Studies in Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s
Pramāṇavārttika Commentary of ?1297
Part One: Preliminary Observations and the Import of its Title
Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp
ABSTRACT
Hitherto little known, Btsun pa Ston gzhon was a thirteenth and early fourteenth
century scholar who was active in, among other places, Sa skya monastery, the Yuan
capital of Dadu (present-day Beijing), and in his monastery of Gnyan phu in Tshes
spongs. He apparently wrote two studies on Buddhist logic and epistemology of
which so far only his exegesis of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika has become available.
In this article, I begin a study of the latter work, which, even if it appears to have
remained largely unknown to later Tibetan intellectual circles, offers very important
insights into Tibetan Dharmakīrti studies of the thirteenth century, the vehement
disagreements he had with 'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge (13th c.), his senior fellow Sa
skya pa intellectual and the first Tibetan Pramāṇavārttika commentator, and how attempts continued to be made in finetuning Sa skya Paṇḍita's Pramāṇavārttika translation.
PREAMBLE
T
1
he existence of what appears to be a rare if not a unique
manuscript of a commentary on Dharmakīrti's (ca. 550 or ca.
600-60)1 versified Pramāṇavārttika by the elusive and largely
The approximate dates of the Indian Buddhist philosophers whose focus was
logic and epistemology (pramāṇa) are taken from E. Steinkellner's and M.T.
Much's very useful Texte der erkenntnistheoretischen Schule des Buddhismus, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, PhilologischHistorische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 214 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1995). This valuable resource is continued on-line at http://east.uni-hd.de/. In
this connection, we should also mention the rewarding essays on the transmission of the Sanskrit and Tibetan text[s] of the Pramāṇavārttika in E. Franco, "The
Tibetan Translations of the Pramāṇavārttika and the Development of Translation
Methods from Sanskrit to Tibetan," Tibetan Studies, vol. 1, ed. H. Krasser et al.
(Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 277288, and especially B. Kellner, "Towards a Critical Edition of Dharmakīrti's
Pramāṇavārttika," Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 52-3 (2009-10), 161-211.
For the recent argument for the period of ca. 550 for Dharmakīrti's activities, see
Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Studies in Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary of
?1297 — Part One: Preliminary Observations and the Import of its Title”, Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines, no. 30, Octobre 2014, pp. 111-198.
112
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
forgotten Btsun pa Ston gzhon — btsun pa is of course an honorific
word for "man of the cloth, monk" — was first signaled, so it would
appear, in the handy catalog of translated Indian Buddhist works on
logic and epistemology (pramāṇa) and indigenous Tibetan works on
the same (tshad ma) that Sun Wenjing and Huang Mingxin compiled
now some twenty-five years ago.2 It is a matter of good fortune that
this work now lies before us in printed form from the experienced
editorial pen of the same Sun Wenjing, making it the second thirteenth century Tibetan Pramāṇavārttika exegesis that is now available
to those whose intellectual curiosity on occasion compels them to
venture into the arcanae of tshad ma.3 In an ideal world, unique manuscripts of this kind would be made available in a facsimile edition
or, perhaps better and cheaper, they would be scanned and then
posted on the Internet. But for better or for worse, we did not live in
an ideal world when, fortunately, I was able to acquire a microfilm
copy of the original manuscript in 1993. This placed me in the happy
position to be able to consult it along side the printed edition; it also
allowed me to provide more details about it than Sun considered useful or necessary. Even more fortunately, modern technology has prevailed in the meantime, and the microfilm has been scanned and is
now available for consultation in reasonably legible form on the web
2
3
H. Krasser, "Bhāviveka, Dharmakīrti and Kumārila," Devadattīyam. Johannes
Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume, ed. F. Voegeli et al. (Bern: Peter Lang, 2012), 587.
See their "Zangwen yinming shumu," Yinming xintan, ed. Liu Peiyu et al. (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1989), 358.
Sun also edited an dbu med manuscript in 123 folios of one of Rngog Lo tsā ba Blo
ldan shes rab's (ca. 1059-1109) two studies of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya,
namely, his Tshad ma rnam par rnam nges pa'i dka' ba'i gnas rnam par bshad pa, ed.
Sun Wenjing (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1994). This
dbu med manuscript, which lacks the first folio, is listed under C.P.N. catalog no.
005153(1) – C.P.N. refers to the Nationalities Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, in Beijing; see also their "Guonei bufen dushuguan(shi)so zangwen
yinming shumu," Yinming xintan, ed. Liu Peiyu et al., 358. Another incomplete
dbu med manuscript of the same work in 132 folios, but one of greater interest in
view of the many glosses it contained, was cataloged under C.P.N. no. 005139(1).
As is indicated in Bod khul gyi chos sde grags can khag gi dpe rnying dkar chag, ed.
Ska ba Shes rab bzang po et al. (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010), 209, no.
00711, what appears to be the same manuscript — it also consists of 132 folios! —
is currently located in the Theg chen gling seminary of Se ra monastery. Another
manuscript of this work in 144 folios was recently published in Bka' gdams gsung
'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang
(Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
2006), 419-705, and again, this time in printed form, in Rngog Lo tsā ba blo ldan
shes rab kyi gsung chos skor, Bka' gdams dpe dkon gces btus, vol. 3, ed. Dpal
brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe
skrun khang, 2009), 53-359. The original manuscript was apparently incomplete;
fols. 133-144 [638-705] were taken from another manuscript of the same.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
113
at tbrc.org W26440. The manuscript's pagination with Arabic numerals in the upper left corner of every folio side is of course of recent
vintage and must have gone in tandem with the preparation of its
eventual publication by Sun.
While Sun's edition of Ston gzhon's work was published as long
ago as 1993, to my knowledge it has to date been by and large ignored in the secondary literature. Aside from my own use of it in an
earlier paper, T.J.F. Tillemans is the only one known to me who has
also referenced it.4 But this is really not that difficult to explain. In
spite of the great strides that have been made in recent years in our
understanding of the early development of Tibetan Buddhist tshad ma
and the accompanying enculturation of Indian Buddhist pramāṇa in
Tibet, especially through the recent stellar contributions by P. Hugon,5 it is still a rather little visited area of scholarship. However,
what is perhaps less easy to explain is the silence surrounding this
and Ston gzhon's other, earlier cognate work, on which see briefly
below, within the scholarly communities of the Sa skya pa school, let
alone those of the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. One could
suggest various hypotheses. For example, it may have been the case
that no one outside his immediate circle of intellectuals considered
his contributions to be landmark studies in the field. If so, they would
have quickly fallen out of use and become victims of the grindstone
of history. Or, to put it differently, while they may have indeed been
studied by a relatively small band of intellectuals, other cognate
tracts nonetheless quite rapidly superseded them and whatever
memory of them there was, dissolved into an unintentional forgetfulness. Perhaps the reason for it was a mere accident or a sheer
fluke. It is a truism that the paths taken by the fecund history of the
Tibetan commentarial literature on virtually every conceivable subject are littered with treatises that for one reason or another fell by the
wayside. They were taken from the monastic library's bookshelves
with decreasing frequency until they were consistently ignored and
then completely forgotten. Or, what seems even more likely, Ston
4
5
See, respectively, my "Remarks on the 'Person of Authority' in the Dga' ldan pa /
Dge lugs pa School of Tibetan Buddhism," Journal of the American Oriental Society
119 (1999), 646-72, and his Scripture, Logic, Language. Essays on Dharmakīrti and His
Tibetan Successors (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1999), 183, n. 5, and the similar
gloss on p. 270, n. 12.
See above all her hugely impressive Trésors du raisonnement. Sa skya Paṇḍita et ses
prédécesseurs tibétains sur les modes de fonctionnement de la pensée et le fondement de
l'inférence. Édition et traduction annotée du quatrième chapitre et d'une section du
dixième chapitre du Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, 2 vols., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie
und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 69, 1-2 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2008), and her other cognate publications
that can be gleaned from her CV that is available on-line
114
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
gzhon had not been able to attract a following of disciples and patrons that was sufficiently large to ensure a more widespread dissemination of his oeuvre. On the other hand, we should not discount the
possibility that the reason for the neglect of his work within Sa skya
pa circles should be sought in his repeated and severe critiques of
many of the interpretations offered by 'U yug pa Bsod nams seng ge
(ca. 1195-after 1267), alias Rigs pa'i seng ge. After all, 'U yug pa was
among the most senior disciples of Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal
mtshan (1182-1251), the founder of Sa skya pa tshad ma studies, and it
may very well be that Ston gzhon's hard-hitting critiques did not sit
well with the later Sa skya pa orthodoxy. But this argument has its
weaknesses. We know that 'U yug pa was the first Tibetan commentator of the Pramāṇavārttika and possibly also the very first to write a
commentary on the versified Rigs gter, which his master may have
completed in 1219 – the Rigs gter and its autocommentary marked the
beginning of the so-called Sa skya pa or Sa lugs tradition of Tibetan
tshad ma studies.6 But we are still a long way off in being able to explain the fact why neither 'U yug pa's nor Ston gzhon's treatises appear to have enjoyed much overt attention from such fourteenth century Sa skya pa Pramāṇavārttika commentators as Bla ma dam pa
Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-75) and Red mda' ba Gzhon nu blo
gros (1349-1413). It is of course quite possible that Bla ma dam pa and
Red mda' ba were content to let the Tibetan translation of the
Pramāṇavārttika speak for itself, with a minimum amount of hermeneutic interference from its Indian and Tibetan commentators. If true,
then they would appear to be following in the footsteps of the exegetical method Sa skya Paṇḍita himself had sought to employ in his Rigs
gter. To be sure, things are but a little different when we examine the
two surveys of tshad ma that Bla ma dam pa had written in 1342. He
only notes 'U yug pa a few times in these and he does not at all refer6
For some remarks on the Sa lugs, see my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology
and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its Place in
Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History," Journal of Indian Philosophy 31 (2003), passim,
and also Hugon, Trésors du raisonnement. Sa skya Paṇḍita et ses prédécesseurs
tibétains sur les modes de fonctionnement de la pensée et le fondement de l'inférence. Édition et traduction annotée du quatrième chapitre et d'une section du dixième chapitre du
Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, vol. 1, 95-130. 'U yug pa's Rigs gter commentary was recently published in RGR. For a survey of the Rigs gter commentaries that have
been published to date, exclusive of 'U yug pa's important work, see Hugon, vol.
2, 373-8. For a complete Chinese translation of the text of the 1736 Sde dge xylograph of this work, see the Liangli baozang lun, tr. Mingshing Fashi (Taibei:
Dongchu chubanshe, 1994). I should like to thank Dr. Gao Zezheng, Chengdu, for
kindly providing me with a copy of this work. An earlier Chinese translation by
Luo Zhao and edited by Huang Mingxin of the first eight chapters [of the same
Sde dge xylograph of the text] was published in Zhongguo luoji shi ziliao xuan, ed.
Lu Yu, et al. (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1991), 267-420.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
115
ence, at least not overtly, Ston gzhon.7 Several fifteenth and sixteenth
century Sa skya pa [and Dga' ldan pa] writers on the Pramāṇavārttika
do mention 'U yug pa,8 and Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub
(1456-1532) took issue with his Rigs gter commentary on several occasions in his own 1482 study of the text.9 Whatever the case may have
been, the causal complex, the hetusāmagrī, as the Indian Buddhist logicians would say, that led to the excavation, publication, and consequent rescue from oblivion of these writings of Ston gzhon and 'U
yug pa is a rather fortuitous one in that, as I especially hope to show
for the first in the pages that follow, these should be judged as significant achievements for a variety of reasons. In other words, my argument regarding their importance does not merely reside in the fact,
to paraphrase a well-worn phrase, "because they are there." Truth be
told, being "there" is hardly an adequate reason. Rather, these treatises are imporant tesserae in the expansive mosaic of the tshad ma tradition in Tibet even if, as is not impossible, the tradition regarded Ston
gzhon's contribution a far cry from being exemplary and that its silence on the matter was politic.
7
8
9
See Bsdus pa che ba rigs pa'i de nyid rnam par nges pa [or: Tshad ma mdo sde bdun 'grel
bshad dang bcas pa'i snying po rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rnam par nges pa] and Sde bdun
gyi snying po rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba [or: Sde bdun mdo 'grel pa 'grel
bshad dang bcas pa'i snying por gyur pa rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba], Collected Writings, vol. Da (Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1999), 673-930, 931-11378. What
also stands out in these texts is that Bla ma dam pa profusely cites from Jinendrabuddhi's (ca. 710-70) commentary on Dignāga's (ca. 480-540)
Pramāṇasamuccaya and Mokṣakaragupta's (ca. 1050-1200) Tarkabhāṣā. This probably has everything to do with the fact that he had studied these texts with their
translator Dpang Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa (1276-1342). Judging from the disproportionate large number of references, his primary, but by no means his only,
target of criticism in these is the positions taken earlier by Chu mig pa Seng ge
dpal (13thc.). I hope to return to this interesting and controversial thinker on another occasion.
See, for example, Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po (1385-1438) in MKHAS, vol.
Tha, 945 and vol. Da, 357 [=MKHAS [1], 300, 657], and Go rams pa Bsod nams seng
ge (1429-89), who, in his Pramāṇavārttika commentary of 1474, refers to a position
on the ontology of the universal that G.B.J. Dreyfus, Recognizing Reality. Dharmakīrti's Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1997), 190-1, quite rightly traced to 'U yug pa.
See, for example, his NYI, 16, 27-8, etc. [=NYI[1], 16, 27-8, etc.; NYI[2], 12, 18-9, etc.].
In spite of the different titles, these are three editions of the same work; see also
also J. Kramer, A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen
(1456-1532), Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 68
(Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien,
2008), 191-3. Interestingly, the Rigs gter studies of G.yag ston Sangs rgyas dpal
(1348-1414), Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449), Gser mdog Paṇ chen
Shākya mchog ldan (1428-1507), Go rams pa, Mus Rab 'byams pa Thugs rje dpal
bzang po (14th-15thc.), Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-96), and Mkhan
chen Ngag dbang chos grags (1572-1641) but rarely mention him.
116
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
The present essay, the first installment of my assessment of Ston
gzhon, his work, and the intellectual-historical context of both is divided into five sections. In the first of these [1], I briefly discuss the
relationship of the manuscript and the printed text. This sets the
stage for the next section [2] in which I survey the salient external features of those Tibetan studies of the Pramāṇavārttika that preceded
him and the one study with which he was assuredly quite familiar,
namely, 'U yug pa's commentary. The section that follows it [3] gives
an overview of the Sa skya [or Sa skya school affiliated] monasteries
where the Rigs gter and the Pramāṇavārttika were taught and the three
Rigs gter commentaries that were written by Sa skya Paṇḍita's disciples. Depending on obvious context, I will at times use Rigs gter to
denote both the verse text as well as the prose autocommentary. In
the next section [4], I examine the little that is reported about several
thirteenth century individuals who are also referred to as Ston gzhon
and include in my narrative the briefest of outlines of the life of
whom I believe to be our Ston gzhon. Owing to the restrictions
placed upon me by the paucity of relevant sources, the descriptive
picture that emerges of him is admittedly not very thick on details.
And in the last section [5], I consider the meaning and implication of
the title of his work and consider a few of its introductory verses. Different aspects of Ston gzhon's treatise and his commentarial practice
will be considered in the immediate sequel to this essay. These will
focus on his method of exegesis, discuss his sparing use of the Rigs
gter and in tandem with this indicate the deep problems that are associated with the transmission of the text of this work and that of its
autocommentary, and examine in some detail the recommendations
his teachers had made to him for making certain changes in the received Tibetan translation of several of the Pramāṇavārttika's verses.
1. The Manuscript of Ston gzhon's Pramāṇavārttika Exegesis
The manuscript of Ston gzhon’s work consists of one hundred and
ninety-one folios and is written in a rather exquisite cursive dbu med
script. The indigenous catalog number of the unknown monastic library in which it was originally deposited appears as phyi zha 5 on
the upper-center of the title folio - the term phyi seems to indicate that
it did not belong to the original holdings of the library in which it
was housed and that it had recently, whenever that may have been,
come in from the "outside." The manuscript was one of the close to a
hundred thousand manuscripts [and xylographs] that were taken to
Beijing in the early 1960s, that is, prior to the "Cultural Revolution".
There they formed the largest part of the holdings of the newly estab-
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
117
lished China Nationalities Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, which, so I was told, was the brainchild of then Premier Zhou
Enlai. It turns out that Zhou’s alleged directive to collect these manuscripts [and xylographs] was surely quite prescient and fortuitous.
Indeed, there is no question that, had these manuscripts not been
carted off to Beijing at the time, many would have fallen victim to the
countless bonfires that lit up the thin Tibetan skies in the late 1960s as
Chinese and Tibetan Red Guards burned or plundered whatever they
could get their hands on while rampaging through the countless
temples and monasteries that dotted the landscape of those huge
tracts of land where Tibetan Buddhism [and of course also Bon] held
sway, wreaking havoc on the Tibetan literary heritage.
The majority of folios of the manuscript of Ston gzhon's work contain eight lines; occasionally they have only seven. Editorially speaking, the manuscript is almost pristine for, unlike many others that I
have seen, it contains very few interlinear or marginal glosses. It
does, however, at times have very short, corrective notes that owe
their origin to the manuscript's proofreaders. These anonymous
proofreaders, one of whom may have been the unknown scribe of the
manuscript himself, evidently made these corrections to the copied
text on the basis of a comparison with the readings of the manuscript
of which it was a copy. In other words, these notes have as a rule
naught to do with a later reader's comments on Ston gzhon's interpretations. It is gratifying that when we compare the manuscript with
the published edition, the latter attests to the general meticulousness
and reliability of Sun's efforts. An edition of this kind can of course
never be a substitute for the original. And the first few folios deliver
up but a few oversights or minor misreadings in the edited text so
that research into Ston gzhon's Pramāṇavārttika study can by and
large afford to dispense with an inspection of the original manuscript.10 However, it should be pointed out that Sun made many editorial "corrections" of the nominal suffix ba for the original pa, as in
snang pa ~ snang ba, 'byung pa ~ 'byung ba etc. And he also incorporated what I take to be the proofreader's corrective glosses, albeit
without signaling where exactly these were found in the manuscript.11 We probably have to reckon with at least two different proof10
11
For example, STONm, 2a, of the manuscript has khyad par tu which the printed text
in STON 5, l.1 reads as khyad par du. I will henceforth only refer to STONm when its
text departs from STON.
The following sublinear glosses [in bold characters] are found in fol. 2a of the
manuscript: STONm, 2b, l.5: ...gti mug rna[m]s las ~ STON, 5, l. 23; STONm, 2b, l.7:
nyon mongs pas nyon mongs pa ~ STON, 6, l.5; STONm, 2b, l. 8: de dag ni ~ STON, 6, l. 8.
The places where the first and the third are to be inserted are marked with a “+”
sign; the third has a dotted line connecting the +-sign with the gloss. For such
118
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
readers, since these glosses sometimes occur in two different scripts,
dbu med and dbu can, on one single folio.12 On occasion, these editorial
glosses are extremely difficult to read and this is no doubt the reason
why Sun omitted these in his edited text.13
Needless to say, a very useful feature of his edition is that the
Pramāṇavārttika's verse-text is printed in bold characters, thereby
making it easy to distinguish the commentary from the commented
on text. The manuscript itself facilitated this, for the verse-text is
highlighted therein through the use of different color ink. No printing blocks seem ever to have been carved for Ston gzhon's work. Indeed, as I suggested above, it seems to have fallen dead from the author's pen, for I have yet to come across an explicit mention of it in
the subsequent Tibetan tshad ma literature. Not even the great Gser
mdog Paṇ chen, Glo bo Mkhan chen, the former's erstwhile student
and later one of his more uncompromising critics, or Mkhan chen
Ngag dbang chos grags and Bdud 'joms dpa' bo (1582-?), all of
whom display in parts of their oeuvre a keen interest in the historical
and theoretical developments of tshad ma studies in Tibet, expressly
mention him or his treatise.14 The only occasion where a Ston gzhon
is mentioned as a disciple of 'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal
bzang po (1235-80), Sa skya Paṇḍita's nephew, and a teacher of Nor
bu bzang po is a gloss in the chapter on pramāṇa/tshad ma of Ngag
12
13
14
markers and a great deal more items having to do with manuscripts, see C.A.
Scherrer-Schaub, "Towards a Methodology for the Study of Old Tibetan Manuscripts: Dunhuang and Tabo," Tabo Studies II. Manuscripts, Texts, Inscriptions and
the Arts, ed. C.A. Scherrer-Schaub and E. Steinkellner, Serie Orientale Roma
LXXXVII (Rome: Istituto Italiana per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 1999), 3-36, and C.A.
Scherrer-Schaub and G. Bonani, "Establishing a typology of the old Tibetan manuscripts: a multidisciplinary approach," Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries, ed. S.
Whitfield (London: The British Library, 2002), 184-215 [= Ibid. The Cultural History of Western Tibet. Recent Research from the China Tibetology Center and the University of Vienna, ed. D. Klimburg–Salter, Liang Junyan et al. (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, 2008), 299-337].
STONm, 2b, l. 5, 8.
STONm, 25a ad STON, 67, l. 2-3.
For Ngag dbang chos grags, see the relevant portions on tshad ma in the texts that
are included in his collected writings, vol. IV; these followed from his 1629 Bod
kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtha'i shan 'byed mtha' dpyod dang bcas pa'i 'bel
ba'i gtam skyes dpyod ldan mkhas pa'i lus rgyan rin chen mdzes pa'i phra rtsom bkod pa,
The Collection (sic) Works of Mkhyen (sic) chen Ngag dwang (sic) chos grags, vol. IV
(Darjeeling: Sakya Choepheling Monastery, 2000), 30-61 [= Pod chen drug gi 'bel
gtam, ed. Slob dpon Padma lags (Thimphu, 1979), 52-110]. For Bdud 'joms dpa'
bo, see the second chapter of his as yet unpublished 1634 critical review of Ngag
dbang chos grags' Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam, the Rgyal ba'i bka' dang dgongs 'grel
gyi gzhung lugs brgya phrag dag las legs bshad kyi gtam du bya ba rgya bod kyi grub
mtha' rnam par 'byed pa lung rigs rgya mtsho'i snying po mkhas pa dga' byed rin po
che'i rgyan, dbu med manuscript in 51 folios.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
119
dbang chos grags' treatise.15 Being a gloss we cannot of course unequivocally assume that it originated from this learned author's pen.
2. Pre-Ston gzhon Tibetan Pramāṇavārttika Exegeses
It should go without saying that Ston gzhon did not work in a vacuum and that, aside from the Tibetan translations of the Indian commentarial literature on Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya and Dharmakīrti's oeuvre, he was very much aware of the considerable corpus
of Tibetan assessments of the writings of and positions taken by these
Indian philosophers. In this and the next section, I will only focus on
the tshad ma writings of Sa skya pa philosophers of the thirteenth century, that is, of those who were exponents of the incipient Sa lugs, for
it is not unreasonable to assume that Ston gzhon was familiar with a
substantial number of their relevant writings. This is of course not to
say that we will completely ignore the large number of tshad ma contributions made by members of the Rngog lugs tradition[s] that, beginning with Rngog Lo tsā ba's writings on tshad ma, was initially
centered in Gsang phu sne'u thog monastery in Dbus after which it
spread throughout many other Central Tibetan monasteries belonging to the Bka' gdams pa school during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.16 Indeed, their focus on the Pramāṇaviniścaya in particular
must also be taken into account, the more so because of the intimate
relationship that this work has with the Pramāṇavārttika on textual
and philosophical levels. On another occasion, I hope to devote a
separate study of this tradition's history and how it developed during
15
16
Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtha'i shan 'byed mtha' dpyod dang bcas pa'i
'bel ba'i gtam skyes dpyod ldan mkhas pa'i lus rgyan rin chen mdzes pa'i phra rtsom
bkod pa, 37 [= Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam, 64]. For the circa mid-fourteenth century
Nor bzang[s] dpal which when written in full would give "Nor bu bzang po dpal
[?bzang po]" and might have been Btsun pa Ston gzhon's disciple, see my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History IV: The Tshad ma'i 'byung tshul 'chad
nyan gyi rgyan: A Tibetan History of Indian Buddhist Pramāṇavāda," Festschrift
Klaus Bruhn, ed. N. Balbir and J.K. Bautze (Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für
Orientalische Fachpublikationen, 1994), 375-93. See also infra n. 77.
For some notes on this exegetical tradition, see my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its
Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History," passim. See now also Mtshur ston
Gzhon nu seng ge. Tshad ma Shes rab sgron ma, ed. P. Hugon, Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 60 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2004), passim, as well as Hugon's
remarkable Trésors du raisonnement. Sa skya Paṇḍita et ses prédécesseurs tibétains sur
les modes de fonctionnement de la pensée et le fondement de l'inférence. Édition et traduction annotée du quatrième chapitre et d’une section du dixième chapitre du Tshad ma
rigs pa'i gter, vol. 1, 15-94.
120
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
these centuries, but in this essay I have had to draw a line in the sand
and, at my peril, made the decision to exclude it from my historical
narrative.
To be sure, Ston gzhon's work as such had several important precedents. It is by now well known that the Tibetan tradition holds that
the very first of the long string of Pramāṇavārttika commentaries written in Tibet until the present day17 was the one authored by 'U yug
pa. A xylograph belonging to the late nineteenth century Sde dge
printing blocks of his work, the Rigs mdzod, was reprinted in 1982,
and has been profitably used on several occasions in the secondary
literature. 'U yug pa's work now also appears to be extant in a somewhat earlier xylograph from Sku 'bum monastery and the manuscript[s] on which that one is based may be differently filiated than
the one[s] of the Sde dge print. To my knowledge, a xylograph from
these blocks has not yet surfaced. The reason why printing blocks for
the work of this Sa skya pa scholar should be carved at Sku 'bum –
after all, this is a Dge lugs pa and not a Sa skya pa monastery – is
most likely due to the circumstance that, as Mkhas grub had written
in his biography of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419), his
master Tsong kha pa had been profoundly moved by 'U yug pa's
comments on the Pramāṇavārttika's second, Pramāṇasiddhi chapter,
when he studied it under a Bsod nams grags pa in 1378.18 It is well to
remember that Sku 'bum was built on the site where Tsong kha pa
was born. The recently published typeset edition of this treatise is
based on the Sde dge and Sku ‘bum xylographs, as well as on what is
evidently a much older manuscript from ‘Bras spungs monastery.19
The work itself is undated and will most likely remain so, unless 'U
yug pa's biography or other sources turn up that have something to
say about this matter. For this reason, the parameters that can be
used at present to date it are a trifle too broad to be altogether informative. Thus, it is not really helpful that, as things stand now, we
can say with some confidence that 'U yug pa wrote the Rigs mdzod
after Sa skya Paṇḍita and the Kashmirian scholar Śākyaśrībhadra
(1127-1225) plus unnamed others had either reworked the earlier Ti17
18
19
The last one may very well be Lam rim pa Ngag dbang phun tshogs, Tshad ma
rnam ‘grel gyi ṭīkka [gzur gnas dgyes pa'i mchod sprin], 2 vols. (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi
dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1997). The author completed this work in 1996 in 'Bras
spungs monastery.
Rje btsun bla ma tsong kha pa chen po'i ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba'i rnam par thar
pa dad pa'i 'jug ngogs, Collected Works [of Tsong kha pa, Zhol edition], vol. Ka
(Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981), 37-8 [= Sku 'bum
edition, ed. Grags pa rgya mtsho (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1982), 32].
See the text in RM and RM[1].
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
121
betan translations of the Pramāṇavārttika by Rma Lo tsā ba Dge ba'i
blo gros (late 11thc.)20 and Rngog Lo tsā ba or, which is perhaps unlikely, had translated anew the Pramāṇavārttika in its entirety sometime between 1208 and 1212. It is even possible that he wrote the Rigs
mdzod after Sa skya Paṇḍita and his two young nephews, including
the nine year old 'Phags pa, had left their ancestral see of Sa skya in
Gtsang, in 1244, for Prince Köden's Mongol court in Liangzhou, present day Wu Wei, in Gansu Province, P.R.C. The precise mechanism
of, and the identity of the persons involved in, this reworking or retranslation of the text is open to question. But for the sake of convenience, I will henceforth attribute the final result to Sa skya Paṇḍita
alone. Regardless of the extent of his involvement in the process, being without a good knowledge of written Tibetan, Śākyaśrībhadra
was certainly not in the position to give it his final imprimatur.
