Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies Issue 7 — August 2013 ISSN 1550-6363 An online journal published by the Tibetan and Himalayan Library (THL) www.jiats.org Editor-in-Chief: David Germano Guest Editor: Karl Debreczeny Book Review Editor: Bryan J. Cuevas Managing Editor: Steven Weinberger Assistant Editors: Naomi Worth, Ben Nourse, and William McGrath Technical Director: Nathaniel Grove Contents Articles • Si tu paṇ chen chos kyi ’byung gnas in History: A Brief Note (pp. 1-16) – Elliot Sperling • Si tu paṇ chen and the House of Sde dge: A Demanding but Beneicial Relationship (pp. 17-48) – Rémi Chaix • The Proliic Preceptor: Si tu paṇ chen’s Career as Ordination Master in Khams and Its Effect on Sectarian Relations in Sde dge (pp. 49-85) – Jann Ronis • Purity in the Pudding and Seclusion in the Forest: Si tu paṇ chen, Monastic Ideals, and the Buddha’s Biographies (pp. 86-124) – Nancy G. Lin • Si tu paṇ chen and His Painting Style: A Retrospective (pp. 125-192) – Tashi Tsering • Si tu paṇ chen’s Artistic Legacy in ’Jang (pp. 193-276) – Karl Debreczeny • Mercury, Mad Dogs, and Smallpox: Medicine in the Si tu paṇ chen Tradition (pp. 277-301) – Frances Garrett • Si tu paṇ chen on Scholarship (pp. 302-315) – Kurtis R. Schaeffer • Notes Apropos to the Oeuvre of Si tu paṇ chen Chos kyi ’byung gnas (1699?-1774) (4): A Tibetan Sanskritist in Nepal (pp. 316-339) (forthcoming) – Peter Verhagen ii Other Articles • Arriving Ahead of Time: The Ma ’das sprul sku and Issues of Sprul sku Personhood (pp. 340-364) – Marcia S. Calkowski • The Signiicant Leap from Writing to Print: Editorial Modiication in the First Printed Edition of the Collected Works of Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen (pp. 365-425) – Ulrich Timme Kragh • In the Hidden Valley of the White Conch: The Inscription of a Bhutanese Pure Land (pp. 426-453) – Bryan Phillips and Lopen Ugyen Gyurme Tendzin Book Reviews • Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and Its Commentary, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer (pp. 454-464) – Giacomella Oroino Abstracts (pp. 465-469) Contributors to this Issue (pp. 470-473) iii Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and Its Commentary, - - by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer Giacomella Oroino University of Naples “L’Orientale” Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer. A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and Its Commentary. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012. 375 pp. €105.28. Textual criticism of pivotal literary productions, belonging to diverse lines of transmissions, is one of the most fascinating and intriguing tools western scholarship has devised to explore the intellectual and cultural history of speciic geographical areas, social groups, religious movements and institutions. To achieve such a complex endeavor various levels of knowledge must be involved. As Giorgio Pasquali (1885–1952), the greatest Italian classical philologist of the twentieth century, remarked in his best-known work History of the Tradition and Textual Criticism: It is not possible to reconstruct through comparison or evaluation of witnesses of the tradition, that is of recensio, the original text of a literary work that has been transmitted to us from Classical antiquity, without knowing the events that the literary work went through for centuries and centuries up to the extant witnesses. Those who aim at transforming a complex of logical, hence abstract, norms into a historical method of working, must not fear the particular; namely the wideness of that recension.1 1 Non può ricostruire per mezzo del confronto e della valutazione delle testimonianze della tradizione, dunque di recensio, il testo originale di un’opera letteraria tramandata a noi dall’antichità classica, se non chi conosce le vicende che quell’opera subì per secoli e secoli, ino ai testimoni conservati. Chi mira a trasformare un complesso di norme logiche e quindi astratte in un metodo di lavoro storico, non deve avere paura del particolare. Quindi l’ampiezza di quella recensione. In Giorgio Pasquali, Storia della Tradizione e Critica del Testo (Firenze: Le Monnier, 1952), ix. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013): 454-464. http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5759. 1550-6363/2013/7/T5759. © 2013 by Giacomella Oroino, Tibetan and Himalayan Library, and International Association of Tibetan Studies. Distributed under the THL Digital Text License. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013) 455 Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer have shown no such fear undertaking a critical edition of a well-known Mahāyoga root tantra of the Rnying ma pa school, A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis (’Phags pa thabs kyi zhags pa padma ’phreng gi don bsdus pa, henceforth Noble Noose of Methods [Thabs zhags]; the authors refer to this as TZ), together with its own commentary and have thus contributed in shedding light on one of the most obscure periods of Tibetan religious history and, more generally, on the way of development of Buddhism literature in Asia during the Middle Ages. In their work, the authors have analyzed twenty-one different versions of the root tantra which has been transmitted in all known editions of the Rnying ma rgyud ’bum, in the editions of the Tshal pa branch of the Bka’ ’gyur that includes a Rnying rgyud section, and in the three independent local manuscript Bka’ ’gyur collections of Bathang, Hemis, and Tawang. In addition, they have examined its word-by-word commentary, the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis” (’Phags pa thabs kyi zhags pa padma ’phreng gi don bsdus pa’i ’grel pa, henceforth Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” [Thabs zhags ’grel pa]; the authors refer to this as TZComm), which is preserved in a precious manuscript version of eighty-ive folios, among the Dunhuang documents held in the British Library (IOL Tib 321), and also in a printed version, included in the Peking, Golden, and Narthang editions of the Bstan ’gyur. In their introduction Cantwell and Mayer have accurately introduced the textual sources they have collated in order to produce the critical editions, offering a summary of the content of the texts and proposing an outline of their history in the context of the early Tibetan assimilation of Buddhism, during the so-called time of the fragments, from the mid-ninth century to the end of the tenth century, a period of culturally creative ferments and changes in Tibet. The Noble Noose of Methods is a very important tantra in the Rnying ma pa tradition and in its doxographical system it is catalogued as one of the Eighteen Tantras of Mahāyoga. It presents some features belonging to the Indian Tantric literature represented by texts such as the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākiṇījālaśaṃvara, whose most probable dating, according to recent studies, goes between the eighth to the end of the ninth century. On the other end, both the Noble Noose of Methods and the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” show undeniable parallels with the theory of sameness of all dharmas of the Rgyud gsang ba’i snying po (Guhyagarbhatantra), the root text of the Mahāyoga tantras.2 This theory has been devised by some contemporary scholars as one of the philosophical roots of Rdzogs chen mysticism. Furthermore the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” 2 On the question of the authenticity of this text, I still ind quite interesting the observations Dan Martin made in 1987 in his “Illusion Web: Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual History,” in Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, ed. C. I. Beckwith (Bloomington: The Tibet Society, 1987), 175-220. See also Dorji Wangchuk, “An Eleventh-Century Defence of the Authenticity of the Guhyagarbha Tantra,” in Helmut Eimer and David Germano, ed., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the IATS, 2000, vol. 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 265-291. Oroino: Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer 456 anticipates some elements found in the Phyogs bcu’i mun sel, Klong chen pa’s fourteenth-century commentary to the Rgyud gsang ba’i snying po, showing that the philosophical interpretation of the tantra, which conveys the interiorization of the practice of Mahāyoga and which became so widespread in later Rnying ma pa outlook, was already current one-hundred years before Klong chen pa. In their analysis Cantwell and Mayer suggest that the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” is very probably a Tibetan composition, while they consider uncertain the provenance of the Noble Noose of Methods itself. There are not striking evidences of an Indian origin of this tantra, although in the inal colophon of the Bhutanese and the South central Rnying ma rgyud ’bum editions, Vimalamitra and Gnyags Jñānakumāra, the famous exponents of the early diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet, are indicated as the translators of the text from Sanskrit. However the two scholars observe that this colophon, which is not found in the other witnesses of the Noble Noose of Methods, might be a later addition. While the Noble Noose of Methods was accepted as an authentic original Rnying ma pa scripture by Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) and Chos rgyal ’phags pa (1235-1280), Bu ston (1290-1364) didn’t accept it as an authentic original translation from Sanskrit and did not include it in the Bka’ ’gyur, thus it is not included in the Them spangs ma