&quot;The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two,&quot; Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

Leonard van der Kuijp

Vairocana Rakṣita, a court translator for the Tibetan Dynasty during the Eighth century A.D., is famed for his completion of five early translations (snga ‘gyur lnga), usually described as including: Rig pa’i khyu phyug, rTsal chen sprugs pa, Kyung chen mkha’ lding, rDo la gser zhun, and Mi nub pa’i rgyal mtshan nam mkha’ che. A search for the source text for the Mi nub pa’i rgyal mtshan Nam mkha’ che leads us to a fascinating set of works, works of both individual and collective interest. To understand the full portent of the Nam mkha’ che literature a thorough and careful study of these works will be required. This article is intended to open that door. There are three parts: a catalogue of extant works in the Nam mkha’ che cycle, a brief discussion of authenticity, and a look into a set of fifty-five verses that have become an important source for the Nam mkha’ che teachings, The Mahā Akaśa Kārikā. Observations on how these Kārikās move through Tibetan history will shed light on the development of the so-called “Old” (rNying ma) and “New” (gSar ma) traditions of Buddhism in Tibet, and on the concerns of one early gSar ma reformer, Pho brang Zhi ba ‘od. This, in turn, will provide insights into some of the earliest source literature of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Kun byed rgyal po and the bSam gtan mig sgron.

This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the early decades of the twentieth century. This was an era of flourishing scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools in Eastern Tibet, especially the rNying-ma and Sa-skya. It was also a period when a supposed non-sectarian (ris med) movement occurred. These two developments—in education and intersectarian relations—are at the heart of this inquiry. Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.

Proceedings of panels on Mahamudra and the traditions of the Kagyu orders of Tibetan Buddhism presented at the 2006 International Association of Tibetan Studies seminar.

主编常务副主编霍巍石硕张长虹编辑委员会 ( 以姓氏拼音为序 ) 主席巴桑旺堆（西藏自治区社会科学院）委员才让太（中央民族大学）霍巍（四川大学）石硕（四川大学）沈卫荣（清华大学）熊文彬（四川大学）张云（中国藏学研究中心）多吉旺秋（德国汉堡大学）范德康（美国哈佛大学）马休·凯普斯坦 ( 法国巴黎高等研究实践学院、美国芝加哥大学 ) 滕华睿（美国纽约哥伦比亚大学）谢萧（法国巴黎高等研究实践学院）编辑陈波嘎尔让华青道尔杰（张延清）许渊钦杨清凡玉珠措姆（金红梅）张长虹编务孙昭亮 Editors-in-chief Huo Wei, Shi Shuo Deputy Editor-in-chief Zhang Changhong Editorial Board Pasang Wangdu (Chair, Tibetan Academy of Social Science, China) Tsering Thar (Minzu University of China) Huo Wei (Sichuan University, China) Shi Shuo (Sichuan University, China) Shen Weirong (Tsinghua University, China) Xiong Wenbin (Sichuan University, China) Zhang Yun (China Tibetology Research Center) Dorji Wangchuk (Hamburg University, Germany) van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. (Harvard University, U.S.A.) Kapstein, Matthew T. (École Pratique des Hautes Études, France; University of Chicago, U.S.A.) Tuttle, Gray (Columbia University, U.S.A) Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina A. (École Pratique des Hautes Études, France) Editors Chen Bo, Gaerrang, Pelchan Dorje (Zhang Yanqing), Xu Yuanqin, Yang Qingfan, Yudru Tsomu (Jin Hongmei), Zhang Changhong Editorial Assistant Sun Zhaoliang 目录西藏墨竹工卡县孜孜荣岩画调查简报 …………………………………… 何伟 / 1 从出土动物遗存看岷江上游战国秦汉时期生业方式的变化 ……… 何锟宇 / 22 造型与技法 ——笈多艺术对中土佛像的影响 …………………………………… 李崇峰 / 33 青海省文物考古研究所收藏吐蕃石刻的释读与研究 …………………………………………………… 夏吾卡先肖永明李骥源 / 50 从敦煌藏文文书 P.T.1189《肃州府主司徒致河西节度天大王书状》看晚唐五代肃州地区的部族及其与周边关系 ……………………… 陆离 / 62 鸟面僧人与新密传承的开端（第二部分）（英文）…………………… 范德康 / 86 藏族素食主义的宗派性特征（英文）………………………………… 杨先加 / 128 两金川土司军事力量初探（1771—1776）…………………………… 张闶 / 153 还俗活佛的传记书写：以康区东谷寺第八世东科夏仲活佛为中心 ………………………………………………………………………… 谢光典 / 170 1 施拉君特怀特兄弟的喜马拉雅之行：德国第一次西藏考察及其影响 ………………………………………………………………………… 赵光锐 / 184 《续部总集》的编纂及其曼荼罗 ……………………………………… 张雅静 / 197 英文档案所见“西藏友好代表团”史实新考 ——兼论二战结束前后英印政府的对藏策略 ……………………… 李沛容 / 210 藏区寺院组织在生态保护和社区发展中的作用 ——以青海果洛夏日乎寺班玛仁拓为例 ( 英文 ) ………………… 华旦才让 / 224 摘要 ………………………………………………………………………………… / 246 2 Table of Contents A Preliminary Archaeological Report on the Tsi tsi rong Petroglyphs in Mal dro gung dkar County, Tibet 1 He Wei Unearthed Animal Remains and Subsistence in the Upper Reaches of the Minjiang River during the Period of the Warring States and Qin-Han Dynasties 22 He Kunyu Modeling and Technique —— Buddhist Art of the Gupta Period and its Impact on Mediaeval China 33 Li Chongfeng A Preliminary Study of the Stone Inscriptions Collected in the Qinghai Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 50 Shawo Khacham, XiaoYongming, Li Jiyuan The Tribes in the Suzhou Area and their Relationship with the Neighboring Areas during the Late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties in the Dunhuang Tibetan Document P.T.1189, a Letter from Fuzhu Situ in Suzhou to Hexi Jiedu Tiandawang 62 Lu Li The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition: Part Two 86 Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp The Sectarian Formation of Tibetan Vegetarianism: Identifying the First Polemic on Meat-eating in Tibetan Literature 128 Yangxian Jia (Nyangshem Gyal) 3 A Preliminary Analysis of the Military Power of Two Jinchuan Chieftains (1771— 1776) 153 Zhang Kang All is Karma: the Secular Writing of Ngag dbang mdo rgyud yon tan rab rgyas 170 Xie Guangdian The Travels of the Schlagintweit Brothers in Himalayas: The First German Scientific Investigation in Tibet 184 Zhao Guangrui A Survey of the Compilation of Rgyud sde kun btus and its Maṇḍalas 197 Zhang Yajing A New Examination of the “Tibetan Goodwill Mission” from the Perspective of the British Archives —— a Case of the British-Indian Government’s Strategy of Tibet Before and After the End of World War II 210 Li Peirong The Role of Tibetan Monastic Organizations in Conservation and Development: A Case Study of Shar 'od Monastery in Golok, China. 224 Palden Tsering Abstracts 4 246 The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp Abstract: Part One of this essay was published in a volume commemorating my friend Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal, Tibetan Genealogies. Studies in Memoriam of Guge Tsering Gyalpo (1961–2015), ed. G. Hazod and Shen Weirong (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, 2018: 403-450). There I introduced the newly recovered and published work on the main corpora of tantric literature and its classification, etc. that was written by Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po (958–1055), who, in a variety of prophetic passages, is also known as the "bird-faced monk" (dge slong bya'i gdong can).1 That portion of my essay consisted of three parts: A lengthy preamble, [1] A survey of Rin chen bzang po's biographies, his exant writings, and the environment in which he worked, [2] his classification of Buddhist tantric literature, and [3] the question of spurious tantras and allegedly questionable religious practices during the eleventh century. In this, the second part of the essay, I study two passages from his Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam bzhag, Exposition of the Tantras that are cited by Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1552–1624). I first began working on these fragments some seven years ago and thus well before the text of his Exposition had come to my attention. With the publication of the Lo tsā ba's Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam bzhag, the wonderful world of the 1 86 The nick-name "bird-faced monk" (dge slongbya'i gdong can) occurs in the translator's colophon of the translation of the *Āryavajrapāṇinīlāmbaradharavajrapātālatantra, for which see BKA', vol. 87: 510. Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po (958–1055) is no doubt the person behind that name. What lies behind the abbrviations that are used in this article can be found on the last page. karma of publishing and tbrc.org has now made it possible for my essay to be a bit more comprehensive, and it concludes with an appendix that consists of a title list of tantras that belong to the four classes of tantric literature that Rin chen bzang po distinguished at the end of his work. Ter nagedachtenis van Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. IV. On two Quotations on the meaning of tantra from Rin chen bzang po's Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam bzhag Let us now first fast forward some five and a half centuries from the era of Rin chen bzang po to a certain Lha rje Blo gros bzang po who, it turns out, must be identified as Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, a scholar and physician whose many writings on a wide variety of subjects go a long way in informing us of the interest he took in old and rare manuscripts and in pursuing fairly unusual topics of inquiry.2 Among them is a rather sophisticated treatise that he had written in 1576 at the astonishing age of twenty-four.3 In this work, he goes to great lengths defending the doctrinal authenticity and the orthopractical and experiential integrity of 2 3 For him, see J.D. Gentry, Substance and Sense: Objects of Power in Life, Writings and Legacy of the Tibetan Ritual Master Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, unpublished Harvard University doctoral dissertation (Cambridge, MA, 2014), and now his truly outstanding Power Object in Tibetan Buddhism: The Life, Teachings, and Legacy of Sokdokpa Lodrö Gyeltsen, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2016. SOG1, 171 [= SOG2, 143; SOG3, 145]. He wrote this work in Bsam gtan gling monastery, in Mon yul, that is, in Bum thang, in present day Bhutan. The editor/publisher of SOG2 dated this work to 1636 ['dzin byed kyi lo = me mo byi] in the table of contents. Writing in 1605, Sog bzlog pa himself stated in his Chos kyi rjes su brang ba dag la gtam du bya ba legs bshad bdud rtsi'i dga' ston [in the Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra], in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. I, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 599 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims, Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997: 337, 339], that he had completed this work at the age of twenty-four, so that he must have finished it in the me mo byi-year of the previous sexagenary cycle, that is, in 1576. SOG1, 171-173; SOG 3, 145, have a printer's colophon by Gzhan phan chos kyi blo gros who states that the printing blocks of Sog bzlog pa's work were carved by order of a certain 'Jam pa'i rdo rje at Bstan gnyis dar rgyas gling monastery, alias Zhe chen monastery. Gzhan phan chos kyi blo gros is better known as Zhe chen Rgyal tshab IV 'Gyur med Padma rnam rgyal (1872–1926). 87 the texts, ideas and practices of the Old School (rnying ma).4 Standing as a proleptic testimony to his later success in excavating rare books from their places of hiding, this piece was not even his first foray into the world of scholarship, for in it he already refers to his own treatise on the stages of the spiritual path (lam rim). That the Lha rje must actually be identified as Sog bzlog pa is evidenced by the fact that this work is listed in the catalog of his collected oeuvre and that he signed this very name to his replies to queries that had been raised much earlier by Gter ston Ratna gling pa (1403–1479) in response to a request by Shākya rab 'phel, who like Sog bzlog pa, had been a disciple of Gter ston Zhig po gling pa (1524–1583). Indeed, Sog bzlog pa was the author of a very informative biography of this rather controversial "treasuretext revealer" (gter ston) whose fame also included being a great "repeller of Mongols" (sog bzlog pa).5 Finally, he also signs himself as Gdong dkar 'Tsho byed Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, where 'tsho byed, "healer," implies the same thing as lha rje.6 "Blo gros bzang po" is thus an abbreviation of "Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po." To what extent he really was a practising physician is unclear. Writing a disquisition on the problems surrounding the authorship of the medical text of the Rgyud bzhi, he concluded his little, learned tract by saying7: bdag gi[s] rgyud bzhi'i tshig don mi shes kyang // g.yu thog sangs rgyas dngos kyi rnam thar dang // brgyud pa'i lo rgyus gtam bzang rnar chags pas // ji bzhin smras pa'i spobs pa thob phyir bkod // Though I do not understand the categories of the Rgyud bzhi, Since the good news, the story of G.yu thog, an actual buddha, and, 4 5 6 7 88 SOG1, 8, 99 [= SOG2, 8, 85; SOG3, 95, 126]. Shortly after the response to the first query, in SOG1, 12-13 [= SOG2, 11-12; SOG3, 96], he cites a fairly little-known letter Sha gad Lo tsā ba – his full name was Yar 'brog Sha gad Lo tsā ba Shes rab bzang po - sent to Dar ma rgyal mtshan (1237–1305), alias Bcom ldan [rig{s} pa'i] ral gri, concerning what must have been a rare Sanskrit manuscript of the Guhyagarbhatantra. Dpa' bo II Gtsug lag phreng ba (1504–1566) also refers to this encounter and to the Lo tsā ba having sent him the manuscript; see his Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, vol. 1, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986: 538. See, respectively, the Gsung 'bum gyi tho byang, in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. I, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 3, and the Dri ba rnam par rgyal ba'i dris lan lung rig[s] 'byung gnas, in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. II, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 145-189. See his Rdzogs chen pa sprul sku zhig po gling pa gar gyi dbang phyug rtsal gyi skyes rabs rags bsdus dang rnam thar, in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. I, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 109. See his Rgyud bzhi'i bka' [b]sgrub nges don snying po, in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. II, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 241. Samten G. Karmay made use of this work in his "The Four Tibetan Medical Treatises and their Critics," in The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 2009: 229-237. The chronology of its line of transmission, Has come to my ear, I write because I have acquired the courage of speaking exactly what is the case. We also gather from the catalog of his writings that he had even written a biography of G.yu thog Yon tan mgon po, whom he believed to have been contemporaneous with Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147–1216) and whom he believed to have been the author of the Rgyud bzhi. No trace of this work has been found so far. The literary activity of writing biographies of G.yu thog seems to have been in the air for reasons that may be connected to the somewhat earlier publication of the circa 1546 Grwa thang xylograph of the Rgyud bzhi by Zur mkhar ba. Sog bzlog pa's junior contemporary 'Ja' tshon snying po (1585–1656) had also composed a biography of G.yu thog and these were important precedents for the much more influential and thus the better-known biographies of the so-called elder and younger G.yu thog that Dar mo Sman rams pa Blo bzang chos grags (1638–after 1697) compiled in 1680.8 What is worth noting is that Sog bzlog pa states at the outset of his defense of the Old School that Rin chen bzang po did not confute the Old School tantric literature in his Sngags log sun 'byin,9 but only took aim at the literal interpretation of the orthopraxis of tantric literature (gsang sngags sgra ji bzhin par spyod pa rnams) as a whole. This is an echo of Gser mdog Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan's (1428–1507) earlier characterization of Rin chen bzang 8 9 For 'Ja' tshon snying po's work, see my "Za hor and Its Contribution to Tibetan Medicine, Part Two: Sources of the Tibetan Medical Tradition," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊 / Bod rig pa'i dus deb/Journal of Tibetology, vol.12, 2015: 64, n.1. An English translation of the biography of "the elder" G.yu thog Yon tan mgon po by way of Dar mo Sman rams pa's edition of the earlier work by G.yu thog Lhun grub bkra shis is of course available in Rechung Rinpoche, Tibetan Medicine, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973: 147–327. The Tibetan texts of the biographies of "the elder" and "the younger" G.yu thog as edited and presented by Dar mo sman rams pa can be found in G.yu thog gsar rnying gi rnam thar, ed. Dbang 'dus, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982: 1-313, 315-348. Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1685) states in his autobiography that he wrote the concluding prayer to the blockprint of this work on May 14, 1680; see Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho'i rnam thar, vol. 3, Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1991: 340. With a good number of rather significant different readings, A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams (1597– 1659) reproduces the relevant Sngags log sun 'byin texts of Pho brang Zhi ba 'od (1016–1111) and 'Gos Lo tsā ba I Khug pa lhas btsas (11thc) in his Jo gdan bla ma mang thos bshes gnyen pas dris lan yid kyi mun sel, in Collected Works, ed. Si khron bod yig dpe rnying myur skyob 'tshol sgrig khang, vol. 40, Lhasa: Bod ljongs dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 2012: 28-32, 32-35. It would seem that he had no access to Rin chen bzang po's work. 89 po's agenda,10 which included the remark that his goal had been to put forth a hermeneutic for the provisional and definitive intent of the Highest Yogatantras and that he did not list the titles of what he considered to be inauthentic (yang dag ma yin pa) tantras, but rather confuted those practices that had taken place on the basis of having taken certain specimen of tantric literature literally by citing passages from the upper two types of tantras, that is, the Yoga- and Highest Yogatantras, and from some Mahayana sutras and authoritative commentaries. All these remarks are borne out by a fifty-two-folio manuscript of what is purportedly his Sngags log sun 'byin, that Dr. Sha bo Mkha' byams kindly made available to me a few months ago. Indeed, the main thrust of this work involves a detailed explication of the way in which the antinomial expressions found especially but not exclusively in the Guhyasamājatantra literature ought not be taken literally (sgra ji bzhin pa). And much later this very feature is also indicated by Mkhas dbang Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569–1645) where he states that Rin chen bzang po mainly (gtso bor) dealt with this subject in his work.11 But once again, we are confronted with a problem. 'Gos Lo tsā ba II Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481) refers to what he calls Rin chen bzang po's Sngags log sun 'byin in his 1472 study of difficult passages in the Kālacakra corpus. He points out that while Rin chen bzang po cites severally from the corpus, he did not fully translate it at the time.12 This was of course left to Paṇḍita Śrībhadrabodhi and Gyi jo Lo tsā ba Zla ba'i 'od zer. But the problem with 'Gos Lo tsā ba II's remark is that the manuscript of the Sngags log sun 'byin that is currently available not once cites passages from the Kālacakra corpus. As is indicated by the title of Sog bzlog pa's work, it consists of a series of replies to 10 For what follows, see his Le'u gsum pa rig 'dzin sdom pa'i skabs kyi 'bel gtam rnam par nges pa, in Collected Works, vol. 7, Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2013: 144-145. To be sure, as is evident from his Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, 509-538, 538-541, Sog bzlog pa was most probably familiar with this work as well as undoubtedly with Gser mdog Paṇ chen's undated reply to Bya pa Skal bzang chos kyi rgya mtsho'i sde who had sent him a letter apropos of queries of the above treatise. This letter was titled or subtitled Dogs gcod kyi yi ge legs bshad sgo dbye and Gser mdog Paṇ chen's undated response to it was his Gser gyi thur ma las brtsams pa'i dogs gcod kyi 'bel gtam rab gsal rnam nges sam nges don rab gsal, in Collected Works, vol. 17, Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2013: 375-410. 11 See the afterword of his untitled inquiry into problematic doctrines and works of ambiguous provenance that is contained in his Collected Works, vol. V, Kathmandu: Acarya Shedup Tenzin, 1995: 593. Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub (1456–1532) appears to cite this work in his undated Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i dris lan lung gi tshad ma 'khrul spong dgongs rgyan, in Dpal sa skya'i sdom gsum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 7, ed. Si khron bod yig dpe rnying bsdu sgrig khang (Chengdu: ?, ?), 153: …'jig rten las 'das pa'i rig pa'i mdo zhes bya ba'i rgyud kyang…gso sbyong bshad ces grag ces 'byung bas nag gso sbyong yin no zhes gsungs so //. However, the text of this quotation is not found in the manuscript. Glo bo Mkhan chen's title suggests that it is a nod to Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge's (1429–1489) 1476 response, subtitled Sdom gsum 'khrul spong, to the series of controversial questions Gser mdog Paṇ chen had posed concerning Sa skya Paṇḍita's Sdom gsum rab tu dbye ba. 12 See the Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i dka' 'grel snying po'i don rab tu gsal ba'i rgyan,?Pho brang Rgyal bzang smon mkhar xylograph, 2b. 90 queries (dris lan) – some fourteen of these are isolated in the New Delhi manuscript by means of an ornamental Rin spungs shad13 - in a work that he took to have been the Karma pa VIII's directive (chab shog) to adherents of the Old School.Unfortunately, he provides few details about the circumstances under which this directive was written - indeed, he may not have known much about these - and its highly contentious if not inflammatory content, except towards the end where he apparently recorded its colophon. There it was stated, among other things, that the Karma pa had written it in Central Tibet in a rat (byi ba) year. More about this will follow below. There was at least one earlier reaction to this directive. 'Dul 'dzin Mkhyen rab rgya mtsho had already responded to this very same work in the fire-serpent year, that is, in 1557. Calling himself a Sngags 'chang, a tantric practitioner, this native from G.yag sde in Rtsang [= Gtsang] rong or simply Rong14 states that he had composed his highly learned treatise at the behest of Ngag dbang kun dga' chos 'byor, an erstwhile disciple of the Karma pa himself and the abbot of the Tshogs sde dge 'dun sgang religious community, as well as at the behest of the then governor of Yar rgyab principality that is located in what is present-day Grwa nang.15 He also writes that he had taken his inspiration from the writings of Zla ba grags pa, a close disciple of Ratna gling pa, Gter ston Bsam gtan gling pa, Padma brtse ba chen po – the Bhutanese manuscript has the correct Sman rtse ba chen po16 -, Mkhas grub Sna tshogs rang grol, and one whose name includes Śrī, that is, Dpal.17 Now contrary to Sog bzlog pa's contribution, which is a systematic response to some of the issues that were raised in the letter, 'Dul 'dzin's work exhibits none of these features. With seventeen sections (tshoms) in all, the first thirteen sections consist of an introduction 13 SOG1, 5-153 [= SOG2, 4-128; SOG3, 93-140]. SOG1, 153-161 and 161-169 [= SOG2, 128-134 and 135-141; SOG3, 140-142 and 142-144] contain, respectively, reflections on the treasure-text (gter ma) traditions and the Karma pa hierarchs and their earlier re-embodiments. 14 See 'DUL1, 303, 380, 390 [= 'DUL2, 404, 491, 504]. He is probably the same Mkhyen rab rgya mtsho who is noted as a Sngags 'chang in 'Brug chen IV Padma dkar po's (1525–1592) autobiography; see his Sems dpa' chen po padma dkar po'i rnam thar thugs rje chen po'i zlos gar, in Collected Works, vol. 3, Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1973: 461. 15 For what follows, see 'DUL1, 83-84, 610-611 [='DUL2, 118-121, 773]. For the early history of the Tshogs sde dge 'dun sgang community, see J. Heimbel, "The Jo gdan tshogs sde bzhi: An Investigation into the History of the Four Monastic Communities in Śākyaśrībhadra's Vinaya Tradition," in Nepalica-Tibetica. Festgabe für Christoph Cüppers, Band 1, ed. F.-K. Ehrhard and P. Maurer, Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2013: 215 ff.For Yar rgyab, see now M. Fermer, "Putting Yar rgyab on the Map," in Fifteenth Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest, ed. V. Caumanns and M. Sernesi, Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2017: 63-96. 16 'DUL1, 379 [= 'DUL2, 490] registers a certain Rgyal dbang rje Sman rtse Chos rje Bsam grub rgyal po as an erstwhile disciple of Ratna gling pa. 17 This may refer to Don grub legs pa dpal 'bar whom he characterizes as one of his principal teachers in 'DUL1, 296 [= 'DUL2, 387]. 91 to Buddhism and its historical development in India together with a detailed account of the rise and spread of the Old School's Word (bka' ma) and Treasure-text (gter ma) traditions and their respective exponents. Section thirteen includes a survey of the gter ma traditions that flourished among some important members of the New School, that is, especially among the Bka' brgyud school. The actual response to the issues addressed in what was allegedly the Karma pa's tract only begins at section fifteen, that is, at more than half way through the text, at the fourth rubric (spyi don bzhi pa) – read "the first rubric" - and 'Dul 'dzin uses the format of first presenting the issue at hand which he then follows up with a detailed reply.18 This section contains some twenty-one problems areas in as many such "rubrics." It would appear that Sog bzlog pa was not familiar with 'Dul 'dzin's treatise, at least I have not detected any evidence that he might have known it. Lastly, Lho pa Bya bral, "the last/lowestdisciple" of Padma gling pa (1450–1521), also penned a response to the alleged work of the Karma pa in a hare-year, meaning either in 1555 or, perhaps less likely, some duodenary cycle thereafter, while in [Ri ngogs] Dar rgyas chos gling.19 The preface suggests that he may be identified as Don grub legs pa dpal 'bar whose name 'Dul 'dzin prefixes with the epithet Lho pa Thams cad mkhyen pa and of whom he states that he was in fact a disciple of Padma gling pa.20 If that were the case, then Lho pa Bya bral may indeed have written his work as early as 1555! Sometime in 1550 or 1551, Rin chen phun tshogs chos kyi rgyal po (1508–1557), the seventeenth abbot of 'Bri gung monastery, traveled south and met with an assortment of Padma gling pa's disciples in Bu tshal/Bsam yas. His biographer Rin chen dpal styles one of these Chos rje Lho pa who had come with his students to see Rin chen phun tshogs chos kyi rgyal po from Dar rgyas chos sdings in Kong po, and he may very well be our Lho pa Bya bral.21 Neither 'Dul 'dzin nor Sog bzlog pa refers to his work, which dispenses with a thick scholarly apparatus of the likes of 'Dul 'dzin, and Lho pa Bya bral in turn does not mention either one. However, at one point he cites a certain Rje Zhig po.22 It is indeed tempting to identify him as Zhig po gling pa, one of Sog bzlog pa's masters, which 18 'DUL1, 436-568. Since "the fourth rubric" is followed on p. 448 by spyi don gnyis pa, "the second rubric," after which we have "the third rubric" on p. 452, etc., there is a problem of ambiguity until we realize that "the fourth rubric" points back to an earlier enumeration of topics and has nothing to do with the enumeration of the issues that G.yag sde 'Dul 'dzin addresses in this section. However, 'DUL1, 504-507, rubric twelve is followed by rubric fourteen, and 'DUL1, 512, has the next rubric fourteen! 'DUL2, 651, 659, have the very same problem. 19 See his Rgyal ba'i dbang po karma pas rnying ma pa la dri ba chab shog tu gnang ba'i dri len chos dbyings 'od gsal, Delhi: National Library of Bhutan, 1985. 20 See 'DUL1, 387-388 [= 'DUL2, 501-502], 'Dul 'dzin records him as the one who transmitted to him the Dgongs pa kun 'dus and other precepts via Padma gling pa. 21 See Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa'i rnam par thar pa dad ldan gdung ba sel ba'i bdud rtsi, Bir: Bir Tibetan Society, 1985: 397. 22 Rgyal ba'i dbang po karma pas rnying ma pa la dri ba chab shog tu gnang ba'i dri len chos dbyings 'od gsal, 6. 92 would possibly make him Sog bzlog pa's senior contemporary. But this is mere speculation. But surprise, surprise, it now turns out that the Karma pa was not the author of this circular letter at all! Rather, the available evidence suggests that the author was an interloper who, apparently intent on creating intersectarian trouble for reasons so far only known to him, had circulated his tract using the Karma pa's name as its author!23 At least this is what the Karma pa himself stated in his reaction to this letter, which essentially begins with him calling the author a fraud, a liar, and an ignoramus with low insight (shes rab dman pa), although he does set the stage by opening his work with a brief introduction to the bona fide Old and New School critiques such as those written by Rin chen bzang po, and 'Gos Lo tsā ba I. Reading the Karma pa's reaction it is clear that the anonymous author was not altogether at home in either the Old or the New School. Indeed, the Karma pa systematically demolishes those passages in this circular that he considered to be seriously illconceived and doctrinally wanting. There is also one instance where he comments on a point made by the author which, he says, would not merely be a tall tale for him, but also for someone like Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357– 1419), thereby perhaps suggesting that he suspected that the writer was possibly a member of the Dge ldan pa, that is, the Dge lugs pa school.24 And this raises a host of other questions that cannot be addressed here. The Karma pa's work consists of two parts.25 The first is the longest by far and is directed squarely against well over forty statements made by the author of the fraudulent open letter, whereas the second summarizes some of his own reservations with the Old School that we have partly encountered in the texts to which S.G. Karmay had already drawn our attention26 as well as in his enormous commentary on 'Jig rten mgon po's Dgongs gcig precepts. The first item that is discussed by the Karma pa is the letter's colophon where the author had identified himself as the Karma pa. The interloper had written the following27: 23 This does throw a slight wrench in D. Higgins' assumption that the Karma pa was indeed its author in his otherwise fine study; see his The Philosophical Foundations of Classical Rdzogs chen in Tibet. Investigating the Distinction between Dualistic Mind (rnam shes) and Primordial Knowledge (ye shes), in Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 78, Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2013: 213 ff. 24 See MI1, 74 [= MI2, 403]. The Karma pa uses the term Dge ldan pa in MI1, 101 [= MI2, 477]. 25 MI1, 55-100, 100-104 [= MI2, 351-473, 473-486]. For what it is worth, the catalog of the Tibetan collection of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing listed a manuscript of this work in fifty-six folios under no. 003878(8). 26 The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism, Leiden: Brill, 2007: 180-182, 188, 195, 230. 27 For all the following three passages from the Karma pa's work, see MI1, 55 [= MI2, 353]. The more or less corresponding passages for the first [1a] and third [2a] of these in 'Dul 'dzin's work can be found in 'DUL1, 564, 437-438 [= 'DUL2, 716, 564], and in SOG1, 164, 5 [= SOG2, 137, 4-5; SOG3, 143, 93]. Passage [1] is absent from Lho pa Bya bral's work, but passage [2a] can be found in his Rgyal ba'i dbang po karma pas rnying ma pa la dri ba chab shog tu gnang ba'i dri len chos dbyings 'od gsal, 3-4. 