If many of the lineages of transmission through which copies of
the texts of the Indian Buddhist pramāṇa tradition were handed down
in the Indian subcontinent, in Kashmir, and in Nepal still rest in silent obscurity, those that traversed the Tibetan landscape in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries are of equal complexity as to make it
extremely difficult to map them out, even if only in part. What exacerbates this uncomfortable situation is that many of these still remain
hidden from our scrutiny, because of the relatively limited number of
biographical or autobiographical sources that are presently at our
disposal. During these centuries, we must reckon with an intricate
interplay of manuscript traditions and interpretations between, on
one hand, the subcontinent proper, Kashmir and Nepal, and their
reception in Tibet, on the other. Many of these interplays were the
result of Tibetans having made contacts with individuals belonging
to certain intellectual communities during their protracted stays in
the northern reaches of the Indian subcontinent. Members of the
Dpyal family are a rather good illustration of this, even if there is so
far not one iota of explicitly formulated evidence in later sources that
their work impacted in any way on the history of tshad ma studies.
Thus we learn from Bya btang pa Padma rdo rje's 1546 composite
study of this family's history that Dpyal Ban[dhe] or Lo tsā ba 'Byung
gnas rgyal mtshan had studied pramāṇa under the famous
Smṛtijñānakīrti (ca. 950-1040), who himself hailed from Kashmir.21
20
21
For an dbu med manuscript in 45 folios of Rma Lo tsā ba's translation of the
Pramāṇa- vārttika that was cataloged under C.P.N. no. 004806(5), see my "On
Some Early Tibetan Pramāṇavāda Texts of the China Nationalities Library of the
Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing," Journal of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies 1
(1994), 4.
What follows is taken from his Dpyal gyi gdung rabs za ra tshags dang gang gā'i chu
rgyun gnyis gcig tu bris pa kun gsal me long, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying
122
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
One of 'Byung gnas rgyal mtshan's grandsons was Rgyal ba'i blo gros
and he studied the same under Khyung po Lo tsā ba Chos kyi brtson
'grus who, with the Jñānaśrībhadra, co-translated the latter's
Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā. Some sources occasionally refer to Khyung po
Lo tsā ba as Khyung, but he must clearly be distinguished from his
much junior contemporary Khyung [po] Rin chen grags of Myang
stod. In the short biography Zhang G.yu brag pa Brtson 'grus grags
pa (1121/3-93) wrote of his master Rg[w]a Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal
(ca. 1080-1150) that, staying in Gtsang, Rg[w]a Lo tsā ba had studied
the Chos mchog [= Dharmottara] with a certain Dge bshes from Mi
nyag / Tangut [= Xixia] and the Pramāṇavārttika under a Dge bshes
Khung.22 Although the text has "Khung," I am inclined to conjecture
that we ought to read it as "Khyung" and that he may be identified as
Khyung Rin chen grags. He was one of Rngog Lo tsā ba's disciples
and known for his work on tshad ma. "Dharmottara['s (ca. 740-800)
pramāṇa]" most likely refers to his large ṭīkā-commentary on Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya. In his massive ecclesiastic history of 1447
that is in the main focused on the development of the Dwags po Bka'
brgyud pa school and sects, Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal relates that a
certain Dbang phyug rdo rje (ca. 1145-?1206) first studied the
Pramāṇaviniścaya and the Dharmottara, that is, his ṭīkā, under a certain
Dge bshes G.yor nyag[s] in Chos pa myu sna.23 He then left for Gsang
22
23
zhib 'jug khang (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2008), 26, 29, 37,
41, 93.
See his Dpal gyi rnam thar, Writings (bka' thor bu) (Tashijong: The Sungrab Nyamso Gyunpel Parkhang, 1972), 362: tsang du dge bshes mi nyag pa la chos mchog tshar
cig gsan / dge bshes khung la rnams 'drel [read: 'grel] tshar cig gsan pa la /.. . For a
different translation, see E. Sperling, "Rtsa mi Lo tsā ba Sangs rgyas grags pa and
the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations," Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Fagernes
1992, ed. P. Kvaerne, vol. 2 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), 809. A nineteenth century manuscript of an edition of his collected oeuvre that was originally compiled by Tshal pa Kun dga' rdo rje (1309-64)
in four volumes was recently published by the Huangsi in Beijing. It contains a
severely truncated Dpal rgwa lo'i rnam thar on pp. 541-44 in the first volume [Ka]
of this collection, which formed a part of Tshal pa's 1352 biography of Zhang
G.yu 'brug Brtson 'grus grags pa, the so-called Dgos 'dod re bskong ma'i 'grel pa
(Ka, 533-75). In 2007, Kun bzang tshe 'phel compiled a new Life of Rgwa Lo,
which was recently published in a compilation of various texts having to do with
him, for which see Dpal chen rgwa lo'i rnam thar rags bsdus lus can dad pa'i gsol
sman ngo mtshar lung gi nyi ma (np, nd), 4-25.
See Lho rong chos 'byung, ed. Gling dpon Pad ma skal bzang and Ma grong Mi
'gyur rdo rje, Gangs can rig mdzod 26 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe
skrun khang, 1994), 618. The corresponding passage in Bka' brgyud rin po che'i lo
rgyus phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa'i gsol 'debs rgyas pa [dbu med manuscript in 541 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002448(6), 368b-9a, has a slightly messy text, though it essentially preserves the same reading. For this important work, see my "On the
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
123
phu sne'u thog for further studies under Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge
(1109-1169). Dpyal Rgyal ba'i blo gros' grandson Dpyal Kun dga' rdo
rje (ca. 1110-50) first studied pramāṇa under Khyung Rin chen grags.
In his case, we must definitely reckon with the very good possibility
that he was also introduced to ideas that were becoming part of tshad
ma, that is, ideas that were becoming part of the Tibetan acculteration
of pramāṇa. While Khyung Rin chen grags was his first teacher of the
Pramāṇaviniścaya, he also studied pramāṇa under a certain Paṇḍita
Amaracandra and Sukhaśrībhadra. Written in a proto-Maithilī script
that is characteristic of the tenth to twelfth centuries, R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana
(1893-1963) discovered in Tibet what now appears to be a unique
manuscript of the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya. Its colophon identifies
a certain Amaracandra, a paṇḍita-cum-physician, as the one who had
written it down (likhāpitam idaṃ).24 This man did not go unnoticed in
the early Tibetan studies of the Abhidharmasamuccaya itself. In his
substantive exegesis of this work, 'Jad pa Gzhon nu byang chub (ca.
1150-1210) also noted a Paṇḍita Amaracandra who, according to him,
had attributed the Abhidharmasamuccaya to Asaṅga and to a Rgyal
[ba'i/po'i] sras (*Jinaputra/*Rājaputra) what he refers to as the ṭīkācommentary.25 I suppose that these are one and the same Amaracandra! Apropos of Sukhaśrībhadra, one of his claims to fame that I am
aware of is that he gave Sākyaśrībhadra his novice-śramanera vows in
circa 1150. Now called Myang stod Jo btsun Khyung – jo btsun has
24
25
Fifteenth Century Lho rong chos 'byung by Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal and Its Importance for Tibetan Political and Religious History," Lungta 14 [Aspects of Tibetan
History, ed. R. Vitali and T. Tsering] (2000), 57-76. For references to some of this
Dge bshes' interpretations, see my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and
Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its Place in IndoTibetan Intellectual History," 416.
See Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya, ed. N. Tatia, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series no. 17
(Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute 1976), 156. For early Abidharmasamuccaya studies in Tibet, see my "Notes on Jñānamitra's Commentary on the
Abhidharmasamuccaya," The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners. The Buddhist
Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, ed. U.T.
Kragh, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 75 (Cambridge: Department of South Asian
Studies, 2013), 1388-1429. Colophons often carry important historical information
that can point us to seeing unexpected interconnections. For a general study of
these and other "paratexts", see Lab phan 'dum Blo bzang blo gros, "Bod kyi
bstan bcos sam rtsom yig gi kha byang skor bshad pa," Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig
4 (1994), 115-142, and for a select number, see M. Clemente, "Colophons as
Sources: Historical Information from Some Brag dkar rta so Xylographies (sic),"
Rivisita di Studi Sudasiatici II (2007), 121-58.
Chos mngon pa kun las btus pa'i ṭīkka shes bya thams cad gsal bar byed pa'i sgron me,
Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 40, ed. Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu:
Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 38. See
also my "Notes on Jñānamitra's Commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya," 1411,
1417-8.
124
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
the sense of a monk from an aristocratic family – this same Rin chen
grags also instructed Kun dga' grags, Kun dga' rdo rje's eldest son, in
the essentials of tshad ma. Kun dga' grags then proceeded to the subcontinent where he studied pramāṇa in Magadha under unidentified
teachers. All these men all belonged to one branch of the Dpyal family, namely, the one that issued from Gsal rab snying po, the first of
Lo tsā ba 'Byung gnas rgyal mtshan's two sons. Turning to his second son Mchog rab snying po, we learn that his grandson Lo tsā ba
Shes rab 'od zer studied pramāṇa with a certain Sādhukīrti and others.
There really is no question that, in the early thirteenth century,
Śākyaśrībhadra and such select members of his entourage as
Sugataśrī, Saṅghaśrī, Vibhūticandra, and Dānaśīla embodied a crucial nexus for Tibetan intellectual history. One fundamental outcome
of their contacts with members of Tibet's educated elite was that their
activities inserted updated sources of transmission lineages of the
Pramāṇavārttika and related writings on pramāṇa into the history of
tshad ma. For example, we know that, excepting Vibhūticandra, all
these men instructed the young Sa skya Paṇḍita in this subject. One
of the consequences of these activities was of course that these transmissions were able to spread far and wide in Central Tibet and beyond, for the mature Sa skya Paṇḍita had a substantial number of
students. For now, we also know that the Bengali scholar Dānaśīla
taught the Pramāṇavārttika to Chos kyi dbang phyug (1192-1247) of
Gnas rnying as well as a host of unspecified writings of the pramāṇa
tradition to Dar ma rgyal mtshan (1227-1305), alias Bcom ldan rig[s]
pa'i ral gri.26 But this is but the tip of the iceberg and one cannot even
begin to guess how many other Tibetans received instructions from
him and his colleagues, let alone the extent to which this may have
played a role in the ongoing Tibetan exegeses of these Indic writings.
'U yug pa and Ston gzhon were not the only individuals who, in
one way or another, were associated with the Pramāṇavārttika's
transmission at Sa skya and wrote commentaries on it. Though they
have yet to be recovered, we can now add at least three other studies
of the Pramāṇavārttika that were written during the late thirteenth or
early fourteenth century, namely those by Dar ma rgyal mtshan, 'Jam
dbyangs Rin chen rgyal mtshan (1257-1305) and 'Jam dbyangs skya
bo Nam mkha' dpal (ca. 1260-1320). Primarily active at Snar thang
26
See, respectively, Mnyam nyid rin chen's 1522 history of Gnas rnying, the Skyes
bu dam pa rnams kyi rnam par thar pa rin po che'i gter mdzod [undated xylograph in
88 folios], 17b, and my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its Place in Indo-Tibetan
Intellectual History," 410-1. For Gnas rnying's history, see now R. Vitali, "The
History of the Lineages of Gnas rnying Summarised as its 'Ten Greatnesses'," Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies 1, ed. H. Blezer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 81-107.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
125
monastery and one of the Bka’ gdams pa school's great intellectuals
of the thirteenth century, Dar ma rgyal mtshan canot be readily pigeonholed into one or the other Tibetan tshad ma tradition and it is
perhaps best to create for him the separate rubric of "independent
scholar." According to his biographer Bsam gtan bzang po,27 the majority of his teachers of tshad ma belonged to the Rngog lugs, but the
young Dar ma rgyal mtshan had also taken the initiative to go to Sa
skya to study the Rigs gter and presumably the autocommentary with
Sa skya Paṇḍita himself. Later, 'U yug pa taught him the
Pramāṇasamuccaya and the Pramāṇavārttika, and the other works by
Dharmakīrti, except for his Pramāṇaviniścaya and the autocommentary on the Pramāṇavārttika's first chapter. Dar ma rgyal mtshan himself was the author of a Pramāṇavārttika commentary that has yet to
surface. He refers his reader to it in his exegesis of the
Pramāṇasamuccaya, a work that appears to have been the first of its
kind in Tibet.28
Virtually nothing seems to have been handed down about 'Jam
dbyangs skya bo's life and oeuvre. All that we know about him so far
is that he was a disciple of both 'U yug pa and btsun [pa] Mdo sde
dpal (ca. 1220-90).29 Both men enjoyed reputations of having expertise
in tshad ma, though Zhang btsun is not reported to have written anything on the subject, at least nothing is related about him having
done so. But Ston gzhon does mention him as one of his teachers who
had recommended changing the reading of the Tibetan translation of
a verse of the Pramāṇavārttika.30 However, we do know that he was
27
28
29
30
Bcom ldan rig ral pa'i rnam thar, Collected Works, vol. Ka (Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal
yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007), 1-30.
Tshad ma kun las btus pa'i rgya cher bshad pa rgyan gyi me tog, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum
phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 53, ed. Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun
tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 5b [454]. For an edition of
this work with a long introduction, see L.W.J. van der Kuijp and A.P. McKeown,
Bcom ldan ral gri (1227-1305) on Indian Buddhist Logic and Epistemology: His Commentary on Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde, Heft 80 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien Universität Wien, 2013).
For what follows, see, respectively, Dngos grub rgya mtsho's circa 1600 Tha snyad
rig gnas lnga ji ltar byung ba'i tshul gsal bar byed pa blo gsal mgrin rgyan legs bshad
nor bu'i phreng ba, ed. Nor brang O rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 4 (Lhasa: Bod
ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 300-1, D.P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate
for the Wise (Section III). Sa skya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa
and Philosophical Debate, vol. I, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 17,1 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien Universität Wien, 1987), 139-42, 144, and my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History VI: The Transmission of Indian Buddhist Pramāṇavāda According to the Early Tibetan Gsan yig-s," Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques XLIX
(1995), 923, 929.
STON, 435.
126
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
the author of a series of notes (zin bris) on the narrative tales that illustrate some of the points Sa skya Paṇḍita had made in his Thub pa'i
dgongs pa rab gsal, tales he had heard from the master himself.31 Since
Sa skya Paṇḍita presumably wrote this work in what is now Gansu
Province and since he never returned to Tibet after he had left in
1244-5, we can draw the conclusion that Zhang btsun was part of the
circle of his disciples who had traveled with him to Gansu or that he
had journeyed to where Sa skya Paṇḍita was staying at a later date.
In addition to having been a student of Sa skya Paṇḍita and rising to
a highranking official in Sa skya itself, Zhang btsun may also have
been a Sanskrit scholar of sorts, as we will see in the sequel to this
essay.
Returning to 'Jam dbyangs skya bo, it is reported that he was active in Sa skya and that he taught the eighteen year old Dpang Lo tsā
ba the Pramāṇavārttika and the Rigs gter [and the Hevajratantra] and,
later, the circa eighteen year old Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364)
also studied the Pramāṇavārttika with him together with 'U yug pa's
commentary. Dpang Lo tsā ba himself first journeyed to the Kathmandu Valley at the age of twenty. This was the first of some seven
trips to the Valley. Upon his return to Tibet from what may have
been his second trip to the Valley, sometime between 1297 and 1304,
he prepared a retranslation of Abhayākaragupta's (ca.1065-ca.1125)
famous Munimatālaṃkāra, and other treatises, in Sa skya. As a reward, the upper echelons of the monastery headed by 'Jam dbyangs
skya bo lavished many gifts and honors on him. 'Jam dbyangs skya
bo's own exegesis of the Pramāṇavārttika is listed in the handy bibliography of Sa skya pa school scholarship compiled in the main by
the learned Mkhan po Appey [A pad].32 It seems to have had little
impact, for I have yet to come across references to it in the tshad ma
literature that is now available.
We are fortunate to be in the possession of a reasonably reliable
source for Rin chen rgyal mtshan's life in the form of the slightly incomplete manuscript of a biography that was written by his erstwhile
disciple Byang sems Rgyal ba ye shes (1257-1320).33 Rgyal ba ye shes
31
32
33
A handy edition of this work, Thub pa'i dgongs gsal rgyal sras 'phags pa'i lam gyi
sgrung 'grel zla ba'i 'od zer, is found in Dpal sa skya pa'i gsung rab, vol. 11, Lam rim,
comp. Mkhas dbang Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan and Mkhas dbang Padma dam
chos (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang / Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 2004), 340-605. The Sde dge print was published earlier in Thub pa'i dgongs
pa gsal ba'i bstan bcos kyi mdo rnam par bshad pa rin po che'i gter, Selected Works of Glo
bo Mkhan chen, vol. 2 (Dehra Dun, 1985), 253-539.
Dkar chag mthong bas yid 'phrog chos mdzod bye ba'i lde mig (New Delhi, 1987), 36.
Chos rje 'jam dbyangs chen po'i rnam thar yon tan rgya mtsho [dbu med manuscript in
24 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004381(10), 6b. For this manuscript, see my "Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam 'bras Teachings of
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
127
begins his hagiography by stipulating that his master was a wondrous and willed manifestation (sprul pa) of the bodhisattva 'Jam pa'i
dbyangs (Mañjughoṣa) and that even some reliable persons had foretold that he was or would be a wondrous emanation (rnam 'phrul,
*vikurvaṇa) of Sa skya Paṇḍita himself.34 Clearly, this is but another
way of saying that his intellectual abilities were quite impressive, to
say the least. His father was Rje btsun skyabs, a member of the Zhang
zhung clan (rigs = gdung rus) that had settled in the vicinity of Sa
skya, and his mother was a lady with the name Shes rab skyid. It is
curious that the biography is silent about the fact that he was a scion
of the family that controlled Sa skya's influential Shar Residence (bla
brang). Rgyal ba ye shes mentions that Rin chen rgyal mtshan had
received his three successive vows (sdom gsum) from 'Phags pa, albeit
without giving the dates for these occasions. He apparently first studied at Bo dong E, not at Sa skya, and traveled from there to Sa skya
for the purpose of paying his respects to 'Phags pa. We know that
'Phags pa resided there from circa 1264 to 1267 and from 1274 to 1280.
Given that Rgyal ba ye shes explicitly states that Rin chen rgyal
mtshan had studied abhidharma, prajñāpāramitā, and vinaya texts in Bo
dong E, we can, I believe, safely assume that he must have met 'Phags
pa only after his return from the Mongol court of Emperor Qubilai in
1274. This meeting marked the beginning of what was to become a
lustrous career. When a certain Lama E pa [= ?'Khon ston Thugs rje
rin chen, alias 'Jam dbyangs 'Khon ston or E pa Zhang] had passed
away, 'Phags pa requested that he take up teachings duties at Sa
skya's Shar Residence. This was his first official post. He then established his reputation as a redoubtable scholar in a more visible way
at the age of twenty-three in late 1280, when he shone in a series of
public monastic debates that formed part of the funerary ceremonies
(thugs dgongs rdzogs par mdzad pa' chos 'khor) held for the recently deceased 'Phags pa. Upon their return, the imperial envoys that were
present on this occasion brought his abilities to Qubilai's attention.
His learning, the connections of his family, and the absence of a male
heir of Sa skya's 'Khon family in Sa skya paved the way for him ultimately to be appointed by the Mongol court in Yuan China as abbot
of the Bzhi thog Residence in late 1287 or early 1288. This meant that
he was in fact Sa skya's Grand Abbot. His impressive performance
34
the Sa skya pa and Ko brag pa," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 17 (1994), 188-90.
When not otherwise specified, what follows is based on Chos rje 'jam dbyangs chen
po'i rnam thar yon tan rgya mtsho, 1b-7b. On fol. 3b, reference is made to Rin chen
rgyal mtshan's record of his studies, his gsan yig, titled Rin po che'i phreng ba, for
information on the lineages of transmission to which he was privy. This work has
not yet been located.
128
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
during the ceremonies he presided over on the occasion of the passing of 'Phags pa's nephew and then current Imperial Preceptor
Dharmapālarakṣita on December 24, 1287, was witnessed in person
by the Mongol prince (rgyal bu) Ga pa ju pa [or: Ga sa ju sa]35 and
other Mongol and Tibetan notables, who had no doubt reported this
event to the court as well. The passage in question reads slob dpon
chen po dharma pha la'i chos 'khor, which I interpret as a religious gathering that was held on the occasion of Grand-Master Dharmapālarakṣita's passing. There is no question, then, that his appointment as Grand Abbot ultimately laid the groundwork for him to become Imperial Preceptor to Emperor Ölǰeitü [the Chengzong Emperor r. May 10, 1294 - February 10, 1307] at the Mongol capital in China
proper from 1304 to 1305.
Bo dong E was one of the many monasteries where thirteenth century Dharma-kīrti studies consisted primarily, but certainly not exclusively, of the Pramāṇaviniścaya and the Tshad ma bsdus paSummaries, and was therefore foremost an institution that was part
of the Rngog lugs tradition of Dharmakīrti exegesis. We thus have to
reckon with the very high probability, as we must also in 'U yug pa's
case, that Rin chen rgyal mtshan was quite conversant with the literary tradition[s] of the Rngog lugs and had most likely formally studied one or more specimen of this genre. Rgyal ba ye shes registers a
Pramāṇavārttika commentary from his pen, which he had authored at
the request of a certain Khang ston and others.36 Reflecting the three
characteristics of a bona fide scholar, as codified by Sa skya Paṇḍita
in his Mkhas pa rnams la 'jug pa'i sgo, namely, that such an individual
should have expertise in the principles of composition (rtsom), explication ('chad), and disputation (rtsod), Rgyal ba ye shes even goes so
far to compare him to Dignāga, Dharmakīrti and Dpa' bo, that is,
here, Aśvaghoṣa, in the ninth of the two dozen or so quatrains
around which he had constructed his biography in verse and prose:
gzhan gzhung sun 'byin phyogs kyi glang po bzhin //
35
36
I have not been able to identify this prince in L. Hambis, Le chapitre CVII du Yuan
che [avec des notes supplémentaires par Paul Pelliot] (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1945) and his
Le chapitre CVIII du Yuan che, Tome I (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954). Another Mongol
prince Te mur bo ka is mentioned in connection with the funerary ceremonies
held at Sa skya for the deceased Dus 'khor ba chen po, Rin chen rgyal mtshan's
eldest brother, the Kālacakra expert (dus 'khor ba) Ye shes rin chen (?1248-94). For
Te mur bo ka (< Mon. Temür Buqa), see L. Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols.
The Yüan-Sa skya Period of Tibetan History, Serie Orientale Roma, vol. LXV (Rome:
Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990), 30-1.
For what follows, see Chos rje 'jam dbyangs chen po'i rnam thar yon tan rgya mtsho,
9b-10a.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
129
rang gzhung 'god legs chos kyi grags pa mtshungs //
sdeb sbyor dpa' bo ji 4n rtsom mdzad pa //
dus 'dir bstan 'dzin mchog khyod la phyag 'tshal //
Refuting textual traditions of others, like Dignāga;
Good at establishing one's own textual tradition, similar to
Dharmakīrti;
A poet, a writer just like *Ārya Sūra/*Aśvaghoṣa;
At this time, I pay homage to you, supreme one among the
upholders of the Buddha's Teaching!
Chos nyid ye shes' detailed 1775 study of the Gnyags family and Gle
lung monastery in Mus records that Rin chen rgyal mtshan taught
the Pramāṇavārttika and the Rigs gter to Mus chen Rgyal mtshan dpal
bzang po (1287-1347) at Sa skya in 1299.37 Be this as it may, I have yet
to come across references to his work in the tshad ma literature that is
available to me.
Lastly, this Pramāṇavārttika commentary was not Ston gzhon's only or first work on tshad ma, for he himself notes his earlier effort,
which was apparently titled Tshad ma rigs pa'i de kho na nyid snang
ba.38 This tract has yet to surface, but its title suggests that he did not
simply conceive it as an exegesis of a Tibetan translation of a work
belonging to the Indian Buddhist schools of logic and epistemology.
Rather, he appears to have written it as a synthetic study of Buddhist
logic and epistemology as a whole. Unfortunately, he mentions it only once, namely in connection with his comments on PV, IV: 23c-d,
where he considers this verse to be Dharmakīrti's final deliberation
on the purport of "object, state of affairs" (artha) of Dignāga's phrase
"an object / state of affairs the proponent of a proof has himself understood" (svaḍṛṣtārtha) as found in the definition (mtshan nyid) of an
inference-for-another
(parārthānumāna)
or
proof
in
the
Pramāṇasamuccaya [= PS, III: 1b].
3. Pre-Ston gzhon Rigs gter Exegeses
Owing to the relative paucity of the published thirteenth century biographical and autobiographical literature, we are still rather ill informed about where the Rigs gter was able gradually to insinuate itself in the monastic curricula other than the one of Sa skya monas37
38
Gnyags ston pa'i gdung rabs dang gdan rabs, ed. Rta mgrin tshe dbang, Gangs can
rig mdzod 31 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1997), 133.
STON, 388.
130
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
tery, whether primarily as an object of study as such or as representing a set of competing positions which, it was felt, needed to be refuted. In fact, there was till now little evidence that it was studied in
institutions other than Sa skya during that time. However, things are
a-changin'. With the sources that have become available in recent
years, I think one can now reasonably argue that it must have formed
part of the curriculum of a limited number of other Central Tibetan
monastic institutions as well as of those monasteries in Khams and
Amdo that had either been founded by Sa skya Paṇḍita himself from
1244 onwards or where he was able to wield some influence on their
intellectual lives. The same applies to those that were later founded
and indirectly administered by his nephew 'Phags pa and the disciples they shared, such as Sga A gnyan dam pa Kun dga' grags (12401303). In his 1467 study of Sa skya monastery and her ruling families,
Stag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen (1405-77) suggests that Sa
skya Paṇḍita's influence was felt in the following institutions:39
Two major sees:
1. Sa skya
2. Ling chu (< Ch. Liangzhou) rtser khab in the north (byang
phyogs)40
Three middling sees:
39
40
See his Dpal ldan sa skya pa'i 'khon gyi gdung rabs 'dod dgu'i rgya mtsho [dbu med
manuscript in 34 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002537, 19a. We find the same passage
in A mes zhabs' 1629 study of the same, for which see Sa skya'i gdung rabs ngo
mtshar bang mdzod, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986),
145; this passage is also cited in G. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. II (Kyoto:
Rinsen Book, Co. Ltd., 1980), 680, n. 40. The date of Stag tshang Lo tsā ba's passing, the end of November of 1477, is given in what appears to be an excerpt from
'Jam dbyangs Chos kyi dpal 'byor's biography of his master that functions as a
supplement to Stag tshang Lo tsā ba's autobiography, for which see Gtsang stag
tshang lo tsā ba shes rab rin chen rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa'i kha
skong yid ches gser gyi ljon pa, Collected Works [of Stag tshang Lo tsā ba], vol. 2, Mes
po'i shul bzhag, vol. 30, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 61.
For this place, see see K.R. Schaeffer and L.W.J. van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan
Survey of Buddhist Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi 'od of Bcom ldan ral
gri, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 64 (Cambridge: The Department of Sanskrit and
Indian Studies, 2009), 26-7, n. 54. No doubt we have to consider the four monasteries in the Liangzhou [= present day Wuwei] area that are associated with Sa
skya Paṇḍita, namely, the Lha khang sde to the south, Padmo'i sde to the west,
Rgya mtsho'i sde to the north, and Sprul pa'i sde to the east of Wuwei, in Gansu
Province, PRC.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
131
1. Bsam yas in Dbus
2. Rkyang thur [= 'dur] in Nyang stod41
3. Sreg shing in Shangs
He adds that there were countless more minor places in the Tibetan
areas where he had been active and where his influence was palpable. In Smar khams, Sa skya Paṇḍita and 'Phags pa wielded some influence in Dpal gyi sho monastery, which the founder of the Smar pa
Bka' brgyud sect Shes rab ye shes (1135-1203) built in 1167, as well as
other institutions in Smar khams such as Tsom mdo gnas gsar, which
was founded in 1200 by 'Gro mgon Rin chen dpal (1170-1249).42 The
Sde dge xylograph of Sa skya Paṇḍita's collected oeuvre contains a
letter he had written to the latter — he is there called 'Gro mgon Rin
chen of Sho monastery — as well as one he addressed to the monastic
community of Sho, whereas 'Phags pa had composed a good number
of pieces in Smar khams as early as 1253 and then later in 1275-6.43
Writing a little less than a decade after Stag tshang Lo tsā ba, Gtsang
Byams pa Rdo rje rgyal mtshan (1423-98) relates a similar scenario for
the main Sa skya pa monasteries during 'Phags pa's time in his 1475
41
42
43
Sa skya Paṇḍita had studied there in his youth with none other than Mtshur
Gzhon nu seng ge, and its history is ever so briefly outlined by Tāranātha (15751634) in his undated Myang yul stod smad bar gsum gyi ngo mtshar gtam gyi legs
bshad mkhas pa'i jug ngogs, ed. Lhag pa tshe ring (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs
dpe skrun khang, 1983), 109-110 [ed. Don grub phun tshogs (Lhasa: Bod ljongs
mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2002), 105-7]. Given that he mentions the Gtsang
pa Sde srid family at great length, including Karma bstan skyong dbang po
(1606-42), who ascended the throne in Shigatse in circa 1621, we can be certain
that he must have written it sometime between 1621 and 1635. Also known as
Myang chos 'byung, it was included in vol. 23 of the 1999-? 'Dzam thang edition of
Tāranātha's collected writings, as it was in Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nātha'i gsung
'bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 44, Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 86, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig
dpe rnying zhib jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2008), where the cited passage occurs on p. 112-3.
