Academia.eduAcademia.edu
A Fifteenth Century Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od (947-1019/24): Part One: Its Prolegomenon and Prophecies* Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp Harvard University [Note: Originally delivered as a conference paper in Vienna, this essay has been in press for several years and is now already bit dated. The manuscript of Lha bla ma's biography was published in Lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi rnam[s] thar rgyas pa, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pa [13], ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 273-356 [fols. 1-41a]. In the meantime, two annotated editions have become available. These are the published edition by Do rgya Dbang drag rdo rje (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2013) and the unpublished edition by Khyung bdag, which is a marked improvement of the former, even if it still contains some problems. I hereby should like to thank Khyung bdag for sharing with me the latest iteration of his edition while he was in Chengdu, in May of 2015.] Preamble If anyone, then Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od surely deserves to be singled out as one of the most remarkable figures in the entire religious and political history of cultural Tibet – I use the phrase "cultural Tibet" to denote the enormous area where Tibetan cultures, religions, and languages/dialects hold sway, stretching from Gilgit-Baltistan to Yunnan and Sichuan Provinces, PRC, and from the northern reaches of India, Nepal, and Bhutan to large swathes of Qinghai and Gansu Provinces, PRC. Lha bla ma was born into that branch of the Tibetan imperial family that had settled in Mnga' ris upon the empire's implosion and dissolution in the early 840s. The patriline of this branch issued from ‘Od srung[s] (?843-?81), the son of the last Tibetan emperor Khri 'u dum btsan (803-42), alias Glang dar ma, and his junior queen G.yor mo Tshe spong bza' Yum chen Btsan mo 'phan. The title "Lha bla ma" indicates that he was a teacher (bla ma, guru) of divine (lha, deva), that is, of royal descent. And "Ye shes 'od" was his name in religion. Curiously, what his actual name was before he had taken his vows is not known with absolute certainty, but it may very well have been Khri lde srong gtsug btsan, as we are told by later sources in which late tenth and early eleventh century archival documents apperar to have been used. The territory that Mnga' ris occupied around his time was essentially co-extensive with the western region of what I have called cultural Tibet and should therefore not be confused with the area that is currently designated as Mnga' ris, that is, the westernmost part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region [TAR], PRC. For example, at the time, Mnga' ris covered 'Bru zha [Gilgit] and Sbal ti [Baltistan], areas that are currently part of Pakistan, and northern Himachal Pradesh, including Ladakh, and Uttarakhand, both of which are now part of India. Indeed, present day Mnga' ris is geographically severely truncated and bears very little resemblance to what this toponym covered during the tenth and eleventh centuries and somewhat beyond. * Unless the scribal errors, typographical errors or other inconsistencies were especially egregious, I have not made any editorial changes in the orthography of the Tibetan texts that I cite in this essay. The abbreviation lha refers to the manuscript of Lha bla ma's biography, the Lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi rnam[s] thar rgyas pa in forty-one folios, which Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal so kindly shared with me. For a truly magisterial survey of the history of this area, see L. Petech, "Western Tibet: Historical Introduction," in D. Klimburg-Salter, Tabo. A Lamp for the Kindom. Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998), 229-55. Indian forms of Buddhism and her accompanying institutions that had become part of the Tibetan intellectual and physical landscape since the second half of the eighth century experienced a severe downturn from circa the middle of the ninth century and, though by no means entirely absent from cultural Tibet, there is no doubt that by Lha bla ma's time they were languishing due to a lack of economic support from the top. No doubt as a result of their decline, there seems to have prevailed a distinct lack of theoretical orthodoxy and orthopraxy, very broadly defined, in its associated ritual and spiritual practices. Lha bla ma's personal investment of his material resources, the natural charisma that was an indelible part of his line of descent and social standing, and his obvious profound commitment to Buddhism enabled him to bring about a revival in the theory and practice of Buddhism and a return to what may be a semblance of esoteric Buddhist orthodoxy in the Tibetan cultural area that has continued to this day. The various Chos ‘byung chronicles of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism that were written over the centuries contain merely fragmentary information about his life, as do several biographies, such as the ones of Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po (958-1055) – he is often simply referred to as Lo chen, that is, the great translator (lo [tsā ba] chen po) and Sanskritist - and Atiśa (982-1054), the famous Bangladeshi master who stayed in the Tibetan cultural area from 1042 until his passing. On occasion, the authors were quite misinformed. One oddity that surfaces every so often is that Lha bla ma is said to have been so closely associated with Atiśa that he had even sacrificed his life for him. This point was recently reiterated in D.B. Gray, "On the Very Idea of a Tantric Canon: Myth, Politics, and the Formation of the Bka' 'gyur," Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 5 (December 2009), 14, http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5690 (published in December 2010, accessed May 8, 2011). This misguided opinion is based on having confounded him with his nephew Lha lde, the father of his great-nephews Pho brang Byang chub 'od (984-1078) and Lha btsun Zhi ba 'od (1016-1111), a confusion that, H. Eimer dispelled some time ago. See his "Die Gar log-Episode bei Padma dkar po und ihre Quellen," Orientalia Suecana XXIII-IV (1974-5), 182-99; see also Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po, "Lha bla ma ye shes 'od gar log tu 'das min skor la rags tsam dpyad pa," Gu ge'i tshe ring rgyal po'i ched rtsom phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2005), 74-92. To be sure, nothing of the kind is met with in the study of his life that, I am virtually certain, Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) completed in 1480. Henceforth designated as lha, this newly available work, of which some particulars are detailed below, forms the obvious point of departure for the present essay, which in fact focuses on the contents of its opening, introductory three and a half folios that I have called "the prolegomenon and prophecies." It may hardly be necessary to point out that recent years have witnessed a surge in interest in Lha bla ma himself and in Mnga' ris in particular. That said, a few preliminary bibliographical remarks might not be altogether out of place, even if these are admittedly quite incomplete. It is generally the consensus that the publication of R. Vitali's truly astonishing and densely annotated work on the religious and political history of Mnga' ris, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa (Dharamsala: Tho ling gtsug lag khang lo gcig stong 'khor ba'i rjes dran mdzad sgo'i go sgrig tshogs chung, 1996); pp. 174-279 deal with the era of Lha bla ma in particular. An earlier study of Mnga' ris as defined as part of the TAR, past and present, is Stod mnga' ris skor gsum gi lo rgyus 'bel gtam rin chen gter gyi phreng ba, ed. Mnga' ris srid gros rig gnas lo rgyus bsdu rub u yon lhan khang (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1996). Mnga' ris' monasteries of the TAR are examined in some detail in Chos ngag, Stod mnga' ris kyi dgon sde'i lo rgyus dag gsal mthong ba'i me long (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1999). For the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in this region of cultural Tibet, see the surveys in R. Khosla, Buddhist Monasteries in the Western Himalaya, Bibliotheca Himalayica, Series 3, vol. 13 (Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, 1979), O.C. Hāṇdā, Buddhist Western Himalaya (New Delhi: Indus Pub. Co., 2001), and for specifically northern India, N. Upādhyāya, The Temples of Himachal Pradesh. Architectural, Sculptural, Religious and Cultural Significance (New Delhi: Indus Pub. Co., 2008). For recent work by Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po, see below, n. 53. with specific emphasis on the two principalities of Gu ge A fundamental study of the architecture, art, and artifacts found at the site of Gu ge is still Gu ge'i gna' grong rjes shul / 古格故城 Guge gucheng [The Old City of Gu ge] 2 vols., ed. Bod rang skyong ljongs rig gnas dngos rdzas u yon lhan khang (Beijing: Rig gnas dngos rdzas dpe skrun khang / 文物出版社 Wenwu chubanshe, 1990). and Pu hrang, effected a quantum leap in our understanding of the political and cultural dynamics of the region, and of the specifics of Lha bla ma's contributions. Vitali took an incomplete and what thusfar appears to be unique manuscript of the so-called Mnga' ris rgyal rabs, Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, as the point of departure for his thick and very rewarding book. The manuscript has a number of scribal problems that in some cases, notably with regards to its narrative of the life and times of Lha bla ma, can be solved with the help of what I take to be his biography by Gu ge Paṇ chen. The manuscript of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris has no colophon where the name of the author or the date of its composition would otherwise be given. In fact, it comes to an abrupt mid-narrative halt. On what he felt was sufficient text-internal evidence, Vitali argued that it was written by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa in 1497, but I believe that his argument rests on a misreading of the text's brief section on chronology, which he combines with two other data, namely, that the last year mentioned in the manuscript is the year 1480 in which the ruler of [Nam mkha'i dbang po] Phun tshogs lde (b. 1409) passed away and that Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419) counted a Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa among his principal disciples. The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 89-96. For Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pa, see also the note in the large 1845 biography of Tsong kha pa by Blo bzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal, alias 'Brug Rgyal dbang chos rje, in 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po'i rnam thar, ed. Grags pa rgya mtsho et al. (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981), 604; this biography was eloquently described and analyzed in K.R. Schaeffer, "Tibetan Biography: Growth and Criticism," Edition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, evolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet et al., Collectanea Himalayica 3 (Munich: Indus Verlag, 2010), 276-82, 292-4. There also exists a Chinese translation by 郭和卿 Guo Heqing, for which see 至尊宗喀巴大師传 Zhizun zonggaba dashi zhuan (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1988), where the brief, alluded to passage is found on p. 484. Let us first consider the latter. The two sources that he cites on Tsong kha pa's life or, rather, the life of a Ngag dbang grags pa from Gu ge in connection with Tsong kha pa, are Paṇ chen Bsod nams grags pa's (1478-1554) chronicle of the Bka' gdams pa school of 1538 and Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho's (1653-1705) 1698 history of the Dge lugs pa school See, respectively, Bka' gdams gsar rnying gi chos 'byung yid kyi mdzes rgyan, Two Histories of the Bka' gdams pa Tradition (Gangtok, 1977), 58, 195-6, and Dga' ldan chos 'byung baiḍūrya ser po, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Xining: Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1989), 72, 272-3. The planned sequel to this paper will include an examination of the chapter on the activities of Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pa and others that is contained in the quite recently published chronicle of Zhang zhung Dpal 'byor bzang po (?15thc.) titled Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i yid 'phrog, for which see Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Nyi, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 256-84. - they respectively refer to him Gu ge or Chos rje Ngag dbang grags pa, and thus omit the epithet mkhan chen, "great scholar." It is true that the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris mentions the presence of a "lord of scholars" (mkhas pa'i dbang po) Ngag dbang grags pa at Phun tshogs lde's coronation and it is he whom Vitali takes as its author. But it is rather odd that, at this juncture, the text makes no self-reflexive indication that he was in fact the author – one would expect something like bdag ngag dbang grags pa, "I, Ngag dbang grags pa" - and that, if he were its author, he would not refer to himself as a mkhas pa'i dbang po! Of course a later editor or a disciple may have added the epithet, but the problem of the absence of the reflexive pronoun remains. A further minor point: Vitali dates the coronation of Phun tshogs lde to 1424. But the author of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris uses a finite construction in his narrative when he relates that this ruler of Gu ge married the daughter of the king of Mar yul [= Ladakh] when he was sixteen [= fifteen], that is, in 1424. However, there is no guarantee that the same age also applies to his coronation, which is mentioned immediately following this notice of his wedding in a sentence that is not dated. And Vitali does not mention any other source that would further corroborate his assertion. Finally, Vitali is of course well aware that there is a probable chronological conflict with Ngag dbang grags pa being already a senior scholar in 1424, and that this was the same Ngag dbang grags pa who went on to write the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris seventy-three years later, in 1497! But he seems more than willing to brush this pesky detail aside as if it were a mosquito. But mosquitos sting and their itch lasts for some time. In his review of Vitali's book, the regretted L. Petech rightly called the identification of its author and the proposed date of composition into question on grounds that this section on chronology that Vitali used for his conclusions on these matters – this section falls into three distinct parts - only serves to determine the year in which Lha btsun Zhi ba 'od, Byang chub 'od's much younger brother and thus another one of Lha bla ma's great-nephews, passed away. "A Regional Chronicle of Gu ge pu hrang," The Tibet Journal XXII (1997), 107-8, ad Mnga' ris rgyal rabs in R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga’ ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 67-8, and Vitali's interpretation. In this connection, we should also signal the recently published anonymous Mnga' ris phyogs kyi chos 'byung, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Chi, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 455-88. The last sentence with the implicit copula embedded in the final particle so, which seemingly concludes this section and which is the one and only passage in the manuscript that mentions a Ngag dbang grags pa from Gu ge, is rather cryptic, to say the least, for it reads: lo stong bdun brgya lnga bcu nga drug gu ge bstan chos pa ngag dbang grags pa'i lugs so // And Petech translates this as: Year 1756; this is the system of the Gu ge commentator Ngag dbang grags pa. The Tibetan text has no equivalent for ";" or for "this." Pointing out the equivalence of bstan chos and bstan bcos on the basis of a relevant dictionary entry – chos and bcos are of course closely related -, Petech is at the same time willing to grant that bstan chos "might be equivalent to bstan rtsis," and I believe this suggestion, even if he does not pursue it, is not altogether unreasonable. The words rtsis and chos are certainly not always easily kept apart in some cursive Tibetan dbu med scripts and this inherent ambiguity is exacerbated by the fact that, let us call a spade a spade, the scribal niveau of the original manuscript of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris is rather low and often leaves a great deal to be desired, as Vitali himself has stated - unfortunately, Vitali's book does not contain a facsimile reproduction of the manuscript, so that