branch of the Bka’ ’gyur. The Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” has no proper colophon, although at the end of the text there is a four-line verse eulogy to Padma rgyal po. Cantwell and Mayer have found remarkable parallels between this eulogy and the verses of praise to Padmasambhava found in the Zangs gling ma, the twelfth-century hagiography of Guru Padmasambhava by Nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer and, as a consequence, have concluded that the Padma rgyal po of the inal verses of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” cannot be identiied with the eighth-century historical igure of Padmasambhava; he might rather correspond to the mythologized tantric master of the later period. This can also be conirmed by the fact that it is not possible to observe remarkable similarities between the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” and the Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba, the famous early work attributed to the historical Padmasambhava. Moreover in the Dunhuang manuscript of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” there are some anonymous interlinear annotations, in small handwriting, that represent a valuable source of information, although their meaning is not utterly clear. In these notes mention is made to Padmasambhava and to Śāntigarbha. In early Tibetan sources Śāntigarbha is frequently associated with the Yogatantra system while in later Rnying ma pa literature he is celebrated as one of the Eight Indian vidyādharas, who are venerated as important founders of the Mahāyoga tradition. It is interesting to note, by the way, that other prominent Mahāyoga igures such as Mañjuśrīmitra, Prabahasti, Vimalamitra, and Hūṃkara appear in various Dunhuang tantric documents. Thus we can say that the study of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” manuscript conirms the presence of Mahāyoga exponents at Dunhuang from the middle of the ninth century, to the Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013) 457 closure of the cave at the beginning of the eleventh century.3 Furthermore, Cantwell and Mayer have pointed out that, although the Noble Noose of Methods tantra did not have much diffusion in the later Rnying ma pa tradition, it is possible to ind quotations from the Noble Noose of Methods and the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” in the works of very early authors such as Gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes (ninth/tenth century), Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (eleventh/twelfth century), and Klong chen pa (fourteenth century). These early citations highlight the importance that the Noble Noose of Methods tantra and the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” had in the construction of the later Rnying ma pa philosophical system. After having analyzed the extant witnesses, the authors have individuated ive branches of transmission of the Noble Noose of Methods: four of them that derive from a possible archetype of a stand-alone text and a ifth one, that apparently originates from an old version of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” which contained the complete text of the Noble Noose of Methods tantra as lemmata. The four branches of the stand-alone versions of the Noble Noose of Methods are transmitted in: 1. the independent manuscript Bka’ ’gyur Collection of Bathang, held in the Newark Museum (New Jersey) which recent studies, although not conirming a speciic date, tend to consider a very antique independent tradition, even possibly preceding the fourteenth-century’s Tshal pa bka’ ’gyur xylograph edition. 2. the independent Bka’ ’gyur Collection of Hemis Tshoms lha khang, probably from the early seventeenth century. 3. the independent Bka’ ’gyur Collection from Tawang, originally from the Orgyan Ling Temple which dates back to the end of the seventeenth century. 4. the South central Tibetan Rnying ma rgyud ’bum collections of Gting skyes, Rig ’dzin tshe dbang nor bu and Kathmandu, probably dating from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 5. The ifth branch presents four extant lines. Two lines derive from versions of the Noble Noose of Methods that had been extracted, at different times, from the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” to reproduce the stand-alone root text. These lines are transmitted in: a. seven Bka’ ’gyur printed editions belonging to the Tshal pa line: Peking, Narthang, Lithang, Sde dge, Lhasa, Urga, and Ulan Bator, as well as the Sde dge Rnying ma rgyud ’bum which coincides with the text preserved in the Sde dge bka’ ’gyur. b. the Bhutanese manuscript collections of the Rnying ma rgyud ’bum of Sgang steng-a, Sgang steng-b, Dgra med rtse and 3 For a very interesting outline of the Mahāyoga system see Sam van