangye and Machik met, and it would not be surprising if Machik had received Zhije teachings from Padampa Sangye, given that these are the teachings for which he is renowned. It is also possible that Kyoton Sonam Lama (ca. 11th c.) received teachings on Chod from Padampa Sangye and that it was he who then
directly transmitted these teachings to Machik. However, it is important to note that Machik does not mention Zhije teachings in texts that are attributed to her. Although the historical origins of the Chod teachings are difficult to establish, the traditional perspective remains that there was an early connection between Padampa Sangye's Zhije teachings and the Chod tradition, and that Machik was a spiritual heir to Padampa Sangye, as well as a genetrix in her own right. There is no satisfactory evidence that there was a Buddhist Chod lineage of transmissions identified as such until Machik started to describe and categorize her own teachings.
According to Dharmasengge's chos ‘byung text, Padampa Sangye and Machik met in Dingri. Though in this text Padampa Sangye does not transmit any teaching to Machik, following her meeting with him, she studies the Pahcavimsatisahasrikaprajhaparamita and liberates her mind through cutting. Once she has achieved this accomplishment, Machik teaches her doctrine of the “five that destroy partiality” (phyogs ris ‘jig pa lnga)—a method for destroying
partiality toward certain foods, certain attire, certain domains, certain companions and one's homeland. It is noted that her teachings were considered in accordance with the Buddha's words. In contrast, the Rnam thar within the Rnams bshad chen mo and the Byin rlabs gter mtsho (discussed further below) not only state that Machik and Padampa Sangye met, but also list teachings that Machik received from Padampa Sangye. Indeed, the Rnam thar texts emphasize that Chod is a Tibetan teaching originating with Machik. They also claim that Chod is notable in its authenticity as a Buddhist teaching and authority as the
only teaching that originated in Tibet and was transmitted to India. Several scholars have noted that this connection between Padampa Sangye and Machik functions to legitimate Chod through both an Indian and a male lineage; as I noted in the previous chapter, there were many limitations on women teachers in Tibet. Sarah Harding notes that while Machik represents an “exception” to social limitations on women, her story also depicts the restrictions she faced
within a Buddhist culture. Harding reads what she refers to as Machik's “‘demonstration' of renunciation” as a “reflection of the prevailing attitude that one must renounce home life and children (and women themselves) as the cause of bondage” (2003, 32). In Harding's view, the legacies of Machik and Chod have persisted because “this very system, the amazing Chod, and its undeniable uniqueness and efficacy” joins “the ultimate feminine principle with the
life of an actual woman” (2003, 33). Though this explanation is attractive as a feminist interpretation of the tradition, it takes little account of the historical transmission of Chod. While Harding previously acknowledges that texts such as The Great Explanation have been “retold and revised over centuries by the many men in her lineage” (2003, 33), she perpetuates the opinion that Chod is an ahistoric and uniform phenomenon. In contrast, I believe
that attention to the ways in which the history of Chod has been constructed, retold and revised, and perhaps even appropriated, will contribute to a deeper and more complex appreciation of this system of Buddhist praxis.