we are wholly dependent on his understanding of its readings and its teeming scribal errors. Indeed, the expression bstan chos/bcos pa is of quite rare vintage and in a section on chronology the more obvious choice would no doubt be to read here gu ge bstan rtsis pa, "Chronicler of the Teaching from Gu ge," which then stands in an appositional relationship to the name Ngag dbang grags pa. Several authors have had something to say about the bstan bcos – bstan chos [or: 'chos] alternative. But as usual, the extant manuscripts of their writings are far from consistent and in places even internally contradictory, thus making it rather difficult to come to a conclusion as to what they may have intended. Dar ma rgyal mtshan (1227-1305), alias Bcom ldan rig[s pa'i] ral gri, is thusfar the first known Tibetan intellectual roughly to have divided the development of the orthography/orthotactics and the lexicon of written "church" Tibetan (chos skad) into three separate "official [imperial] decisions" (bkas bcad) See his Sgra yi bstan bcos smra ba rgyan gyi me tog ngag gi dbang phyug grub pa, dbu med manuscript, 29 folios, 6b [= Ibid., dbu med manuscript, 24 folios, 5a]. For these "decisions," see now the detailed discussions in C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "Enacting Words: A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial Decrees (bkas bcad) and their Application in the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa Tradition," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25 (2002), 281 ff. – the first extends from the era of the legendary Thon mi Saṃbhota (7thc.), and the alleged translations that were made by him to the era of the Mighty One (btsan po) Emperor Khri srong lde btsan (ca.742-ca.800), the second refers to the era of btsan po Khri gtsug lde btsan (ca. 806-38), alias Ral pa can, and the third to the period of time that extends from Lha bla ma and Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po up to that of his own teacher Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal (1197-1264). And he states that during the period of the third bkas bcad, bstan bcos was written bstan chos/'chos (bstan bcos la bstan chos/'chos). Of some interest is of course that this passage recurs, albeit in a slightly but yet significantly altered form, in the introductory matter of the 1536 compilation of archaisms (brda rnying) and their equivalent updates (brda gsar) that is attributed to Skyogs ston Lo tsā ba Rin chen bkra shis (ca.1480-ca.1540). One of the differences is that the name of Skyogs ston Lo tsā ba's teacher Zhwa lu Lo tsā ba Chos skyong bzang po (1444-1528), alias Dharmapālabhadra, For him, see K.R. Schaeffer, The Culture of the Book in Tibet (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 44-53. is substituted for that of Chag Lo tsā ba. A recent edition of Skyogs ston Lo tsā ba's work and an earlier critical edition of the same that was prepared by A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams (1597-1659), the great Sa skya pa scholar and twenty-sixth abbot of Sa skya, have the same bstan bcos la bstan chos/'chos. See, respectively, Brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag li shi'i gur khang, ed. Mgon po rgyal mtshan (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981), 2, and Gsar rnying gi brda'i rnam dbye legs par bshad pa gsung rab kun la lta ba'i sgron me, Collected Works, vol. 26 (Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2000), 257-8 [= Dpal ldan sa skya pa'i gsung rab, Bod gnyis pa. Sum rtags dang dag yig, ed. G.yag 'Jam (Beijing/Xining: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang/Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), 415]. But let us now return to the phrase under discussion: lo stong bdun brgya lnga bcu nga drug gu ge bstan chos pa ngag dbang grags pa'i lugs so // Vitali rendered it as if it were a sentence without the benefit of the copula-ending: 175696 years [after the Buddha's nirvana] I myself, Gu.ge bstan.chos.pa ("the Gu.ge author") Ngag.dbang grags.pa, wrote this [work]. 96 sic for 3756. Why he chose, in his translation, to bracket only certain and not all words that did not have a Tibetan counterpart is not entirely obvious to me. Indeed, greater consistency in this regard should have given us the following: 175696 years [after the Buddha's nirvana I myself], Gu.ge bstan.chos.pa ("the Gu.ge author") Ngag.dbang grags.pa, [wrote this work]. 96 sic for 3756. Vitali reacted to Petech's criticisms with a detailed and spirited rejoinder. See, respectively, R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 120, and The Tibet Journal XXII (1997), 135-40. In his defense, he argued that lugs is used here as a verb, "wrote." It is quite difficult to argue for this and I would contend that, if this use is attested elsewhere and I cannot think of any example for this, then it would be a rather precious use of the expression. In fact, he is without doubt very well aware that it is by far more commonly used as a noun meaning "way, position, system, etc." Furthermore, whatever the various meanings that are given for the two verbs that appear to have the stem lugs in common, they do not mean "wrote" or anything like it. See N.W. Hill, A Lexicon of Tibetan Verb Stems as Reported by the Grammatical Tradition, Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexicographie, Band V (München: Kommission für Zentral- und Ostasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), 280. No verb form with lugs as one its stems is listed in Mkhar stod Rdo rje dbang phyug [Dorje Wangchuk Kharto], Thumi: Dgongs gter (The Complete Tibetan Verb Forms) / Dus gsum re'u mig thu mi'i dgongs gter (Delhi: C.T. Kh[a]rto, nd). What is more, I fully share Petech's opinion that this phrase occurs after the three passages that make up this chronological calculation, each of which ends in song, "have elapsed." As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that this sentence was originally an editorial gloss to these three calculations. And, indeed, I must confess that I remain entirely unconvinced by the counterarguments of Vitali's rejoinder. Vitali is furthermore of the firm opinion that his Ngag dbang grags pa was a disciple of Tsong kha pa. This assertion is somewhat fraught with difficulties and ambiguities, for the latter's earliest available biographies, namely, Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po's (1385-1438) monograph study and the one embedded in Las chen Kun dga' rgyal mtshan's 1496 chronicle of the Bka' gdams pa school do not mention a Ngag dbang grags pa from Gu ge at all among their notices of Tsong kha pa's disciples! This ought to be a slight cause for concern. To be sure, Vitali was quite aware that some later sources do attest to a confusion between him and Zhang zhung pa Chos dbang grags pa (1404-69) – the Zhang zhung pa prefix marks the latter as being of West Tibetan origin and Zhang zhung For Zhang zhung, see now J.V. Bellezza's very large Zhang zhung. Foundations of Civilization in Tibet. A Historical and Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Monuments, Rock Art, Texts and Oral Tradition of the Ancient Tibetan Upland (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008). is indeed sometimes used as the equivalent of Gu ge - and he cites in this connection a passage from excerpts of Zang zang Ne rings pa 'Chi med rgyal mtshan's (?-?) biography of Tsong kha pa. Similar, albeit somewhat truncated passages are also found in the large-scale studies of Tsong kha pa's life by Cha har Dge bshes Blo bzang tshul khrims (1740-1810) and Blo bzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal. See, respectively, R. Kaschewsky, Das Leben des lamaistischen Heiligen Tsongkhapa Blo-Bzaṅ-Grags-Pa (1357-1419), dargestellt und erläutert anhand seiner Vita: Quellort allen Glückes, Teil 1, Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 32 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971), 209, 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po'i rnam thar, ed. Grags pa rgya mtsho et al., 615-6. A Gu ge Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan (15thc.) is the only person with whom I am familiar who not only hailed from Gu ge but was also involved in chronological calculations, in addition to being a disciple of both Tsong kha pa and Zhang zhung pa. He was apparently an expert in Kālacakra-derived computational astronomy and calendar making. Dga' ldan khri pa XIV Rin chen 'od zer (1453-1540) has a brief note on him in his work on Buddhist chronology, which he wrote in the year 'dzin byed (dhātṛ) [1516]. Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i sgron me, dbu med manuscript, 145 fols., 15b-6a. On the other hand, the Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pa who is mentioned in connection with Tsong kha pa in the writings of Paṇ chen Bsod nams grags pa and the Sde srid was apparently the first abbot of the new (gsar ma) Mtho gling monastery in Gu ge – the name of this institution is variously spelled in the literature: Tho ling, Mtho lding, etc. In what amounted to an equally comprehensive but more focused sequel, Vitali dealt in exquisite fashion with this important monastery, which Lha bla ma had founded in 996. Records of Tho.ling. A Literary and Visual reconstruction of the "Mother" Monastery in Gu.ge (Daramshala: High Asia, 1999). For his remarks on the Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pa who was its fifteenth century abbot, see pp. 37-8. For some iconographic details, see also A. Heller, "Preliminary Remarks on the Donor Inscriptions and Iconography of an 11th-Century Mchod rten at Tholing," 43-74, and the literature cited therein. Of course, it is on occasion explicitly stated that Tho ling is located in an area that belongs to Zhang zhung. A short manuscript on its abbatial succession titled Mtho gling mkhan brgyud by Blo bzang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal (?-?) was published in Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pi, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 107-14. The Sde srid also notes that he was active in at least one other monastery of the region. This was Ma nang Byang chub gling that was also founded by Lha bla ma. But let me reiterate at this juncture something that, I think, bears repetition, namely, that informed as Vitali's work is by a formidable array of primary sources, the author has treated us in his work on a veritable tour the force around Gu ge and Pu hrang, and the fascinating history of these areas. His large study has indeed answered many outstanding questions while, at the same time, and as is only to be expected from a work of this high caliber, it has raised many new ones as well. It is indeed an indispensible resource for anyone working in this area and thus deserves our full attention and respect. Though the discovery of Lha bla ma's biography has a very short history, certain passages it from have already been singled out or studied, albeit in a preliminary fashion, in recent publications. For example, Ra se Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan reproduced some seven fragments, Ka [1] to Cha [7], of what he calls official documents (bka' gtsigs) which, he writes, he had apparently located these among the old documents in a library of 'Bras spungs monastery that Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-82) had consolidated. See "Btsan po khri lde srong gtsug btsan gyi bka' gtsigs kyi yi ge thor bu," Bod ljongs zhib 'jug 2 (2004), 117-25. Be this as it may, the documents reproduced in Ra se's paper correspond exactly to passages that we encounter in Lha bla ma's biography, and this can be tabulated as follows: 1. Fragment Ka [pp. 117-20] is lha, 24a-30a. 2. Fragment Kha [pp. 120-23] is lha, 30b-35a. 3. Fragment Ga [pp. 123-] is lha, 35a-b. 4. Fragment Nga [pp. 124-5] is lha, 12a-14b. 5. Fragment Ca [p. 125] is lha, 14b. 6. Fragment Cha [p. 125] is lha, 8a-b. 7. Fragment Ja [p. 125] is lha, 9a. It is quite doubtful that these existed independent of the biography and I suspect that Ra se lifted these fragments from the biography. Finally, 黃博 Huang Bo devoted quite recently a long essay on Lha bla ma in which he made ample use of the manuscript [and the translation] of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris that Vitali published in his book. See "拉喇嘛与国王: 早朝古格王国政教合一制初探 La lama yu guowang: zaochao guge wangguo zhengjiao he yizhi chutan [Lha bla ma and the King: An Initial Discussion of the Union of Politics and Religion in the Early Gu ge Kingdom],"中国藏学 Zhongguo zangxue 4 (2010), 5-17. Huang Bo did not overtly use the fragments that were isolated by Ra se Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan. Furthermore, as far as recent examinations of the archeology, art, and architecture of Western cultural Tibet are concerned, we are all much indebted to the incisive labors of A. Heller, 霍巍 Huo Wei, D. Klimburg-Salter, and L.S. Thakur, to name but a few. For the first two, see, respectively, Hidden Treasures of the Himalayas. Tibetan Manuscripts, Paintings and Sculptures of Dolpo (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2009), and 西藏西部佛教文明 Xizang xibu fojiao wenming [Buddhist Culture of Western Tibet] (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2000) and [with 李永宪 Li Yongxian] 西藏西部佛教艺术 Xizang xibu fojiao yishu [Buddhist Art in Western Tibet] (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2001). For Klimburg-Salter, see her Tabo. A Lamp for the Kindom. Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya and also the collection of articles, and the literature cited therein, in 西部西藏的文化历史.来自中国藏学研究机构和维也纳大学的最新研究 / The Cultural History of Western Tibet. Recent Research from the China Tibetology Research Center and the University of Vienna, ed. D. Klimburg-Salter, 梁俊艳 Liang Junyan, H. Tauscher and 周源 Zhou Yuan, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 71 (Beijing/Wien: China Tibetology Research Center / Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2008), and for Thakur, see his Buddhism in the Western Himalaya. A Study of the Tabo Monastery (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001). Mention should also be made of two significant conference volumes that are dedicated to this area's culture, history, and religion, one edited by D. Klimburg-Salter, K. Tropper and C. Yahoda, and the other by A. Heller and G. Orofino. See, respectively, Text, Image, and Song in Transdisciplinary Dialogue, Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) and Discoveries in Western Tibet and the Western Himalayas. Essays on History, Literature, Archeology and Art, Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Beginning with Mnga' bdag 'Od zer lde (995-1037), [or: 'Od lde], the son of Khri bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal and thus Lha bla ma's second cousin, one branch of the family was in steady control of the Many yul Gung thang area, which is located on the far eastern side of Mnga' ris. K.-H. Everding translated and made a detailed study of Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin Tshe dbang nor bu's (1698-1755) tract on the vicissitudes of the House of Gung thang, which the historian from Khams completed in 1749 while he resided in the palace of the King of Smon thang [Nep. Mustang]. Das Königreich Mang yul Gung thang. Königtum und Herrschaftsgewalt im Tibet des 13.-17. Jahrhunderts, Teil1/2, Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung I - Band 6(1-2) (Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000). Rig 'dzin's work was recently edited and re-published in Kaḥ thog rig 'dzin tshe dbang nor bu'i bka' 'bum, Smad cha [vol. 3], ed. Padma dbang chen rdo rje et al. (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006), 61-94. 