Articles by alphabetic order
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

The Highland Vinaya Lineage: A Study of a Twelfth-Century Monastic Historical Source, the ‘Transmission Document’ by Zhing-mo-che-ba.

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

by Dan Martin

In the course of compiling a bibliography of Tibetan writings belonging to hitorical genres,2 a passage was located in the chronological study by Mangthos Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho which, according to that author, was written by an early member of the Highland Vinaya (Stod ’Dul) lineage named Zhing-moche-ba Byang-chub-seng-ge. At the time there were very few readily available clues about the identity and dating of Zhing-mo-che-ba, and even after further research very little information about him could be found. There was also a question whether this work actually belongs to one of the historical genres. If it is just a ‘document,’ as implied in the descriptive ‘title’ given it by Mangthos, it might not even belong in a listing of generically ‘historical’ works. Therefore it was omitted from the published bibliography.

But then, even if this work might not be marked by any of the typical genreterms, it should nevertheless have been included since it is a quite early work with clear relevance for the history of vinaya lineages, with significant information and views on the teaching and translation of some of the main vinaya texts. There were of course other vinaya historical narratives of earlier or

Dedicated to the memory of my brother, Stephen Jay Martin. Originally presented at the International Association of Tibetan Studies meeting held in Bloomington, Indiana in 1998, thanks are due primarily to Leonard van der Kuijp and the late E. Gene Smith for influencing the direction of this paper, and for supplying important literary sources that would not have been available otherwise, as well as to Helmut Eimer and David Germano for useful suggestions. One important point should be made at the outset. In studying the Tibetan vinaya lineages, it is sometimes important to distinguish ‘ordination lineages’ (mkhan brgyud) from ‘educational lineages’ (bshad brgyud). Only the ordination lineage involves the transmission of monastic vows (all the vinaya lineages mentioned herein are ordination lineages, it may be assumed, unless otherwise specified, but note also that the text of Zhing-mo-che-ba prefers to use the words sgrub brgyud, ‘accomplishment transmission,’ an expression with a history of its own, although in this context it refers mainly to the traditional vinaya practices). An educational lineage is a tradition of explaining the main vinaya scriptures and commentaries. 2 Martin, Tibetan Histories.

comparable age available in the past, like those of Klu-mes Tshul-khrims-shesrab, Klu-mes’ disciple Ba-shi Gnas-brtan, Khu-ston Brtson-’grus-g.yung-drung (1011-1075) and Dbon Bi-ci,3 but they are available to us now only in the form of brief citations and/or paraphrases in later histories (even though I suppose they could be preserved intact somewhere). By putting together two long and overlapping citations of Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work, we have hope of achieving what very well could be a complete narrative which, among other matters to be discussed here, may be shown to belong to the twelfth century.4

One might wonder that there has been so little serious critical research into the historical narratives on the late-tenth to twelfth-century spread of monastic vows. Some years ago, the study of the Lowland Vinaya had a very promising start with two articles and a master’s thesis by Craig Watson. Another quite noteworthy and informative contribution on the Lowland Vinaya is to be found embedded in Leonard van der Kuijp’s article on the early

3 These are listed in what at present seems to have been their chronological order. To these we might add still a work by Gtsang-nag-pa Brtson-’grus-seng-ge (see Martin, Tibetan Histories, no. 15), since Bu-ston does refer to a monastic narrative by him in his own Dharma history (Bu-ston, History, vol. 2, p. 212, “Paṇḍit Tsan-nag-pa”). A history by Gtsang-nag-pa (signed “Dge-slong Brtson-’grus-seng-ge”) has now been published on the basis of a 21-folio manuscript (see the bibliography below under Gtsang-nagpa). However, this history covers the life of Śākyamuni Buddha and the very earliest period of Indian Buddhist history, and has nothing to speak of on the history of Tibet. Therefore it is quite unlikely that Bu-ston was utilizing this particular history. There is also a brief mid- or late-twelfth-century history (not listed in Martin, Tibetan Histories) of the educational lineage of the Lowland Vinaya composed by a member of that same lineage named Thub-pa-shes-rab, who might tentatively date to circa 1200. This survives because it was embedded in the text of the Rgya Bod Yig-tshang (pp. 469-472). Very recently, two brief historical narratives devoted to early Tibetan vinaya lineages have been published as part of the Dpal-brtsegs set of histories and biographies. One is Anonymous, Mkhan-rgyud, which is devoted to the ordination lineages coming from Paṇ-chen Śākyaśrī, opening on the first page with his biography. The second one, also with no clear indication of authorship, does not have a proper title, although the words stating the general topic from the first line of the main text may be used as one (see Anonymous, Dam-pa’i Chos). I have not yet had the opportunity to study these interesting sources very closely, but I thought I should at least mention their existence. Both are reproductions of cursive manuscripts, the first one quite clear, the second one with many added notes in small letters that are sometimes illegible. 4 Apart from the passages from Mang-thos and Blue Annals reproduced below, we should also note that the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston (pp. 481-482) passage on the Highland Vinaya explicitly acknowledges itself as being a prose summary of the verses of Zhingmo-che-ba. The author of the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston evidently had a complete set of the verses in front of him even at such a late date.

abbots of Gsang-phu Ne’u-thog. And more recently there has been a study on the Lowland Vinaya, primarily, by Heather Stoddard. For general Western Tibetan history, a book by Roberto Vitali will serve as our most important guide.5

The Highland Vinaya is one of those evidently tangential topics given brief coverage in most of the Tibetan Dharma histories. It would appear that one of the motives for their interest is the strong probability that monastic ordinations had taken place already in Western Tibet some years prior to the return of the ordained men of Central Tibet from their ordinations in Amdo. Since most of the history writers believe in, or rather assume, the centrality of the central Tibetan provinces, they find the greatest historical significance in the reappearance of ordained monks there, and so, the larger parts of their narratives are devoted to the Lowland Vinaya. Still, as an interesting side question they do look into the possibility that ordinations had already occurred in Western Tibet some years before. In fact, this conclusion seems entirely warranted in the biography of Rin-chen-bzang-po, where we find that he was ordained as a novice already in his thirteenth year, in 970.6 But even given that this ordination took place in that year, he was ordained by one Legs-pa-bzang-po, who is otherwise completely unknown,7 and is not included in any of the Tibetan re

Watson, Abridged Biography; Watson, ‘Introduction’; Watson, ‘Second Propagation.’ Van der Kuijp, ‘Monastery.’ Stoddard, ‘Rekindling.’ Vitali, Kingdoms. 6 It is perhaps worth noting that Mang-thos (Bstan-rtsis, p. 75) very clearly gives 970 as the year of Rin-chen-bzang-po’s birth. Mang-thos also mentions his ordination by Yeshes-bzang-po at age 13 (at pp. 73-4) and here he argues that Ye-shes-bzang-po could be identified with Jñānaśrībhadra, a teacher of Zhang-zhung-pa, commenting that the name Ye-shes-bzang-po was the source not only of the bzang-po in Rin-chen-bzangpo’s name, but also the ye-shes in the name of Ye-shes-’od. There is certainly some sense in this argument, but for further elucidation it would be necessary to go into the history of monastic name-changing practices. There is a tradition according to which the final elements of the names of Sarvāstivādin monks ought to be chosen from the four words dpal, ’od, grags-pa and bzang-po, while at the same time the ordinand generally receives part of the name of the ordinator, and the names of Rin-chen-bzang-po and Ye-shes-’od both seem to conform to both of these patterns, if both were in fact ordained by Ye-shes-bzang-po. For more on name-changing practices, see Bu-ston, Las, p. 844. 7 See the biography as contained in Snellgrove & Skorupski, Cultural Heritage, vol. 2, pp. 83-116, at p. 86 (for a history of the various available editions, see Gangnegi, ‘Critical’). The biography tells us only that Rin-chen-bzang-po studied and memorized the Three Hundreds by Śākyaprabha under this Legs-pa-bzang-po (probably meant to represent the Indic name Subhadra), and that from him he received the name Rin-chen-bzangpo. In Tucci’s study (Rin-chen-bzaṅ-po, p. 28), instead of Legs-pa-bzang-po, the name is

cords of vinaya lineages. Thus it seems that Rin-chen-bzang-po’s ordination was a ‘dead end’ as far as the later vinaya transmissions are concerned, despite his significance for the Tibetan historians by virtue of being the first postimperial-period figure to renounce the householder’s life, thereby initiating the period of the Second Spread (Phyi Dar).8

At the same time, the date of first entry of the monks of the Lowland Tradition into Central Tibet is itself far from decided; in fact this was a conundrum for traditional historians, as it remains for us today. The authors of Blue Annals and New Red Annals, although they list a number of widely differing opinions, base themselves on a statement of ’Brom-ston-pa9 and so tend toward the conclusion that this event occurred in the year 978. In order to avoid going

given as Ye-shes-bzang-po, and this latter name is in fact given in Blue Annals (p. 68), and Ngor-pa, Chos-’byung (p. 263), among other places (it does seem somewhat more likely that the original name was Ye-shes-bzang-po). A late tradition found in Padmadkar-po, Chos-’byung (p. 352) and in the Ngor-pa, Chos-’byung (p. 263), tells us that Rinchen-bzang-po took complete bhikṣu vows in his forty-ninth year, or 1006, but the names of his three ordinators — Paṇḍi-ta Zla-’od-bzang-po (*Sucandraprabha?), Bhina-se, and Ka-ma-la-ra-kshi-ta (i.e., Kamalarakṣita) — are also not found in the subsequent vinaya lineages (although somewhat beside the point, it is possible that Kamalarakṣita is the one whose story is told in Tāranātha, History, pp. 327-328). Sumpa, Chos-’byung, p. 358 (and again on p. 385), says that Rin-chen-bzang-po was fully ordained at age forty-nine into the lineage of Bla-chen (Dgongs-pa-rab-gsal). Given the evidently Indian identities of his ordinators, this would hardly seem possible. 8 Even this statement should be viewed as problematic, however, since it seems to turn on geographic conceptions more than on temporal considerations. It ignores the continuous transmission of the Lowland Vinaya in the area of Amdo, as if Western Tibet counts more than Eastern Tibet as far as Central Tibet is concerned (and of course, to further complicate matters, these geographical conceptions have a history of their own). The Mnga’-ris Rgyal-rabs (Vitali, Kingdoms, p. 185 ff.), places the Highland Later Spread at the date of the edict of Ye-shes-’od issued in 986, but other histories focus on the first ordination as the determining factor. Buddhism per se suffered no eclipse during the Period of Disunity. Members of the imperial line continued to build Buddhist temples, and Buddhist teachings such as those on the Abhidharma-samuccaya (see Martin, ‘Gray Traces’) and various lay Prajñāpāramitā-related practices and tantric transmissions continued without break. In short, the ‘eclipse’ of Buddhism has been overrated, in part in order to emphasize the victorious nature of its (monastic) ‘revival,’ and in part because lay Buddhism has almost always been underrated, or even treated as if it didn’t exist. 9 Few if any works of ’Brom-ston-pa seem to exist outside the Bka’-gdams Glegs-bam, and so far it has not proven possible to locate any likely source of his monastic narrative there. The reference here is to Blue Annals, pp. 61-62, and New Red Annals, p. 160.

into all the chronological complexities we should agree to settle for this date for the time being.