Schaik, “A Deinition of Mahāyoga. Source from the Dunhuang Manuscript,” Tantric Studies 1 (2008): 45-88. Oroino: Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer 458 Mtshams brag, presumably deriving from a Rnying ma rgyud ’bum collection that was prepared at Sgang steng Monastery in the seventeenth century. The other two lines are represented by the two extant witnesses of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” which preserve the complete Noble Noose of Methods text as lemmata. They are transmitted in: c. the Dunhuang manuscript of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods.” d. the Bstan ’gyur versions of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” as preserved in Peking, Golden, and Narthang Bstan ’gyur. As a result of their textual analysis Cantwell and Mayer have proposed (42) a stemma of the root text. One should notice, though, that rather than constructing a stemma codicum in a strict Lachmanian sense, the two scholars have outlined a complex diagram of the possible transmissions of the Noble Noose of Methods, displaying the relationship between them. In this diagram the length of the lines of descent has no signiicance from a historical point of view. Quite surprisingly, the Dunhuang manuscript version appears to derive from two intermediate sources, or hypearchetypes, b and c. Cantwell and Mayer in fact have noticed, on the basis of internal evidence, that the Dunhuang text, notwithstanding its antiquity, shares many indicative errors, including a major lacuna, with the much later Tshal pa bka’ ’gyur editions and the Bhutanese Rnying ma rgyud ’bum versions that are not shared with any other version of the Noble Noose of Methods. It looks like that this lacuna is not reproduced in the Bstan ’gyur witnesses. As a matter of fact, the Bstan ’gyur also omits it, but only because it falls within the Bstan ’gyur’s loss from chapter 6 until the inal section of chapter 10. When the Bstan ’gyur restarts with the text near the end of chapter 10, it gives few lines from the passage in question, showing that it did not share the same ancestor of Dunhuang. Hence the authors’ conjecture that the Bstan ’gyur text, although many centuries later, descends from a single hypearchetype (b). Unfortunately, one should notice that the severely truncated form of the Bstan ’gyur versions sets limitations to a clear-cut examinatio. Moreover, one should remark that from the diagram Cantwell and Mayer have sketched out, it emerges that the original stand-alone Noble Noose of Methods tantra version is preserved in three manuscript Bka’ ’gyurs and one Rnying ma rgyud ’bum collection which belong to distant geographical areas on the western, eastern, southern, and south-eastern margins of the Tibetan cultural sphere, separated by vast distances but preserving the same readings. This phenomenon reminds one of similar cases already observed, above all, in biblical textual criticism where geographically diverse manuscripts have demonstrated to preserve the best readings and where the more remote readings were frequently the oldest ones. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013) 459 In listing the criteria used in the edition of the Noble Noose of Methods tantra, the authors have tried to fulill several objectives and cover a broad agenda. The chapter on the methodological issues explores different methods from the rigorous philological tools of stemmatics to the modern anthropological approach that takes into consideration the distributive nature of knowledge which, in a way, appears to Cantwell and Mayer quite suitable to the study of the Rnying ma pa textual tradition’s luidity. The authors assert that their aim is (25) “preserving and combining these two perspectives, accepting and even celebrating the ongoing permutations of these texts, but still inding values in stemmatic techniques as a way of recovering both their original archetypes and also signiicant moment in their history.” Given such premises, one might wonder whether this ambivalent approach might not cause some confusion in establishing the critical text. One of the authors’ aims has been to restore the archetypal version of the tantra, that is to establish the readings of the most proximate common ancestor of all extant versions. At the same time they have tried to produce an edition accessible to modern readership and also legible for Tibetan readers. This double goal, although commendable, is not devoid of problems from a formal, methodological point of view. On page 99 they write: To render our edition adequately accessible to a modern readership, we have not presented the TZ archetype’s archaic and non-standard orthography in the main body of its text, especially where we are quite certain of the underlying intended word; nevertheless, all such archaism and non-standard