1. Uncertainties with Lha bla ma's Patriline All our sources agree that the families that ultimately controlled Mnga' ris issued from Khri gnam lde 'Od srung [or simply 'Od srung(s)]. However, they differ considerably when they discuss the patrilines that begin with his great-grandsons and, as a consequence, there is a great deal of historical uncertainty. One of the earliest authorities in which this genealogy is traced is Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo's (1142-82) circa 1167 chronicle of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, the Chos la 'jug pa'i sgo, Introduction to the Dharma, where this second patriarch of the Sa skya pa school proffered the following patrilines ["x" means "married {to}"] For what follows, see Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 2, comp. Bsod nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), no. 17, 343/4-4/2 [Nga, 313b-4b] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 8, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 488-90}.: Khri Nam lde 'Od srung x ? Khri Dpal 'khor btsan x ? Khri Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal x ? Dpal lde 'Od lde Skyid lde Khri Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ? Lde gtsug mgon Bkra shis mgon Dpal gyi mgon [Bkra shis mgon x ?] Khri Dpal srong nge x ? [or: Lde khri Srong nge, Lde srong btsan] Khri Dpal 'khor sde [?read: lde] x ? Lha lde x ? Btsun pa Byang chub 'od Tse [?read: Rtse] lde What is perhaps the most important item for this paper is that, according to the Slob dpon, Srong nge was the oldest of Bkra shis mgon's two sons and that it was he who received his monk's vows and was given the name in religion of Ye shes 'od after he had renounced (rab tu byung) the worldly life. See also Nor brang O rgyan, Bod sil bu'i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1991), 231 ff., 246 ff., which is a systematic, albeit somewhat incomplete discussion of Bkra shis mgon and his descendants. To be noted is furthermore that while the Slob dpon mentions King 'Od sde [read: lde] as governing the patrimony during the later years of the Lo chen, he does not provide any details regarding his parentage. However, he does write that he was succeeded by [his son] King Tse [read: Rtse] lde. The chronicle of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (chos 'byung) that is attributed to the the Rnying ma pa seer Nyang ral Nyi ma 'od zer (1124-92) contains several additional items that are absent from the Slob dpon’s outline: [a] the patrimony of the offspring of Khri 'Khor dpal btsan's grandchildren and where their descendants settled down, [b] the names of Khri skyid lde Nyi ma mgon's two wives, [c] the different order in the birth of his three sons and where their descendants settled, and [d] the patrilines that issued from Bkra shis mgon For what follows, see Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, Gangs can rigs mdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 456-66, 498 [= Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition, ed. R.O. Meisezahl (Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1985), Tafel 329c-33bc, 362b; Manuscript "B" (Paro, 1979), 539-51, 590]. My impression of the longer narrative is that it is a patchwork of passages from various sources, which, if true, would explain the amount of overlap that we find here and the absence of a sustained narrative.: a. Three sons of Khri Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal and their dscendants ([b]rgyud pa) [and patrimony]: Dpal lde - Gung thang pa, Klu rgyal pa, Spyi pa, Lha rtse pa, Glang lung pa, Rtsad skor pa 'Od lde - Grom pa ba, Srad pa, Lha chen dpal of Nyang stod Skyid lde - Mus pa, 'Dzad pa, also some in Nyang stod b. The two wives of Khri skyid lde Nyi ma mgon that were given to him by his two in-law ministers (zhang blon): 1. Pa tshab bza' – they had no offspring 2. Cog ro bza' Zangs kha ma – they had three sons: c. The three sons and where their descendants settled down: 1. Dpal gyi mgon - Yar lung, Spu rang 2. Bkra shis mgon - Outer (phyi) and Inner (nang) Zhang zhung, Spu rang, Ya rtse, and many in Mon yul 3. Lde gtsug mgon - Khum bu pa, Ding ri ba, some alleg- edly in Mon yul d. Bkra shis mgon x ? Kho re x ? De ba ra dza Na ga ra dza Srong nge x Bkra shis lde Lha lde x ? Lha Byang chub 'od Zhi ba 'od Lha zhal / 'Od lde Contrary to the Slob dpon, his senior contemporary Nyang ral appears to suggest that it was Kho re who had become a monk and that it was therefore he who was Lha bla ma! Finally, towards the very end of what is allegedly his work, we come across a more truncated genealogy, one where Bkra shis mgon is now styled Bkra shis brtsegs pa mgon, and where Rtse lde is mentioned among the patrilines, albeit without an indication of his parentage. The third Sa skya pa patriarch Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) and the Slob dpon’s younger brother wrote a short Rgyal rabs, Royal Succession, around the year 1200. He included in this piece the patriline that issued from Bkra shis brtsegs pa btsan – not "Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal" of the Slob dpon and perhaps Nyang ral - and his remarks about the whereabouts of its descendants are identical to those in what allegedly is Nyang ral's work. He admits that much of what he had written was from "hearsay" (thos pa). Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 4, comp. Bsod nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), no. 128, 296/3 [Ta, 199b] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 14, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 147-8}. However, interestingly, he omits in its entirety the patriline that had its beginning with Khri skyid lde Nyi ma mgon. Indeed, it is likely that this had everything to do with what he wrote after his remark on "hearsay," namely, that he "had seen on many occasions corrupt writings on royal successions as well" (rgyal rabs ma dag pa yang mang du mthong /). Evidently, there was not much that he could do with the conflicting reports. This could indicate that something had taken place in the area that may have resulted in a loss of archival material from which these twelfth century historians and their successors would have otherwise been able to draw their information. Might this lacuna have been the consequence of the various Qarluq raids that the region witnessed during the eleventh century? Things get exponentially more complicated when we examine the relevant passages in the late twelfth century and mid-thirteenth century chronicles of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism by, respectively, the Rnying ma pa historians Lde'u Jo sras and Mkhas pa Lde'u. Both have quite detailed narratives of the patrilines that originated with Khri Nyi ma mgon and thus provide much information that we do not find in other sources, which would suggest that they had access to more detailed documents. Unfortunately, these documents also contain a number of problematic passages, as Nor brang O rgyan and Vitali have pointed out, and depart in important ways from the foregoing. All this lends strength to Rje btsun's assertion that the relevant sources are generally corrupt. Lde'u Jo sras sets the scene at the very outset. Describing the precipitous decline of Buddhist institutions during the very short-lived reign of Glang dar ma and that in some source "it was said: the fire of the dharma was hidden away in some patrilines" (chos kyi me ni gdung rabs 'ga' ru sbas skad /), his text first writes Lde'u chos 'byung, ed. Chos 'joms (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 141, 146-7. : de nas dar ma'i sras 'od srungs / de'i sras dpal dgon / de'i sras nyi ma dgon / bkra shis mgon / 'od kyi rgyal mtshan / de'i sras lha bla ma'i bar du gdungs rabs drug tu chos snubs skad / It is said: From that time on, for six generations (gdungs rabs), Glang dar ma's son 'Od srungs – his son Dpal mgon – his son Nyi ma dgon [read: mgon] – [his son] Bkra shis mgon – [his son] 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan – up to his son Lha bla ma, the dharma had gone under. And we pick up the thread when the text gives the genealogy that issued from Mnga' bdag Dpal 'khor: Khri Skyid sde [lde] Nyi ma mgon x Zangs dkar bza' [went to Pu rangs] x Stag gzigs bza' Dpal gyi mgon [was given Mang yul] x ? Dpa' tshab 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan [?also called Kho re] Bkra shis mgon [was given Pu rangs] x ? Sde [Lde] gtsug mgon [was given Gu ge] The text states immediately following the mention of 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan [ste] This contrasts with the passage that is cited below in n. 29. For the confusion caused by this, see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 172-6. My renditions are very, very tentative.: gcen kho re zer ro // de la sras gsum chen po bla ma lde ste / lha bla ma ye shes 'od gong ma gnyis grongs nas rjes la btsas / gong ma de ba ra tsa dang na ga ra tsa ste rab tu byung yang zer / The elder brother was called Kho re; the eldest of the three sons, Bla ma Lde, ?that is (ste), Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od was born after the first two had died. Supreme One[s] De ba ra dza [*Devarāja] and Na ga ra dza [*Nāgarāja]?; it is said that they also renounced the world. The questions marks simply indicate that I am not quite sure how to interpret these sentences, not to mention the use of the epithet gong ma, "supreme one." After a brief description of Lha bla ma's activities, Lde'u Jo sras continues: gcung po srong nge'i [?read: nge ni] bkra shis lde btsan zhes pa... The younger brother Srong nge was called Bkra shis lde btsan... 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan's younger brother Srong nge was also called Bkra shis lha lde btsan and he had two sons: 'Od lde Byang chub 'od The text of Mkhas pa Lde'u's chronicle basically follows suit Mkhas pa lde'us mdzad pa'i rgya bod kyi chos byung rgyas pa, ed. Bod rang skyong ljongs spyi tshogs tshan rig khang, Gangs can rig mdzod 3 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 381: che shos dpal gyi mgon gyi sras la spa tshab 'od kyi rgyal mtshan te / de dang bkra shis lha lde btsan gnyis te / gcen kho re yang zer ro / de la sras gsum lha bla ma lde ste / lha bla ma ye shes 'od do / de'i 'og ma de ba ra dza dang / na ga ra dza'o / de gnyis rab tu byung /.: Dpal mgon x ? Spa tshab 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan x ? [Kho re] Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od *Devarāja *Nāgarāja Bkra shis lha lde btsan x ? 'Od lde Byang chub 'od What is quite remakable is that of these five early sources only the chronicle that is attributed to Nyang ral mentions Zhi ba 'od as the younger brother of 'Od lde and Byang chub 'od! The name Dpa' tshab' Od kyi rgyal mtshan - recall that Dpa' tshab, Spa tshab, and Pa tshab are variants of the name of the clan of at least one of the in-law families - and the idea that he was Lha bla ma's father, as appears to be stated in the chronicles of Lde'u Jo sras and Mkhas pa Lde'u, reappears in the Sa skya pa hierarch Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan's (1312-75) 1344 history of the Path-and-Result (lam 'bras) precepts. Bla ma brgyud pa'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, Sa skya lam 'bras Literature Series, vol. 16 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 11. The Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long chronicle is usually, but I believe, erroneously attributed to Bla ma dam pa. Altogether absent from this work is 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan and it also virtually uniquely has it that Lha bla ma was the son of Lde btsug [= gtsug] mgon, Bkra shis mgon's younger brother!; see P.K Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography. The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies. An Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century Tibetan Chronicle: Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, Asiatische Forschungen, Band 128 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994), 453. For a discussion of the problem of attributing the Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long to him, see my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History III: The Oeuvre of Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375), Part Two*," which is forthcoming in The Tibet Journal. The very passage in which this occurs is also cited in the manuscript of the Sa skya pa scholar Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho's (1523-94) treatise on Buddhist chronology (bstan rtsis) of 1587 when he deals with the revitalization of Buddhism in Tibet in the aftermath of the persecution of the early 840s and the beginnings of the "later propagation of the faith" (phyi dar), and roles played by memebers of Mnga' ris' royal families. Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar, ed. Nor brang O rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 4 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 71-2. However, this is not Mang thos' position on the matter. The patriline he sketches can be tabulated as follows: Dpal 'khor btsan x ? Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal x ? Dpal lde 'Od lde Skyid lde Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ? Lde gtsug mgon Bkra shis mgon x ? Khri lde Srong nge [Lha bla ma] Khri Dpal 'khor lde Dpal gyi mgon His view is therefore that Bkra shis mgon was the father of Khri lde Srong nge and Khri Dpal 'khor lde, and that it was the latter who was ordained as Lha bla ma. According to the biographies of Atiśa, Pho brang Byang chub 'od charged Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul khrims rgyal ba (1011/2-ca.1070) in 1037 with the task to travel to the Indian subcontinent and invite and escort the master to Gu ge. Nag tsho Lo tsā ba left behind a series of notes on which basis much later Bya 'Dul dzin pa Zul phu ba Brtson 'grus 'bar (1091-1166) compiled his Rnam thar rgyas pa biography of the master. In this connection, the notes in Nag tsho Lo tsā ba's Jo bo'i rnam thar kha skong zur du gleng ba thor bu pa should be of some significance; see Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Ca, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010), 533-62. The text of a later, somewhat edited version of the original compilation gives the following patriline See H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zu einer Biographie des Atiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrī-jñāna), 1. Teil, Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 67 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), 215-6, and 2. Teil, 142-5.: Bkra shis mgon x [Pu hrang] Mnga' bdag Kho re x ? *Nāgarāja *Devarāja Srong nge x ? Lha lde x ? Lha Pho brang Zhi ba 'od Lha btsun pa Byang chub 'od 'Od lde x ? Dpal gyi mgon [Zhang zhung] Lde gtsug mgon [Mang yul] Though closely related to the original text of Zul phu ba, the extant blockprint and manuscript witnesses of Mchims Nam mkha' grags' (1210-85) Rnam thar yongs su grags pa biography of Atiśa are more sparing in the relevant details. See, respectively, H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zu einer Biographie des Atiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna), 1. Teil, 215, and 2. Teil, 142-5, the blockprint of the Jo bo rin po che rje dpal ldan a ti sha'i rnam thar rgyas pa yongs grags in Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 48, 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), 47a-8a [354-5], as well as the text in Jo bo rje dpal ldan a ti sha'i rnam thar bka' gdams pha chos, ed. Mkha' 'gro tshe ring (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1994), 112-3. But Mchims has something different to say in another work of his. A tantric text that Śāntarakṣita (8thc.) apparently introduced in the court of Khri srong lde btsan focused on a complex of rituals and liturgies in which the Buddha as healer, as Bhaiṣajyaguru, played a central and, indeed, a fundamental role. See R. Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (Boulder: Shambhala, 1979) and now also Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Medicine Buddha Teachings, ed. Lama Tashi Namgyal (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2004), for translations of some of the relevant texts. The idea and driving force behind this ritual complex is that, when carried out, a substantial measure of karmic merit is created to the extent that it ensures the stability of the reign/nation, the longevity of the emperor and members of his family, etc. It is perhaps important to recall that Śāntarakṣita himself is said to have been a prince of the House of Za hor, which most probably was an area that is now in part occupied by sprawling Dacca, the capital of Bangladesh. For this royal house, see my "On the Edge of Myth and History: Za hor, its Place in the History of Early Indian Buddhist Tantra, and the Genealogy of its Royal Family in Tibet," Studies on Buddhist Myths: Texts, Pictures, Traditions, and History, ed. 陈金華Chen Jinhua, 陳明 Chen Ming, and 王邦維 Wang Bangwei (Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju, 2013), 114-164. Among Mchims’ recently published writings, there is a little work on this ritual complex where, in fact, he credits its enactment at 'Od srungs' court with the successes of his rule. In the historical prolegomenon that precedes the description of the actual rituals, Mchims gives in places more details about the families of Mnga' ris than he did in his biography of Atiśa, and the manuscript of his work also contains a series of additional notes by an anonymous reader. De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 47, 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), 368-70. What we learn there can be tabulated as follows: Dpal 'khor btsan x Mchims za Mu en 'od Lha Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal x Sna nam za Mtsho btsun Lha Skyid lding [read: lde] Nyi ma mgon He counted Gilgit, Sbal ti, and Gu ge, etc. as his domain and is said to have used the rituals anent the Gtsug tor dri med kyi gzungs [Vimaloṣnīṣadhāraṇī] at his court; for this work, see The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber (Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991), vol. 18, no. 596 [#599], 245/7-8/5 [Pha, 250a-9b]. x Bkra shis lde A gloss states that in some sources give a different the order of Nyi ma mgon's three sons with Dpal gyi lde being the eldest rather than Bkra shis lde. x ? Kho re x ? *Nāgarāja *Devarāja Srong nge Dpal gyi lde Lde gtsug lde Thus, these rituals that continued to be enacted after the dissolution of the Tibetan empire at some of the courts of those petty rulers who were descendants of the imperial families, once again demonstrate the close connection between Buddhist tantra and royal power. Mchims also mentions that Śāntarakṣita had apparently introduced the Gtsug tor dri med kyi gzungs and its attendant liturgies into Tibet. De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, 368. And, finally, let us recapitulate what Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364) recorded in his chronicle of 1322-6 J. Szerb, Bu ston's History of Buddhism in Tibet (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Aka-demie der Wissenschaften, 1990), 54, 84-6, 91 [= Bu ston rin chen grub kyi gsung 'bum, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, 24 [24/28/3] (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig dpe skrun khang, 2008), 1203, 1218, 1221. : Khri Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ? Dpal [gyi] lde rig pa mgon [took Mar yul] Bkra shis lde mgon [took Pu rangs] Lde gtsug mgon [took Zhang zhung] x ? 'Kho[r] re [became Lha bla ma] Srong nge x ? Lha lde 'Od lde x ? Rtse lde Pho brang Zhi ba 'od Btsun pa Byang chub 'od It is of course not possible to disentangle the web of conflicting narratives that are contained in the available sources. Luckily, for my present purpose it really matters preciously little whether Lha bla ma's identity as a layman was 'Kho[r] re or Srong nge! Further details can be found in R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 177, n. 245. But as for the area occupied by Mnga' ris, Zul phu ba, Mchims, and Mkhas pa Lde'u state in unison that Mnga' ris skor gsum or the "Three Circuits of Mnga' ris" comprised Mang yul, Spu rang, and Zhang zhung, and that its origin should be sought with the three sons of Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon. For Mnga' ris in general and especially Gu ge, see R. Vitali, Records of Tho.ling. A Literary and Visual reconstruction of the "Mother" Monastery in Gu.ge, 9-12, and Brtson 'grus rnam rgyal, "Bod sil bu'i dus stod mnga' ris phyogs su byung ba'i rgyal phran so so'i rgyal rgyud skor rags tsam gleng pa," Bod btsan po'i lo rgyus dang 'brel ba'i mtha' dpyod gces bsdus, tr. Cha ris Skal bzang thogs med (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010), 286-91. This appears to be a little too neat and unnecessarily restrictive as far as the extent of Mnga’ ris is concerned. Mnga’ ris was divided in Stod and Smad, and the Stod portion became the domain of the three sons of Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon, whereas the Smad region was the domain of the three sons of Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal. Nyi ma mgon’s eldest son Bkra shis mgon seized Sku mkhar nyi rdzong, which seems to have been some sort of a fortification that had been built by his father, and this was his base from which he was able to seize control over Pu hrang, Zhang zhung, Glo bo, Dol po, Gu ge, Ya tshe and other areas. With the era of Lha bla ma, we have before us a reemergence and reassertion of this area's history after a hiatus of little more than two hundred years of virtual literary silence, and it should perhaps not be surprising that there is some controversy about the identity of Lha bla ma's father. It takes time to regain a foothold in a culture of letters and writing, not to mention the possibility that so much was lost due to neglect, warfare, and revolution, and the fact that the economic fortunes of Mnga' ris have been on a downward slide over the last centuries. The majority of the available sources suggest that his father was Bkra shis mgon (?-?). There is also some debate about the identity of his mother about whom nothing is known except that her name was probably Zangs kha ma. Most likely the younger of two brothers, his given name was apparently Khri lde srong gtsug btsan – this name is sometimes abbreviated metri causa to Khri lde srong btsan -, but most sources use the abbreviation Srong nge which is undoubtely a nickname of sorts; his elder brother was nicknamed 'Khor re (?-?), the longer version of which may have been Khri Dpal 'khor lde. Nor brang O rgyan, Bod sil bu'i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba, 246, cites a manuscript of Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin 1745 general study of the Tibetan imperial families to the effect that their names were Drang srong lde and 'Khor lo lde; for the latter, see now also Rgyal ba'i bstan pa rin po che byang phyogs su 'byung ba'i rtsa lag bod rje btsan po'i gdung rabs tshig nyung don gsal yid kyi me long, Kaḥ thog rig 'dzin tshe dbang nor bu'i bka' 'bum, Smad cha [vol. 3] (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006), 54. Apropos of of these names, Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin writes that these names that "are found in a tattered book that ?had been given to an old ?Ka ni ka in Mnga' ris Gung thang seem to be certainly correct." (mnga' ris gung thang du dpe hrul ka ni (kakṇi) ka rnying par brdzangs ba zhig tu 'dug pa 'thad nges su snang /). Truth be told, I do not know what to do with ka ni ka (kakṇi), but I cannot folllow the interpretation of this line given in S.G. Karmay, "The ordinance of Lha bla ma ye shes 'od," The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998), 4: "He [Rig 'dzin, vdK] discovered a fragment of an old manuscript from an ancient Kanika stūpa in Gung thang, a district of Mnga' ris." The latter was initially ruler of Pu hrang, whereas Srong nge had inherited control over Gu ge. In 989, Srong nge was given the name in religion of "Ye shes 'od" when he received his vows as a Buddhist monk. He had abdicated his throne just prior to his renunciation of the world (rab tu byung ba) and full ordination, and thus had handed his reign over to his elder brother. Thereafter, he and his two sons, who had in the meantime also taken their vows, gave Buddhism in cultural Tibet a new lease on life through their unequivocal and generous acts of patronage. Indeed, things may have looked quite different for the history of Buddhism in this area had it not been for the wide-ranging support they were able to give to the religion of their ancestors. In this they emulated in particular btsan po Khri srong lde btsan under whom Indian Buddhism had been elevated to a national, state religion. But Lha bla ma and his sons could not have had the same impact on the religious life of their environment had it not been for one who we might consider to have been their court chaplain, namely, the Lo chen. Buddhism is a religion not of the book but of many books and the Lo chen and his disciples were instrumental in the revitalization of Buddhism through their numerous translations of Sanskrit Buddhist works into Tibetan and their many revisions of earlier translations of Buddhist scriptures that were still extant, as well as for giving their attendant enpowerments and rituals to those able and willing to receive them. Lha bla ma and his sons, and the Lo chen and his disciples founded scores of monasteries and temples, the lifeline of institutionalized Buddhim, in what is now Mnga' ris, Zangs dkar sgo gsum-Ladakh, and Himachal Pradesh, and established a flourishing Sangha through the ordination of numerous young men into monkhood. It is then the combination of these two parties, Lha bla ma and his family on one hand, and the Lo chen and his disciples on the other, that made the rebirth of Buddhism in the Tibetan cultural area possible. His turn to the religious life resulted in a series of personal imprints on Tibetan Buddhism that has so far been available from three primary sources, one is the famous stele inscription that was most recently studied by L.S. Thakur, one is his equally well known open letter that was examined by S.G. Karmay, and the last one are fragments of his Religious Declarations (chos rtsigs) that are quoted in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris. See, respectively, "A Tibetan Inscription by Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od from Dkor (Spu) Rediscovered," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3 (1994), 369-75, "The ordinance of Lha bla ma ye shes 'od," The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998), 3-16, and R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 53, 56, 59-60, and 108, 111, 113-4. For the term rtsigs [sometimes written gtsigs and tshigs] as "claim" and "proposition," see Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 705-6. The expression chos rtsigs also occurs in connection with their ancestor 'Od srung[s], for which see Rgyal rabs gyi phreng ba, 212. Fortunately, we are now in the possession of additional, most probably archival but still fragmentary, materials that shed much light on his activities as a monk and what he thought a state that is governed in accordance with Buddhist principles should look like. These are found in the third and longest part of Lha bla ma’s biography. As mentioned, Ra se Dkon mchog rgya mtsho reproduced some of these materials and 黃博 Huang Bo studied some of them in their articles that are cited above under nos. 18-9, as did S.G. Karmay and J. Dalton in their as yet unpublished public lectures. For Karmay, see his lecture "Bon Institutions Referred to in the Newly Discovered Decrees of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od," that he apparently gave at the last IATS meeting in Vancouver, Canada, in the summer of 2010, and Dalton has given several public lectures on his research and the one I heard was titled "Reformation and Contestation in the Newly Discovered Decrees of King Yeshe Ö," which he gave at Harvard University on February 13, 2012. What is also to be noted is that the passages that are in one way or another marked by chos rtsigs in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris are not only retrievable from Gu ge Paṇ chen's biography of Lha bla ma, but can also be given a better edition on its basis. lha, 23a-b, 26a, 33b. Not insignificant is that Gu ge Paṇ chen also used, if only once, the expressions khrims gnyis, "the two laws," and lugs gnyis, "the two systems," which are expresssions that refers to the secular-political (rgyal khrims) and the religious (chos khrims) So familiar to us from the literature that was produced when the Tibetan area was under the control of the Mongols and their 'Bri gung and Sa skya allies, respectively from 1240 to circa 1260 and from 1260 to circa 1355, these two terms occur side by side in lha, 26a. domains of human affairs, and, on occasion, their interplay. lha, 9b, and 23b; for these concepts see now also the collection of essays in The Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung ‘brel) in Traditional Tibet, ed. C. Cüppers (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004) and the literature cited therein. In this connection, one might also consult M. Zimmerman, “A Māhāyanist Criticism of Arthaśāstra: The Chapter on Royal Ethics in the Bodhisattva-gocaropāya-viṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa-sūtra,” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 1999 (Toyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology Soka University, 2000), 177–211, in which he discusses this sutra's sixth chapter, in the Tibetan, or fifth chapter in the Chinese translation, which deals with "rājadharma, the moral, ritual and political codes of a king." It appears that Lha bla ma had composed a work on the subject (lugs gnyis kyi ye ger mdzad) in circa 986, for Gu ge Paṇ chen writes that his subject had composed the chos rtsigs that he had signaled in a document on these systems (lugs gnyis kyi yi ger mdzad). The author of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris also used the terms rgyal khrims and chos khrims, but not lugs gnyis [or, for that matter, khrims gnyis]. R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 53, 186. Lastly, I must confess that it is not entirely obvious to me to what degree the chos rtsigs might differ from what Gu ge Paṇ chen has designated elsewhere in his work a bca' khrims kyi yi ge, a "legal document," or a khrims yig chen mo, "a large legal document." lha, 30b, and 35a. The first apparently had to do with the regulations of the Buddhist community and thus should most probably be considered to fall in the domain of chos khrims, whereas the latter would most probably need to be tied to rgyal and not chos khrims. Last but not least, the final folios of the biography are taken up by a very detailed description of the sacred objects in the monastery of Pe par dbu sde chen po [= Dpe pa chos sde] that was built by Lha Nāgarāja, the list of which Gu ge Paṇ chen found in an archival scrolled manuscript (dril). lha, 36b-40b; for this monastery, see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 272 ff. The enormous amount of wealth that is on display in this inventory suggests that the economy of the area had significant surpluses and these resources had effectively made the renaissance of Buddhism and its institutions in Mnga' ris possible. Before we delve into the very beginning of the biography's narrative, we should spend a little bibliographical and biographical time with its manuscript and its author. 2. The Manuscript of the Biography of Lha bla ma The title page of the manuscript of Lha bla ma’s biography on which the remainder of this essay is by and large based titles it Lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi rnams (sic) thar rgyas pa, Extensive Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od. It was written by one who signs himself in the colophon as "Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, a Paṇḍita-scholar of the five domains of knowledge" (rig pa’i gnas lnga’i paṇ ḍi ta / grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po). The author wrote it while he resided in Mtho gling monastery's Gser gyi lha khang chapel and I quite strongly suspect that he is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen whom I will introduce below. I owe a copy of an dbu med manuscript of his work to the kindness and generosity of Mr. Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po, himself one of Mnga' ris' most eminent historians, who shared it with when he was a Harvard-Yenching scholar in 2008. He is the author of Mnga' ris chos 'byung gangs ljongs mdzes rgyan (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2006), and a collection of his articles was published as Gu ge tshe ring rgyal po'i ched rtsom phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2005). Together with C. Jahoda, he is also the author of The Buddhist Monuments of Khartse Valley, Western Tibet, Austrian Academy of Sciences ‘Working Papers’, 2009, online-edition: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/wpsa/wpsa9.pd, as as well as, with C. Jahoda and C. Papa-Kalentar, of the forthcoming monograph Khorchag Monastery. Tshe ring rgyal po used Gu ge Paṇ chen's Life of Lha bla ma for a capsule biography in his Mnga' ris chos 'byung gangs ljongs mdzes rgyan, 460-5. While both of us were in Chengdu in May of 2012 and shortly before I completed this essay, he kindly made available to me Khyung bdag's as yet unpublished, edited and text-critically annotated version of the manuscript of lha in which he made some valuable references to Mnga' ris vernacular expressions that occur in lha. The manuscript was recently published in one volume of the supremely important series that contains facsimile reproductions of exceedingly [and not so exceedingly] rare biographies and histories. See Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pi, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 273-356. At the end of this work, the author characterizes his achievement as a "poetic narrative (rtogs pa brjod pa) of Bla ma Ye shes 'od, the three, the father and his two sons" (bla ma ye shes 'od yab sras gsum gyis (sic) rtogs pa brjod pa). lha, 40b. True enough, it contains a great deal of narrative, but one may be inclined to take exception to what is oblioquely asserted about its its poetic form, diction, or structure when we think about a rtogs pa brjod pa (*avadāna). I am afraid that these are by and large absent from this work! The term rgyas pa, "extensive," in the title may indicate the existence of separate, shorter narratives of Lha bla ma's life in toto, possibly of the kind that we meet in, for example, Nyang ral's chronicle. Vertically positioned, we read phyi ra 106 above the title of the title page. This is the inventory or catalog number of the library in which the manuscript was housed, where the word phyi may suggest that it had recently come from the outside (phyi) as opposed to "inside" (nang) or perhaps even that it could be taken outside, that is, borrowed. The manuscript itself consists of forty-two small folios To be noted is that the numbering of the folios is from one to forty-one, but that there are two folios 17, that is, 17 proper and 17 'og. with the vast majority having seven lines per folio side and it is virtually free from interlinear or marginal glosses. lha, 1b, 16a-b and 17['og]a-b, have five lines each. Editorial corrections by a proofreader, possibly the scribe himself, rather than explanatory glosses, are found in the lower margins of lha, 9a, 12b, 17a, 31a; in the same vein, lha, 18a, has an interlinear gloss, and lha, 24b, contains a gloss in the upper margin. Orthographically, it leaves somewhat to be desired and it contains many scribal errors, some of which are quite egregious, other much less so. The scribe also used various abbreviations (skung yig) and only irregularly uses such archaisms as an 'a after round vowels as, for instance, in such words as mdo' for mdo. It must be stressed that the typed dbu can text that is currently in circulation is no substitute for the original, for it contains many additional misreadings and misspellings. It is for this reason that in what follows, I will only cite the original text of the biography in full where appropriate and make the corrective philological remarks where necessary. I will not cite the typed dbu can text. As already mentioned, it turns out that the manuscript of Gu ge Paṇ chen's work can serve as a valuable philological control for a small portion of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris and vice versa. A rather clear example for this is offered below at nos. 83-4. 3. The Author of the Biography of Lha bla ma Styling himself as a "scholar who knows the five domains of knowledge" (gnas lnga rig pa'i paṇḍita) whose name in religion was Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, I strongly believe that he is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen, "Great Paṇḍita of Gu ge." Gu ge Paṇ chen is perhaps not a stranger to those interested in the Sa skya pa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Indeed, he was a major disciple of the great tantric virtuoso Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po (1382-1456), the founder of the Sa skya pa monastery of Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan [in 1429], and his bstod pa-panegyric is quoted several times in Ngor chen's biography, which Sangs rgyas phun tshogs (1649-1705), himself Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan monastery's twenty-fifth abbot, compiled from various written sources in 1688. Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yid bzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, Lam 'bras slob bshad [Sde dge print] vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 480, 519, 535. A scan of a different sixty–nine folio Sde dge print of this biography from printing blocks that were prepared at the behest of Tshe dbang rdo rje rig 'dzin (1786-1842), an erstwhile ruler of Sde dge principality and the author of the well known 1828 chronicle of his family, the Sde dge'i rgyal rabs, can be found at tbrc.org, no. W2CZ7950. For Gu ge Paṇ chen’s connections with Ngor chen, see now J. Heimbel, "Biographical Sources for Researching the Life of Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po (1382-1456)," Revue d'études Tibétaines 22 (2011), 73-6. Foremost among them was the crucial study of Ngor chen's life that his close disciple Mus chen Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan (1388-1469), Ngor monastery's second abbot, completed on the fifteenth day of the month 'gro bzhin (*śrāvaṇa), August 24, 1457, that is, some fifteenth months after his master's passing on the twenty-fifth day of the month sa ga (*vaiśākha), May 28 or 29, 1456. An dbu med manuscript of this work in forty-one folios is extant; see the scan of Rje btsun dam pa kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa at tbrc.org, no. W2CZ7931. Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yid bzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, 565, reproduces the colophon of Mus chen's work, whereafter what follows is a supplement to the preceding. Referring to the Sa skya pa scholar Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub (1456-1532) as his source, Sangs rgyas phun tshogs' compilation includes a brief oral account (gsung rgyun) in which Gu ge Paṇ chen had apparently detailed the salvific qualities (yon tan) of Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan monastery. Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yid bzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, 569-70. Glo bo Mkhan chen had probably recorded the verses in question during his studies with him about which, for some reason, he seems to be a trifle reticent, as he is about much else, in his autobiography that was edited and studied by J. Kramer. See 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), Index, 317. On pp. 52-3, Kramer refers to his Thob yig-record of teachings received in which we learn that of the four masters who are mentioned, Gu ge Paṇ chen was by far the more influential. This work is preserved in an dbu med manuscript of his writings, Glo bo Mkhan chen wrote several praises of his master, for which see his Collected Works, vol. 1, 46b-8b [these are also reproduced in vol. 4], tbrc. org, no. W00KG01660. Unfortunately, equally less forthcoming in this respect is the short study of his life that his disciple Sa skya Lo tsā ba 'Jam dbyangs kun dga' bsod nams (1485-1533), the twenty-third abbot of Sa skya, completed in 1518. Mkhan chen bsod nams lhun grub kyi rnam thar blo gsal klu'i dbang po'i gtsug gi nor bu, Gsung thor bu, tbrc.org, no. W00KG04094. Glo bo Mkhan chen's more detailed biography by Jo nang Kun dga' grol mchog (1507-66) is not available to me at the present time. Further particulars about Gu ge Paṇ chen can be gleaned from his brief biography that his disciple 'Jam dbyangs Nam mkha' bstan pa completed in 1488 in Evaṃ chos ldan. Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, dbu med manuscript in nineteen folios, Nationalities Library, Cultural Palace of Nationalities, catalog no. 002813(4). The manuscript contains a post-colophonic note: lcags thang pas sor ma'i 'du byed //, which means: "a fingerprint by Lcags thang pa [= ?Lcags thang Rab byams pa Byams pa bsod nams (1474-1540)]." That is to say, Lcags thang pa was the owner of the original manuscript. For Lcags thang pa, see Mang thos, Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar, ed. Nor brang O rgyan, 238-40. Aside from the fact that Glo bo Mkhan chen is mentioned almost perfunctorily towards the end of this work, Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba,13a. we learn there the following: As regards his gdung, he was born into one of the five rus of Zhang zhung named the Skyi nor blon 'khor ba – I purposefully leave gdung and rus untranslated, since, aside from the fact that these have to do with his paternal line of descent, the semantic range of these kinship terms is not altogether transparent to me. We also discover that his ancestors had apparently been in the service of the patriline (gdung rgyud) of the historical Buddha (nyi ma'i gnyen, *sūryamitra/sūryavaṃśa), that is to say, they were Buddhists [and not Bon!], and that they were inclined towards Rnying ma pa and Bka' brgyud pa spiritual practice. His father was Rig[s] 'dzin rdo rje, his mother Skyid pa – a gloss relates that her patriline (gdung rus) was Choms. His first religious encounters were with members of the 'Bri gung pa sect of the Bka' brgyud pa school, but his first meeting with Ngor chen at the age of twenty changed all that. In 1436 or shortly thereafter, Nam mkha'i dbang po phun tshogs lde (1409-?), then king of Gu ge, invited Ngor chen to his domain and ultimately took his monk's vows from him and built a large monastery. Ngor chen may have stayed in the area for several years and this seems to have been the beginning of a relationship between the young Gu ge Paṇ chen and Ngor chen that, according to Nam mkha' bstan pa, lasted for some seventeen years until Ngor chen's passing. He also studied with Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449), Chos rje Sems dpa' chen po [= ?Mus chen]; he studied Sanskrit grammer and related "linguistic" subjects with Snar thang Lo tsā ba Dge 'dun dpal, alias Saṅghaśrī, and he also received instructions from a certain Bsam gtan 'od zer, who himself had studied with the Newar scholar Paṇḍita Mahābodhi. Nam mkha' bstan pa recommends that should his reader be interested in finding out even greater details about what and with whom Gu ge Paṇ chen had studied than what he was able to provide in this biography, he or she should avail him or herself of his master's Gsan yig-record of teachings heard, which is subtitled Yid bzhin rin po che'i dbang gi rgyal po d...ya'i mdzod. Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 6b-7a. He writes as if a copy of this work were freely available! This Gsan yig has not yet been located and, indeed, manuscript copies of this document must have been rather rare! Nam mkha' bstan pa is not altogether helpful where basic personal or historical details are concerned of the era in which Gu ge Paṇ chen lived. But he does note in passing the volatility of the area in which his subject lived. Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 8b-9a, 12a. For example, he notes that Gu ge Paṇ chen met A mgon bzang po, now ruler of Glo bo Smon thang and much else besides being Glo bo Mkhan chen's father, while this petty king was leading an army against Gu ge. This would have taken place in the 1450s and thus well after Gu ge Paṇ chen had taken his vows from Ngor chen in Glo bo at Brag dkar theg chen dar rgyas gling monastery with 'Jam dbyangs Shes rab rgya mtsho (1396-1474) and Khwa char Bsod nams rgyal mtshan co-officiating. No doubt owing to his expertise in tantric ritual and practice, he seems to have been asked to take on the abbacy of Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan, but this was not to be due to unspecified "obstacles" (bar chad). We are also not very well informed about his scholarship, but Nam mkha' bstan pa does refer his reader to a catalog that he had prepared of his master's oeuvre, the Gsung rab gi dkar chag. Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 12a. This would have included the title of his large chroncicle of Mnga' ris, the recent publication of which Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po kindly drew my attention. This is Nyi ma'i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu'i cod pan nyi zla'i phreng mdzes, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Chi, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 181-454. For a study of a passage from this work, see my "Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) on the Nyi ma'i rabs (*Sūryavaṃśa) and the Tibetan Royal Families," Nepalica et Tibetica. Festgabe für Christoph Cüppers, Band 1, ed. F.-K. Ehrhard and P. Maurer (Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2013), 325-335. A study of this work, which is replete with unprecedented information that is in part drawn from local archival material, will no doubt shed further and new light on his biography of Lha bla ma as well as on the region's history in general. A true "great paṇḍita" (paṇ chen), there is no question that he was an unusual intellectual with many talents and areas of expertise that even included medicine and the arts. Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 13a-b. We also learn that he painted inter alia murals at Evaṃ chos ldan and in Byams pa gling in Glo bo Smon thang, and that he designed statuary and stupas in Glo bo, that is, probably for Brag dkar theg chen dar rgyas gling and Chos 'khor gling monasteries. Unfortunately, we still know too little about him to be able fully to appreciate his legacy. Aside from the colophon where he identifies himself as the author of the biography, he inserted, in a moment of exultation, the following verse in the middle of his text lha, 23b.: lha las phul byung lha sras srong btsug [gtsug] lde // rab byung lha rgyal bla ma ye shes 'od // mdo rgyud rnam[s] nas rgyal bas lung bstan brnyes // sa[r] gnas sems dpa' de'i rnam[s] thar ni // mnga' ris [b]stod dang dbus gtsang khams rnams su // cha [r]tsam gsungs pa mang yang nor 'khrul mang // rnam[s] dag tshul 4n brjod la mkhas pa can // sa skya par grags mnga' [lnga] rig paṇ chen yin // More perfect than a god, One wonders if this phrase might be a nod at Śaṇkarasvāmin's praise of the Buddha as one who is more perfect than all the [Hindu] gods (lha las phul byung, devatā-vimarśana) in his Devatāvimarśanastuti [not Devātiṣayastotra as per the translation in the Tanjur] for which see M. Hahn, "Śaṇkarasvāmin's Devatāvimarśastuti," Vividharatnaka- randaka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette, ed. C. Chojnacki et al, Indica et Tibetica, Bd. 37 (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2000), 313-29, and the literature cited in U. Roesler, "The Great Indian Epics in the Version of Dmar ston Chos kyi rgyal po," Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet, Tibetan Studies II, ed. H. Blezer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 439-40. divine son Srong gtsug lde, Renouncer, divine king Lama Ye shes 'od, Obtained prophecies by the Victorious One in sutras and tantras. Although there are many peacemeal statements about the biography of the [Bodhi]sattva who lived there, In Mnga' ris Stod, Dbus, Gtsang and Khams, The one who has the skill to explain by way of eliminating the many mistakes and errors, Is the great scholar in the five domains of knowledge renowned as a Sa skya pa. 4. The Biography of Lha bla ma: Prolegomena and Prophecies But let us now briefly turn to what I have taken to be Gu ge Paṇ chen's biography of Lha bla ma. Reading this work of fairly modest proportions, we immediately notice three outstanding features. Firstly, Gu ge Paṇ chen does not devote any separate space to bibliographic details that would otherwise have informed his readership what kind of literary or other sources he had been able to use for his study. This is hardly unusual for a Tibetan work of this or any other kind. With some exceptions, bibliographic silence is a generally adhered to Tibetan intellectual practice and Gu ge Paṇ chen's work is not one of these exceptions. However, what a quick perusal of his work does tell us is that, in the first place, he used several canonical sources in order to engage his reader in the spiritual connection that existed between the historical Buddha and Lha bla ma himself. What follows is taken from lha, 2a-3a. He shows that at one time, in the hoary past, the Buddha himself had informed different audiences of Lha bla ma's coming in the form of prophecies. Now Gu ge Paṇ chen was by no means the first to cite the relevant "prophetic" passages from scripture that foretold Lha bla ma's advent. Indeed, a precedent for this had been already set in the twelfth, if not already in the second half of the eleventh century. These will be discussed below in some detail. Gu ge Paṇ chen also quotes or alludes to several colophons of translated canonical works. One of these is directly cited to bring out some salient features of his religious persona and to legitimize him being styled Byang chub sems dpa', that is, Bodhisattva. lha, 3a, for which see below. He seemingly alludes to other colophons, such as those pertaining to various translations of texts belonging to Buddhist discipline ('dul ba, vinaya) that were made in Mnga' ris, via a substantial quotation from an unspecified work by an otherwise [to me] unknown 'Dul 'dzin Byang chub seng ge. lha, 18a-9a. This passage will be dealt with in the sequel to this paper. Gu ge Pan chen also refers to an account that he found in "a certain biography" (rnam thar 'ga' zhig tu) [of Lha bla ma] and cites a portion of a speech Lha bla ma had made sometime toward the end of 995 or in the beginning of 996, in any event not long after he arrived in Pu hrang during the intermediate summer-month [May-June] of 995. See, respectively, lha, 11a, and 13a-5a, and R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 55-6, 110-1. I surmize that it must be the speech he made in Wi phug mo This place is once again mentioned in lha, 30b, in the very same context. at a gathering of his brothers, uncles and nephews and the citizens ('bangs) of Mnga' ris. He observes at the end of the passage that there was more to it, but that he did not write it down out of fear of becoming too prolix (…zhes sogs 'byung ste / yi ge mangs pas ma bris), and he does the same elsewhere in the biography. lha, 15a, 35b, 40b. This is very unfortunate for us. He cites other passages that occur "in a biography" (rnam thar gcig tu) and "in some [text or ?biography]" ('ga' zhig tu). lha, 22a-b. Noteworthy is that Gu ge Paṇ chen relates that Lha bla ma had authored several treatises other than his famous open letter that was studied by Karmay, What follows is taken from lha, 20b-1a. namely, [1] Rnam snang mngon byang gi rgyud kyi spyi don, evidently, a survey of the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra, [2] Bstan pa spyi'i khog phubs, a general overview of Buddhism, [3] Mchod sbyin chen mo'i yig cha, a text on "the large offering," and [4] Dkon mchog mchod pa'i gzhung rten thig rtsa, Treatise on Offering to Three Jewels, Proportions of the Receptacle, which may be a work on the iconometry of statues and stupas. He follows this enumeration with the interesting remark in which he cites the Lo chen to the effect that Lha bla ma had created the possibility for him to do religious work and in which he explicitly links Lha bla ma with several of the Lo chen's own compositions: sngags log sun 'byin gyi bstan chos chen po mdzad cing / 'di ni mdo dbus khams rnams kyi mkhas shing grub pa brnyes pa mtha' dag gi yid kyi shing rta gang bar byed pa / bcom ldan 'das kyi bka' ltar tshad mar gyur to // gzhan yang rab gnas kyi sdom dang / dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i ṭi ka la sogs pa gzhung mang du mdzad / He wrote the great Sngags log sun 'byin gyi bstan chos, Treatise that Refutes False Mantra Texts, For several quotations from this work, see Ny[w]a dbon Kun dga' dpal's (1285-1379) post-1371 Gzhi lam 'bras gsum las brtsams pa'i dris lan yid kyi mun sel, ed. 'Bras Rab 'byams pa Dkon mchog chos kho et al. (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 102 ff. and this work, filling the vehicle of the mind of all of Mdo [?A mdo], Dbus and Khams who had acquired learning and spiritual realization, became authoritative like the pronouncement of the Blessed One. Furthermore, he wrote many texts such as the Rab gnas kyi sdom, Précis on Consecration, and the Dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i ṭi ka, Commentary on the *Śrī-abhisamaya, etc. These two works appear to be the Rab tu gnas par byed pa don gsal and Dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i dka' ba'i gnas bshad pa that were 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), 37-40 [and again on 71-72] and 46-70. The latter was written on the basis of Atiśa's explanations. The second thing that we notice is that the organization of the biography is somewhat flawed and unbalanced, and that some of its narratives are repeated. The imbalance is perhaps in part owed to the literary sources with which the author was working; there were not very many of them and they evidently did not have very much concrete to say about Lha bla ma's life. A number of these appear in the form of verses. At least one was taken from an afterword to a translation of an Indian Buddhist text, but we cannot but wonder whether some of these were not adapted from inscribed mural paintings. The Lo chen plays a very important role in the religious life of Lha bla ma. This is no doubt why at one point the flow of the biography's narrative is interrupted and we are suddenly and without warning given a précis of the Lo chen's life, from his twelfth year when he received his novice vows from Gnas brtan Legs pa bzang po to his undated translations of several tantras, in particular, the yogatantras. lha, 11b-2b. And the Lo chen makes cameo appearances elsewhere as in the biography. Thirdly and lastly, we have to admit that the biography leaves somewhat to be desired on stylistic grounds. Yes, as far as biographies go, Gu ge Paṇ chen's work is not a really beautifully written piece of literature and it is obviously a patchwork of many sources. But he should not necessarily be held responsible for the erratic punctation, especially where lines of verse are concerned, and orthographic inconsistencies that are most likely due to scribal oversights and/or misunderstandings. Nonetheless, even with these defects, the manuscript of this work can on occasion provide an important control for some of the uneven readings of the Tibetan manuscript of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris. An example of this is found in the section where Gu ge Paṇ chen addresses Lha bla ma's birth. The Royal Succession of Mnga' ris states at this juncture ...rgyal po srong nge 'di mgon gdung gi che bur / pun ta ri ka'i me tog gnyis khrungs te, which truly makes no sense, even if Vitali, trying to make sense of it, offered the translation: "...king Srong.nge was born, like a second Pun.ta.ri.ka flower, as a son of a line of the protectors (kings)." R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 52, 108. And he states in a note to "a second," "if gnyis is corrected to gnyis.pa." But, surely, more needs to be done to this line in order to make it have sense. First citing a series of verses, Gu ge Paṇ chen then comments to the effect that: ...'di ni dkon gdung gi mtsho bur pun rda ri ka'i me tog ltar 'khrungs shing. Obviously, this phrase is quite similar to the one of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, but it translates much better as: "...he was born as if a white puṇḍarika-lotus in the small pond of a precious-rare patriline." lha, 4b. Reading mtsho 'ur instead of mtsho bur as we find in lha, 4b, Khyung bdag suggests in a long note [n. 17] on p. 7 of the manuscript of his annotated edition of lha that we read for both: ...dgon dung gi mtshe 'ur puṇḍa rī ka ltar 'khrungs shing..., on the strength of the entry in Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long, 105, to the effect that dgon dung has the sense of: "a ravine, an area that has no water" (grog rong chu med pa'i sa phyogs). Now Gu ge Paṇ chen begins his biography with a verse of homage to "the golden monument which is the Sage’s Teaching" and a statement in which expresses the hope that his work will spread in the ten directions, a hope that we can now say with some reassurance has now pretty much gone into fulfillment! This is followed by a brief genealogy of Lha bla ma's family that begins with Divine Mighty One of Tibet (bod kyi lha btsan po) Kyi [read: Skyid] lde Nyi ma mgon, Bkra shis mgon's father. He then points out the nagging issue that has haunted many historians of Mnga' ris, if not driven them to drink, namely, the lay-identity of Lha bla ma. While ever so aware that "many Tibetan scholars" (bod khams kyi mkhas pa mang po[s]) held that it was the elder 'Khor re whose name in religion was Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od," he dismisses this by saying that this opinion "is somewhat uneven" (cung zad mnyam par ma bzhag pa) and that, in fact, according (las) to "many of his own," that is, Lha bla ma's, "impressions of their own religious markers" (rang rang gi chos rtags kyi mnan pa) The term chos rtags has a parallel in bka' rtags of lha, 30b, the meaning of which is also not altogether clear to me. The same chos rtags also occurs in a quotation from a work by Glo bo Mkhan chen that is cited below in n. 97, 105. There we learn that it is something that can be affixed to a document. In conversation, Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po made the valuable suggestion that chos rtags may refer to the thumb prints that the participants of the meeting in question affixed as ratifying witnesses to the resulting document, for which there are numerous archival instances and parallels. that were attached to legal documents of appointment there occurred the phrase: cung rab tu byung ba byang chub sems dpa' lha bla ma ye shes 'od / gcen mnga' bdag chen po 'khor re btsan dang / lha sras de ba rā dzā / lha sras nā ga rā dzā / lha sras lha lde btsan / lha sras u dha rā dzā / lha sras lham zlas sku mched / khu dbon yab mched rnams gdan 'dzoms nas / The younger brother, the renunciate Byang chub sems dpa' Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od with his elder brother Grand Sovereign 'Kho re btsan and Lha sras Devarāja, Lha sras Nāgarāja, Lha sras Lha lde btsan, Lha sras Ud[h]arāja, Lha sras Lham zlas, the brothers, Reproducing several Mnga' ris patrilines from Gu ge Paṇ chen's chronicle - see above n. 68 - Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po relates, on pp. 22-23, in an unpublished paper titled "Paṇḍita Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis mdzad pa'i << [Mnga 'ris] nyi ma'i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu'i cod pan nyi zla'i phreng mdzes >> zhes bya ba'i nang bkod pa'i mnga' ris lo rgyus skor brjod pa," that 'Kho re had three sons: Lha sde [read: lde] Bkra shis btsan, Lha sras Lham zlas, and Ūd[h]arāja, that the two younger ones led a religious life, and that the youngest passed away at the age of fourteen [= thirteen]. and uncles, nephews and fathers's brother, having gathered… Some of these names are fairly known quantities. Lha lde btsan is most likely 'Kho re's son and the father of 'Od lde, Pho brang Zhi ba 'od, and Btsun pa Byang chub 'od. Others are not. This latter remark contains two names, Lha sras Ud[h]arāja and Lha sras Lham zlas, that were so far quite unknown, and further suggests that Gu ge Paṇ chen was able to use old archival documents that were housed in, perhaps, the archive of Mtho gling monastery. In addition, Gu ge Paṇ chen writes, other authoritative chronicles say the same thing about Lha bla ma’s identity as Srong nge. Following this, Gu ge Paṇ chen cites two passages from canonical sources that had already become part of a fairly long tradition by the time of his writing when it came to dealing with Lha bla ma. These concern passages in which the Buddha had ostensibly foretold the future coming of Lha bla ma, notably, the famous lines from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa Bu ston extensively cites the prophecies from this work in his chronicle, for which see E. Obermiller, tr., History of Buddhism (chos-'byung) by Bu ston. II. Part. The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet (Heidelberg: O. Harrassowitz, 1932), 111 ff. Obermiller revisited these when an edition of a Sanskrit manuscript of this tantra had become available to him, for which see "Bu-ston's History of Buddhism and the Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1935), 299-306. and the Kāruṇapuṇḍarikasūtra. As said, both had already been used for this purpose in earlier accounts, but what is striking is the extent to which the citations of the passages from these texts vary so widely and so wildly. In connection with these prophecies, Gu ge Paṇ chen refers to the earlier writings of the students of the Lo chen such as Lce zhar, Rtsa skya pa [Khri brtan or Dkon mchog grags], 'Dzims pa as well as the first Sa skya pa patriarchs, each of which underscores that the prophecies intend the advent of Lha bla ma. It should be pointed out that the "modernist," Gsar ma tradition considers the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa and the Kāruṇapuṇḍarikasūtra as the preeminent sources for harvesting prophecies, whereas the "old" Rnying ma tradition adds to these the Sgra thal 'gyur gyi rgyud. See, for example, Klong chen Rab 'byams pa's (1308-64) Theg pa'i mchog rin po che'i mdzod, Collected Works, vol. Ca [6] (A 'dzom chos sgar: Dkar mdzes bod rigs rang skyong khul, ?1999), 232 ff., 249 ff. My thanks go to David Germano for kindly reminding me of this. Klong chen pa chacterizes the Sgra thal 'gyur or Thal 'gyur in different ways for which see his Theg pa mtha' dag gi don gsal bar byed pa grub mtha' rin po che'i mdzod, Collected Works, vol. Cha [7] (A 'dzom chos sgar: Dkar mdzes bod rigs rang skyong khul, ?1999), 390, 392, 394 [= The Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems, tr. R. Barron (Junction City, Calif.: Padma Publishing, 2007), 365-6, 368]. None of the writings of the students of the Lo chen are available, but Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo's oeuvre does contain the work to which Gu ge Paṇ chen most likely referred, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 2, 344/1 [Nga, 314a] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 8, 489}. and its quotation of a Tibetan rendition of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa runs as follows: kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung // In the snowy On the difference between kha ba, snow that is falling from the sky, and gangs, snow that has turned into ice, both of which occur in the various prophecies that are detailed below, see the extremely rewarding autobiography of Rig 'dzin Chos kyi grags pa (1595-1659), up to the year 1658, in Rang gi tshul gyi rtogs pa brjod pa'i gtam rang bzhin brjod pa'i rgyan kho nas smras pa gsong po'i dga' ston, Collected Works, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Drikung Kargyu Institute, 1999), 125 [= Ibid., 'Bri gung pa Texts, vol. I (Leh, 1972), 157-8]. land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will appear. Note: It is to be understood that the expression rgyal [po'i] rigs, here rendered as "royal descent," does have the attested Sanskrit equivalents of kṣatriya and rājakula. Gu ge Paṇ chen was not familiar with the chronicle that was allegedly written by Nyang ral, which also contains quotations from both texts. However, the witnesses of this work read the alleged quotation from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa differently; the printed text that was published in Lhasa has Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 460-1. : byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud can du / rigs ni rgyal sras zhes bya ste / ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung / zhes dang / It is said: In the North that has an icy mountain range. In a family called Rgyal sras, One called Ye shes 'od will occur. and... Thus, there is an explicit recognition that this curious and corrupt passage is a quotation of three lines of verse, and we find the very same thing with the citations from a "sutra" (mdo) of a very similar passage that we find in the chronicles of Lde'u Jo sras and Mkhas pa Lde'u. See Lde'u chos 'byung, ed. Chos 'joms, 146: byang phyogs gang ri rgyud kyi bar //mi rigs bzhi ni gnas pa las // rigs ni rgyal po'i rigs dag las // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //, and Mkhas pa lde'us mdzad pa'i rgya bod kyi chos byung rgyas pa, ed. Bod rang skyong ljongs spyi tshogs tshan rig khang, 381: byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud kyi bar // rigs ni rgyal po'i rigs las su // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //. By contrast, the manuscript that was published by R.O. Meisezahl – its variant readings are given in [ ] - and the one published in Paro punctuate the passage quite differently and therefore do not contain the recognition that it consists of three lines of verse or even that it is a quotation and not a paraphrase R.O. Meisezahl, ed., Tafel 334/c-5/a, and Manuscript "B" (Paro, 1979), 544.: byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud can du rigs ni rgyal sras zhes bya ste [/ {space}] : ye shes 'od : ces bya ba ['byung {space}] 'byung ngo : Striking is that we do not encounter any of these various wordings of the prophecy in question in either the Tibetan translation of this tantra by the team of *Kumārakalaśa and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros that was included in the blockprinted canons or what used to be the only Sanskrit manuscript of this work that was recovered in the early part of the last century. See, respectively, the text in The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 18, no. 540 [# 543], 25/7-96/2 [Na, 88a-334a] and Bka' 'gyur, vol. 88, ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstan dpe sdur khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), no. 0571, 354-1051. What used to be a unique Sanskrit manuscript of this work was originally edited by T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, nos. LXX, LXXVI, LXXXIV (Trivandrum, 1920-5), and it is now available in digital form from various sources including www.sub.uni-goettingen.de. A study of its historical section that is laced with prophecies can be found in K.P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India in a Sanskrit Text (Patna: Eastern Book House, 1988) - this work was first published by Motilal Banarsidass in 1934, in Lahore. See further Matsunaga Yūkei, "On the Date of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa," Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein, vol. 3, ed. M. Strickmann (Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1985), 882-94. For this tantra in general, see now G. Wallis, Mediating the Power of Buddhas: Ritual in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002). Finally, M. Delhey is currently working on an edition of a newly discovered Nepalese manuscript of this tantra that was filmed by the Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project [NGMPP] and an article on this particular manuscript is apparently still in press; see his "The Textual Sources of the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa (Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa): With special Reference to its Early Nepalese Witness A39/4," Newsletter of the Nepal-German Manuscript Cataloguing Project 7 (2009). This particular Tibetan version was completed sometime between 1037 and 1078 in Mtho gling, at the request and doubtless with the financial backing of Lha bla ma's grand-nephew, the Divine-Mighty One, Divine-Monk (lha btsan po lha btsun) Byang chub 'od. At least two or perhaps even three other Tibetan renditions of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa or a portion thereof are known to have circulated in cultural Tibet at some time. If it be not an oversight, then *Kumārakalaśa had also been involved with Lo tsā ba Shākya ye shes in yet another translation of the text, a copy of which was included in the manuscript of the so-called Phug brag Kanjur in West Tibet. J. Samten, Catalogue of the Phug brag Manuscript Kanjur (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1992), 184. Samten writes in a footnote that this translation is identical to the one of the printed canons, even if they suggest that Shākya blo gros was *Kumārakalaśa's counterpart. This Shākya ye shes is probably none other than 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba who must be reckoned as the founder of the Lam 'bras system in Tibet. Another one is datable to the eleventh century as well and issued from the pens of Dpal Dga' ba'i bshes gnyen (*Śrī Nanda-/Utsavamitra) and Mang 'or Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab, yet another disciple of the long-lived Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po. Glo bo Mkhan chen certainly knew this version, since it was included in a Kanjur manuscript in Glo bo Smon thang (Mustang, Nepal) for which, not before 1447, Ngor chen had written a catalog at the behest of Glo bo Mkhan chen's grandfather, King A ma dpal Bzang po rgyal mtshan. The Kanjur manuscript registers this work under volume Ba in the Bka' 'gyur ro cog gi dkar chag bstan pa gsal ba'i sgron me, Sa skya pa'i bka' bum, vol. 10, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968) no. 154, 346/3 [= Evaṃ bka' 'bum 7/20, Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 138, Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2010), 226]. For this Kanjur and the reference to the tantra, see now also H. Eimer, The Early Mustang Kanjur Catalogue, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 45 (Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1999), 20, 51, no. 108. In fact, he cites two passages from it in his reply to the third of a total of six queries on various historical topics put to him by his nephew Mgon po rgyal mtshan (ca. 1505), then ruler of Glo bo, where the issue was the identity of Lha tho tho ri, the father of Gnya' khri btsan po, the legendary progenitor of the Tibetan imperial family, sometimes called the "Spur rgyal bod" dynasty. Mi'i dbang po mgon po rgyal mtshan gyi dris lan sngon rabs gsal ba'i me long, Collected Works, vol. III (New Delhi, 1977), 25-6 [= Collected Works, vol. Ga [III], tbrc.org, W00KG01660, 17a-b]. The third and last rendition of at least a section of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra, from the hand of Dharmatāśīla (*Chos nyid tshul khrims), is extant by way of a fragment from Dunhuang. It is datable to circa 850. See Y. Imaeda, "Un extrait tibétain du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa dans les manuscrits de Touen-Houang," Nouvelles contributions de Touen-Houang, ed. M. Soymié (Geneva: Droz, 1981), 303-20 and R. Stein, "Tibetica Antiqua IV: La tradition relative au début du bouddhisme au Tibet," Bulletin de L'École Française d'Extrême Orient LXXV (1986), 172. Already A. Macdonald pointed out in her Le Maṇḍala du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1962), 17-9, that the tradition was well aware of multiple translations of this work. Aside from the interesting questions raised by these prophecies, not to mention the yet to be explored role of prophecy as such in Tibetan historiography, there are numerous problems with the texts of many of these, ranging from quite different readings of one and the same prophecy to their entire absence from the late south Indian manuscript of the tantra - the consensus is that it dates from the sixteenth century. It is well known that this manuscript belongs to a radically different filiation of the text than the ones used for the late tenth century Chinese translation by the Kashmirian *Devaśānti [and others], or the Tibetan one by *Kumārakalaśa and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros. A. Macdonald, Le Maṇḍala du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, 16, gives a handy overview of these disparities. It is for this reason that we are eagerly awaiting the results of Delhey's edition of a Sanskrit manuscript of the text that was recovered in the Kathmandu Valley. R.E. Lerner quite brilliantly traced the so-called Cedar of Lebanon prophecy that an unknown Cistercian monk brought into circulation in Hungary against the backdrop of the imminent Mongol invasion of that land which never materialized. The Powers of Prophecy. The Cedar of Lebanon Vision from the Mongol Onslaught to the Dawn of Enlightenment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). The prophecy itself was written sometime between 1238 and 1240. Among other thngs, Lerner showed how, over the next few centuries, this particular prophecy spawned a series of modulated and varying prophecies that often responded to current concerns. When more is known about the specific circumstances and the ends to which prophecies may have been used in the Tibetan cultural area, a similar case can perhaps be made that the wording of not a few of these Indo-Tibetan prophecies was frequently modified [and thus reinterpreted and reevaluated] in order that they might give support and conform to new historical circumstances. Now in his undated response to the question Mgon po rgyal mtshan that posed him about the identity of Gnya' khri btsan po's father, Glo bo Mkhan chen first states that no sources, scriptural or otherwise, are really clear on this. He then cites this passage from what he identifies as [*Kumārakalaśa's and] Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros' mid-eleventh century translation of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra as a prophecy of a Tibetan ruler: lha ldan zhes bya'i yul gyi ni // [a] gangs can ri'i nang gnas par // [b] rgyal po mi'i lha zhes pa // [c] li tsha byi zhes rigs su 'byung // [d] Of course, there is something seriously amiss with line [a], and lines [b] and [c] do not strictly follow the quantitative Tibetan prosodic rules, which can, however, be easily remedied by reading ri yi for ri'i and mi yi for mi'i. The wording of this prophecy corresponds pretty much to the quotation of the text in the catalog of the Snar thang Kanjur Bka' 'gyur, vol. 106, 114: lha ldan yul zhes bya [bya] ba yi // [a] gangs can ri yi nang gnas par // [b] rgyal po mi yi lha zhes pa // [c] li tsa bī rnams zhes rigs su 'byung // [d] We can venture the following translation: Living among the snow-icy mountains, Which is called Lha ldan yul, A king called Mi yi lha Will occur in the line of descent called the Licchavis. On the other hand, the text of *Kumārakalaśa's and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros' translation of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra that is contained in the block printed Kanjurs reads The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 18, no. 540 [# 543], 89/5 [Na, 311a]. The text in Bka' 'gyur, vol. 88, 910, reads the same. : lha ldan yul zhes bya ba yi // [a] gangs can ri yi nang gnas pa’i // [b] rgyal po mi yi lha zhes pa // [c] li tstsha bī rnams rigs su byung // [d] The first three lines translate as: A king called Mi yi lha, Who lives among the snow-icy mountains, Which is called Lha ldan yul, ... Glo bo Mkhan chen then juxtaposes the quatrain with one from Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab's translation and with the Slob dpon's quotation of the text; the first apparently read: kha ba'i spyan/rlan can nang gnas par // [a] nga rgyal bral ba'i rgyal po lha // [b] rgyal ba'i rigs su 'byung ba ste // [c] Line [a] is problematic and we should, I think, dispense with spyan, which is the reading of the manuscripts published in New Delhi and opt for rlan, even though this is nowhere else attested. These three lines can be rendered as: Living within an area with the moisture of snow, A divine king bereft of pride, Will occur in the Victorious One's line of descent. Here we have this king being born in the family in which the historical Buddha was born! And this is a recurring motif. By contrast, the citation of the Slob dpon's prophecy in the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra that we have in the manuscript of Glo bo Mkhan chen's work that is made available through tbrc.org reads: kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs // ye shes 'od ces bya 'byung // In the snowy land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will occur. Aside from the fact that Lha bla ma is explicitly mentioned in this particular reading, this contrasts sharply with the reading of the first line in the New Delhi edition of this same work, which has: kha ba can du rgyal ba'i rigs // ye shes 'od ces bya 'byung // In the snowy land, one of the Victorious One's line of descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will occur. Here, too, instead of having Lha bla ma being born in a nondescript rgyal po'i rigs, his text of the Slob dpon's work apparently rgyal ba'i rigs, that is to say, Ye shes 'od's line of descent is now traced back to the great Shākya family (shakya chen po'i rigs), that is, to the family of the historical Buddha himself! Indeed, there is no better way to underscore the sanctity of Lha bla ma than to link him also genetically to the historical Buddha! Rather charitably stating that these versions are different but similar translations, Glo bo Mkhan chen evidently agreed with the rgyal ba'i rigs reading! But he does find fault with the observation made by "some" who suggested that this passage from the tantra foretells the coming of Lha tho tho ri. According to him, the reason why this is not correct is that the passage from the tantra would have foretold (lung bstan) that Lha tho tho ri would live ('tsho) for eighty [= New Delhi edition] or eighty-four [tbrc.org edition] years, whereas [I suppose for him reliable sources have] stated (bshad) that he lived for one hundred and twenty years. This year is given in, for example, the chronicle attributed to Nyang ral and in Bu ston's work, for which see, respectively, Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 164, and E. Obermiller, tr., History of Buddhism (chos-'byung) by Bu ston. II. Part. The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet, 183. And he cites once again the translation of Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab: lo ni stong dang brgyad bcu 'tsho/mtsho // Lived for a thousand and eighty years." The text for this line in the published Sanskrit text is The Sanskrit text is taken from K.P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India in a Sanskrit Text, *40.: aśītivarśāṇi kṛtvāsau / 551c Assuming that Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab's was an incorrect rendition ('gyur ma dag pa), he is quite right to doubt the integrity of the translation of the Sanskrit line, which *Kumārakalaśa and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros more or less correctly translated as: lo ni brgyad cur rgyal srid byas // Governed for eighty years. But he nonetheless wonders whether, if it were not so, the prophecies of both Lha bla ma and Lha tho tho ri would be be vitiated, and then concludes as follows: kho bo ni lugs de rnams gyi nang nas / lugs phyi ma de sngon gyi lha bla ma la sogs pa'i yig tshang rnying pa chos [b]rtags 'byar ba rnams na yod ces / chos rje paṇḍi ta gsung ba ltar 'thad par sems so / I think that, from among these views, what the Chos rje had said is correct, namely, that the latter position, is present in the "religious markers" (chos rtags) See n. 85. that are affixed to the old archival documents of the early Lha bla ma. The phrase sngon gyi lha bla ma, "the early Lha bla ma," should perhaps be understood when we consider that Byang chub 'od is also on occasion referred to as Lha bla ma, which would then make him "the later Lha bla ma" (*phyi[ ma]'i lha bla ma), although I have yet to come across this phrase. But it is clear from the foregoing that Lha tho tho ri as the possible subject of the prophecy is no longer an issue, as is the starting point of Glo bo Mkhan chen's deliberations, namely, the question of the identity of Gnya' khri btsan po's father. Furthermore, it would appear that the Chos rje Paṇḍita is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen, for, in his biography of Lha bla ma, he quotes the following lines from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa that, in his opinion, have him as their subject lha, 2a-b.: lha ldan yul zhes bya ba yi / gangs can ri yi nang gnas pa / rgyal po lha yi bla ma zhes / shākya yis [read: yi] ni rigs las 'khrungs / de yang sngags kyi don bsgrubs ste / chos dang longs spyod ldan pa 'gyur / rig pa longs spyod ldan zhes pa / mi yi bdag pos de'ang 'grub / lo ni brgyad bcur rgyal srid byed / We have seen what the Tibetan text of the first four lines is all about as far as the published Kanjur texts of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa are concerned. The last five lines are not as problematic, but some tweaking will be necessary. I will not dwell on this - note for example Gu ge Pan chen's chos dang longs spyod ldan pa instead of longs spyod che dang ldan par which is the correct translation of mahābhogī -, but it may be useful to reproduce these here from the Sde dge print and the Bka' 'gyur dpe bsdur ma See above n. 102.: de yang sngags kyi don bsgrubs ste // longs spyod che dang ldan par 'gyur // rig pa longs spyod ldan zhes bya // mi yi bdag pos de yang grub // lo ni brgyad cur rgyal srid byas // The putative Sanskrit text of this passage is K.P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India in a Sanskrit Text, *40. : nepālamaṇḍale khyāte himādriḥ kukṣimānśrite // The reference to Nepal, that is, the Kathmandu Valley as per nepālamaṇḍale, "in the Nepal mandala," is fully surpressed in the Tibetan translation that we have before us in the canon, and its possible Tibetan equivalent *ne pāl/bal yul [gyi] dkyil 'khor [du], is replaced by the non-committal and innocuous lha ldan yul, "the divine land"! 