See the remarks in the biography of Spyan snga ba Byang chub grags (1208-77),
Sho dgon's third abbot in the anonymous seventeenth century compilation Dpal
ldan smar pa bka' brgyud kyi rnam thar su khar rṇa'i phreng ba, Smar pa bka' brgyud
kyi rnam thar phyogs sgrig, ed. Padma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun
tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 181, and also those in Byang
chub 'od zer's late sixteenth century Tsom mdo gdan rabs kun btus, Smar pa bka'
brgyud kyi rnam thar phyogs sgrig, ed. Padma tshul khrims, 103 ff.
For Sa skya Paṇḍita's letters, see SSBB, vol. 5, nos. 39-40; for 'Phags pa's Smar
khams- related writings, see the useful listing in Y. Fukuda and Y. Ishihama, tr.,
A Study of the Grub mthaḥ of Tibetan Buddhism [in Japanese], vol. 4, Studia Tibetica,
no. 11 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1986), 53, 57-8.
132
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
study of the ruling families and Sa skya monastery; there we have the
following:44
Four major sees:
1. Sa skya
2. Me tog ra ba inside the imperial palace of Ta'i tu (< Ch.
Dadu)
3. The imperial palace of Shan to (< Ch. Shangdu)
4. Sprul pa'i sde in Byang ngos, near Liangzhou
Three middling sees:
1. Dpal gyi sde chen in Chu mig
2. Rtso [= Tsom] mdo bsam 'grub in Mdo khams
3. Dpal gyi sde chen in Shing kun [= Lintao]45
The minor sees: where major Sa skya pa masters had stayed.
Retreats:
1. Mount Wutai
2. Lha rtse'i brag
3. Kha'u skyed lhas brag phug
Furthermore, there is some evidence that the Rigs gter was studied in
Mongol-occupied China as well, albeit most likely by the Tibetan
seminarians who were affiliated with the temples or monasteries of
the capital cities of Dadu and Shangdu. For one, we have an early
xylograph of the autocommentary, the printing blocks for which
were prepared under imperial patronage, specifically under Čabi (?1284), Qubilai's senior wife, and her daughter-in-law Kökečin, in the
Mongol capital of Dadu in 1284.46 The recent rare book exhibition at
44
45
46
Sa skya mkhon (sic) gyi gdungs rab (sic) rin po che'i 'phreng ba [incomplete dbu can
manuscript in 90 folios], Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel L
591/4, 32b.
For this monastery, see the notes in my The Kālacakra and the Patronage of Tibetan
Buddhism by the Mongol Imperial Family, The Central Eurasian Studies Lectures, 4,
ed. F. Venturi (Bloomington: Department of Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana
University, 2004), 44 ff.
See my "Two Mongol Xylographs (hor par ma) of the Tibetan Text of Sa skya
Paṇḍita's Work on Buddhist Logic and Epistemology," Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 16 (1993), 280-3, 291-3, and now also Ska ba Shes
rab bzang po, "Investigating Tibetan Language 'Yuan Blockprints' [in Chinese],"
Zhongguo zangxue 1 (2009), 41-2. A xylograph from these blocks is apparently ex-
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
133
the National Libarary in Beijing, which I visited on December 18,
2013, showcased an early Yuan period, seventy-folio xylograph of the
Śākyaśrībhadra-Sa skya Paṇḍita translation of the Pramāṇavārttika. It
had a right-hand marginal notation of Ka, suggesting that it was the
first volume in an unidentified series. The very brief colophon states
that the printing blocks were prepared under the aegis of the third
Imperial Preceptor, that is, 'Phags pa's nephew Dharmapālarakṣita
(1268-1287). 47 Among the other Yuan xylographs of Tibetan texts
were Sa skya Paṇḍita's Sdom gsum rab dbye in sixty-five folios,48 the
Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣya and the Abhidharmasamuccaya plus an unidentified Vinya text.
Apart from the places that were mentioned above, there are also
several indications in the biographical literature that Sa skya
Paṇḍita's text[s] was [or were] taught and studied in Central Tibetan
monasteries other than Sa skya. A first, albeit somewhat ambiguous
indication of this is provided in the biographical sketch of Gser
sdings Chos sku 'od zer (1214-92) in Bya btang Padma gar dbang's
study of the transmission of the Sha wa dbang phyug gi snyan rgyud
which he completed in 1538.49 He writes that sometime in the 1230s
the former had studied tshad ma, among other subjects, under Sa skya
Paṇḍita in Stag thog, a locality in Gtsang that was located not far
from Sa skya itself. The Rigs gter was also studied in Nag phug, a
place that was equally located in Gtsang. The very influential Nag
phug pa Shes rab 'od zer (13thc.), alias 'Jam dbyangs gsar ma, began
his tshad ma studies with exponents of the Rngog lugs. But we learn
47
48
49
tant in Brag dkar rta so monastery, for which see Bod khul gyi chos sde grags can
khag gi dpe rnying dkar chag, ed. Ska ba Shes rab bzang po et al., 41, where it appears to be called a "Chinese xylograph" (rgya nag spar ma).
For additional notes, see my forthcoming "The hor-par ma-Mongol Xylograph of
the Tibetan Translation of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika (Tshad ma rnam 'grel),"
Zangxue xuekan / Journal of Tibetology 9 (2014).
Ska ba Shes rab bzang po, Zangwen 'Yuanban' kao ["Investigating Tibetan Language 'Yuan Blockprints']," Zhongguo zangxue 1 (2009), 45; the colophon states
that the carving of the blocks was completed on August 12, 1299 in the Mchod
rten sngon po in the capital of Dadu (ta'i tu) and that it was "established" (grub) in
the Mchod rten dkar po. For the latter, the famous White Stupa, see H. Franke's
breathtaking "The Consecration of the 'White Stupa' in 1279," Asia Major 7 (1994),
155-184. See also Xiong Wenbin, Yuandai huangshi chengyuan shikande zangwen
fojing [Tibetan Buddhist Scriptures Published with the Financial Aid of Members
of the Yuan Dynasty's Imperial Family]," Zhongguo zangxue 3 (2009), 91-94, 99.
Clearly, the printing blocks for the text were carved under the auspices of the
then reigning Imperial Preceptor Grags pa 'od zer (1246-1303) of Sa skya's Khang
gsar Residence.
See Zab chos sbas pa mig 'byed kyi chos bskor las paṇ chen sha wa dbang phyug gi snyan
rgyud rdo rje sum gyi bla ma brgyud pa'i rnam thar dad pa'i rnga chen, Nepal-German
Manuscript Preservation Project Reel no. L 451/6, fol. 34b.
134
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
from his rather short autobiography that later in his life he had also
studied the Rigs gter with Sa skya Paṇḍita in Sa skya. This took place
shortly after the 1240 Mongol invasion of Tibet. He had already made
his residence in Nag phug, to which he had invited Sa skya Paṇḍita
in 1243, just before the latter began his journey to Gansu in 1244.50
But more rewarding facts are forthcoming from Rgyal ba ye shes'
study of the life of Kun spangs pa Thugs rje brtson 'grus (?-1313), the
much celebrated founder of Jo nang monastery.51 We learn from this
work, which is very short on dates indeed, that a certain 'Dar 'Jam
dbyangs [or: ?Rdo rje 'jam dbyangs] and Spyang ston Rigs pa'i seng
ge52 had introduced the young Kun spangs pa to the Pramāṇaviniścaya
and the Rigs gter at an unspecified location, after which he went to Sa
skya in circa 1266-7 to become fully conversant with Dharmakīrti's
oeuvre. There he continued his studies under a certain Mkhas pa
Gnyan.53 After his sojourn in Sa skya, he left for Brag ram monastery
where Dar ma 'od zer taught him the writings of Dharmottara and
Prajñākaragupta (ca. 800), both of whom were natives of Kashmir. A
center of Rngog lugs studies, Brag ram had been founded by Bo dong
Rin po che Brtson 'grus rdo rje (1200-?) and Dar ma 'od zer appears to
have been his disciple and successor to the abbatial throne. We
should be aware that the study of these two Kashmirian Buddhist
philosophers in combination has an interesting historical precedent
in the life of Rngog Lo tsā ba himself when he was a student in
Kashmir as well as later in his adult life as one of the first Tibetan interpreters of pramāṇa. Indeed, Rngog Lo tsā ba often juxtaposes their
views in his Pramāṇaviniścaya commentary where we see him more
frequently siding with Prajñākaragupta than with Dharmottara, and
where he is sometimes also inclined to go his own way. Dharmottara
and Prajñākaragupta were innovative thinkers who in their writings
50
51
52
53
See Rje btsun nag phug[s] pa'i rnam thar [dbu med manuscript in 19 folios], C.P.N.
catalog no. 004381(7), 14a-b. For this manuscript, see my "Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam 'bras Teachings of the Sa skya pa
and Ko brag pa," 186-7.
The following is based on Kun spangs chen po chos rje'i rnam thar yon tan rab gsal
[dbu med manuscript in 40 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002815(5), 17a ff, 31a [= Ibid.,
Dpal ldan dus kyi 'khor lo jo nang pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i rnam thar, ed. Karma bde legs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), 96-8, 120-2]. For the manuscript, see my "Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam
'bras Teachings of the Sa skya pa and Ko brag pa," 190-3.
The manuscript has here: spyang ston rigs pa'i seng ge blo zur gyi drung du /…,
whereas the printed text has: spyang ston rig pa'i seng ge'i bla zur gyi drung du. I
must confess that am unclear about either!
He may be tentatively identified as the Stag stog pa Gnyan who was probably a
disciple of 'U yug pa and who authored an early history of pramāṇa, the Tshad
ma'i lo rgyus; see my "On Some Early Tibetan Pramāṇavāda Texts of the China Nationalities Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing," 8-10.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
135
often went well beyond the letter of Dharmakīrti's texts. And beyond
that, Prajñākaragupta was frequently critical of Dharmottara as well,
so that to engage both authors in tandem was indeed a very sensible
intellectual practice. In fact, Śākyaśrībhadra and Dānaśīla were reputed for their expertise in their writings in particular and Sa skya
Paṇḍita had made it a point to study these under them. Completing
his studies at Brag ram, Kun spangs pa then left for Shab in Gtsang ru
[or: Lcang ra] to study the unspecified commentary on tshad ma of
Nag phug pa under a certain Mkhas pa Rta ste gseng rgyal or Rta'i lte
ba seng rgyal. Neither name offered by the two texts of his biography
that are available to me make any sense and I wonder if this man
were none other than Stag sde pa Seng ge rgyal mtshan (1212-94)
who, among other things, was also one of Dpang Lo tsā ba's first
teachers and the editor of a manuscript of Rngog Lo tsā ba's translation of the Pramāṇaviniścaya.54 Then, in circa 1270,
[Manuscript:]
…dbus rtsang du rtog ge ba la chu mig seng ge dpal mkhas:
khong gis: dpal chos kyi grags pa la lan med kyi thal 'gyur bcu
gsum yod ces thos…
[Modern printed text:]
…dbus gtsang na rtog ge ba la / chu mig seng ge dpal mkhas /
khong gi dpal chos kyi grags pa la lan mod kyi thal 'gyur bcu
gsum yod ces thos…
That is to say, Kun spangs pa had heard that Chu mig pa had isolated
some thirteen undesirable consequences (thal 'gyur, prasaṅga)55 in the
course of what turns out to have been his study of the Pramāṇaviniścaya. Chu mig pa contended rather boastfully that not even Dharmakīrti had been able to offer a reply to these. It is obvious that the
text of the manuscript contains the superior readings and I can confirm that this is the rule rather than the exception! Aside from this,
Rgyal ba ye shes is not quite accurate here. It is true that Chu mig pa
included thirteen thal 'gyur arguments in his commentary, but he did
not write that it was in his view Dharmakīrti who could not reply to
54
55
"On Some Early Tibetan Pramāṇavāda Texts of the China Nationalities Library of
the Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing," 1-3.
For the prasaṅga in Dharmakīrti, see inter alia T. Iwata, Prasaṅga und Prasaṅgaviparyaya bei Dharmakīrti und seinen Kommentatoren, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie
und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 31 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1993).
136
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
these consequences. Rather, Chu mig pa himself wrote no one had
been able to make answer to these from Devendrabuddhi onward,
and he added the following note to the thirteenth thal 'gyur:56
'di ni lan med pa'i thal ba bcu 3 pa yin no // gzhung 'dir rang gi
phyogs la slob dpon lha'i dbang po blo gros man chad kyis lan
gdab par mi nus pa'i thal 'gyur bcu gsum yod par bdag gis
[149b] mthong ngo //
This is the thirteenth undesirable consequence for which there is
no answer. In this work, I have observed that his [Dharmakīrti's]
own position has thirteen undesirable consequences to which the
commentators from Master Devendrabuddhi on were unable to
make a reply.
At this time, Chu mig pa was staying in Snar thang monastery and
Kun spangs pa decided to travel to Snar thang to study Chu mig pa's
Pramāṇaviniścaya commentary and the Tshad ma bsdus pa with the author himself.57 Rgyal ba ye shes relates that he ended up disagreeing
with Chu mig pa in no uncertain terms, that he took the more senior
scholar to task in a public disputation and, if we are to believe this
biographer [and disciple], that he emerged victorious from the debates and thus effectively plunged Chu mig pa into ignominy.
Kun spangs pa first taught the Pramāṇaviniścaya and the Rig gter as
an assistant (zur chos pa) of 'Dar Byang chub skyabs in the monasteries of Don mo ri, Chos sdings, and other places. He then took the
grand institution (sde chen) of 'Khyog in G.yas ru as his see (gdan sa
mdzad), where he taught a series of exoteric subjects, including tshad
ma. Thereafter, he was invited to teach in Rkyang 'dur which, as
Rgyal ba ye shes states, was Nag phug pa's see (gdan sa). Nag phug
pa's nephew (dbon po), the assistant (zur chos pa), the chief administrator of the monastery (dpon po) Seng ge mgon po, various lesser officials of the monastery (sde'i dpon chung), the ministers (blon po) and
financial sponsors got together and made him an offer of seven large
religious estates (chos gzhi) with Rkyang 'dur being the main one.
56
57
See his *Tshad ma rnam nges kyi tika [dbu med manuscript in 152 folios], C.P.N.
catalog no. 004827(4), 148b-9a [= Ibid, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol.
87, ed. Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron
mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 302-1].
The Tshad ma bsdus pa most probably refers to his Tshad ma sde bdun gyi phyogs
gcig du bsdus pa gzhan gyi phyogs thams cad las rnam par rgyal ba [dbu med manuscript in 68 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004827(1) [= Ibid, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum
phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 87, ed. Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun
tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 314-449].
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
137
Then placing in his hand the white conch-horn that had been Nag
phug pa's personal property, they requested that he assume the
monastery's abbacy. Note here that this monastery and the estates
attached to it must have been pretty respectable in size and at least
large enough to have a substantial number of officials running it. Of
course, he could not but accept the invitation and assumed the grand
position (go cha chen po) of abbot. Among other texts, he taught there
the Pramāṇaviniścaya and the Rigs gter, and apparently composed two
treatises during his tenure as abbot of this monastery, one on Centrist-Madhyamaka philosophy titled the Dbu ma'i rigs pa gsal bar byed
pa rdo rje 'phreng ba, and the other on tshad ma, the Tshad ma bsdus pa,
which was based on the Pramāṇaviniścaya. That is all we learn about
tshad ma from Rgyal ba ye shes' biography of Kun spangs pa. As far
as his own intellectual biography is concerned, we have a study of his
life that was written in 1362 by Mnga' ris Chos kyi rgyal po (1306-86),
alias Phyogs las rnam rgyal.58 It is obvious from this biography of
which the first half reads more like a record of teachings received,
that Rgyal ba ye shes was mainly interested in tantric theory and
practice of the Gsar ma as well as the Rnying ma traditions, but he
appears to have studied tshad ma at Sa skya monastery with Rin chen
rgyal mtshan.
Lastly, a certain Bsod nams rin chen was another teacher of the
Rigs gter. He taught the text to Shangs Rin chen seng ge (?-?) in possibly Sreg shing, as did Zla ba 'od zer and Dpal ldan ye shes, albeit this
time in Sa skya.59 The latter also taught 'U yug pa's Rigs pa grub pa, his
commentary on the Rigs gter, on which see below. Interestingly,
Bcom ldan pa, that is, no doubt Dar ma rgyal mtshan, also instructed
him in a Tshad ma bsdus pa. This may be a reference to his very own
Tshad ma sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog, a treatise that is structurally similar to the Rigs gter and Chu mig pa's Gzhan phyogs rnam rgyal.
According to the numerous glosses of one manuscript of Dar ma
rgyal mtshan's treatise that link various positions on Dharmakīrti
with their putative authors, Sa skya Paṇḍita was one of this scholar's
many targets of criticism, whereas Chu mig pa does not seem to figure even once in his cross hairs.60 Later, as a mature scholar, Rin chen
58
59
60
See Chos kyi rje byang chub sems dpa' chen po'i rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che'i
gter mdzod kun las btus pa [slightly incomplete (fol. 1 is missing) dbu med manuscript in 32 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002780, 4a.
For this and what follows, see his autobiography in Shangs kyi bla ma chos rje rin
seng pa'i rnam thar, Sa skya lam 'bras Literature Series, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya
Centre, 1983), 349-50, 355.
These identifying glosses are only present in the 95-folio manuscript of C.P.N. no.
002468(2). They are absent in the text published on the basis of this manuscript in
Tshad ma sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Krung go'i bod
138
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
seng ge was invited to the Mongol imperial court in China and was
apparently escorted to one of the two capital cities — here most
probably Dadu — by a party of imperial envoys that was led by the
Director (dben shri < Ch. yuanshi) Dpal skyes, who most probably was
a Tibetan official connected to the Department of Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs in Dadu. He stayed there for nine years in the capacity
as head of the Rigs grwa, that is, the seminary for the study of logic
and epistemology, where he taught the Pramāṇavārttika and Rigs gter
some eight times every year!
I suspect that if not their conceptual content then at least the differentiation and demarcation that is implied in the expressions Rngog
lugs and Sa lugs had their origin in the acute considerations of the
maverick Sa skya pa scholar, the great Gser mdog Paṇ chen. From his
vantage point, it is obvious that for him the latter expression refers
not only to the Rigs gter and the enormous body of exegetical literature that had spun from it up to his own floruit, but also to the commentaries on the Pramāṇavārttika that were composed by his student[s] and the later fourteenth and early fifteenth century Sa skya pa
philosophers. But it was Glo bo Mkhan chen who noted the existence
of some three Rigs gter commentaries by Sa skya Paṇḍita's own students, namely the previously noted Rigs pa grub pa by 'U yug pa, the
Rigs pa'i snang ba by Rong ston chen po and the Sde bdun gsal ba['i
rgyan] by Lho pa Kun mkhyen, each of which thus date from the thirteenth century. Jackson must have had the aforementioned passage
from Glo bo Mkhan chen in mind when he wrote that these three
texts were topical commentaries (don 'grel) on the Pramāṇavārttika and
not on the Rigs gter.61 He makes this remark in his description of a
manuscript of the first chapter of a work on the Pramāṇavārttika that
is indeed subtitled Rigs pa'i snang ba.62 He understandably conjectures
this work to have been written by Ldong ston. That Glo bo Mkhan
chen's text confuses Ldong ston with Rong ston chen po is problematic and I cannot offer an explanation for it. If Ldong ston were in-
61
62
kyi she rig dpe skrun khang, 1991), 1-138, as they are from the dbu med manuscript that was published in the Bka’ gdams gsung ‘bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 54, ed.
Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs
dpe skrun khang, 2007), 329-515.
See his undated Sde bdun mdo dang bcas pa'i dgongs 'grel thad ma rigs gter la nye bar
mkho ba mtha' gnyis gsal byed, Thub pa'i dgongs pa rab gsal dang tshad ma rig[s] gter
skor, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Pal Evam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985), 63 [= Ibid.,
Tshad ma rigs gter gyi 'grel pa, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Xining: Krung go'i bod kyi
shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988), 293].
See his "Sources for the Study of Tibetan Pramāṇa Traditions Preserved at the
Bihar Research Society, Patna," Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological Tradition, ed.
E. Steinkellner (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1991), 100-1.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
139
deed confused with Rong ston chen po [Shākya rgyal mtshan], then
we can affirm that it was not because the latter's Pramāṇaviniścaya
commentary or his exegesis of the Rigs gter had the subtitle of Rigs
pa'i snang ba, for their subtitles were, respectively, Rtog ge'i snang ba
and Nyi ma'i snying po. Nonetheless, he cites the Rigs pa'i snang ba
several times in his Rigs gter commentary, and explicitly connects it
once with Ldong ston chen po.63 Glo bo Mkhan chen writes in connection with the gzhung, "the authoritative treatise," which here is not
to be understood as a reference to the Pramāṇavārttika but rather to
the Rigs gter:
gzhung de nyid la'ang dpal ldan paṇḍi ta'i //
rigs tshul gsal bar dpyod ldan 'u yug pa //
rigs pa'i seng ge'i rigs pa grub pa dang //
rong ston chen po'i rigs pa'i snang ba dang //
kun mkhyen lho pa'i sde bdun gsal ba ste //
don gyi 'grel byed rmad byung rnam gsum byung //
Also with respect to that very text of Sa skya Paṇḍita, there
arose three wondrous commentators of the meaning of the
text, having the intellectual acumen (dpyod ldan) for clarifying the argumentation of lustrous Sa skya Paṇḍita:
[1] 'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge's Rigs pa grub pa
[2] Rong ston chen po's Rigs pa'i snang ba
[3] Kun mkhyen Lho pa's Sde bdun gsal ba['i rgyan]
In his own exegesis of the Rigs gter's autocommentary, Glo bo Mkhan
chen cites positions held by "'U yug pa" and "Rigs pa'i seng ge", and
not once one that was entertained by an "'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge."
The first three passages he cites and links to 'U yug pa can be easily
traced to 'U yug pa's Rigs pa grub pa.64 But what about those passages
that he connects to a Rigs pa'i seng ge? The first three are not retrievable from the Rigs pa grub pa,65 so that we are thus led to conclude
that we must distinguish between his "'U yug pa" and "Rigs pa'i seng
ge." Who might this Rigs pa'i seng ge have been? I would suggest
that he is Byang chub dpal bzang po (1287-1375), alias Bka' bzhi pa
Rigs pa'i seng ge. His biographer and disciple Seng ge bzang po
wrote in his 1419 biography that he had composed a Rigs gter com63
64
65
See the NYI, 111 [= NYI[1] 72, NYI[2], 112].
This is RGR, for which see above n. 6. For the references to 'U yug pa, see NYI, 16,
27, 61, etc. [=NYI[1], 12, 18, 40, etc.; NYI[2], 16, 27, 61, etc.], which relate to RGR, 3, ?,
24, etc.
NYI, 28, 162, 296, etc. [= NYI[1], 19, 104, 188, etc.; NYI[2], 27, 163, 302, etc.].
140
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
mentary.66 On the other hand, Glo bo Mkhan chen's references to
Ldong ston clearly indicate that whatever his work may have been
called, it had very much to do with the Rigs gter.67 However, as I indicated above, not once do these link Ldong ston to any title of a work,
let alone to one that is subtitled Rigs pa'i snang ba! The same cannot
entirely be said without some ambiguity of Glo bo Mkhan chen's notices concerning Lho pa Kun mkhyen,68 although they do make clear
that his work did at least in part deal with the Rigs gter, even if the
title suggests that it was conceived as an introduction to Dharmakīrti’s oeuvre. But then this was also the intent of the Rigs gter! Glo bo
Mkhan chen's commentary draws attention to a good number of textcritical problems that beset the various "editions" of texts of the Rigs
gter, and this aspect of his work is rather unusual as far as Tibetan
texts go. When we place this along side his obvious interest in the
history of ideas and the exegetical development of Rigs gter studies,
we can only conclude that much of his work was composed under
the direct influence of Gser mdog Paṇ chen, even if it is also quite
transparent therein that he did not always agree with the master,
which is something he articulates with some poignancy in his autobiography.69
The recent publication of the edited text of a full manuscript of Mi
nyag 'Jam dbyangs grags pa's substantial autobiography will hopefully soon prove to be of immense value for the study of late fourteenth and early fifteenth century Khams in particular, for he was a
great traveler and was quite well connected in this region. This work
deserves close scrutiny. His dates have not yet come down to us, but
we know that he was somewhat of a disciple of Mi nyag Mkhan chen
Rin chen bzang po (1317-83), alias Rma Se Ston pa, and especially of
Ye shes rdo rje dpal bzang po, the author of Rin chen bzang po's un66
67
68
69
See his Mkhan chen bka' bzhi pa chen po rig[s] pa'i seng ge'i rnam par thar pa yon tan
rin po che'i rgya mtsho, Mi nyag mkhas dbang lnga'i rnam thar, ed. Thub bstan nyi
ma (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986), 71. A synoptic version of
his biography by Skyed legs sprul sku Nam mkha' rgyal mtshan was published
in Mkhas shing grub pa'i skyes chen mi lnga'i rnam thar ngo mtshar snang ba in Mi
nyag 'jam dbyangs grags pa'i rang rnam, ed. Mi nyag Thub bstan chos dar (Beijing:
Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2005), 312-8. Skyed legs Sprul sku is a
contemporary scholar about whom I know nothing.
NYI, 15, 47, 56, etc. [= NYI[1], 10, 31, 37, etc.; NYI[2], 15, 47, 56, etc.]. The first of these citations was discussed in my "Ldong ston Shes rab dpal and a Version of the
Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter in Thirteen Chapters," Berliner Indologische Studien 2 (1986),
51-64.
NYI, 38, 111, 114, etc. [= NYI[1], 25, 72, 74, etc.; NYI[2], 38, 112, 115, etc.].
Kramer, A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen (14561532), 159-64. His reference to "our own learned teachers" (kho bo'i bla ma mkhas pa
dag) in NYI, 33 [= NYI[1], 23; NYI[2], 34], is without a doubt inclusive of Gser mdog
Paṇ chen.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
141
dated biography, as well as of Karma pa V De bzhin gshegs pa (13841415) with whom he stayed at the court of the Yongle Emperor (r.
1402-24). We can therefore triangulate the year of his birth to circa
1370. Rin chen bzang po had founded Rā tī Byams pa gling monastery in 136470 and the young 'Jam dbyangs grags pa first visited it at
the age of nine. This seems to have been a rather well endowed institution with a very fine library, one that with the usual ups and
downs over the centuries amazingly still exists to this day. What is
unusual is that he mentions in his autobiography a number of titles
of what are ostensibly rare thirteenth and fourteenth century treatises
of tshad ma and the names of their authors, two of whom are definitely Sa skya pa scholars, namely, Shong ston [Lo tsā ba] Rdo rje rgyal
mtshan (13thc.) and Gnas drug pa Blo gros mtshungs med (14thc.).71
He attributes to both a Tshad ma bsdus pa, a generic term that can indicate a kind of Pramāṇaviniścaya commentary or a text like the Rigs
gter, and it is possibly not insignificant to keep in mind that Shong
ston Lo tsā ba was of course one of Ston gzhon's teachers! Unfortunately, his work has not surfaced so far, but its subtitle may have
very well been the Blo gros kha 'byed. Dpang Lo tsā ba cites this work,
which is most probably a treatise of tshad ma, in connection with the
concept of definition (mtshan nyid) in his undated Abhidharmasamuccaya commentary.72
In sum, then, the places where we have reason to suspect that the
Rigs gter to have been part of the curriculum or where the Sa lugs
held sway are the following:
In Gtsang:
Sa skya
Stag thog
Sreg shing
Rkyang 'dur
Don mo ri
Chos sdings
In Dbus:
Bsam yas
In Khams:
Sho monastery
70
71
72
Tsom mdo gnas gsar
See Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so'i lo rgyus gsal bar bshad pa thub
bstan gsal ba'i me long, comp. Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi
chos lugs lo rgyus zhib 'jug so'o et al., ed. 'Jigs med bsam grub, vol. 3 (Beijing:
Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1995), 121.
Mi nyag 'jam dbyangs grags pa'i rang rnam, ed. Mi nyag Thub bstan chos dar, 5-6.