93 [1a] karma pas / te gro bla ma rdzogs chen pa grags ldan la bzlo ba…byi ba lo hor zla brgyad pa'i yar ngo la snye mor bris pa dge bar gyur cig / Proclaimed by the Karma pa to the well-known Rdzogs chen Lama in Te gro… composed in Snye mo during the moon's waxing period of the eighth lunar hormonth of the rat-year; may there be happiness! All this was a rather unpleasant hoax; Mi bskyod rdo rje writes: [1b] de yang shing pho byi ba'i lo snye mor bdag bsdad pa'i dus der te gro na rdzogs chen pa'i bla ma grags ldan su yang med pa'i phyir de la bzlo yig byas so zhes pa ni skur 'debs kyi rdzun chen por snang ngo // Now, because there was not any well-known lama who was an adherent of Rdzogs chen in Te gro when I was staying in Snye mo in the wood-male-rat year [sic], to say that I issued a proclamation (bzlo yig) to him appears to be a great slanderous lie. To be sure, the reading "wood-male-rat year" presents us with a problem, since no such year occurred in the Karma pa's lifetime; the two most proximate wood-male-rat years were, roughly, 1504 and 1564! If he had originally written "rat year,"which a later editor changed to the wood-male-rat year, then we have the following options: 1516, 1528, 1540, or 1552. I think we can easily dispense with the first one. And this leaves 1528, 1540, or 1552.Taking his biography by his contemporary Dpa' bo II in hand, we learn from an entry – it is placed between 1548 and 1554- that 1552 or the water-male-rat year must indeed have been the year in question.28 What is more, we also learn from him that the Karma pa had written his response while he was a guest of the ruler of Yar rgyab,who was probably the same one at whose request 'Dul 'dzin had composed his reply some five years later and three years after the Karma pa's passing. It is therefore remarkable, and I am unable to explain this away, that 'Dul 'dzin makes no mention of the fact that the Karma pa may not have been the author of this letter! But he 28 Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po, vol. 2: 1295, 1297. J. Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa's Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal, unpublished University of the West of England doctoral dissertation, Bristol, 2008: 144-145, n. 181, suggests that it was written in 1553, an ox-year. My thanks go out to J. Rheingans for sharing his dissertation with me. We find the same in his The Eighth Karmapa’s Life and His Interpretation of the Great Seal, A Religious Life and Instructional Texts in Historical and Doctrinal Contexts, in Hamburg Buddhist Studies, vol. 7, Bochum/ Freiburg: project verlag, 2017: 106. 94 does apparently cite the colophon in its entirety, which began with: yang rnying ma'i gang zag 'dris chung bar 'dug pas [/] rtogs dka' bar dgongs te [/] snyan dngags [ngag] dang mngon brjod dang sdebs sbyor sogs kyis [kyi] ma bsgrib [sgribs] par [/]'bol rtsom du bgyis [gyis] pa 'di legs par brtags te lan ldon ['don] par gyis shig / a a The text in brackets indicates the variant readings found on p. 716 of the Bhutanese ms. Furthermore, considering that [my work] is difficult to comprehend by an Old School person who had trivial questions, do properly investigate and issue a response to this easy read that is not obscured by ornate poetry, poetic diction, prosody, etc.! And we find the very same line in Sog bzlog pa's work. Thus, we may conclude that 'Dul 'dzin and Sog bzlog pa might have taken their cue from the remarks of the Karma pa's colophon and accordingly proceeded to take issue with the anonymous author's critical statements about the Old School. But this would create other problems. The second of the forty or so problematic remarks by the anonymous author that immediately follows the above and the Karma pa's first comment is: [2a] yang yi ge der / rnal 'byor gyi theg pa zhes bris gda' ba / bod 'dir grags pa'i gsung rab rnams su theg pa gsum las rnal byor gyi theg pa zhes mi 'byung bas brda' la rmongs pa'o // Further, the expression "the yoga vehicle" figures in that document; since, apart from the three vehicles, "the yoga vehicle" does not occur in the scriptures that are known in this Tibet, the author was deluded about the expression. Comparing the Karma pa's text of [2a] with the corresponding ones in 'Dul 'dzin, Lho pa Bya bral, and Sog bzlog pa, we notice that he abbreviated the passages of the text with which he took issue. And many of the actual entries of the author's opinion about sundry doctrinal niceties elicited from the Karma pa a number of choice expressions to the effect that what the fraud had said "merely shows that he himself is the bigger fool" (rang nyid ches blun po'o zhes ston par zad de) or that his statement was "a grand confused tale" ('chal gtam chen po), to list but two of them.29 29 MI1, 70, 95 [= MI2, 392, 460]. 95 There is no question that Sog bzlog pa had the very same text in mind that the Karma pa himself had criticized earlier. The same holds for 'Dul 'dzin and Lho pa Bya bral. And I believe we can also accept that the Karma pa had written this work that was ever so critical of the interloper's piece, if only because it is registered in the earliest catalog of his writings, namely, the one that was compiled by his disciple Zhwa dmar V Dkon mchog yan lag (1525–1583).30 Towards the end of his treatise, Sog bzlog pa cites a directive (chab shog) that the Karma pa had apparently sent to Ngag dbang bkra shis grags pa rgyal mtshan (1488–1564), the Phag mo gru ruler whose court was located in Sne'u gdong– the Phag mo gru nominally ruled over Central Tibet during this time –, in which he had allegedly stated the following31: deng sang dbu ru byang phyogs rgyud 'di na // gter bton lcang lo can sogs bdud sprul gyis[read: 'gas]// At present, in this Dbu ru, region in the north, Demonic re-embodiments such as the treasure-revealer Lcang lo can.... No friend of the Bka' brgyud pa school as a whole for a variety of politico-historical reasons, Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682) cites these same two lines in his 1666 catalog of Rje btsun Bsam gtan gling pa's A ti'i chos skor cycle of esoteric instructions.32 He quotes these first and foremost in the context of the Karma pa having, in his opinion, falsely accused G.yung ston Rdo rje dpal (1287–1365) for manufacturing a fake copy of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Guhyagarbhatantra from the Kathmandu Valley, that he had written the lines contra Gter ston Lcang lo can, and that he had thus belittled (zur za 30 See the text in the Karma pa's oeuvre, the Rgyal ba thams cad kyi ye shes kyi sku rnam pa thams cad pa'i thugs can karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje bzhad pa'i gsung 'bum gyi dkar chag, in Collected Works, vol. 1, ed. Karma Bde legs, Lhasa: 2004: 10, and also the manuscript of the same in Zhwa dmar V, in Selected Works, vol. 2, Gangtok: Dzongsar Chhentse Labrang, 1974: 210. A history of the Karma pa's writings and their printing is found in Rheingans, The Eighth Karmapa’s Life and His Interpretation of the Great Seal, A Religious Life and Instructional Texts in Historical and Doctrinal Contexts, 43 ff. 31 SOG1, 164 [= SOG2, 137; SOG3, 143]. The recently published edition of the Karma pa's oeuvre contains two such directives; see the *Dpon sa gong ma la gnang ba'i chab shog zhal yig tshigs bcad du yod pa and the Sne gdong rtse chag shog, in Collected Works, vol. 3, ed. Karma Bde legs, Lhasa: 2004: 63-65, 102-111. The Karma pa also wrote a very interesting guide to good governance for the Sne'u gdong court; see Bod rgyal po chen po'i rgyal thabs kyi mdzad pa gtam du byas pa sne'u gdong rgyal po la gnang bar in po che'i phreng ba, in Collected Works, vol. 3, ed. Karma Bde legs, Lhasa: 2004: 43-58. 32 For what follows, see his Rje btsun bsam gtan gling pa'i a ti'i chos skor gyi dkar chag theg mchog rin cen do shal, in Collected Works, vol. 27, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009: 591, 594-595. 96 ba) Rin chen phun tshogs chos kyi rgyal po, the re-embodiment of Lha sras Rgyal po, that is, Mu tig btsan po (ca. 800), one of the sons of king Khri srong lde btsan.33 Lcang lo can is the name of a small private chamber atop the Mi 'gyur rdo rje palace of 'Bri gung monastery. Also known as Gter ston Gnam lcags me 'bar, the treasure revealer is none other than Rin chen phun tshogs, who had unearthed such revelatory literature as the Dam chos dgongs pa yang zab cycle at Lcang lo can in circa 1540–1543. Evidently, Dalai Lama V's source for the above wasa comment the Karma pa had made in connection with the text in his huge exegesis of the Dgongs gcig cycle.34 G.yung ston himself made no mention of his alleged connection with such a Sanskrit manuscript in his admittedly brief autobiography that largely consists of a record of the instructions he had received from his teachers.35 But he was already criticized by 'Bri gung Dpal 'dzin for what the Dalai Lama V had alleged; the former had written36: g.yung ston rdo rje dpal zhes pas // 'phangs med gser gyi me tog dang // gsang ba snying po'i rgya dpe bcas // bu ston rin chen grub la phul // 'gyur bcos mdzad cing rgyud 'bum du // bzhugs par gsol ba btab pa'i tshe // 33 Dalai Lama V devotes one entire section on him [and 'Bri gung Rig 'dzin Chos kyi grags pa's (1595–1659)] revelations in his 1680 record of teachings received, for which see his Zab pa dang rgya che ba'i dam pa'i chos kyi thob yig gangā'i chu rgyun, in Collected Works, vol. 4, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009: 168-184. His activities as a treasure-text revealer have been summarized in Gu ru Bkra shis' 1807–1809 Gu bkra'i chos 'byung, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po, Xining: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1990: 541-544. 34 See, respectively, his Zab pa dang rgya che ba'i dam pa'i chos kyi thob yig gangā'i chu rgyun, in Collected Works, vol. 4, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying 'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009: 299, and p. 975 of the text of complicated origins in the Karma pa's Collected Works, vol. 4, ed. Karma Bde legs, Lhasa: 2004: 885-1139. 35 For a discussion of a portion of his life that is based on his autobiography, see the fine essay by Xie Guangdian 謝光典 , "Yongdun duo'erzhibande yuanting zhixing - yiqi zizhuan wei zhongxin 雍敦朵兒只班的元廷之行 —— 以其自传為中心 [Autobiography of g.Yung ston rDo rJe dPal ba (1287–1365): A Tibetan Buddhist at the Mongolian Court (as per p. 259)]," in Xiyu lishi yuyan yanjiu jikan 西域历史语言研究集刊 /Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions, no. 7, ed. Shen Weirong, Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2014: 243-259. See also my forthcoming "A Tibetan Magus at the Yuan Court of Külüg Qaγan (Wuzong Emperor): The Case of G.yung ston Rdo rje dpal bzang po (1287–1365)". 36 See his Chos dang chos ma yin rnam par dbye ba'i bstan bcos, tbrc.org, W1CZ885, 27b. The text quoted in Sog bzlog pa, Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, 394 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims, 134] shows a few minor different readings. 97 rgya dpe brdzun mar des rig nas // gsol ba gsan du ma bzhed do // One called G.yung ston Rdo rje dpal, Offered Bu ston Rin chen grub, A golden flower37 without ?preconditions, Along with a Sanskrit manuscript of the Guhyagarbha. When he [= G.yung ston] requested [Bu ston] to emend the translation, And place it [read: bcug] in the Rgyud 'bum collection, [Bu ston] had understood that the Sanskrit manuscript was fraudulent, And did not wish to listen to the request. Sog bzlog pa cites this passage and, saying that this was an occasion for some critical reflection, offered the following rebuttal38: bka' 'bum nang gi dris lan 'gar // gsang ba snying po'i lung mang drangs // a 'grel pa de la thugs gtsigsb che // mkhan chen thar pa lo tsāc ba // gsang ba snying po'i rgyud phyi ma // gsar 'gyur mdzad pad thugs la mnga' // des na gtam 'di bden pae dka' // gal te bu ston mi bzhed kyang // slob dpon padma'i rang 'gyur dang // de rjes paṇ chen bi ma la // gnyagsf ston dznyā na ku mā ras // lo tsā byas te yer par bsgyur // mnga' bdag ral pa can gyi bar // 'di yi bshad bka' shin tu dar // bar du bcom ldan ral gris bsgyur // 37 The "golden flower" is a metaphor for a gift that accompanies a request. 38 Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, 394-395 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims, 134-135]. 98 slad du glo bo lo tsā ba // dpal ldan byang chub zhes byas bsgyur // dus phyis 'bri gung lo tsā ba // nor bu dpal yes bsgyur ba dang // 'di la sgyurg byed lnga tsam byung // de phyirh klani ka rnyed pa med // a b c d e f g h i Delhi, ed.: gsang snying lung 'dren mang po snang // Delhi, ed.: brtsis. Delhi, ed.: tstsha. Delhi, ed.: mdzad pa'ang. Delhi, ed.: par. Delhi, ed.: nyag. Delhi, ed.: 'gyur. Delhi, ed: phyin. Delhi, ed.: glan. In some reply to queries in [Bu ston's]Collected Writings, Many passages of the Guhyagarbha are quoted,39 He greatly valued the commentary [?]. The great scholar Thar pa Lo tsā ba, Translated anew the *Guhyagarbhottaratantra,40 And understood it[s veracity]. Hence, this tale is difficult to be true. Even if Bu ston did not accept it, 39 For this very problematic reference, see my "The Lives of Bu ston Rin chen grub and the Date and Sources of His Chos 'byung," Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 35, 2016: 287-291, and my forthcoming "Did Mar pa Lo tsā ba Chos kyi blo gros ever meet Nāropā? A Propos of Some Conflicting Chronologies," especially n. 13. 40 This is Thar pa gling Lo tsā ba Nyi ma rgyal mtshan (ca.1250–1320), inter alia the erstwhile abbot of Bodhgayā, inter alia the translator of the Mahāsūtra-s – see P. Skilling, tr., The Mahāsūtras. Great Discourses of the Buddha, 2 vols., Oxford: The Pali text Society, 1994, 1997 – and Bu ston's teacher of Sanskrit. See also my "Notes on Jñānamitra's Commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya," in The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners. The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptaton in India, East Asia and Tibet, ed. U.T. Kragh, Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies, 2013: 1409 ff. I am unable to identify the *Guhyagarbhottaratantra. 99 Master Padmasambhava's translation that he did by himself and, Thereafter, Paṇ chen Vimalamitra, Gnyags ston Jñānakumāra [Ye shes gzhon nu], Acted as translators and translated the text in Yer pa. Up to the sovereign Ral pa can (r. ca. 806–838), Its explanation and transmission were widespread. In the meantime, it was translated by Bcom ldan ral gri.41 Again, it was translated by one called Glo bo Lo tsā ba Dpal ldan byang chub.42 Later, it was translated by 'Bri gung Lo tsā ba Nor bu dpal ye shes (1313–1387)43 and, Because some five translations had taken place for it, There was nooutcry [against it]. Much earlier in his work, Dpal 'dzin had preceded this statement by having written something quite similar44: rma ban rin chen mchog zhes byas // gsang ba snying po'i rgyud brtsams pas // rgyal pos gsan nas btsal ba'i tshe // lo grangs bcu gnyis gab ces graga // 41 It may not be quite accurate to say that Bcom ldan ral gri, that is, Dar ma rgyal mtshan, translated the entire tantra, but he did write a study of it; see the Gsang ba snying po rgyan gyi me tog, in Collected Writings, vol. 10, Lhasa: Khams sprul Bsod nams don grub, 2006: 155-192. 42 Glo bo Lo tsā ba Dpal ldan byang chub is an unknown quantity [to me] and his name does not appear in any of the traditional listings of translators nor in Khri Bsam gtan's excellent study, Skad gnyis smra ba'i rin chen bang mdzod, Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005. 43 A brief biography of 'Bri gung Lo tsā ba, one of Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan's (1292–1361) key disciples, can be found in Rigs ldan Rgyal ba Jo nang Dpal bzang po's (1419–1493) collection of biographies of Dol po pa and his main disciples of 1465, the text of which was included in the Dpal ldan dus kyi 'khor lo jo nang pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i rnam thar, ed. Bstan 'dzin phun tshogs, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004: 170-175. I have not seen their purported renditions of the tantra. 