549c-d rājā mānavendrastu licchavīnāṃ kulo vaḥ / so'pi mantrārthasiddhastu mahābhogī bhaviṣyati // 550 vidyā bhogavati nāma tasya siddhā narādhiye / aśītivarśāṇi kṛtvāsau rājyaṃtaskaravajitam // 551 Following these lines from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, Gu ge Paṇ chen then cites another prophetic statement, which he says is taken from the Snying rje pad dkar che ba [Mahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra], where the Buddha apparently had said the following: kun dga' bo nga 'das pa'i dus na / ma 'ongs pa na byang phyogs kyi brgyud / kha ba can gyi yul / spos kyi ngad ldan pa'i gram du / dge slong ye shes 'od zhes bya ba byung ste / de ni mang du thos shing / 'dul ba dang mdo dang ma mo 'dzin pa / gzhung 'dzin du 'jug par 'gyur gyi / nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed do / Ānanda! When I have passed on, in the future, a monk called Ye shes 'od will have occured on the slope of the Spos kyi ngad ldan [*Gandhamādana] mountain range of the snowy land in the northern reaches; being learned, he is one who is an adherent of the disciplinary code, the sutra, the "mother" (ma mo, *mātṛkā = abhidharma phenomenology), and the textual tradition, and he will increase my Teaching. Neither this citation nor any of the other citations from this sutra that figure below are retrievable from the circa 800 translation of the sutra by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, and Sna nam Ye shes sde that came to be included in all the available Kanjurs. Many of the other sources that I have used for this essay allegedly cite passages from this same sutra, and these present us with as many variant readings as did the quotations that were allegedly derived from the Tibetan version[s] of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. Again, citing the very same sutra, the Slob dpon has Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 2, 344/1 [Nga, 314a] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 8, 489}.: byang phyogs su 'od kyi mthas brgyan pa can gyi dge slong 'byung bar 'gyur ro // des kyang bstan pa rgyas par byed do // In the northern area, a monk who[se name] is adorned with the ending 'od will occur; he, too, will increase the Teaching. This is all too reminiscent of the prophetic lines that will be signaled below which, in fact, have nought to do with this sutra! And the three versions of the chronicle attributed to Nyang ral have Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 461, R.O. Meisezahl, ed., Tafel 335/a, and Manuscript "B" (Paro, 1979), 544-5.: kun dga' bo mya ngan ma byed smre sngags ma 'don / nga mya ngan las 'das pa'i 'og tu byang phyogs su dge slong ye shes 'od zhes bya ba 'byung ste / de yis bstan pa rgyas par byed do / Ānanda! Do not suffer! Do not utter words of distress! After I have passed beyond suffering, a monk called Ye shes ‘od will occur in the northern region; he will increase the Teaching. Indeed, the passage of sutra in the Sde dge print of the Kanjur and the Bka' 'gyur dpe bsdur ma states something quite differently The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 11, no. 111 [# 111], 24/4 [Cha, 83a], and Bka' 'gyur, vol. 50, 211. : kun dga' bo nga 'das nas byang phyogs kyi rgyud na yul spos 'dzin zhes bya ba na dge slong 'od srung zhes bya ba 'byung ste / rdzu 'phrul che ba mthu che ba / dbang che bar grags pa gsal ba 'jigs pa med pa / mang du thos pa / 'dul ba 'dzin pa / mdo 'dzin pa / ma mo 'dzin pa / yang dag par ston pa / yang dag par 'dzin du 'jug pa / yang dag par gzengs bstod pa / yang dag par rab tu dga' bar byed pa nas de yang nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed… Ānanda! In the area called Spos 'dzin [*Gandharī], in the northern ranges, a monk called *Kaśyapa will occur. He is one with magic that is great, with spiritual power that is great, renowned for having force that is great, lucid, fearless, learned, an adherent of Buddhist discipline, an adherent of the sutra, an adherent of the Ma mo, one who teaches the truth, one who adheres to the truth, one who extolls the truth, one who delights in the truth; he, moreover, will increase my Teaching... A few phrases later we significantly read what reminds us of the "quotation" in Nyang ral's work: kun dga' bo khyod mya ngan ma byed / smre sngags ma 'don cig / kun dga' bo nga 'das nas byang phyogs kyi rgyud na.... You Ānanda! Do not suffer! Do not utter words of distress! Ānanda! After I have passed beyond suffering, in the northern region.... Given all these variations aming these quotations and the fact that almost none of these are retrievable from the texts in the canon, one hardly escape the conclusion that either Gu ge Paṇ chen and these other writers have simply made up the text of these prophecies, marshaling a good measure of their creative imagination, or, what is perhaps equally if not more likely, but certainly more charitably, that they borrowed their texts from other works in which their authors' imagination had played this creative role. The biography is replete with statements, some apparently issuing from Lha bla ma himself, that are decidedly anti-Bon or that voice profound opposition to practices that are associated with this religious tradition. And there is no question that, according to his biography and the relevant passages from the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, Lha bla ma sought to curtail, if not eliminate altogether, what these sources refer to as non-Buddhist Bon practices. See, respectively, R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 54-5, 57, 110, 112, and lha, 4a, 6b-7a, ff. A more serious instance where it is quite clear that, at a minimum, something truly apocryphal is going on is when Gu ge Paṇ chen cites two sutras in which rather unpleasant sentiments regarding the Bon po tradition are given expression. The sutras in question are the Ye shes rgyas pa'i mdo and the Dge sdig bstan pa'i mdo, and these apparently contained one and the same passage that promised in no uncertain terms a quick and one-way descent into hell should one practice this religion! lha, 8a. We now come full circle. I noted at the beginning of my discussion of the prophecies that allegedly prophesy Lha bla ma's coming that Gu ge Paṇ chen related that the disciples of the Lo chen and several Sa skya pa scholars quoted passages from the Tibetan Buddhist canon in which the Buddha himself had foretold Lha bla ma's advent. He makes this observation after he himself had signaled the relevant passages from what in his opinion, or from he wants his audience to believe, were the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa and the Mahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra. He then writes that they quoted the former as follows: kha ba can gyi ljongs su rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung ngo // In the region with snow, a king whose name has an 'od ending, will occur. And he adds that even though (yang) they did so, there occurs the statement: kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs ye shes 'od ces bya ba rab tu byung ste / des nga'i chos rnams dar bar 'gyur ro // In the snowy area, a Ye shes 'od of royal descent will have renounced the world. He will spread my dharma-teachings. He does not specifiy where the latter might be located, but, needless to say, neither of these occurs in the text of the translation of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa that is currently widely available. Yet another version of the prophecy with the curious "'od ending", again allegedly stemming from one and the same Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, is cited in Zul phu ba's and Mchims' biographies of Atiśa; there the text reads H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zu einer Biographie des Atiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrī-jñāna), 1. Teil, 216, and 2. Teil, 145.: kha ba can gyi rgyal khams 'dir // rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung // Of course, these two lines are not found in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, but rather in other sources that are signaled below. But in his study of the ritual complex centering on the Buddha as healer Mchims has De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, 370.: gangs can du ni rgyal po'i rigs // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung // In the icy land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will occur. This text of the prophecy is almost the very same as the one found in the Slob dpon's work. However, matters stand quite differently with his alleged citation from the Mahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra that follows it, for there we have: kun dga' bo mya ngan ma byed ma 'ongs na nga mya ngan las 'das pa'i 'og tu byang phyogs su rgyal po'i rigs dge slong ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung ste / des nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed do // Ānanda! Do not suffer! In the future, after I have passed beyond suffering, a monk called Ye shes 'od of royal descent will occur in the north; he will increase my Teaching. But there are additional prophecies that are aimed at Lha bla ma that are not explicitly cited as such by Gu ge Paṇ chen. He first reproduces the following, rather boastful statement from "a biography" lha, 22a.: skye bo mtha' dag la 'jig rten lugs kyi mthun pa'i bka' lung / khyad par yul dus dang 'tshams zhing bsgrub par nus pa'i dge sdig blang dor gyi rnam bzhag lugs kyi bstan bcos mang du mdzad pas slob dpon 'phags pa klu sgrub las lhag pa yin no // Since he gave many orders to all the people in accordance with the ways of the world [something seems to be missing and I add: and] wrote many secular tracts, expositions of what is wholesome and sinful, of what is to be accepted and rejected, that are in accord with a particular time and place and that one is able to turn into a reality, he was superior to Master Noble Nāgārjuna (ca. 2ndc.). This most likely alludes to the politico-religious elements of the Ratnāvalī that may have been written for a Śātavāhana king and the three collections of gnomes (lugs gyi bstan bcos) that are attributed to him, namely, the Prajñāśataka, the Janapoṣanabindu, and the Prajñādaṇḍa. For some penetrating remarks on the Ratnāvalī in connection with the political, see C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "Immortality Extolled with Reason: Philosophy and Politics in Nāgārjuna," Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. B. Kellner et al., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.1 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007), 761 ff. lha, 4a, relates that Lha bla ma had studied unspecified lugs kyi bstan bcos in his youth. And then reproduces the following prophecies of Lha bla ma and the Lo chen without attributing them to a specific source These are also noted in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, for which see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 58, 112.: lha rgyal bla ma ye shes 'od // sangs rgyas mdzad pa byed par 'gyur // Divine King Lama Ye shes 'od, Will do enlightened acts. rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can dang // dge slong bya'i gdong can gyi [read: gyis] // nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed // The king with the name ending in 'od and The monk with a bird's face, The notion that Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po had a bird-like face is already entertained in the biography of middling length (rnam thar 'bring ba) that his disciple Gu ge Khyi thang pa Dpal ye shes, alias Jñanaśrī, had written probably not long after his passing; see Byang chub sems dpa' lo tsā ba rin chen bzang po'i 'khrungs rabs dka' spyad sgron ma rnam thar shel 'phreng lu gu rgyud, ed. Tho ling gtsug lag khang lo gcig stong 'khor ba'i rjes dran mdzad sgo'i go sgrig tshogs chung (Dharamsala, 1996), 13-4. Will increase my Teaching. We encounter these prophecies in a number of different works, first and formeost perhaps in a recension of the text-historically very problematic Bka' chems ka khol ma, in Nyang ral's alleged chronicle, and in the Maṇi bka' 'bum in the formation of which Nyang ral is said to have played an important role. A gter ma-revelatory or treasure text that Atiśa allegedly discovered in the hollow of a pillar in the Jo khang temple of Lhasa, in the late 1040s, the tradition regards, not at all unproblematically, the former to be an autobiography of Btsan po-Emperor Srong btsan sgam po (d. 649). Indeed, it is the locus classicus for the narrative of the emperor being the re-embodiment of Avalokiteśvara, for the latter to be the patron-Bodhisattva and protector of the Tibetan area, for Thon mi Sambhoṭa and the invention of the Tibetan script, and for much else that has been traditionally been taken for granted. The transmission of this work is beset with enormous problems, as many earlier Tibetan scholars such as 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481) have remarked. See my "Faulty Transmissions: Some Notes on Tibetan Textual Criticism and the Impact of Xylography," Editions, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, evolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet et al., Collectanea Himalayica 3 (Munich: Indus Verlag, 2010), 456-7. Towards the end of only one of several recensions of this work, we come across a series of prophecies of the Lo chen and, shortly following it, one in which figures the "'od ending"; we read Bka' chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Gan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 280-1. The section on prophecies that are found at the end of this edition are not contained in many other extant manuscripts of the text, including the manuscript that is available from tbrc.org at W00KG010083. : de'i dus nub phyogs dag tu sku 'khrungs pa'i // dge slong bya yi gdong ba can zhig 'byung // At that time, one who is born in the western regions, A monk with a bird-like face will appear. de dus rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can ni // byang chub sems ldan blo gros brtan pa 'byung // The passage is glossed by byang 'od gnyis, "the two Byang and 'Od," and I wonder whether this means that the glossator was of the opinion that the reference is to both Byang chub 'od and Zhi ba 'od! The recently republished Chinese translation of the Bka' chems ka khol ma in 柱间史 - 松赞千布的遺訓 Zhujian shi - Songzan ganbu de yixun, tr. 卢亚军 Lu Yajun (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2010), 171, ignored this gloss. At that time, a king with a name ending in 'od, One with an enlightened mind and of firm intelligence will appear. Adding further layers of intertextual complexity, these very same prophecies from this recension of the Bka' chems ka khol ma are, as stated, also encountered in the chronicle attributed to Nyang ral as well as in gter ma text of the Maṇi bka' 'bum, which appears to have been more carefully transmitted than the first. See, respectively, Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 257, and Maṇi bka' 'bum, vol. 2, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe tshogs dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 424. Undated, the anonymous series of rebirth stories ('khrungs rabs) that center on 'Brom ston Rgyal ba'i 'byung gnas (1004/5-63/64) - it was he who inherited Atiśa's mantel -, seems to have grown up in a similar spiritual environment as the Bka' chems ka khol ma. In this environment that was undoubtedly local and perhaps even 'Brom-clan based, there arose the idea that 'Brom ston was a re-embodiment of Srong btsan sgam po and thus also of Avalokitśvara. The dynamics of these affiliations are from clear, but in these rebirth stories we also read Jo bo rje dpal ldan a ti sha'i rnam thar bka' gdams pha chos, ed. Mkha' 'gro tshe ring (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1994), 113. And the later statement on p.305 of the same text no doubt alludes to this prophecy with the phrase "having the ending of 'od" ('od kyi mtha' can)].: kha ba can gyi rgyal khams su // rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung // In the snowy kindom, A king with the name ending in 'od will appear. and gangs can du ni rgyal po'i rigs // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung // In the icy land, one of royal descent, Named Ye shes 'od will appear. Following these prophecies, Gu ge Paṇ chen further impresses upon his readers the notion that Lha bla ma was a bona fide Bodhisattva - indeed, he informs us later that he is Mañjuśrī -, and he cites to this effect the series of lines of verse from Zhi ba 'od, Lha bla ma's grand-nephew, that we actually encounter in the colophon of Zhi ba 'od's and Lo chen's translation, it may even be the only source to have preserved it, of the Śrī-Paramādiṭīkā lha, 3a, ad sde, vol. 29, no. 2516 [# 2512], 417/5 [Li, 192a]; this was also used by the Slob dpon in the passage referred to above in n. 22. See the discussion of this verse [with variant readings] in C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "Was Byang chub sems dpa' a Posthumous Title of King Ye shes 'od? The Evidence of a Tabo Colophon," Tabo Studies II. Manuscripts, Texts, Inscriptions, and the Arts, ed. C.A. Scherrer-Schaub and E. Steinkellner, Serie Orientalia Roma, LXXXVII (Roma: Istituto Italiano per L'Africa e L'Oriente, 1999), 216-7. Albeit left unidentified, this passage is also cited in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, for which see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 52, 108.: sngon gyi smon lam thugs rje'i dbang gis na / lha rigs byang chub sems dpa'i sprul pa ste / sa steng rgyal po'i rgyal por sku sprul pa / 'gro ba skyob phyir khyim[s] gnas spangs pa yi / bla ma byang chub sems dpa' ye shes 'od / mnga' ris [b]stod 'di 'dul ba'i don du byung / Through the force of the liberating compassion of the initial aspiration to resolve to become a Buddha, Of a divine line, a wondrous manifestation of an enlightened being (byang chub sems dpa'), Wondrously, bodily manifested as the king of kings of the world, Who forsook his residence in order to protect migrating beings, Lama Enlightened Being Ye shes 'od, Appeared for the sake of pacifying this Mnga' ris stod. We have now almost reached the end of the biography's prolegomenon and prophecies. It closes with several lines of prose stating among other things that he was a re-embodiment of Mañjuśrī and a quatrain of indirect praise, and a hint at what is to follow, namely, that the remainer of the biography is divided into the following three uneven parts. These three are found in lha, 3a-6a, 6a-9b, 9b-end.: [1] Lha bla ma’s youthful activities, [2] his activities as a householder and ruler, and [3] his activities on behalf of the Buddha's doctrine after he was ordained a monk. PAGE 1