See his Chos mngon pa kun las btus kyi rgya cher 'grel pa shes bya gsal byed (Dehra
Dun: Sakya College, 1999), 38. For Dpang Lo tsā ba's treatise, see my "Notes on
Jñānamitra's Commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya," passim.
142
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
In Amdo:
Dpal gyi sde chen in Shing kun (= Ch. Lintao)
Sprul pa'i sde
In Yuan China:
Dadu
Shangdu
In addition to the two institutions in Khams, and those that were affiliated with them, there were a number of others that, according to
local histories, were founded either by Sa skya Paṇḍita, by 'Phags pa,
or by their mutual disciple Sga A gnyan dam pa Kun dga' grags
(1230-1303).73
4. A Profile of Ston gzhon's Life
Like so many other Tibetan scholars, Ston gzhon has yet to be placed
on the map of thirteenth century Tibetan intellectual history, a map
that has till the present remained more or less a blank and barren
document, punctuated only here and there with a major figure whose
writings more often than not were either irretrievably lost or awaited
their lucky recoverer and publisher. Many of the lines that would
otherwise connect these men [and several women] because of their
shared institutional, scholarly and spiritual practice-oriented affiliations have now all but faded from historical memory. And only a
concerted effort at carefully sifting and reading through the available
literature, which remains a mere fragment of what was written in
highly literate Tibet, will enable us fruitfully to connect some of the
dots through which an outline, a profile — and it will never be more
than that — of an individual can emerge. Such a profile allows us a
modicum of access to the intellectual lives of these men and women,
their interaction, and the influence they may have exerted on their
contemporaries and later generations. The present section, which
aims to shed some light on the life of Ston gzhon, is a first attempt at
doing precisely this, but, being of necessity relatively thin on details,
it is at a considerable remove from being an unqualified success.
Alas, no manuscript of his biography or autobiography, if ever one
existed, has come to light so far! Further, since only very few of the
available sources other than his Pramāṇavārttika commentary relate
73
See Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so'i lo rgyus gsal bar bshad pa thub
bstan gsal ba'i me long, comp. Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi
chos lugs lo rgyus zhib 'jug so'o et al., ed. 'Jigs med bsam grub, vol. 1-3.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
143
anything that would otherwise cast light on his life, his institutional
status, and the people with whom he was involved, the difficulty of
finding out more about him is exacerbated by the fact that ston gzhon,
a contraction of [at a minimum] ston pa gzhon nu, is by itself an unusual name in religion. Two possibilities offer themselves in the interpretation of this phrase. Given that it is not entirely likely that it is in
fact a bona fide name in religion, we could interpret it as a sobriquet,
meaning "the young teacher." The term ston is short for ston pa, which
is a title of sorts that we often come across in especially pre-fifteenth
century Tibet. In this sense, there are prima facie at least four men in
the thirteenth century who, since they share this nickname, if it is
one, may be considered potential candidates for the identity of our
Ston gzhon. These are: Sbas pa Ston gzhon, Cog ro Ston gzhon, Skag
pa Ston gzhon — in each case, sbas, cog ro, skag are toponyms — and
just Ston gzhon. 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481) writes
that, born in 1244, the first was associated with Spyil bu monastery in
'Chad kha, which was located in 'Phan yul, roughly to the north of
Lhasa.74 The connections of this Bka' gdams pa institution's ruling
family with especially Sa skya Paṇḍita and 'Phags pa are such that
his identity with our Ston gzhon can by no means be a priori excluded. But we know nothing else about him and the question thus remains open. The second and third are registered in the Sa skya pa
scholar Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po's (1382-1456) lengthy record of
what he had studied with his teachers and the lineages through
which they were handed down, his Thob yig.75 Skag pa Ston gzhon
would probably be too old to warrant serious consideration, as he
appears to have been a contemporary of Sa skya Paṇḍita. But the
chances are better than good that the Ston gzhon from Cog ro76 is the
74
75
76
Deb gter sngon po, ed. L.Chandra (Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976), 250 [G.N. Roerich, tr., The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1979), 280]. 'Gos Lo tsā ba's narrative seems to be largely based on the same kind
of sources that were at the disposal of Yar lung Jo bo Shākya rin chen sde while
he was writing his ecclesiastic history of 1376; see his Chos 'byung, ed. Dbyangs
can (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 112-3. Sbas pa Ston
gzhon is there associated with the "five treatises of Maitreya" and Madhyamaka,
and not with tshad ma. Of course, this means nothing by itself, and we can most
certainly assume that he was familiar with tshad ma as well. Using the dating
proposed by Dung dkar Rin po che in his dictionary, tbrc.org dates the year of his
birth to 1223.
Thob yig rgya mtsho, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 36, 88/1, 61/3.
Perhaps writing late in his life, Nyang ral Nyi ma'i 'od zer (1124-92) relates in
what has been assumed to have been his chronicle that there were three places in
Central Tibet called Cog ro; one in Dbus, one in Shangs and one in Nyang; see
Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal,
Gangs can rig mdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988),
112.
144
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
author of our Pramāṇavārttika commentary. Not only does Ngor chen
state that he had studied with 'Phags pa a corpus of the writings of
the founding fathers of the Sa skya pa school, but he also associates
him with a Chos kyi brtson 'grus, who was one of his students, and
[indirectly] with a certain Sangs rgyas rin chen who in turn was one
of the students of the latter. We shall see below that Ston gzhon as the
author of the Pramāṇavārttika commentary mentions two men with
these very names in the colophon of his work. Ngor chen mentions
the fourth individual, Ston gzhon Rdo rje shes rab, in his catalog of
Indian and Sa skya pa commentaries on the Hevajratantra.77 He is
there said to have written a series of notes (zin bris) that follow 'Phags
pa's views on the tantra. And it is for this reason that I would be inclined to hold that he is identical with Cog ro Ston gzhon. In each of
these instances, we cannot of course exclude the possibility that
gzhon [nu] is the first part of a larger compound reflecting his actual
name in religion, an instance of which we meet in Ta'i si tu Byang
chub rgyal mtshan's (1302-64) autobiography, where mention is
made of Ston pa Gzhon nu 'od.78 If so, then we would have to write
his name not as "Ston gzhon," but as "Ston Gzhon."
In his very brief introduction, Sun summarizes only some of the
information Ston gzhon imparted in the colophon of his work and
notes that 'Gos Lo tsā ba mentions him in the following lineage along
which the Pramāṇavārttika was transmitted in Tibet: Sa skya Paṇḍita
⟶ 'U yug pa ⟶ Zhang btsun Mdo sde dpal ⟶ 'Jam dbyangs skya bo
⟶ Dpal ldan pa [= Dpal ldan seng ge or Dpal ldan tshul khrims] ⟶
'Jam dbyangs Ston gzhon ⟶ Nor bzang[s] dpal.79 But there is more
that can be extracted from his Pramāṇavārttika commentary for, happily, his work offers a number of other significant details about his
77
78
79
Kyai rdo rje'i 'grel pa'i dkar chag, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 58, 286/1.
Bka' chems mthong ba don ldan, Rlangs kyi po ti bse ru rgyas pa, ed. Chab spel Tshe
brtan phun tshogs and Nor brang O rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 1 (Lhasa: Bod
ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1986), 139.
Deb gter sngon po, 307-8 [Roerich, The Blue Annals, 346], where "'Jam dbyangs skya
bo" was misread as "'Jam dbyangs Sa skya pa," 'Gos Lo tsā ba comments that
Mkhan chen Rgyal mtshan bzang po (1350-1425) had isolated this unusual line
after some research; for the latter, see the Deb gter sngon po, 685-6 [Roerich, The
Blue Annals, 781-2]. The Mkhan chen also figures in Zhwa dmar IV Chos grags ye
shes' (1453-1524) 1517 biography of 'Gos Lo tsā ba as his karmācārya when he was
fully ordained as a monk in 1410. Earlier, in 1403 and 1405, Bsam grub bzang po
had taught the Pramāṇavārttika and Nor bzang dpal's commentary (nor bzang ṭīk)
to the young 'Gos Lo tsā ba. For these data, see Zhwa dmar IV's Dpal ldan bla ma
dam pa mkhan chen thams cad mkhyen pa don gyi slad du mtshan can nas smos te gzhon
nu dpal gyi rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che mchog tu rgyas pa'i ljon pa [dbu can
manuscript in 74 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 003259(11), 4b-5a [= 'Gos lo gzhon nu
dpal gyi rnam thar, ed. Ngag dbang nor bu (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
2004), 11-2].
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
145
life and teachers. In fact, it most probably contains much more information about him than I have been able to excavate, for it remains
true that a measure of familiarity with a certain epoch or tradition in
Tibetan Buddhism can simply not compete with, nor be a substitute
for, the kind of learning a native scholar living in that period could
bring to his enjoyment of a work. Such a savy contemporary would
no doubt have several occasions to wrinkle a smile when, in his perusal of Ston gzhon's study, he was picking up on a subtle allusion or
a learned innuendo anent a contemporary intellectual, work, or
event. Doubtless, many of these must have flown over my head unnoticed, but a little experience with the period does open a few doors,
especially when we come somewhat prepared for what we might
find. For example, the fourth of the six verses with which Ston gzhon
introduces his work reads śleṣa-like80:
shes bya kun la kun nas sbyangs pa'i blo gros mchog gi lus
rgyas shing //
mkhas rnams dga' ba'i yon tan brgya phrag du ma'i brgyan gyis
rnam par mdzes //
dri med bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan brtan par skyong mdzad lhar
bcas 'gro ba'i dpal //
chos rje chos rgyal bzang po'i zhabs pad dri ma med la gus
phyag 'tshal //
Expanding the corpus of the supreme intellect that has been
trained in every respect regarding all that is knowable,
Beautified with the ornament of many hundreds of qualities that
delight the learned,
Protecting the stability of the victory banner of the stainless
Teaching, the lustre of heaven and the world,
Reverential homage to the stainless lotus feet of the good, religious lord, the religious king!
As indicated by bold letters, this verse is obviously a collage of various parts of a personal name. And already a first reading will alert
the attentive reader that his use of chos rje chos rgyal, “Lord of religion, King of religion,” alludes to the fact that someone important is
most probably being alluded to in this verse. Once we recognize that
blo gros of line one, rgyal mtshan and dpal of line three, and bzang po of
line four form the name in religion "Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal
bzang po," we can identify the individual to whom he pays homage
80
STON,
3.
146
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
as 'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po.81 But this is not all,
the verse also hides the name in religion of Sa skya Paṇḍita, as indicated in bold letters:
shes bya kun la kun nas sbyangs pa'i blo gros mchog gi lus rgyas
shing //
mkhas rnams dga' ba'i yon tan brgya phrag du ma'i brgyan gyis
rnam par mdzes //
dri med bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan brtan par skyong mdzad lhar
bcas 'gro ba'i dpal //
chos rje chos rgyal bzang po'i zhabs pad dri ma med la gus
phyag 'tshal //
Expanding the corpus of the supreme intellect that has been
trained in every respect regarding all that is knowable,
Beautified with the ornament of many hundreds of qualities that
delight the learned,
Protecting the stability of the victory banner of the stainless
Teaching, the lustre of heaven and the world,
Reverential homage to the stainless lotus feet of the good, religious lord, the religious king!
And finally, line 3 may also cloak "Dri med dpal [*Vimalaśrī]", the
name of his Kashmirian teacher, on whom see below.
Now a Ston gzhon figures at least twice in 'Phags pa's oeuvre. In
the fall of 1277, 'Phags pa lectured in Sa skya on a number of canonical sūtra-texts, including the Daśabhūmikasūtra, and the summary of
this sūtra contained in his collected writings is owed to the notes a
Ston gzhon had taken down while he was in attendance.82 He may
also be the same as the addressee of a very short "letter" 'Phags pa
wrote to a Ston gzhon at an unknown time in the form of two quatrains; the text of this little ephemeral document reads as follows:83
81
82
83
To be sure, the epithet chos kyi rje in STON, 233, ad PV, III: 54c-d, refers to Sa skya
Paṇḍita and not to 'Phags pa, for Ston gzhon alludes here to a passage in the Rigs
gter autocommentary, which virtually begins with a quote of the same
Pramāṇavārttika half-verse, for which see RGRG, 168/4 ff. [=RGRG[1], 49 ff.].
Byang chub sems dpa'i sa'i (sic) sdom, SSBB, vol. 7, no. 238, 225/1. It will be noted
that the title suggests that this is a summary of the Bodhisattvabhūmi!
See Ston gzhon la spring ba, SSBB, vol. 7, no. 278, 242/3; it is also cited in Tsom mdo
gdan rabs kun btus, Smar pa bka' brgyud kyi rnam thar phyogs sgrig, ed. Padma tshul
khrims, 120. A Ston gzhon is briefly mentioned by 'Chad kha ba Nam mkha'
'bum (1207-after 1267) in his narrative of a second epsiode in 'Phags pa's life for
late 1267, which A mes zhabs cites in his Sa skya'i gdung rabs ngo mtshar bang
mdzod, 184.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
147
blo che rlom che spobs pa che //
gzugs chung 'khos chung longs spyod chung //
chen po gsum dang chung ngu gsum //
gcig la 'dzom[s] pa de la spring //
tshul khrims dag pa'i rtsa ba rab brtan zhing //
mang du thos pa'i lo 'dab kyis phyug pa'i //a
ting 'dzin zhi ba'i 'bras bus sbud gyur pa'i //
ston gzhon dpag bsam ljon pa rgyas gyur cig //
a
...kyis phyug pa'i // is not an example of very fine Tibetan
prosody.
Great in intelligence, great in boast, great in courage,
Small in size, small in office, small in possessions,
Three greats and three smalls,
A message to him [in whom these] are fused into one.
A firm root of pure, proper behavior and,
Resplendent with the foliage of much-learning,
Adorned with the fruit of calm meditative integration,
May Ston gzhon, the wishfulfilling tree, flourish!
Reading these verses, it becomes readily apparent that apart from
their mere existence, they are otherwise almost devoid of any historical content. The phrase "the root of pure behavior" could be a nod at
the pratimokṣa vow, meaning that he may have been a monk and not a
layman. What we are able to conclude without any ambiguity from
the last verse is that Ston gzhon was already respected for his learning when it was written, that is, he was either no longer young, or he
was a prodigious youth. These very same two quatrains are also cited
in Tshul krims rin chen's sketch of the life of Ston pa Tshul khrims
gzhon nu (1197-1277), the second abbot of Tsom mdo gnas gsar,
where it is further related that 'Phags pa left the area sometime during the intermediate autumn-month of 1275.84 Although he is referred
84
Byang chub 'od zer, Tsom mdo gdan rabs kun btus, 120. On p. 122, we learn that he
had written commentaries on the Sum cu pa and Rtags kyi 'jug pa, the little Tibetan
"grammatical" treatises whose textual history is still beset with so much mystery,
a work on tantric practice (sngags kyi thabs lam) and songs of liberating gnosis
(rtogs pa'i nyams mgur), and what appears to be a commentary on Nāgārjuna's
Ratnāvalī (Rin 'phreng 'grel pa). 'Phags pa was recognized as the one who was in
control of Central Tibet on behalf of the Mongol imperial court. It is perhaps no
accident that he would write a study of the Ratnāvalī, since this work is fundamental to Buddhist notions of kingship and its ethical dimensions; see C. Scher-
148
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
to as "Ston tshul" and "Ston gzhon" in this biography, this man's dates
preclude him from being our Ston gzhon and it is he who is no doubt
the very same person who was the focus of a short article by L. Petech.85 Tshul krims rin chen states that he passed away on the fifth
day of the seventh month, that is, on July 7, 1277. The summary of
Daśabhūmikasūtra that is contained in 'Phags pa's writings is dated
September of the same year and this renders the identity of these two
men, both of whom happen to be called Ston gzhon, an impossibility.
Ston gzhon refers once in the body of his text to a khams gsum gyi
chos kyi rgyal po, "Religious King of the Three Realms," a phrase that
in those passages where he takes pains to identify his teachers — he
identifies him as "our teacher" (kho bo'i bla ma) — can here only indicate 'Phags pa. The context in which the latter is mentioned is at the
end of his interpretation of twelve verses of the Pramāṇavārttika's
third chapter on perception, in which, in PV, III: 208-19, Dharmakīrti
essayed to come to terms with the irreconcilable difficulties a philosopher encounters when he is committed to a realistic ontology and a
mentalistic epistemology, that is, when he argues from being or from
being-aware.86 There, Ston gzhon makes the following observation
that is perhaps not altogether free from hyperbole:87
...tshigs su bcad pa bcu gnyis pa'i bshad pa ni mdzod mdzad pa
dang / ṭi ka byed pa gzhan gyis gzhan dang gzhan du bshad
na'ang / kho bos ni / kho bo'i bla ma khams gsum chos kyi rgyal
po gsung rab thams cad rnam par 'byed pa'i mkhyen rab yangs
pa can gyi gsung ngag rin po ches gzhung gzhan du bshad pa la
brten nas rnam par bshad pa 'di kho na gzhung gi dgongs pa yin
no //
85
86
87
rer-Schaub, "Immortality extolled with reason: Philosophy and politics in Nāgārjuna," Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers Dedicated to E. Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th
Birthday, ed. B. Kellner et al., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.2 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien Universität Wien, 2007), 757-93.
See L. Petech, "Ston-tshul: The Rise of Sa-skya Paramountcy in Khams," Tibetan
History and Language. Studies dedicated to Uray Géza on His Seventieth Birthday, ed.
E. Steinkellner Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 26
(Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien,
1991), 416-22.
For these verses, see their translation and analysis in T. Vetter, Erkenntnisprobleme
bei Dharmakīrti (Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1964), 69-70, and now also J.D
Dunne, Foundations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy (Boston: Wisdom Publications,
2004), 401-10.
STON, 280.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
149
...even if the explanation of these twelve quatrains were explained
in various different ways by the author of the Treasury (mdzod)
[= 'U yug pa]88 and other commentators, according to me, only
the explanation conceived by me on the basis of what was explained in another text by the precious statement (gsung ngag
rin po che) of my teacher, the religious king of the three realms,
who has an expansive Buddha-like intuitive understanding for
analyzing all the pronouncements of the Buddha and his followers, is the intent of the text of the Pramāṇavārttika.
His use of the highly charged phrase "precious statement" can only
be intentional. It is a reflex of, if it does not directly refer to, the esoteric Path-and-Result (lam 'bras) teachings of the Sa skya pa tradition,
which takes its point of departure from Virūpa's Rdo rje'i tshig rkang,
The Admantine Lines. 89 Davidson tentatively suggests that Virūpa
flourished in the final quarter of the eleventh century, and this fits
well with the very persuasive arguments in A. Sanderson's recent
forceful restatement of the priority of the Śaivite over the Buddhist
tantras in which he observes that the terminus a quo of the Hevajratantra and its related literature is the tenth century.90 One of the most
dearly held doctrinal entities, and hence called gsung ngag rin po che,
Ston gzhon's alignment of a work by 'Phags pa with this expression is
no accident. The Adamantine Lines itself is considered to be a crystallization of especially the Hevajratantra, and its two explanatory tantras,
the specific Ḍākinīvajrapañjaratantra and shared Saṃpuṭatantra [or:
Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra], and their cognate oral instructions and written
literature. Gayadhara and his disciple 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba Shākya ye
shes (?993-?1074/87) rendered this small work into Tibetan in the se88
89
90
It is rather remarkable that Ston gzhon never mentions 'U yug pa by name. In his
numerous critical references, he either writes "the author of the Mdzod" (mdzod
mdzad pa) or simply refers to the Mdzod; see STON, 21-2, 39, 64-6, 69, 71, 76, 95, 1245, 141-2, 152, 157, 170-1, 183, 186, 188, 193-7, 199, 203, 206, 232, 251-2, 273, 280, 292,
294, 314, 317-8, 323, 336-7, 342-3, 346, 352, 354-5, 360, 389, 405, 409, 410, 412, 420,
423, 426, 433, 437, 454, 456, 484. He obviously did not like what he was reading!
For 'U yug pa's comments on PV, III: 208-19, see RM, vol. 2, 60-6 [=RM, vol. Ga, 13340].
For a translation, notes, and an edition of this extraordinarily cryptic little text,
see R.M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan
Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 477-88, 493-517; for another, at times strikingly different translation, see Taking the Result as the Path. Core
Teachings of the Sakya Lamdré Tradition, tr. C.S. Stearns (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006), 13-21.
Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture,
53, and Sanderson, "The Śaiva Age — The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period," Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Sh. Einoo
(Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 163-5.
150
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
cond half of the eleventh century, after which a large number of
commentaries were composed on it. Originally handed down in a
wide variety of circles, the only ones that seem to have survived intact to the present day are those of the Sa skya pa traditions.91 No
doubt this was due in part to the fact that this school's first patriarch
Sa chen Kun dga' snying po (1092-1158) is recorded to have written
no less than eleven studies of this work and thus figures among this
little text's most consummate and foundational interpreters. Ngor
chen never completed his history of these highly esoteric instructions,
which he had begun at some unspecified time. This task was shouldered, perhaps independently, by his two disciples Gung ru Shes rab
bzang po (1411-75) and Go rams pa, and it is the former who attributes to 'Phags pa a study of the Precious Statement, which he calls the
Gzhung bshad 'phags mdzad ma.92 If this work were not the one hundred and eight-folio commentary on The Adamantine Lines the catalog
of 'Bras spungs monastery attributes to 'Phags pa,93 then I am not
sure if it is extant. And I am equally uncertain if Ston gzhon's remark
can really be construed as an allusion to it. Neither is it entirely obvious to me where, if he did allude to it, 'Phags pa would have inserted
a discussion of, or related to, the one found in PV, III: 208-19, in his
commentary. And insofar as his other, minor works belonging to this
tradition as enumerated by Gung ru, the Rnal 'byor dbang phyug gi
bsrung ba'i yi ge, Tshogs sbyor kyi mngon rtogs and the Bdud rtsi ril bu
sgrub pa'i zhal shes, are manuals that have to do with practice-related
issues, they would not come into consideration. To be sure, the term
tshad ma occurs almost at the very outset of The Adamantine Lines, in
which connection Davidson has briefly pointed out that the result of
the path is "defined or structured by the ‘four-fold episteme’ (tshad
ma bzhis 'bras bu gtan la phab)."94 It appears that Sa chen, 'Phags pa's
91
92
93
94
For the early history of the Sa skya pa lam 'bras, see C.R. Stearns, Luminous Lives.
The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam 'bras Tradition in Tibet (Boston: Wisdom
Publications, 2001) as well as his Taking the Result as the Path. Core Teachings of the
Sakya Lamdré Tradition, 129-251, 253-84.
See his Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi byung tshul gsung ngag rin po che'i
bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi 'od, SSBB vol. 9, no. 37, 121/1.
'Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba'i dpe rnying dkar chag, Stod cha, ed. Bstan
'dzin phun tshogs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), 373, no. 3798.
See his "Masquerading as pramāṇa: Esoteric Buddhism and Epistemological Nomenclature," Dharmakīrti's Thought and Its Impact on Indian and Tibetan Philosophy
[Proceedings of the Third International Dharmakīrti Conference Hiroshima, November 46, 1997], ed. Sh. Katsura (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 33-4. We may quibble with his use, in this context, of "episteme," a precious word coined by M. Foucault who uses it in different contexts
and with different meanings attached to it. On the instrumentalist view or on any
other interpretation of Dharmakīrti, a pramāṇa/ tshad ma is precisely a means by
which what is true/real can be distinguished from what is deviant/unreal.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
151
great-grandfather argued in his large Sras don ma exegesis, allegedly
written for his own sons, that these four "epistemes" constitute, and
here I paraphrase or quote Davidson:
[1] the infallible speech of the Buddha
[2] the validity of the tantric master's, the vajrācārya's instructions
[3] the authority of the practitioner's own experience
[4] the reliability of interdependence in the relationship between master and student
The tradition usually cites a verse from the second section of the fifth
chapter of the Saṃpuṭatantra as an authority for these four, but the
meaning of the verse is rather obscure. It reads in the 1744 Sde dge
xylograph of the eleventh century translation by the same team that
was responsible for the Tibetan version of The Adamantine Lines, but
which was later revised by Bu ston in the early 1330s, that:95
bstan bcos tshad ma slob dpon dang //
lung gi rjes 'brangs de nyid shesa //
gsang don de nyid dngos po yang //
de nyid las ni gcig las gcig //
a
We sometimes find rig instead of its synonym shes.
Other quotations of this verse by Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo (114282), Sa chen's eldest son, Ngor chen, and Go rams pa suggest a different reading for the last line:96
gcig nas gcig brgyud shes par bya //
95
96
SDE,
vol. 16, no. 381, 225/4 [Ga, 104a]; see also the Bka' 'gyur dpe sdur ma, vol. 79,
ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstan dpe sdur khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 2008), no. 0405, 286. It is
strange that in his catalog of this edition Si tu Paṇ chen Chos kyi 'byung gnas
(1700-74) attributes the translation only to the eleventh century team, without
mentioning Bu ston's later revision; see his Sde dge'i bka' 'gyur dkar chag (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 393-4. However, he does add that
Bu ston had claimed that this work is an explanatory tantra of several tantras besides the Hevajratantra, a position with which he agrees.
See, respectively, the Slob dpon's Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par bzhag pa, SSBB, vol. 2,
no. 1, 30/1, Ngor chen's Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i bshad thabs kyi man ngag, SSBB,
vol. 9, no. 38, 127/1, and Go rams pa's Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi
byung tshul gsung ngag bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi 'od kha skong dang bcas pa, SSBB, vol.
14, no. 87, 168/3-4. The latter's pp. 168/3-9/4, contains a lengthy account of these
four tshad ma-s.
152
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
And this variant reading is found, for example, in the handwritten
dbu can text of the Stog Palace edition of the Kanjur, which contains
the text of the tantra that had not been revised by Bu ston. Be that as
it may, its precise meaning remains resistant to interpretation and, in
the absence of an edition of the Sanskrit manuscripts and the Tibetan
translation[s], Davidson rightly hesitates to pronounce a judgment on
it, although he does hold that it fails to articulate four pramāṇa-s. And
he is in good company. In his 1175 exegesis of the tantra, the Slob
dpon for one isolated only three and not four such "authorities" (tshad
ma) in this verse, namely:
[1] scripture (lung) involves the authoritative tantras (lung ni
rgyud sde tshad ma),
[2] its uncontaminated transmitter is the authoritative commentarial treatise (de ma nyams pa'i brgyud pa ni bstan bcos
tshad ma)
[3] the one who unerringly teaching its essence is the authoritative master (de'i gnad ma 'krul par ston pa ni slob dpon
tshad ma).97
The Slob dpon firmly places his work historically on both exegetical
and text-critical levels by alluding to earlier studies of this tantra — it
is as yet not entirely clear whether these were oral or written, though
he frequently suggests his readership to consult their own masters
for practice-based instructions — and by an occasional remark about
variant readings in its Tibetan transmission. It also stands to reason,
though this still needs to be looked into, that his tour de force was
not written independently of the Tibetan recensions of the corpus of
Saṃpuṭatantra-related texts such as Indrabhūti's (?-?) Smṛtisaṃdarśanāloka (early 11thc.), the old *Kāyastha's (?-?) Suviniṣada (late
11thc.), the Ratnamālā by Dpa' bo rdo rje [*Vīravajra] (late 11thc.) —
*Vīravajra was a disciple of a certain Jñānaśrī — and, of course, Ab97
See the Saṃpuṭa'i ṭī ka gnas kyi gsal byed, SSBB, vol. 2, no. 15, 250/1: ...bstan bcos zhes
bya ba la sogs pa shlo ka gcig ste lung ni rgyud sde tshad ma'o // de ma nyams pa'i
brgyud pa ni bstan bcos tshad ma'o // de'i gnad ma 'khrul par ston pa ni slob dpon tshad
ma ste gsum gyis shes par 'gyur zhes bya ba'i don to //. He quotes PVIN, I: 29 [= PV, III:
282], on p. 200/2: 'dod 'jigs mya ngan gyis brlams dang // chom rkun rmi sogs kyis
bslad pa // yang dag min yang mdun na ni // gnas pa bzhin du gsal bar snang //, albeit
with several variant readings from the received text. For the text, see Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapters 1 and 2, ed. E. Steinkellner, Sanskrit Texts from
the Tibetan Autonomous Region, no. 2 (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House
/ Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2007), 27-28 [= T. Vetter, Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścayaḥ. 1. Kapitel: Pratyakṣam (Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1966), 74-5.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
153
hayākaragupta's marvellous Amnayamañjarī. According to the latter's
colophon,98 it was first translated in Nālanda by the author himself
and Tsa mi Lo tsā ba Sangs rgyas grags. Later, Śā kyaśrībhadra and
Dpyal Lo tsā ba Chos kyi bzang po (1162-1229)99 edited this translation with the aid of a Sanskrit manuscript from Magadha (dbus kyi
dpe) and it was again revised when Dpang Lo tsā ba compared the
text with two Indian/Sanskrit manuscripts (rgya gar gyi dpe) of unspecified provenance. It is quite probable that he had acquired these
not in the Indian subcontinent, for he never journeyed that far south,
but rather in the Kathmandu Valley. The sketch of his life by Bla ma
dam pa relates that during his first visit there, in 1296, his teacher
was a certain Ra ma mā da (=?) ācārya.100 Dngos grub rgya mtsho, on
the other hand, names two teachers, namely, Ra ma [= Rāma] ācārya
and Ma tha na [= ?] ācārya — it is not unthinkable that both go back
to Bla ma dam pa's ra ma mā da — in addition to a scholar from East
India by the name of Cuḍa Paṇḍita. Dngos grub rgya mtsho states in
connection with the Munimatālaṃkāra and the Amnayamañjarī that
Dpang Lo tsā ba had requested most of the local Nepalese scholars
for instructions in both.101 In any event, his revision of the Amnaya98
99
100
101
SDE,
vol. 21, no. 1201 [#1198], 595/1 [Cha, 316a]. The ?1737 Beijing xylograph of
this work is probably based on a different manuscript of Dpang Lo tsā ba's translation. Contrary to the Sde dge xylograph, it concludes with a number of verses
from ?his pen that occur after the usual translators' credits; see The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Peking Edition, ed. D.T. Suzuki, vol. 55 (Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute, 1955-61), no. 2358, 248/5-9/1. For further information, see the
text with text-critical annotations in the Bka' 'gyur dpe sdur ma, vol. 4, ed. Krung
go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstan dpe sdur khang (Beijing: Krung
go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1996), no. 0093, 766-777. See also T. Tomabechi and K. Kano, "A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment
from Abhayākaragupta's Amnayamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr. 259b," Tantric Studies 1 (2008), 22-44.