In fact, when we speak of a Highland Vinaya lineage, we may be speaking in general terms, to mean any monastic vows taken in Western Tibet in the days of the Phyi Dar (including the self-ordinations undertaken by Western Tibetan royalty), or we may be speaking more specifically about the ordination lineage from Dharmapāla which continued into following centuries. This Highland Vinaya lineage was, by Zhing-mo-che-ba’s own account, introduced later than the Lowland Vinaya. For the remainder of this paper we will employ the term Highland Vinaya in its stricter sense, to mean the specific lineage, and in order to better understand the positive information in Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work and to arrive at a reasonably secure date for its author, we will need to have a closer look at this lineage.

The dating of Dharmapāla’s entry into Western Tibet cannot be established with any real certainty, but to base ourselves on the Zhing-mo-che-ba account, it would have to have been after the initial foundations of Tho-ling in 996, although the consecration of the completed temple took place only in 1028.10 He was invited by Lha Bla-ma Ye-shes-’od, but the latter’s dates are not very securely established. Vitali (Kingdoms, p. 183) suggests the dates 947 through 1024. If this is so, Dharmapāla could have come to Tibet any time between 997 and 1024. A late tradition, again found only in Padma-dkar-po’s and Ngor-pa’s histories, supplies a story about how Dharmapāla was on pilgrimage to the holy sites of the Kathmandu Valley where he suffered terribly from a fever, and was told that the sight of the snow mountains would cure him. Ye-shes-’od then learned of his presence and invited him to Western Tibet.11 About Dharmapāla’s activities in Tho-ling we are told very nearly nothing, and there is hardly any indication of the length of his stay. Zhing-mo-che-ba does tell us

10 See Vitali, Kingdoms, p. 109. Here we would venture a minor correction to the translation of the Mnga’-ris Rgyal-rabs. Where zhal-sro is emended to zhal-gso, translating the latter as ‘renovation,’ we would rather keep to the original zhal-sro, or zhal-bsro, literally ‘face warming’ (it may act as a verb, but it is more often employed nominally), which is a relatively uncommon and archaic word for ‘consecration’ (more generally expressed with the term rab-gnas). This explanation was given by Sangye Tenzin Jongdong, abbot of Bonpo Monastic Centre, Dolanji, some years ago. For a lexical source, see Btsan-lha, Brda-dkrol, p. 767. For instances of its usage, see the Sba-bzhed (pp. 39, 56-7, 59 and 79). For further references, see Bentor, Consecration, p. 321, note 517. On Tho-ling, there is no source in English that is more informative and recommended than Vitali, Records. 11 Padma-dkar-po, Chos-’byung, p. 352. Ngor-pa, Chos-’byung, p. 264.

that he brought at least one Indian vinaya manuscript with him, and also makes it appear that Dharmapāla’s ordination of the ‘Three Pālas’ — Sadhūpāla, Guṇapāla and Prajñāpāla — took place after his arrival in Tho-ling. Even with their Indian names, they might therefore, and for all we know, have been Tibetans. Of the later sources, only Bu-ston’s history has Prajñāpāla accompanying Dharmapāla on his entry into Western Tibet,12 but his brief paragraph otherwise seems nothing more than a severely condensed paraphrase of Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work.

Of the ‘Three Pālas,’ it was Prajñāpāla who ordained Zhang-zhung-pa Rgyalba’i-shes-rab. In the ‘Transmission Document’ proper there is no explicit testimony that Zhang-zhung-pa had any personal contact with Dharmapāla, although it is said that he learned the practices of Dharmapāla. We wouldn’t have any sure way of dating Zhang-zhung-pa’s floruit if it were not for Zhingmo-che-ba’s account. In it we may know that Zhang-zhung-pa, well after his ordination, and after a period of vinaya study in Nepal, gave vinaya explanations to Byang-chub-’od who began rule of Western Tibet in 1037, and that he received vinaya teachings from Atiśa himself. This evidence means that Zhangzhung-pa was still active well into the decade of the 1040’s, and there is further evidence (in a footnote, below) that he might have been working in the later 1050’s. The Mnga’-ris Rgyal-rabs is alone in placing him at the famous Dharma conference of 1076. Despite the doubts expressed in a footnote by Vitali,13 it seems to me that he could have attended. Dharmapāla, as far as we know could have arrived in Tho-ling as late as the early 1020’s, and one monastic generation intervened between him and Zhang-zhung-pa.

Nowhere in his work (in the form in which we have it) does Zhing-mo-che-ba state his own name, or explicitly state his relationship to the lineage he describes. He does name two disciples of Zhang-zhung-pa, but in an allusive

12 Bu-ston, Chos-’byung, p. 273. The passage was misunderstood by Obermiller (Bu-ston, History, p. 213), when he makes Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab the one who invited Dharmapāla. The Dge-ye history (fol. 7) does say that Dharmapāla and Jñānapāla were together invited to Tibet by King Srong-nge (probably the pre-ordination name of Ye-shes-’od, although there is much confusion on this point in the historical works; see Karmay, ‘Ordinance’; Karmay, ‘Btsan-po’; and Vitali, Kingdoms, p. 171 ff.). Probably Dge-ye intended Prajñāpāla, rather than Jñānapāla (or this could be a later scribal transformation; Bu-ston, Chos-’byung, p. 273, has Dharmapāla and Prajñāpāla invited together). Still more recent sources state that Dharmapāla and the ‘Three Pālas’ were invited as a group, even though there is no such clear statement in the earlier sources. 13 Vitali, Kingdoms, pp. 319-20, note 496. On the Dharma conference of 1076, see Shastri, ‘Fire Dragon.’

manner, as the two teachers with names ending in Blo-gros and Shes-rab. The first, even if he might be identifiable, is nonetheless obscure. The second is definitely Dpal-’byor-shes-rab (his name appears again, although adjusted to fit the metre), better known because of his translations of vinaya texts.

The few brief ‘external’ references to Zhing-mo-che-ba which we have traced are rather frustrating in the sense that they do not supply us with any definite chronological coordinates. He surfaces briefly in the biography of Zhang-ston Dgra-’jigs as found in the biographies of the fasting rite teachers, and in the same passage as mirrored in a few later historical sources,14 where Zhing-moche-ba requests that Zhang-ston begin performing ordinations. The early Tibetan members of the fasting rite lineage are otherwise rather obscure, and no dates are given for them in the collective biographies.15 There is a rather more promising passage in the Dergé Kanjur catalog mirroring an earlier passage in a work of Padma-dkar-po (located thanks to a tip from the late E. Gene Smith),16 which tells us that Zhing-mo-che-ba Byang-chub-seng-ge searched all 14 Jo-gdan, Smyung-gnas, fol. 40, and the later Las-chen, Chos-’byung, vol. 2, p. 370. Compare also Blue Annals, p. 1012. 15 The Blue Annals does give us the dates 1094-1186 for Dgra-’jigs’ spiritual grandfather in the fasting rite lineage, Nying-phug-pa. Nying-phug-pa was a disciple of Byang-sems Zla-ba-rgyal-mtshan (Blue Annals, p. 1008), the latter well known as an ordinator of both Sa-skya-pa and Bka’-brgyud-pa teachers in the 1130’s through 1150’s. Another source (Nyang-ral, p. 472) suggests that Zhing-mo-che-ba and Byang-sems Zla-bargyal-mtshan might have been contemporaries. There are clearly chronological problems here with no certain resolution as yet. 16 Si-tu, Sde-dge, p. 329. Despite its brevity, this is the longest narrative about Zhingmo-che-ba we could locate, but even so it unfortunately does not supply any clear way to anchor him chronologically (the Gnas-brtan Dar-ma-seng-ge mentioned as his contemporary could not be positively identified). To give a brief translation of the passage in the Dergé Tanjur catalogue: “When the Gnas-brtan Dar-ma-seng-ge, at La-stod ’Olrgod temple, was erecting [a manuscript of] the four main vinaya scriptures, the vinaya holder Zhing-mo-che-ba Byang-chub-seng-ge took over the work. He then sought out with great effort and expense [[[manuscripts]]], in general whatever existed in the temples of Dbus and Gtsang, and in particular the scriptures obtained by Dag-chung-pa and Bhikṣu Tshul-khrims-yon-tan from Bsam-yas Mchims-phu.” The La-stod ’Ol-rgod temple is known from Las-chen, Chos-’byung, vol. 2, p. 178, where it is mentioned because of the existence of a complete and edited version of the four main vinaya scriptures which served as the prototype for the Snar-thang copy. The Bhikṣu Tshulkhrims-yon-tan is probably the disciple of Rgya ’Dul-’dzin (1047-1131) by that name (Blue Annals, p. 81), and this would be another probable indication of the twelfthcentury date of Zhing-mo-che-ba. Dag-chung-pa (Dwags-chung-ba in Padma-dkar-po’s version) could possibly be Dwags-po Sgom-chung, the younger brother of Sgom-tshul (d. 1169). We may at least know from this that our author, Zhing-mo-che-ba, also had

over Central Tibet for texts of the Vinaya-kṣudraka-vastu, in order to add in sections that were missing in some manuscripts, but present in others.17 Putting the scant clues provided by these passages together with some brief lineage accounts of the Highland Vinaya, we may still arrive at the dissatisfyingly vague conclusion that Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work must date to the twelfth century.

If we then look at some internal evidence, Zhing-mo-che-ba devotes the first third of his work to a treatment of the Lowland Vinaya lineage, and more specifically an educational lineage beginning with Gzus Rdo-rje-rgyal-mtshan that passed down to Rgya ’Dul-’dzin Dbang-phyug-tshul-khrims-’bar. Rgya ’Dul-’dzin’s dates are known from the Blue Annals to be 1047-1131. Orphaned as a child, he was left at a monastery. The monks however found his appearance repulsive, so they turned him out, saying he was so ugly he might cause harm to the local inhabitants and their crops. He found another monastery, and by the age of thirty-six he was considered an expert in vinaya study. In the last years of his life, he gave talks on vinaya subjects five times a day. His presence in Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work would appear to place its composition somewhere in the first half of the twelfth century.

Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work may be simply divided into three parts. The first part, on the vinaya teaching transmission of the Lowland Vinaya is found only in the chronological study by Mang-thos. The second part, on the origins of the Highland Vinaya transmission, is in both Mang-thos and the Blue Annals. The third part, on Zhang-zhung-pa and the vinaya translations done by him and his disciples is found only in the Blue Annals. Although the whole work is in verse form, it strikes one immediately that part one is told in a spare and unadorned style, and includes a few coldly dismissive words. Part two and the beginning of part three are, on the contrary, full of glowing adjectives and metaphorical adornments. In short, it exhibits a structure very familiar to many of us in later Tibetan sectarian polemic, first disparaging the opposing school and then heaping the highest praise on one’s own. But we cannot summarily dismiss his work as a ‘simple’ polemic, unless we are able to establish for certain that there was no truth to his characterizations. A close study makes plain that an important role in the Tibetan-language textual transmission of the four main vinaya scriptures (’Dul-ba Lung Bzhi, which are: the Vinaya-vibhaṅga, Vinaya-vastu, Vinayakṣudraka-vastu, and Vinaya-uttara-grantha; for a full discussion of the ’Dul-ba Lung Bzhi and the ordering of the vinaya scriptures in different Kanjur editions, see Fifth Dalai Lama, Gsan-yig, vol. 4, p. 295). 17 There is brief mention of his significant role in collecting and preparing the vinaya texts for their eventual canonical form in Harrison, ‘Brief History,’ p. 77.

Zhing-mo-che-ba was not so much interested in vinaya ordination lineages per se, but rather in the traditions of explaining the main vinaya texts. If we just look at the colophons of vinaya texts in the Kanjur and Tanjur, we may see that their most active Tibetan translators in Phyi Dar times were in fact Zhangzhung-pa and his disciple Dpal-’byor-shes-rab,18 and this is borne out as well in the last part of Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work. Dpal-’byor-shes-rab in particular was personally familiar with the vinaya explanations of the Lowland Vinaya, since he is also listed among the main vinaya disciples of Rgya ’Dul-’dzin. It seems therefore quite certain that Zhing-mo-che-ba, as a student of Dpal-’byor-shesrab, would have been well aware of differences between the two schools in their vinaya exegeses. It also seems he could have preferred, even perhaps with some justice, the ‘short transmission’ of vinaya education that Zhang-zhung-pa received from his Nepalese teachers to the ‘long transmission’ of the Lowland Vinaya, since the Lowland Vinaya tradition of learning could have suffered from disruption and diminishment during the post-imperial times. For the moment it seems we may do little more than raise the question.

There are a number of grey areas and even dark spots in our knowledge of the Highland Vinaya, and some apparently contradictory testimonies in the sources. One particular problem emerges when closely comparing the vinaya lineages traced in the Dharma histories. Although some of them do supply the same basic lineage as found in Zhing-mo-che-ba’s text (and in fact often seem to be based on it), still other Dharma histories, starting already with that by Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer, give a quite different ordination lineage, one which includes not only Dharmapāla and Zhang-zhung-pa, but Gzus Rdo-rje-rgyalmtshan as well, the very person whose school is so severely discredited by Zhing-mo-che-ba.19 Dpa’-bo Rin-po-che20 could even state very plainly,

18 Well, there are a few translations by Rin-chen-bzang-po, and a few by others (but some of these latter do make their appearance in Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work, since Dpal’byor-shes-rab had something to do with the translations, or explanations based on them). None of the members of the Lowland Gzus tradition mentioned in Zhing-moche-ba’s work had anything to do with translating vinaya texts, although some of them composed vinaya works which are no longer extant. It should also be remembered in this context that very nearly all of the vinaya scriptures and their Indian commentaries that would ever be translated into Tibetan had already been translated by the late imperial period (as evidenced in the text of the Ldan-dkar/Lhan-dkar catalog). 19 These lineages provided in Nyang-ral’s history (pp. 454-455) are paralleled, and then only partially, in two later works: Yar-lung Jo-bo, Chos-’byung, pp. 176-177, and in Red Annals, pp. 57-58 (the latter quite evidently copied rather closely from Yar-lung Jo-bo). The problems presented by these very different Highland Vinaya lineage lists are many (clearly the manuscript of Nyang-ral has undergone some twists and turns in its

although without supplying any evidence, that since the time of Gzus Rdo-rjergyal-mtshan the teaching lineages of the Highland and Lowland Vinayas had joined in a single stream. Zhing-mo-che-ba’s account by itself would seem to supply strong arguments against that statement.

This text, rather fortuitously passed down to us in two pieces that could be joined together, reveals to us that vinaya studies in those days could be taken seriously enough to provoke polemics, that there were schools of specialists in vinaya studies that became aware of their exegetical differences. At the same time it may help in explaining why the Dharma histories continued down through the centuries to speak of a split between Highland and Lowland Vinaya even long after the Highland Vinaya had diminished in numbers to the point of virtually vanishing from view.21 The main point of this study is just

own transmission), and would require a separate study which will not be attempted here. 20 Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston, p. 483. 21 Therefore, for example, Tshe-dbang-rig-’dzin (Rgyal-rabs, p. 82) could say, ‘It is evident that the Highland Vinaya did not greatly proliferate’ (stod ’dul ni ha cang ’phel ba ma byung bar mngon). It may have even disappeared entirely. Although it seems likely that it would have survived somehow, this is unclear. Some recent Dge-lugs-pa authors have confused the Highland Vinaya with the Paṇ-chen Vinaya of Śākyaśrī, even referring to the latter as the Stod ’Dul, although there is no justification for this in early sources. For a modern example of this conflation of lineages, see Sopa, Lectures, pp. 116, 130. Sum-pa, in his history (Chos-’byung, p. 589) relates how the Fifth Dalai Lama, having already received complete ordination into the Lowland Vinaya from the Panchen Lama at age twenty-two, took them once again at age sixty-one, only this time in the Paṇ-chen Śākyaśrī transmission. In that context he does not comment on the unusual nature of this second ordination, but in his famous chronological study (Chos-’byung, p. 900), in the entry for the year 1677, we read, “Was there a necessity for [[[Dalai Lama V]]] Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho to later on accept the flow of pratimokṣa vows of the Highland Vinaya system?” (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtshos slar stod ’dul lugs kyi so thar sdom rgyun bzhes dgos byung ngam). It seems clear that Sum-pa has confused two separate lineages, although elsewhere (pp. 360, 382) he does briefly recount the story of the Highland Vinaya (but, significantly, without employing the term), and this interesting problem of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s second ordination deserves further investigation. (Thanks are due to E. Gene Smith for pointing out the sources, and making the argument.) The Fifth Dalai Lama himself (Deb-ther, p. 93; Bstanpa’i Rtsa-ba, p. 32) was very well aware that Dharmapāla introduced the Highland Vinaya. The vinaya history by Bsod-nams-grags-pa (Martin, Tibetan Histories, no. 173; the 1975 edition, p. 21; the version in his collected works, p. 173) says that the Highland lineage continued after Zhing-mo-che-ba up until the later ’Dog-long-ba Mkhan-chen Kun-dga’-dpal, who passed the lineage on to Red-mda’-ba (1349-1412), and to Rgyal-tshab Chos-rje, who should likely be identified as Rgyal-tshab-rje Dar-ma

that, in its reconstituted form, this is likely to be the earliest somehow ‘complete’ historical narrative of the vinaya renaissance that we have. For this reason alone, it would deserve the close attention of students of Tibetan and vinaya history. As the author of the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston said, in the middle of the sixteenth century, after summarizing Zhing-mo-che-ba’s work, “While the Highland Vinaya was renowned for being very pure [and correct], it is feared that its ordination lineage is one that has meanwhile been dispersed and broken off.”22

The Tibetan text, followed by an annotated translation, is presented below.

Tibetan text

In two places we find direct quotations from a work by Zhing-mo-che Byangchub-seng-ge. The first quotation is in Mang-thos, Bstan-rtsis. Here, an at least partial (perhaps merely descriptive) title is given: Brgyud-rim-gyi Yi-ge, and the author is called a disciple of Zhang-zhung-pa Rgyal-she (i.e., Rgyal-ba-shesrab). An English translation of the second quotation is found in Blue Annals, p. 84-87, which may be compared with the English translation given below.

Source: Mang-thos, Bstan-rtsis, pp. 78-80:

stod ’dul ni | lo chen dang bla ma ye shes ’od kyi sku tshe’i smad la | rgya gar shar phyogs kyi paṇ∂i ta dharmā pā la spyan drangs ’dul ba’i bstan pa spel ba las | mkhan bu pā la rnam gsum ste | sa dhū pā la | gu ṇa pā la | pradznyā pā la’o | pradznyā pā la’i mkhan bu zhang zhung pa rgyal ba shes rab ste | des dharmā pā la nyams len dang /

rin-chen (1364-1432), the famous disciple of Tsong-kha-pa. It seems that the Kun-dga’dpal mentioned here should be identified with Nya-dbon Kun-dga’-dpal (1345-1439). The complete lineage linking Dharmapāla with Red-mda’-ba is supplied in Mang-thos, Bstan-rtsis, p. 160, as follows: 1. Dharmapāla. 2. Prajñāpāla. 3. Zhang-zhung Rgyal-she. 4. Dpal-’byor-shes-rab. 5. Zhing-mo-che-ba Byang-chub-seng-ge. 6. Yang-rtse-ba Rdo-rjeseng-ge. 7. Stag-pa Padma-g.yung-drung. 8. Rtsis-’dul Thugs-rje-byang-chub. 9. Bde-bacan-pa Shākya-byang-chub. 10. Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan. 11. Byang-chub-seng-ge. 12. Byang-chub-bzang-po. 13. Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan. 14. Dpal-ldan-bla-ma. 15. Mdog-lhopa Mkhas-chen Kun-dga’-dpal-bzang-po. 16. Red-mda’-pa, etc. Numbers 6 and following were not possible to positively identify, unfortunately for our efforts to date Zhing-mo-che-ba. 22 Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston (PRC version), p. 482: “stod ’dul ’di shin tu dag par grags kyang / mkhan brgyud ’di la bar nas kha yar chad pa cig yin par dogs so.”

bram ze ’dul ’dzin pre ta ka ra la phyag len bslabs pas sgrub brgyud kyi bla ma rnam pa gnyis |

shrī dznyan dha ra dang | shrī su bhudhi shanti la gzhung gi bshad pa gtso bor gsan pas bshad brgyud kyi bla ma gnyis so |

de ltar ’dul ba la brgyud pa gnyis yod pas stod ’dul ba rnams ni | rgya gar nas bshad sgrub kyi brgyud pa bar ma chad pas phyag len dang bshad pa [p. 79] sogs khungs btsun la | smad ’dul ba rnams ni | gzus dang bla ma rnam gsum dang rgya ’dul la sogs pas bshad pa mang dag mdzad kyang | rang bzo ma gtogs brgyud pa med pas khungs thub med do zhes zur za bar mdzad de | zhang zhung pa rgyal she’i slob ma zhing mo che pa byang chub seng ges mdzad pa’i brgyud rim gyi yi ge las |

bslab pa gsum las tshul khrims kyi | | bslab pa ston pa ’dul ba yin | | sde snod brgyud pa gnyis yin te | | phyogs snga ma dang phyi ma’o | | dang po bod kyi brgyud pa ste | | dge slong rdo rje rgyal mtshan gyis | | slob dpon med phyir gzhung rnams la | | lta rtog byas nas bshad pa mdzad | | de la slob pa rnam pa bzhi | | dge slong tshul khrims ’byung gnas dang | | tshul khrims byang chub dbus kyi’o | | dge slong grags pa rgyal mtshan dang | | shes rab ’od ni gtsang gi’o | | de slob tshul khrims bla ma ste | | tshul khrims ’byung gnas slob ma ni | | dge slong rin chen bla ma’o | | de gnyis slob ma che ba’i mchog | | dge bshes dbang phyug tshul khrims yin | | de yis blo yis brtag byas nas | | dgag dgos rgyu mtshan mang po byas | | tshul khrims bla mas yan lag dang | | spyi don bsdus don bam po gsum | | blo yis brtags nas yi ger bkod | | de dag slob ma che ba ni | | ye shes rgyan gyis mgo bsgre byas | | slob dpon sun dbyung blo yis rtog | | rgya gar brgyud pa med pa yin | | de ni phyogs snga ’god pa’o | |