44 See his Chos dang chos ma yin rnam par dbye ba'i bstan bcos, tbrc.org, W1CZ885, 4a; see also the Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, 274 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims, 15]. This verse is also cited, with grag, in Gser mdog Paṇ chen's Le'u gsum pa rig 'dzin sdom pa'i skabs kyi 'bel gtam rnam par nges pa, 146. 100 a Chengdu, ed.: grags, "It is known that…." Because one called Rma Ban[de] Rin chen mchog, Had written the Guhyagarbhatantra, It is alleged that, when the king, upon hearing this, looked for it, It was hidden for twelve years.45 Reacting to it, Sog bzlog pa had written something very similar as the passage that I just cited.46 But he adds for good measure that passages of the Guhyagarbhatantra are cited in the Indic commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamāyogatantra by Rgya byin sdong po [*Indranāla] of Uddiyana (8thc.), the Indic study of the Guyasamājottaratantra by Viśvamitra (8thc.), and the Bka' gdams Pha chos, one of the two major sections of the Bka' gdams glegs bam. Already 'Gos Lo tsā ba II had argued that even such an authority as Bu ston had included the first two in his Tanjur and, I hasten to add, he had done so without any reservations about their canonicity.47 Furthermore, he writes that Buddhaguhya's [or: Buddhagupta's] eighth century Lam rnam par bkod pa was written on the basis of this tantra and that such earlier scholars as Chos kyi spyan mnga'[read: snga] ba – his identity is unclear to me -and Bu ston considered the so-called Spar khab commentary by Sgeg pa'i rdo rje [*Vilaśavajra] and the one by Nyi 'od seng ge [*Sūryaprabhasiṃha] to be witnesses (dpang du mdzad) of its authenticity. Both authors appear to have worked in the eighth century. I do not know what Sog bzlog pa may have meant by the latter expression, but Lha bla ma/Pho brang Zhi ba 'od had already questioned the canonicity of this so-called Spar khab.48 In his comments on the history of the controversy surrounding the famous Guhyagarbhatantra and its ultimate vindication as an authentically Indic work in his 1680 record of teachings received, Dalai Lama V first refers to the well known account that Śākyaśrībhadra had obtained a Sanskrit manuscript of this work from while he was staying in Bsam yas and that it subsequently fell into the hands of Snar thang pa Bcom ldan ral gri via the 45 Something like these lines is also found in the 'Byams yig that is attributed to 'Gos Lo tsā ba I; see the Sngags log sun 'byin gyi skor, Thimphu: Kunsang Topgyel and Mani Dorji, 1979: 20-21. 46 Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi lan du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, 275 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims, 15-16]. 47 See, respectively, the Deb gter sngon po/The Blue Annals, repr. L. Chandra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976: 92 [= The Blue Annals, tr. G.N. Roerich, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979: 103], and the Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po'i phreng ba, in Collected Works, Part 26, ed. L. Chandra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971: 454, 468. 48 Karmay, "An Open Letter by Pho brang Zhi ba 'od," in The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 2009: 32. 101 offices of a certain Rta ston Gzi brjid.49 In 1204, Śākyaśrībhadra had been invited to Central Tibet by Khro phu Lo tsā ba Byams pa'i dpal (1174–1237) and the latter's autobiography contains a lengthy account of their travels throughout the area from that time to 1214, when his guest left for Kashmir. Be this as it may, the Karma pa line of re-embodiments had longstanding connections with the Old School, as indicated by Dpa' bo II and as is patently clear from the oeuvre of Karma pa II Karma pakshi (1204–1283) and Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339) and especially by the Karma pa himself. Writing quite a while after the "publication" of this open letter, Sog bzlog pa's testimony may be judged to carry little weight in view of the fact that the Karma pa had already fully and unambiguously disassociated himself from it. A great deal of knowledge in the Tibetan area was local and it is thus throughout possible that he was confused about the authorship of the letter and that, in addition, he was not altogether or directly unfamiliar with the Karma pa's own response. Earlier, I remarked on Sog bzlog pa's antiquarian bent of mind, and this comes again fully into view when we find him citing from a hitherto unknown treatise that we now know was written by Rin chen bzang po, which he titles Rgyud sde spyi rnam[s].50 Although the passages Sog bzlog pa cites from it are, as we will presently see, far from unproblematic, we now know that Rin chen bzang po's work was a general survey of the ritual and doctrinal aspects of the tantric literature that belonged to the Gsar ma, New School, and in all likelihood the very first attempt of a member of the New School avant la lettre at creating some sort of a conceptual structure in the very large number of disparate texts that belong to this genre. Rin chen bzang po's treatise of necessity dealt with the literature involved and the interrelationships that were perceived to exist among what seem to be prima facie distinct and disconnected texts and textual cycles. We do not have any idea how wide Rin chen bzang po cast his net with his survey and, in fact, particular texts are not at issue in the quoted passages. These have also nothing to do with the coinage and use of principles along which the translated literature might be organized or their textual histories. Rather, Sog bzlog pa placed it in the context of his response to the anonymous author's remarks on the term tantra and its different senses of continuity (rgyun chags, *prabandha), linkage ('brel ba, *sambandha), and without incompleteness (ma tshang med pa, *avikala) while stipulating that there are conditions where these three become meaningless (don med).51 Sog bzlog pa does not shed any light on why the anonymous author had questioned these aspects of the term tantra/rgyud and, unfortunately, the Karma pa's own response that followed shortly after he had written this letter is silent about 49 Dalai Lama V, Zab pa dang rgya che ba'i dam pa'i chos kyi thob yig gangā'i chu rgyun, 300-302. 50 SOG1, 45-46 [= SOG2,40; SOG3, 105-106]. 51 SOG1, 43-44 [= SOG2, 38-39; SOG3, 105-106]. 102 it as well.52 Rather, it has to do with the grammatical derivation and the definition of the word tantra (rgyud), here used not in the sense of a literary work, but rather inthe sense of the stream [of consciousness]; Sog bzlog pa's text begins as follows: lo chen rin chen bzang po'i rgyud sde spyi rnam[s] las / ci'i phyir 'di la rgyud ces bya zhe na / rgyud la legs sbyar gyi sgra las / tantra zhes bya te / ta'i sgra las / ni ran tantra zhes 'brel zhing breng chags pas na rgyud te / de yang gzhi sems can gyi dus / lam rnal 'byor gyi dus / 'bras bu sangs rgyas kyi dus gsum gyi sems rgyud 'brel bas na rgyud do // The Rgyud sde spyi rnam of Grand-Translator Rin chen bzang po states: Why is it called rgyud? rgyud is called tantra in the Sanskrit language;53 from the word ta, ni ran, inasmuch as the term tantra links and is continuous (breng chags pa),54 it is rgyud; further, inasmuch as it links the stream of consciousness (sems rgyud, *cittasaṅtāna) of the triad of [1] the foundation of spiritual practice, the occasion of being a sentient being, [2] the path towards liberation, the occasion of meditative practice, and [3] the result, the occasion of enlightenment, it is rgyud. The manuscript of Rin chen bzang po's work reads this passage somewhat differently under the rubric of the "etymology" (nges tshig, *nirukta) of rgyud55: ci'i phyir 'di la rgyud ces bya zhe na / rgyud la legs sbyar gyi sgra las / tantra / zhes bya ste / ta'i sgra las / ni ran ta tantra zhes / 'brel zhing rgyun chags pas na rgyud de /… 52 The location of this and the next passage in Sog bzlog pa's work should have a parallel in MI1 [= MI2], but…it does not. 53 The word tantra derives from √tan meaning continuity, unbroken succession, and tra, which has the sense of protecting. For other explanations, see Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (late 11thc.), Rgyud spyi dngos po gsal bar byed pa'i yi ge, in Gsung thor bu, Collected Works, vol. 2, ed. Bkra shis et al., Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999: 87-88, and Bu ston suggests a different derivation in his Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa rgyud sde rin po che'i mdzes rgyan, in Collected Works, Part 15, repr. L Chandra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1969: 98, where he cites the Dka' 'grel ye shes ldan, that is, Saraha's (?9thc.) commentary on the *Buddhakapālatantra for which, see BSTAN, vol.13: 1167; tantra derives from cetana [read: cetanā] – sems - and traya - skyob pa! 54 The word breng is identified as an archaism (brda rnying) for rgyun in Rnam rgyal tshe ring, Bod yig brda rnying tshig mdzod, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2001: 362. 55 This rubric is contained in RGYUD, 19-20. 103 Why is it called rgyud? rgyud is called tantra in the Sanskrit language, that is, from the word ta, ni ran ta "tantra." Inasmuch as as it links and is continuous, it is tantra… Parenthetically, this is not exactly the explanation of tantra that is given in the late eighth century Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, which defines it merely as continuity (prabandha).56 And Sog bzlog pa continues the quotation by citing two lines of verse from, ostensibly, a/the *Māyājālatantra– it is not found therein! -, which provides three undetermined signifiers (don gsum) for the word "linkage": de la sgyu 'phrul dra ba las / rgyud ces bya ba 'brel ba'i don // don ni rnam pa gsum yin te // zhes so // ces pa dang / In that connection, it is said in a/the *Māyājālatantra: The term tantra has the sense of linkage; The sense is threefold, that is, and... The quotation of the tantra stops in mid-verse, as is indicated by the final quotative zhes so //, without specifying what these three signifiers are. The ces pa and the conjunction dang that follow it are Sog bzlog pa's signal that this portion of the quotation from Rin chen bzang po's text has come to an end. He then continues with the second quote indicated by "further, the very same work states" (yang de nyid las /…ces pa): yang na sems rgyud gsum 'brel zhing breng chags pa de yang ma tshang med par phun sum tshogs pa'i tshul gyis bde blag tu sgrub par nus pa'i brjod bya dang brjod [read: rjod] byed du 'brel ba la bya te / dpal dam tshig gsum bkod pa'i rgyud las / 56 Mie Ishikawa, A Critical Edition of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. An Old and Basic Commentary on the Mahāvyutpatti, in Studia Tibetica No.18, Materials for Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionaries, vol. 2, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1990: 97, no. 294. 104 'brel dang ma tshang med pa dang // phun sum tshogs bas rgyud ces bya // 57 zheso / ces pa dang / yang / sa la kṣa tantra zhes rang gi mtshan nyid 'dzin pas rgyud de / zhes gsungs pa rnams... Or, one should take tantra as linking the signified with the signifier,58 which, without being incomplete, is easily able to establish in an outstanding fashion the linkage and continuity of the three streams of consciousness59 as well. It is stated in the *Śrītrayasamayatantra: Due to linkage, without being incomplete, and Outstandingness,60 it is called tantra; And, further, the expression *svalakṣatantra [means] it is tantra inasmuch as its own characteristic is apprehended.61 Again, the manuscript of Rin chen bzang po's work is different and has the quotation and its intent reversed, and adds further pertinent details: 57 These lines do not occur in the translation of the text of the tantra, Śrītrimasayavyūharājatantra, that is now available in BKA', vol. 87: 543-742. 58 The bivalency of the term tantra in the sense of the signified and signifier, is also used by Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo (1142–1192), the second patriarch of the Sa skya pa school, in his Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa [Sde dge print], in Sa skya bka' 'bum, vol. 2, no. 1, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968: 29/3 [Ga, 58a] [= The Yogini's Eye. Comprehensive Introduction to Buddhist Tantra, tr. Ngor Thartse Khenpo Sonam Gyatso and W. Verrill, Classics of the Early Sakya, vol. 1, Xlibris Corporation, 2012: 425]. We encounter it as well in Ratna gling pa's citation of the/a Sgyu 'phrul, for which see his 1458–1466 Chos 'byung bstan pa'i sgron ma rtsod zlog seng ge'i nga ro [= The Nyingma Apology of Rin-chen-dpal-bzang-po], Tashijong: The Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel Parkhang, 1972: 82: sgyu 'phrul las: rgyud kyi dbye ba gnyis yin te //brjod bya don gyi rgyud dang ni //rjod byed tshig gi rgyudgnyisso //. I have not been able to verify this quotation in the canon. For "signified" and "signifier" as reflecting brjod bya and rjod byed, see J.C. Gold, The Dharma's Gatekeepers: Sakya Paṇḍita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet, Albany: State University Press of New York, 2008: 48 ff. 59 I have not found an explanation of the expression sems rgyud gsum. At my peril but with some sort of precedent in Rin chen bzang po's work, I venture to explain it as referring to the state of mind at the outset of one's spiritual practice (gzhi), in the progressive course of one's spiritual practice (lam), and the state of mind that takes place as its result ('bras bu). 60 For the various notions of "outstanding", see Klong chen Dri med 'od zer's (1309–1364) Theg mchog rin po che'i mdzod [Sde dge blockprint], in Mdzod bdun, vol. Kha [2], 158-160. 61 I am not at all sure what this actually means! 105 de ltar yang sgyu 'phrul dra ba las / rgyud ces bya ba 'brel pa'i don // de ni rnam pa gsum yin te // zhes so // de yang gzhi sems can gyi dus / lam rnal 'byor pa'i dus / 'bras bu sangs rgyas kyi sems rgyud 'brel bas na rgyud do // It then continues with: yang bi ta tantra zhes pa gnyen po ye shes rgyas pa'i rgyud / de'ang mtshan nyid pa ltar / 'dod chags kyi gnyen po mi sdug pa bsgom pa lta bu ma yin te / 'dir ni 'dod chags kyi rang bzhin bde ba la /zhe sdang gi rang bzhin gsal ba ste / gti mug gi rang bzhin mi rtog par shes pas / 'dod chags kyi gnyen por 'dod chags nyid bsgoms pas mchog tu gyur pa ste / ji ltar me yis tshig pa la // me nyid kyis ni gdung bar bya // 62 zhes pa lta bu'o // de rgyas par yin yang / rnam snang rgyud dra las / rgyu dang lam dang 'bras bu rnams // rgyun chags rgyas pas rgyud ces bya // 63 zhes so // yang sol kṣatantra / zhes pa / rang gi mtshan nyid 'dzin pas rgyud de /… The problem with these citations in the Rgyud sde spyi rnam is, as far as I can see – which may not be far enough! –, that none are traceable in the translations of these texts as we now have them in the Kanjur-canon of the New School, that is, they are not found in Rin chen bzang po's very own translation of the Vairocana-centered *Māyājālatantra or in Kṛṣṇa Paṇḍita's and Nag tsho Lo tsā ba's circa 1050s–1060s translation of the *Śrītrayasamayatantra.64 Thus we prima facie have to consider the following possibilities. First, if Sog bzlog pa is correct in attributing 62 This is [almost] a quotation of Hevajratantra, II: ii, 49a-b, which reads in BKA', vol. 80: 39: ji ltar 'tshed pas tshig pa yang // me yis kyang ni gdung bar bya //. 63 I have been unable to recover the actual source of quotation. 64 See, respectively, BKA', vol. 17, nos. 465 [#466] and 500 [#502]. 