The Tibetan Borderland

Compared to the dBa'/sBa bzhed, dBa' gSal snang plays a minor role in the ZL narrative. ZL instead identifies Padmasambhava as part of the triad predestined to spread Buddhism in Tibet. It often repeats this narrative, for instance when both Padmasambhava and Santaraksita seek permission to return to India after building bSam yas. Padmasambhava reveals that Khri Srong lde brtsan, Santaraksita and Padmasambhava spent a previous life together in Magadha, as three brothers building a stupa and making aspirational prayers to spread the Dharma in Tibet.

Khri Srong lde brtsan maintains close relations with these two figures in ZL. Because of the king's connection with Santaraksita and Padmasambhava in a previous life, he tearfully implores them to stay with him until he dies. This is Khri Srong lde brtsan's longest speech in ZL. It also constitutes a brief “auto-biography” from the king's perspective. I shall only quote the beginning and end:

E ma ho! Please listen, both of you masters! In that troubled period [we] made aspirations, When we prayed in the land of India. Again, through our wishes, Both of you masters took birth in India, The country of the sacred Dharma. Due to the rule of karma, I was born as king, [in] the land of red-faced ones... According to the prophesy of Master Bodhisattva (Santaraksita), You arrived through the force of former vows And in the Tiger [Year we] laid the foundations, in the Horse [Year we] completed [the building]—in five years. Since your kindness has already been great, Before I, Khri Srong lde btsan, die, Please do not depart, please stay. I beg you to think of [your former] vow and give me your command.

ZL provides a strong sense of religious continuity by placing the main protagonists' aspirational prayers in a previous life and in India. This differs markedly from the Tibetan royal tradition of Buddhist kingship displayed in the imperial documents. The idea that, as Karmay says, ‘the characters who have a major role to play are all predestined' is meant, perhaps, to reassure Tibetans that the Dharma was destined to come to Tibet; but it also seems to privilege India over Tibet.

ZL contains an important inconsistency because of its incorporation of this narrative. According to ZL, Manjusri decides to spread the Dharma in Tibet and therefore incarnates as Khri Srong lde brtsan (see above). Then Santaraksita reveals that the king was born previously in India, where he aspired to propagate the Buddha's teachings in Tibet. Khri Srong lde brtsan is therefore both an emanation and a reincarnation (as is Padmasambhava in ZL). This may be compatible with Buddhist cosmology, but seems inconsistent from a literary perspective. Usually, protagonists are either reincarnated because of past karma or emanate from the heart of a bodhisattva, rather than both. The above inconsistency does not require a solution here. Rather, it merely highlights the confusions that accreted narratives naturally create for readers. The growth of various different narratives surrounding a figure can cause one depiction to conflict with another, even within a single text like ZL.

Padmasambhava's Preeminence

The trajectories of depictions over time can reverse even the position of their original narration. Kapstein noted this trend in the attribution of a Chinese mother to Khri Srong lde brtsan. dPa' bo gTsug lag phreng ba reverses the position of the dBa' bzhed, when quoting the sBa bzhed, too. He argues that no Indian religious figure would bow to a Tibetan king. But this is just what the dBa' bzhed states did happen. ZL describes Khri Srong lde brtsan bowing to Padmasambhava. He then becomes the Indian master's disciple. This reversal of earlier historical representations is due in part to the growing power and popularity of tantra in Tibet. In the colophon to one of his Mahayoga sadhanas, Nyang ral transforms Khri Srong lde brtsan into Padmasabhava's preeminent pupil. Padmasambhava prophesies that Khri srong lde brtsan will discover this gter ma in a future rebirth (as Nyang ral). The text recounts:

The preeminent master, Padmasambhava, taught [his] preeminent pupil, King Khri Srong lde'u btsan. 'Dan ma rTse mangs, who was the preeminent scribe [at court?] copied all the texts. Then, since king Khri Srong lde'u btsan was rather distracted, it was difficult [for him] to practice the Dharma. Nevertheless, by the blessing of devotion to the Dharma, he was able to prolong [his life] for eight years after exhausting [his] lifespan. Then the master [[[Padmasambhava]]] said ‘Great king! Though you are endowed with good fortune and karma, at this time it is difficult for you to practice. In a future [[[existence]]] after [this] life [you] will come to meet with a person who practices this Dharma. This teaching is not a teaching that I shall spread to others, and [instead I shall] bury [it] as precious treasure (gter).'

So the ruler said ‘Since I am endowed with good fortune and karma I met you, oh great master. Since [I] have not obtained a great amount of merit though, [I] was born as the king of a wild borderland [of India]. It is difficult to tame the red-faced raksasas, [my] Tibetan subjects; therefore it is difficult for me to practice. Because [I am] going to meet [the teacher of these texts] in a future time, bury [it] as treasure!' Master Padmasambhava and Lord Khri Srong lde'u btsan both then buried [the teachings] as treasure in Brag dmar mGrin bzang, having sealed it by enclosing (sprod) it in a seal...  

This blurs the boundary between a history and the prophetic colophon to a religious text. The colophon replays the same themes at the centre of the histories discussed above—Tibet’s inferiority to India, Khri Srong lde brtsan’s fallibility and his subservience to Padmasambhava. This depiction stands in stark contrast to the dBa’ bzhed’s depiction of Padmasambhava as a subject of the btsan po.

What are the possible reasons for this reversal of status? Srong btsan sgam po does not suffer a similar fate, but continues to rise in status from btsan po to bodhisattva to Avalokitesvara. Tibetan historians did not discover some new piece of evidence that made them reconsider the earlier, positive portrayal of Khri Srong lde brtsan. Instead, the next chapter demonstrates that an Indic literary genre, narrating the future demise of the Dharma, led to a less positive depiction of Khri Srong lde brtsan in the dBa’ bzhed. ZL then casts the btsan po as a disciple to Padmasambhava, perhaps in order to spare him the blame for the eventual decline of Buddhism. In this way, religious self-legitimisation plays a part in the representation of Khri Srong lde brtsan as a tantric disciple of Padmasambhava.