spellings are carefully recorded in the apparatus in italics. By contrast, in those cases where an archaism or non-standard spelling is dificult to analyze or remain ambiguous, we retain it within the main body of the edition. Such a choice is, in my opinion, controversial, and brings us to the more general problem of the (so far) scarcity of scientiic research into the developmental phases of Old and Classical Tibetan orthography.4 In any case, where the decision has been made to restore the archetypal version of a text, one might question how consistent is the decision of standardizing archaic and non standard orthography in some cases, while leaving them unchanged in the main body of the edition in other instances, where the archaisms and non standard orthography are dificult to analyze. Besides, Cantwell and Mayer have used Tibetan script both for the main Noble Noose of Methods text and the variants given in the critical apparatus. In the apparatus of the irst chapter of the Noble Noose of Methods tantra they have represented all the twenty-one witnesses in full, for illustrative purposes, while in the following chapters they have presented illustrative samples from each witness of the eight lines of transmission of the text. This procedure is redundant in a way 4 On the question of the lack of academic research on Old Tibetan and for an updated a bibliography see Nathan W. Hill, “An Overview of Old Tibetan Syncronic Phonology,” Transaction of the Philological Society 108.2 (2010): 110-125; cfr. also Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997). Oroino: Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer 460 and gives a patchy appearance to the textual analysis, although it might prove useful in this case, considering the fact that Tibetan Buddhist textual criticism is in its initial phase and the choice of showing in details the method used for the eliminatio codicum descriptorum, might be instructive. As regards the critical edition of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods,” Cantwell and Mayer had only two versions of the commentary at their disposal. These have been transmitted, as seen above: 1. in the Dunhuang manuscript, which can be traced back to a time span that goes from the Imperial period to the eleventh century. 2. in three Bstan ’gyur editions: the Peking xylograph edition, which was prepared in 1724, the Golden manuscript Tengyur from Central Tibet (1731-1741), and the Western Tibetan Narthang xylograph edition of 1741-1742. These three eighteenth-century collections preserve a truncated version of the commentary that derive from a single ancestor, as evidenced by the numerous shared indicative errors and the broad common lacunae: from the middle of chapter six until the last lines of chapter ten; and from the middle of chapter thirteen until the end of chapter seventeen, which altogether represent 30 per cent of the total text. Collating witnesses that have a gap of more than seven hundred years between them is, again, not without controversial aspects from a methodological point of view. In fact, in the major part of the cases the authors have adopted the Dunhuang manuscript as the base text, producing a diplomatic edition of this extremely important and valuable codex, which, in a way, can be considered as the codex unicus of the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods.” In this section, the authors, unlike the procedure used for the edition of the Noble Noose of Methods, have used transliteration in Roman script both for the edition and the critical apparatus. Furthermore they have represented in small italic print the numerous marginal annotations in small writings contained in the manuscript, indicating in grey highlighting the words that were highlighted in yellowish wash in the Tibetan manuscript. In the apparatus they have presented the variant readings of the Golden Tengyur version, limiting the Peking and Narthang readings to some instances. Where necessary, they have also collated the Tshal pa bka’ ’gyur and the Bhutanese version of the Noble Noose of Methods tantra which incorporated extensive passages from the Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” within their redaction of the root text. Moreover in those cases where parts of the text had been lost to the Dunhuang manuscript, Cantwell and Mayer, not rejecting the eclectic approach, have made recourse to the Bstan ’gyur edition’s versions and to the Tshal ba and Bhutanese texts. As mentioned above, such a variance between different methodological procedures might be questionable. In this case the great linguistic lack of homogeneity between the two lines of witnesses, and their great historical distance, makes the authors’ choice of reconstructing the overall shape of the text, even more problematic. Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013) 461 Cantwell and Mayer nevertheless have undertaken a very complex and important work that has the great merit of being a pioneering study. The book, though, does betray a kind of anxiety about clariication that has led to various repetitions of some concepts in the introductive chapters, much of which could perhaps have beneited from more rigorous editing to keep the authorial fervor under control. In any case it is a dense, important work that offers valuable sources of information on the development of the Rnying ma pa tradition and shows the great signiicance of the Dunhuang manuscripts in the study of the phases of diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet. The volume has an accompanying CD with the reproduction of the beautiful and precious Dunhuang codex that enables readers to swiftly consult it making the whole more rich and interesting. Oroino: Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer 462 Glossary Note: The glossary is organized into sections according to the main language of each entry. The irst section contains Tibetan words organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. Columns of information for all entries are listed in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliteration of the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, the Sanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolian or Latin, associated dates, and the type of term. Ka Wylie Phonetics klong chen pa Longchenpa bka’ ’gyur Kangyur English Other Dates Type 1308-1363 Person Title collection Ga Wylie Phonetics English Other grags pa rgyal mtshan Drakpa Gyeltsen Dates Type 1147-1216 Person dgra med rtse Drametsé Textual Group sgang steng Gangteng Textual Group Cha Wylie Phonetics English Other chos rgyal ’phags pa Chögyel Pakpa Dates Type 1235-1280 Person Nya Wylie Phonetics English Other nyang ral nyi ma ’od Nyangrel Nyima Özer zer Dates Type 1136-1204 Person gnyags Nyak Clan rnying rgyud Nyinggyü Doxographical Category rnying ma rgyud ’bum Nyingma Gyübum Title collection rnying ma pa Organization Nyingmapa Ta Wylie Phonetics gting skyes Tingkyé English Other Dates Type Place bstan ’gyur Tengyur Title collection Tha Wylie Phonetics English thabs zhags Tapzhak Noble Noose of Methods Other Dates Type Text thabs zhags ’grel pa Tapzhak Drelpa Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods” Text them spangs ma Tempangma Name generic Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 7 (August 2013) 463 Da Wylie Phonetics sde dge Dergé English Other Dates Type Place sde dge bka’ ’gyur Dergé Kangyur Title collection brda dkrol gser gyi me long Datröl Sergyi Melong Text Na Wylie Phonetics gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes Nupchen Sanggyé Yeshé English Other Dates Type ninth/tenth Author century Pa Wylie Phonetics padma rgyal po Pema Gyelpo English Other Dates Type Person Pha Wylie Phonetics ’phags pa Pakpa Tapkyi Zhakpa thabs kyi zhags pa Pema Trenggi padma ’phreng gi don Döndüpé Drelpa bsdus pa’i ’grel pa English Other Dates Commentary on “A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis” Type Text phyogs bcu’i mun sel Chokchü Münsel Text ’phags pa thabs kyi Pakpa Tapkyi Zhakpa A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus zhags pa padma Pema Trenggi Garland Synopsis ’phreng gi don bsdus Döndüpa pa Text Ba Wylie Phonetics bu ston Butön English Other Dates Type 1290-1364 Author Ma Wylie Phonetics man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba Menngak Tawé Trengwa English Other Dates Type Text mi rigs dpe skrun khang Mirik Petrünkang Publisher Tsa Wylie Phonetics English Other Dates btsan lha ngag dbang Tsenlha Ngawang Tsültrim tshul khrims Type Author Tsha Wylie Phonetics tshal pa Tselpa English Other Dates Type Organization tshal pa bka’ ’gyur Tselpa Kangyur Title collection tshal ba Tselpa Place tshoms lha khang Tsom Lhakhang Place mtshams brag Tsamdrak Textual Group Oroino: Review of A Noble Noose of Methods, by Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer 464 Dza Wylie Phonetics rdzogs chen Dzokchen English Other Dates Type Doxographical Category Za Wylie Phonetics zangs gling ma Zanglingma English Other Dates Type Text Ra Wylie Phonetics rig ’dzin tshe dbang nor bu Rindzin Tsewang Norbu rong zom chos kyi bzang po Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo English Other Dates Type Textual Group eleventh Person to twelfth century Sanskrit Wylie Phonetics rgyud gsang ba’i snying po Gyü Sangwé Nyingpo English Sanskrit Dates Type Guhyagarbhatantra Text Hūṃkara Person Jñānakumāra Person Mahāyoga Doxographical Category Mañjuśrīmitra Person Padmasambhava Person Prabahasti Person Śāntigarbha Person Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākiṇījālaśaṃvara Text vidyādhara Term Vimalamitra Person Yogatantra Doxographical Category