106 the Rgyud sde spyi rnam to Rin chen bzang po, then it is not wholly unthinkable that the latter had based himself on translations of those Sanskrit manuscripts that included these lines of verse. These translations are now lost. Later, so another possible scenario might run, Rin chen bzang po as well as the team of Kṛṣṇa Paṇḍita and Nag tsho Lo tsā ba used manuscripts of these tantras that did not contain these lines. Admittedly, it is not clear to me where these lines may have been placed in the narratives of these texts, for they do not anywhere discuss the notion behind the term tantra. In view of the fact that Tibetan editor-readers are often wont to insert passages in or excise them from manuscripts they were working with, often without any warning signs to their later readers, another though perhaps less likely possibility is that the titles of these texts that are indexed to these citations may have been tampered with. A search of the texts of the Kanjur Dpe sdur ma [tbrc.org] reveals that the lines: rgyud ces bya ba 'brel ba'i don // don ni rnam pa gsum yin te // virtually occur in piecemeal fashion in the *Srīguhyasarvacchindatantra, albeit with very different significations,65 and that the lines: 'brel dang ma tshang med pa dang // phun sum tshogs bas rgyud ces bya // occur with the only insignificant variant reading of phyir for bas at the beginning of the seventeenth chapter of the Ye shes rngam pa glog gi 'khor lo, which is an Old School tantra.66 More can and probably should be said about these textual problems, but suffice it for now to mention that Dge rtse Paṇḍita 'Gyur med tshe dbang mchog grub (1761–1829) cites the very same last two lines in his 1797 catalog of the Collected Old School Tantras where, however, he writes that these were taken from what he calls the Rdo rje rtse mo [*Vajraśekhara],67 but I have not been able to retrieve these from any works that have vajreśekhara in their titles. Regardless of whether he copied these from another source, which is very, very likely, it thus remains to be determined whence they originated. 65 BKA', vol. 79: 556-557. 66 BKA', vol. 101: 867. 67 See his Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa rin po che'i snying po rig pa 'dzin pa'i sde snod rdo rje theg pa las snga 'gyur rgyud sde rin po che'i rtogs pa brjod pa lha'i rnga bo che lta bu'i gtam, in Collected Works, vol. Ja [7], Chengdu: Bod yig dpe rnying myur skyob, 2001: 108. For Dge rtse Paṇḍita, see now the study of T. Makidono, Dge-rtse Mahāpaṇḍita Great Middle Way of Other-Emptiness, Bibliotheca Tibetica at Indica 2, Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin, 2016. 107 Sa chen Kun dga' snying po (1092–1158), the first patriarch of the Sa skya pa school, does not explain the meaning of rgyud in his above mentioned booklet, but his son the Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo does and his comments warrant a brief discussion.68 In all, the Slob dpon cites three different texts for short definitions of tantra. The first two are the Guhyasamājottaratantra and the *Vajraśekharatantra, which, he writes, but have it that tantra equals continuity, rgyud ni rgyun chags zhes bya ste //, and the third is what he calls the *Māyājālatantra with the to all intents and purposes identical formula rgyud ni rgyun zhes bya ba ste //. The Tibetan translation for prabandha is this time rgyun and not rgyun chags, which of course is fine and makes no difference. But, again, Rin chen bzang po's translation of the *Māyājālatantra does not contain anything like the one line cited by Bsod nams rtse mo. We thus have to consider the possibility that Rin chen bzang po's and Bsod nams rtse mo's quotations are to be located in another work than the one translated by the former. For this we may have to turn to the Old School corpus of the so-called eight *Māyājālatantra-s. The octet's textual history, not to mention the contents of the corpus itself, is indeed a very complicated affair and, for this obvious reason, I will not enter into a discussion of it. This notwithstanding, a few words are in order. According to Nyang ral's Zangs gling ma treasure-text biography of Padmasambhava, the cycle of the so-called "eight-fold Illusion (sgyu ma, māyā) texts," consisted of the following69: 1. Guhyagarbhatantra70 2. Sgyu 'phrul bzhi bcu pa 5. Sgyu 'phrul le'u brgyad pa 6. Lha mo sgyu 'phrul 68 For what follows, see his Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa [Sde dge print], 29/3-4 [Ga, 58a-b][= The Yogini's Eye. Comprehensive Introduction to Buddhist Tantra, tr. Ngor Thartse Khenpo Sonam Gyatso and W. Verrill, 426 ff.]. 69 Slob dpon padma'i rnam thar zangs gling ma, ed. Thub bstan nyi ma, Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989: 62 [= E. Pema Kunzang, tr., The Lotus-Born. The Life Story of Padmasambhava, ed. M.B. Schmidt, Boston: Shambhala, 1993: 80-81]. This work must now be used together with L. Doney, The Zangs gling ma: The First Padmasambhava Biography. Two Exemplars of the Earliest Attested Recension, Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2015, where the relevant passages are found on 141 [40b-41a] and 238-239 [34a-b]. Interestingly, Zhi ba 'od dismissed the authenticity of a [or the?] Māyājālatantra corpus, for which see Karmay, "An Open Letter by Pho brang Zhi ba 'od," 31-32. 70 The Guhyagarbhatantra is at times called the *Māyājālatantra in that it is part of the much larger *Māyājāla corpus; see D. Martin, "Illusion Web - Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual History," in Silver on Lapis. Tibetan Literary Culture and History, ed. Ch.I. Beckwith, Bloomington: The Tibet Society, 1987: 181, citing Zur 'tsho Dkon mchog tshul khrims, Zur lugs gsang snying yig cha'i skor, Dalhousie, 1980, vol. 1: 15, and vol. 3: 251.For the various recensions of this work and the criticism it received from a number of New School intellectuals, see Dorji Wangchuk, "An Eleventh-Century Defence of the Authenticity of the Guhyagarbhatantra," in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, ed. H. Eimer and D. Germano, Leiden: Brill, 2002: 265-291.See now also Shen Weirong 沈卫荣 and Yang jie 杨杰 , "《秒密藏续》与旧译无上密法于西藏的传播 "Miaomi zangxu" yu jiuyi wushang mifa yu xizangde chuanbo [Guhyagarbhatantra and the Dissemination of the Gsang sngags rnying po (sic)]," in Tibetan Genealogies. Studies in Memoriam of Guge Tsering Gyalpo (1961-2015), ed. G. Hazod and Shen Weirong, 451-509. 108 3. Sgyu 'phrul bla ma 4. Sgyu 'phrul le lag 7. Sgyu 'phrul brgyad cu pa 8. 'Jam dpal sgyu 'phrul The Zangs gling ma attributes the first translation of these to the joint efforts of Padmasambhava and Cog ro Klu'i rgyal mtshan. It also has something to say about the provenance of this corpus and the other texts mentioned in this part of the narrative, for it ends with the statement that, "not leaving in India" (rgya gar na ma lus par), Padmasambhava had miraculously taken these and a host of other manuscripts from Nālandā monastery in what is now Bihar State to Tibet, after which they were deposited in the "treasury" (dkor mdzod) of Bsam yas monastery. The stipulation made by the adverbial phrase "not leaving them in India" could and probably ought to be construed as a response to the possible charge, perhaps first made by 'Gos Lo tsā ba I, that no Sanskrit originals could be found in the subcontinent for many of the Old School's tantras.71 Indeed, 'Gos Lo tsā ba I is reputed to have questioned some seventy-two Indian scholars whether such and such a work was familiar to them during his sojourn in the subcontinent. When he received a negative reply, he felt that this was suffient proof that these were not authentically Buddhist scriptures.72 We do not encounter anything of the sort in the available text of his 'byam yig-open letter, but Gser mdog Paṇ chen does quote Rngog Lho brag pa to this effect. Styling the latter as belonging to the lineage of Mgos = ['Gos Lo tsā ba I], he writes73: mgos kyi brgyud 'dzin du gyur pa'i rngog lho brag pas / bla chen 'brog mi zab chos 'ga' zhig / mgos dang dus mtshungs pa'i paṇḍi ta bdun cu sa gnyis la dris pas / rgya gar na med do zhes zer ro // zhes pa'i phyogs chos bsgrub snang bas / rje mgos kyang / bla chen dang / gā ya dhā ra'i slob mar mtshungs kyang / rang la ma byung ba'i chos der byung ba la zur za bar 71 'Gos Khug pa Lhas btsas, Sngags logs sun 'byin, Sngags log sun 'byin gyi skor, Thimphu: Kunsang Topgyel and Mani Dorji, 1997: 20. This phrase is absent in the text A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams cites in his Jo gdan bla ma mang thos bshes gnyen pas dris lan yid kyi mun sel, 33. 72 The Blue Annals, tr. G.N. Roerich, 360. 73 Le'u gsum pa rig 'dzin sdom pa'i skabs kyi 'bel gtam rnam par nges pa, 144-145. Gser mdog Paṇ chen writes that Rngog had composed a study of the rise and development of Buddhist tantra, titled Gsang sngags kyi byung tshul rnam par bshad pa'i gtam chen mo. Unfortunately, this work has not [?yet] been sighted. The Sngags log sun 'byin [shes rab ral gri] that is attributed to Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal (1197–1264) refers to the Gze mar mgo of Lho brag, and I wonder if this Lho brag may be the same as Rngog Lho brag pa; see the Sngags log sun 'byin gyi skor, 17. For the Sngags log sun 'byin [shes rab ral gri], see K. Raudsepp, "The Dating and Authorship Problems in the Sngags log sun 'byin Attributed to Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal," in Contemporary Visions in Tibetan Studies. The First International Seminar of Young Tibetologists, London, September 2007, ed. B. Dotson et al., Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2009: 281-297. 109 ni cang mi mdzad dam / snyam du dogs pa'o // The premise of the statement by Rngog Lho brag pa who is an exponent of Mgos' tradition appears to be established, namely, that: Since seventy-two Paṇḍitas contemporary with Mgos were asked about some of the profound religious texts/practices of Bla chen 'Brog mi, they allegedly (zer) replied that these were absent in the subcontinent. Thus, while Lord Mgos, too, was a contemporary of the Bla chen and a disciple of Gayādhara, I doubt that he never criticized the religious texts/practices that had not appeared to himself but that had appeared to that one, the Bla chen. We must bear in mind that there is a tradition holds that relations between 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba and 'Gos Lo tsā ba I were rather strained.74 On the other hand, Gser mdog Paṇ chen does question the integrity of Rngog Lho brag pa's remark. And he writes a little further down that while it is the case for what Lho brag pa had to say about the translations of texts, it does not necessarily hold for the profound transmissions that were transmitted by word of mouth (snyan brgyud kyi gdams ngag zab mo) or for instructions (man ngag).75 He provides as examples the six teachings of Nāropā and Nīguma as evidence for what would go counter Rngog's claim. And he ends by saying that: "Hence, where did the great translator Mgos criticize 'Brog mi's profound teachings? Rngog was careless." In what may have been his chronicle, in which the Zangs gling ma is cited extensively as an authority, including the above passage,76 Nyang ral or the author observes that Rma Rin chen mchog had invited Vimalamitra to help him revise the earlier translations, whereafter the two men primarily focused their energies on going through and editing the translations of this 74 See, for example, C.R. Stearns, tr., Luminous Lives. The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam 'bras Tradition in Tibet, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001: 53-55, 92-97. 75 Le'u gsum pa rig 'dzin sdom pa'i skabs kyi 'bel gtam rnam par nges pa, 145-146: rgyud dang sde snod kyi gzhung lo paṇ gyis bsgyur bar khas len pa de dag / 'phags yul gyi paṇḍi ta mang po de dag la ma grags na dri ma can du [146] 'grub pa yin gyi / snyan brgyud kyi gdams ngag zab mo rnams ni gtan tshigs de tsam gyis der mi 'grub cing / lo chen gyis kyang rgyud dang bstan bcos kyi dbang du mdzad nas gtan tshigs de ltar bkod pa yin gyi / man ngag gi dbang du mdzad pa ni ma yin no // mi 'grub pa'i shes byed kyi dpe ni / nā ro dang / nī gu'i chos drug bzhin / des na lo chen mgos kyis ni 'brog mi'i zab chos la zur za ba ga la yod rngog gis ni rang dgar byas pa'o //. There are of course some problems with this remark that cannot be discussed here. 76 Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, 308. 110 cycle.77 This effort apparently also included the Rnam snang sgyu 'phrul dra ba, which, since it concerns Vairocana [= Rnam snang mdzad], must of course be none other than Rin chen bzang po's *Māyājālatantra! It therefore appears that, once again, Rin chen bzang po's rendition had a precedent, let alone the fact that we now do not have eight but nine *Māyājāla texts! One of the implications of such a revision, if it did take place, is that they would then have been translated in accordance with Vimalamitra's interpretation of this textual corpus. Though not mentioned by Nyang ral, Vimalamitra is on occasion credited with being the author of splitting the original *Māyājālatantra of a hundred thousand chapters into this eight-fold corpus. Thus, we seem to have competing traditions for its formation, the mystery of which need not detain us here, but suffice it to say that any of these eight [or sometimes even nine] texts might be generically called a *Māyājālatantra. It is fairly certain that one or the other library of Sa skya monastery had manuscripts of at least four of the octet. Judging that these "appear to be authentic" (yang dag pa 'dra /) Old School tantras, Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan records the Guhyagarbhatantra, the Sgyu 'phrul brgyad cu pa, the Sgyu 'phrul bla ma, and the Lha mo sgyu 'phrul in his catalog of tantric literature, which he probably composed around the year 1200.78 In fact, all of these other sources single out the following famous, if cryptic, passage from the Guhyasamājottaratantra79: prabandhaṃ tantramākhyātaṃ tat prabandhaṃ tridhā bhavet / ādhāraḥ prakṛtiś caiva asaṃhāryaprabhedataḥ // [34] prakṛtiścākṛterheturasaṃhāryaphalaṃ tathā / ādhārastadupāyaś ca tribhistantrārthasaṃgrahaḥ // [35] The Guhyasamājottaratantra is often rightly or wrongly the eighteenth chapter of the Guhyasamājatantra proper, but this is something that still needs to be looked into in some detail. These two quatrains in the circa 1000 Tibetan translation of the former by, ostensibly, Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po read80: 77 Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, 422. 78 See his Kye'i rdo rje'i rgyud 'bum gyi dkar chag, in Sa skya bka' 'bum, vol. 3, no. 25, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968: 275/4/1 [Ja, 205a]. 79 See Yukei Matsunaga, ed., The Guhyasamājatantra, A New Critical Edition, Osaka: Toho Suppan, Inc., 1978: 115. 80 BKA', vol. 81: 588. The colophon On p. 611, n. 606, we learn that only the Li thang edition contains the text that a certain Thang chen pa and Rgyal mtshan reng [= ?ring] mo had compared with the version that was contained in the so-called Stag lung rgyud 'bum, that is, a collection of manuscripts of tantras that were housed in or belonged to Stag lung monastery. 111 rgyud ni rgyun zhes bya bar grags // rgyun de rnam pa gsum 'gyur te // gzhi dang de bzhin rang bzhin dang // mi 'phrog[s] pa yis rab phye ba // gzhi dang [var. rnam pa] rang bzhin rgyu yin te // de bzhin mi 'phrogs 'bras bu'o // gzhi ni thabs shes bya ba ste // gsum gyis rgyud kyi don bsdus pa'o // This particular reading of the passage is identical to the text that we find, for example, in the possibly early nineteenth century Gting skyes manuscript of the Rnying ma'i rgyud 'bum, Collected Tantras of the Old School. 