[Words of Mang-thos:] zhes smad ’dul la phyogs snga brjod nas dgag pa mang dag mdzad rjes rang lugsjog pa na |

phyi ma mnga’ ris ’dul ’dzin la | | rgya gar brgyud pa yod par bzhed | | de yang sgrub pa’i brgyud dang ni | | bshad pa’i brgyud dang rnam pa gnyis | | [80] sgrub pa’i brgyud pa ’di lta ste | | lha rgyal bla ma ye shes ’od | | ’jam dpal sprul par rab grags pa | | de ni rtsa rgyud chen po las | | lung bstan thob pa tho ling gi | | dpe med lhun grub gtsug lag khang | | bzhengs nas rgya gar shar phyogs nas | | mkhas btsun snyan pa’i ’brug sgra can | | grags pa rgyal mtshan mthon po yis | | kun la gsal bar gyur pa yi | | dharma pā la zhes bya ba | | ye shes ’od kyis spyan drangs nas | | thugs rje nyi mas rgyud skul nas | | bstan pa rin chen gnas bya’i phyir | | mkhan po mdzad nas sgrub brgyud spel | | de yi mkhan bu’i gtso bo gsum | | dge slong sa dhu pā la dang | | jo bo gu ṇa pā la dang | | dge slong pradznya pā la’o | | pradznya pā la’i mkhan bu ni | | zhang zhung yul gyi ’dul badzin | | dge slong rgyal ba’i shes rab ste | | tshul khrims g.yag gi rnga ma dang | | mig gi ’bras bu bzhin du bsrungs | | yon tan rang bzhin thams cad kyi | | rgyur gyur ’dul ba’i sde snod las | | mang du thos shing nges byas pa | | snyan pas nam mkha’ sa steng khyab | | thugs rje’i sprin las chos char phab | | rab byung tha ma’i rgyud spangs nas | | bstan pa rin chen rgyas mdzad pa | | Deb-ther Sngon-po [Kha], p. 76.4 [fol. 76, line 4]:

zhing mo che pa byang chub seng ges | phyi ma mnga’ ris ’dul ’dzin la | | rgya gar brgyud pa yod par bzhed | | de yang sgrub pa’i brgyud pa ni | | bshad pa’i brgyud dang rnam pa gnyis | |

sgrub pa’i brgyud pa ’di lta ste | | lha rgyal bla ma ye shes ’od | | ’jam dpal sprul par grags pa ni | | de ni rtsa rgyud chen po las | | lung bstan thob pa tho ling gi | | dpe med lhun grub gtsug lag khang | | bzhengs nas rgya gar shar phyogs nas | | mkhas btsun snyan pa’i ’brug sgra can | | grags pa’i rgyal mtshan mthon po yis | | kun la gsal bar gyur pa yi | | dharma pā la zhes bya ba | | ye shes ’od kyis spyan drangs nas | | thugs rje nyi mas rgyud bskul te | | bstan pa rin chen gnas bya’i phyir | | mkhan po mdzad nas sgrub brgyud spel | | de yi mkhan bu’i gtso bo gsum | | dge slong sā dhu pā la dang | | jo bo gu ṇa pā la dang | | dge slong pradznyā pā la’o | | pradznyā pā la’i mkhan bu ni | | zhang zhung yul gyi ’dul badzin | | [missing] tshul khrims g.yag gi rnga ma dang | | mig gi ’bras bu bzhin du bsrung | | yon tan rin chen thams cad kyi | | rgyur gyur ’dul ba’i sde snod la | | [p. 77] mang du thos shing nges byas pas | | snyan pas nam mkha’ sa stengs khyab | | thugs rje’i sprin las chos char phab | | rab byung tha ba’i rgyud spangs nas | | bstan pa rin chen rgyas mdzad pa | |

[Closing words added by Mang-thos:] zhes sogs bshad pa ltar yin no | |

[End of Mang-thos account]

[[[Blue Annals]] continues:]

mtshan nas shin tu brjod dka’ ba’i | | dge slong rgyal ba’i shes rab ste | | sgra skad tshig la legs bslabs pas | | paṇ∂i ta ni mang du bsten | | de yi yon tan dpag med pas | | rjes su dran na mchi ma bku | | ba spu ldang zhing dang ba skye | | skyes mchog de dang phrad par smon | | de yis dharma pā la yi | | | | nyams len bslabs nas phyi nas ni | | ne pa la yi yul gnas pa | | tshul khrims shin tu gces mdzad pa | | mkhas par rab grags bram ze yi | | ’dul ’dzin pre ta ka ra la | | ’dul ba’i phyag len thams cad bslabs | | sgrub brgyud bla ma rnam pa gnyis | | bshad pa’i brgyud pa rnam pa gnyis | | ’dzam gling grags pas khyab gyur pa | | mkhas pa mang las brgyud pa can | | dznyā na shrī zhes grags pa las | | so so thar dang de yi ’grel | | ’dul ba bsdus pa zhes bya ba | | dge slong rgyal ba’i shes rab kyis | | de la zhus nas ’gyur yang bcos | | gzhan yang dge slong de yis ni | | sum brgya pa dang de yi ’grel | | ’od ldan zhes bya’i gzhung de ni | | kha che’i mkhas pa paṇ∂i ta | | shrī su bhū ti shānti la | | dge slong dge blos bsgyur nas ni | | ma dag chad pa thams cad bcos | | yul dbus dpe dang bstun byas te | | thugs rjes rgyud brlan lha yi sras | | byang chub ’od kyi ngor bshad mdzad | | slob ma la phan zhes bya ba’i | | ’grel pa des bsgyur de yis gsan | | de ming kha che paṇ chen grags | |

dge tshul rnams kyi kā ri kā | | sa manta shrī dznyā na la | | zhus shing ’gyur yang legs bcos nas | | rgya gar kha che bal po yi | | rgya dpe gsum dang bstun byas nas | | dge slong rgyal shes bshad pa mdzad | | dge tshul gyi ni lo dri yang | | rgya dang bal po’i yul nas ni | | [78] spyan drangs tho ling byon pa na | | dharma pā la’i rgya dpe gzigs | | kha che’i mkhan po na ra ya | | de ba la [?de thal?] ni de zhus nas | | bsgyur zhing bshad pa dag kyang mdzad | | dge slong gi ni lo dri ba | | dge slong byang chub ’byung gnas kyis | | zhus nas rgya gar shar phyogs kyi | | mkhas btsun grub thob grags khyab pa | | mtshan nas shin tu brjod dka’ ba | | dī paṃ ka ra shrī dznyā na | | dge slong tshul khrims rgyal bas bsgyur | | de dag rnams la zhang zhung gi | | ’dul ’dzin chen pos zhus pa yin | | de la slob dpon blo gros dang | | shes rab mtha’ can gnyis kyis zhus | | dge slong gi ni kā ri kā | | ne pa la yi paṇ∂i ta | | lung dang rtogs pa’i bdag nyid can | | mkhas pa dza ya ā kar las | | dge slong pradznyā kīrttis bsgyur | | de la dpal gyi ’byor pas gsan | | dge ’dul bslab pa’i gzhi mdo ni | | kha che’i mkhas pa paṇ∂i ta | | pa ra he ta zhes bya dang | | gdung rabs mang por brgyud pa yi | | ma hā dza na zhes bya ba’i | | mkhas pa gnyis la tho ling du | | sgra skad byang ba’i lo tsā ba | | dge slong gzhon nu mchog gis ni | | bsgyur nas de yi bshad pa mdzad | | de la slob dpon dpal gyi ’byor | | shes rab dag gis gsan pa yin | |

[Added words by author of Blue Annals:] zhes gsungs te | ’di ltar na dharma pā la dang | pre ta ka lag len gyi brgyud par snang zhing | su bhū ti shrī shānti la sogs pa rnams bshad pa’i brgyud pa’o | | ’dul badzin pa’i lo rgyus kyi skabs so | | | |

English translation

[Introductory words by Mang-thos prefacing the citation:] The Highland Vinaya: In the latter halves of the lives of Lo-chen [Rin-chenbzang-po] and Bla-ma Ye-shes-’od the eastern Indian pundit Dharmapāla was invited and furthered the vinaya teachings. His ordinands were Sadhupāla, Guṇapāla and Prajñāpāla. Prajñāpāla’s ordinand was Zhang-zhung-pa Rgyal-ba-shes-rab. He studied the practical applications with Dharmapāla and the procedures with the brahmin Vinaya Holder Pretakara, these two teachers being the bla-mas of the accomplishment transmission. He studied primarily the textual explanations with Śrī Jñānadhara and Śrī Subhūtiśānti. Hence there were two vinaya transmissions [that flowed into the Highland Vinaya]. The disciple of Zhang-zhung-pa Rgyal-she, Zhing-mo-che-pa Byangchub-seng-ge, composed the Transmission Document (Brgyud-rim-gyi Yige). It puts things rather sarcastically in saying that, while the followers of the Highland Transmission have unbroken lineages from India of both explanation and accomplishment transmissions and so have pure sources for their teaching and practice, the followers of the Lowland Transmission have no lineage except a mentally fabricated one, that even though there were many explanations by Gzus,23 the ‘Three Lamas’ (bla-ma rnam gsum),24 Rgya ’Dul[-’dzin] and others, they had no reliable source. It says:

23 Gzus Rdo-rje-rgyal-mtshan was an ordinand of Klu-mes (or at least studied Vinaya with Klu-mes directly), as well as a monastic ‘great-grandfather’ of Rgya ’Dul-’dzin (on whom see a following note). His disciples founded a number of schools specifically devoted to the study of vinaya, which is the reason they are mentioned here (they are the main persons mentioned in Zhing-mo-che-ba’s account of the Lowland Vinaya that follows). 24 This is a way of referring to the three vinaya teachers of Rgya ’Dul-’dzin Dbangphyug-tshul-khrims (1047-1131), with whom he studied before reaching age 34 (and therefore before the year 1081 [see Padma-dkar-po, Chos-’byung, p. 343.1; Blue Annals, pp. 78-79; Ferrari, p. 167; Sperling, ‘Notes,’ p. 744-5, note 9]). The names of his three teachers are: Sog Tshul-khrims-bla-ma, Nyang-mtshams Rin-chen-bla-ma and Kokhyim-pa Ye-shes-bla-ma, all of whom have the element bla-ma in their names.

Of the three learnings,25 it is the vinaya that teaches the learning of moral discipline. [The vinaya] basket has two transmissions — the earlier and the later divisions. The first of these is a Tibetan transmission. The Bhikṣu Rdo-rje-rgyal-mtshan, since he did not have an [[[Indian]]] ācārya, looked at and thought about the texts, and then explained them.26 He had four students — the Bhikṣus Tshul-khrims-’byung-gnas and Tshul-khrims-byang-chub were of Dbus province, while the Bhikṣus Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan and Shes-rab-’od were of Gtsang province. The student of the latter was Tshul-khrims-bla-ma,27 and the student of Tshul-khrims-’byung-gnas was Bhikṣu Rin-chen-bla-ma. The best among the better students of those two was Dge-bshes Dbang-phyug-tshul-khrims.28 He gained some general conceptual understanding which caused much reason for objection.

25 The three learnings are: the learning of moral discipline (śīla), associated especially with the Vinaya Basket of scriptures, the learning of contemplative absorption (samādhi) associated with the Sūtra Basket, and the learning of insight (prajñā) associated with the Abhidharma Basket. 26 The Blue Annals (p. 77) names specific vinaya texts that Gzus Rdo-rje-rgyal-mtshan studied with Klu-mes, and adds that he later studied with Rlungs and Skyogs and “he became very learned.” The disciple of Gzus, named as ’Dzims-pa, even founded an institution of vinaya studies (’dul-ba’i bshad-grwa). The overall impression of this Blue Annals passage is that vinaya learning was flourishing with Gzus and his followers, and there is not the slightest hint of any shortcomings they might have had. As already noted, there are even accounts placing Gzus in the main trunk of a vinaya lineage stemming from Dharmapāla. 27 Sog Tshul-khrims-bla-ma. From him Bya ’Dul-’dzin-pa Brtson-’grus-’bar (1031-1106) learned vinaya. Sangpo, Biographical Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 277. He was a disciple of Sne-bo Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, according to Padma-dkar-po, Chos-’byung, p. 343.1. Blue Annals, p. 78, calls him Mchen Tshul-khrims-bla-ma of the Sog clan and says that he founded religious schools for the study of vinaya. By the way, this strange form Mchen, apparently unattested elsewhere, is not as it might seem a clan or place name, but is best explained as a reduction of Mkhan-chen, meaning ‘Great Ordinator,’ based on a reading of a cursive manuscript abbreviation. 28 For reference to a biography of Rgya ’Dul-’dzin Dbang-phyug-tshul-khrims-’bar, and his dates, 1047-1131, see above.

Tshul-khrims-bla-ma wrote out, based on his general conceptualizations, three volumes — the Limbs, the General Treatment and the Summary.29 Their better student, Ye-shes-rgyan,30 did likewise. [They are marked by] their repudiation of [[[Indian]]] ācāryas, their general conceptualizations and their lack of Indian transmission. That was the record of the earlier division.

Thus, calling the Lowland Vinaya the ‘earlier division,’ after many objections, he puts forward his own tradition [as follows]:

The later [[[transmission]]], the vinaya holders of Mnga’-ris, are claimed to have an Indian transmission. It has two aspects, the accomplishment transmission and the explanation transmission. The accomplishment transmission is as follows: The divine royal Bla-ma Ye-shes-’od was known to be an emanation of Mañjuśrī, since he was so prophesied in the Great Root Tantra.31 After he built the Dpe-med-lhun-grub Gtsug-lag-khang,32 he invited Dharmapāla, an eastern Indian,33

29 So far it has not proven possible to locate any other mention of works composed by Tshul-khrims-bla-ma, although there is reference to a vinaya commentary by his disciple Bya ’Dul-baDzin-pa Brtson-’grus-’bar in Btsan-lha, Brda-dkrol, p. 1050. 30 It has not been possible to identify this person; this may very well be a shortened form of the name Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan, which is quite common, but it did not yet prove possible to locate anyone by this name who belonged to this generation. 31 Here the Great Root Tantra is of course the Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa. These prophecies appear in nearly every account of the reign of Ye-shes-’od to be found in the Dharma histories. 32 Tho-ling, or name of a particular building that formed part of the complex (see Tucci, Rin-chen-bzaṅ-po, p. 65). Its official name was Tho-gling Dpal Dpe-med Lhun-gyisgrub-pa’i Gtsug-lag-khang (sometimes the element Khang-dmar, ‘red chamber’ may be added). Building began in 996, and the final consecration took place in 1028 (these dates are given in a fifteenth-century history of Western Tibet; see Vitali, Kingdom, pp. 109, 255 ff.). The name is often spelled Mtho-lding, ‘Soaring Height.’ The longer version of the name was given at its consecration, and this detail might be used to argue for the date of completion and consecration in 1028 being the time intended here. But Vitali places Ye-shes-’od’s death in 1023-4 which would then mean he could not have been alive in 1028 or after to invite Dharmapāla.

who had become known to all through the high banner of his renown, the thunder of his reputation for learning, and his pure conduct. When Ye-shes-’od invited him, he was moved by the sun of his compassion. So, to ensure that the precious teachings would long endure, he served as ordinator, advancing the accomplishment transmission.

The three chief among his ordinands were Bhikṣu Sādhupāla, the Elder Guṇapāla and Bhikṣu Prajñāpāla. The ordinand of Prajñāpāla was the vinaya holder of Zhang-zhung country Bhikṣu Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab. He protected the moral disciplines like the yak its tail, like one’s own eyeball.34

33 This Dharmapāla should not be confused with a number of other Buddhist figures by this name. Vitali, in his index (Kingdoms, p. 608) makes the present Dharmapāla a Kashmiri which conflicts with the information given here (as also in Mang-thos, Bstanrtsis, p. 78, and still other available works) that associate him with eastern India. Likewise, the nameKashmir’ in the brief account of Dharmapāla as contained in Hoffmann, Religions, p. 116, must be corrected to ‘Nepal,’ since the sources he used all agree that Dharmapāla was in Nepal (Bal-po) when he was invited to Tibet. There is a tendency in some sources to connect our Dharmapāla with translations of Yogatantra works. There is a work listed in Dergé Tanjur catalogue (see Tōh. no. 2637), a Yogatantra cremation ritual, translated by the Indian Master Teacher Dharmapāla (Rgya-gargyi Mkhan-po Ā-tsarya Dharma-pā-la) and the translator Bhikṣu Dge-ba’i-blo-gros. The Tibetan translator is certainly Rma Lo-tsā-ba Dge-ba’i-blo-gros (1044-1089), who seems to have lived a little too late to be working together with our Dharmapāla, but then there seems to be no way of knowing how long our Dharmapāla worked in Tibet, or even how long he lived. 34 Although some may find this news surprising, the idea that the yak scrupulously avoids injury to even a single hair of its tail was originally a literary conceit of India, not Tibet. It may even be found in the eleventh book of Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography. A Greek resident of Alexandria and a Nestorian Christian by faith, he is believed to have sailed to India, as his name implies, in the earlier half of the 6th century CE. For two examples of usage closer in time and place to the present one, see Eimer, Testimonia, p. 33: tshul-khrims g.yag rnga bzhin-du bsrung mdzad-cing (and note on p. 55 a nearly identical phrase used in a praise of Atiśa by the western Tibetan king Byang-chub-’od). Quite a few more examples of usage may be found in various parts of

He learned much about the vinaya basket, the main cause of all esteemed qualities, and gained certainty in his learning. Because of this his fame pervaded earth and sky, and the Dharma fell down like rain from his compassion cloud. Departing from the tradition of hard and fallow renunciation,35 he made the jewel-like teachings flourish.

He whose name is difficult to release from the lips, the Bhikṣu Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab, well learned in words, speech and grammar, studied with many pundits. His good qualities were so far beyond belief just thinking about him brings tears to the eyes, gives you gooseflesh, arouses veneration. May we meet with this great personage [in a future life]. After he had learned the practices of Dharmapāla, he later on studied all the vinaya procedures with a resident of Nepal, a brahmin well known for his learning who held dearly to the moral disciplines, the Vinaya Holder Pretakara.36

He came to be known throughout Jambu Island, with transmissions from many of the learned of his day, including two teachers in the accomplishment transmission and two teachers in the explanation transmission.

The one known as Jñānaśrī was requested by Bhikṣu Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab to teach the Pratimokṣa and its commentary known as the Vinaya Summary (’Dul-ba Bsdus-pa), which they then translated and proofed.37

the Kanjur and Tanjur, works that were translated from Indian languages. We will notice another example below. 35 The word translated as ‘hard and fallow’ is tha-ba, a rather uncommon word that does commonly occur in this very type of extended agricultural analogy. The implication would seem to be that Zhang-zhung-pa advocated a relatively ‘soft’ or less rigid interpretation of the vinaya rules. 36 In the translation of this very same passage, Blue Annals, p. 85, gives the name with a length mark: Pretākara. Apart from being a brahmin, little is known about him.

Besides this, the Bhikṣu corrected all the imperfections and mistakes in the translation by the Kashmir scholar pundit Śrī Subhūtiśānti and the Bhikṣu Dge-blo of the Three Hundreds (Sum-brgya-pa) and its commentary the Light Possessed (’Od-ldan).38 Referring to a manuscript from Magadha he explained it in the presence of Byang-chub-’od,39

According to Tucci (Rin-chen-bzaṅ-po, p. 51), the Vinaya-saṃgraha (’Dul-ba Bsdus-pa) was translated at the order of King Rtse-lde (who took the throne shortly after the death of Rin-chen-bzang-po in 1055) by Jñānaśrībhadra, native of Anupamapura (Grong-khyer Dpe-med), a city in Kashmir, together with the translators [Zhangzhung-pa] Rgyal-ba-shes-rab and Shākya-bshes-gnyen. The Dergé Tanjur catalogue (and see Tōh. no. 4105) also says that the ’Dul-ba Bsdus-pa, composed by ācārya Khyadpar-bshes-gnyen (i.e., Viśeṣamitra or Viśiṣṭamitra), was first translated by the Tibetan Vairocanarakṣita together with the Indian masters Śīlendrabodhi and Śākyaprabha (himself an author of two vinaya works) in imperial times. The second translation was by the Kashmiri ordinator Jñānaśrībhadra (called Jñānaśīla later in the colophon) and the Tibetan-born translators Bhikṣu Rgyal-ba-shes-rab and Shākya-bshes-gnyen. This later revision was done, the colophon tells us, at the orders of King Rtse-lde. It is interesting to notice that the Tanjur colophon uses the same metaphors for the keeping of the vows by Rgyal-ba-shes-rab that we have seen just above, “like the yak its tail, like one’s own eyeball’ (g.yag rnga dang || mig gi ’bras bu bzhin du). 38 Rma Dge-ba’i-blo-gros, born 1044 (see Blue Annals, pp. 70, 71, 219-220, 232, 240), and Subhūtiśrīśānti worked together on a number of translations. The Three Hundreds is a collection of advice for novices composed by Shākya-’od (i.e., Śākyaprabha). The title as it appears in the Tōh. no. 4124 is Mūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikā (’Phags-pa Gzhi Tham-cad Yod-par Smra-ba’i Dge-tshul-gyi Tshig-le’ur Byas-pa), and although not explicit in its colophon, it was translated by Sarvajñadeva and Devendrarakṣita. The Indian master is generally referred to in Tibetan sources as Rab-’byor-zhi-ba (or in short form Rab-zhi), which supports the form Subhūtiśānti. I believe the Tanjur colophon and/or its editor have confounded the imperial period yogatantra teacher Buddhaśānti with our much later Subhūtiśānti, although it is difficult to be sure. The Light Possessed means the Prabhāvatī, Tōh. no. 4125, translated by the Indian master Sarvajñadeva and the Gtsang native Tibetan Devendrarakṣita (in Tibetan, Lha’i-dbang-po-srung-ba, the name he received when ordained by Śāntarakṣita ; his lay name was Legs-grub). It is interesting that our text tells us only about the later levels of revision that are left unmentioned in the Tanjur colophons. It is probably useless to speculate about the reasons for this without first going into a thorough study of the texts. 39 Byang-chub-’od, whose dates should be 984-1078, began ruling in 1037, succeeding his elder brother ’Od-lde. See Vitali, Kingdoms, p. 294. Rtse-lde took rule in 1057. The

the divine prince whose mind was moist with compassion. The latter also heard him explain the same’s translation of the commentary called Help for Students (Slob-ma-la Phan).40

He requested from and translated with Samantaśrījñāna the Verses of Novices of one known by the name Kashmir’s Great Pundit (Kha-che Paṇ-chen).41 After proofing it, then comparing it with three Indic manuscripts from India, Kashmir and Nepal, he, Bhikṣu Rgyal-she, gave teachings on it.

When he arrived in Tho-ling bringing with him Indian and Nepalese copies of the Questions of First Year Novices (Dge-tshul-gyi ni Lo Dri),42

Fifth Dalai Lama (Gsan-yig, vol. 1, p. 23) supplies a lineage for the Three Hundreds and its commentary, one which includes Dharmapāla, Zhang-zhung-pa Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab, and [Zhing-mo-che-ba] Byang-chub-seng-ge. It is interesting that in this lineage, the author Śākyaprabha and Dharmapāla are divided by only one generation. 40 The Help for Students is an explanation of Śākyaprabha’s Three Hundreds composed by ’Dul-ba’i-lha (i.e., Vinītadeva) that bears the title Triśatakārikāvyākhyāna (Tshig-le’ur Byas-pa Sum-brgya-pa’i Rnam-par Bshad-pa) according to Tōh. no. 4126. It was also translated by Dge-ba’i-blo-gros, but in conjunction with the Indian ordinator Buddhaśānti. The Dergé Tanjur catalogue reads: “Tshig-le’ur Byas-pa Sum-brgya-pa’i rnam-par bshad-pa Slob-ma-la Phan-pa zhes bya-ba Slob-dpon ’Dul-ba’i-lhas mdzad-pa / Rgya-gar-gyi Mkhan-po Buddha-shānti dang / Lo tsā-ba Dge-slong Dge-ba’i-blo-groskyi ’gyur-rnams bzhugs-so.” This quote contains the same translation as the colophon of 4126, but do note the plural ending in ’gyur-rnams, ‘translations,’ that would imply that all three of the texts underwent the same Phyi-dar revisions. Only in our text are we informed about any role being played by Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab. 41 Here, because of the title of his work, Kha-che Paṇ-chen ought to mean Saṅghabhadra (the more famous figure by this name is associated with Kashmir). His Mūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikā is found in Tōh. no. 4127, translated by Munivarman and Sna-nam Ye-shes-sde. However, note that whereas the Tōhoku entry tells us that it may be attributed to either Saṅghabhadra or Nāgārjuna, the actual colophon in the Dergé text gives Klu-grub, i.e. Nāgārjuna, as the author. Note, too, that the Dergé colophon mentions only the imperial period translation, with no mention of any revision. 42 The Sanskrit title ought to be Śrāmaṇeravarṣāgrapṛcchā. Dergé Tanjur catalogue: “Dgetshul-gyi Dang-po’i Lo Dri-ba / Kha-che’i Mkhan-po Na-ra-sa-de-wa dang / Lo-tsā-ba Dgeslong Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab-kyi ’gyur.” Tōh. no. 4132 supplies the name Narasadeva, while Ngor-pa, Chos-’byung, p. 264, reads Na-ra-ma-de-wa. As part of a very useful listing of Tibetan vinaya treatises, Banerjee, Sarvāstivāda, p. 47, says: “The translators

he viewed the Indic manuscript of Dharmapāla, worked with the Kashmiri ordinator Narayadeva, then translated and made correct teachings based on it.

At the request of Bhikṣu Byang-chub-’byung-gnas, the Bhikṣu Tshul-khrims-rgyal-ba translated Questions of First Year Bhikṣus (Dge-slong-gi ni Lo Dri-ba)43 with the widely known, learned and disciplined accomplished master (grubthob) of eastern India whose name is with difficulty allowed through the lips, Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna. From them the Great Vinaya Holder of Zhang-zhung requested teachings. From the latter the two teachers with names ending in Blo-gros and Shes-rab requested teachings.

The Bhikṣu Verses (Dge-slong-gi ni Kā-ri-kā) were translated by Bhikṣu Prajñākīrti with the Nepalese pundit — a personage of spiritual authority and realization — the scholar Jayākara.

into Tibetan are Naradeva and Jayaprajña—the name of the author is not known.” By Jayaprajña he of course means Rgyal-ba’i-shes-rab (he simply made a back-translation of the Tibetan name into Sanskrit). Like myself, he seems not to have known what to do with the name Narasadeva/ Naramadeva/ Narayadeva, and so opted for the simpler name N[ā]radeva. 43 In Sanskrit: Bhikṣuvarṣāgrapṛcchā (Tōh. no. 4133). Dergé Tanjur catalogue: “Dge-slonggi Dang-po’i Lo Dri-ba Dpal Ra-sa’i Gtsug-lag-khang-gi ’Od-mchog Dngos-grub-kyi Gtsuglag-khang-du Rgya-gar-gyi Mkhan-po Dī-paṃ-ka-ra-shrī-dznyā-na dang Lo-tsā-ba Dgeslong Tshul-khrims-rgyal-ba’i ’gyur.” According to this, Atiśa’s disciple Tshul-khrimsrgyal-ba translated it together with Atiśa at the temple of Lha-sa (Ra-sa), the temple best known to the world as the Jokang. At least two sources (Malalasekera, Encyclopaedia, vol. 3, p. 52; and compare Banerjee, Sarvāstivāda, p. 50) says that, even though no author is supplied, this particular work has been attributed to one Mkhanpo Padma-’byung-gnas-dbyangs (*Padmākaraghoṣa). See Ruegg, ‘Review,’ p. 656, for what is to my knowledge the only extended discussion of this authorship problem. To this discussion could well be added the evidence of the Mkhas-pa Lde’u history (p. 173), where it is quite interestingly attributed to the authorship of Saṅghabhadra (Dge-’dunbzang-po). To quote the passage precisely, “kha che dge ’dun bzang pos ka ri ka dang / dge slong dang dge ’dun gyi lo tri ba yang mdzad do.” In fact, according to this Saṅghabhadra composed both of the (in their Dergé versions) ‘anonymous’ works listed as Tōh. nos. 4132 and 4133.

Dpal-gyi-’byor-pa learned it from him.44

The Basic Sūtra of Novices’ Vinaya Advice (Dge ’Dul Bslab-pa’i Gzhi Mdo)45 was translated and explained by the translator, learned in languages, Bhikṣu Gzhon-nu-mchog at Tho-ling with the two scholars— Paraheta,46 the Kashmiri scholar pundit, and Mahājana,47 who had many lineages from his ancestors.

From him the teacher Dpal-gyi-’byor-shes-rab48

The only work which, according to the Dergé Tanjur catalogue (and Tōh. entry no. 4123), was translated by Nepalese pundit Jayākara and the Tibetan translator Prajñākīrti is the ’Dul-ba Tshig-le’ur Byas-pa, in Sanskrit Vinaya-kārikā, composed by Saga’i-lha (i.e. Viśākhadeva, on whom see Tāranātha, History, p. 197). The Dergé version of the text, at least, underwent a still further revision by the South Indian Vanaratna (1384-1468) and Rong-ston Shes-bya-kun-rig (1367-1449). The Dergé version’s colophon gives the added information that Viśākhadeva was a student of Dge-’dun’bangs, a Tibetan form that may with much certainty be re-Sanskritized as Saṅghadāsa. This work may be better known in the literature under its poetic name, Flower Garland (Puṣpamālā — Me-tog-gi Phreng-rgyud or Me-tog Phreng-rgyud). 45 Śrāmaṇera-śikṣāpada Sūtra, by Kalyāṇamitra, Tōh. no. 4130, where it says it was translated initially by Mahājana together with Gzhon-nu-mchog, and subsequently revised by Parahita in association with Gzhon-nu-mchog. I read Dge-tshul in place of our text’s Dge ’Dul. 46 Tāranātha (History, pp. 284, 424-425) tells us that Parahita lived during the reign of the Pāla king Mahīpāla. According to the Dergé Tanjur catalogue, Bhikṣu Gzhon-numchog and the Kashmiri scholar Parahita, worked together on their translations at Tho-ling. He was among the Indian masters present at the council of 1076 (see Shastri, ‘Fire Dragon,’ p. 878, where his name appears as Sarahete). Lde’u, Chos-’byung, p. 383, says that Sa-ra-he-te was invited by the translator Gzhon-nu-mchog-rab (but note that the ‘s’ and ‘p’ in cursive scripts are easily confounded, and the proper Sanskrit form of his name ought to be Parahita). Nyang-ral’s history (p. 472) gives Parahita’s name the quite impossible spelling Paṇḍi-ta Ya-thang-he-ha-ra (another manuscript, ‘manuscript B,’ has the same spelling). 47 Tāranātha, History, p. 302. He was also a Kashmiri of the city of Dpe-med (Anupama) according to Dergé Tanjur colophons. This same city is sometimes (in Padma-dkar-po, Chos-’byung, p. 251, for instance) said to have been the birthplace of Nāropā. 48 The name of Dpal-’byor-shes-rab, appearing here in a slightly variant form for metrical reasons, is also concealed in an earlier line in the form “Dpal-gyi-’byor-pa.” See Blue Annals, p. 81, where he is placed in a group called the ‘Ten Beams of Rgya’ (Rgya’i gdung-ma bcu), and p. 87. Rgya ’Dul-’dzin Dbang-phyug-tshul-khrims (10471131), mentioned above in the account of the Lowland Transmission, did in fact have

learned it properly. — So it says. It would appear that Dharmapāla and Pretaka[ra] passed on the practice transmission, while Subhūtiśrīśānti and the rest passed on the explanation transmission. This was the section on the history of vinaya holders.

Bibliographic Key

Anonymous, Dam-pa’i Chos — Anonymous, Dam-pa’i Chos ’Dul-ba’i Byung-tshul Blama Brgyud-pa’i Rim-pa, contained in: Dpal-brtsegs Bod-yig Dpe-rnying Zhib-’jug-khang, ed., Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus Rnam-thar Phyogs-bsgrigs, Mtshosngon Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Xining 2011), vol. 41 (DI), pp. 343349. Anonymous, Mkhan-rgyud — Anonymous, Mkhan-rgyud Rnam-dag Nor-bu’i Phreng-ba’i Byon-tshul, contained in: Dpal-brtsegs Bod-yig Dpe-rnying Zhib-’jug-khang, ed., Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus Rnam-thar Phyogs-bsgrigs, Mtshosngon Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Xining 2011), vol. 41 (DI), pp. 337341. Banerjee, Sarvāstivāda — Anakul Chandra Banerjee, Sarvāstivāda Literature, The World Press Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta 1979). Bentor, Consecration — Yael Bentor, Consecration of Images & Stūpas in IndoTibetan Tantric Buddhism, E.J. Brill (Leiden 1996). Blue Annals — ’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481), The Blue Annals, tr. by Dge-’dun-chos-’phel and George Roerich, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi 1949/1976). For the Tibetan text, see under Deb-ther Sngon-po. Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1975) — Paṇ-chen Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1478-1554), ’Dulba’i Chos-’byung (= History of Vinaya), Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala 1975). Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1982-88) — Paṇ-chen Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1478-1554), Dam-pa’i Chos ’Dul-ba’i Chos-’byung Dad-pa’i ’Bab-stegs, contained in: The Collected Works (Gsung-’bum) of Paṇ-chen Bsod-nams-grags-pa, Drepung Loseling Library Society (Mundgod 1982-88), vol. 11, pp. 333-388. Btsan-lha, Brda-dkrol — Btsan-lha Ngag-dbang-tshul-khrims, Brda-dkrol Gser-gyi Me-long, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Beijing 1997).

groups of disciples called the ‘Four Pillars’ and the ‘Ten Beams.’

ZAS 45 (2016) Bu-ston, Chos-’byung — Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364), Bde-bar-gshegs-pa’i Bstan-pa’i Gsal-byed Chos-kyi ’Byung-gnas Gsung-rab Rin-po-che’i Mdzod, Drikung Partrun Khang, Jangchub Ling (Dehradun 1989). Bu-ston, History — Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364), The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston, E. Obermiller, tr., Sri Satguru Publications (Delhi 1986). Originally published in 1932. Bu-ston, Las — Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364), Las Brgya-rtsa-gcig-gi Rnampar Bshad-pa Cho-ga’i Gsal-byed, contained in: The Collected Works of Buston, International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi 1971), vol. 21, pp. 731-980. Deb-ther Sngon-po — ’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481), Deb-ther Sngonpo (The Blue Annals), International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi 1974). Dergé Tanjur catalogue — This refers to the catalogue of the Sde-dge Bstan’gyur made available in electronic format by the Asia Classics Input Project. This is based on Zhu-chen’s work, which was also consulted in the following published form: [Zhu-chen] Tshul-khrims-rin-chen (1697-1774), Kun-mkhyen Nyi-ma’i-gnyen-gyi Bka’-lung-gi Dgongs-don Rnam-par ’Brel-ba’i Bstan-bcos Gangs-can-pa’i Skad-du ’Gyur-ro-’tshal-gyi Chos-sbyin Rgyun Mi ’Chad-pa’i Ngo-mtshar ’Phrul-gyi Phyi-mo Rdzogs-ldan Bskal-pa’i Bsod-nams-kyi Sprin-phung Rgyas-par Dkrigs-pa’i Tshul-las Brtsams-pa’i Gtam Ngo-mtshar Chu-gter ’Phel-ba’i Zla-ba Gsar-pa, Bodljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang (Lhasa 1985). Dge-ye — Dge-ye Tshul-khrims-seng-ge (15th century), Chos-’byung Thos-pa’i Rgya-mtsho Dad-pa’i Ngang-mo Rnam-par Rtse-ba. This history is located in the catalogue of the Otani University Library, no. 11847, a 46-folio work bearing the front-title Rgya Bod-kyi Chos-’byung Rin-po-che, but with the colophon title Skyes-bu Dam-pa’i Rnam-thar Thos-pa Rgyamtshor Dad-pa’i Ngang-mo Rnam-par Rtse-ba (see Martin, Tibetan Histories, no. 140). Eimer, Testimonia — Helmut Eimer, Testimonia for the Bstod-pa Brgyad-cu-pa: An Early Hymn Praising Dīpaṃkarasrījñāna, Lumbini International Research Institute (Lumbini 2003). Ferrari — Alfonsa Ferrari, Mk’yen brtse’s Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Rome 1958). Fifth Dalai Lama, Bstan-pa’i Rtsa-baDalai Lama V Ngag-dbang-blo-bzangrgya-mtsho (1617-1682), Bstan-pa’i Rtsa-ba Rab-byung dang Khyim-pa-la Phan Gdags-pa’i Cho-ga Mtha’-gcod dang bcas-pa ’Khrul Spong Rnam-rgyal Gser-mdog (composed in 1679), Tashi Dorje (Ochghat 1983). Fifth Dalai Lama, Deb-ther — Rgyal-dbang Lnga-pa Chen-po (1617-1682), Gangscan Yul-gyi Sa-la spyod-pa’i Mtho-ris-kyi Rgyal Blon Gtso-bor Brjod-pa’i Deb

ther / Rdzogs-ldan Gzhon-nu’i Dga’-ston Dpyid-kyi Rgyal-mo’i Glu-dbyangs, Bod Gzhung Shes-rig Par-khang (Dharamsala 1981). Fifth Dalai Lama, Gsan-yig — Dalai Lama V Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho (1617-1682), Thob-yig Gangga’i Chu Rgyun: The Gsan-yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Nechung and Lhakhar (Delhi 1970-71), in 4 volumes. Gangnegi, ‘Critical’ — Hira Paul Gangnegi, ‘A Critical Note on the Biographies of Lo chen Rin chen bZang po,’ Tibet Journal, vol. 23, no. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 38-48. Gtsang-nag-pa — Gtsang-nag-pa Brtson-’grus-seng-ge (12th century), Chos’byung Kun-dga’i Snying-po, contained in: Dpal-brtsegs Bod-yig Dpernying Zhib-’jug-khang, ed., Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus Rnam-thar Phyogs-bsgrigs, Mtsho-sngon Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Xining 2011), vol. 11 (DA), pp. 297-337. Harrison, ‘Brief History’ — Paul Harrison, ‘A Brief History of the Tibetan bKa’’gyur,’ contained in: José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson, eds., Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, Snow Lion (Ithaca 1996), pp. 70-94. Hoffmann, ReligionsHelmut Hoffmann, The Religions of Tibet, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. (London 1961). Jo-gdan, Smyung-gnas — Jo-gdan Mkhan-chen Bsod-nams-bzang-po (13411433), Smyung-gnas Bla-ma Brgyud-pa’i Rnam-thar, printed from recently made woodblocks kept at Dpal-ldan Par-khang in Lhasa, in 107 folios (see Martin, Tibetan Histories, no. 98). Karmay, “Btsan-po” — Mkhar-rme’u Bsam-gtan-rgyal-mtshan, “Btsan-po Lhasras Dar-ma dang De’i Rjes-su ’Byung-ba’i Rgyal-rabs Mdor-bsdus,” Krung-go’i Bod-kyi Shes-rig (=China Tibetology), first issue of the year 1989 and no. 5 in the general series, pp. 81-103. Also published as a separate title at Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala 1986). Karmay, ‘Ordinance’ — Samten G. Karmay, ‘The Ordinance of Lha Bla-ma Yeshes-’od,’ contained in: Michael Aris & Aung San Suu Kyi, eds., Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, Vikas Publishing House (Ghaziabad 1980), pp. 150-162. Las-chen, Chos-’byung — Las-chen Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan (15th century), Bka’gdams-kyi Rnam-par Thar-pa Bka’-gdams Chos-’byung Gsal-ba’i Sgron-me, B. Jamyang Norbu (New Delhi 1972), in 2 volumes. Lde’u, Chos-’byung — Mkhas-pa Lde’u (13th century), Mkhas-pa Lde’us Mdzad-pa’i Rgya Bod-kyi Chos-’byung Rgyas-pa, Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrunkhang (Lhasa 1987). Malalasekera, Encyclopaedia — G. P. Malalasekera, et al., eds., Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: Volume III, Fascicle 1, Government of Ceylon (Colombo 1971).

Mang-thos, Bstan-rtsis — Mang-thos Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho (1523-1596), Bstanrtsis Gsal-ba’i Nyin-byed and Tha-snyad Rig-gnas Lnga’i Byung-tshul Blogsal Mgrin-rgyan, Bod-yig Dpe Rnying Dpe-skrun-khang (Lhasa 1987). Martin, ‘Gray Traces’ — Dan Martin, ‘Gray Traces: Tracing the Tibetan Teaching Transmission of the Mngon-pa Kun-btus (Abhidharmasamuccaya) through the Early Period of Disunity,’ contained in: Helmut Eimer & David Germano, eds., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, E.J. Brill (Leiden 2002), pp. 335-357. Martin, Tibetan Histories — Dan Martin, in collaboration with Yael Bentor, Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works, Serindia Publications (London 1997). Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston — Dpa’-bo II Gtsug-lag-phreng-ba (1504-1566), Chos-’byung Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston, ed. by Rdo-rje-rgyal-po, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Beijing 1986), in 2 volumes. New Red Annals (Tucci edition) — Paṇ-chen Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1478-1554), Deb t’er dmar po gsar ma: Tibetan Chronicles by Bsod nams grags pa, tr. & ed. by Giuseppe Tucci, Serie Orientale Roma, no. 24, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Rome 1971). Ngor-pa, Chos-’byung — Ngor-pa Dkon-mchog-lhun-grub (1497-1557), completed in 1692 by Bya-bral Sangs-rgyas-phun-tshogs (1649-1705), Dam-pa’i Chos-kyi ’Byung-tshul Legs-par Bshad-pa Bstan-pa’i Rgya-mtshor ’Jug-pa’i Gru-chen [zhes bya-ba Rtsom ’Phro Kha-skong dang bcas-pa], Ngawang Topgey (New Delhi 1973). Nyang-ral — Nyang Nyi-ma-’od-zer, Chos-’byung Me-tog Snying-po Sbrang-rtsi’i Bcud (= Gangs-can Rig-mdzod series no. 5), Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang (Lhasa 1988). Padma-dkar-po, Chos-’byung — ’Brug-chen IV Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po (1527-1592), Chos-’byung Bstan-pa’i Padma Rgyas-pa’i Nyin-byed (=Tibetan Chronicle of Padma-dkar-po), Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi 1968). Padma-dkar-po, Sdom Gsum — ’Brug-chen IV Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po (1527-1592), Sdom Gsum-gyi Rgyud-yig, contained in: Collected Works (Gsung-’bum) of Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po (Darjeeling 1973-76), vol. 7, pp. 117-295. Rgya Bod Yig-tshang — Dpal-’byor-bzang-po, Rgya Bod Yig-tshang Chen-mo, Sikhron Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Chengdu 1985). Ruegg, ‘Review’ — D. Seyfort Ruegg, Review of Heinz Bechert, ed., Die Sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung (Göttingen 1980), contained in: Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 103, no. 3 (July 1983), pp. 652-657. Sangpo, Biographical DictionaryKhetsun Sangpo (Mkhas-btsun-bzang-po, born 1921), author and compiler, Biographical Dictionary of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala 1973+), in 12 volumes. Sba-bzhed — Sba Gsal-snang, Sba-bzhed (= Sba-bzhed ces bya-ba-las Sba Gsal-snanggi Bzhed-pa). Ed. by Mgon-po-rgyal-mtshan, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Beijing 1982). Shastri, ‘Fire Dragon’ — Lobsang Shastri, ‘The Fire Dragon Chos ’khor (1076 AD),’ contained in: Helmut Krasser, et al., eds., Tibetan Studies, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna 1997), vol. 2, pp. 873-882. Si-tu, Sde-dge — Si-tu Chos-kyi-’byung-gnas (1700-1775), Sde-dge’i Bka’-’gyur Dkar-chag, Si-khron Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Chengdu 1989). Snellgrove & Skorupski, Cultural Heritage — David Snellgrove and Tadeusz Skorupski, The Cultural Heritage of Ladakh, Prajñā Press (Boulder 1977+), in 2 volumes. Sopa, Lectures — Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Lectures on Tibetan Religious Culture, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala 1983), vol. 1. Sperling, ‘Notes’ — Elliot Sperling, ‘Notes on References to ’Bri-gung-pa - Mongol Contact in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,’ contained in: S. Ihara & Z. Yamaguchi, eds., Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita 1992), vol. 2, pp. 741-750. Stoddard, ‘Rekindling’ — Heather Stoddard, Rekindling the Flame: A Note on Royal Patronage in Tenth Century Tibet, contained in: Christoph Cüppers, ed., The Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung 'brel) in Traditional Tibet, Lumbini International Research Institute (Lumbini 2004), pp. 49-104. Sum-pa, Chos-’byung — Sum-pa Ye-shes-dpal-’byor (1704-1788), Chos-’byung Dpag-bsam-ljon-bzang, Kan-su’u Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Lanzhou 1992). Tāranātha, History — Tāranātha (1575-1634), Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India, tr. by Lama Chimpa & Alaka Chattopadhyaya, ed. by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi 1970/1990). Tōh. — Hakuji Ui, et al., eds., A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, Tōhoku Imperial University (Sendai 1934). Tshe-dbang-nor-bu, Gdung-rabs — Kaḥ-thog Rig-’dzin Tshe-dbang-nor-bu (1698-1755), Rgyal-ba’i Bstan-pa Rin-po-che Byang-phyogs-su ’Byung-ba’i Rtsa-lag Bod Rje Btsan-po’i Gdung-rabs Tshigs Nyung Don Gsal Yid-kyi Melong, contained in: Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus Deb-ther Khag Lnga (= Gangs-can Rig-mdzod series no. 9), ed. by Chab-spel Tshe-brtan-phun-tshogs, et al., Bod-ljongs Bod-yig Dpe-rnying Dpe-skrun-khang (Lhasa 1990), pp. 55-86.

Tucci, Rin-chen-bzaṅ-po — Giuseppe Tucci, Rin-chen-bzaṅ-po and the Renaissance of Buddhism in Tibet around the Millenium, Aditya Prakashan (New Delhi 1988). Van der Kuijp, ‘Monastery’ — Leonard van der Kuijp, ‘The Monastery of Gsangphu Ne’u-thog and Its Abbatial Succession from ca. 1073 to 1250,’ Berliner Indologische Studien, vol. 3 (1987), pp. 103-127. Vitali, Kingdom — Roberto Vitali, The Kingdoms of Pu.hrang: According to mNga’.ris rgyal.rabs by mkhan.chen, Tho-ling Dpal Dpe-med Lhun-gyis Grub-pa’i Gtsug-lag-khang Lo 1000 ’Khorba’i Rjes-dran Mdzad-sgo’i Go-sgrig Tshogs-chung (Dharamsala 1996). Vitali, Records — Roberto Vitali, Records of Tho.ling: A Literary and Visual Reconstruction of the ‘Mother’ Monastery in, High Asia (McLeod Ganj 1999). Watson, Abridged Biography — Craig Earl Watson, An Abridged Biography of Dgongs-pa Rab-gsal by Chos-kyi Nyi-ma: A Critical Transcription and Translation, a master’s thesis, Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, Indiana University (Bloomington 1976). Watson, ‘Introduction’ — Craig Earl Watson, ‘The Introduction of the Second Propagation of Buddhism in Tibet According to R.A. Stein’s Edition of the Sba-bzhed,’ Tibet Journal, vol. 5, no. 4 (Winter 1980), pp. 20-27. Watson, ‘Second Propagation’ — Craig Earl Watson, ‘The Second Propagation of Buddhism from Eastern Tibet according to the Short Biography of Dgongs-pa Rab-gsal by the Third Thukvan Blo-bzang Chos-kyi Nyi-ma (1737-1802),’ Central Asian Journal, vol. 22, nos. 3-4 (1978), pp. 263-285. Yar-lung Jo-bo, Chos-’byung — Yar-lung Jo-bo Shākya-rin-chen-sde, Yar-lung Jobo’i Chos-’byung, ed. by Ngag-dbang, Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpeskrun-khang (Lhasa 1988).

Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016)

International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies ∙ Andiast (Schweiz) Zentralasiatische Studien

Herausgegeben von Peter Schwieger und Dieter Schuh unter Mitarbeit von Christoph Cüppers, Franz-Karl Ehrhard , Karl-Heinz Everding, und Ines Stolpe Begründet von Walther Heissig

IITBS GmbH Andiast (Schweiz) 2016 International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Die Zentralasiatischen Studien wurden von dem bekannten Mongolisten Walther Heissig in Jahre 1967 begründet. In den Zentralasiatischen Studien legten und legen Mitarbeiter, Studenten, Gäste und Freunde des ehemaligen Seminars für Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiens, welches heute als „Abteilung für Mongolistik und Tibetstudien“ des Instituts für Orient- und Asienwissenschaften der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn firmiert, Arbeiten aus ihren Forschungsbereichen vor. Mit der Ausgabe 43 (2014) wurde die bisherige Ausrichtung durch eine internationale Struktur der wissenschaftlich verantwortlichen Herausgeber erweitert.

Ein besonderes Anliegen dieser Veröffentlichung ist es, unbekannte Texte und Materialien zu erschließen und sie auch in Faksimilia zugänglich zu machen.

© IITBS GmbH, International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast (Schweiz) 2016. ISBN: 978-3-03809-130-1. Homepage: Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme.


Teil 1 Sonderbeiträge

Christoph Cüppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter (Editors)

Tibet after Empire Culture, Society and Religion between 850-1000

Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2011

Introduction 13

Henk Blezer The World According to the rMa Family 21

Cathy Cantwell and Rob Mayer Representations of Padmasambhava in early post-Imperial Tibet 41

Brandon Dotson The Dead and Their Stories: Preliminary Remarks on the Place of Narrative in Tibetan Religion 77

Guntram Hazod THE PLUNDERING OF THE TIBETAN ROYAL TOMBS an Analysis of the Event in the Context of the Uprisings in Central Tibet of the 9th/ 10th Century 113

Amy Heller Observations on Painted Coffin Panels of the Tibetan Empire 147

Nathan W. Hill 'Come as lord of the black-headed' – an Old Tibetan mythic formula 203

Bianca Horlemann Tang Dynasty (618–907) Sources for Tibetan Empire Studies: A Bibliographic Essay 217

Maho Iuchi EARLY BKA' GDAMS PA MASTERS AND KHAMS 'DAN MA: A Preliminary Study of Monasteries related to Smṛtijñānakīrti 255

Samten G. Karmay A recently discovered rnam thar of Lha Bla ma Ye shes ’od 269

Dan Martin The Highland Vinaya Lineage: A Study of a Twelfth-Century Monastic Historical Source, the ‘Transmission Document’ by Zhing-mo-che-ba 279

Klaus-Dieter Mathes bKa´ brgyud Mahāmudrā: “Chinese rDzogs chen” or the Teachings of the Siddhas? 309

Carmen Meinert ASSIMILATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF ESOTERIC BUDDHISM IN TIBET AND CHINA: A Case Study of the Adaptation Processes of Violence in a Ritual Context 341

Dieter Schuh Zwischen Großreich und Phyi-dar: Eine dunkle, kulturlose Zeit? Das Beispiel des Lehrsystems von sinotibetischen Divinationskalku- lationen (nag-rtsis), Geomantie (sa-dpyad), gTo-Ritualen und Erdherrengeister (sa-bdag) 361


Roberto Vitali Khams in the context of Tibet’s post imperial period 423

Teil 2 Reguläre Beiträge

Marlene Erschbamer Where the roads from Tibet, India, and Bhutan meet: The monastery bKa' brgyud dgon gsar in the Chumbi valley 451

Bettina Zeisler las.stsogs etc. – On internal cues for dating Old Tibetan documents 467 Dieter Schuh Ein Katalog von Siegelabdrücken aus Ladakh, Purig und Spiti 493

Christoph Cüppers Die Lantsha-Siegel der Könige Tshe-dbang rnam-rgyal, Tshe-dpal don-grub rnam-rgyal, Kun-dga´ rnam-rgyal und Nyi-ma rnam-rgyal von Ladakh 583

Jeannine Bischoff, Astrid Düvelmeyer, Britta–Maria Gruber, Rudolf Kaschewsky Das Leben des Byams-chen chos-rje und die Entwicklung des Klosters Sera 591

Zekine Özertural Die manichäisch-uigurische Hilfsverb-Konstruktion basa tut- in den buddhistischen und islamischen Texten 651


Hartmut Walravens Rockiana 677


Helmut Eimer HELMAN-WAŻNY, Agnieszka, The Archaeology of Tibetan Books. - Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2014. (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library; 36). XVIII, 311 pp., 129 farb. Abb. im Text. ISBN 978-90-04-27504-1 (hardback). EUR 103,00. 693

Konrad Klaus Johannes Schneider, Eine buddhistische Kritik der indischen Götter. Śaṃkarasvāmins Devātiśayastotra mit Prajñāvarmans Kommentar. Nach dem tibetischen Tanjur herausgegeben und übersetzt. Wien: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2014. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. 81), X, 195 pp. 18,-- Euro, ISBN 978-3-902501-19-6 698