A useful sketch of Dpyal Lo tsā ba's life may be found in Bya btang pa Padma
rdo rje, Dpyal gyi gdung rabs za ra tshags dang gang gā'i chu rgyun gnyis gcig tu bris
pa kun gsal me long, 46-64.
Lo tsa (sic) ba blo brtan la mdzad pa, Collected Works, vol. Na, dbu can manuscript in
folios, C.P.N. catalog no. 003877, 5a. Volume Na of Bla ma dam pa's collected
writings is analyzed in my forthcoming "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural
History III: The Oeuvre of Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375),
Part Two."
Tha snyad rig gnas lnga ji ltar byung ba'i tshul gsal bar byed pa blo gsal mgrin rgyan
legs bshad nor bu'i phreng ba, 300-1: bal po'i paṇḍita phal che bas [read: las] man snye
dang dgongs rgyan sogs zhus /. Sanskrit manuscripts of both the Munimatālaṃkāra
and the Amnaya-mañjarī are extant in, respectively, 202 and 170 (?sic) folios; see
Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin shouzangde fanwen beiye jing (Sunwei jiaojuan)
mulu / Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug lte gnas su nyar ba'i ta la'i lo ma'i bstan
bcos (sbyin shog 'dril ma'i par) gyi dkar chag mdor gsal (np, nd), nos. 86 and 139 [pp.
66, 123]. My thanks go out to V.A. Wallace for so generously giving me a copy of
this valuable catalog.
154
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
mañjarī translation must be dated before the mid-1320s, as Bu ston
already registers it in his catalog of translated scripture, which he appended to his ecclesiastic history of 1323-6.102 Dbus pa Blo gsal Byang
chub ye shes (ca.1270-1350) but lists the translation by Dpyal Lo tsā
ba [and Śākyaśrībhadra] in his undated but no doubt earlier catalog
of a Tanjur collection in Snar thang monastery.103 To be sure, the only
thing that can be legitimately inferred from this is that he was unaware of its existence, and not, though this would be in my opinion
improbable, that Dpang Lo tsā ba had yet to complete it. The two catalogs for two different Tanjur manuscripts that may have been authored by Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339) only register
the translation by Tsa mi Lo tsā ba!104 This goes to show once again
that the dissemination of revised or new translations of canonical
texts in the Tibetan cultural area was for all intents and purposes a
very haphazard affair. And it is safe to say that their inclusion in
larger collections was as much happenstance as it was determined by
the economic circumstances that prevailed in some institutions as it
was by their location, traditions of learning and their consequent resistance to change. Thus it should not be surprising that Ngor chen's
catalog of the tantric scriptures of the library of monastery of Brag
dkar in Glo bo Smon thang, present-day Mustang, Nepal, which he
completed before 1447, only registers Dpyal Lo tsā ba's version.105
Comparing the comments of the Slob dpon with those of Abhayākaragupta, it is remarkable to what degree they are at a distance from
one another. Further research into this arcane area may establish that
this was due to an unexpected heterodoxy of Abhayākaragupta's
views and the relative orthodoxy of those of the Slob dpon. It may
also prove to be an unequivocal testimony to the rapidity with which
the Tibetan tradition felt itself able to dissociate itself from the Indic
heritage and to establish a hermeneutic of this and other tantras independent of it. On the other hand, we must also not discount the
possibility that at least some of the differences were simply due to the
102
103
104
105
Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po che'i
mdzod, Collected Works, Part 24 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 1017.
Bstan bcos gyi dkar chag [dbu med manuscript in 81 folios], C.P.N. catalog no.
002376(1), 12b.
See, respectively, Rje rang byung rdo rje’i thugs dam bstan ‘gyur gyi dkar chag and
Bstan bcos ‘gyur ro ‘tshal gyi dkar chag, Karma pa rang byung rdo rje gsung ‘bum dkar
chag, Collected Works, vol. Nga (Lhasa, 2006), 459, 631. For these two catalogs, see
briefly K.R. Schaeffer and L.W.J. van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi 'od of Bcom ldan ral gri, 46-7, and
also D. Martin's blog in tbrc.org.
See his Rdo rje theg pa'i bstan bcos 'gyur ro 'tshal gyi dkar chag, SSBB, vol. 10, no. 156,
350/2.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
155
various transmissions of the relevant Sanskrit manuscripts and the
ensuing different Tibetan translations, provided that the latter were
more or less accurate reflections of these. Indeed, a case can be made
for holding that the manuscript[s] of the Saṃpuṭatantra used by the
Indian master had a considerable body of different readings from the
one[s] employed for the Tibetan translation. In fact, contrary to the
Slob dpon, Abhayākaragupta does not correlate *pramāṇa of this
verse with scripture or the authoritative master, the vajrācārya — the
term does not even occur in his comment —, and only predicates validity (yang dag, *samyak) of the commentarial treatise.106
Now according to the colophon of the Sde dge xylograph of the
Saṃpuṭatantra, Bu ston revised Gayadhara's and 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba's
translation and filled in what he must have called the lacunae (hor
kong) of the earlier translation by translating the relevant passages
from the Sanskrit manuscript[?s] (rgya dpe) of the text and its commentary (rtsa 'grel). Bu ston's own long commentary of this work,
which he completed on March 14, 1336,107 makes it quite transparent
106
107
SDE,
vol. 21, no. 1201 [#1198], 549/7 [Cha, 158a]: de ltar gang gi phyir rdo rje sems
dpa' rang gi don phun sum tshogs pa dang ldan pa zhes pa de'i phyir de kho na las yang
dag bstan bcos te phyin ci ma log pa'i chos bstan pa rnams su 'gyur gyi gzhan las ni ma
yin te / thabs byung de rgyu lkog gyur bas // de 'chad pa ni dka' ba yin // de nyid kyi
phyir gsungs pa de nyid shes pa'i slob dpon zhes dor bar bya ba dang rgyu dang bcas pa'i
rang gi ngo bo mngon sum du byed pa las gzhan rnams la de dag spang ba dang len pa
kun tu spyod pa bskul pa la legs pa ni mkhas par 'gyur gyi / gzhan du na ma yin no // de
nyid kyi phyir 'di rgyu'i gnas skabs su lung gi rjes su 'brang zhing / de kho na nyid las
nges pa'i don gyis / gsang chen te bde byed la sogs pa'i spyod yul ma yin pa'i brjod par
bya ba'i ngo bo 'byung ba ste thos pa dang bsam pa dang bsgom pa'i rim pas 'bras bu
gnas skabs su gsal bar gyur pa ni / mchog tu ste rab kyi mthar thug pa la gnas par yongs
su mngon du byed do // de ltar na rang dang gzhan gyi don phun sum tshogs pa dang
ldan pa'i rdo rje 'dzin par 'gyur ro //.
Sampu ṭa'i 'grel pa snying po'i de kho na nyid gsal bar byed pa, Collected Works, Part 8
(New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1967), 946: 'dzin byed kyi lo
[gloss: me lo (read: mo) byi ba] sangs rgyas kyis dbang bskur zhing byin gyis brlabs pa'i
nag pa can gyi zla ba'i dkar po'i tshes gcig. The date of Bu ston's work that was calculated with the aid of the invaluable Tabellen in D. Schuh, Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag
Gmbh, 1973), *80, and much else besides vitiates the argumentation in M. Nihom,
"Bu ston, Politics and Religion," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement VI, XII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, ed. W. Röllig (Stutgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, 1985), 315-24, where we read on p. 323: "Therefore, despite that it is mentioned in the passage [of Sgra tshad pa's biography
(sic), vdK] on 1332, the Saṃpuṭa commentary may also have been written in 1353."
The passage in question refers to Sgra tshad pa Rin chen rnam rgyal's (1318-88)
biography of Bu ston, for which see D. Seyfort Ruegg, The Life of Bu ston Rin po
che, Serie Orientale Roma XXIV (Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente, 1966), 111, 113. But Sgra tshad pa, who is notoriously bad when it comes
to providing accurate dates for his master's major writings, does not date this
work to 1332. Nihom's article is by and large a précis of the second chapter of his
156
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
that the Sanskrit manuscript of the "commentary" in question was the
one of Indrabhūti's Smṛtisaṃdarśanāloka. In this work, Bu ston distinguishes on one hand between rgya dpe, rgya dpe gnyis, and rgya dpe
dag and just dpe or dpe kha cig etc., as well as bod dpe, on the other. The
first grouping points of course to one or more Sanskrit and the second to one or more Tibetan manuscripts. Bla ma dam pa, Sa skya's
Grand Abbot from 1344 to 1348 and a scion of Sa skya's ruling family
that occupied the Rin chen sgang Residence, was responsible for
commissioning Bu ston's treatise. In the colophon, Bu ston styles him
as a wondrous emanation of Mañjughoṣa. Further, Bu ston acknowledges that he took the Amnayamañjarī as the basis of his work, and
this is indicated by his comment on the above verse. Interesting is
that he cites there part of the last line of the Saṃpuṭatantra's quatrain
as gcig nas gcig brgyud, which at least is not the canonical reading of
the Sde dge xylograph of the text.108 The indigenous Tibetan dossier
that he used for his exegesis included the explanations of the Sa skya
pa patriarchs, that is, the Slob dpon's and his brother Rje btsun Grags
pa rgyal mtshan's (1147-1216) commentaries, as well as the oral instructions that issued from Rwa pa, which in turn were written down
as a commentary by a certain Rngog.109 Finally, he writes apropos of
the Ratnamālā that it was allegedly (zer) written by *Vīravajra and that
it is in some respects similar to a Tibetan work (bod ma). These misgivings about the integrity of this work are, however, absent from the
relevant entries in his catalog he appended to his ecclesiastic history
as well as from his 1335 catalog of the Zhwa lu Tanjur.110
It is a commonplace in Tibetan Buddhism that the oral traditions
that grow up around corpora of texts play as much a crucial role in
108
109
110
Studies in the Buddhist Tantra (Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1982), 96151, which is richly annotated. Further, its dating to March 1, 1336 in E. De Rossi
Filibeck, Catalog of the Tucci Tibetan Fund in the Library of IsMEO, vol. 1 (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1994), 23, is thus also not acceptable.
Sampu ṭa'i 'grel pa snying po'i de kho na nyid gsal bar byed pa, 540.
A short gloss on the tantra written by Rngog Zhe sdang rdo rje (1030-1106) with
the subtitle of gzhung gsal ba'i sgron ma was published as Sam bhu ṭa'i rnam bshad,
Rngog chos skor phyogs bsgrigs, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug
khang, vol. 2 (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 171-245 [=
Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa'i gsung 'bum, vol. 5/34, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig
dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 226 (Beijing: Krung go'i bod
rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2011), 88-253]. This author makes no mention of any intellectual debt therein to a member of the Rwa clan, but he is reputed to have
studied with Rwa Lo tsā ba Rdo rje grags (?1016-?1128).
See Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po che'i
mdzod, 1017, and the Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po,
Collected Works, Part 26 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1971), 440.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
157
the practice of the commentator as do his own textual learning and
the consequences of his own spiritual practice. Hence, notwithstanding the notices of Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan that his father Sa
chen had studied tshad ma with Khyung Rin chen grags and Dpal
mi/me dig pa111 in Nyang stod and the Pramāṇaviniścaya plus Dharmottara's commentary on the Nyāyabindu with a certain Me'i lhang
tshe in G.yu rtse 'byid phu in Grom pa,112 Sa chen's interpretation of
The Adamantine Lines' tshad ma can also be located in a direct trajectory with what he had learned from his Tibetan, Indian and Nepalese
teachers about this verse of the Saṃpuṭatantra. Whatever the case may
have been, the influence from his Path-and-Result teachings is unmistakably present in the Slob dpon's analysis of the verse. But we have
to reckon with considerable variations. Writing in Sa skya in 1304, the
fairly controversial Cha gan Dbang phyug rgyal mtshan has initially
only a very slightly different take on Virūpa's work and first gives
this list of the four tshad ma-s113:
[1] the authoritative annals, explications of the biographies of
the teachers (bla ma rnams kyi rnam thar 'chad pa lo rgyus
tshad ma)
[2] the authoritative scripture-statements of the Sugata [=
Buddha] (bde bar gshegs pa'i bka' lung tshad ma),
[3] the authority of the spiritual experience of the vajrācārya's
instructions (rdo rje slob dpon gyi man ngag nyams pa'[i] tshad
ma)
[4] the authority of [his] disciple who recalls the spiritual experience (slob ma nyams myong rjes su dran pa'i tshad ma).
It is clear that this analysis is substantially identical to Sa chen's. But
he immediately follows this quartet by an alternative (yang na, "or")
listing; here the four are:
111
112
113
For concrete references to this man's views, see my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its
Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History," 416, n. 9. He is also severally cited in
Dar ma dkon mchog (ca. 1170-1230), alias Dharmaratna, Rtog ge rigs pa'i rgyan gyi
snying po [dbu med manuscript in 91+1 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004783(1), 8b,
10b, 18a, 20b, and 77a.
Bla ma sa skya pa chen po'i rnam thar, SSBB vol. 3, no. 5, 85/1.
Rdo rje tshig rkang gi 'grel pa cha gan gyis bsdebs pa [dbu med manuscript in 46 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 006617(14), 3a. A few details about Cha gan can be found
in my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History 1: Ta'i si tu Byang chub
rgyal mtshan as a Man of Religion," Indo-Iranian Journal 37 (1994), 142-3.
158
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
[1a] the evidential authority of what was experienced by the
teacher who has the nectar [of the teaching] (bla ma bcud
ldan gyis nyams su myong ba mngon sum tshad ma)
[2a] the inferential authority that has arisen from experience,
because the student with the vessel [for the nectar] has
practised in accordance with the teacher's words (slob ma
snod ldan gyis gsung bzhin bsgrub pas nyams myong skyes pa'i
rjes dpag tshad ma)
[3a] the hidden authority for one who has not cut through the
conceptual web by means of listening and thinking about
what was heard saying that the Adamantine Lines is an exposition of the corpus of the one hundred thousand tantras114 (rdo rje tshig rkang rgyud 'bum pa'i lus rnam bzhag yin
zhes thos bsam gyis spros pa ma chod pa la lkog gyur tshad ma)
[4a] the very hidden authority for those without presience saying that the successions of teachers involves an unbroken
acquisition of spiritual realization (bla ma brgyud pa rnam[?s]
grub pa thob pa rgyun ma chad zhes mngon [proof reader's insert: shes] dang mi ldan pa rnams la shin du lkog gyur tshad ma)
The latter interpretation in particular would be wholly unthinkable in
an historical setting where the study of tshad ma had not reached a
definite level of sophistication and intensity. But then, to be sure,
such a level had already been reached in Tibet by the second half of
the eleventh century! At this point we have to admit that the foregoing discussion may be a red hering after all. 'Phags pa's commentary
on The Adamantine Lines could have included a series of remarks on
these Pramāṇavārttika verses in an attempt to establish the ontological
and epistemological underpinnings of the Path-and-Result system.
The more likely place where he might have done so would not be in
the context of the passage of the tshad ma-s, but rather in the one that
has to do with the so-called "three visions" (snang ba gsum) which
immediately follows after it. The second of these is usually called "the
vision of spiritual experience" (nyams kyi snang ba), and it is there that
these philosophical concerns can come to matter a great deal.115 So
far, I have found no testimony, express or otherwise, that these were
controversial in his time. But this does not mean that they were not.
Indeed, they certainly had the potential to become so, and they did
114
115
I am not altogether sure of what exactly is intended by this phrase and the one
that follows it.
An expository rather than a polemical account of this vision can be found in
Ngor chen Dkon mchog lhun grub's (1497-1557) The Beautiful Ornament of The
Three Visions, tr. Lobsang dagpa and J. Goldberg (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications,
1991), 112-200.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
159
around the turn of the fifteenth century. Residing in Sa skya around
the middle of 1406, the young Ngor chen wrote a scathing critique
titled Rgyud gsum gnod 'joms, Defeating a Vitiation of the Three Tantras,
in verse, which he accompanied with an autocommentary in prose.116
Of course, the three tantras in question are the aforementioned Hevajratantra and its two explanatory tantras, to which he also added the
oral instructions that were based on these, namely, the Precious
Statement. He pointedly says that some scholar in the perfection of
insight (pha rol tu phyin pa'i tshul la mkhas pa kha cig) [and not in tantric literature!] had asserted that these espoused not a CentristMadhyamaka point of view, as was virtually enshrined in the tradition, but rather a Mentalist-Vijñānavāda (rnam rig smra ba) one.
Among other things, this would go counter to the implication of the
famous verse of Hevajratantra, II: viii, 10, where CentristMadhyamaka is unquestionably privileged as the highest form of
philosophical discourse and spiritual insight, being preceded, in this
order, by the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, and Yogācāra [= MentalistVijñānavāda] points of view. This reversal, if it were one, seems to
have been inspired by a re-reading of Ratnākaraśānti's (11thc.) Muktikāvali Hevajratantra-exegesis. Ngor chen does not name the Tibetan
scholar who had initially raised this issue, but we will presently see
that he must have been Red mda' ba. By the time of Ngor chen's writing, Red mda' ba was already marginalized in Sa skya as a virtual
persona non grata, not least because of the series of public statements
he issued in the late 1380s in which he had questioned the canonical
integrity of the Kālacakratantra and its associated literature.117 The latter had enjoyed a special place of authority within Sa skya pa traditions for several centuries. Judging from the remarks of his biographer Sangs rgyas rtse mo of Mnga' ris, Red mda' ba's remarks had
crossed the line separating forbearance from intolerance, and called
for a swift response.118 He did not have to wait long for a reaction. Ta
dben (< Ch. Dayuan [guoshi]) Kun dga’ rin chen (1339-99) of Sa
skya's Bzhi thog Residence, the monastery's seventeenth Grand116
117
118
His collected oeuvre contains two different recensions of this work with two different titles, for which see Dpal kye'i rdo rje'i lus kyi dkyil 'khor la rtsod pa spong ba
smra ba ngan 'joms, SSBB vol. 9, no. 49, 135/4-44/3 and Dpal kye'i rdo rje'i lus kyi
dkyil 'khor la rtsod pa spong ba lta ba ngan sel, SSBB vol. 9, no. 50, 144/3-55/4.
Found in the various editions of his still unpublished miscellaneous writings,
these were published in the Bod kyi rtsis rig kun 'dus chen mo, vol. 1, Skar nag rtsis
kyi lo rgyus skor, ed. Byams pa 'phrin las et al. (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1998), 283-93, 294-97, 383-428.
Dpal ldan red mda' pa chen po'i rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad byung [dbu med manuscript, folios 44-82], C.P.N. catalog no. 002802(5), 53a-b; see now see C. Roloff, Red
mda' ba. Buddhist Yogi-Scholar of the Fourteenth Century, Contributions to Tibetan
Studies, vol. 7 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichelt Verlag, 2009), 103-13, 216-20.
160
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Abbot from around 1358 to his passing, felt compelled to call a meeting where he was grilled for his unorthodox views. And this would
explain his probable relegation to the fringes of Sa skya's scholarly
society, which ultimately resulted in his departure from Sa skya in
1390, as well as the fact that his most famous disciple Tsong kha pa
was forced to leave his teacher for Zhwa lu when he decided it was
time to begin the study of the Kālacakratantra. In spite of this, their
relations remained close until Red mda' ba's passing. Ngor chen himself was the illegitimate son of Kun dga' rin chen. Drawing out the
implications of this position, he notes at one point in his autocommentary that it would involve an internal contradiction in this scholar's own commentary of the Madhyamakāvatāra — he does not indicate by way of a direct quotation where this contradiction would occur —, but further down he actually cites from another work of his,
which he calls the Bden pa gnyis rnam par 'byed pa rigs tshogs gnad kyi
zla zer.119 Now a volume of an edition of Red mda' ba's miscellaneous
writings, prepared by 'Jam dbyangs grags pa, contains a substantial
piece, written in an unspecified year, in the form of a reply to a question on Centrist-Madhyamaka philosophy posed to him by Bka' bzhi
pa Nam mkha' 'od zer. Since he spent well over a decade in meditative retreat in the vicinity of Skyid grong, it is likely that it dates to
before the year 1400. The beginning of the text titles it Bla ma bka' 4 pa
nam mkha' od zer gyi gsung gi dris lan, but in the colophon it is titled
Bden gnyis rnam par 'byed pa'i rigs pa'i tshogs kyi zla zer!120
But let us now return to Ston gzhon. Neither 'Phags pa's own writings, nor the available biographical literature on his life, go any way
in demonstrating that he had taken a particular interest in the field of
tshad ma or single him out as being especially renowned for his brilliant competence in this area. In fact, none of the gsan yig or thob yig
that are presently available recount his studies even indicate that he
had enjoyed a formal education in the subject,121 and he consequently
does not figure in any of the tshad ma lineages of transmission of the
Sa skya pa. Be this as it may, we can fearlessly assume that he had in
fact studied both the Pramāṇavārttika and the Rigs gter with his uncle,
119
120
121
SSBB,
vol. 9, no. 52, 162/2, 163/4.
See Rje btsun red mda' pa'i mdzad pa'i bka' 'bum thor bu [incomplete dbu med manuscript in 335 folios], ed. 'Jam dbyangs grags pa, C.P.N. catalog no. 004546, 228b55a. Other manuscripts of both works in, respectively, 21 and 2 folios, are cataloged in the Shes bya'i gter mdzod, ed. Sun Wenjing and Mi nyag Mgon po, vol. 3
(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 312, nos. 30 and 25. Of relevance would
also be his open letter to the historical Buddha, the Ston pa la sprin du gsol ba,
which we find on fols. 210a-1a of this collection; Roloff, Red mda' ba. Buddhist Yogi-Scholar of the Fourteenth Century, 307-13, gives the text and a translation.
See my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History VI: The Transmission of
Indian Buddhist Pramāṇavāda According to the Early Tibetan Gsan yig-s," 921-3.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
161
particularly when we recall that he spent his entire early career under
his care and scholarly tutelage. One of the very few places in his oeuvre where he may have alluded to both is found in two passages of
his versified Rgyal po la gdams pa'i rab tu byed pa, Treatise which Instructs the Emperor, which he wrote for Emperor Qubilai in 1271 while
residing in Shing kun, present-day Lintao.122 Four years later, in 1275,
his disciple Shes rab gzhon nu wrote a commentary on this little
work when both he and 'Phags pa were staying in the monastery of
Tsom mdo gnas sar in East Tibet. If we are to place some trust in
what he himself states in his colophon, namely that he wrote it in accordance with 'Phags pa's own words (bla ma dam pa nyid kyi gsung
dang mthun), and there is no cogent reason to doubt what he says,
then the quotation of PV, II: 202c-3b, in support of the first123 and the
one allegedly from the Rigs gter in support of the second passage
suggest that these issued from him, or at least had his imprimatur.
Shes rab gzhon nu cites the Rigs gter in the following terms:124
phyi ltar don rig du ma yang // nang ltar rang rig nyid du gcig //
Though, externally, [there are] many [types] of cognitions of [external] objects, internally, [there is only] one in terms of selfawareness.
These two lines of verse are of limited text-historical interest in that,
as far as I have been able to determine, they are absent from both the
1284 Dadu xylograph of the Rigs gter autocommentary and the 1733
Sde dge xylograph of both the Rigs gter and the autocommentary.125
This absence demonstrates once again that the manuscript transmission of the Rigs gter is far from as monolithic as is sometimes assumed.
122
123
124
125
SSBB,
vol. 7, no. 210, 182/1: kun rdzob rgyu 'bras rten 'byung mi slu bas // ji ltar spyad
pa'i rnam smin myong ba'i slad // las 'bras tshul la khyad du gsad mi bya //, and 182/2:
rnam pa du mar snang ba'i gzung 'dzin dang // gcig na sems de'ang du ma nyid dang ni
// brdzun par 'gyur zhing... .
SSBB, vol. 7, no. 154, 103/1. It reads for PV, II: 202c-d: sdug bsngal skye ba'i rgyu 'di
nyid // 'ching yino..., "Cognitive-emotive bondage is this very cause for the onset
of suffering," rather than sdug bsngal skye ba'i rgyu nyid ni // 'ching yin (=
duḥkhotpādasya hetutvaṃ bandho), "Cognitive-emotive bondage is the very cause
for the onset of suffering."
SSBB, vol. 7, no. 154, 104/1.
The verse text of the Rigs gter of this xylograph belongs to a different filiation of
the text than the one contained in the Sde dge xylograph of the Rigs gter autocommentary, for which see the handy comparative charts in the Rigs gter, ed. Rdo
rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 395-401.
162
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Ston gzhon relates the circumstances under which he composed
his work in his very informative colophon which, written in verse
and prose, states in part the following:126
thub pa'i bstan pa lnga brgya bdun pa la //
bstan pa'i mnga' bdag sa skya pa yi mthus //
bstan pa'i rtsa lag sa chen yongs skyong ba //
mi dbang go pe laa sras kyi sras //
'dzam gling byang phyogs phal cher skyong ba yi //
mi bdag de mur zhes bya'i sku ring la //
sa skyong de yi gtsug gi nor bu mchog /
mkhas mchog grags pa'i mtshan can bka' drin las //
'phags pa'i mtshan can kun mkhyen gnyis pa yi //
zhabs rdul dri med yun ring bsten pa dang //
...
btsun pa ston gzhon zhes byar grags pa yis //
thub pa'i bstan pa gsal phyir 'di bshad do //
a
STONm
and Suo's edition wrongly have la'i.
Thus, he wrote this work for the purpose of illuminating the Buddha's teaching in dependence on his long-time studies with 'Phags pa
('phags pa'i mtshan can), during the reign of De mur, the Lord of Man
in most of the northern regions, who was the grandson of Go pe la.
De mur is of course none other than Qubilai's grandson Temür, that
is, Emperor Ölǰeitü. He waxes more explicit about his debt to his
teachers in the prose text, where he writes:
...bla ma dam pa chos kyi rgyal po rin po che dang / gangs can
gyi khrod kyi rigs pa smra ba rnams kyi gtsug gi nor bu lta bur
gyur pa mkhas pa chen po zhang mdo sde dpal dang / kha che'i
paṇḍi ta chen po bi ma la shri dang / skad gnyis smra ba chen po
shong ston sku mched la sogs pa mkhas pa'i skyes bu du ma'i
zhabs kyi pad mo yun ring du bsten…
The fact that he does not mention a Dpal ldan pa casts some doubt on
Mkhan chen Rgyal mtshan bzang po's assertion, as reported by 'Gos
Lo tsā ba, that he had been one of his teachers of the Pramāṇavārttika.
But this does not impeach its veracity completely. It is not impossible
that "Dpal ldan pa" refers indeed to Zhang btsun. Again, the Bla ma
dam pa chos kyi rgyal po rin po che is of course 'Phags pa. The other
scholars with whom he had studied were Zhang btsun, the Shong
126
STON,
495.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
163
ston brothers, that is, Shong ston Lo tsā ba Rdo rje rgyal mtshan and
Shong ston Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa, and a Kashmirian scholar by
the name of Vimalaśrī. As for the last individual, he can in all likelihood be identified as the Indian-xitian monk and expert in the traditional five domains of knowledge (wuming, *pañcavidyā) Weimaluoshili [= Vimalaśrī], who, together with twenty-eight other scholars,
aided Qingfu or Qing Jixiang in compiling the comparative catalog of
Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist translated scriptures, the Zhiyuan fabao
kantong zhonglu, in the Yuan capital of Dadu during the years 1285 to
1287.127 The Tibetan canon, too, knows of an all-round (gzhung lugs
rgya mtsho'i mthar son pa) Kashmirian scholar named Vimalaśrī or
Vimalaśrībhadra — the bhadra affix is often optional —, who was active at Sa skya during the middle of the second half of the thirteenth
century. Thus, for one, Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen's (1700-62)
catalog of the Sde dge xylograph of the Tanjur canon states that he
co-translated Ṭaṅkadāsa's Hevajratantra commentary, the Śrīhevajratantrarājaṭīkāsuviśuddhasaṃpuṭa, in this institution with none other
than Shong ston Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa.128 The colophon of this
work states that they had translated it at the behest of 'Phags pa himself, here styled paṇḍi ta mchog dpal ldan chos kyi rgyal po, who also ordered the official (dpon) Zhang btsun to be the financial underwriter
(yon bdag) of the project. Zhang btsun might refer to either Zhang
Dkon mchog dpal (1250-1316) or, what is more likely, to Zhang Mdo
sde dpal. A certain Bsod nams dbang phyug functioned as the scribe.
Dbus pa Blo gsal's catalog lists Ṭaṅkadāsa's work, but credits the
translation only to Blo gros brtan pa.129 And while Bu ston mentions
but Blo gros brtan pa in the catalog appended to his ecclesiastic history, his catalog of the Zhwa lu Tanjur notes both Vimalaśrī and Blo
127
128
129
See Qingfu, Zhiyuan fabao kantong zhonglu, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, ed. J. Takakusu
and K. Watanabe, comp. G. Ono Genmyō (Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai,
1924-32), vol. 99, no. 25, 180a5, 180b10-1; see also H. Franke, Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der Yüanzeit, Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zur
tibetischen Lexikographie, Band III (München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische
Studien / Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 116, no. 27, 94. This
catalog was studied in detail in Huang Mingxin, Hanzang dazangjin mulu yitong
yanjiu (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2003). Working in Beijing in the
first half of the eighteenth century, the Mongol scholar Mgon po skyabs used this
catalog as one of his fundamental sources for his ecclesiastic history of Buddhism
in China, and Vimalaśrī is mentioned in his Rgya nag chos 'byung [based on the
Sde dge xylograph] (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983), 168, 174,
179; see also the bilingual Tibetan-Chinese edition in Luosang danzeng [= Blo
bzang bstan 'dzin], Handi fojiao yuanliuji (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe,
2005).
Bstan 'gyur dkar chag, ed. Blo bzang bstan 'dzin et al. (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi
dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1985), 612.
Bstan bcos gyi dkar chag, 10a.
164
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
gros brtan pa as the translators.130 Furthermore, Zhu chen writes that
a Vimalaśrī might have also co-translated one of his own three minor
works on the tantric deity Avalokiteśvara Kulalokanātha with Blo
gros brtan pa, and that Dri med dpal bzang po [= Vimalaśrībhadra]
co-translated his own Pañcasikāṭippaṇī with Yar klungs pa Grags pa
rgyal mtshan (1242-1346), who was one of Sa skya Paṇḍita's disciples
and biographers.131 The colophon of the latter text reads inter alia: dpal
sa skya'i gtsug lag khang du mi chen lha rje ma ga ling gis zhus shing... 132
This means that the translation was requested by a official-cumphysician with the name Ma ga ling in Sa skya. I am unable to identify the latter, but it seems safe simply to assert that he was a Chinese
rather than a Mongol or a Uyghur.
The presence in Central Tibet of Vimalaśrī seems to be yet another
indicator of the remarkably open lines of communication that existed
among the Tibetan cultural area and her neighbors, as well as the
connections between individual families from different regions that
could sometimes last over several generations. Namely, Vimalaśrī
was a relative of none other than Śākyaśrībhadra. And according to a
note in Ngor chen's Thob yig, he was the son of Bhūmiśrī, who in turn
was Śākyaśrībhadra's nephew.133 It is therefore quite possible that the
much later Sumanaśrī, too, belonged to this very same family. Although he makes only one brief cameo appearance in an entry for the
year 1357 in Bu ston's biography, Bu ston's Gsan yig makes it clear
that Sumanaśrī had studied with a Vi bha ba bhi ma la shrī [= ?],
himself a disciple of Vimalaśrī, and a Pha la śrī (?*Phalaśrī/Pālaśrī).134
It now appears that our Ston gzhon gained some international experience by having traveled to the Mongol court in China in the early
1280s. The very same Zhiyuan fabao kantong zhonglu catalog registers a
Tibetan — his name is there transcribed as sutuanren — who was part
of the team that carried out the compilation of the canon.135 Even
130
131
132
133
134
135
Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po che'i
mdzod, 1016, and the Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po'i
phreng ba, 438.
Bstan 'gyur dkar chag, 688-9. I have been unable to locate these in Dbus pa Blo
gsal's Bstan bcos gyi dkar chag. Though the Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed
chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po che'i mdzod, 1015-6, has slightly different entries, Zhu chen’s agree with those in Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu
dbang gi rgyal po'i phreng ba, 488.
SDE, vol. 27, no. 2137 [# 2134], 575/3 [Tshi, 194b].
SSBB, vol. 9, no. 36, 77/2; see also 80/1 and 82/2.
See, respectively, Seyfort Ruegg, The Life of Bu ston Rin po che, 149-50, and the Bla
ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba'i tshul bka' drin rjes su dran par byed pa, Collected Works, Part 26 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971),
141.
Zhiyuan fabao kantong zhonglu, 180a5, 180b8-9.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
165
though Mgon po skyabs simply transcribed his name by “Su tān
bzhan” — a parenthetical remark in his work states that it is a corrupt
Tibetan form (bod skad zur chag) — and thus failed to identify him, I
think H. Franke was absolutely correct in reading Tibetan ston for the
transcription situan.136 Chinese ren would therefore be a transcription
of Tibetan gzhon, which is pronounced zhön. In fact, he may have also
been versed in Chinese, for another one of his known accomplishments was his Tibetan translation of Xuanzang's (ca. 602-64) Chinese
version of Śaṅkarasvāmin's Nyāyapraveśa, which he did jointly with a
certain Sing gyang ju (< Ch. jiangzhu), a "chief reciter [of scripture],"
who must have been Chinese.137 It was then edited by Lha btsun
Chos kyi rin chen (1271-1323), the Tibetan name in religion of the deposed emperor of the Southern Song dynasty, who spent a great deal
of his adult life in exile in Sa skya before he was summarily and ignominously executed at the order of the Mongol court for reasons
that are not altogether transparent. The Tibetan translation of the
Sanskrit text of the Nyāyapraveśa that is also included in the Tibetan
Buddhist canon postdates Ston gzhon's version.
Lastly, the colophon of Ston gzhon's commentary closes with such
particulars as his place of birth, the names of those at whose behest
he had composed his work, and its place and the time:
rtsang nyang stod rgya gar gyi yul gnyis pa byung ba btsun pa
ston gzhon zhes bya ba la / ... mi nyag gi rigs su byung ba sangs
rgyas rin chen zhes bya ba dang / ... chos kyi brtson 'grus la sogs
pa'i blo gsal rnams kyis yang dang yang bsklu ba'i ngor / bya lo
zla ba bcu gcig pa'i tshes bcu gcig la / gza' bkra shis dang / skar
ma tha skar grub pa'i sbyor ba la bab pa'i tshe / tshes spongs
gnyan phu'i chos grwar yongs su rdzogs par sbyar ba'o //
In other words, Ston gzhon hailed from Nyang stod in Gtsang, which
he likens to a second India. We must take this in the sense that he felt
it to be an important, if not the most important, source for Buddhist
learning in Central Tibet. He also relates that he had written his work
in response to requests by a certain Sangs rgyas rin chen of Mi nyag
[here: Xixia] origins and a Chos kyi brtson 'grus, and that he completed it on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of a hen-year at
the monastery of Gnyan phu in Tshes spongs. The precise whereabouts of his monastery is unknown for now. Suffice it to say, that it
136
137
See, respectively, Rgya nag chos 'byung, 179, and Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der Yüanzeit, 115, n. 24.
In Yinming luoji shi ziliao xuan, ed. Lu Yu, et al., 5, his name is reconstructed as
"Sheng Zangzhu." For several other chief-reciters, see my The Kālacakra and the
Patronage of Tibetan Buddhism by the Mongol Imperial Family, 44-5, n. 131, 57.
166
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
was located at the lower point of the Gnyan Valley in Tshes spongs, a
locale in Dbus. Its date of completion most probably corresponds to
November 26, 1297. This year would make it all but certain that he
wrote it after the Pramāṇavārttika commentary of Rin chen rgyal
mtshan, but at present no such claim can be made for its relative
chronology vis à vis the one by 'Jam dbyangs skya bo. As we saw
above, one of the three Ston gzhon-s, all of whom who belong to the
thirteenth century, hailed from Cog ro in Nyang. Adding this circumstance to the names of the two men that figure in Ngor chen's
Thob yig record, then I believe that the evidence strongly supports his
identification with Ngor chen's Cog ro Ston gzhon.
We have already seen that this was not the only work to have
come from his pen. The large catalog of [most of] the library holdings
of 'Bras spungs monastery registers at least two manuscripts that are
attributed to one or the other Ston gzhon, one of whom may be our
Ston gzhon, and I list them here for the sake of convenience:138
[1] Lam 'bras gyi bshad pa gsung ngag nyi ma'i 'od zer [230 folios]
[2] Kun gyi sna lam du ma grags pa'i rin po che'i gsung 'ga' [gnyan
ston tshul rgyal dang ston gzhon gnyis kyis] zin bris su mdzad pa
rnams [38 folios]
Most probably a commentary on The Adamantine Lines, the author of
the first work is styled in full as Dge ba'i bshes gnyen 'Phun 'dzu Ston
gzhon, that is to say, he is associated with 'Phun 'dzu. A Ston gzhon
was the co-author of the second, whereby his counterpart was Gnyan
ston Tshul khrims rgyal [mtshan/po]. This work seems to have been
a series of lecture notes that may have been based on lectures given
by Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan, the third patriarch of the Sa skya
pa school.
The above discussion still offers too little that is concrete and beyond further inquiry to enable us to draw any airtight conclusions on
the identity of our Btsun pa Ston gzhon, but it is likely that he needs
to be identified as the one who hailed from Cog ro and who is therefore also referred to as Cog ro Ston gzhon. To be sure, this somewhat
unsatisfactory state of affairs is only exacerbated by the fact that there
is not much that can be done about it at the present time.
138
See 'Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba'i dpe rnying dkar chag, Stod cha, 214, 329,
nos. 2025, 3290. Housed in 'Phan po Nalendra monastery, what is the possibly the
very same another(?) manuscript as the first with the same 230 folios is registered
in Bod khul gyi chos sde grags can khag gi dpe rnying dkar chag, ed. Ska ba Shes rab
bzang po et al., 132, no. 2823.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
167
5. The Title of Ston gzhon's Pramāṇavārttika commentary
Titles without embedded subtitles, titles with embedded subtitles of
every conceivable length, and titles with subtitles in which further
subtitles may lie embedded, from the terse to the floridly elaborate,
gradually became standard fare in Tibetan letters from a diachronic
perspective. However, it is fair to say that, allowing for exceptions, in
general the shorter the title, and the older the work. One might claim,
and I think this is fully borne out by the evidence, that the increase in
the floridity of subtitles, and thus a change in the use of a certain type
of diction, has everything to do with the interest in poetry and poetic
theory that was the result of the first translation into Tibetan of
Daṇḍins Kāvyādarśa and the ensuing study of poetic theory on its basis. Indeed, G. Tucci made this perceptive and no doubt quite correct
observation some sixty years ago, pointing out that it had its inception in the second half of the thirteenth century.139 To be sure, titles
are inherently ambiguous entities, for their origins are often murky. It
is sometimes unclear whether the authors themselves had given these
to their writings or whether they were affixed in the course of their
Tradierung. Further, a work may gradually come to be known not by
its original title, but by its nickname in which its author had neither a
hand nor a stake, or by an abbreviation of its title. O. Almogi has
published the only article, a truly pioneering essay, on titles of Tibetan writings.140 Other than this fine piece, no "titological" work of any
kind has been done on the titles we meet in the Indian or Tibetan
texts.141 We do now have a volume that is dedicated to another "paratext" [Genette], namely, the preamble (arambha) of a traditional
scholarly/scholastic work (śāstra) in Sanskrit,142 but not yet a single
one that is devoted to the study of titles in Sanskrit letters, let alone
one for Tibetan. The field is therefore wide open, and there is indeed
much to be done. Speaking in general terms and restricting ourselves
to the titles of Buddhist pramāṇa/tshad ma-specific texts, we find in
India only a haphazard, slow but steady evolution in titles from the
simple to the slightly more complex. Much of this was no doubt the
result of the rise of the scholastic method and, simultaneously, the
onset and development of a vast commentarial literature, its pendant.
139
140
141
142
See Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. I (Rome: la Libreria Dello Stata, 1949), 104.
"Analysing Tibetan Titles: Towards a Genre-based Classification of Tibetan Literature," Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 15 (2005), 27-58.
For a survey of "cette petite discipline," see G. Genette, Paratexts. Thresholds of
Interpretation, tr. J.E. Lewin, Literature, Culture, Theory, vol. 20 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), 55-103.
See The Śāstrārambha: Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit, ed. W. Slaje, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62 (2008).
168
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
There are as yet no comprehensive studies of these in any form, and
individual or comparative investigations of the literature have hardly
begun. This stands in sharp contrast to certain achievements in the
domain of Western medieval book culture. The developments in both
must ultimately be viewed against the background of shifts in the
local economies of certain regions in the subcontinent and relations of
patronage, the types of education that were available, and the curricula that might be offered in a given place.
Judging from the available Indian and Tibetan corpora of manuscripts, titles generally appear on a separate cover-folio, and are often
recapitulated in a concluding colophon in which the author identifies
himself by name and sometimes also by family or caste-affiliation [in
India and sometimes even in Tibet!]. On occasion, this is also the
place where he might relate the place where and the time during
which he composed his work, or completed it. The titles of Dignāga's
Pramānasamuccaya and Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika and Pramāṇaviniścaya are succinct and to the point, and we can hardly doubt that
they were not given to the texts by their authors. The evidence for
this is to be found in the writings of their commentators and their
non-Buddhist critics. And already Dharmakīrti refers to the
Pramāṇasamuccaya as the sūtra (mdo)143 — later, we also encounter the
denomination Pramāṇasūtra (Tshad ma['i] mdo). Similarly, the
Pramāṇavārttika is often simply cited in the later Indic literature as
Vārttika, and the Pramāṇaviniścaya as the Viniścaya. In Tibet, the
Pramānasamuccaya is cited as Kun las btus pa or Kun btus as well as
Tshad ma['i] mdo or simply Mdo. The term pramāṇa, "correct
knowledge, authority," indicates that these treatises have to do with a
kind of authoritativeness, embodied in a logic and epistemology that
in their author's opinion is "correct." In the case of Dignāga,
samuccaya means that his work is a summary account, a compendium
of sorts. Only at the beginning of his work, does he relate of what it is
a summary or compendium, namely, his earlier writings on these
themes whose titles, however, did not contain the term pramāṇa. The
Pramāṇasamuccaya sought to establish the foundations of knowledge
as the deeply regretted H. Krasser and D. Arnold, have so eloquently
pointed out and, while written by a Buddhist, Dignāga did not write
it as a Buddhist with an explicit Buddhist doctrinal bias. If, as at least
some in the tradition have maintained, the Pramāṇavārttika is in fact a
commentary on the Pramāṇasamuccaya, the question needs to be
143
See Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapter 3, ed. P. Hugon and T. Tomabechi,
Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, no. 8 (Beijing: China Tibetology
Publishing House / Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2011), 19.5 {=
PVIN, 436/ [Ce, 193a]}.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
169
raised why Dharmakīrti did not title his work something along the
order of Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā or Pramāṇasamuccayabhāṣya and opted
instead for the somewhat ambiguous title Pramāṇavārttika? To be
sure, Kātyāyana (?2ndc. BC) famously used the term vārttika for his
study of Pāṇini's grammer and it was then used much later by the
philosophers Uddyotakara (6thc.) for his Nyāyavārttika and Kumārila
(7thc.) for his Ślokavārttika and Tantravārttika. Bronkhorst states that a
vārttika "is characterized by aphoristic sentences followed by explanations in less dense prose."144 This would hold only for Katyāyana; the
vārttika-texts of Uddyotakara, Dharmakīrti and Kumārila, on the other hand, do not appear to fit this description at all. Indeed, the Nyāyavārttika is a study of the Nyāyasūtra and Vatsyāyana's bhāṣyacommentary on the sūtra-text, whereas Kumārila's treatises are distinctly commentaries on the Mimāṃsasūtra and Śā bara's (?5th/6thc.)
bhāṣya thereon. There is really no evidence that the Pramāṇavārttika is
a commentary on some sūtra-text and some unknown bhāṣya thereon.
Ganeri's explanation of vārttika is therefore more apropos:145
sūtra:
bhāṣya:
vārttika:
An aggregation of short formula-like assertions.
A commentary on a sūtra whose function is to 1 unpack
and weave together its contents.
A subcommentary on a bhāṣya, defending its 1 particular
construction of the sūtra over alternatives, 1 making revisions and adjustments as necessary.
Hence, apart from its title containing the technical term vārttika, the
Pramāṇavārttika has nothing in common, structurally speaking, with
these other treatises and thus stands anomalously alone and does not
conform to the definitions given by Bronkhorst and Ganeri. This
notwithstanding, the question whether or not it was in fact a commentary on the Pramāṇasamuccaya was raised several times among
Indian exponents of the so-called Buddhist pramāṇa-tradition. This
was of course closely tied to the fact that Dharmakīrti obviously radically departed from Dignāga's sequence of chapters in his
Pramāṇavārttika and Pramāṇaviniścaya. Ignoring the latter — that they
did so is of interest in itself —, Devendrabuddhi and Śākyabuddhi
both suggest that the former was more or less a commentary on the
Pramāṇasamuccaya, even if it was not one in the strict sense of the
144
145
See his Language and Reality. On an Episode in Indian Thought, tr. M.S. Allen and R.
Raghunathan (Brill: Leiden, 2011), 54.
See his "Sanskrit Philosophical Commentary," Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 27 (2010), 188, and its expansion on p. 191; another version of
this article was apparently published earlier in the Journal of the Indian Council of
Philosophical Research 25 (2008), 107-127.
170
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
word, that is, one in which Dharmakīrti had consequently followed
its sequence of chapters and, thus, the sequence of the topics that
Dignāga had discussed therein. The Kashmirian intellectual Dharmottara (ca.740-ca.800) does not add much in his large study of the
Pramāṇaviniścaya and but also acknowledges, as he must, that the text
does comment on certain portions of the Pramāṇasamuccaya, which
means that he, too, has a less specific notion of the relationship between the latter two.146 Indeed, Dharmakīrti himself said as much
when he wrote its opening verses that he will clarify his, that is,
Dignāga's position (tannīti) because many did not understand his
"difficult words" (garīyaḥ padam).147
A brief aside: Now already some years ago, Steinkellner queried the
intent of the last verse of the Tibetan translation of Dharmottara's
Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, one that is not found in the Sanskrit, and was no
doubt added by the Tibetan translator.148 The cryptic verse reads:
stong phrag bzhi dang gsum dang bzhi //
brgya phrag lnga dang drug dang gsum //
nyi shu gnyis dang sum cu ste //
de ni gnyis drug gsum bcas so //
I may be wrong on this but I believe that this verse accounts for the
total number of śloka-units of the translated text. The first and second
chapter ends with the statement that these consisted of, respectively,
four thousand five hundred and twenty-two śloka-s — stong phrag
bzhi … brgya phrag lnga … nyi shu gnyis — and twelve bam po-units
and thirty-two śloka-units. We know that a bam po-unit — this unit is
not of Indic origin — can consist of three hundred or three hundred
and thirty-three śloka-units. 149 Thus the second chapter contained
three thousand six hundred and thirty-two — [stong phrag] … gsum
… [brgya phrag] … drug … sum cu … gnyis. And this means that the
146
147
148
149
SDE, vol. 48, no. 4234 [# 4229], 523/4 f. [Dze, 2bf.].
See Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapters 1 and 2, ed. E. Steinkellner, Sanskrit
Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, no. 2 (Beijing: China Tibetology
Publishing House/Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2011), 1 [= T.
Vetter, Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścayaḥ, 1. Kapitel: Pratyakṣam (Wien: Hermann
Böhlaus Nachf., 1966), 30-1].
See his "Miszellen zur erkenntnistheoretisch-logischen Schule des Buddhismus
IX: The Colophon of Dharmottara's Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā," Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde Südasiens 50 (2007), 203-4, ad SDE, vol. 48, no. 4233 [# 4228], 488/6 [Tshe,
178b]; the same verse is also found at 570/6 [Dze, 168a]. For what now follows,
see SDE, vol. 48, no. 4234 [# 4229], 570/6, 605/3; Dze, 168a, 289a]
See my "Some Remarks on the Meaning and Use of the Tibetan Word bam po,"
Zangxue xuekan / Journal of Tibetology 5 (2009), 123 ff.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
171
third chapter contained four thousand three hundred and sixty-three
śloka-units — [stong phrag] … bzhi … [brgya phrag] … gsum … drug …
gsum. In all, then, Dharmottara's Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā consisted of
twelve thousand five hundred and seventeen śloka-units.
Much later, Dharmottara's fellow Kashmirian Jñānaśrībhadra (ca.
1050) wrote in his Pramāṇaviniścaya commentary150 that the reason the
Pramāṇavārttika is a vārttika kind of commentary is because it "mainly
renders understood aspects of the meaning of the terminology" (tshig
gi don gyi cha gtsor rtogs par byed) that Dignāga used in his work. By
contrast, his Pramāṇaviniścaya does not qualify to be a vārttika because
it deals primarily with aspects of rational argumentation (rigs pa'i cha
gtsor) per se, so that, because of that fact, this work is not vārttika of
the Pramāṇasamuccaya. On the other hand, his junior contemporary
Jayanta (early 11thc.) criticizes Devendrabuddhi and Śākyabuddhi by
stating that Dharmakīrti did not explicitly explicate Dignāga's ideas
and suggests that his, that is, Dharmakīrti's work should be understood in terms of its very title, namely, as an analytical study of the
valid means of cognition per se, albeit with the quite distinctive soteriological emphasis on Buddha/buddha as the embodiment or matrix
of three types of authoritative knowledge, a notion that he had inherited from the text on which he comments, namely, from Prajñākaragupta's (ca. 800) large Pramāṇavārttikālaṃkāra.151 On the other hand,
commenting on Prajñākaragupta's work as well, Yamāri (mid 11thc.)
delved into this problem in a much more systematic way and severely takes Jayanta to task for his views on the Pramāṇavārttika's chaptersequence and thus attempts to rehabilitate Devendrabuddhi and the
position he had taken on the matter.152
Titled Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā and subtitled Viśālāmalavatī or "The
Vast and Stainless One," Jinendrabuddhi's (8thc.) Pramāṇasamuccaya
150
151
152
SDE,
SDE,
vol. 48, no. 4233 [# 4228], 488/5-6 [Tshe, 178a-b].
vol. 47, no. 4227 [#4222], 345/5-346/1 [De, 3a-4b]; see also Ono Motoi, "A
Reconsideration of the Controversy about the Order of the Chapters of the
Pramāṇavārttika," Tibetan Studies, vol. II, ed. H. Krasser et al. (Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 701-716, and B. Kellner,
"First logic, then the Buddha? Remarks on the chapter sequence of Dharmakīrti's
Pramāṇavārttika," Hōrin 11 (2004), 147-167.
SDE, vol. 48, no. 4311 [#4226], 1 66/1-169/3[Phe, 179b-191a], where he explicitly
cites Jayanta by naming him several times. In the course of his discussion, Yamāri
appears to mention a work titled Tshad ma rnam nges kyi rgyan (*Pramāṇaviniścayālaṃkāra) of unknown authorship. Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, vol. 1
(New York: Dover Publications, 1962), 44-45, briefly speaks of Jayanta — he calls
him Jina — and Yamāri, and then only in very general terms. But the articles by
Ono and Kellner (see supra n. 151) were the first to further tackle Jayanta's discussion, Ono also mentions Yamāri in passing, in a more systematic way. However, a detailed study and analysis of the positions of these two men is still a desideratum.
172
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
exegesis is but one of an unknown number of commentaries that
were written on Dignāga's main work in the subcontinent.153 It is extant in two complementary but different Sanskrit manuscripts154 as
well as in a complete Tibetan translation by the great Dpang Lo tsā
ba. The Sanskrit manuscript Dpang Lo tsā ba used for his translation
appears to have been differently filiated from the two incomplete
Sanskrit witnesses of Jinendrabuddhi's work. His disciple Bla ma
dam pa was no doubt among the very first to cite his master's translation when he did so on a number of occasions in his critical survey of
Dharmakīrti's thought that he completed in 1342.155 However, there is
evidence that Dpang Lo tsā ba was not the first to introduce Jinendrabuddhi to the Tibetan scholarly world and that portions of his
treatise, or at least some of his ideas, were known to earlier Tibetan
commentators.156
The full title of Ston gzhon's work is Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi rnam
par bshad pa gnas gsum gsal ba gangs can gyi rgyan. It occurs on the title
page and is recapitulated several times in the text. The first of such
iterations is already found immediately at the very beginning of the
work where Ston gzhon gives the putative Sanskrit equivalent of his
Tibetan title and then the Tibetan title itself. These are respectively
prefaced by the phrases "In the language of India" (rgya gar gyi skad
du) and "In the language of Tibet" (bod kyi skad du). This is obviously a
reflex of what we find in the Tibetan canonical texts and its use had
already become quite precious if not specious in the thirteenth century. A notable precursor is of course Sa skya Paṇḍita's Tshad ma rigs
pa'i gter all the available editions of which begin with the phrase: "In
Sanskrit, Pramāṇayuktinidhi." 157 What can therefore only be called
Ston gzhon's work's pseudo-Sanskrit title reads: Pra mā ṇa bār ti kā
bhyā kṣa nam tri sthā na pra kā śa ke la śā lang kā ra nā ma — bhyā kṣa nam
153
154
155
156
157
Matsuda Kazunobo, "Sanskrit Manuscript of Sthiramati's Commentary to the
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya," China Tibetology 1 (2013), 51-2, provides some evidence
that suggests that Sthiramati may have authored one as well.
So far editions of the first two chapters have been published by the China Tibetology Publishing House/Austrian Academy of the Sciences Press in, respectively, 2005 and 2013.
See Bla ma dam pa, Sde bdun gyi snying po rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba,
Collected Works, vol. Da, 938, 947,985, 995, 1038, 1041.
This is signaled in my "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History," 414.
The text was of course not originally written in Sanskrit, but some later sources
did spread the rumor that its introductory verses had been translated into that
language, with more recent sources stating that the entire work had been rendered into Sanskrit; see P. Hugon, "Clapping Hands in Skyid grong? Logical and
contextual aspects of a famous debate narrative," Revue d'Études Tibétaines 23
(2012), 62, n. 51.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
173
should be corrected, if at all, to read bhā ṣya nam, the nominative singular form of bhāṣya. This is followed by the nominal phrase gnas
gsum gsal ba and gangs can gyi rgyan, a noun phrase in which we have
a head (rgyan) and an objective modifier (gangs can gyi). The first informs the reader that it is a commentary (rnam par bshad pa) of (gyi)
the Pramāṇavārttika; the term rnam par bshad pa is one of several Tibetan equivalents of Sanskrit bhāṣya and ṭīkā.158 The subtitle, gnas gsum
gsal ba gangs can gyi rgyan, consists of two parts gnas gsum gsal ba and
gangs can gyi rgyan. Let us first take a look at gnas gsum gsal ba.
In Ston gzhon's analysis, Dharmakīrti comments on PS, III: 2b:
svayam in PV, IV: 42-68. This is unproblematic and has precedents.
Defining what conditions a valid thesis or probandum (sādhya, bsgrub
bya) of a debate between two opponents should be fulfilled, Dignāga
stated in PS, III: 2, that:
svarūpeṇaiva nirdeśyaḥ svayam iṣṭo 'nirākṛtaḥ /
pratyakṣyārthānumānāptaprasiddhena svadharmiṇi //
A somewhat modified text of Tillemans' fine translation of this verse
sans brackets would be:159
A valid thesis is what the proponent himself claims in its proper
form alone,
And in terms of the proponent's own point of departure, it is not
eliminated by perceptible objects, inference, a credible authority, and common sense.