81 There the first translation of this workis attributed to Buddhaguhya [or: Buddhagupta] and 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba Dpal gyi ye shes, who were active around the year 800, after which, so we are told, it was edited much later by Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po, argues either for their potential consanguinity, which is unlikely, or that the later translation was not a new translation of the text at all, but, to put it charitably, a revision, or, finally, that we have a problem with the colophon[s]. Whatever the case may be, their virtual identity does call to mind the findings of K.W. Eastman, who argued long ago that the readings of the Dunhuang manuscript of the Guhyasamājatantraper se and its early circa 800 translation ascribed to Vimalamitra and Ska ba Dpal brtsegs provide evidence that the so-called New School "translation" by Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po is at best a slight revision of the former, though the names of these earlier translators are as absent from the New School's Kanjur colophons as they are from their catalogs.82 This notwithstanding, Eastman's conclusion stands in singular opposition to that of Martin, who wrote that "[a] comparison of random parts of the text in the Nyingma version [= in the Collected Tantras of the Old School, vdK] and the Peking version [= Peking Kanjur, vdK] 81 See the Rnying ma'i rgyud 'bum [Gting skyes recension], vol. 17, Thimphu: Dingo Khenste Rimpoche, 1973–1975: 177. For the various recensions of the Collected Tantras of the Old School, see Thub bstan chos dar, Rnying ma rgyud 'bum gyi dkar chag gsal ba'i me long, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2000: 4-16; a useful work is also M. Derbac, Rnying ma'i rgyud 'bum: A Tibetan Buddhist Canon, unpublished University of Alberta master's thesis, Edmonton, 2007. A very valuable summary of state-of-the-art research on the Rnying ma'i rgyud 'bum is R. Mayer, "The Rnying ma Tantras," in Brill Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. J. Silk et al., vol.1, Leiden: Brill, 2015: 390-397. 82 See his "The Dunhuang Tibetan Manuscript of the Guhyasamājatantra [in Japanese]," in Nihon chibetto gakkai kaiho 日本西藏学会会报 [Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies] 26, 1990: 5, as cited in A. HermannPfandt, "The Lhan dkar ma as a Source for the History of Tantric Buddhism," in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, ed. H. Eimer and D. Germano, Brill: Leiden, 2002: 141. 112 showed many variant readings in both wording and syntax."83 The text in the Peking Kanjur is also attributed to Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po, and Martin's point is well taken, for the same applies when we compare the Kanjur xylographs [and one manuscript] of the Guhyasamājatantra with the text of the manuscript of the Gting skyes recension and the 1794– ?1798 Sde dge xylograph of the Collected Tantras of the Old School, which, too, is ascribed to Buddhaguhya and 'Brog mi Lo tsā ba Dpal gyi ye shes.84 I do not know which recension of the Collected Tantras of the Old School Eastman has used, but the mid-eighteenth century Mtshams brag manuscript from Bhutan does bear out his results and for good reason. It is after all a copy of the translation ascribed to Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po, with a few revisions by Ravīndra and Chag Lo tsā ba II.85 What all this implies is, of course, that it is hazardous to draw conclusions on a narrow dossier of texts. Again, all of Tibetan Buddhism, including its manuscript treasures, is local with the consequence that almost nothing can be universalized. Martin and Eastman also drew attention to the Tibetan Dunhuang manuscript of the Guhyasamājatantra, which cannot postdate the early eleventh century.86 We have so far no such tradition of the different translations of the Guhysamājottaratantra per se. Zhwa dmar IV Chos grags ye shes (1453–1524) informs us in his 1517 biography of his master 'Gos Lo tsā ba II that, during the summer retreat of 1443, the latter had revised and corrected ('gyur bcos rnam par dag pa) the earlier translation[s] of the Candrakīrti II's (9th-10thc.) Pradīpoddyotana commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra on the basis of his own study of the text and several Sanskrit manuscripts, one of the Guhyasamājatantra and no 83 "Illusion Web - Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual History," 183-184; the quote is taken from p. 184. 84 BKA', 81, 442-583 {= SDE, vol. 57, no. 4863 [#211], 350/4-376/7, 376/7-381/3 [Tsha, 377b-479b, 470b-486a]}. Note that SDE's table of contents failed to recognize that no. 4863 consists of two translations, the first is that of the Guhyasamājatantra and the second is that of the Guhyasamājottaratantra. The first is signed by Nyi ma'i dbang po [*Ravīndra] and Chag Lo tsā ba II, who revised the earlier translation of Śraddhākaravarman and Rin chen bzang po; the second is signed by the latter duo. Dge rtse Paṇḍita, Bde bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa rin po che'i snying po rig pa 'dzin pa'i sde snod rdo rje theg pa las snga 'gyur rgyud sde rin po che'i rtogs pa brjod pa lha'i rnga bo che lta bu'i gtam, in Collected Works, vol. Nya [8], Chengdu: Bod yig dpe rnying myur skyob, 2001: 321, mistakenly has 'Brog mi [Lo tsā ba] Shākya ye shes (11thc.) instead of 'Brog mi Dpal gyi ye shes. The same mistake is repeated in Thub bstan chos dar, Rnying ma rgyud 'bum gyi dkar chag gsal ba'i me long, 81-82; on pp. 41-51, Thub bstan chos dar outlines the sources used by Dge rtse Paṇḍita and his editorial methods. 85 Rnying ma'i rgyud 'bum [Mtshams brag recension], vol.18: 938. 86 See K.W. Eastman, "The Eighteen Tantras of the Vajraśekhara/Māyājāla," in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan 26, 1981: 95-96, which summarizes an earlier paper of his that I have not seen, and Martin, "Illusion Web - Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual History," 181-182. 113 less than three of the Pradīpoddyotana itself.87 This revised translation of the Pradīpoddyotana, a commentary on the version of the Guhyasamājatantra in seventeen chapters, was never included in any of the xylographed Tanjurcanons. Later, 'Jigs med gling pa (1729–1798) remarks in his 1772 catalogue of a manuscript edition of the Collected Tantras of the Old School that 'Gos Lo tsā ba II had also revised-cum-edited the translation (dag bcos mdzad pa) of the Guhyasamājottaratantra.88 If true, then this might very well imply that the said Sanskrit manuscript of the Guhyasamājatantra to which he had access was the one of the tantra's recension in eighteen chapters. But we are not out of the woods and we will not be for some time after this essay sees the light of day. The translation of the *Guhyasamājopadeśasamudrabindu, Viśvamitra's commentary on the Guhysamājottaratantra, which is a very early, if not the earliest available, study of the text, has preserved some very different readings indeed. The verses that were just under consideration are a case in point; his text has89: de la rgyud ni rnam gsum ste // gzhi dang rang bzhin dag dang ni // bye brag tu ni bsdu bar bya // gzhi dag dang ni thabs dag gis // rnam gsum rgyud kyi don du bsgrubs // gzhi dag dang ni thabs dag gis // rnam gsum rgyud kyi don du sgrub // rang bzhin rang bzhin med pa'i rgyu // de bzhin 'bras bu bsdu ba med // 87 See the Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa mkhan chen thams cad mkhyen pa don gyi slad du mtshan nas smos te gzhon nu dpal gyi rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che mchog tu rgyas pa'i ljon pa, dbu can manuscript in seventy-four folios, 45b [= 'Gos lo gzhon nu dpal gyi rnam thar, ed. Ngag dbang nor bu, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004: 107108]. 'Gos Lo tsā ba II also edited the translation of Buddhaguhya's commentary on the Vairocanābhisambodhitantra. That he did so without recourse to a Sanskrit manuscript is evident in the very terminology Zhwa dmar IV employs for his narrative; he writes in the same passage indicated above: ...skad gsar chad kyis gtan la ma phab pas tshig g.yong zhing go dka' ba la skad gsar chad kyis gtan la phab /. See also A. Wayman and R. Tajima, The Enlightenment of Vairocana, Buddhist Tradition Series,vol.18, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992: 28-31, where Wayman was quite right in his surmize that 'Gos Lo tsā ba II did not have access to a Sanskrit manuscript of this work. 88 See his De bzhin gshegs pas legs par gsungs pa'i gsung rab rgya mtsho'i snying por gyur pa rig pa 'dzin pa'i sde snod dam /snga 'gyur rin po che'i rgyud 'bum rtogs pa brjod pa 'dzam gling tha gru khyab pa'i rgyan [A 'dzom print], in Collected Works, vol. Pa [13], Chengdu: A'dzom chos sgar, ?1999: 663-664. 89 BSTAN, vol.19: 953. This partly recapitulates the earlier passage in BSTAN, vol.19: 951. Viśvamitra's lengthy comment deserves close study. 114 I have not been able to verify the translator[s] of Viśvamitra's work, which has a great deal of significance for Indo-Tibetan intellectual history and unquestionably merits a detailed examination in its own right, especially in terms of the authorities it cites, for this gives us an insight, albeit no doubt if ever so skewed, into certain aspects of its author's literary and religious environment. Viśvamitra twice mentions unnamed sutras and he refers a number of times to tantric texts that he equally leaves unidentified. However, what is of considerable importance is that he does expressly refer to a host of other tantric sources by title. For our purposes, three of these stand out, the Gdan bzhi [Catuṣpīṭha], the Guhyagarbhatantra, and the Vairocana-centered Māyājālatantra.90 Thus, these Indic sources must have existed in one form or another during the middle of the eighth century, at the latest, a point that is not without significance for the literary development of the tantric movement as a whole. Viśvamitra was of course not alone in this, and it would be useful to do this kind of preliminary excavation in the exegeses of his contemporaries such as Vilāsavajra, Buddhaguhya, and the early eighth century Śākyamitra, to name but a few. What is more, His commentary indicates that there were a number of points of contention with the interpretation of the Guhyasamājottaratantra. While the sources available to me do not signal any problems with its provenance, I think that the integrity of Viśvamitra's work as a translation of a purely Indic text is probably not entirely beyond question. This is arguably borne out by the fact that it contains a references to "some Indian writings" (rgya gar gyi yi ge la la) and the "Indian language" (rgya gar gyi sgra), that is, Sanskrit.91 Surely, this strikes one as strange and really makes no sense, unless, of course, Viśvamitra or the author of these two passages addressed an audience other than an Indian one or one that was not conversant with Sanskrit. Now the text of the Guhyasamājottaratantra verses that the Slob dpon cites reads slightly differently92: rgyud ni rgyun zhes bya ba ste // 90 BSTAN, vol.19: 906-907, 914-915, 955-956. The citation, on p. 914, from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra is sgrogs pa drug gi mchod rten, which I have not been able to locate in the eleventh century Tibetan translation of this tantra. P.D. Śzantó, Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīthatantra (1/2): Introductory study with the annotated translation of selected chapters (2012), 14-15, has argued that the gestation period of the Catuṣpīṭhatantra [as we now have it] took place from circa 850 to 1000, "(with preference for an earlier date)." Dated December 16, 2012, I accessed Śzantó's work on academia.edu. Viśvamitra's references to a *Catuṣpītha would suggest that the inception of this tantra's gestation period maye have to be pushed back by one century, to circa 750. 91 BSTAN, vol.19: 1079, 1117. 92 Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa, 29/4 [Ga, 58b] [=The Yogini's Eye. Comprehensive Introduction to Buddhist Tantra, tr. Ngor Thartse Khenpo Sonam Gyatso and W. Verrill, 426]. Glo bo Mkhan chen mentions that one of Rje btsun's disciples, Mi nyag Shes rab 'bar, alias Prajñājvālā, had written a commentary on Bsod nams rtse mo's work as well; see his Rgyud sde spyi yi rnam par bzhag pa'i gsal byed nyi ma'i 'od zer, in Selected Writings, vol. 4, Dehra Dun: Pal Evam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985: 26. This Tangut-Xixia scholar's work has not yet surfaced. 115 rgyun de rnam pa gsum du 'gyur // gzhi dang de yi rang bzhin dang // mi 'phrogs pa yis rab phye ba'o // rang bzhin rnam pa rgyu yin te // gzhi ni thabs zhes bya ba yin // de bzhin mi 'phrogs 'bras bu ste // gsum gyis rgyud kyi don bsdus pa'o // Is it a coincidence that this is exactly the same reading that we have in his younger brother Rje btsun's survey of the philosophical and practical contents of the Sa skya pa school's Path-andResult system that is foremost based on the Hevajratantra?93 Hardly! Since this book was also edited by his nephew Sa skya Paṇḍita, we cannot rule out the possibility that he had slightly revised these two quatrains of the tantra. After all, he was a redoubtable Sanskrit scholar, though, as far as I am aware, his biographies and historical sources are silent on this particular score. The Slob dpon's remarks are given additional force in Gtsang Byams pa's work.94 Of course, the variants of the Guhyasmājottaratantra's quotations in the Slob dpon's and Rje btsun's writings are not altogether compelling in their departures from the text of the Kanjur. But this is not the reaction one gets with the quotation of the first of these two quatrains that we encounter in 'Dul 'dzin's reply to what he considered to have been the Karma pa's controversial letter; he quotes the verse as follows95: rgyud ces bya ba rab 'brel tshig // de la rab 'brel rnam gsum te // ngo bo gzhi dang thabs dang ni // thabs byung 'bras bu zhes bshad do // Tantra is a term for linkage (*pratibandha). 93 See his Rgyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che'i ljon shing [Sde dge print], in Sa skya bka' 'bum, vol. 3, no. 1, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968: 2/1-2 [Cha, 3a-b]. The reading is also very close to Bu ston, Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam gzhag bsdus pa rgyud sde rin po che'i gter sgo 'byed pa'i lde mig, in Collected Works, Part 14, repr. L Chandra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1969: 947-948. 94 Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par bzhag pa rgyud ma lus par 'jug pa la rtsod pa spong ba, 166-171.'Ba' ra ba Rgal mtshan dpal bzang po's (1310-1391) remarks in his Thar par 'jug pa'i gru bo zab don chos kyi gter mdzod las gsang sngags gsar ma'i rnam bshad kyi dka' 'grel, in A Tibetan Encyclopdia of Buddhist Scholasticism; The Collected Writings of 'Ba' ra ba Rgyal mtshan dpal bzang, vol. 3, Dehradun: Ngawang Gyaltsen and Ngawang Lungtok, 1970: 547 f., might also be taken into account. 95 'DUL1, 92 [='DUL2, 132-133]. 116 In that connection, linkage is three-fold; It is stated to consist of essence-foundation and, Method and what has arisen from the method, the result. There is no question that the first two lines of this quatrain echo Rin chen bzang po's quotation from the *Māyājālatantra. But…enough of this! The point of the above deliberations is to show the profound philological-historical and bibliographical problems that must be confronted once we begin to take a closer look at the multiplicity of our sources and delve below their surface. Even if these manifold issues are well nigh impossible to resolve at present, I would nonetheless argue that they need to be addressed as much as possible, almost ad nauseam, before we can venture to ask questions that have more to do with a philosophical or religious interpretation of the texts at hand. Further, and more to the point of this two-part exploration of but a few aspects of Rin chen bzang po's complex work, it is painfully obvious that so much more can and should be done with it. What is quite clear and worthy of further consideration is that, in this treatise, he neither mentions nor addresses the corpus of works that we associate with the Old (rnying ma) tantras. And this can hardly be insignificant. Appendix Titles of Tantras Belonging to the Four Classes of Tantric Literature in Rin chen bzang po's Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam bzhag At the end of his discussion of the four classes of tantric literature, Rin chen bzang po provides a remarkably complex listing of the titles of the relevant tantras in abbreviated form, in RGYUD, 66-72. One can but be amazed at the immense knowledge Rin chen bzang po must have possessed of the relevant literature. What now follows is this listing, warts and all. To be sure, these lists cry out for further analysis and discussion. The published text distinguishes between what appears to be Rin chen bzang po's work and the annotations found in the manuscript by using smaller type for the latter, and I have done the same in my translation. A. Action-tantras; RGYUD, 66-68: Three ways in which these are restricted ('ching lugs): 117 a. b. c. Generally and specifically restricted Restricted in terms of sku, gsung and thugs Restricted in terms of the way in which they originated [67] 1. Four general subject tantras Legs sgrub pa – primarily teaches worship, torma, panegyric of worship Gsang ba spyi rgyud– primarily teaches mandalas Bsam gtan phyi ma – primarily teaches meditation Dpung pa bzang po – primarily teaches spiritual behavior The specific subdivisions of sku, gsung, and thugs, will come below. 