The Tibetan text as cited by Ston gzhon reads:160
/ngo bo kho na bstan bya ba /
/rang nyid 'dod dang ma bsal ba/
/mngon sum don dang rjes dpag dang /
/ yid ches grags pas rang rten la'o /
This reading is not unproblematic, but it is close albeit not identical to
the one found in Vasudhararakṣita's and Zha ma Lo tsā ba Seng ge
158
159
160
For a study of the "Tibetan commentary" (bod 'grel) see now Shar ba Thogs med
and Blo ris, "Bod 'grel dang de'i thad kyi bsam tshul 'ga' gleng ba," Mdo smad zhib
'jug, vol. 1, ed. Kan su'u bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2005), 44-62.
See his Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter
(parārthānumāna), Volume 1 (k. 1-148) (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 47.
STON, 391, 414, 417.
174
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
rgyal mtshan's translation.161 Sensitivity to philological problems is a
special feature of Mkhas grub's commentarial practice, and it is thus
not surprising that he isolated several different Tibetan translations
of this verse in his undated Pramāṇavārttika commentary.162 Interesting and important as they are, their discussion should be a matter for
another occasion. But we cannot help but note that rang rten la for
svadharmiṇi is philologically not unproblematic, and rang gi chos can la
definitely seems preferable.
Ston gzhon's topical analysis (sa bcad) divides the first portion of
Dharmakīrti's detailed exegesis of rang nyid/svayam along the following lines163:
[1]
Explaining rang nyid [or: bdag] (svayam) in detail
STON, 397-416 ad PV, IV: 42-90
[1a]
Dharmakīrti's own position
STON, 397-409 ad PV, IV: 42-72b
[1a1]
Briefly demonstrate the necessity
STON, 397-398 ad PV, IV: 42
[1a2]
Stating in detail the rejection of the claim that the subject-matter of scripture (lung don) is a probandum
STON, 398-409 ad PV, IV: 43-72b
[1a2a]
Rejecting the non-Buddhist claim that the subject-matter
of scripture is a probandum
STON, 398-408 ad PV, IV: 43-68
[1a2a1] Stating the claim
STON, 398 ad PV, IV: 43
[1a2a2] Its rejection
STON, 398-400 ad PV, IV: 44-47
[1a2a3] Rejecting its response
STON, 400-408 ad PV, IV: 48-68
[1a2a3a] Inquiry into a situation where there is and there is no
invalidation (gnod byed, bādhana) of scripture
STON, 400-402 ad PV, IV: 48-52
[1a2a3b] Inquiry into the subject matter in which there is and
there is no validation (sgrub byed, sādhana) of scripture
STON, 402-404 ad PV, IV: 53-59
161
162
163
PS, 383/4 [Ce, 6a].
See MKHAS, vol. Da, 682 [= MKHAS[1], 943]. Without identifying its origin, Tillemans, Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter
(parārthānumāna), Volume 1 (k. 1-148), 47, n. 166, has rang gi ngo bo kho nar bstan //
bdag 'dod rang gi chos can la // mngon sum don dang rjes dpag dang // yid ches grags
pas ma bsal ba'o // for PS, III: 2. This is the reading of the translation of the PS by
Kanakavarman and Lo tsā ba Dad pa'i shes rab.
STON, 397-409.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
175
[1a2a3c] Demonstrating that a contradiction with the authoritative means of cognition is an error in scripture
STON, 404-407 ad PV, IV: 60-65
[1a2a3d] Farreaching consequences if [a logical reason were] invalidated due to being invalidated by the absence of a
connection [between a property and a probandum]
STON, 407-408 ad PV, IV: 66-68
[1a2b]
Rejecting the claim of [a] Pramāṇasamuccaya commentator[s] that the subject-matter of scripture is a probandum
STON, 408-409 ad PV, IV: 69-72b
[1b]
Rejection of others' positions
164
STON, 409-416 ad PV, IV: 72c-90
Ston gzhon's use of "clarification (gsal ba) of gnas gsum [po]
(*tristhāna[ni])" in his title is of course quite purposive and obviously
echoes its occurrence in his comments on PV, IV: 51-53165, even if the
term tṛītyasthāna only occurs once in the Pramāṇavārttika, namely in
PV, IV: 51, and has its counterpart in the Pramāṇaviniścaya, namely in
166
PVIN, III: 12. The verse in question reads:
tadvirodhena cintāyās tatsiddhārtheṣv ayogataḥ /
tṛtīyasthānasaṃkrāntau nyāy[y]aḥ śāstraparigrahaḥ //
[/ des grub don la de dang ni /
/ 'gal bar sems pa mi rung phyir /
/ gnas gsum par ni 'pho ba na //
/ bstan bcos len par rigs ldan yin //]
Tillemans translated this verse as follows:167
164
165
166
167
To be noted is that Tillemans, Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter (parārthānumāna), Volume 1 (k. 1-148), 103, begins a new
topic with PV, IV: 72. Notwithstanding some important internal differences, the
six Tibetan Pramāṇavārttika commentaries analysed in Fukuda Yoichi and Ishihama Yumiko, A Comparative Table of sa-bcad of the Pramāṇavārttika Found in Tibetan Commentaries of the Pramāṇavārttika, Studia Tibetica No. 12 (Tokyo: The Toyo
Bunko, 1986), 65, all suggest that Dharmakīrti begins a new topic with PV, IV: 72c.
STON, 401-402.
PVIN, 437/1 [Tse, 193a]; see now also Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapter 3,
ed. P. Hugon and T. Tomabechi, Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region,
no. 8 (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House / Vienna: Austrian Academy
of Sciences Press, 2011), 21.
Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter
(parārthānumāna), Volume 1 (k. 1-148), 80-82
176
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
[This is] because one should not think that things established by
means of that [treatise] are in contradiction with that [treatise].
When one proceeds to the third type of existent [i.e. atyantaparokṣa], it is correct to adopt a treatise.
Sa skya Paṇḍita partly cites and discusses Dharmakīrti's verse in the
third and last chapter of his Mkhas pa rnams la 'jug pa'i sgo, whereby
Jackson's "accept[ing]" for [khas] len par (parigrahaḥ) already at first
blush seems a bit more sensible than Tillemans' "adopt." 168 Ston
gzhon interprets this verse as follows [what is in bold letters reflects
the imbedded PV, IV: 51]:
chos can lung kho nas grub pa'i don la dpyod pa na lung de
dang 'gal bar sems pa mi rung ba'i phyir / gzhal bya gnas
gsum par 'pho ba'i tshe na /
'brel ba dang ni rjes mthun thabs //
skyes bu'i don ni rjod byed dag //
yongs brtags dbang du byas yin gyi // [PV, I: 214a-c]169
[sambaddhānuguṇopāyaṃ puruṣārthābhidhāyakam /
parikṣādhikṛtaṃ…//]
zhes pa ltar bstan bcos khyad par can len pa ni rigs pa dang
ldan pa yin no //
Because of the consideration that, if one were to examine an object that is established solely on the basis of scripture, the thesis
(chos can, dharmin), contradicts scripture, is not appropriate,
168
169
SSBB, vol. 5, no. 6, 103/4-104/1; see also D.P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the
Wise (Section III). Sa skya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa and
Philosophical Debate, vol. 2, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 17,2 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1987), 332-6.
See J.D. Dunne, Foundations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004), 361-2, Eltschinger, Penser l’autorité des Écritures. La polémique de
Dharmakīrti contre la notion brahmanique orthodoxe d'un Veda sans auteur. Autour de
Pramāṇavārttika 1.213-268 et Svavṛtti, 102-104, 220-1, and H. Krasser in V.
Eltschinger, H. Krasser and J. Taber, Can the Veda Speak? Dharmakīrti against
Mīmāṃsā exegetics and Vedic authority. An annotated translation of PVSV 164,24176,16 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012),
70-71, n. 145, 86 ff.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
177
when one moves to the epistemic object qua third existent, the acceptance of a specific treatise is reasonable, as it is stated:170
A statement that is a worthy subject of examination
is one that is coherent, offers a suitable method for liberation, and cites some human aim.
I refrain from delving into a full analysis of this verse and its context;
for this, I refer the reader to the recent studies of Dunne, Eltschinger,
and especially Krasser. Suffice it to say that the so-called tṛtyasthāna is
"the radically inaccessible" (atyantaparokṣa) object, as opposed to the
"visible" (parokṣa, mngon 'gyur) one of perception and the "invisible"
(aparokṣa, lkog 'gyur) one, which is the proper domain of an inference
that is based on "hard facts" (vastubalapravṛtti). The status of arguments that are based on "the radically inaccessible," that is, inferences
based on scripture (āgamopekṣa) that can be logically persuasive, was
a hotly debated topic among Tibetan intellectuals of the fifteenth century.171 Needless to say, Dharmakīrti uses the term śāstra in the sense
of āgama, which itself is a difficult term that also covers the oral teachings of the Buddha.
Finally, and returning to the title, the expression ke la śā lang kā ra
is of course a non-translation. True ri bo gangs can is a Tibetan name
for Kailaśa, and so is the equally common ti se, which is actually a
170
171
These lines are translated according to Ston gzhon's interpretation in STON, 80-81,
namely, that Dharmakīrti explains there what was intended with Dignāga's
phrase "believable statement" (yid ches tshig, āptavāda) [or: "statement of a believable person"] of PS, II: 5a-b. Ston gzhon does not overtly cite these two lines, but
Sun Wenjing reproduced them in bold as if they belonged to the Pramāṇavārttika.
To be sure, Dharmakīrti incorporated them a little later in PV, I: 216, but see H.
Krasser's penetrating analysis in V. Eltschinger, H. Krasser and J. Taber, Can the
Veda Speak? Dharmakīrti against Mīmāṃsā exegetics and Vedic authority. An annotated translation of PVSV 164,24-176,16, 87-102.
See especially Gser mdog Paṇ chen, Tshad ma'i mdo dang bstan bcos kyi shing rta'i
srol rnams ji ltar byung ba'i tshul gtam bya ba nyin more byed pa'i snang bas dpyod ldan
mtha' dag dga' bar byed pa, Collected Works, vol. 19 (Thimphu, 1975), 73 ff. [= Gsung
'bum, Rdzong sar khams bye lnga rig thub bstan slob gling, vol. Dza [19] (Beijing:
Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2013), 56 ff.], which severely takes Rgyal
tshab Dar ma rin chen (1364-1432) to task for his analysis of the Pramāṇavārttika's
Pramāṇasiddhi chapter in the context of the strength of the arguments used therein. For the registers of aparokṣa, parokṣa, and atyantaparokṣa, see V. Eltschinger,
Penser l’autorité des Écritures. La polémique de Dharmakīrti contre la notion brahmanique orthodoxe d'un Veda sans auteur. Autour de Pramāṇavārttika 1.213-268 et
Svavṛtti, Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, no. 56 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007), 67 ff.
178
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
loan word that is adapted from the Zhang zhung language.172 By itself, the modifier gangs can simply renders himavat and not kailaśa and
it indicates here the Tibetan area as a whole. The head rgyan suggests
that this work is an "ornament" for or of the entire Tibetan region.
Ston gzhon thus makes a universal appeal to the Tibetan intellectual
elite at large.
The titular identification is followed by a one-line invocation to
Mañjuśrī. This procedure is once again transparently a reflex of the
way in which translated texts were originally entered into the Tibetan
Buddhist canons. The indigenous Tibetan literature offers countless
examples of this, and one of the reasons why an author would want
to begin his work in such a fashion is that it lends a no uncertain
measure of authority to it. The single-line invocation to Mañjuśrī is
followed by four verses, the first of which is an invocation to the
Buddha, the “Protector” (skyob mdzad) — note here the allusion to
benedictory verse with which Dignāga opens his Pramāṇasamuccaya.
In the second, he petitions Mañjuśrī, symbol of intelligence and wisdom, for inspiration. The third is dedicated to commending Dignāga
and Dharmakīrti for their prowess in putting into place the criteria
for valid reasoning that ultimately places one on the path to full liberation from saṃsāra. In the fourth verse, as we have already seen
above, he pays homage to several of his teachers in an oblique fashion. And verses five and six comprise what may be called his rtsom pa
dam bca' ba, that is, a statement of his purpose or intent with his work,
whereby he in part recapitulates its title by embedding a segment of
it in the last verse; the two verses read:
de dag rigs tshul nyin mor byed des lta ngan mun pa rnam bsal
kyang //
gangs ri'i khrod 'dir log lam goms pa'i rgan po rnams ni 'byung
po'i bya ltar mdongs //
dri med rigs tshul 'di nyid yin zhes mkhas rnams 'o dod brgyar
yod kyang //
blo ngan bya rog sgrogs dang g.yul sprod tsam gyis lhag par
snyems pa ci byar yod //
'on kyang yang dag rigs pa'i snang ba rgya chen tshul bzhin
bzod nus shing //
dri med rigs gzhung rgya mtsho skyes tshal la mngon par dga'
ba'i blo gsal 'gas //
172
See Dagkar Namgyal Nyima, Zhang-zhung-Tibetan-English Contextual Dictionary
(Bonn: Selbstverlag, 2003), 183, and also D. Martin, "Zhangzhung Dictionary," Revue d'Études Tibétaines 18 (2010), 94.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
179
legs bshad sbrang rtsi'i dga' ston yid 'ong kun nas myong ba'i
phyir //
gnas gsum gsal byed rnam 'grel rnam bshad 'od stong ldan
'di rnam par spro //
Although the one that brings the day [= sun] to the modality of
their [Pramāṇasamuccaya's and Pramāṇavārttika's] reasoning has lifted the darkness of the bad points of view,
In this multitude of icy mountains, habituated on the wrong
path, the elders173 are as blind as demonic birds [= owls].
Although there were a hundred outcries of the learned saying:
"This work is truly a spotless mode of reasoning!",
What is the point of boasting by merely having done battle with
the raven shrieks of bad ideas?174
Nonetheless, in order that some clear-minded ones who, able to
endure something like the large light of truthful reasoning
and,
Find delight in the lake-born [= lotus] garden of an immaculate
treatise of logic,
Experience in every way the pleasing feast of the honey of what is
well said,
This thousand-ray'd explanation of the Rnam 'grel that clarifies
the three objective situations shines forth.
Following these introductory verses, Ston gzhon divides his commentary into three parts along the lines of the well-known phrase
thog mtha' bar 3 du dge ba, "wholesome at the beginning, the end, and
the middle," which is of course a probable allusion to Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti, 11:d. The "beginning" is his comment on Dharmakīrti's invocation and statement of intent; the "middle" consists of his comment
on the main body of the Pramāṇavārttika; and the "end" involves his
comment on Dharmakīrti's concluding verses. He himself ends his
work first with a series of verses in which he demonstrates his
knowledge of Daṇḍin's Indo-Tibetan poetics and then with a con-
173
174
Sa skya Paṇḍita also mentions "the elders" in a similar context in RGRG, 264/2 [=
RGRG[1], 429].
It is well known that no love is lost between an owl and a raven or crow, or a
murder of them. Crows and ravens are known to attack owls relentlessly and
owls eat them when they get a chance; they are natural enemies. An indication of
this is also found in Sa skya Paṇḍita's Legs bshad rin po che'i gter, ed. and tr. J.E.
Bosson (Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1969), 105, no. 340, and
elsewhere.
180
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
cluding colophon in prose wherein he comes to speak of his main
teachers and where and when he composed his treatise.
Aside from quoting certain individuals or books in the affirmative
in the main body of his work, there are many other, less or more obvious ways in which a writer can pay homage to one of his teachers
or to an earlier or contemporaneous scholar towards whom he harbors feelings of respect or, in the case of some disagreement, to
whom he can direct a measure of sarcasm. One of these is no doubt
his choice of a title. As I indicated, he often refers to the Pramāṇavārttika study of 'U yug pa by its abbreviated subtitle Rigs pa'i mdzod,
Treasury of Logic, and the similarity of this title with his teacher, Sa
skya Paṇḍita's [Tshad ma] Rigs pa'i gter, Treasure of Logic, is by no
means an accident. By the same token, it is also simply not a coincidence that whereas Phya pa's Pramāṇaviniścaya commentary is subtitled Shes rab kyi 'od zer, Light of Discriminative Insight, Mtshur ston
Gzhon nu seng ge's (ca. 1150-1220) commentary of the same bears the
subtitle Shes rab sgron ma, Lamp of Discriminative Insight.175 Mtshur
ston was a disciple of both Phya pa and his student Gtsang nag pa
Brtson 'grus seng ge (?-ca. 1195). These similarities can be interpreted
as forms of homage or as an initial pointer to the way in which the
author places his work in a specific inter-textual context. For example, Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216), Sa skya Paṇḍita's
uncle and the third patriarch of the Sa skya pa school, wrote three
separate, undated studies on aspects of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra. These are subtitled Gzhan phan spyi chings, Gzhan phan 'od zer
and Gzhan phan nyer mkho. The phrase gzhan phan means "benefiting
others." Ngor chen's 1442 work on rituals associated with this tantra
is subtitled Gzhan phan mtha' yas. Bo dong Paṇ chen 'Jigs med grags
pa (1375-1451), alias Phyogs las rnam rgyal, composed two treatises
in which he took Rje btsun to task, none of which echoe Rje btsun's
subtitle. These critical studies in turn provoked several defensive reactions from Sa skya pa scholars and Go rams pa Bsod nams seng
ge's (1429-89) study and rebuttal of 1466 and 1469 are respectively
subtitled Gzhan phan gnod 'joms and Gzhan phan kun khyab. As a last
example, on occasion referred to as Ngor lan, Reply to Ngor, Mkhas
grub gave his polemic treatise contra some Ngor chen's positions on
the highest (niruttara) yoga-tantras the title Phyin ci log gi gtam gyi
sbyor ba la zhugs pa'i smra ba ngan pa rnam par 'thag pa'i bstan bcos gnam
175
The first two lines of the concluding verses of Mtshur ston's work would appear
to allude to Phya pa's Tshad ma yid ky mun sel treatise or is at least a nod in Phya
pa's direction; see Mtshur ston Gzhon nu seng ge. Tshad ma Shes rab sgron ma, ed. P.
Hugon, 320: yid kyi mun pa ma lus sel byed pa // rigs tshul dri med she srab sgron ma
'di //.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
181
lcags 'khor lo.176 And it is certainly no accident that 'Jam dbyangs Dga'
ba'i blo gros (1429-1503), alias Legs pa chos 'byor, titled his main polemical tract that he directed against Go rams pa's Lta ba'i shan 'byed
theg mchog gnad kyi zla zer [of 1469], Lta ba ngan pa thams cad tshar gcod
pa'i bstan bcos gnam lcags kyi 'khor lo!177 Lest we forget, Go rams pa
was one of Ngor chen's principal disciples. And lastly, in the absence
of any indication to the contrary, we do not know to what degree, if
any, Ston gzhon's title is a reflex of or a reaction to an earlier title of a
cognate work.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS
C .P.N .
Nationalities Library, Cultural Palace of Nationalities, Beijing.
MKHAS
Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po, Rgyas pa'i bstan bcos tshad
ma rnam 'grel gyi rgya cher bshad pa rigs pa'i rgya mtsho [Lhasa
Zhol xylograph], vol. Tha (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives, 1981), 619-1001, and Rgyas pa'i bstan bcos
tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi rgya cher bshad pa rigs pa'i rgya mtsho
[Lhasa Zhol xylograph], vol. Da (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981).
Ibid., Rgyas pa'i bstan bcos tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi rgya cher bshad
pa rigs pa'i rgya mtsho, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1990).
Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub, Tshad ma rigs pa'i
gter gyi rnam par bshad pa rigs pa ma lus pa la 'jug pa'i sgo (Gangtok, 1970).
Ibid., Sde bdun mdo dang bcas pa'i dgongs 'grel tshad ma rig[s] pa'i
gter gyi 'grel pa'i rnam bshad rig[s] lam gsal ba'i nyi ma [Sde dge
xylograph], Thub pa'i dgongs pa rab gsal dang tshad ma rig[s] gter
skor, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Pal Evam Chodan Ngorpa Centre,
1985).
Ibid., Tshad ma rigs gter gyi 'grel pa, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Xining:
Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988), 1-262.
MKHAS[1]
NYI
NYI[1]
NYI[2]
176
177
Collected Works [Lhasa Zhol xylograph], vol. Kha (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives, 1981), 1-95.
This work is reproduced in the Dgag lan phyogs bsgrigs (Chengdu: Si khron mi
rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 519-605, and in his Gsung 'bum, vol. 2, Ser gtsug
nang bstan dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang (Lhasa: Se ra monastery,
2009), 218-323. In this work, which he completed in 1477, he uses "the crazy Go
bo" (go bo smyon pa) as one of his choice terms of endearment for Go rams pa. For
Go rams pa's work that he critizes at great length, see Freedom from Extremes. Gorampa's "Distinguishing the Views" and the Polemics of Emptiness, tr. J.I. Cabezón
and Geshe Lobsang Dargyay (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2007).
182
PS
PV
PVIN
RGR
RGRG
RGRG[1]
RM
RM[1]
SDE
SSBB
STON
STONm
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Dignāga, Pramāṇasamuccaya[vṛtti], SDE, vol. 46, no. 4208 [#4203],
382/1-385/4 [Ce, 1a-13a].
Dharmakīrti, Pramāṇavārttikakārikā, ed. Y. Miyasaka, Acta Indologica II (1971/1972); with the usual provisions about the sequence of the chapters.
Dharmakīrti, Pramāṇaviniścaya, SDE, vol. 46, no. 4216 [#4211],
425/3-447/4 [Ce, 152a-230a].
'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge, Bstan bcos tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi
rgyan rigs pa grub pa, 'U yug pa rigs pa'i seng ge'i gsung 'bum, vol.
Ka, Mes po'i shul bzhag 40, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying
zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun
khang, 2007).
Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter
gyi rang gi 'grel pa [Sde dge xylograph], SSBB, vol. 5, ed. Bsod
nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), no. 19, 155264.
Ibid., Rigs gter rtsa 'grel dpe bsdur ma, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig
dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, Shes bya'i gter bum, 1 (Chengdu: Si
khron dpe skrun tshogs pa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
2005).
'U yug pa rigs pa'i seng ge, Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi 'grel pa rigs
pa'i mdzod [Sde dge xylograph], 2 vols. (New Delhi, 1982).
Ibid., Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi 'grel pa rigs pa'i mdzod, 'U yug pa
rigs pa'i seng ge'i gsung 'bum vol. Kha, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig
dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe
skrun khang, 2007), 106-454, and 'U yug pa rigs pa'i seng ge'i
gsung 'bum, vol. Ga, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib
'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2007).
The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [Sde dge xylograph], ed.
A.W. Barber (Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991), 72 vols.
Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge xylograph], ed. Bsod nams rgya
mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968-1969), 15 vols.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon, Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi rnam par bshad pa
gnas gsum gsal ba gangs can gyi rgyan, ed. Sun Wenjing (Xining:
Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1993).
Ibid. dbu med manuscript in 191 fols., China Nationalities Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, Beijing, catalog
no.005148(4) [= tbrc.org W26440].
Bibliography of References Cited
Tibetan References
A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams, Sa skya'i gdung rabs ngo
mtshar bang mdzod, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1986).
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
183
Bdud 'joms dpa' bo, Rgyal ba'i bka' dang dgongs 'grel gyi gzhung lugs brgya
phrag dag las legs bshad kyi gtam du bya ba rgya bod kyi grub mtha' rnam par
'byed pa lung rigs rgya mtsho'i snying po mkhas pa dga' byed rin po che'i
rgyan [dbu med manuscript in 51 folios].
Bka' 'gyur dpe sdur ma, vol. 4, ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi
bka' bstan dpe sdur khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe
skrun khang, 1996), no. 0093.
Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan, Bsdus pa che ba rigs pa'i de nyid rnam
par nges pa [or: Tshad ma mdo sde bdun 'grel bshad dang bcas pa'i snying po
rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rnam par nges pa], Collected Writings, vol. Da (Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1999), 673-930.
—— Sde bdun gyi snying po rigs pa'i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba [or: Sde bdun
mdo 'grel pa 'grel bshad dang bcas pa'i snying por gyur pa rigs pa'i de kho na
nyid rab tu gsal ba], Collected Writings, vol. Da (Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1999), 931-1378.
—— Lo tsa (sic) ba blo brtan la mdzad pa, Collected Works, vol. Na, dbu can
manuscript in two folios, C.P.N. catalog no. 003877.
'Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba'i dpe rnying dkar chag, Stod cha, ed.
Bstan 'dzin phun tshogs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004).
Bsam gtan bzang po. Bcom ldan rig ral pa'i rnam thar, Collected Works, vol. Ka
(Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007), 130.
Bu ston Rin chen grub, Sampu ṭa'i 'grel pa snying po'i de kho na nyid gsal bar
byed pa, Collected Works, Part 8, ed. L. Chandra (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1967), 217-947.
—— Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po
che'i mdzod, Collected Works, Part 24, ed. L. Chandra (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 633-1055.
—— Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba'i tshul bka' drin rjes su dran par
byed pa, Collected Works, Part 26, ed. L. Chandra (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 1-142.
—— Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po, Collected
Works, Part 26, ed. L. Chandra (New Delhi: International Academy of
Indian Culture, 1971), 401-603.
Bya btang pa Padma gar dbang, Zab chos sbas pa mig 'byed kyi chos bskor las
paṇ chen sha wa dbang phyug gi snyan rgyud rdo rje sum gyi bla ma brgyud
pa'i rnam thar dad pa'i rnga chen, Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project Reel no. L 451/6.
Bya btang pa Padma rdo rje, Dpyal gyi gdung rabs za ra tshags dang gang gā'i
chu rgyun gnyis gcig tu bris pa kun gsal me long, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig
184
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun
khang, 2008).
Byang chub 'od zer, Tsom mdo gdan rabs kun btus, Smar pa bka' brgyud kyi
rnam thar phyogs sgrig, ed. Padma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron dpe
skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 68-154.
Cha gan Dbang phyug rgyal mtshan, Rdo rje tshig rkang gi 'grel pa cha gan
gyis bsdebs pa [dbu med manuscript in 46 folios], C.P.N. catalog no.
006617(14).
Chos nyid ye shes, Gnyags ston pa'i gdung rabs dang gdan rabs, ed. Rta mgrin
tshe dbang, Gangs can rig mdzod 31 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe
rnying dpe skrun khang, 1997).
Chu mig pa Seng ge dpal, *Tshad ma rnam nges kyi tika [dbu med manuscript
in 152 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004827(4).
—— Ibid, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 87, ed. Karma bde legs
et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2007), 12-307.
—— Tshad ma sde bdun gyi phyogs gcig du bsdus pa gzhan gyi phyogs thams cad
las rnam par rgyal ba [dbu med manuscript in 68 folios], C.P.N. catalog no.
004827(1).
—— Ibid, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 87, ed. Karma bde legs
et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2007), 314-449.
Dar ma dkon mchog, Rtog ge rigs pa'i rgyan gyi snying po [dbu med manuscript in 91+1 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004783(1).
Dar ma rgyal mtshan, Tshad ma kun las btus pa'i rgya cher bshad pa rgyan gyi
me tog, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 53, ed. Karma bde legs
et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2007), 445-528.
—— Tshad ma sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog [dbu med manuscript in 95-folios],
C.P.N. no. 002468(2).
—— Ibid., ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi she rig dpe skrun
khang, 1991), 1-138.
—— Ibid., Bka’ gdams gsung ‘bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 54, ed. Karma bde legs
et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2007), 329-515.
Dbus pa Blo gsal Rtsod pa'i seng ge, Bstan bcos gyi dkar chag [incomplete dbu
med manuscript in 81 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002376(1).
Dngos grub rgya mtsho, Tha snyad rig gnas lnga ji ltar byung ba'i tshul gsal bar
byed pa blo gsal mgrin rgyan legs bshad nor bu'i phreng ba, ed. Nor brang O
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
185
rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 4 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun
khang, 1988), 253-322.
Dpal ldan smar pa bka' brgyud kyi rnam thar su khar rṇa'i phreng ba, Smar pa bka'
brgyud kyi rnam thar phyogs sgrig, ed. Padma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si
khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006),
155-241.
Dpang Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa, Chos mngon pa kun las btus kyi rgya cher
'grel pa shes bya gsal byed (Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1999).
Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub, Sde bdun mdo dang bcas pa'i dgongs
'grel thad ma rigs gter la nye bar mkho ba mtha' gnyis gsal byed, Thub pa'i
dgongs pa rab gsal dang tshad ma rig[s] gter skor, vol. 2 (Dehra Dun: Pal
Evam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985), 60-65.
—— Ibid., Tshad ma rigs gter gyi 'grel pa, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Xining: Krung
go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988), 297-299.
Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge, Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi byung
tshul gsung ngag bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi 'od kha skong dang bcas pa, SSBB,
vol. 14, no. 87.
'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal, Deb gter sngon po, ed. L. Chandra (Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976).
Gser mdog Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan, Tshad ma'i mdo dang bstan bcos kyi
shing rta'i srol rnams ji ltar byung ba'i tshul gtam bya ba nyin more byed pa'i
snang bas dpyod ldan mtha' dag dga' bar byed pa, Collected Works, vol. 19
(Thimphu, 1975), 1-137.
—— Ibid, Gsung 'bum, Rdzong sar khams bye lnga rig thub bstan slob gling,
vol. Dza [19] (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2013), 1106.
Gtsang Byams pa Rdo rje rgyal mtshan, Sa skya mkhon (sic) gyi gdungs rab
(sic) rin po che'i 'phreng ba [incomplete dbu can manuscript in 90 folios],
Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel L 591/4.
'Jad pa Gzhon nu byang chub, Chos mngon pa kun las btus pa'i ṭīkka shes bya
thams cad gsal bar byed pa'i sgron me, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs
bsgrigs, vol. 40, ed. Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun
tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007).
'Jam dbyangs Chos kyi dpal 'byor, Gtsang stag tshang lo tsā ba shes rab rin chen
rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa'i kha skong yid ches gser gyi
ljon pa, Collected Works [of Stag tshang Lo tsā ba], vol. 2, Mes po'i shul
bzhag, vol. 30, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 53-63.
186
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
'Jam dbyangs Dga' ba'i blo gros, Lta ba ngan pa thams cad tshar gcod pa'i bstan
bcos gnam lcags kyi 'khor lo [zhes bya ba go bo bsod nams seng ge zhes bya
ba'i dge ba'i bshes gnyen la gdams pa], Dgag lan phyogs bsgrigs, ed.
(Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 519-605.
—— Ibid., Gsung 'bum, vol. 2, Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu
phyogs sgrig khang (Lhasa: Se ra monastery, 2009), 218-323.
Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje, Rje rang byung rdo rje’i thugs dam bstan
‘gyur gyi dkar chag, Collected Works, vol. Nga (Lhasa, 2006), 415-594.
—— Bstan bcos ‘gyur ro ‘tshal gyi dkar chag, Karma pa rang byung rdo rje gsung
‘bum dkar chag, Collected Works, vol. Nga (Lhasa, 2006), 595-717.
Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so'i lo rgyus gsal bar bshad pa thub
bstan gsal ba'i me long, comp. Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug lte
gnas kyi chos lugs lo rgyus zhib 'jug so'o et al., ed. 'Jigs med bsam grub,
vols. 1-3 (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1995).
Kun bzang tshe 'phel, Dpal chen rgwa lo'i rnam thar rags bsdus lus can dad pa'i
gsol sman ngo mtshar lung gi nyi ma (np, nd).
Lam rim pa Ngag dbang phun tshogs, Tshad ma rnam ‘grel gyi ṭīkka [gzur gnas
dgyes pa'i mchod sprin], 2 vols. (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun
khang, 1997).
Mgon po skyabs Rgya nag chos 'byung [based on the Sde dge xylograph]
(Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983).
Mi nyag 'Jam dbyangs grags pa, Mi nyag 'jam dbyangs grags pa'i rang rnam,
ed. Mi nyag Thub bstan chos dar (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe
skrun khang, 2005).
Mnyam nyid rin chen, Skyes bu dam pa rnams kyi rnam par thar pa rin po che'i
gter mdzod [undated xylograph in 88 folios].
Mkhan chen Ngag dbang chos grags, Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam, ed. Slob
dpon Padma lags (Thimphu, 1979).
—— Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtha'i shan 'byed mtha' dpyod dang
bcas pa'i 'bel ba'i gtam skyes dpyod ldan mkhas pa'i lus rgyan rin chen mdzes
pa'i phra rtsom bkod pa. The Collection (sic) Works of Mkhyen (sic) chen
Ngag dwang (sic) chos grags, vol. IV (Darjeeling: Sakya Choepheling
Monastery, 2000), 1-182.
Mkhan po Appey et al., Dkar chag mthong bas yid 'phrog chos mdzod bye ba'i lde
mig (New Delhi, 1987).
Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po, Rje btsun bla ma tsong kha pa chen po'i
ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba'i rnam par thar pa dad pa'i 'jug ngogs, Collect-
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
187
ed Works [of Tsong kha pa, Zhol edition], vol. Ka (Dharamsala: Library
of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981), 5-146.
—— Ibid., Sku 'bum edition, ed. Grags pa rgya mtsho (Xining: Mtsho sngon
mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982).
—— Phyin ci log gi gtam gyi sbyor ba la zhugs pa'i smra ba ngan pa rnam par
'thag pa'i bstan bcos gnam lcags 'khor lo, Collected Works [Lhasa Zhol xylograph], vol. Kha (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives,
1981), 1-95.
Mnga' ris Chos kyi rgyal po Phyogs las rnam rgyal, Chos kyi rje byang chub
sems dpa' chen po'i rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che'i gter mdzod kun las
btus pa [slightly incomplete (fol. 1 is missing) dbu med manuscript in 32
folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002780.
Mtshur ston Gzhon nu seng ge, Mtshur ston Gzhon nu seng ge. Tshad ma Shes
rab sgron ma, ed. P. Hugon, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 60 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2004).
Nag phug pa Shes rab 'od zer, Rje btsun nag phug[s] pa'i rnam thar [dbu med
manuscript in 19 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004381(7).
Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po, Thob yig rgya mtsho, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 36.
—— Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi byung tshul gsung ngag rin po che'i
bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi 'od, SSBB vol. 9, no. 37.
—— Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i bshad thabs kyi man ngag, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 38.
—— Dpal kye'i rdo rje'i lus kyi dkyil 'khor la rtsod pa spong ba smra ba ngan
'joms, SSBB vol. 9, no. 49.
—— Dpal kye'i rdo rje'i lus kyi dkyil 'khor la rtsod pa spong ba lta ba ngan sel,
SSBB vol. 9, no. 50.
—— Rgyud gsum gnod 'joms kyi 'grel pa, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 52.
—— Kyai rdo rje'i 'grel pa'i dkar chag, SSBB, vol. 9, no. 58.
—— Rdo rje theg pa'i bstan bcos 'gyur ro 'tshal gyi dkar chag, SSBB, vol. 10, no.
156.
Nyang ral Nyi ma'i 'od zer, Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed.
Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, Gangs can rig mdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod
ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988).
'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, Rgyal po la gdams pa'i rab tu byed pa, SSBB,
vol. 7, no. 210.
—— Byang chub sems dpa'i sa'i (sic) sdom, SSBB, vol. 7, no. 238.
—— Ston gzhon la spring ba, SSBB, vol. 7, no. 278.
Red mda' ba Gzhon nu blo gros, Dus kyi 'khor lo dpyad pa las brtsams te bstan
'dzin rnams la 'phrin du gsol ba nor bu'i phreng ba, Bod kyi rtsis rig kun 'dus
chen mo, vol. 1, Skar nag rtsis kyi lo rgyus skor, ed. Byams pa 'phrin las et
al. (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998), 283-293.
188
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
—— 'Phrin yig nor bu'i phreng ba'i rang lan, Bod kyi rtsis rig kun 'dus chen mo,
vol. 1, Skar nag rtsis kyi lo rgyus skor, ed. Byams pa 'phrin las et al.
(Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998), 294-297.
—— Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i nges don gsal bar byed pa rin po che'i sgron ma, Bod
kyi rtsis rig kun 'dus chen mo, vol. 1, Skar nag rtsis kyi lo rgyus skor, ed. Byams pa 'phrin las et al. (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1998), 383-428.
Dpal ldan red mda' pa chen po'i rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad byung [dbu med
manuscript, folios 44-82], C.P.N. catalog no. 002802(5).
Rje btsun red mda' pa'i mdzad pa'i bka' 'bum thor bu [incomplete dbu med manuscript in 335 folios], ed. 'Jam dbyangs grags pa, C.P.N. catalog no.
004546.
Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos 'byung, ed. Gling dpon Pad ma
skal bzang and Ma grong Mi 'gyur rdo rje, Gangs can rig mdzod 26
(Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994).
—— Bka' brgyud rin po che'i lo rgyus phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa'i gsol 'debs rgyas
pa [dbu med manuscript in 541 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002448(6).
Rgyal ba ye shes, Chos rje 'jam dbyangs chen po'i rnam thar yon tan rgya mtsho
[dbu med manuscript in 24 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 004381(10).
—— Kun spangs chen po chos rje'i rnam thar yon tan rab gsal [dbu med manuscript in 40 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002815(5).
—— Ibid., Dpal ldan dus kyi 'khor lo jo nang pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i
rnam thar, ed. Karma bde legs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004),
66-141.
Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Bla ma sa skya pa chen po'i rnam thar, SSBB
vol. 3, no. 5.
Rngog Lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab, Tshad ma rnam par rnam nges pa'i dka' ba'i
gnas rnam par bshad pa, ed. Sun Wenjing (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi
shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1994).
—— Ibid., Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod
yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa
/ Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 419-705.
—— Ibid., Rngog Lo tsā ba blo ldan shes rab kyi gsung chos skor, Bka' gdams dpe
dkon gces btus, vol. 3, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug
khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009), 53-359.
Rngog Zhe sdang rdo rje, Sam bhu ṭa'i rnam bshad, Rngog chos skor phyogs
bsgrigs, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, vol. 2
(Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 171-245.
—— Ibid., Rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa'i gsung 'bum, vol. 5/34, ed. Dpal
brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol.
226 (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2011), 88-253.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
189
Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter rang gi 'grel
pa, SSBB, vol. 5, no. 6.
Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1989).
Seng ge bzang po, Mkhan chen bka' bzhi pa chen po rig[s] pa'i seng ge'i rnam par
thar pa yon tan rin po che'i rgya mtsho, Mi nyag mkhas dbang lnga'i rnam
thar, ed. Thub bstan nyi ma (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1986), 37-115.
Shangs Rin chen seng ge, Shangs kyi bla ma chos rje rin seng pa'i rnam thar, Sa
skya lam 'bras Literature Series, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983),
345-362.
Shar ba Thogs med and Blo ris, "Bod 'grel dang de'i thad kyi bsam tshul 'ga'
gleng ba," Mdo smad zhib 'jug, vol. 1, ed. Kan su'u bod kyi shes rig zhib
'jug khang (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005), 44-62.
Shes bya'i gter mdzod, ed. Sun Wenjing and Mi nyag Mgon po, vol. 3 (Beijing:
Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997).
Shes rab gzhon nu, Rgyal po la gdams pa'i rab tu byed pa'i rnam par bshad pa
gsung rab gsal ba'i rgyan, SSBB, vol. 7, no. 154.
Ska ba Shes rab bzang po et al., Bod khul gyi chos sde grags can khag gi dpe rnying dkar chag (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010).
Skyed legs sprul sku Nam mkha' rgyal mtshan, Mkhas shing grub pa'i skyes
chen mi lnga'i rnam thar ngo mtshar snang ba, Mi nyag 'jam dbyangs grags
pa'i rang rnam, ed. Mi nyag Thub bstan chos dar (Beijing: Krung go'i
bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2005), 312-8.
Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo, Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par bzhag pa, SSBB, vol. 2,
no. 1.
—— Saṃpuṭa'i ṭī ka gnas kyi gsal byed, SSBB, vol. 2, no. 15.
Stag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen, Dpal ldan sa skya pa'i 'khon gyi gdung
rabs 'dod dgu'i rgya mtsho [dbu med manuscript in 34 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 002537.
Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan, Bka' chems mthong ba don ldan, Rlangs kyi
po ti bse ru rgyas pa, ed. Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs and Nor
brang O rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 1 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs
dpe skrun khang, 1986), 103-373.
Tāranātha, Myang yul stod smad bar gsum gyi ngo mtshar gtam gyi legs bshad
mkhas pa'i jug ngogs, ed. Lhag pa tshe ring (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi
dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1983),
190
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
—— ed. Don grub phun tshogs (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun
khang, 2002).
—— Myang chos 'byung, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nātha'i gsung 'bum dpe bsdur
ma, vol. 44, Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 86, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe
rnying zhib jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2008).
The Tibetan Tripiṭaka, Peking Edition, ed. D.T. Suzuki, vol. 55 (Tokyo-Kyoto:
Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute, 1955-61), no. 2358.
Zhwa dmar IV Chos grags ye shes, Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa mkhan chen thams
cad mkhyen pa don gyi slad du mtshan can nas smos te gzhon nu dpal gyi
rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che mchog tu rgyas pa'i ljon pa [dbu can
manuscript in 74 folios], C.P.N. catalog no. 003259(11).
—— 'Gos lo gzhon nu dpal gyi rnam thar, ed. Ngag dbang nor bu (Beijing: Mi
rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004).
Yar lung Jo bo Shākya rin chen sde, Chos 'byung, ed. Dbyangs can (Chengdu:
Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1988).
Zhang btsun Mdo sde dpal, Thub pa'i dgongs gsal rgyal sras 'phags pa'i lam gyi
sgrung 'grel zla ba'i 'od zer, Dpal sa skya pa'i gsung rab, vol. 11, Lam rim,
comp. Mkhas dbang Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan and Mkhas dbang
Padma dam chos (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang / Xining: Mtsho
sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), 340-605.
—— Thub pa'i dgongs pa gsal ba'i bstan bcos kyi mdo rnam par bshad pa rin po
che'i gter, Selected Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen, vol. 2 (Dehra Dun, 1985),
253-539.
Zhang G.yu 'brug Brtson 'grus grags pa, Dpal gyi rnam thar, Writings (bka'
thor bu) (Tashijong: The Sungrab Nyamso Gyunpel Parkhang, 1972),
360-392.
—— Dpal rgwa lo'i rnam thar, Collected Works, vol. Ka (Beijing: Huangsi, ?),
541-544.
Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin shouzangde fanwen beiye jing (Suowei
jiaojuan) mulu / Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig zhib 'jug lte gnas su nyar ba'i ta
la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos (sbyin shog 'dril ma'i par) gyi dkar chag mdor gsal (np,
nd).
Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen, Bka' 'gyur dkar chag, ed. Blo bzang bstan
'dzin et al. (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985).
Chinese References
Huang Mingxin, Hanzang dazangjin mulu yitong yanjiu (Beijing: Zhongguo
zangxue chubanshe, 2003).
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
191
Luo Zhao, tr., Liangli baozang lun, ed. Huang Mingxin, Zhongguo luoji shi
ziliao xuan, ed. Lu Yu, et al. (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1991),
267-420.
Luosang danzeng [= Blo bzang bstan 'dzin], Handi fojiao yuanliuji (Beijing:
Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2005).
Mingshing Fashi, tr. Liangli baozang lun (Taibei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1994).
Ska ba Shes rab bzang po, "Zangwen <Yuanban> kao [Investigating Tibetan
Language 'Yuan Blockprints'," Zhongguo zangxue 1 (2009), 41-50.
Sun Wenjing and Huang Mingxin, "Guonei bufen dushuguan(shi)so
zangwen yinming shumu," Yinming xintan, ed. Liu Peiyu et al. (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1989), 329-383.
Xiong Wenbin, "Yuandai huangshi chengyuan shikande zangwen fojing [Tibetan
Buddhist Scriptures Published with the Financial Aid of Members of
the Yuan Dynasty's Imperial Family], Zhongguo zangxue 3 (2009), 91103.
Qingfu, Zhiyuan fabao kantong zhonglu, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, ed. J. Takakusu and K. Watanabe, comp. G. Ono Genmyō (Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō
kankōkai, 1924-32), vol. 99, no. 25.
Xiong Wenbin, Yuandai huangshi chengyuan shikande zangwen fojing [Tibetan
Buddhist Scriptures Published with the Financial Aid of Members of
the Yuan Dynasty's Imperial Family]," Zhongguo zangxue 3 (2009), 91103.
Sanskrit References
Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya, ed. N. Tatia, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series no.
17 (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute 1976).
Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapters 1 and 2, ed. E. Steinkellner, Sanskrit
Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, no. 2 (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House/Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences
Press, 2011).
Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya, Chapter 3, ed. P. Hugon and T. Tomabechi,
Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, no. 8 (Beijing: China
Tibetology Publishing House / Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences
Press, 2011).
192
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Other References
Almogi, O. "Analysing Tibetan Titles: Towards a Genre-based Classification
of Tibetan Literature," Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 15 (2005), 27-58.
Bosson, J.E. tr. and ed. Legs bshad rin po che'i gter (Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1969).
Bronkhorst, J. Language and Reality. On an Episode in Indian Thought, tr. M.S.
Allen and R. Raghunathan (Brill: Leiden, 2011).
Cabezón, J.I. and Geshe Lobsang Dargyay, tr. Freedom from Extremes. Gorampa's "Distinguishing the Views" and the Polemics of Emptiness (Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 2007).
Clemente, M. "Colophons as Sources: Historical Information from Some
Brag dkar rta so Xylographies (sic)," Rivisita di Studi Sudasiatici II (2007),
121-58.
Dagkar Namgyal Nyima. Zhang-zhung-Tibetan-English Contextual Dictionary
(Bonn: Selbstverlag, 2003).
Davidson, R.M. "Masquerading as pramāṇa: Esoteric Buddhism and Epistemological Nomenclature," Dharmakīrti's Thought and Its Impact on Indian
and Tibetan Philosophy [Proceedings of the Third International Dharmakīrti
Conference Hiroshima, November 4-6, 1997], ed. Sh. Katsura (Wien: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 33-4.
—— Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).
De Rossi Filibeck, E. Catalog of the Tucci Tibetan Fund in the Library of IsMEO,
vol. 1 (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1994).
Dreyfus, G.B.J. Recognizing Reality. Dharmakīrti's Philosophy and Its Tibetan
Interpretations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997).
Dunne, J.D. Foundations of Dharmakīrti's Philosophy (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004).
Eltschinger, V. Penser l’autorité des Écritures. La polémique de Dharmakīrti contre la notion brahmanique orthodoxe d'un Veda sans auteur. Autour de
Pramāṇavārttika 1.213-268 et Svavṛtti, Beiträge zur Kultur- und
Geistesgeschichte Asiens, no. 56 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007).
Eltschinger, V., H. Krasser and J. Taber. Can the Veda Speak? Dharmakīrti
against Mīmāṃsā exegetics and Vedic authority. An annotated translation of
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
193
164,24-176,16 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2012).
PVSV
Franco, E. "The Tibetan Translations of the Pramāṇavārttika and the Development of Translation Methods from Sanskrit to Tibetan," Tibetan Studies, vol. 1, ed. H. Krasser et al. (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 277-288.
Franke, H. Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der Yüanzeit,
Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexikographie, Band III
(München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien / Bayerische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996).
—— "The Consecration of the 'White Stupa' in 1279," Asia Major 7 (1994),
155-184.
Fukuda, Y. and Y. Ishihama, tr. A Study of the Grub mthaḥ of Tibetan Buddhism
[in Japanese], vol. 4, Studia Tibetica, no. 11 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,
1986).
—— A Comparative Table of sa-bcad of the Pramāṇavārttika Found in Tibetan
Commentaries of the Pramāṇavārttika, Studia Tibetica No. 12 (Tokyo: The
Toyo Bunko, 1986).
Ganeri, J. "Sanskrit Philosophical Commentary," Journal of the Indian Council
of Philosophical Research 27 (2010), 187-207.
Genette, G. Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation, tr. J.E. Lewin, Literature,
Culture, Theory, vol. 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997).
Hambis, L. Le chapitre CVII du Yuan che [avec des notes supplémentaires par Paul
Pelliot] (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1945).
—— Le chapitre CVIII du Yuan che, Tome I (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954).
Hugon, P. Trésors du raisonnement. Sa skya Paṇḍita et ses prédécesseurs tibétains
sur les modes de fonctionnement de la pensée et le fondement de l'inférence.
Édition et traduction annotée du quatrième chapitre et d'une section du
dixième chapitre du Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, 2 vols., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 69, 1-2 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für
Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2008).
—— "Clapping Hands in Skyid grong? Logical and contextual aspects of a
famous debate narrative," Revue d'Études Tibétaines 23 (2012), 51-102.
Iwata, T. Prasaṅga und Prasaṅgaviparyaya bei Dharmakīrti und seinen Kommentatoren, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 31
(Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1993).
194
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Jackson, D.P. The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa skya Paṇḍita on
Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa and Philosophical Debate, vol. I,
Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 17,1-2
(Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1987).
—— "Sources for the Study of Tibetan Pramāṇa Traditions Preserved at the
Bihar Research Society, Patna," Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological
Tradition, ed. E. Steinkellner (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 97-106.
Kellner, B. "First logic, then the Buddha? Remarks on the chapter sequence
of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika," Hōrin 11 (2004), 147-167.
—— "Towards a Critical Edition of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika," Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 52-3 (2009-10), 161-211.
Kramer, J. A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen
(1456-1532), Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde,
Heft 68 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien
Universität Wien, 2008).
Krasser, H. "Bhāviveka, Dharmakīrti and Kumārila," Devadattīyam. Johannes
Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume, ed. F. Voegeli et al. (Bern: Peter Lang,
2012), 535-594.
van der Kuijp, L.W.J. "Ldong ston Shes rab dpal and a Version of the Tshad
ma rigs pa'i gter in Thirteen Chapters," Berliner Indologische Studien 2
(1986), 51-64.
—— "Two Mongol Xylographs (hor par ma) of the Tibetan Text of Sa skya
Paṇḍita's Work on Buddhist Logic and Epistemology," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16 (1993), 279-298.
—— "On Some Early Tibetan Pramāṇavāda Texts of the China Nationalities
Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing," Journal of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies 1 (1994), 1-30.
—— "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History IV: The Tshad ma'i
'byung tshul 'chad nyan gyi rgyan: A Tibetan History of Indian Buddhist
Pramāṇavāda," Festschrift Klaus Bruhn, ed. N. Balbir and J.K. Bautze
(Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen,
1994), 375-93.
—— "Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam 'bras
Teachings of the Sa skya pa and Ko brag pa," Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 17 (1994), 175-201.
—— "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History 1: Ta'i si tu Byang chub
rgyal mtshan as a Man of Religion," Indo-Iranian Journal 37 (1994), 139149.
—— "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History VI: The Transmission of
Indian Buddhist Pramāṇavāda According to the Early Tibetan Gsan yigs," Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques XLIX (1995), 919-941.
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
195
—— "Remarks on the 'Person of Authority' in the Dga' ldan pa / Dge lugs
pa School of Tibetan Buddhism," Journal of the American Oriental Society
119 (1999), 646-672.
—— "On the Fifteenth Century Lho rong chos 'byung by Rta tshag Tshe dbang
rgyal and Its Importance for Tibetan Political and Religious History,"
Lungta 14 [Aspects of Tibetan History, ed. R. Vitali and T. Tsering] (2000),
57-76.
—— "A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and Logic Attributed to Klong
chen Rab 'byams pa (1309-1364) and Its Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History," Journal of Indian Philosophy 31 (2003), 381-437.
—— The Kālacakra and the Patronage of Tibetan Buddhism by the Mongol Imperial
Family, The Central Eurasian Studies Lectures, 4, ed. F. Venturi (Bloomington: Department of Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University,
2004).
—— "Some Remarks on the Meaning and Use of the Tibetan Word bam po,"
Zangxue xuekan / Journal of Tibetology 5 (2009), 114-132.
—— "Notes on Jñānamitra's Commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya," The
Foundation for Yoga Practitioners. The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and
Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, ed. U.T. Kragh, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 75 (Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies,
2013), 1388-1429.
—— "The hor par ma-Mongol Xylograph of the Tibetan Translation of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika (Tshad ma rnam 'grel)," Zangxue xuekan / Journal of Tibetology 9 forthcoming in 2014.
—— "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History III: The Oeuvre of Bla
ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375), Part Two," forthcoming.
van der Kuijp, L.W.J and A.P. McKeown. Bcom ldan ral gri (1227-1305) on
Indian Buddhist Logic and Epistemology: His Commentary on Dignāga's
Pramāṇasamuccaya, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 80 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2013).
Lobsang dagpa and J. Goldberg, tr. The Beautiful Ornament of The Three Visions (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1991).
Martin, D. "Zhangzhung Dictionary," Revue d'Études Tibétaines 18 (2010).
Matsuda Kazunobo. "Sanskrit Manuscript of Sthiramati's Commentary to
the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya," China Tibetology 1 (2013), 48-52.
Nihom, M. Studies in the Buddhist Tantra (Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit te
Leiden, 1982).
—— "Bu ston, Politics and Religion," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement VI, XII. Deutscher Orientalistentag,
ed. W. Röllig (Stutgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, 1985),
315-24.
196
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
Ono Motoi. "A Reconsideration of the Controversy about the Order of the
Chapters of the Pramāṇavārttika," Tibetan Studies, vol. II, ed. H. Krasser
et al. (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 701-716.
Petech, L. "Ston-tshul: The Rise of Sa-skya Paramountcy in Khams," Tibetan
History and Language. Studies dedicated to Uray Géza on His Seventieth
Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 26 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1991), 416-22.
—— Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yüan-Sa skya Period of Tibetan History,
Serie Orientale Roma, vol. LXV (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed
Estremo Oriente, 1990).
Roerich, G.N., tr. The Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979).
Roloff, C. Red mda' ba. Buddhist Yogi-Scholar of the Fourteenth Century, Contributions to Tibetan Studies, vol. 7 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichelt Verlag, 2009).
Sanderson, A. "The Śaiva Age – The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During
the Early Medieval Period -," Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed.
Sh. Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo,
2009), 41-349.
Schaeffer, K.R. and L.W.J. van der Kuijp. An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist
Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi 'od of Bcom ldan ral gri,
Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 64 (Cambridge: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, 2009).
Scherrer-Schaub, C.A. "Towards a Methodology for the Study of Old Tibetan
Manuscripts: Dunhuang and Tabo," Tabo Studies II. Manuscripts, Texts,
Inscriptions and the Arts, ed. C.A. Scherrer-Schaub and E. Steinkellner,
Serie Orientale Roma LXXXVII (Rome: Istituto Italiana per l'Africa e
l'Oriente, 1999), 3-36.
—— "Immortality extolled with reason: Philosophy and politics in Nāgārjuna," Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers Dedicated to E. Steinkellner on the Occasion of
His 70th Birthday, ed. B. Kellner et al., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie
und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.2 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007), 757-93.
Scherrer-Schaub, C.A. and G. Bonani. "Establishing a typology of the old
Tibetan manuscripts: a multidisciplinary approach," Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries, ed. S. Whitfield (London: The British Library, 2002), 184215.
—— Ibid. The Cultural History of Western Tibet. Recent Research from the China
Tibetology Center and the University of Vienna, ed. D. Klimburg–Salter,
Btsun pa Ston gzhon’s Pramāṇavārttika Commentary
197
Liang Junyan et al. (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, 2008),
299-337.
Schuh, D. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung
(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1973).
Seyfort Ruegg, D., tr. The Life of Bu ston Rin po che, Serie Orientale Roma
XXIV (Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966).
Slaje, W., ed. The Śāstrārambha: Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62 (2008).
Sperling, E. "Rtsa mi Lo tsā ba Sangs rgyas grags pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations," Tibetan Studies. Proceedings
of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies.
Fagernes 1992, ed. P. Kvaerne, vol. 2 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), 801-824.
Stcherbatsky, Th. Buddhist Logic, vol. 1 (New York: Dover Publications,
1962).
Stearns, C.R., tr. Luminous Lives. The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam 'bras
Tradition in Tibet (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001).
—— Taking the Result as the Path. Core Teachings of the Sakya Lamdré Tradition
(Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2006).
Steinkellner, E. "Miszellen zur erkenntnistheoretisch-logischen Schule des
Buddhismus IX: The Colophon of Dharmottara's Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā,"
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 50 (2007), 199-205.
Steinkellner E. and M.T. Much. Texte der erkenntnistheoretischen Schule des
Buddhismus, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 214 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995).
Tillemans, T.J.F. Scripture, Logic, Language. Essays on Dharmakīrti and His Tibetan Successors (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1999).
—— Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika. An annotated translation of the fourth chapter (parārthānumāna), Volume 1 (k. 1-148) (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000).
Tomabechi, T. and K. Kano. "A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text
Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Amnayamañjarī: Göttingen,
Cod.ms.sanscr. 259b," Tantric Studies 1 (2008), 22-44.
Tucci, G. Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. II (Kyoto: Rinsen Book, Co. Ltd., 1980).
Vetter, T. Erkenntnisprobleme bei Dharmakīrti (Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1964).
198
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
—— , tr. and ed. Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścayaḥ, 1. Kapitel: Pratyakṣam
(Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1966).
Vitali, R. "The History of the Lineages of Gnas rnying Summarised as its
'Ten Greatnesses'," Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies 1, ed. H. Blezer
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 81-107.
!