2. When they are restricted in terms of sku, gsung, and thugs: Sku Basic: Explanatory: Gtsug gtor chen mo 'Jam dpal rtsa rgyud Mngon par byang chub pa Gsang bdag rnam par grol ba Glu blangs 'jam dpal rdo rje phreng ba etc. – the domain of 'Jam dpal, and further Dpung bzang Gtsug gtor gdugs dkar Rdo rje sa 'og si si ta ka Gsung Basic: Explanatory: 118 Padma brtsegs pa Padma cod paṇ Don yod zhags pa Yid bzhin gyi nor bu Yid bzhin 'khor 'Khor lo bsgyur ba Zhal bcu gcig pa Za ma tog bkod pa Rang byung ye shes Snying gyur cig pa Dam tshig gsum bkod Dngos grub bum pa, etc. Thugs Basic: Explanatory: Rig pa mchog Mi 'khrugs pa'i gzungs Phyag na rdo rje dbang bskur ba Me lce 'bar ba Rngam pa klog Drag po sum 'dus Gzungs ring rdor rje be con – primarily teaches the pacification of the eight classes 'Byung po 'dul byed Rdo rje rnam 'joms gos sngon Sa 'og 'dul ba – primarily teaches the pacification of the nāga-s and the lord of the earth (sa bdag) Gtum po rgyud gsum Mnyam pa med [68] pa Ral pa gyen brjes, etc. Mi g.yo ba'i rtog bdun pa Rgya mtsho 'khyil ba Bdud rtsi 'od Bdud rtsi rab 'khyil Stobs po che Khro bo spyi 'dus Bsam gtan phyi ma, etc. Sgrol ma Sgrol ma mngon 'byung ba Dngos grub bum pa Gzungs gra lnga Tsun dra Lu gu rgyud 'Od zer can Ri khrod ma Ku ru kulle'i rtog pa, etc. 3. According to the ways in which they originated: Sangs rgyas kyi dbu las ..….jags las …..dpung pa las Gdugs dkar can Padma brtsegs Dpung pa bzang po 119 …..thugs las Rig pa mchog - primarily (gtso 'khor = gtso bor) teaches the supreme spiritual attainment …..phyag las Phyag na rdo rje dbang bskur ba - primarily teaches the empowerment[s] .….lte ba las Su ti ka ra - primarily teaches the common spiritual attainments …..gsang ba la[s] …..zhabs las A mo ga pa sha 'Byung po 'dul byed byung ba It is said that there are others tantras that issued from these. In brief, among the sutras and the Gzungs 'bum, some are called rtog pa (*kalpa) and some are called gzungs (*dhāraṇī); there are very many of them. B. Conduct-tantras; RGYUD, 68: Basic: Rnal 'byor mngon par byung ba'i rgyud – primarily teaches the generation of the Body (sku bskyed) Explanatory: Kun nas bkod pa Rgyan chen po Rnam par snang mdzad It is claimed that each of these tantras orginate from the eight good-fortune signs (bkra shis rtags brgyad), that is, the eight [?pilgrimage] places (gnas brgyad), so there are eight tantras.96 Glang po che rol pa bde ba'i myu gu Rol pa mchog Some claim: The Rnam snang sgyu 'phrul dra ba and the Gsang ba spyi rgyud are conduct-tantras, but some do not claim them as conduct tantras; [The sentence ends with: ngo bor med par yang gnang ngo //, which I do not understand]. C. Yoga-tantras; RGYUD, 69: 96 I do not quite understand this statement. 120 Basic: De kho na nyid Khams gsum zil gnon gyi rgyud – primarily teaches gsung bskyed pa Rnam par snang mdzad chen po'i rgyud– primarily teaches thugs bskyed pa As for the Rnam snang mngon byang rgyud, there are five97: When one becomes enlightened in the nature of reality and emptiness: [1] Stong nyid sgra sgrogs kyi rgyud When one becomes enlightened due to the lotus-moon seat: [2] Zla ba 'khyil ba'i rgyud When one becomes enlightened in the wording of the Speech (gsung): [3] Phyag rgya yongs su bsgyur ba'i rgyud When one becomes fully enlightened in the Body (sku): [4] Dpe byad yongs su dag pa'i rgyud Four sections (dum bu bzhi) and explanatory tantra: Rdo rje rtse mo Dpal mchog dang po Sangs rgyas gsang ba Dam tshig mngon par byang chub pa Rdo rje sems dpa'i rgyud gsum Ngan song sbyong ba'i rgyud rtog pa bdun cu: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] D. 'Jig rten pa rtog pa bcu De las 'das pa'i rtog bcu Gang zag dman pa la dgongs pa'i rtog pa bcu Las thams cad la dgongs pa'i rtog pa bcu Mchog sgrub pa'i rtog pa bcu Sku gsung thugs mnyes pa'i rtog pa bcu Dkyil 'khor la 'jug pa'i rtog pa bcu The supreme, the highest Yoga-tantras; RGYUD, 69-72: 97 Although five are slated to be mentioned, only four are given! 121 [1] Means-Father (thabspha) tantra: - the basic tantra is the Guhyasamāja in ninety-eight chapters [2] Insight-Mother (shes rab ma) tantra [3] Non-dual tantra [1] Father tantras Basic: - explanatory: Bum pa Rdo rje phreng ba – seems to be ('dra) Lha mo bzhis zhus pa Dgongs pa lung bstan – seems to be ('dra) Ye shes rdo rje kun las btus pa Furthermore, the Rdo rje mkha' 'gro, [70] etc. 'phags pa cha mthun pa'i rgyud la / gshin rje gshed dgra nag gdong drug pa la / Dmar po 'jigs byed Their explanatory tantras: Rdo rje mkha' 'gro snyoms par 'jug pa gsang ba'i rgyud Khro bo bcu'i rgyud Sngags don gsal bar rdo rje rgyas 'debs Rdo rje dri med pa Dbang bskur kun nas bkod pa Snying po 'byung ba mngon par byang chub pa, etc. [2] Insight-mother tantras: From a classification of the Rdo rje sems dpa' kun nas bkod pa'i rgyud, the basis of all: Basic: 122 Sku Gsung Thugs Yon tan 'Phrin las Rgyud dges pa do rje Ma hā ma ya Bde mchog 'khor lo Thig le chen po Rdo rje gdan bzhi Here, the basic tantra of the Dges rdor sku tantra is the five hundred thousand śloka one - it is in the hands of the ḍākinī - the tantra practiced in the human world, the Brtag pa gnyis pa Explanatory-: uncommon Explanatory-: common Mkha' 'gro rdo rje gur Saṃ bhu ṭa, etc. From that the need of sixteen types of tantra (rgyud sde bcu drug) is shown. Furthermore: Ye shes thig le Ye shes rol pa Dga' chen ston pa… Or (yang nam) the six tantras: 1. Bde ba tsakra byin brlabs kyi rgyud 2. Dges rdor man ngag gi rgyud 3. Ma hā ma ya dam tshig gi rgyud 4. Rdo rje gdan bzhi gtsug gi rgyud 5. Sangs rgyas thod pa'i rgyud 6. Sgyu ma bde mchog gi rgyud When the Bde mchog gi rgyud is classified: The extensive basic tantra in one hundred thousand chapters; the intermediate one in one hundred thousand ślokas; the summary one in fifty-one chapters. The neuter tantras (ma ning gi rgyud)98: The thirty-two basic tantras such as the Dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud and the Dur khrod rgyan, etc. and the countless ancillary tantras (yan lag gi rgyud). It is stated99: 98 This is a highly unusual category and requires further exploration. 99 I have not been able to identify the origin of this quotation. Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan has the last two lines in his Dpal he ru ka'i 'byung tshul, in Sa skya bka' 'bum, vol. 3, no. 37, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968: 300/2 [Ja, 256b]. 123 The basic tantra is three-fold. The explanatory tantras are thirty-two [71] The ancillary tantras are countless. Two basic tantras, the extensive Rig pa rya mtsho tantra. What is known as the Rnam pa are in the hands of the ḍākinī. Its subsequent text, the Dpal mngon par mi snang ba'i tshig rkang 'bul ba.100 Its subsequent text, Kha sbyor rgyud and Bla ma; it is said101: The explanatory tantras are claimed to be five-fold. What derives from the Nges brjod bla ma of Bde mchog and the Mkha' gro kun spyod and ? …………..…kun nas bkod pa De bzhin gshegs pa'i sku gzugs, etc. The gsung gi rgyud: Basic tantra: Explanatory tantras: Sgyu 'phrul chen mo in three chapters Gsang ba chen mo Khu yug rol pa Grags pa bzang po Ye shes mchog, etc. The thugs kyi rgyud: Basic tantra: Dpal nam kha' dang mnyam pa in one hundred thousand [śloka-s]…Bde mchog Its subsequent texts Mngon par brjod pa Byin rlabs kyi rog pa in one hundred thousand śloka-s Its subsequent texts: One in fifty-one chapters Ming in one hundred thusand [śloka-s] 100 I have the feeling we must read here tshig rkang 'bum pa, "one hundred thousand lines." 101 I have been unable to identify the origin of this quotation. 124 Explanatory tantras: Dgongs pa rab 'byams pa ston pa mkha' 'go … Kun spyod chen mo Rdo rje slob dpon dang slob ma'i las ston pa He ru ka…bde mchog sngon 'byung Bskyed rim ston pa…bde mchog Nges brjod bla ma Rdzogs…bde mchog rim dang las tshogs 'ba' zhig ston pa Phag mo sngon 'byung Las tshogs lho na ston pa Las rgya mtsho Mngon gcod ston pa Dus 'byung ba Slob dpon gyi bya ba ston pa Sdom pa rgya mtsho 'Phrin las bzhi ston pa Sngags kyi rgya mtsho Dbang bzhi ston pa Lta ba'i rgya mtsho Rlung gi las sdom pa las 'byung…bde mchog dang bde mchog ma brgyad do ba Brtul zhugs ston pa Sangs rgyas thod pa Yon tan bcu gnyis dang sgo [72] bstun pa sbyangs pa rol pa gnas pa la sogs pa las gdams pa The twenty-four A ra li The yon tan gyi rgyud: Basic tantra: Explanatory tantras: Phyag rgya chen po ye shes thig le Saṃ bhu ṭa bde rgyas thun mong gi rgyud Sangs rgyas mnyam sbyor Thig le kun 'byung Khro bo rol pa Dpal mchog bde ba Rab tu gsal ba, etc. The 'phrin las kyi rgyud: Basic tantra: Subsequent tantra: Explanatory tantra: Gser gyi char ba Rgyan chen po De nyid rnam gsal 'Jig rten mnyes pa Yid bzhin 'khor lo Don yod rgya mtsho Ye shes mkha' 'gro, etc. 125 [3] Non-dual tantras: 'Jam dpal and Dus 'khor As for 'Jam dpal: Explanatory tantra: 'Jam dpal rtsa ba'i rgyud 'Jam dpal sgyu 'phrul dra ba Rdo rje phreng ba Rdo rje grub pa Don yod pa Gsang rgyud, etc. Some claim these to be conduct-tantras; some claim them to be ritual-tantras. As for Dus kyi 'khor lo Basic tantra: Explanatory tantra: Dam pa dang po The summary derived from it in five chapters Sangs rgyas 'byung ba Thod pa'i rgyud che chung Dum bu nye bar bzhag pa, etc. Abbreviations: BKA' BSTAN 'DUL1 'DUL2 MI1 126 Bka' 'gyur [dpe sdur ma], ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstan dpe sdur khang, 108 vols., Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006– 2009. Bstan 'gyur [dpe sdur ma], ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstan dpe sdur khang, 120 vols., Beijing Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 1994– 2008. 'Dul 'dzin Mkhyen rab rgya mtsho, Sangs rgyas bstan pa'i chos 'byung dri lan nor bu'i phreng ba, Gangtok: Dzongsar Chhentse Labrang, 1981. Ibid., Thimphu, 1984. Karma pa VIII Mi bskyod rdo rje, Gsang sngags snga 'gyur las 'phros pa'i brgal lan rtsod pa med pa'i ston pa dag bstan pa'i byung ba brjod pa drang po'i sa bon, in Bka' brgyud pa'i brgal lan dang dris lan phyogs bsgrigs, comp. Dam chos zla ba, Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009: 55-104. MI2 Ibid., Collected Works, vol. 3, ed. Karma Bde legs, Lhasa: 2004: 351-486. RGYUD Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po, Rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par bzhag pa 'thad ldan lung gi rgyan gyis spras pa, in Sngon byon sa skya pa'i mkhas pa rnams kyi rgyud 'grel skor, vol. 1, Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007: 1-77/78. SDE The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber, 72 vols., Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991. SOG1 Lha rje Blo gros bzang po/Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, Rgyal ba'i dbang po karma pa mi bskyod rdo rjes gsang sngags rnying ma ba rnams la dri ba'i chab shog SOG2 SOG3 gnang ba'i dris lan lung dang rigs pa'i 'brug sgra, in Two refutations of Attacks on the Nyingmapa School, repr. Sonam T. Kazi, Gangtok, 1971: 1-173. Ibid., Rgyal ba'i dbang po karmā pa mi bskyod rdo rjes gsang sngags snying ma ba [read: rnying ma pa] rnams la dri ba'i chab shog gnang ba'i dris lan lung dang rig[s] pa'i 'brug sgra, in Collected Writings of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, vol. II, New Delhi: Sanje Dorji, 1975: 1-143. Ibid. "Rgyal ba'i dbang po karma mi bskyod rdo rjes gsang sngags rnying ma pa rnams la dri ba'i chab shog gnang ba'i dris lan lung dang rigs pa'i 'brug sgra," Sngags mang zhib 'jug 1, 2002: 93-117; Ibid., Sngags mang zhib 'jug 2, 2002: 123145. ◆ Author: Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Professor, Harvard University. 127 Abstracts A Preliminary Archaeological Report on the Tsi tsi rong Petroglyphs in Mal dro gung dkar County, Tibet He Wei (Institution for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Research, TAR) This report introduces the new discovery of Tsi tsi rong petroglyphs in Mal dro gung dkar county of Central Tibet which reveals a distinctive regional characteristic. Two major methods, intensive dotengraving and repeated scratching-over were used to create the petroglyphs in the Tsi tsi rong site. The resultant images can be divided into two types: silhouettes and lines. The main subjects are images of the hunt and pastoral life. According to the overlying relationship and the style of the images, the petroglyphs in this site can be divided into two periods. 246 Unearthed Animal Remains and Subsistence in the Upper Reaches of the Minjiang River during the Period of the Warring States and Qin-Han Dynasties He Kunyu (Doctoral Student, School of History and Culture, Sichuan University) The archaeological remains in the upper reaches of Minjiang river during Warring States Period and QinHan dynasties mainly consist of sarcophagus burials, while very few sites such as residential sites in particular were found. Recent excavations at the Ashaonao site of Jiuzhaogou county provided valuable materials for exploring the forms of habitation and subsistence during the Han dynasty in the upper reaches of the Minjiang river. In this region, animal-burial in a sarcophagus during the Warring States period were few, the species and number of animals buried with a sarcophagus in the Qin and Han dynasties were far more abundant. In addition, the residential sites were found near sarcophagus burial cemeteries. Such differences might be related to the changes of subsistence that took place at that time. Modeling and Technique ——Buddhist Art of the Gupta Period and its Impact on Mediaeval China Li Chongfeng (School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University) The Indian Buddhist art of the Gupta period influenced the Buddhist sculptures and paintings of the Southern-and-Northern Dynasties of China, especially in modeling and technique. The saṃghāṭī in the Mathurān sculptures of the Gupta period became a model for all the images made in ancient India from the 5th to the 6th century. The modeling and the drapery of standing Buddha images sculpted around 420 CE in Cave 169 at Binglingsi reflect the Gupta style of the Mathurān art. The giant Buddha sculptures carved between 460 and 465 CE in Cave 18 at the Yungang Caves wear a light and thin saṃghāṭī whose folds are compact and parallel, no doubt revealing the influence of the Gupta Buddha images of Mathurā. As for the Aśoka-type Buddha image dated 551 CE and found in Chengdu, the drapery seems to be light and thin with all the folds falling down in the form of waves of water. This type of thin and translucent saṃghāṭī has a striking similarity with the Mathurān Buddha images of the Gupta period. Moreover, the main characteristics of the Northern Qi Buddha sculptures from Qingzhou, wearing a soaked and translucent drapery or saṃghāṭī without folds, were also fashionable in the Buddhist sculptures of the Gupta period. The third part of Vishṇudharmottarapurāṇa, i.e., Adhyāya 35-43 (Citra-sūtra), recorded that shade is the most important technique in the paintings of ancient Hinduka, especially in depiction of the mural. 247 When the murals of Ajaṇṭā caves were painted in the 5th and the 6th centuries, the widely used technique or method was shading and highlight. The colors were applied in a certain order so that the human form appears to have a three-dimensionality, giving the effect of a relief. This was achieved by the use of different shades of the same colors. The highlight was achieved by small patches of light color appearing on the chin, breast, arms, legs or wherever an elevation of form was desired. The very techniques of Hinduka were accepted and widely applied on the murals in the saṃghārāmas and cave-temples along the Silk Roads from the 4th to the 6th century. The painting techniques of Kuchean and Dunhuang murals are similar to those of the Ajaṇṭā murals. The painters achieved the effect by means of the same shading and the highlight, where the forms instead of being projected in a retreating fashion were made as if they were protruding. According to Jiankang shilu (Record of Jiankang) by Xusong, the main door of Yichengsi saṃghārāma in Jiankang (present-day Nanjing, capital of the Southern Dynasties) was fully decorated with flowers in 537 CE by Zhang Sengyou, creator of the well-known “Zhang Style”. The f lowers, that were painted with vermillion, azurite and mineral green, were executed by means of Tianzhu yifa (Shading and Highlight Techniques of Hinduka). So, the flowers look like receding and protruding from a distance and appear to be flat when viewed close up, dazzling and giving convexity to the surface. People were all greatly surprised and called the monastery Aotusi, meaning Concave-Convex Monastery. The mural on the outer stone coffin, which was found in Pingcheng (present-day Datong, capital of the Northern Wei Dynasty) in 2015 and dated 469CE, make clear that the Shading and the Highlight Techniques of Hinduka were adopted on the murals of northern China at least in the second half of the 5th century. Therefore, the Shading and the Highlight Techniques of Hinduka seem to have spread to China by both the Silk Roads and Marine Routes around the 5th century. As a conservative religious art, consequently, the modeling and technique of the Gupta Buddha imagery had a great impact on the Buddhist paintings and sculptures of the Southern-and-Northern Dynasties. A Preliminary Study of the Stone Inscriptions Collected in the Qinghai Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Shawo Khacham1, XiaoYongming2, Li Jiyuan3 (1. Center for Tibetan Studies at Tibet University; 2, 3. Qinghai Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology) This paper documents and translates six stone inscriptions that are collected in the Qinghai Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. The authors investigate the original place of these inscribed stones and give an analysis of the content of the inscriptions. According to the grammar and some keywords, we suggest these can be dated to the Tibetan imperial period. These inscribed stones were part of the remains of Buddhist architecture instead of tomb steles. 248 The Tribes in the Suzhou Area and their Relationship with the Neighboring Areas during the Late Tang Dynasty and Five Dynasties in the Dunhuang Tibetan Document P.T.1189, a Letter from Fuzhu Situ in Suzhou to Hexi Jiedu Tiandawang Lu Li (Department of History at Nanjing Normal University) Document P.T.1189 is a letter from Fuzhu Situ 府主司徒 in Suzhou 肃州 to Hexi Jiedu Tiandawang 河西节度天大王 in which the local governor of Suzhou in 931-935 reported to Guiyijun 归义军 Jiedushi 节度使 Cao Yijin 曹议金 that some thieves from the area controlled by Guiyijun were caught in Suzhou and were sent back, together with the situation of Da da, Ji ngul, and the right-wing tribes of the Ganzhou Uighurs in Suzhou. The right-wing tribes of the Ganzhou Uighurs consisted of a tribe of one thousand households. At that time, the local force in Suzhou which comprised the Long Jia, Tibetanized Han and Qiang people, was subject to the Guiyijun regime in Guazhou and Shazhou. The tribes of Ji ngul (Nan Shan), Da da and Uighur in Suzhou had taken an oath with Guiyijun to keep the peace. Although the situation in the Hexi area was in good shape as far as the Guiyijun regime in 925 was concerned, the rightwing tribes of Ganzhou Uighurs still exercised important influence in Suzhou in the wake of the victory of Cao Yijin’s punitive expedition to them. 鸟面僧人与新密传承的开端（第二部分）范德康（哈佛大学）本文的第一部分发表于恭特朗·哈佐德和沈卫荣主编的《西藏宗谱：纪念古格·次仁加布藏学研究文集》（北京：中国藏学出版社，2018 ：403-450）。在那篇文章里，我介绍了新近发现和出版的译师仁钦桑布（958—1055 年）撰著的主要密续文献集成及其分类等，在各式各样的预言中，仁钦桑布也以“鸟面僧人”而著称。那篇论文由三部分构成：冗长的序言，然后是一，仁钦桑布传记的考察，他尚存的著作以及他所处的环境；二，他对于佛教密续文献的分类；三，伪谬密续文献的问题和据说有问题的 11 世纪时的宗教实践。在这篇论文里，也是我论文的第二部分，我研究了索多巴·洛卓坚赞（1552—1624 年）引用的仁钦桑布《密续阐释》中的两段内容。我最早大约于七年前就开始了关于这些片段的研究，早在他的《密续阐释》文本引起我的注意之前。 249 机缘巧合，译师的《密续阐释》出版了，加上 tbrc.org，不得不说业力奇妙，使得我的论文得以更为完善。结尾还附有一个附录，列出了属于仁钦桑布在他的著作末尾分出的四部密续文献的文献目录。藏族素食主义的宗派性特征杨先加（中央民族大学藏学研究院博士生）本文意在分析藏族素食主义文化的宗派性特征，并阐明这一特征对素食主义在藏区的传播所带来的影响。近年来，有不少关于藏族素食主义方面的研究成果，但这些文章对于藏族素食主义历史方面的一些具体问题提及很少，比如：藏传佛教各教派对素食主义文化的不同实践程度；以及藏族素食主义在传播过程中的地域性特征。本文将对上述问题进行详细的分析，并论述这些问题与藏族素食主义的宗派性特征之间存在的必然联系。笔者认为宗派性特征应是我们研究藏族素食主义这一题目的重要主线，它有助于我们深刻的把握和分析藏族素食主义的历史发展脉络，以及当下空间上的分布情况。 A Preliminary Analysis of the Military Power of Two Jinchuan Chieftains (1771—1776) Zhang Kang (Doctoral student, Institute for Historical and Philological Studies of China’s Western Regions, Renmin University of China) The Second Jinchuan War, one of Emperor Qianlong’s “Ten Great Campaigns”, has frequently caught the attention of scholars. However, most existing articles studied it from the perspective of the Qing Dynasty and few studies were conceived from the perspective of the two Jinchuan chieftains. This paper studies the two Jinchuan chieftains’ military leadership, military capabilities and resources. Based on these, the author points out that two Jinchuan chieftains were militarily quite strong military and this was the key reason that they had been able to fight with the Qing Army for five years. 250 All is Karma: the Secular Writing of Ngag dbang mdo rgyud yon tan rab rgyas Xie Guangdian (Institute for Western Frontier Region of China, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an) During the mid-19th century, the man called Mgon po rnam rgyal of Lcags mdud changed the political and religious situation of Khams and Central Tibet, which also transformed the life trajectories of many Khams pa people. This article focuses on the 8th Stong 'khor zhabs drung Ngag dbang mdo rgyud yon tan rab rgyas (1853—1895) that is mainly based on his records in the Stong 'khor zla ba rgyal mtshan sku phreng rim byon gyi rnam thar. Through investigating the personal life of a common tulku in Khams during the turbulent period of the Qing dynasty, the author discusses how the author of the biography of the 8th Stong 'khor zhabs drung, who was also a monk of the Stong 'khor monastery,, wrote about his own lama’s leaving the order to resume family life by means of narratives that are replete with conflict and metaphors. It also points to the ways in which the author covers up the 'fallen' tulku’s biography. The Travels of the Schlagintweit Brothers in Himalayas: The First German Scientific Investigation in Tibet Zhao Guangrui (School of Government of Nanjing University; Center for Asia-Pacific Development Studies) The Schlagintweit brothers conducted the first German scientific investigation in Tibet from 1854 to 1857; they were also the first Germans ever to have visited Tibet. According to A. von Humboldt’s advocacy of “long-term systematic research,” the expedition achieved fruitful results. This trip played an important role in the history of the German expeditions to Tibet from 1854 to 1951, and had a far-reaching impact on the emergence and development of Tibetology in Germany. Their research on geography, lakes, glaciers, the anthropology of the Himalayan region, Tibet and Xinjiang was pioneering and professional, and even nowadays still has academic value. 251 A Survey of the Compilation of Rgyud sde kun btus and its Maṇḍalas Zhang Yajing (The Palace Museum) The Rgyud sde kun btus collection consists of thirty-two volumes. Compiled by the Sa skya pa scholar 'Jam dbyangs Blo gter dbang po (1847—1914) in the nineteenth century, the collection contains evocations-sādhanas, initiation rituals of maṇḍalas, explanations of tantras, and so on. Importantly, according to the text, one hundred and thirty-nine maṇḍalas were analyzed that are now well-known under the title “the Ngor Maṇḍalas," making it the most comprehensive study of maṇḍalas to date. As a precious collection of tantras and guidelines on drawing maṇḍalas, the Rgyud sde kun btus is frequently cited by scholars. The background of the compilation of this collection was probably related to the so-called non partial (ris med) movement. This paper will give a brief introduction to the content of the maṇḍalas and the process in which they were compiled. A New Examination of the “Tibetan Goodwill Mission” from the Perspective of the British Archives —— a Case of the British-Indian Government’s Strategy of Tibet Before and After the End of World War II Li Peirong (Postdoctor, School of History and Culture, Sichuan University) Before and after the end of World War II, the frustrating of the British-Indian Government tried to prevent the Tibetan Goodwill Mission from attending the National Constitutional Congress was a sign of less influence on Tibetan issues. Even if the British-Indian government encouraged the “Independence of Tibet”, the inside contradictions between the British Government and British-Indian Government about the strategy to Tibet is also certificated that they had lost the power to control Tibet. This incident is an epitome of the change of the international relation among China, British, India and Tibet. 252 藏区寺院组织在生态保护和社区发展中的作用 ——以青海果洛夏日乎寺班玛仁拓为例华旦才让（英国肯特大学硕士研究生）可以说，全球变暖与生态环境的日益恶化对于青海省三江源头区域脆弱的生态环境影响巨大。同时也导致自古依赖于高原独特生态环境而生存的广大高原游牧群众传统生活生产方式、社会结构和游牧文化的改变。2007 年，第一个藏区佛教寺院环保组织于果洛注册成立。自此之后，三江源地区陆续有藏传佛教寺院通过注册保护组织或以其它形式投入到了地方生态环境保护与社区发展的事业中。这些寺院保护组织不仅成为推进地方生态保护与社区发展的一大动力，而且，他们在环保与发展中的作为，已使他们成为地方生态环保和社区发展中不可或缺的一股力量。本篇以甘德县班玛仁拓野生动植物保护协会为例，通过问卷、参与观察、半结构化访谈等调查方法试图探究地方政府、寺院及香火村对于三江源区域寺院环保组织的态度。通过分析调查数据发现，当地政府、香火村及寺院三个主体对于班玛仁拓野生动植物保护协会在生态环境保护中的作用和影响力极为认可。除外，当地政府、香火村及寺院也表达出了对于班玛仁拓野生动植物保护协会在继续推动地方生态保护和社区发展的期待。地方这种基于藏区传统社区（以寺院喇嘛、寺院、香火村三个主体建构）的信任与合作，完全可以考虑到长远有效稳定的地方社会治理机制中。而当地生态环境保护和社区的可持续发展，需要地方政府、寺院、香火村、地方民间组织、寺院环保组织等同心协力，在充分尊重和借鉴藏区传统社区的影响下，结合科学的社会治理方法以推动各个主体在保护和发展中的作用。 253 Journal of Tibetology (Vol.19) Edited by Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University Chengdu, China ISBN 978-7-5211-0093-8 First Published in December 2018 China Tibetology Publishing House Beijing, China 图书在版编目(CIP)数据藏学学刊 . 第 19 辑 / 四川大学中国藏学研究所编 . —北京：中国藏学出版社，2018.12 ISBN 978-7-5211-0093-8 Ⅰ . ①藏… Ⅱ . ①四… Ⅲ . ①藏学－文集 Ⅳ . ① K281.4-53 中国版本图书馆 CIP 数据核字（2018）第 296574 号藏学学刊〔第 19 辑〕四川大学中国藏学研究所主编责任编辑张荣德藏文责编顿珠次仁装帧设计翟跃飞出版发行中国藏学出版社印刷中国电影出版社印刷厂版次 2018 年 12 月第 1 版第 1 次印刷开本 787 毫米 ×1092 毫米 1/16 字数 300 千字印张 16.5 定价 58.00 元书号 ISBN 978-7-5211-0093-8 / K·555 图书如有质量问题，请与本社联系 E-mail: dfhw64892902@126.com 电话: 010-64892902 版权所有侵权必究《藏学学刊》稿约《藏学学刊》（བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ། Journal of Tibetology）系中国教育部普通高等学校人文社会科学重点研究基地四川大学中国藏学研究所主办的藏学类专业性学术刊物，CSSCI（2014-2018）来源集刊，创刊于 2004 年，旨在搭建藏学研究的学术交流平台。从 2014 年开始，本刊由年刊改为半年刊，接受中、英文稿件，设有论文、书评、译文等栏目，热忱欢迎国内外藏学研究者惠赐稿件。来稿时请注意以下事项： 1. 来稿请注明字数并提供作者简介，包括姓名、出生年月、性别、民族、籍贯、职称、学位、工作单位、联系方式和主要研究方向等，其中姓名和工作单位名称请提供正确的英文译名。 2. 来稿必须为原创性作品，此前未经公开发表。严禁抄袭、剽窃和一稿多投，如有发现，将永不刊用该作者来稿。 3. 为保证文稿的准确性，电子版来稿须同时提供 word 和 pdf 两种文档格式并遵循本刊用稿规范（详见本所网页）。来稿字数不限，提倡言简意赅，以一万字左右为宜。 4. 本刊每期收稿截止日期为每年六月三十日和十二月三十日。该日期以后收到的稿件将纳入下一期的编辑工作。 5. 本刊取舍稿件惟以学术为标尺，并实行 2-3 名专家匿名审稿制度，根据专家审稿意见决定稿件取舍。本刊在尊重原作的前提下，有权对拟刊用稿件作必要的删改并告知作者，作者如果不同意对文稿作文字性修改或适当删节，请在来稿时予以说明。 6. 本刊所刊文章均为作者个人观点，不代表编辑部意见，文责由作者自负。 7. 本刊已加入期刊数字化网络系统，作者若无此意愿，请在来稿时注明，否则视为默许。 8. 稿件请直接投寄本刊编辑部。自寄稿之日起，若二个月内未接到用稿通知，可自行处理。来稿除图版原件外，一律不退稿，敬请作者谅解。 9. 本刊对刊用文稿将支付作者稿酬，并赠送样刊五册。 10. 本刊热诚欢迎国内外学者或编辑部与本刊建立资料互赠交流关系。地址：中国四川省成都市望江路 29 号四川大学中国藏学研究所《藏学学刊》编辑部邮编：610064 电子邮件：zangxuexuekan@163.com 电话 / 传真：+86-28-8541 2567 网址：http://www.zangx.com Call for Contributions Founded in 2004, the Journal of Tibetology (བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ། 藏学学刊 ) is a peer-reviewed bilingual scholarly journal dedicated to publishing papers in the field of Tibetan Studies. Featuring articles and reviews in either Chinese or English, the journal is published biannually by the Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University, Chengdu, PRC. The Journal of Tibetology welcomes the submission of academic and unpublished (and original) work, including the Chinese translation of foreign research and serious, critical reviews of books or review articles, in any area of research that deals with the Tibetan cultural area. Essential Guidelines: 1. The manuscript should contain information on the total number of words/characters and author's details, including the following information: (1) full name and institutional affiliation; (2) academic title; (3) contact information, (4) the primary field of research. 2. The Journal of Tibetology has a zero-tolerance plagiarism policy. 3. Essays and reviews should be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word file and PDF format, using Unicode, to zangxuexuekan@163.com and conform to the style sheet of the Journal of Tibetology that is found at the website of the institute. If this is not done, they will automatically be not considered for publication. There is no limit on the length of the manuscript, but we strongly encourage the manuscript to be concise with approximately 10,000 words in English or Chinese. 4. The deadline for the submission of articles and reviews is June 30 of each year. Articles and reviews received and accepted for publication after this date will be considered for the next issue. 5. The Journal of Tibetology uses a double-blind review process. Each manuscript is sent to two or three referees for double-blind peer review. Based on their recommendations, the editor then decides whether the manuscript will be accepted as is, whether it needs to be revised, or whether it will be rejected. 6. The views and opinions expressed in the articles and reviews are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of the editor(s) or the editorial board. The author is responsible for his/ her own views. 7. The journal is already part of the digital network of Chinese journals. If any author does not want to have his or her article published online, please note this upon submitting the manuscript. Otherwise, the editor will take it as tacitly granting permission to do so. 8. The manuscript should be directly submitted to the editor. If one has not received a notice of acceptance for publication within two months since the day the manuscript was submitted, it is within one’s discretion to submit the manuscript elsewhere for publication. Excepting the originals of maps, charts or photographs the editor will not return the manuscript to the author. 9. The journal will pay remuneration to the author and send five copies of the issue of the journal in which his or her article appears. 10. Scholars or editorial boards in China and abroad are warmly welcomed to establish a growing network of exchanging copies of journals with the editor of the Journal of Tibetology. Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Zhang Changhong Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University Chengdu, Sichuan Province P.R. China 610064 Email : zangxuexuekan@163.com Tel/Fax: +86-28-8541 2567 Website: http://www.zangx.com

Log In

"The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

"The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

"The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

"The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

"The Bird-faced Monk and the Beginnings of the New Tantric Tradition, Part Two," Zangxue xuekan 藏学学刊/བོད་རིག་པའི་དུས་དེབ་/Journal of Tibetology 19 (2019), 86-127.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS