Salvatory Privatism

The following verse is famous  (Wangchuk 2007: 34, n. 53): ngas ni khyed la thar pa’i thabs bstan gyis || thar pa rang la rag las brtson par gyis ||. The earliest Tibetan sources for this verse lines that I can trace are writings of Klong-chen-pa (1308–1363). Some scholars indicate the source as the Vinayāgama (’Dul ba lung). But no Indian source (in Sanskrit or in Tibetan translation) has been traced thus far. The idea that one’s salvatory freedom is dependent on oneself can be, however, found. See Nāgārjuna, Suhṛllekha  53 (Szántó 2021: 5): ātmāyantro mokṣo na hy atra paraiḥ sahāyakṛtyaṃ kiṃcit | śrutaśīladhyānavatā yatnaḥ kriyatāṃ catuṣprakāre satye ||; Tib. (Wangchuk 2007:  34, n. 54): thar pa bdag la rag las ’di la ni || gzhan gyis grogs bgyid ci yang ma mchis pas || thos dang tshul khrims bsam gtan ldan pa yis || bden pa rnam pa bzhi la ’bad par mdzod ||. The message of the above two verse lines seems to be conveyed also by Udānavarga 12.9–10 (Bernhard 1965: 195): ākhyāto vo mayā mārgas tv ajñāyai śalyakṛntanaḥ | yuṣmābhir eva karaṇīyaṃ ākhyātāras tathāgatāḥ || deśito vo mayā mārgas tṛṣṇā śalyanikṛntanaḥ | yuṣmābhir eva karaṇīyaṃ deṣṭāro hi tathāgatāḥ ||; Tib. (Zongtse 1990: 195): sred pa’i zug rngu gcod byed lam || ngas ni khyed cad rnams la bstan || de bzhin gshegs pa ston pa ste || khyed cag rnams kyis bya dgos so ||  sred pa’i zug rngu sel ba’i lam || ngas ni khyed cag rnams la bstan || de bzhin gshegs pa ston pa ste || khyed cag rnams kyis bya dgos so ||.

On the Origin of the Tibetan Word “sam ṭa”

For quite sometime, I have been puzzled by a Tibetan word that is spelled either sam ṭa or sam ta. The Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v. sam ta), explains it thus: “a wooden tablet with [some] varnish [which serves as a] support/receptacle for [mainly practicing] writing” (yi ge ’bri gzhi’i shing byang rtsi ldan zhig). The word is recorded also in Jäschke 1881 (s.v. sam ta) and one of the meanings given there is indeed “tablets.” Other orthographies have been recorded as well: brtsam grwa, bsam kra, and sab dra. But these seem to merely reflect failed attempts of trying to make sense of the etymology. For a more recent and nuanced explaination of the word, see Kapstein & Clemente 2024: 238, which reads: “An erasable writing board, used for practicing, drafts, and correspondence.” For a beautiful image of a sam ṭa (spelled there samtra), see Dotson & Helman-Ważny 2024: 77 (Fig. 2.24). The meaning of the word as used in the Tibetan traditions seems to be clear. What is puzzling is the origin of the word. We may all agree that the word has an Indic tinge. If this obviously Tibetanized word has an Indic or Sanskrit origin, what could it be?

My hypothesis is that the Tibetanized word sam ṭa is derived from (or, is a contracted form of) sampuṭa. That some Tibetan scholars contracted the component sampuṭa (in the Sampuṭatantra) as sam ṭa is confirmed. Now, the question is why Tibetans called an erasable wooden writing board a sampuṭa and if this would somehow make sense also from an Indic perspective. In Sanskrit, sampuṭa is said to have a meaning of a “case or box or casket (for jewellery)” (MW, s.v. sampuṭa). If we examine the image of a Tibetan sam ṭa, we will realize that it is a kind of a case, box, or, casket though admittedly rectangular and not spherical in shape. What is, however, even more interesting is that in Sanskrit there is said to be the construction sampuṭe √likh (with genitive), which means, “to write down to the credit of”). The attestation for this Sanskrit expression, Professor Isaacson tells me, is, however, rare. The only source for it is the Kathāsaritsāgara given in PW (and MW). Such a usage seems to connect sampuṭa with the act of writing down something. Thus, for now, I propose that the Tibetan word sam ṭa has been derived from Sanskrit sampuṭa.

What Is Gal po in the Title He ru ka gal po’i rgyud?

One often encounters problems specific to rNying-ma Tantric studies. Let us consider an example: galpo (gal po). It occurs as a component of the title of a rNying-ma Tantric scripture, namely, He ru ka gal po, He ru ka’i gal po, He ru ka gal po’i rgyud, and the like. One of the first questions that arises is whether the word galpo is Tibetan or Sanskrit. We must rule out that our word is not merely a wrongly spelled word rgyal po. If it is Tibetan, is it, in any way, connected with gal as in gal te/srid (“if”), gal che ba (“to be crucial”), and the like? For some more words with the syllable gal, see Jäschke 1881. My impression is that the word gal po here is not connected with any of the Tibetan words that we know. Is the word then Sanskrit? mKhan-mo Padma-chos-skyid (NNRC) inadvertently gave me a clue about the Sanskrit origin of what seems to be a Tibetanized word galpo. It appears that galpo is a corruption, or, Tibetanization of Sanskrit kalpa as in kalparāja, a self-characterization of the Durgatipariśodhanatantra (TSD, s.v. brtag pa’i rgyal po), or, as in dvikalpa (brtag pa gnyis pa) or dvikalparāja referring to the Hevajratantra. The origination and dating of the He ru ka gal po’i rgyud itself would require further study. I have, however, an inkling that the He ru ka gal po’i rgyud may have evolved in Tibet as a reaction to the advent of the Hevajratantra in Tibet. To be noted is that the attempt to identify the He ru ka gal po’i rgyud with one of the eighteen Mahāyogatantric scriptures seems to be rather late and not quite successful. For the occurrence of the He ru ka gal po in some lists, see Almogi 2014: 58, etc. The Tibetanization of Sanskrit kalpa as galpo, however, seems to have occurred earlier for the expression rgyud dang gal po (tantra and kalpa) occurs already in the Srog gi ’khor lo, one of the eighteen Tantric scriptures of the Sems-sde class of the rDzogs-chen system cited in gNubs-chen’s bSam gtan mig sgron (L, pp. 324.6–324.1). If one considers the interchangeability of the first three letters of the Tibetan alphabet in a varga (e.g., k, kh, and g in the ka-varga) evident in the old Tibetan writings and the fluidity of the vowels (e.g., a and o), the change from kalpa to galpo may seem all too plausible.

With and Without an Original

If one were to ransack primary Tibetan sources for an unusual classification of Yogācāra into rNam-pa-’dra-gzhi-yod-par-smra-ba (“those who maintain that images (rnam pa: ākāra) have an ‘original’”) and [rNam-pa]-’dra-gzhi-med-par-smra-ba (“those who maintain that [images] have no ‘original’”), our search would inevitably lead us to Rong-zom-pa’s lTa ba’i brjed  byang. The only later Tibetan source that I could trace thus far and that refers to this classification is the Eighth Karma-pa Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje’s (1507–1554) sKu gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e waṃ phyag rgya (abbreviated here as: E waṃ phyag rgya). He, however, explicitly acknowledges his source as Rong-zom-pa. Notably, he calls these ’Dra-gzhi-yod-par-’dod-pa and ’Dra-gzhi-med-par-’dod-pa (and ’Dra-gzhi-med-par-smra-ba). The word “cognitive image” (rnam pa: ākāra) has been dropped. Among modern scholars, Orna Almogi seems to be thus far the only one who discussed this classification on two occasions, namely, once briefly in Almogi 2009: 34, n. 15; 159, n. 55 and at length in Almogi 2013, where she also edited and translated the portion of the lTa ba’i brjed byang dealing with the topic. She also made clear that unlike for most Tibetan scholars, for Rong-zom-pa, Sākāravāda (rNam-pa-dang-bcas-par-smra-ba) and *Satyākāravāda (rNam-pa-bden-par-smra-ba) are not synonymous and interchangeable. This is also the case with Nirākāravāda (rNam-pa-med-par-smra-ba) and *Ālīkākāravāda (rNam-pa-rdzun-par-smra-ba). Importantly, she also made clear that both *Satyākāravāda and *Ālīkākāravāda can be sub-classified into rNam-pa-’dra-gzhi-yod-par-smra-ba and [rNam-pa]-’dra-gzhi-med-par-smra-ba. From this, we can deduce that for Rong-zom-pa, as long as one posits a “cognitive image,” the  issue of the presence or absence of its “original” becomes pertinent. Actually the expression “original” has been borrowed by Almogi from Schmithausen’s study of the problem of the external world in Hsüan-tsang’s Ch’eng wei shih lun, at the backdrop of which Rong-zom-pa’s sub-classification of Yogācāra into rNam-pa-’dra-gzhi-yod-par-smra-ba and [rNam-pa]-’dra-gzhi-med-par-smra-ba, seems to yield some sense. The word “original” is a rendering of the Chinese 質, where the expression “external original” (外質) can also be found. An intriguing question is from what source could have Rong-zom-pa drawn, a question, I am afraid, can hardly be answered here. What I wish to attempt here is to change the  parameters of our search. As I mentioned above,  the expressions rnam pa ’dra gzhi yod par smra ba and [rnam pa] ’dra gzhi med par smra ba cannot be found outside Rong-zom-pa’s lTa ba’i brjed  byang. The question now is, whether we can find other (preferably relatively earlier) sources that contain shorter expressions, namely,  ’dra gzhi yod pa and ’dra gzhi med pa. We do find the expressions ’dra gzhi yod pa’i ’khrul pa “delusion / delusive appearance with an original” and ’dra gzhi med pa “delusion / delusive appearance without an original” in a rDzogs-chen Tantric scripture called the Rin po che rgyas pa chen po’i rgyud (abbreviated here as: Rin chen rgyas pa’i rgyud) (rGyud ’bum, vol. Ta, fol. 264a3). Samten Karmay does refer to this Tantric scripture once (Karmay 2007: 157) but he does not discuss its provenance and date. These terms and concepts occur in the twenty-second chapter of the Rin chen rgyas pa’i rgyud devoted to showing “different bases of delusion/confusion” (’khrul gzhi tha dad). Although this Tantric scripture clearly discusses the origin/basis of both “[world of] sentient beings” (sattva[loka]: bcud [kyi ’jig rten]) and “[world of] receptacles” (bhājana[loka]: snod [kyi ’jig rten]), it is interesting that it only uses the expression snod du ’khrul ba’i ’dra gzhi (fol. 264b6). It is reminiscent of the problem of the external world in Hsüan-tsang’s Ch’eng wei shih lun. The Rin chen rgyas pa’i rgyud also proposes three other kinds of delusion: (1) spyi’i spyi las ’khrul ba byung ba / spyi yi spyi las ’khrul par snang ba byung [= *spyi’i spyi las byung ba’i ’khrul pa], (2) rgyu las byung ba’i ’khrul pa, and (3) rgyu med dag las byung ba’i ’khrul pa [= *rgyu med las byung ba’i ’khrul pa]. All these would require further investigations. A basic question for now is the relative chronology of Rong-zom-pa and this Tantric scripture. There are no indications that Rong-zom-pa knew this scripture. Also, if we consider its language and doctrinal content, it seems very unlikely that the Rin chen rgyas pa’i rgyud, as we have in the rGyud ’bum now, can be dated to Rong-zom-pa’s floruit (i.e., eleventh–early-twelfth century). Another work that knows and employs the expressions ’dra gzhi and ’khrul pa’i ’dra gzhi is the Rin po che rtsod pa’i ’khor lo—presented as a dialogue between the Tibetan King Khri-srong-lde-btsan and the legendary Tibetan translator Vairocana—which has been edited and translated into German by Dimitri Pauls in his Magister thesis (Pauls 2011). This work is currently being studied again by mKhan-po dBang-chen of NNRC (Namdroling). The difficulty is again the date of the work, which has also been thematized by Pauls in his introduction. My impression is that the rTsod pa’i ’khor lo can by no means be dated to Rong-zom-pa’s floruit. There seems to be a certain affinity between the Rin po che rgyas pa’i rgyud and Rin po che rtsod pa’i ’khor lo. Perhaps even the occurrence of the component rin po che in the titles of these works is not mere coincidence. To judge by the stage of development of the idea of ’khrul pa’i ’dra gzhi, one gets a feeling that the Rin po che rgyas pa’i rgyud is much more developed than the Rin po che rtsod pa’i ’khor lo.

Selected Bibliography

Almogi 2009 = Orna Almogi, Rong-zom-paʼs Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 24. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2009.

Almogi 2013 = Id., “Yogācāra in the Writings of the Eleventh-Century Rnying ma Scholar Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po.” In The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, edited by Ulrich Timme Kragh. Harvard Oriental Series 75. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013, pp. 1330–1136.

Pauls 2011 = Dimitri Pauls (ed. & tr.), Rin po che rtsod pa’i ’khor lo: Kritische Edition und annotierte Übersetzung. Magister Thesis. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2011.

Karmay 2007 = Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism [Second and Revised Edition of Karmay 1988]. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2007.

Schmithausen 2005 = ​​Lambert Schmithausen, On the Problem of the External World in the Ch’eng wei shih lun. Studia Philologica Buddhica Occasional Paper Series 13. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2005.

Rong-zom-pa, A-ro, dPal-dbyangs

Here is a bit of a detective work. Rong-zom-pa in his lTa ba’i brjed byang cites the following verse (p. 25.9–10): bdag tu ’dzin pa yongs su spangs nas ni || chos su ’dzin par byed pa gang yang med || bdag ’dzin sgyu mkhan yod kyi bar du ni || ri ’dra’i zhi gnas thob kyang grol mi ’gyur ||. Rong-zom-pa cites the verse stating “otherwise,” “or else” (gzhan du na). One wonders if he meant “elsewhere,” which would be unusual but still fit the context well. The context and idea are very interesting. It would be significant for understanding how Rong-zom-pa understood the relation between non-essentiality of person (pudgalanairātmya: gang zag gi bdag med pa) and non-essentiality of phenomena  (dharmanairātmya: chos kyi bdag med pa). But I cannot and do not wish to discuss it here. My concern is a different one. One is not likely to easily trace the above verse in the Tibetan canon. But I should be considered lucky, like a blind man stumbling upon a jewel in a heap of rubbish. Now, to appreciate my discovery, one ought to read the following verse from A-ro Ye-shes-’byung-gnas’s Theg pa chen po’i rnal ’byor la ’jug pa (verse) 79 (Thiesen 2009: 187): bdag ’dzin sgyu mkhan yod kyi bar du ni || ri ’dra’i zhi gnas yod kyang mi ’grol te || dngos kun dngos med sgyu bzhin ma rtogs na || gtong phod thos ’dzin dad brtson yon tan gyis || bdag rtog bcas pa’i dge tshogs ci spyad kyang ||  ’khor ba’i rgyu phyir bdud kyi las yin gsungs || de bas stong nyid rtag tu bsgom par bya ||. The affinity or intertextuality between the verses is conspicuous. And to be noted is that A-ro, too, indicates these verses to be citations. Note his “reporting verb,” or, rather “citing verb” gsungs. Now, we have been told that Rong-zom-pa received rDzogs-chen teachings that were transmitted via A-ro. One should particularly consider the so-called “seven-generation lineage from China” (rgya nag bdun brgyud) and the “seven-generation lineage from India” (rgya gar bdun brgyud) of rDzogs-chen. At any rate, the relative chronology should be A-ro → *Adhīśa → Rong-zom-pa. But thus far, Rong-zom-pa’s extant writings did not reveal any clues that he availed himself of A-ro’s writings. One of the reasons is that there are not many works that can be ascribed to A-ro with certainty. His Theg chen rnal ’byor la ’jug pa may be an exception. One also cannot help but wonder if Rong-zom-pa’s title Theg pa chen po’i tshul la ’jug pa is a simulation of A-ro’s Theg pa chen po’i rnal ’byor la ’jug pa. Rong-zom-pa probably knew this work of A-ro’s but still his above citation does not seem to be drawn from A-ro’s citation. What then could be the source of Rong-zom-pa’s citation? To try to answer this question, let us look at the following verse from gNyan dPal-dbyangs’s rDo rje sems dpa’i zhus lan (Takahashi 2010: 129): bdag tu ’dzin pa yongs su spangs nas ni || chos su ’dzin par byed pa gang yang myed || ngar ’dzin sgyu mkhan yod kyi bar du ni || ri ’dra’i zhi gnas thob kyang grol myi ’gyur ||. This should remove the last iota of doubt that one might have had. Rong-zom-pa cited the verse ad verbum. Did A-ro also cite dPal-dbyangs? I wish I knew. Now, Rig-pa’i-chu-gter mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje from the NNRC has pointed out that gNyan dPal-dbyangs is the only Tibetan rDzogs-chen authority that Rong-zom-pa cites by name! This is also the reason why Rig-pa’i-chu-gter mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje is currently investigating gNyan dPal-dbyangs and his works. Now, a reverse relative chronology would be: Rong-zom-pa → *Adhīśa → A-ro → gNyan dPal-dbyangs. Dotted lines connecting these figures are not always visible or are often missing. This verse may serve as a small dot in the dotted line.

Mi-pham’s Bilingual Lexicon: A Note

I got stuck in a small philological problem. Now, I am trying to solve it. Mi-pham’s bilingual (Sanskrit-Tibetan) lexicon, called the Rab gsal nor bu’i me long (D, fol. 160b3–4), reads: lnga pa ’bru dang ’bras bu’i sde tshan la | ’bras | shā li | ’bras sā lu | shā li | dang | la ya |  sā lu spyi’i ming | taṇḍulaḥ | ’bras thug po che |. To be sure, this is a Sanskrit-Tibetan and not a Tibetan-Sanskrit lexicon. He usually announces the topics and subtopics first in Tibetan. The word ’bras (“rice”) in lnga pa ’bru dang ’bras bu’i sde tshan la | ’bras | should be understood as part of the subtopic here. Then he starts mentioning the first Sanskrit word śāli, here in the stem-form although it should be in the nominative case according to his own convention. It could also be a scribal/transmissional error. This is followed by the corresponding Tibetan word ’bras sā lu. Cf. Jäschke 1881: s.v. ’bras (’bras sa lu). Obviously, sā/sa lu has been Tibetanized from the Sanskrit śāli (or Pāli sāli). Perhaps the Tibetan translation of śāli as ’bras sā lu is comparable to the translation of padma as me tog padma (i.e., adding the generic name and leaving the Sanskrit untranslated). Also, taṇḍulaḥ | ’bras thug po che | poses no problem. My problem is this: shā li | dang | la ya | sā lu spyi’i ming |. After wracking my brain,  I ended up proposing to read: shā li dang shā la yaḥ | sā lu spyi’i ming |. In terms of the content, this suggestion seems to be justified. But the question is whether shā li | dang | la ya | is what Mi-pham himself wrote. To answer this question, I consulted Si-tu-paṇ-chen’s commentary on the Amarakośa (i.e., the ’Chi med mdzod ’grel), one of the two principal sources on which Mi-pham relied, the other source being the Mahāvyutpatti. Most probably Mi-pham used the dPal-spungs xylographic print of the ’Chi med mdzod ’grel. I am also using a reproduction of the same. Now, the ’Chi med mdzod ’grel (fol. 114a2) reads: shā li∵ la yaḥ sa lu zhes sngar grags pa ste spyi brjod pa’i phyir mang tshig tu byas so ||. Note that Si-tu-paṇ-chen places what is called the “jewel-heap-like stroke” (rin chen spungs shad) after shā li. It becomes clear that this sign here has the function of a slash or ° and hence we should read: shā li/layaḥ = shā li and °layaḥ. For example, he also writes: nīvāra∵ rāḥ, which should read as nīvāra and °rāḥ. Si-tu-paṇ-chen also justifies why the plural form of śāli (i.e., śālayaḥ) is employed here, namely, to express the generic (term). At any rate, I think that dang in shā li | dang | la ya | was added by Mi-pham, and that he, too, perhaps meant to write shā li dang shā la yaḥ | but wrote shā li dang la yaḥ |.

On the Term *Guruyoga

The theory and practice of *guruyoga (bla ma’i rnal ’byor) seem to be popular in Tibetan Buddhism and hence it is all the more astonishing that we do not seem to have an attestation for the Sanskrit term. I did a quick search in the bKa’ ’gyur, bsTan ’gyur, and rNying ma rgyud ’bum (via rKTS). One of the few locations in the bsTan ’gyur where the expression bla ma’i rnal ’byor occurs and which seems to have the sense of a meditative practice involving one’s master (guru) in a deified form is the *Hevajrahastavyavagrāhakrama (dGyes pa rdo rje’i lag tu blang ba’i rim pa), which states (Bᵀ, vol. 5, pp. 1412.8–10): de nas bla ma’i rnal ’byor ni || gzugs brnyan me tog tshom bu la || ting ’dzin sa bon bdag gis bskyed || ye shes bkug la sum bsreg bya ||. In the absence of the Sanskrit text (i.e., assuming that the work is indeed allochthonous), one can, of course, never be sure. One of earliest autochthonous Tibetan sources that contain the term bla ma’i rnal ’byor seems to be Sa-paṇ’s Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor. The expression bla ma’i rnal ’byor occurs in the main text as well (Lam zab mo bla ma’i rnal ’byor in Sa paṇ gsung rab, vol. 2, p. 92.7–8): bla ma’i rnal ’byor la ’bad par bya’o ||. Although the Sanskrit term *guruyoga seems to be somewhat uncertain, the idea is obviously analogous to that of devatāyoga (lha’i rnal ’byor), which is well attested. In a Tantric context where guru takes place of a devatā (“deity”) or where a guru takes even a more prominent place, the evolution of the idea and practice of *guruyoga from those of devatāyoga appears to be natural and inevitable. Autochthonous Tibetan sources often allude to the term bla ma sgrub thabs, but the Sanskrit *gurusādhana does not seem to be attested. Also *gurusādhana seems to make sense in a Tantric context. What is attested is the term gurupūjā (bla ma mchod pa = bla ma la mchod pa byed pa) in Tantric and non/pre-Tantric contexts. It can be traced back to even the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Wogihara 1930–1936: 29.17–19): āyatyām ātmani vicitraguṇādhānapraṇidhānavato ratnatrayapūjā gurupūjā maheśākhyatāyā hetuḥ |; Tib. (Bᵀ, vol. 73, p. 561.11–13): tshe phyi ma la bdag nyid la yon tan rnam pa sna tshogs sgrub par smon lam ’debs shing | dkon mchog gsum la mchod pa byed pa dang | bla ma la mchod pa byed pa ni dbang che bar grags pa nyid kyi rgyu yin no ||. Other expressions such as gurubhakti may also be relevant here but interestingly in the Mahāvyutpatti (no. 1774), it is rendered as bla ma la snying nye ba and bla ma la gus pa. The former does not seem to accentuate the aspect of “devotion” but rather of “fondness/closeness” and perhaps even of “intimacy.”

A Buddhist Zoo-Epistemology

Recently in Harvard (December 6, 2023), I learnt that Professor Janet Gyatso is interested in what one might call “zoo-epistemology,” perhaps simplistically, in the sense of the theory of how animals (tiryañc: dud ’gro) know their objects of knowledge. For heuristic purposes, also when speaking of zoo-epistemology, we may think of two kinds of (means of) knowledge, namely, perceptual (non-conceptual) and conceptual. On the spur of the moment, I told Professor Gyatso that her interest in the topic reminds me of how Mi-pham rNam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho (1846–1912), in his mKhas ’jug, attempts to explain the manner in which animals infer the presence of water by its sound. This remark of mine sparked her interest and she promised that she will get back to me, and she did. Instead of simply pointing out to some sources, I thought that I should rather collect my thoughts and offer Professor Gyatso some possible venues for exploration.

First, issues pertinent to zoo-epistemology are bound to be found in abundance in the Tibetan Buddhist commentarial literature dealing with the phrase pūyabuddhiḥ pretasya nadyām (chu ’bab klung la yi dwags rnag blo) found in Madhyamakāvatāra 6.71  (Li 2015: 13; Tib. Uryuzu & Nakazawa 2012: 14). The point of departure in the rNying-ma tradition for discourses on zoo-epistemology may well be Rong-zom-pa’s sNang ba lhar sgrub (Sad-mi-mi-bzhi 2018, etc.) and Mi-pham’s Nges shes sgron me (Pettit 1999, etc.). On an earlier occasion, I happened to discuss what I called “the relativity theory of the purity and validity of perception” (Wangchuk 2009). Buddhist sources presuppose or propose that what is known to us as “water” can be perceived in various ways by various kinds of awakened and non-awakened sentient beings including animals (e.g., fish). How would fish, for example, perceive what we call “water”? Though zoo-epistemology would not be the main or actual issue in such contexts, one might find things that are of interest and relevance. 

Second, the editors of the Indo-Tibetan Lexical Resource (ITLR) have published an entry on parivrāṭkāmukaśva (kun rgyu chags can khyi), expressing a famous idea that one object (i.e., body of a woman) would be perceived differently by different beings including carnivores such as a dog. See https://www.itlr.net/hwid:901332. We made an attempt here to gather whatever sources we could find.

Third, Rong-zom-pa in his Theg chen tshul ’jug (Tashi Dorjee 2021: 547) has famously used the analogy of what he calls ri dwags me’i gtsang sbra can. The Sanskrit expression found in Kambala’s Ālokamālā turns out to be agniśauco mṛgaḥ (Szántó 2020: 14, 25). According to Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī, it would be agniśaucaḥ sāraṅgaḥ (Szántó 2020: 11). Rong-zom-pa’s main point in employing this analogy seems to be that the characteristics of phenomena such as the hotness of fire are not as absolute as we take them to be. If, for example, the hotness of fire were absolute, it should be able to burn anyone but this animal (i.e., agniśauco mṛgaḥ: ri dwags me’i gtsang sbra can) not only lives in fire but it lives on fire. How would such an idea be relevant to zoo-epistemology? Perhaps we may say that the tactile perception (kāyavijñāna: lus kyi rnam par shes pa) of the agniśauco mṛgaḥ is radically different from those of most animals.

Fourth, Rong-zom-pa in his Theg chen tshul ’jug (Tashi Dorjee 2021: 618, cf. 380–381) also employs the analogy of the optical/visual organ of a jackal (lce spyang gi mig). The point he is trying to make with this is that light and darkness, day and night, and thus by implication science (rig pa) and nescience (ma riga pa), nirvāṇa and saṃsāra, would make no difference to those, for example, a jackal, who can perceive objects both in light and darkness, day and night. To an Atiyogin, the very ajñāna/avidya shines as jñāna/vidya, and the limitation of the duality of science and nescience, nirvāṇa and saṃsāra, is not given for him.

Fifth, the reference that I promised I will share with Professor Gyatso is Mi-pham’s explanation of how animals such as horses infer the presence of water by hearing its sound. The larger context of the passage is his discussion of how conceptual construction, conceptualization, or, conceptual mind (rtog pa) operates and works. In other words, he is trying to explain the mechanism behind inferential valid cognition (anumānapramāṇa: rjes su dpag pa’i tshad ma). The pertinent passage in his mKhas ’jug reads (p. 493.5–12): brda byed mi shes pa’i skye bo byis pa chung ngu rnams dang rta sogs dud ’gro rnams kyis kyang blo la zas skom sogs kyi don spyi tsam snang ba de ming dang ’dres pa med kyang | ’dres su rung ba’i don spyi’i rtog pa de’i sgo nas don la ’jug ldog byed pa yin te | dper na chu dngos su ma mthong yang | chu shag shag ’bab pa’i sgra thos pa na | skom pas gdung pa’i dud ’gro rnams kyis kyang chu’i rnam pa blo la shar nas de ’dod pa’i rnam ’gyur gyi sgra sgrog pa dang | rgyang ring po’i chu yi rjes su snyog zhes pa lta bus de yi tshul shes par byed do ||. The key term underlying the idea is śabdārthaghaṭanāyogya (sgra don ’drer rung ba = sgra don sbyor bar rung ba), a term which is recorded in Negi et al. 1993–2005. Tibetan scholars such as Mi-pham appear to distinguish between the actual sgra don ’dres ’dzin (“grasping [the object] by integrating (i.e., mixing,  associating, identifying) the idea/concept/term [of an entity] with the entity[-itself]” and mere sgra don ’drer rung ba (“feasibility/possibility of integrating the concept [of an entity] with the entity[-itself]”). The former pertains to the mechanism of language and logic of those who are trained in language and the latter for those who are not (or not yet) trained in languages/signs. It is the latter that is relevant to zoo-epistemology. Animals such as horses are able to infer the presence of water, seek and obtain it, and quench their thirst. That is, although water and sound of water are two different entities, animals do have the conceptual capacity to associate and identify them as one and thereby enabling them to pursue and obtain their desired goals.

Sixth, one may also add here the idea that vultures can see distant objects. In this regard, scholars often refer to Dharmakīrti, Pramāṇavarttika 1.33cd (Miyasaka 1972: 8): pramāṇaṃ dūradarśī ced eta gṛdhrān upāsmahe ||; Tib. (Miyasaka 1971/1972: 9): gal te ring mthong tshad yin na || tshur shog bya rgod brten par gyis ||. See also Negi et al. 1993–2005: s.v. bsten par gyis; dGe-’dun-chos-’phel, Legs sbyar bang mdzod (Wangdi 2022: 92); Moriyama 2014: 17; Saccone 2019: 463–464, n. 30.

Selected Bibliography

Li 2015 = Xuezhu Li (ed.), “Madhyamakāvatāra-kārikā: Chapter 6.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, 2015, pp. 1–30.

Miyasaka 1971/1972 = Yūsho Miyasaka (ed.), “Pramāṇavārttikakārikā (Sanskrit and Tibetan).” Indo Koten Kenkyū (Acta Indologica) 2, 1971/1972, pp. 1–206.

mKhas ’jug = Mi-pham rNam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho, mKhas pa’i tshul la ’jug pa’i sgo zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1990, pp. 153–519.

Moriyama 2014 = Shinya Moriyama, Omniscience and Religious Authority: A Study on Prajñnākaragupta’s Pramāṇvarttikālaṅkārabhāṣya ad Pramāṇavarttika II 8–10 and 29–33. Leipziger Studien zur Kultur und Geschichte Süd- und Zentralasiens 4. Zürich-Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2014.

Negi et al. 1993–2005 = J. S. Negi et al., Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo: Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Dictionary Unit, 1993–2005.

Pettit 1999 = John W. Pettit, Mipham’s Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1999.

Saccone 2019 = Margherita Serena Saccone, “Of Authoritativeness and Perception: On Establishing an Omniscient Person (against the Mīmāṃsakas).” In Wind Horses: Tibetan, Himalayan and Mongolian Studies. I Cavalli del Vento. Studi tibetani, himalayani e mongoli, edited by A. Drocco, L. Galli, C. Letizia,  G. Orofino & C. Simioli.  Series Minor 88. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli, Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo, 2019, pp. 455–483.

Sad-mi-mi-bzhi 2018 = mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje, mKhan-po O-rgyan-rig-’dzin, mKhan-po dPal-bzang-dar-rgyas & Slob-dpon-ma (now mKhan-mo) Karma-dbyangs-can, sNang ba lhar sgrub pa’i tshul la brtag pa | rong zom pa’i mdzad rnam dang | snang ba lhar sgrub chen mo’i zhib dpyad zhu dag | de’i brjod bya rjod byed la brtag pa |. sNga-’gyur-rnying-ma’i-zhib-’jug 1. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2018.

Szántó 2020 = Péter-Dániel Szántó, “Asbestos and Salamander in India.” Indo-Iranian Journal 63, 2020, pp. 335–370. 

Tashi Dorjee 2021 = mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje (Khenpo Tashi Dorjee), Chos bzang rigs pa’i rnam dpyod: Rong zom pa ma hā paṇḍi ta’i theg tshul rjod byed zhib dpyad zhu dag lung khungs ngos ’dzin dang | brjod bya gnas lugs rig par rtsad zhib tshom bu. Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre Publication Series 3. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2021.

Uryuzu & Nakazawa 2012 =  Ryushin Uryuzu & Mitsuru Nakazawa (eds.), [A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translation of Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra and Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya]. Online: http://kishin-syobo.com/index.php?%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99, 2012 (PDF with Running Pagination).

Wangchuk 2009 = Dorji Wangchuk, “A Relativity Theory of the Purity and Validity of Perception in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.” In Yogic Perception, Meditation and Altered States of Consciousness, edited by Eli Franco in collaboration with Dagmar Eigner. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2009, pp. 215–239.

Wangdi 2022 = Tashi Wangdi, ‘A Sanskritic Treasure Trove’ (Legs sbyar bang mdzod): A Text-Critical Study of the Anthology of Sanskrit Verses Collected by A-mdo dGe-’dun-chos-’phel (1903–1951). Doctoral Dissertation. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2022 [is being revised and not yet publicly available].

Rong-zom-pa: Māyājālatantra

Some Notes: Rong-zom-pa, Rab gnas bshad sbyar (p. 149.11–13): rnal ’byor rnam gsum zhes bya ste || byin gyis brlab dang yongs brtags dang || gzugs nyid rdzogs par gyur pa ni || rnal ’byor yin zhes sangs rgas gsungs ||; cf. Māyājālatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 83, p. 376.8–10): rnal ’byor rnam gsum shes bya ste || byin gyis brlabs dang yongs brtags dang || gzugs gnyis rdzogs par gyur pa ni || rnal ’byor yin zhes sangs rgyas gsungs ||; Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra (Bᴷ, vol. 82, p. 109.14–16): rnal ’byor rnam gsum shes bya ste || byin gyis brlabs dang yongs brtags dang || gzugs nyid yongs su rdzogs pa dag  || rnal ’byor yin zhes sangs rgyas gsungs ||

Rong-zom-pa, Rab gnas bshad sbyar (p. 149.14–20): sngags kyi byin rlabs ya mtshan bskyed || rnal ’byor byin brlab yin par gsungs || byang chub sems ni dag pa dang || gsang sngags sa bon skye ba che || phyag rgya’i tshogs su brtags pa yis || rim gyis gzugs ni rdzogs byas pa || de ni brtags par brjod pa ste || rnal ’byor cho ga yin par gsungs || bsdu dang spro bar byas pa las ||  rnam pa’i mchog kun ldan pa dag || skad cig ye shes kyis rdzogs pa || rdzogs pa’i rnal ’byor zhes brjod do ||; cf. Māyājālatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 83, p. 376.10–16): sngags kyis byin brlabs nga rgyal bskyed || rnal ’byor byin brlabs yin par gsungs || byang chub sems ni dag pa dang || gsang sngags sa bon bskyed pa che || phyag rgya’i tshogs su brtags pa yin || rim gyis gzugs ni rdzogs byas pa || de ni brtag par brjod pa ste || rnal ’byor cho ga yin par gsungs || bsdu dang spro bar byas pa las || rnam pa’i mchog kun ldan pa dag || skad cig ye shes kyis rdzogs pa || rdzogs pa’i rnal ’byor zhes brjod do ||; Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra (Bᴷ, vol. 82, pp. 109.16–110.1): sngags kyis byin brlabs nga rgyal bskyed || rnal ’byor byin rlabs yin par gsungs || byang chub sems ni dag pa dang || gsang sngags sa bon skye ba che || phyag rgya’i tshogs su brtags pa yi || rim gyis gzugs kyis rdzogs bya ba || de ni brtags pas brjod pa ste || rnal ’byor cho ga yin par gsungs || bsdu dang spro bar bya ba las || rnam pa’i mchog kun ldan pa dang || skad cig ye shes kyis rdzogs pa || rdzogs pa’i rnal ’byor zhes brjod do ||.

Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 73.17–18): dang po dam tshig byin brlab pa || brtags pa rnal ’byor spyod pa’o || dbu ma rdzogs par bya ba dag || ’di ni rnal ’byor cho ga bshad ||; cf.  Māyājālatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 83, p. 376.16–18): dang por dam tshig byin brlabs par || rnal ’byor spyod pa bdag gis brtags || rab tu rdzogs par bya ba dag || ’di ni rnal ’byor cho gar bshad ||; Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra (Bᴷ, vol. 82, pp. 110.1–): dang por dam tshig byin brlabs par || rnal ’byor rig pa dag gis brtag || rab tu rdzogs par bya ba dag || ’di ni rnal ’byor cho gar bshad ||.

Remark: To be sure, Rong-zom-pa identifies the source as the Māyājālatantra and not as the Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra. In the dKon mchog ’grel, however, the source is identified as the rNam par snang mdzad sgyu ’phrul drwa ba (*Vairocanamāyājāla[tantra]). I see at least three possible explanations. It is either (a) an authorial mistake, (b) an transmissional error, or, (c) he considered the Māyājālatantra to be the Vairocanamāyājālatantra although I would have assumed that it is to be identified with the Vairocanābhisambodhitantra.

Rong-zom-pa: *Vajravyūhatantra

While explaining the word snying po (*garbha/sāra/hṛdaya) in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, Rong-zom-pa cites, among other sources, a single pāda from an unnamed source. See his dKon mchog ’grel (p. 56.20–21): gzhan las kyang | kun khyab gdal ba’i snying por ’dus || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’am |. His expression “also from other [scriptures]” suggests a scripture other than the *Guhyagarbhatantra. When he refers to the *Guhyagarbhatantra itself, he states ’di nyid las “from this scripture.” The source of the pāda turns out to be the *Vajravyūhatantra in 33 chapters (Bᴷ, vol. 102, p. 21.17–18), which reads: kun khyab bdal ba’i snying por ’dus ||. If we are unaware of the possible orthographic variants (i.e., gdal, bdal, brdal, etc.), we could easily miss the location.

Rong-zom-pa & the Vajrapāṇyabhiṣekatantra

A Quick Note: When explaining the idea of vajrasattva according to various Buddhist systems in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, and specifically for the Kriyātantric system, Rong-zom-pa cites the following two verse lines (p. 54.9): dus gsum mnyam pa nyid la rtag gnas pa || rdo rje sems dpa’ rdo rje mchog tshur shog ||. It turns out that these verse lines are from the Vajrapāṇyabhiṣekatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 87, p. 40.15–16). Initiating someone by summoning, “Come here!” reminds one of one of the many ways of bestowing bhikṣu ordination. See the Vinayavastu statement cited by Negi: ehi bhikṣukayā pravrājitaḥ (dge slong tshur shog ces bya bas rab tu byung ngo ||).

Rong-zom-pa & the Susiddhikaratantra

Note the citation in Rong-zom-pa’s dKon mchog ’grel (p. 226.18–22): bya ba rgyud kyi tshul las kyang | theg pa chung ngu pa rnams dang lung pa gcig gi chu la yang mi btung ngo || zhes lhan cig mi mnal bar gsungs la | sngags pa khyim pa rnams kyis phyag bya bar gsungs te | ’di skad du | mchod rten mthong na bskor ba bya || dge slong mthong na phyag kyang ’tshal || lha rnams mthong na mchod par bya || slob dpon mthong na bkur bar bya || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o ||. This verse lines can be found in the Sādhanopāyikapaṭala of the Susiddhikaratantra (Bᴷ,  vol. 96, p. 601.14–15): mchod rten mthong na phyag bya zhing || dge slong mthong na’ang phyag bya’o || lha dag mthong na’ang rim gro bya || bla ma mthong na’ang mchod par bya ||. The verse can be also be found verbatim in the Kṛṣṇayamāritantrapañjikā called the Ratnapradīpa by Ratnākaraśānti (D1919) translated by Vinayacandra and Chos-kyi-shes-rab. See Ratnapradīpa (Bᵀ, vol. 23, p. 1140.6–7): mchod rten mthong na phyag bya zhing || dge slong mthong na’ang phyag bya’o || lha dag mthong na rim gro bya || bla ma mthong na mchod pa bya ||. Note that the verse cited by Rong-zom-pa above seems to be a different translation. But a huge chunk of the text from the Susiddhikaratantra has also been cited in his Dam tshig mdo rgyas (pp. 276.10–280.10) where he specifies his source. But the verse occurring there reads (p. 279.22–24): mchod rten mthong na phyag bya zhing || dge slong mthong na’ang phyag bya’o || lha dag mthong na rim ’gro [= gro] bya || bla ma mthong na’ang mhcod par bya ||.

Rong-zom-pa & Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra 13.4

One of the five primary Mantric precepts according to the *Guhyagarbhatantra is being benevolent to those who have entered the correct path. In this context, Rong-zom-pa cites three pādas from a Sūtric source (dKon mchog ’grel, p. 226.8–12): theg pa chung ngu pa rnams ni spyir brtse bas bzung [= gzung] bar bya ba yin yang | lhan cig gnas par mi bya | zhes byang chub sems dpa’i sdom pa las kyang ’byung ste | dge slong dul dang lung gnas pa || dgra bcom snyam du sems byed pa || de dang lhan cig mnal mi bya || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o ||. He does not specify his source. Though not in exact words, these are contained in Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra 13.4 (Karashima 2003: 15): adhimānī na seveta vinaye cāgame sthitān | arhantasaṃmatān bhikṣūn duḥśīlāṃś ca iva varjayet ||; Tib. (Karashima 2003: 109): dge slong ’dul dang lung gnas pa || dgra bcom snyam du sems byed cing || nga rgyal can rnams bsten mi bya || tshul khrims ’chal mams rnam par spang ||. For the expression arhantasaṃmatān, see Schmithausen 2020: vol. 2, pp. 390–391, n. 2658. This verse has also been cited in sKa-ba dPal-brtsegs’s gSung rab rin po che’i gtam and in *Adhīśa’s Mahāsūtrasamuccaya.

Rong-zom-pa and Guhyasamājatantra 18.50–52

Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra cites eight verse lines from the Guhyasamājatantra. See the dKon mchog ’grel (pp. 158.20–159.1): rnam pa gcig tu mi gnyis pa’i shes rab chen po nyid du dug gsum rdo rje’i sgras brjod pa yin la | de nyid dga’ ma ste shes rab ma yin pa’i phyir ro || ji skad du gsang ba ’dus pa las || gnyis med chos kyi ye shes las || phyi rol nga rgyal rmongs zhes bya || de la phan tshun thug pa ni || zhe sdang zhes ni bstan pa yin || mtshan nyid ’dod chags kun zhen pa || ye shes ’di ni rdo rje’o || gti mug zhe sdang ’dod chags dang || rdo rje rtag tu dga’ mar sbyar || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o ||. For the corresponding Sanskrit text, see Guhyasamājatantra 18.50–52 (Matsunaga 1978: 116–117): advayajñānadharmerṣyā (sic) ’haṃkāro moha ucyate | anyonyaghaṭṭanaṃ tatra dveṣa ity abhidhīyate || 18.50 || lakṣaṇaṃ rāgam āsaktir jñāno ’yaṃ vajram ucyate | ratiratyantasambhogaṃ sampadaḥ strīsukhaṃ param || 18.51 || moho dveṣas tathā rāgaḥ sadā vajre ratiḥ sthitā | upāyas tena buddhānāṃ vajrayānam iti smṛtam || 18.52 ||. I do not see the corresponding Sanskrit for the Tibetan phyi rol. Also instead of gnyis med chos kyi ye shes las, some sources read gnyis med chos kyi ye shes la. There may be other discrepancies. Rong-zom-pa does not cite the Tibetan translation of upāyas tena buddhānāṃ vajrayānam iti smṛtam, obviously because this is not found to be relevant for the point he is making in this particular context. The verses in Tibetan translation cited by Rong-zom-pa does not seem to be found as such in the Tibetan translation of the Guhyasamājatantra, neither in the bKa’ ’gyur nor in the rNying ma rgyud ’bum. This needs to be checked again. But these seem to be found embedded, for example, in the Tibetan translation of the Guhyasamājaṭīkā (D1909; P2772) prepared by Jñānagarbha and Vairocana. This commentary is said to be by Lilavajra/Vilasāvajra (in one source by bZhad-pa-rdo-rje). But all these would require further investigation. These might provide us with clues regarding the history of transmission/translation of the Guhyasamājatantra and related works.

Notes on Buddhist Mārology

Once upon a time (i.e., Saturday, February 8, 2014) I wrote a blog titled “Buddhist Demonology = Mārology.” This is as follows:

In a Wikipedia entry on “demonology,” it is defined as “the systematic study of demons or beliefs about demons.” One would wonder if we could speak about “Buddhist demonology.” Perhaps we could, particularly if we consider the Buddhist beliefs in the “destroyer” (māra: bdud). In fact, in the Wikipedia entry, there is a subsection related to demonology in Buddhism. Actually one may simply define “Buddhist demonology” as “Mārology,” so as to capture the Buddhist philosophy/theory/problem of evil.

Basic information on māra can found in MW (s.v. māra), “(with Buddhists) the Destroyer, Evil One (who tempts men to indulge their passions and is the great enemy of the Buddha and his religion; four māras are enumerated in Dharmasaṃgraha 80, viz. skandha-, kleśa-, devaputra-, and mṛtyu–māra; but the later Buddhist theory of races of gods led to the figment of millions of māras ruled over by a chief māra).” See also the BHSD (s.v. māra): “ … (the Evil One, the adversary and tempter;  … so usually, as the One who tries to thwart the Bodhisattva or Buddha and his followers…; an unspecific plurality of Māras; …there is a Māra named Suvarṇaprabha who tries to interfere with a Bodhisattva named Vimala-prabha in his quest of enlightenment; Māra is converted (!) by Upagupta …; there are ten Māra-karmāṇi, deeds of Satan, of which an erring Bodhisattva may be guilty, in BHS they are standardly four, viz. (the order varies) Kleśa-māra, Skandha-māra, Mṛtyu-māra, and Devaputra-māra (the last means the anthropomorphic Evil One; … others, which mean in effect quasi-personifications of kleśa etc.”

When we hear of māra, we might mostly think of devaputramāra, which is described by Edgerton as “anthropomorphic Evil One.” But philosophically, I find the other three types of māra (i.e. skandhamāra, kleśamāra, and mṛtyumāra) more fascinating. Why are one’s “psycho-physical complex” (skandha: phung po), “intellectual-emotional defilements” (kleśa: nyon mongs pa), and “death” (mṛtyu: ’chi bdag) māras? Why are they supposed to be evil? There would be numerous sources that discuss these four māras in great detail. But I would simply like to point out that these are “destroyers/killers” because they are seen as forces (let us say “demonic forces”) that “overpower” us, “enslave” us, and “rob” us of our “freedom.” We succumb to their power. They have total command over us, over our destiny. For instance, have we heard of anyone who has overcome death? None, not even the Buddha! At the backdrop of such an idea, the idea of nirvāṇa as a “state/sphere of immortality” (amṛtā dhātuḥ) (LS 1969: 158) seems to make sense. According to this line of philosophy, the only way that one can vanquish māra is to obtain nirvāṇa. It is, therefore, not a surprise that one of the epithets of the Buddha is “Mārajit” (bDud-’joms) “the Conquerer of Māra.” This, I think, is the most basic idea in “Buddhist demonology” or “Mārology.”

After having obtained Arhatship or Buddhahood, one can just mock at the māras. So any attitude or action that somehow hinders the attainment of Arhatship or Buddhahood would be seen as “demonic” or “evil.” So in the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures and treatises, we come across hundreds of deeds that are considered “acts of māra” (bdud kyi las). Because the teachings of the Buddha (i.e. saddharma) is said to bring about the attainment of Arhatship or Buddhahood, anything that is opposed to the Buddha or saddharma would generally and by default considered “demonic” or “evil.” If Devadatta, the cousin of Buddha is often called bDud lHas-byin, it is not because he had horns on his head and smelled after sulphur, but because Buddhists saw him as an opponent of the Buddha and of what the Buddha stood for. Similarly, if Tibetan Buddhists considered Emperor U-’dum-btsan-po as a Māra, it is because he supposedly destroyed the teachings of the Buddha that are supposed to bring about happiness in the world and ultimately Arhatship or Buddhahood.

What is still more interesting is how did the idea of four types of māra develop diachronically and synchronically in the history of Buddhism? I suspect that there are highly interesting materials out there particularly in Mantric forms of Buddhism. The kind of soteriology or soteriological model that a system or tradition follows would, I assume, affect its attitude and approach towards the four types of māra. For instance, if a Mantric system adopts a “homeopathic” approach, then māras would be used for soterical purposes.

It will be worthwhile to study the typology of māra (e.g. in the gCod/Zhi-byed tradition). The semiology (e.g. symbolism) of māra would be very interesting as well. There are many more interesting venues to explore.

Addendum: Note that bdud (māra) and mu stegs pa (tīrthika) are often lumped together as perhaps as “endogenous adverse forces” and “exogenous adverse forces” (RZ1: 185). The ability to gain an upper hand over these two kinds of forces is considered a Mantric siddhi.

Today (December 13, 2023), I wish to note the following: 

Rong-zom-pa, Dam tshig mdo rgyas (p. 361.9–14): rgyun gyi dam tshig ni | gnyid dang | chang dang byed pa dang | mi tshig smra ba dang | le lo rnams spangs te | dngos grub kyi gegs rnams bsal te | bdud lnga bzlog pa dang | dgra bzhi spang ba’o || de la bdud lnga ni | rnam rtog ’khrig pa’i bdud | btang snyoms le lo’i bdud | longs spyod ’du ’dzi g.yeng ba’i bdud | tshig rtsub mtshon cha rnon po’i bdud | khrog gtum dang thung ’khrug pa’i bdud rnams te | ’di rnams ni yang dag don la sgrib pa’i bdud lnga’o zhes ’byung |.

Ref. Robert Warren Clark, Māra: Psychopathology and Evil in the Buddhism of India and Tibet. Dissertation. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia, 1994.

A Magnet Metaphor

Sources containing magnet metaphor/simile seem to be abundant. But the following verse containing a magnet metaphor/simile cited by Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamāyogatantra seems to be found nowhere (p. 473.4–7): yi ge yan lag gi don ’brel ba med pa rnams ni ’di dang ’di’o zhes ris su chad pa med de | ji skad du | gang du khab len g.yo ba ltar || der ni lcags rnams ’du ba bzhin || gang na don dang ldan pa der || yi ge rnams ni ’gro bar ’gyur || zhes so ||. An attempt at translating the verse would be thus: “Towards wherever a magnet moves, there the iron [pieces] come to be attracted. Similarly, wherever there is that which is endowed with meaning/sense (artha), there do the letters (vyañjana) follow suit.”

A Kinship Metaphor

I have been a little obsessed with the Mahāyāna idea of the perfection of insight (prajñāpāramitā: shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa) being the mother and efficient stratagem (upāyakauśalya: thabs la mkhas pa) the father, and the buddhas being born from them. Some references can be found in Wangchuk 2007: 230–231. What I then did not point out is that Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamāyogatantra makes the following statement (p. 469.2–3): mdo sde las kyang | ma ni shes rab pha rol phyin || pha ni thabs la mkhas pa ste || rgyal ba rnams ni ’di las skyes || zhes gsungs pa dang |. There I did cite the verse from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra (Wangchuk 2007: 230, n. 154) but I did not realize that the Sūtric scripture that Rong-zom-pa cites here must be identified with the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra. A quick search in the Tibetan canonical sources (e.g., via rKTS) reveals that the first two pādas have been cited by several other Indic works and when the third pāda is cited, the readings vary. Instead of Rong-zom-pa’s rgyal ba rnams ni ’di las skyes ||, the canonical version of the translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra reads ’dren pa rnams ni de las skyes ||. Some citations read mngon po rnams ni de las skyes ||. In general, the idea found in Sūtric scriptures such as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra and  Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchāsūtra (Wangchuk 2007: 230, n. 153) seems to have inspired several Tantric scriptures and it can be found in various renditions and adaptations.

Śryānandapura?

Thiruvananthapuram also known as Trivandrum, is the capital and the largest city of the Indian state of Kerala. The name is said to be from Malayalam/Tamil. It is said to be derived from the Sanskrit word Syanandurapuram (sic), meaning “The City of Bliss” (Wikipedia, s.v. Thiruvananthapuram) but for someone who is not a Sanskritist and yet interested in knowing the name in Sanskrit, it still remains unclear. So, should the name in Sanskrit be something like Śryānandapura? If so, it should be in Tibetan dPal-kun-tu-dga’-ba’i-grong-khyer.

Sukāma in Mi-pham’s Ketaka Colophon?

mKhan-po bKra-rdo (NNRC) asked me if I could help identity a Tibetan teacher mentioned by Mi-pham in the colophon of his Ketaka. See Mi-pham rNam-rgyal-rgyal-mtsho, Shes rab kyi le’u’i tshig don go sla bar rnam par bshad pa nor bu ke ta ka, edited by mKhan-po Chos-’phel-nor-bu et al. Jeerango via Chadragiri, Gajapati (Odisha): Ārya-pa-lo’i-rtsom-sgrig-khang, Rigon Thubten Mindrolling Monastery, 2022, p. 103.9–10: dge ba’i bshes gnyen su ka ma nas yang nas yang du bskul bar mdzad pa’i rkyen byas na |. The editors make no attempt to identify the person. See also Karma Phuntsho, Mipham’s Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness: To Be, Not To Be or Neither. Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005, p. 213, where it states “requested by one Sukama.” Such a name in Sanskrit seems not possible. At one point, I wondered if the name should be Sukamala, but then we do not seem to know a teacher of Mi-pham bearing the name Padma-bzang-po. One option is to read Sukāma. But whose name could it be? One candidate that comes to one’s mind is the third Mu-ra-sprul-sku Padma-bde-chen-bzang-po (BDRC: P8693). He is listed as one of the teachers of Mi-pham. He is also said to be a master of mKhan-chen Thub-bstan-chos-’phel from rDza-stod-lcang ma. The prefix su in the name can be said to be for bzang po. But the question is can kāma be rendered into Tibetan bde ba? The standard rendering seems to be ’dod pa (occasionally as an honorific bzhed pa). In English at least, it has also been rendered as “love, affection, pleasure, enjoyment” (MW, s.v. kāma). These, one would say, come quite close to Tibetan bde ba. This speculation is, however, for the want of a better explanation. I remain ready to be corrected at any time.

Gayādhara

In an earlier version of this blog piece, I have vented my frustration over not knowing which of the three different orthographies found in secondary sources should I choose, namely, Gayādhara, Gayadhara, and Gāyadhara. I also wondered if any one of these is attested in Sanskrit sources. I even speculated if Gayadhara were not a better choice and that for now, if I must use, I will use Gayadhara. But now I realize that I have been blissfully, nay, actually, painfully ignorant of the fact that Prof. Péter-Dániel Szántó has not only consistently used Gayādhara but also stated the following (p. 89, n. 31): “The name Gayādhara is attested, see e.g. the list of donees on the eighth-century Neulpur copper plate of Śubhākara (EI 15, p. 7, l. 27) and one Gayādhara is also mentioned on a Haihaya inscription (Banerji 1931: 29). Prof. Sanderson kindly pointed out to me further occurrences of this name, e.g. EI 14, no. 15 (the list also contains a ‘Gamgādhara’, i.e. Gaṅgādhara); EI 4, no. 20; EI 10, no. 5a, and EI 31, no. 11.” From now on, I will resort to the orthography Gayādhara and make a reference to Péter-Dániel Szántó, Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīthatantra (1/2): Introductory Study with the Annotated Translation of Selected Chapters. PhD Thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford, 2012 [vol. 1], p. 89, n. 21.

ཞལ་ཟས་རོ་བརྒྱ་ལྡན་པ།

Smṛtijñānakīrti, Nāmasaṃgīticakṣurvidhi (Bᵀ, vol. 47, p. 39.3–4; not found in D): ཞལ་ཟས་རོ་བརྒྱ་ལྡན་པ་ཡིད་འཕྲོག་པ། །ལེགས་སྦྱར་འདི་ནི་རྒྱལ་བ་སྲས་བཅས་ལ། །དད་པས་ལེགས་འབུལ་འགྲོ་བ་འདི་དག་ཀུན། །འབྱོར་ལྡན་ཏིང་འཛིན་ཟས་ལ་སྤྱོད་པར་ཤོག །This verse is used by Tibetan Buddhists but I wonder if it is attested in Sanskrit sources. In the above commentary, it seems to be intended as an annotation.

གཙོ་བོས་ཇི་ལྟར་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། །

The other day, one Bhutanese student of mine was told by someone that the famous statement (i.e., something like “Whatever the Lord tells me, I will do”) used in the Tantric initiation rituals was made up by Tibetan Buddhists and that it cannot be found in Indian sources. As far as I am concerned, I told him, it is found in Indian sources. But I could not simply swear as an evidence, could I? Here are some textual evidences that I quickly put together:

Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra (Skorupski 1983: 288): evam astu kariṣyāmi yathā jñāpayase vibho ||; Tib. (Skorupski 1983: 289): gtso bo ji ltar bka’ bsgo ba || ’di ltar bdag ni bgyid par ’tshal ||; Saṃvarodayatantra 18.32ab (Tsuda 1974: 128): kuryād evaṃ kariṣyāmi yathājñāpayase vibho |; Tib. (Tsuda 1974: 210): gtso bos ji ltar bka’ stsal pa || de ltar bgyi zhes smra bar bya ||; Dīpaṃkarabhadra,Guhyasamājamaṇḍalavidhi 396cd (Klein-Schwind 2008: online): brūyur evaṃ kariṣyāmo yathājñāpayase vibho ||. There should be many more.

རྫོགས་ཆེན་སྟོན་པ་བཅུ་གཉིས།

Today (Sunday, 22.10.2023), I started wondering about the idea of “Twelve Teachers of rDzogs-chen” (rdzogs chen ston pa bcu gnyis) and started first browsing through rKTS, BDRC, and BuddhaNexus, and then I must admit, I also googled. I then realized I have posted on Friday, November 7, 2014, the following note in my blog, Philologia Tibetica: “How and why and when and where did the idea of ‘Twelve Teachers of rDzogs-chen’ (rdzogs chen ston pa bcu gnyis) arise? Trying to answer questions as to whether these are historical figures or not would be futile. A historical development of the idea of rdzogs chen ston pa bcu gnyis would be perhaps feasible and beneficial. A list of these can be found, for example, Palmo 2008 [= Brilliant Moon]: 303, n. 3; Chags-med, Phyag rdzogs zung ’jug (p. vol. 1, p. 270).”

It is, of course, not possible to report here all what I found via the above digital platforms. Only a couple of points may be mentioned here and now. First, where and when do we start seeing the expression and idea of rdzogs chen ston pa bcu gnyis? To be sure, the expression cannot be found in the Tibetan canonical (i.e., bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur) and paracanonical (i.e., rNying ma rgyud ’bum) sources. This is significant! Klong-chen-pa, who uses this expression, may be used as a point of reference. The question for now is what pre-Klong-chen-pa (i.e., pre-fourteenth century) sources we can find. We do find this expression in the thirteenth-century textual sources associated with Guru Chos-kyi-dbang-phyug  (1212–1270). But if we examine the conception and context of the ston pa bcu gnyis, it becomes clear that it has been conceived of mainly as an “etiology” (’byung khungs rig pa, my Tibetan neologism) of the Seventeen Tantric Scriptures of the Great Perfection (rdzogs pa chen po’i rgyud bcu bdun), that is, of the sNying-thig tradition. I cannot tell now whether these Tantric scriptures explicitly mention the expression ston pa bcu gnyis. It could also be that  the “etiology” had been incorporated retrospectively and retroactively. At any rate, the idea may not be traced in pre-lDang-ma lHun-grub-rgyal-mtshan. Works of gNubs-chen and Rong-zom-pa, for example, do not mention such an expression.

In what is called the A ti sha’i gsung ’bum, and specially the bKa’ gdams bu chos, the expression ston pa bcu gnyis does occur in ’Brom-ston-pa’s sKyes rabs (pp. 337.10, 338.5). The ston pa bcu gnyis here is apparently conceived of differently, but whether there is some kind of affinity between the two and whether there is some kind of influence or borrowing and if so in which direction remain unknown.

At any rate, the conception of the ston pa bcu gnyis is completely ahistorical, and one wonders why one felt the need to come up with such an idea. The initiator of this idea, whoever he might have been, appeared not to have been concerned that such an idea actually would undermine the last shreds of credibility within the larger context of Buddhism. But we cannot single out this anonymous author and ostracize him. Buddhist traditions, and especially Tantric and non-Tantric Mahāyāna scriptures, are full of “etiologies” of this kind. And these “etiologies” should be, by no means, seen as “histories” reporting “historical facts/data.” My cursory impression is that these authors try to clearly relegate “the historical Buddha” within a certain new scheme of buddhas, in this case, the ston pa bcu gnyis, by placing these new buddhas in an ever widening space and time from those of the historical Buddha. But we realize that the actual point of departure or point of reference always remains Śākyamuni, the historical Buddha. And this, in my view, is significant! This etiology appears to be an attempt at expanding “Buddhology.” The idea of thub pa drug—found in the *Guhyagarbhatantra and also called vidyāpuruṣa (rig pa’i skyes bu)—certainly predates the idea of ston pa bcu gnyis. To be noted is that the expression vidyāpuruṣa is also found in the Guhyasamājatantra, and perhaps also elsewhere.

Tsong-kha-pa on “las zhig pa”

Here is a quick note taking. The history of those Buddhist ideas that are shared by or common to pre/non-Buddhist traditions should be studied differently than that of those ideas “freshly developed,” to use the expression of Schmithausen, by Buddhists. Some of those uniquely Buddhist ideas might have had their roots in Buddhist practices, and some later Buddhist practices might have been triggered by a change or shift in the Buddhist theories/ideas. And then there would be Buddhist ideas that came about as consequences of facing doctrinal problems or contradictions between existing old doctrines and the newly introduced ones. Two perfect examples that come to our mind are the problems of “karmic mechanism” (of non-awakened beings) ensuing from the Buddhist rejection of substantial karmic agent or a metaphysical substrate such a substantial Self and the problems of “kriyāic mechanism” (of awakened beings) ensuing from the Buddhist rejection of a metaphysical substrate of all phenomena also on the level of a buddha.

The issue of the bearer or substrate of karmic mechanism (las ’bras kyi rten) has been crucial, also in Tibetan Buddhism. Different Tibetan Buddhist schools or scholars would have different views on this. Now, Tsong-kha-pa has proposed the “entity consisting in the cessation of the act” (zhig pa dngos po) as a solution to the problem of karmic mechanism and retribution. That is, this zhig pa dngos po would act as a mediator or link between the act and its result. Perhaps like many Tibetan scholars, we, too, may be tempted to believe that the idea of zhig pa dngos po is “an innovation introduced by Tsong-kha-pa” but as Lambert Schmithausen has pointed out (Schmithausen 1986: 218) it is already found in Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā (as cited in Schmithausen 1986: 218): nanv evaṃ sati … vināśo ’pi bhāvaḥ prāpnotīti cet, iṣyata evaitat; vināśo hi svarūpāpekṣayā bhāvaḥ …. I may add here the corresponding Tibetan rendering (Bᵀ, vol. 60, p. 143.1–3): gal te de lta na byed bzhin pa yin pa’i phyir ’jig pa yang dngos por ’gyur ba ma yin nam zhe na | ’di ni ’dod pa nyid yin te | ’jig pa ni rang gi ngo bo la ltos nas dngos po yin la |. Note that the translation has ’jig pa dngos po. Schmithausen then adds (p. 218): “Yet, the combination of all these elements into a clear-cut theory of how the mechanism of karmic retribution works may be Tsong-kha-pa’s own achievement, but I don’t dare to be dogmatic on this.”

What is, however, more interesting for me is Schmithausen’s own critical assessment of the idea of las zhig pa. By the way, it seems we ought to verify if Tsong-kha-pa himself used the expression zhig pa dngos po as a technical term. Schmithausen seems to be genuinely interested in knowing how the idea of las zhig pa is supposed to work for Tsong-kha-pa. He for one cannot see how “the cessation of the act, that is, its abstract negation, even if hypostatized into an entity” can “transmit a specific karmic impulse.” In fact, the theory of “the ceased act itself, in a concrete sense, taken to exist, as an entity, even after having ceased, that is, even as a past one” as proposed by Sarvāstivādins, especially Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas, would seem more plausible. Or, at least the idea does not seem to pose what Schmithausen calls a “plausibility problem.” Importantly, according to Schmithausen, “possession” (prāpti: thob pa) and “non-information” (avjiñapti: rnam par rig byed ma yin pa), at least in textual sources up to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Karmasiddhi, were still not attributed with the function of the bearer/substrate of karmic mechanism. This ought to be kept in mind! In addition, Schmithausen points out (p. 220) that Tsong-kha-pa not only uses the idea of las zhig pa but also of “residues” (vāsanā: bag chags) ascribed by him to Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas rather than to the expected Sautrāntikas and “mind-series” (sems kyi rgyud). One thus gets an “impression of a heterogenous strand of thought evoked by certain remarks of Candrakīrti but not systematically synthesized with the other doctrine. But all this needs more comprehensive investigation.”

Now, Schmithausen, in my view, offers an elegant explanation of Tsong-kha-pa’s position. Despite important differences between Tsong-kha-pa’s las zhig pa and Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas’s “continued existence of the past act,” there is a significant affinity between the two. Both hypostatized “a negative term into an entity” (p. 219). As indicated above, and if I understand correctly, Schmithausen himself seems to have a “plausibility problem” with Tsong-kha-pa’s las zhig pa, that is, if we understand it as an abstract negation of “the cessation of the act.” Now, it appears that Tibetan expression las zhig pa allows two interpretations, namely, (a) in a “concrete” sense of a “ceased entity” or (b) in an “abstract” sense of the “cessation as an entity.” Thus, if las zhig pa is understood positively and concretely, the plausibility problem would not be given for Tsong-kha-pa. Would such an interpretation of las zhig pa not be then exactly the same as the idea of Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas’s “continued existence of the past act”? Schmithausen makes it clear that this is obviously not the case. For Tsong-kha-pa, Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas’s “continued existence of the past act” is maintained to be “inherently/essentially existent” (rang bzhin gyis grub pa) and hence such an entity is, from a Madhyamaka standpoint, not possible even on the  pragmatic level (tha snyad du). His las zhig pa is, however, possible on the pragmatic level albeit having no inherent nature.

Now one may agree or disagree with Tsong-kha-pa and one may or may not like his proposition. But one should attempt to understand it, as Schmithausen attempted to do by offering “a hypothetical suggestion” (p. 219), and see if his position is internally coherent. With the help of Schmithausen’s explanation, I can now better appreciate Tsong-kha-pa’s position on the las zhig pa.

Of course many Buddhist schools and scholars have offered various kinds of explanations to tackle the problem of the “bearer/substrate of karmic mechanism.” My impression is that Buddhists in this regard fall into two broad categories, namely, those who attempted to find a substitute for a metaphysical substrate that they reject, and those who proposed that there is no metaphysical substrate and that there is is no need for such a substrate, and that karmic mechanism is still plausible governed by the principle of śūnyatā and pratītyasamutpāda. If one must insist on a “bearer/substrate of karmic mechanism” (las ’bras kyi rten) then something like nga tsam (“mere self/I”) would fully suffice. The decisive point is that the bearer or substrate should not be something substantially existent (dravyasat: rdzas su yod pa). If it is only nominally existent (prajñaptisat: btags par yod pa), it does not matter much. Replacing one metaphysical entity as a substrate with another metaphysical entity would be unacceptable!

Buddhist Gurulogy

A. Prologue

The theory or conception of guru in various strands of Buddhism may be called here “Buddhist gurulogy.” The primary meaning of the Sanskrit word guru is “heavy” as opposed to laghu “light.” By extension, a spiritual mentor would be called a guru. From a Buddhist perspective, a guru, like a buddha and others, would be a “field” (kṣetra: zhing). That is, one may sow beneficent or maleficent seeds in the field and accordingly “reap” rich yields either in the form of puṇya (bsod bsams) or pāpa (sdig pa). Thus, a guru may be seen as a “person of heavy/grave consequences.” To be sure, there are various kinds of kṣetra, which is, however, beyond the scope of the present endeavor.

What I am primarily interested in here is gathering some textual sources for trying to answer the  question as to whether the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru(s)—which is popular in Tibetan Buddhism—can be traced in Indic sources. As far as I can see, it appears that the concept, though not as prevalent as the concept of taking refuge in the Three Jewels, can be—directly and indirectly, explicitly and implicitly—found in Indic sources. The explicit sources, however, seem rather rare or doubtful, whereas implicit sources are abundant and clear.

1. Explicit Sources for the Idea of Taking Refuge in One’s Guru

In general the concept of taking refuge in the Three Jewels would vary according to the doctrinal affiliation, orientation, or, progression, and the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru (or vajrācārya) should be set primarily in a Vajrayāna context. The term guru, however, is not confined to Tantric sources. We can find it even in the Vinaya context. See, for example, Mūlasarvāstivādi­śrāmaṇera­kārikā (D, fol. 1b4–5): bla ma gnas pa’i sgo glegs la || lag pas dal gyis brdung bar bya ||. This work has been, by the way, attributed to one Nāgārjuna. In the pre/non-Tantric context, we should be thinking of an ācārya or kalyāṇamitra (often but not necessarily in the sense of one’s teacher/master).

While Tibetan textual sources for the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru seem abundant, explicit Indic sources seem rather scarce, late, and doubtful. Some (supposedly) Indic sources found in the bsTan ’gyur may now be presented. (a) The first source is Umāpatideva’s Vajrayoginīmaṇḍalavidhi (D, fol. 53b1–2), which states: sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun te || nges par gsum la skyabs su mchi || ’khor lo gsum gyi rang bzhin can || bye brag mkha’ ’gro ma rnams dang || dpa’ bo dpa’ mo’i dbang phyug ma || rgyal ba’i sras rnams ma lus dang || thams cad gus pa’i rang bzhin gyis || bla ma rnams la skyabs su mchi ||. This is one of the most explicit sources for the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru(s). I do not seem to find the corresponding Sanskrit, if it exists, in English 2002. But this would need further investigation. (b) The second source is the *Sāmānyadharmacaryā (D, fols. 266b7–267a1) ascribed to Kṛṣṇa and which states: mdo rgyud rtogs pa’i dgongs pa’i [= pa] ’grel mdzad cing || nyon mongs mi mthun phyogs spong thabs bstan nas || yon tan mchog rnams rgyud la sbyor mdzad pa || dus gsum bla ma rnams la skyabs su mchi ||. Until a Sanskrit source comes forth, its Indic origin may remain doubtful. The third source is *Saṃvarabhadra’s *Śaraṇagamanacittotpādacatuḥsekāvavāda (D, fol. 150a5): bdag ming ’di zhes bgyi ba snying po byang chub la thug gi bar du bla ma la skyabs su mchi’o || yi dam la skyabs su mchi’o || mkha’ ’gro la skyabs su mchi’o ||. This not only shows the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru, but also the idea of taking refuge in what came to be known as the “Three Roots” (rtsa ba gsum), namely, bla ma (i.e., guru), yi dam (iṣṭadevatā), and mkha’ ’gro (ḍākinī). The provenance of this work, however, seems uncertain. At any rate, as we can see, most of these sources do not go back to the pre-eleventh century. Even if these were indeed composed or compiled by Indian scholars, the possibility of Tibetan influences remains real.

2. Implicit Sources for the Idea of Taking Refuge in One’s Guru

Although explicit Indic textual sources for the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru are somewhat meager, late, and doubtful, Indic sources that implicitly show and justify the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru seem abundant, early, and unquestionable. Whether the idea of taking refuge in one’s guru is doctrinally justifiable or not seems to hinge on the very concept of taking refuge in general and  the nature and role of a guru/vajrācārya, especially its proposed/presupposed relationship with the Three Jewels and particularly with the Buddha, or, a buddha. In this regard, let us first take a look at what Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra (pp. 224.12–225.5) states: bla ma bkur ba’ang [1] theg pa chen po pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul las kyang | dge ba’i bshes gnyen sangs rgyas dang ’dra bar blta’o || zhes ni gsungs na | ’phags pa dkon cog nyid du ni ma bshad do || [2] gsang sngags kyi tshul las ni | [2a] rdo rje slob dpon dkon cog bzhi par bshad pa yang yod | [2b] sangs rgyas dang mnyam par bshad pa yang yod | [23] lhag par bshad pa yang yod de | [2a] de la dkhon cog bzhi par bshad pa ni | ’di skad du | sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun dang || slob dpon yang ni phyi ma yin || dkon cog bzhi yi sbyor ba yis || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o || [2b] mnyam par gsungs pa’ang | bla ma sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam || zhes gsungs pa lta bu’o || [2c] lhag par gsungs pa’ang | phyogs bcu dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas thams cad kyi bsod nams kyi phung pos ni | rdo rje slob dpon gyi spu’i bu ga gcig gi grangs su yang nye bar mi ’gro’o || zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs pa lta bu ste | de ltar tshul gsum [i.e., 2abc] gyi sgo nas bkur ba’i tshul yang rnam pa gsum du grags pa las | gang rung gcig dgos te bsrung bar bya ba yin no || bkur ba’i yon tan yang gsang sngags kyi tshul las ni | zhing dag pa rnams kyi dam pa rdo rje slob dpon yin par gsungs so || theg pa chen po pha rol tu phyin pa las ni | zhing dag pa’i dam pa byang chub sems dpa’ dam pa rnams yin par gsungs so || theg pa thun mong las ni | zhing dag pa’i dam pa ’phags pa dkon cog gsum yin te | de’i ’og tu pha dang ma dang nad pa dang chos smra ba’i mkhan po dang | skye mtha’i byang chub sems dpa’ rnams yin par gsungs te | ’di lta bu la sogs pa ni gzhung so so las bsod nams kyi zhing so sor grags pa yin no ||.  

This passage occurs in the context of explaining the five primary Tantric pledges (rtsa ba’i dam tshig lnga) of the *Guhyagarbhatantra and specifically the Tantric pledge of respecting one’s guru (bla ma bkur). Actually, this short passage provides us with a somewhat nuanced perspective of how kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru has been viewed by various Buddhist sources and systems. (1) Position one is that kalyāṇamitra has been considered in the Pāramitānaya akin to the Buddha or a buddha,  but not considered a Jewel. (2) In the Mantranaya, however, a vajrācārya has been viewed in three ways: (a) as the Fourth Jewel (dkon mchog bzhi pa), (b) equal to the buddhas, and (c) more than the buddhas. He thus speaks of “three modes” (tshul gsum) of Mantranayic “Gurulogy” and hence accordingly three kinds of mode (tshul rnam pa gsum) of respecting one’s guru(s). The whole topic of Gurulogy has been, however, set within the frame of what he calls “the sublime ones who are pure fields” (zhing dag pa’i dam pa). I do not know if he had something like kṣetraśuddhi and sukṣetra in mind. Thus any discussion of Buddhist Gurulogy would necessitate considering the Buddhist notion of “field” (kṣetra), which would include parents, the sick (and the needy), a bodhisattva in his final existence (from a conservative Buddhist perspective), and importantly for the present case, a teacher (dhārmakathika/dharmakathika: chos smra ba). The locus classicus for such an idea, at least for Tibetan scholars, would be Abhidharmakośa 4.118: mātṛpitṛglānadhārmakathikebhyo ’ntyajanmane | bodhisattvāya cāmeyā anāryebhyo ’pi dakṣiṇā ||. One notices that also Rong-zom-pa is ad sensum alluding to Abhidharmakośa 4.118. In such a context, conceptual clarity between terms such as puṇyakṣetra (bsod nams kyi zhing) and guṇakṣetra (yon tan gyi zhing) is necessary.

In this connection, we may also take a look at following passage from the A ti sha’i gsung ’bum (p. 1128.1–3): de la rtsa ba’i dam tshig dang | bla ma bskur ba’i skabs su thams cad bkur bar bya ba yin na lhag par yang dbang dang dam tshig dang | man ngag mnos pa ste | rnams (sic) bskur bar bya ste | de yang sangs rgyas pas lhag par ram | mnyam pa’am | dkon mchog bzhi par bskur bar bya’o ||. This passage is interesting because it seems to presuppose the samaya scheme found in the *Guhyagarbhatantra.

Being inspired by some scholars such as Rong-zom-pa, I may consider some possible relationships between one’s kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru and the Three Jewels. First, a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/guru may simply be seen as a spiritual mentor, role model, and guide and hence naturally be considered to be a member of the Saṃgha, and hence also an object of one’s refuge. Rong-zom-pa, as we have seen above, explicitly states that in the Pāramitānaya, kalyāṇamitra should be seen akin to a buddha but still not considered a Jewel. To be noted is that the idea of taking refuge in animate (e.g., all kinds of non-human beings) and inanimate (e.g., trees) can also be found in Buddhist sources mainly to contrast the taking of refuge in the Three Jewels but this should not concern us here. Second, an ācārya/guru has also been considered a semblance of the Buddha or a buddha (sangs rgyas dang ’dra ba) mainly in terms of the soterial benefits one derives from him and in terms of one’s indebtedness to him. In this context, too, it seems legitimate to view one’s  ācārya/guru as one’s object of refuge. Third, an ācārya/guru has also been considered equal to the Buddha or a buddha (sangs rgyas dang mnyam pa). Often he is said to be not only equal to the Buddha or a buddha but to all buddhas (sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam pa). If all buddhas can be the object of one’s refuge, why can one not take refuge in one’s ācārya/guru who is equal to all buddhas? Fourth, Tibetan sources, however, add a nuanced interpretation of the third position probably because Tibetan scholars realized that the claim that someone excels the Buddha or a buddha is hardly tenable. Thus, a guru is equal to all buddhas in terms of what they abandoned and realized (spangs rtogs) but excels them in terms of the benefit that one derives and hence the degree of gratitude one owes. In the light of this, the famous line would make sense: yon tan sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam na yang || bka’ drin sangs rgyas kun las lhag pa’i mgon ||. Fifth, a guru/vajrācārya has also been considered the embodiment of all buddhas and all Three Jewels. This idea is captured by the expressions such as bla ma sangs rgyas kun ’dus and bla ma dkon mchog kun ’dus. Sixth, a guru/vajrācārya is also regarded as the “Fourth Jewel” (dkon mchog bzhi pa). Seventh, an ācārya has often been said to be an emanation of the Buddha. Eighth and finally, according to what Rong-zom-pa calls “Extraordinary/Special Mahāyāna” (theg pa chen po thun mong ma yin pa), or, his Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda, while all positions mentioned above may be acceptable from a common Buddhist/Mahāyāna perspective, there seems to be a radical re-evaluation of the nature and role of a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru. What is actually a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru? Is he a super/perfect teacher, a human being? If so, what does it mean?  Someone who is free of all faults, who can please all, and who is able to place all sentient beings in the state of the Buddhahood? Is such a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru at all possible? If not, what makes someone a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru, and whose? The Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādins seem to have come to the realization that no one is intrinsically a kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru, but extrinsically anyone can be a trigger for someone’s salutary or salvatory breakthrough and hence his or her kalyāṇamitra/ācārya/vajrācārya/guru. The secret therefore is not to expect a perfect kalyāṇamitra but try to turn everyone into one’s kalyāṇamitra! Even a pāpamitra, even one’s enemy, or a māra may turn out to be one’s kalyāṇamitra if one can use them for one’s salutary and salvatory benefits. Such an attitude or approach is consonant with the idea that nothing is intrinsically toxic or tonic, poisonous or medicinal,  but anything can either have a toxic or tonic effect. The secret seems to lie in dealing with the substance in such a way that one derives only benefit from it.

3. Indic Sources for Guru Being the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha 

The idea that a guru is the Buddha, Dharma, Saṃgha seems  to be quite popular in Indic sources. Here are some random sources. First, it is found in Raviśrījñāna’s Guṇabharaṇī Ṣaḍaṅgayogaṭippaṇī (Newman 1987: 5; Sferra 2000: 76): gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca | gurur vajradharaḥ śrīman gurur evātra kāraṇam ||; Tib. (Sferra 2000: 76): bla ma sangs rgyas bla ma chos || de bzhin bla ma dge ’dun te || dpal ldan bla ma rdo rje ’dzin || bla ma nyid kyis ’dir byed rgyu’o ||. Second, it is also found also in the Guhyasamayasādhanamālā (English 2002: 393, n. 50): gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca | gurur vajradharaḥ śrīman gurur evātra kāraṇam ||. This reference contains additional details. Third, the idea is also found in a citation in Anupamavajra’s Ādikarmapradīpa (de La Vallée Poussin 1898: 194; Takahashi 1993: 142): gurur buddho bhaved dharmaḥ saṃghaś cāpi sa eva hi ||. Fourth, it is found in the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Part I, Bendall 1903: 383): gurur  buddho  bhaved  dharmaḥ  saṃghaś  cāpi  sa  eva  hi  |  yatprasādāl  labhyet  tattvaṃ  paraṃ  ratnatrayaṃ  varam  ||. Fifth, the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha indicates the source to be Indrabhūti. And indeed it is found in his Jñānasiddhi 1.24 (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 95):  gurur buddho bhaved dharmaḥ saṃghaś cāpi sa eva hi | prasādād jñāyate tasya yasya ratnatrayaṃ varam ||; Tib. (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 150): bla ma sangs rgyas chos gyur cing || dge ’dun yang ni de bzhin te || de yi drin gyis shes ’gyur bas || de bas dkon mchog gsum yin no ||. 

Sixth, I cannot tell the direction of influence (if one presupposes one), but a similar idea can be found also in the Brahmanical tradition, for which, see, for example, Christopher Wallis, “The Tantric Age: A Comparison of Śaiva and Buddhist Tantra,” 2016 (online, n. 25) where the Buddhist gurur buddho gurur dharmo guruḥ saṃghas tathaiva ca has been juxtaposed to the Brahmanical  gurur brahmā gurur viṣṇur gurur devo maheśvaraḥ.

4. Indic Sources for the Idea of Guru Being the Fourth Jewel

First, Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 1067.17–19): dkon mchog bzhi yi sbyor ba dang || phyag rgya de la gzhol bar bya || sangs rgyas chos dang ’phags dge ’dun || slob dpon yang ni phyi [= pha?] ma’o ||. Here, if I see things correctly, ācārya is here the Fourth Jewel. This translation is by Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam-dpal-go-cha). Second, *Mañjuśrīkīrti’s Vajrayānamūlāpattiṭīkā (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 818.16–17) also states: dkon mchog bzhi yi sbyor ba dang || phyag rgya de la gzhol bar bya || sangs rgyas chos dang dge ’dun dang || slob dpon yang ni pha ma’o ||. Third, the Ālokālaṃkāra, a commentary on the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra (Bᵀ, vol. 34, p. 183.9–12), by an  anonymous author but whose Indic provenance has been questioned, states: de dag ni bla na med pa’i  khyad par du ’phags pa’i  dkon mchog bzhi zhes bya ste | de ’dra ba’i bla na med pa’i  dkon mchog bzhi la bdag cag lha dang bcas pa’i ’jig rten skyabs su mchi zhes par ’brel to ||. This, however, suggests a different list of Four Jewels, the fourth being gsang sngags bla na med pa. This is explained in the context of explaining the Durgatipariśodhanatantra (Bᴷ, vol. 85, p. 187.9–11): sangs rgyas ’dra ba’i ston pa med || chos dang ’dra ba’i dge ba med || dge ’dun ’dra ba’i snod med de || sngags dang ’dra ba’i ’dren pa med ||. This seems to be found only in one of the two Tibetan translations. 

5. Indic Sources for the Idea that a Teacher Should Be Seen  as the Teacher or the Buddha 

The idea that one should see one’s teacher as the Teacher (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha) seems to be found in several Indic sources. The  Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra (Nobel 1937: 78) states: tasya ca dharmābhāṇakasya bhikṣor āntike śāstṛsaṃjñā utpādayitavyā |; Tib-1 (Nobel 1944: 59): dge slong chos smra ba de la yang ston par ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||. Here is an English translation (Emmerick 1996: 31): “ln the presence of that monk who is preaching the Law he must produce the thought that the monk is his teacher.” Emmerick interprets śāstṛ here as “a teacher” and not “the Teacher” (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha). See also Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra (Nobel 1937: 81): tasya dharmābhāṇakasyāntike śāstṛsaṃjñotpādayitavyā |; Tib. (D, fol. 88b1–2): chos smra ba’i mkhan po la ston pa chen po’i ’du shes bskyed par bgyi’o ||; Eng. (Emmerick 1996: 32): “In the presence of that preacher of the Law he must produce the thought that the preacher is his teacher.” That at least some did interpret śāstṛ as the Teacher (i.e., the Buddha or a buddha) is evident from the following Tibetan translation (D, fol. 89a): chos smra ba’i mkhan po la sangs rgyas kyi ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||. We also find statements such as: de’i phyir byang chub sems dpa’ sems dang po bskyed pa nas theg pa chen po la gnas pa thams cad la sangs rgyas kyi ’du shes bskyed par bya’o ||.

Sources for such an idea seem to be abundant. See, for example, the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra (Harrison 1978: 25): dge ba’i bshes gnyen rnams la ston par ’du shes pa |; ibid. (Harrison 1978: 42): chos smra ba la’ang de bzhin byams pa skyed || ston par ’du shes rtag tu nye bar zhog ||; ibid. (Harrison 1978: 196): bzang skyong | de la byang chub sems dpa’ lhag pa’i bsam pa phun sum tshogs pa | byang chub don du gnyer ba de dag gis dpag tshad brgya po der song nas | gang las ting nge ’dzin ’di thos par gyur pa’i slob dpon de la des ston pa’i ’du ses bskyed par bya’o ||.  

Klong-chen-pa, on several occasions, refers to the idea of “four notions” (’du shes bzhi), which includes the notion that one’s kalyāṇamitra should be viewed as a buddha. But an exact Indic source for it seems to be lacking even though he does even mention some Indic sources such as the Samādhirājasūtra. My explanation for now is that  Klong-chen-pa was probably making use of the idea found in rDzogs-chen scholar dBus-pa sTon-shāk’s alias Dam-pa bSe-sbrag-pa’s Kun ’dus rig pa’i sgron me (via BuddhaNexus), which states: brtan bya’i sgo nas bsrung ba’i ’du shes bzhi || dge ba’i bshes la sangs rgyas ’du shes dang || des bstan chos la lam gyi ’du shes dang || de sgrub rnams la grogs kyi ’du shes dang || sems can kun la bu gcig ’du shes te || ’di dag smon pa’i bslab bya yang dag go ||. By the way, it appears that the identity, name/s, and date of the author would require further investigation. Matthew Kapstein calls him dBus-pa sTon-shāk and Dam-pa bSe-sbrag-pa and if I remember correctly, he dates him to the twelfth-century (i.e., his floruit). In the BDRC (P2KG207265), however, he is called Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje and has been dated to the thirteenth-century. While the date still remains to be scrutinized, it should be noted that the author in the “author colophon” (i.e., to be distinguished from “authorship colophon”) of the Kun ’dus rig pa’i sgron me calls himself Shākya’i-dge-slong Ban-dhe [= Ban-de] Shākya-rdo-rje (Kaḥ thog bka’ ma, vol. Shi, fol. 324b5). Of course, a scholar can have more than one name just as the author gives multiple titles to his work. To be sure, the above cited verses are Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje’s own mūla texts. He does not seem to claim that these are based on Indic scriptures. Klong-chen-pa, however, appears to have attempted to trace Indic sources assuming that the idea is found in Indic sources. To be sure, similar sets of four notions can be found in all and sundry Indic sources, according to which a kalyāṇamitra is to be seen, for example, as a doctor or healer (vaidya: sman pa)  (Wangchuk 2020: 87–90).

6. Indic Sources for the Idea That a Vajrācārya/Guru Is More than a Buddha 

We have seen above that Rong-zom-pa indicates a source for the idea that  a vajrācārya/guru is more than a buddha. Possibly, he has been thinking of the idea found, for example, in the Guhyasamājatantra (Matsunaga 1978: 104–105): tadyathā api nāma kulaputra yāvanto buddhā bhagavanto daśasu dikṣu viharanti teṣāṃ ca buddhānāṃ bhagavatāṃ yāvat kāyavākcittavajrajaḥ puṇyaskandhaḥ sa ca puṇyaskandha ācāryasyaiva romakūpāgravivare viśiṣyate | tat kasmād dhetoḥ | bodhicittaṃ kulaputra sarvabuddhajñānānāṃ sārabhūtam utpattibhūtaṃ yāvat sarvajñajñānākaram iti |; Tib. (D, fol. 143a7–b2): ’di lta ste gzhan yang rigs kyi bu sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das phyogs bcu na | ji snyed bzhugs pa’i sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das de rnams kyi sku dang gsung dang thugs rdo rje las byung ba’i bsod nams kyi phung po ji snyed pa de bas kyang | slob dpon gyi ba spu’i bu ga gcig gi bsod nams khyad par du ’phags so || de ci’i phyir zhe na | rigs kyi bu byang chub kyi sems ni sangs rgyas thams cad kyi ye shes kyi snying por gyur pa bskyed pa gnas par gyur pa nas | thams cad mkhyen pa’i ye shes kyi ’byung gnas yin pa’i bar du’o ||. This passage has also been cited with slight variation, for example, in the Jñānasiddhi (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 151); Tib. (Samdhong & Dwivedi 1988: 234).

7. An Indic Sources for the Idea that Dharma is One’s Guru

I am not sure if I understand the following statement found in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (Dutt, p. 75): dharmaguravo hi buddhabodhisattvāḥ | dharme hi tatkriyamāṇe pareṣām adhimātraṃ dharmagauravam utpadyate|; Tib. (Gangs-can-rig-brgya’i-sgo-’byed-lde-mig 24, p. 123): chos ni sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyi bla ma yin pa’i phyir te | chos la bkur sti byas na gzhan dag kyang shas cher chos la gus pa bskyed par ’gyur la |. This seems to say that the dharma is the guru of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and that hence by respecting dharma, one would also generate respect for the buddhas and bodhisattvas. In other words, if one respects dharmaratna, one would also come to respect buddharatna and saṃgharatna. 

Ω. Epilogue

What I have attempted to do here is merely to take down some notes of Indic textual sources pertinent to the concept of taking refuge in one’s guru(s). Sources that explicitly allude to the idea seem to be rather rare but those sources that support such a concept seem to be abundant.

རྡོ་རྗེ་བསྲིངས་འགྲོ་མ། འཕགས་མ་བསྲིངས་འགྲོ་མ།

Mantric configurations called maṇḍalas are comparable to philharmonic orchestras. Each maṇḍalic member is assigned with a specific attribute, implement, attire, color, place, mantra, mudrā, significance, and so on. The size and type of the maṇḍala associated with a specific Tantric scripture or Tantric scriptural cycle can be variable. I am increasingly becoming aware that knowing the history of each maṇḍalic member would shed some light on the Kompositionsgeschichte of a particular Tantric scripture or Tantric cycle. A maṇḍalic member of one Tantric scripture/cycle may be found in other earlier or later Buddhist or non-Buddhist scripture/source. Even when a specific maṇḍalic deity turns out to be non-Buddhist in origin, as Professor Sanderson has long proposed, the deity always seems to be Buddhistic in significance and function. With this awareness, I have been trying to reexamine the fifty-eight wrathful deities of the *Guhyagarbhatantra. Tracing the history of each maṇḍalic member of the *Guhyagarbhatantra is, however, wrought with unresolvable difficulties. The first difficulty is securing the Sanskrit (or Indic) name of the deity. Here is one example. There is a deity called in Tibetan  rDo-rje-bsrings/srings/sring-’gro-ma. She is also called ’Phags-ma-bsrings-’gro-ma. For example, the orthography/form  rDo-rje-bsrings-’gro-ma is found in *Sūryasiṃhaprabha’s *Guhyagarbhatantravyākhyāna (Bᵀ2595, vol. 43, p. 399.19): rdo rje bsrings ’gro ma ni rta gdong ma ste ’khor ba mi gtong ba’o ||. Rong-zom-pa, for instance, has the form ’Phags-ma-bsrings-’gro-ma, for which, see his dKon mchog ’grel (p. 212.15–16): de la dang po ni | ’phags ma bsrings ’gro ma zhes bya ba ste | dha da bu’i don no ||.  Note the varia lectio: ’Phags-ma-srings-’gro-ma. One notices a tendency in Tibetan sources of using the name of the first deity in a group as a generic name for all the deities in that group. This could be misleading and hence should be remembered. Now what about her Sanskrit name? Her Sanskrit name seems to be contained in her mantra. See, example, see  IOL Tib J 332 (Tanaka 2020: 83), where it is transcribed as: ba dzra a rya ting ce rya yang. There, she is described as rTa-gdong-lcags-kyu-ma. As mentioned above, *Sūryasiṃhaprabha’s commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra also describes her as rTa-gdong-ma (= Aśvamukhī/Aśvamukhā). Of course, Aśvamukhī is found in other Tantric traditions and obviously also in non/pre-Tantric sources, for which, see, for example, Policardi 2018. The bilingual sNang ba dam pa rgyan (p. 410.10) reads: oṃ ba dzra arya te dza te ngaḥ. The Tibetan translation given here is: ’phags ma sring ’gro ma. See also Blezer 1997: 51, where the transcribed text reads: Badra arya te tsa te ṅa/? followed by the Tibetan rDo rje sriṅ ’gro ma. Some witnesses read te and some other teng; some read dza and some others dzaḥ. Possibly teng dzaḥ is a corruption of something like tiṅ jaḥ? Despite all these clues, I have no idea about the Sanskrit behind the Tibetan rDo-rje-bsrings-’gro-ma, or, ’Phags-ma-bsrings-’gro-ma. The first syllable oṃ and the last syllable dzaḥ (according to some witnesses), should be excluded. We can also be quite sure of Vajra for rDo-rje and Āryā for ’Phags-ma. So, we are left with either te dza/tsa te or ting ce rya. Could the former reflect something like Tyajatī? And hence something like Vajratyajatī? Āryātyajatī? What about the latter? Rong-zom-pa provides one more clue: dha da bu’i don no ||. But I still remain clueless. In short, the Sanskrit name for rDo-rje-bsrings-’gro-ma/’Phags-ma-bsrings-’gro-ma remains in the darkness. I would be grateful to anyone who may shed some light on it.

Mānuṣarākṣasī in the *Guhyagarbhatantra

The Sanskrit text of the *Guhyagarbhatantra does appear to have existed in the past but it is no longer extant now. Sanskrit names of some of its deities can be recovered by various means. Some exist in Tibetan phonetic renderings; some can be recovered from other Tantric sources extant in Sanskrit; some can only be reconstructed from their Tibetan translations. The last method is least certain. But one can also be lucky. Here is one example. There is one female deity called Mi’i-srin-mo (Mi-yi-srin-mo). She is one of the fifty-eight wrathful deities of the wrathful maṇḍala. Secondary sources devoted to this topic do not seem to have offered a reconstruction. See, for example, Henk Blezer, Kar gliṅ Źi khro: A Tanric Buddhist Concept. CNWS Publications 56. Leiden: Research School CNWS (School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies), 1997, pp. 51, 61. To be sure, the Tibetan reading mi’i srin po or mi yi srin po seems to be secured. Both the mūlatantra of the *Guhyagarbhatantra and the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud, which has already been cited by the commentary of the *Upāyapāśatantra, mention the name of our deity. That the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud has already been cited by the commentary of the *Upāyapāśatantra has been pointed out in Orna Almogi, “The Eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric Cycles: A Real Canon or the Mere Notion of One?” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 30, 2014, pp. 47–110 (p. 72, n. 51); Cathy Cantwell & Robert Mayer, A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and Its Commentary. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012, p. 84. Now, according to the Tibetan Mi’i-srin-mo (Mi-yi-srin-mo), the name in Sanskrit should be something like “Mānuṣarākṣasī.” Does this sound probable? I personally think that Mi’i-srin-mo (Mi-yi-srin-mo) must have been the translation of Mānuṣarākṣasī. Fortunately, we are told that the Sanskrit name Mānuṣarākṣasī is attested in Somadeva’s Kathāsaritsāgara. See Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 (s.v. mānuṣarākṣasī): “f. a she-demon in human form, Kathās.” See also Lambert Schmithausen, Fleischverzehr und Vegetarismus im indischen Buddhismus. Bis ca. zur Mitte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. Vol. 2. Numata Center for Buddhist Studies. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 12. Bochum/Freiburg: Projectverlag, 2020, p. 193, n. 1193. In terms of the relative chronology, the *Guhyagarbhatantra would be much earlier than the Kathāsaritsāgara. In sum, the Sanskrit underlying the Tibetan Mi’i-srin-mo (Mi-yi-srin-mo) must have been Mānuṣarākṣasī.

PS. Now I also see the form Manurākṣasī. Is this attested/probable?

A Note To A Note

Just a note to myself. Rong-zom-pa’s commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamayogatantra (pp. 593.23–594.2): glu’i dbyangs ni skad kyi gsang mtho dman dang drag dal dang de’u [= lde’u?] khug la sogs pas phye bas bshad pa dang | gar da [= gan dhā ra] shardza [= ṣaḍdza] dang de ba ta [= dhai ba ta] zhes bya ba la sogs pa glu’i lam bzhi ’gyur dang drug ’gyur la sogs pa rnams so ||. This should be edited.

The so-called dbyangs bdun has been listed by several Tibetan commentators of the Kāvyādarśa but it has also and already been listed in the Mahāvyutpatti (Fukuda & Ishihama 1989: nos. 5027–5033). The collective term does not occur there. Key: ṣa; ṛ; ga; ma; pa; dha; ni. Examine also: dbyangs kyi yan lag lnga/drug/bdun/brgyad? Cf. also dbyangs kyi yan lag drug bcu, dbyangs kyi yan lag mtha’ yas, dbyangs kyi yan lag rgya mtsho.

Cf. MW (s.v. svara b): “tone in recitation &c. (either high or low), accent (of which there are three kinds, udātta, anudātta qq.vv., and svarita, col.3), a note of the musical scale (of which seven [rarely six or eight] are enumerated, 1. niṣāda; 2. ṛṣabha; 3. gāndhāra; 4. ṣaḍja; 5. madhyama; 6. dhaivata; 7. pañcama [described as resembling respectively the notes of an elephant, bull, goat, peacock, curlew or heron, horse, and Koil; and designated by their initial letters or syllables thus, ni; ṛ; ga; ṣa; ma; dha; pa], but the order is sometimes changed, ṣadja being placed first, and niṣāda last), Prāt.; ŚrS.; Saṃgīt.; MBh. &c.”

The seven according to the Mahāvyutpatti are: (1) madhyama (bar ma), (2) ṛṣabha (drang srong), (3) gandhāra (sa ’dzin), (4) ṣaḍja (drug ldan), (5) pañcama (lnga pa), (6) dhaivata (blo gsal), and (7) niṣāda (’khor nyan). The expressions glu’i lam, bzhi ’gyur, and drug ’gyur employed by Rong-zom-pa require our attention. Perhaps drug ’gyur is a rendering of ṣaḍja. But what about bzhi ’gyur? Could it be a rendering of cathurthaka? At any rate, see MW (s.v. cathurthaka) “m. (in music) a kind of measure.”

’Jam mgon: A Minor Māyājāla Work

While swimming through a sea of Tibetan Buddhist literature, one is, at some point, bound to encounter the title ’Jam mgon, or, rDo rje ’jam mgon. To be sure, ’jam mgon (mañjunātha) here is not meant as a name of Mañjuśrī or as an epithet of a Tibetan master, but as a title of a work. Information about the work is scarce. In her study of the Dam tshig gsal bkra (forthcoming), mKhan-mo Padma-chos-skyid (Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, Namdroling) has devoted an entire chapter on what is called “minor Māyājāla works” (sgyu ’phrul phra mo). “Māyājāla” here is mainly to be understood in the sense of “*Vajrasattvamāyājāla,” the core of which is the *Guhyagarbhatantra. Her sources mention the rDo rje ’jam mgon as a minor Māyājāla work. mKhan-mo lists the work among those that are not available/accessible.

I may add a little information to it. Rong-zom-pa, in his Rab gnas cho ga, refers to it on two occasions. In one instance, he states (p. 183.1–3): ’jam mgon las ni lha’i dkyil ’khor bsgom nas spyan drangs kyi sngon du dri chab byin gyis brlabs te | rdzas thams cad bsang zhes bshad de | ’di dag gang ltar byas kyang ’gal ba med do ||. In another instance, he states (p. 182.5–7): de la gdan bstab nas | na bza’ byin gyis brlab pa | lag pa la yi ge baṃ bsams nas rang gi lce rtser hūṃ bsgoms te lan gsum myong ngo zhes gtor chung ’jam mgon las bshad |. From the latter instance, we can deduce that it must have been a minor/small Māyājāla work concerning bali (gtor ma) ritual and consecration. We can also surmise that Rong-zom-pa in the eleventh century had access to it. We still do not know why the work came to be known as ’Jam mgon or rDo rje ’jam mgon. Perhaps because it is somehow associated with Mañjunātha? By the way, in the same work, Rong-zom-pa also cites a couple of other minor Māyājāla works such as the Thabs mchog dbyig gi sgron ma and Thabs mchog dpag gis mi lang ba’i mdo.

Rong-zom-pa and Rāmāyaṇa

Perhaps one scholar who devoted the most to the study of the Tibetan version of and material on Rāmayaṇa is Jan Willem de Jong. See, for examples, de Jong 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1983, 1989, 2005. I thank Dan Martin for increasing the list of publications, some of which I have not yet seen. One eleventh-century Tibetan source to which he had no access was Rong-zom-pa’s Theg chen tshul ’jug, where the Rāmāyaṇa story of how Kuśa, namely, Lava’s twin brother, and one of the twin sons of Rāmacandra and Śītā came into existence. According to this version, Kuśa, an identical twin of Lava, was (magically) created by a sage (drang srong) and the name Vālmīki (Grog-mkhar-ba) does not occur. The point that Rong-zom-pa is making with the story is that one cannot make a case for the reality of phenomena by using their attributes of durability, efficacy, and sentiency. Even illusory phenomena can appear to be enduring, efficacious, and sentient. For details, see Dorjee 2021: 559–560 (Rong-zom-pa’s Theg chen tshul ’jug); cf. 220–222, 364, 427.

The actual point that I wish to discuss is the name ’Ba’-le that occurs in the Tibetan accounts of the Rāmāyaṇa. What would be the Sanskrit name behind it? It turns out that name ’Ba’-le has two referents. The first referent is Bālin/Vālin, the antagonist of Sugrīva (mGrin-bzang). See MW (s.v. vālin): “n. … of a monkey (son of Indra and elder brother of the monkey-king Sugrīva, during whose absence from Kiṣkindha Vālin usurped the throne, but when Sugrīva returned he escaped to Ṛṣyamūka).” For example, search BDRC to see something like: spre’u mgrin bzang dang de’i dgra zla ’ba’ le gnyis…. The second referent must be Lava, Kuśa’s twin brother alluded to by Rong-zom-pa. How did Lava come to be known in Tibetan sources as ’Ba-le? This question is my concern here.

There is a post online (No. 3875) by Swaminathan published in 2017. It is devoted to answering the question why Vālmīki named Rāma’s children Lava and Kuśa. He explains that they were named after the ceremonial materials used by Vālmīki, i.e., cow’s tail and sacred kuśa grass. But note that there are several interpretations by classical Indian authors and the aforementioned one follows Mallinātha’s. (This remark has been inspired by Professor Isaacson). The closest meaning of lava that I can get is “that which is cut or shorn off, a shorn fleece, wool, hair” (MW, s.v. lava). PW is a bit clearer: “Schur, Wolle … Haar (einer Kuh).” But these sources do not speak of a “cow’s tail.” But on the other hand, see MW (s.v. vāla): “m. (later form of 1. vāra; also written bāla q.v.) the hair of any animal’s tail (esp. of a horse’s tail), any tail or hair.” See also Apte (s.v. bāla) “(a) A tail. (b) An elephant’s or a horse’s tail.” The expression bālavyajana (rnga ma’i bsil yab) found in the Vinayasūtra and other sources (for which, see TSD) suggests that it should be understood as a kind of fan or whisk made of a yak tail and the like. The question is whether vāla and lava have been used synonymously to refer to “cow’s tail” (used as a fan or whisk). Did those who transmitted the story of Rāmāyaṇa in Tibet confuse Lava and Vāla? Or, did those who transmitted the story of Rāmāyaṇa in Tibet have Vāla/Vālin instead of Lava? If the latter case were true, it would explain why Tibetan sources speak of ’Ba’-le (for Bāla/Vāla/Bālin/Vālin).

In short, the issue here is that Tibetan sources refer to Rāma’s son Lava, Kuśa’s twin brother, not as Lava but as ’Ba’-le. Possibly the Rāmāyaṇa tradition that was transmitted in Tibet knew Lava, not as Lava, but rather as Bāla/Vāla or perhaps even as Bālin/Vālin (“one who is characterized by a cow-tail fan”). To be borne in mind is that also “Lava” is said to mean something like “hair (of a cow)” (PW).

Selected Bibliography

Dorjee 2021 = mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje (Khenpo Tashi Dorjee), Chos bzang rigs pa’i rnam dpyod: Rong zom pa ma hā paṇḍi ta’i theg tshul rjod byed zhib dpyad zhu dag lung khungs ngos ’dzin dang | brjod bya gnas lugs rig par rtsad zhib tshom bu. Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre Publication Series 3. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2021.

de Jong 1971 = Jan Willem de Jong, “Un fragment de l’histoire de Rāma en tibétain.” In Études tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1971, pp. 127–141.

de Jong 1972 = Id., “An Old Tibetan Version of the Rāmayaṇa.” T’oung Pao 58, 1972, pp. 190–202.

de Jong 1975 = Id., “An Old Tibetan Version of the Rāmāyaṇa.” In Proceedings of the First International Sanskrit Conference, edited by V. Raghavan. New Delhi: Government of India, vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 289–302.

de Jong 1977 = Id., “The Tun-Huang Manuscripts of the Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa Story.” Indo-Iranian Journal 19, 1977, pp. 37–88.

de Jong 1983 = Jan Willem de Jong, “The Story of Rama in Tibet.” In Asian Variations in Ramayana: Papers Presented at the International Seminar on ‘Variations in Ramayana in Asia : Their Cultural, Social and Anthropological Significance,’ New Delhi, January 1981, edited by Kodaganallur R. Srinivasa Iyengar. Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2005, pp. 163–182.

de Jong 1989 = Id., The Story of Rāma in Tibet: Text and Translation of the Tunhuang Manuscripts. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989.

de Jong 2005 = Id., “The Story of Rama in Tibet.” In Asian Variations in Ramayana, edited by Kodaganallur R. Srinivasa Iyengar. Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2005, pp. 163–182.

Sur 2017 = Dominic Sur (tr.), Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle: Dzogchen as the Culmination of the Mahāyāna. Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2017.

The ‘Genetic Principle’ in Philology

α. Prologue

It appears that anything that is conditioned (saṃskṛta: ’dus byas)—a phenomenon/entity characterized by the processes of origination, continuation, and cessation—would have a history. And attempts can be made to explain anything that has a history with what is called the “genetic principle.” It would, however, instantly become obvious that this principle is discussed in various disciplines or fields of knowledge. My interest here is confined to the theory and practice of the “genetic principle” within the field of the historical-philological study of Indian and Buddhist texts and ideas. A disclaimer may be necessary here. The present piece is meant primarily as a personal aide-mémoire (brjed byang/tho, zin bris, reg zig).

(a) Wangchuk 2016

In 2016, I wrote a modest article with the title “A Rationale for Buddhist Textual Scholarship.” There I stated the following (Wangchuk 2016:  347–348): “While not denying the usefulness of either stemmata as such or diplomatic editions, neither of the two would render critical editions redundant. Which editorial principle should one then follow? I personally find the fundamental editorial principle or guideline formulated by Ayya Srinivasan (and reported by Dominic Goodall) very beneficial. That is, the most important point of departure for a critical edition is that an editor is invariably confronted with a text that has been contaminated, intentionally or unintentionally. In either case, according to Srinivasan, ‘the reading which is regarded as primary is that from which the others might genetically derive,’ or, in other words, the editor should attempt ‘to find a reading which best explains how the other readings may have arisen.” Note that the term “genetic principle” does not occur in this passage.

(b) Goodall 2001

Dominic Goodall may have discussed the “genetic principle” elsewhere but I have been referring to Goodall 2001: 102. Importantly, the source given is Ayya Srinivasan.

(c) Wezler & Motegi 1998

In 1998, also Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi, in their introduction to the critical edition of the Yuktidīpikā, spoke of the “genetic principle.” They state (Wezler & Motegi 1998: xx): “In accordance with the methods of modern textual criticism, we have followed the so-called genetic principle in constituting the text of the Yuktidīpikā. Yet this principle too cannot of course be applied just mechanically as if automatically yielding the correct results; in some cases, e.g. where only the sequence of words of a phrase differs in one of the sources (cf. e.g. p. 5 n.l, p. 23 n.17), no decision at all was possible; in other cases two alternative interpretations of the origin of variant readings seemed equally possible; only in these latter cases do we add in the critical apparatus the remark that a particular reading ‘is also possibly the original one.’” Here (Wezler & Motegi 1998: xx, n. 44), too, Srinivasan 1967: 29 ff., is given as the source. An important lesson that we can draw from here is that the “genetic principle” cannot be applied mechanically and that no principle can mechanically replace the prudence of an editor.

(d) Schmithausen 1987

In 1987, Lambert Schmithausen published a detailed study of the school affiliation and textual history of Buddhist materials. At one point (Schmithausen 1987: 331), he states: “Unterstellt man einmal, daß es überhaupt eine ursprüngliche Fassung gegeben hat — was aber nicht absolut sicher ist, da im Extremfall schon der Buddha selbst, bzw. der ,Erfinder‘ der citta-Liste, mehrere Formulierungen verwendet haben könnte —, so müßte diese so beschaffen sein, daß die Entstehung der übrigen Fassungen aus ihr erklärbar wird.” And then in a note, he adds (Schmithausen 1987: 331, n. 114ᵃ): “Dies entspricht dem von S. A. Srinivasan (Vacaspatimiśras Tattvakaumudī [italics mine], Hamburg 1967) aufgestellten, ,genetischen Prinzip‘ in der Bewertung von Varianten in hand schriftlicher Überlieferung.” Srinivasan is again the source.

(e) Schmithausen 1985

In 1985, Lambert Schmithausen referred to the “genetic principle” in the context of the textual criticism of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. He states (Schmithausen 1985: 140): “In order to retrieve the original wording of the MSg [Mahāyānasaṃgraha], or at least to come as close to it as possible, we have, as Hakamaya rightly emphasizes, to consider all extant versions and, in case of divergencies, to try to find out not so much the ‘maximum common factor’ but, in analogy to the ‘genetic principle’ in evaluating variant readings of manuscripts, that wording on the basis of which the origination of all extant versions can be explained best (be it in terms of different renderings, or misunderstandings, or renderings of variants / corruptions, or corrupted renderings). In this process, special attention has to be paid not only to the comparatively literal Tibetan translation) but also to the oldest Chinese translation by Buddhasśānta.” In this and other citations, I do not reproduce the notes. On p. 155, n. 15, Schmithausen refers to Srinivasan 1967: 29. Several points are worth noting here. First, he is speaking of “in analogy to the ‘genetic principle’” suggesting that he is is not employing it wholesale. Second, he makes clear those that need explanations, namely, “different renderings, or misunderstandings, or renderings of variants / corruptions, or corrupted renderings).” Third, the “genetic principle” has been juxtaposed to the principle of making judgment based on the “maximum common factor.” Fourth, the “genetic principle” is mentioned here in the context of Indian Buddhist philology.

(f) Srinivasan 1967

Let us now turn to Srinivasa Ayya Srinivasan himself. He actually discusses several “Prinzipien der Textkonstituierung” (Srinivasan 1967: 29–53), and if I am not mistaken, five kinds (§§ 1.4.1–1.4.5).  The “genetic principle” is the third type (§ 1.4.3), which he discusses at length. The first two principles that he followed in his edition of the Tattvakaumudī may be paraphrased thus: (1) He regarded all those readings that have been transmitted uniformly as primary. (2) Occasionally, the primary readings have been obtained through emendation. Importantly, the “genetic principle” was employed by him only in the case of un-uniform transmission. He states (Srinivasan 1967: 29): “Bei uneinheitlicher überlieferung wurde diejenige Lesung als primär bewertet, auf die sich genetisch alle anderen zurückführen ließen.” He then goes on to discuss this at length. For the history of the “genetic principle,” it is important to note what he states regarding it (ibid.): “Das Prinzip ist im übrigen nicht neu, es ist z.B. bereits von V. S. Sukthankar angewandt worden, freilich nur dort, wo alle anderen Prinzipien versagten.”

(g) Sukthankar 1933

Since Srinivasan himself points out that the “genetic principle” is not new but has been already applied, for instance, by Vishnu Sitaram Sukthankar in his edition of the first book of the Mahābhārata, we may take a look at what the latter states (Sukthankar 1933: xcii): “When the above tests break down or when they give only a negative result, the expedient adopted by me was to find a reading which best explains how the other readings may have arisen. The true reading in this case has often proved to be a lectio difficilior, or an archaism or a solecism, the desire to eliminate them being the cause of the variation.” Also significant is that Sukthankar employs the expressions such as “genetic method” (p. iii) and “genetic relation” (p. lvii) but not “genetic principle.”

Ω. Epilogue

Master philologists are like master detectives. They might use any method or any tool that they feel would help them explain a case. The employment of the “genetic principle” seems to be one such method. We have seen that it is by no means seen as absolute or automatic. It should also be noted that the media of the pertinent texts should not be confined to manuscripts but also to xylographic prints.

Bibliography

Goodall 2001 = Dominic Goodall, “Announcement of the Proposed Edition of the Earliest Commentary on the Raghuvaṃśa with some Methodological Reflections on the Editing of Works of Kālidāsa and Commentaries on Kāvya.” In Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time: A colloquium. Pondicherry 11–13 January, 1997, edited by François Grimal. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry & École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 2001, pp. 93–111.

Schmithausen 1985 = Lambert Schmithausen, “Once again Mahāyānasaṃgraha I.8.” In Buddhism and its Relation to Other Religions: Essays in Honour of Dr. Shozen Kumoi on His Seventieth Birthday. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1985, pp. 139–160.

Schmithausen 1987 = Lambert Schmithausen, “Beiträge zur Schulzugehörigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer buddhistischer Materialien.” In Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur: Zweiter Teil (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, III,2. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 154), edited by H. Bechert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987, vol. 2, pp. 304–403.

Srinivasan 1967 = Srinivasa Ayya Srinivasan, Vācaspatimiśras Tattvakaumudī: Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik bei kontaminierter Überlieferung. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 12. Hamburg: Cram, De Gruyter & Co., 1967.

Sukthankar 1933 = Vishnu Sitaram Sukthankar, Prologomena [to the Critical Edition of the Ādiparvan, Book 1 of the Mahābhārata]. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933.

Wangchuk 2016 = Dorji Wangchuk, “A Rationale for Buddhist Textual Scholarship.” In Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation, edited by Dorji Wangchuk. Indian and Tibetan Studies 5. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg, 2016, pp. 335–352.

Wezler & Motegi 1998 = Albrecht Wezler & Shujun Motegi (eds.), Yuktidīpikā: The Most Significant Commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā. Vol. 1. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 44. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998.

རྒྱལ་བཤེས།

There is a saying in Tibetan, which runs something like: “Being able to cleanse by confession is the quality of sins.” I now realize that I have committed a sin in Wangchuk 2015: 351 (while briefly referring to “Biblioclasm in India”), which must be confessed immediately. That is, there I wrongly reconstructed the name “rGyal-bshes” as *Jinamitra. I should have known that the Sanskrit name should be Puṣyamitra. That is, the component rgyal should be understood as in rgyal gyi zla ba (puṣya) and not as in, for example,  rgyal ba’i sras (jinaputra). This is the peril of trying to reconstruct things. There are abundant secondary sources that refer to Puṣyamitra. Negi’s Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionary, however, does not record this name but Lokesh Chandra does. The source for the latter is Chandra Das, and his sources, in turn, had been Schiefner and Wassiljew.

སངས་རྒྱས་ཡོན་ཏན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །སོགས།

A note to myself and for myself: Brahmaśrīvyākaraṇasūtra (cited by dPal-brtsegs in his gSung rab rin po che’i gtam, Bᵀ, vol. 115, p. 913.19–21): “ཚངས་པའི་དཔལ་ལུང་བསྟན་པ་ལས་ནི། དེ་ལྟར་སངས་རྒྱས་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །སངས་རྒྱས་ཆོས་ཀྱང་དེ་བཞིན་ཏེ། །བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ་ལ་དད་པ་ཡི། །རྣམ་པར་སྨིན་པའང་དེ་བཞིན་ནོ། །” (tshangs pa’i dpal lung bstan pa las ni | de ltar sangs rgyas bsam mi khyab || sangs rgyas chos kyang de bzhin te || bsam mi khyab la dad pa yi || rnam par smin pa’ang de bzhin no ||). This verse in various adaptations can be found in many different sources. I am still looking for a Sanskrit parallel for this and similar verses. Cf. Tridaṇḍaka = rGyud gsum pa (via rKTS): སངས་རྒྱས་བཅོམ་ལྡན་ཡོན་ཏན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །དམ་པའི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་ཡོན་ཏན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །འཕགས་པའི་དགེ་འདུན་ཡོན་ཏན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །དཀོན་མཆོག་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ་ལ་མངོན་དད་པའི། །རྣམ་སྨིན་བླ་ན་མེད་པའང་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། ། (sangs rgyas bcom ldan yon tan bsam mi khyab || dam pa’i chos kyi yon tan bsam mi khyab || ’phags pa’i dge ’dun yon tan bsam mi khyab || dkon mchog bsam mi khyab la mngon dad pa’i || rnam smin bla na med pa’ang bsam mi khyab ||).

According to the suggestion of Professor Péter-Dániel Szántó, I corrected the reading dad pa yin to dad pa yi. Also thanks to him, we have now something similar in Sanskrit. See Pradakṣiṇāgāthā 59 (Cambridge University Library Ms Or. 131): evaṃ hy acintyāḥ saṃbuddhā buddhadharmāś ca nirmalāḥ | acintye hi prasannānāṃ (or ’bhiprasannānāṃ?) vipākaḥ syān mahāphalaḥ ||.

ཁོ་རེ་ཆུང་བ།

The initial point of departure for my interest in the Tibetan word kho re chung ba (or kho re chung ngu) has been the use of the word by the eleventh-century Tibetan scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. He used this word at least on three occasions, namely, once in his magnum opus, the Theg chen tshul ’jug (bKra-rdo 2021: 552) and twice in his commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamyayogatantra (pp. 467.16, 612.13). Three questions that I have been asking myself are: (a) What does it mean? (b) Because it can be found in Indic works in Tibetan translation, what could have been Sanskrit word behind it? (c) What could be its etymology? Regarding its meaning, I speculated in a blog piece published on 25.01.2014, which I, however, unpublished. I stated then: “Judging from these context, kho re chung ba seems to mean something like ‘lowly,’ ‘simpleton,’ ‘ignoramus,’ or, ‘weakling.’ There must be a Sanskrit word but it is not recorded by Negi.” I retracted my blog piece because I felt that more study needs to be done. I did not realize that Dan Martin had already referred to this blog and if one looks for kho re chung ba in the Google search, one would find Dan’s allusion to my blog but not my blog. This motivated me to further investigate the topic.

In the mean time, thanks to the latest databases (e.g., BuddhaNexus, BDRC, and rKTS) and digital tools, we are in a much better position. We can trace several instances where the word is used both in allochthonous and autochthonous Tibetan sources. I am, however, mainly concerned with sources that presumably predate Rong-zom-pa, that is, Indic sources in Tibetan translation, or, works transmitted in the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur.

(1) Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra translated from the Chinese (Bᴷ, vol. 53, p. 462.13–18): stobs po che rnams kyis smras pa | khyod kyis nged la bus pa zhes zer na khyod ni mi chen po yin par shes so || rigs kyi bu | ngas de’i tshe zhabs kyi sor mo gnyis kyi rdo de phyung ngo || stobs po che dag de lta bu’i dngos po mthong nas bdag nyid kyi lus la zhan pa | dma’ ba | kho re chung ba’i ’du shes bskyed nas yang ’di skad ces smras so || dge slong khyod rdo ’di lam gyi g.yas g.yon du dor nus sam |. There is, however, an important varia lectio. The editors of the bKa’ ’gyur pde bsdur ma have chosen the reading khong du chud pa instead of kho re chung ba. The reading kho re chung ba is supported by a number of textual witnesses, for which, see Bᴷ, vol. 53, p. 834 (n. 10 of p. 462) including that of the Peking edition of the bKa’ ’gyur. Obviously, kho re chung ba, a lectio difficilior, was replaced by khong du chud pa, which, however, in my view, makes no sense contextually.

(2) Bodhisattvapiṭakasūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 42, p. 52.8–12): log par nges pa’i sems can gyi khams yongs su sbyong bar ma byas pa |  kho re chung ba blun pa snod du ma gyur pa’i sems can de dag la de bzhin gshegs pas chos bstan kyang rung  |  ma bstan kyang rung ste |  rnam par grol ba’i skal ba med pa de dag kyang de bzhin gshegs pas snod ma yin par rig nas btang snyoms su ’jog ste |  de dag gi phyir byang chub sems dpa’ rnams go gyon to ||.  

(3) Kuśalamūlasaṃparigrahasūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 48, p. 486.10–15):  kun dga’ bo ’di lta ste |  dper na kyi rgyal po seng ge ral pa can gzi brjid dang ldan pa de nyid lan gsum du seng ge’i sgra sgrogs pa na dpag tshad khor yug tu sgra ’byin par byed la |  de nas phyis kyang phyogs thams cad du bar de na seng ge phal pa gang dag yod pa de dag kyang de’i tshe skrag par ’gyur na |  de las gzhan pa’i kyi rigs kho re chung ba rnams lta ci smos shing  | ….

(4) Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśasūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 57, pp. 495.17–496.2): log pa nyid du nges pa’i sems can gyi khams kyang de bzhin du rab tu mkhyen te |  yongs su sbyong ba ma byas pa |  kho re chung ba blun pa |  snod du ma gyur pa’i sems can de dag la de bzhin gshegs pas chos bstan kyang rung ste | sems can de dag rnam par dgrol ba’i skal ba med pas | de dag de bzhin gshegs pas snod ma yin par rig nas btang snyoms su ’jog ste | de dag gi ched du byang chub sems dpa’ rnams go cha gyon to ||. Cf. the Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśasūtra cited by Candrakīrti in his Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya (Bᴷ, vol. 60, p. 886.11–17): log pa nyid du nges pa’i sems can gyi khams de ltar rab tu shes so || yongs su sbyong ba ma byas pa |  kho re chung ba blun pa snod du ma gyur pa’i sems can de dag la de bzhin gshegs pas chos bstan kyang rung ma bstan kyang rung ste | sems can de dag rnam par grol ba’i skal ba med pas | de dag de bzhin gshegs pas snod ma yin par rig nas btang snyoms su ’jog ste | de dag gi ched du byang chub sems dpa’ rnams go cha gyon to ||. This Sūtric scripture (P814; D147) is also called the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra (gZungs kyi dbang phyug gi rgyal po’i mdo) in the commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Dhāraṇīśvararājaparipṛcchāsūtra (gZungs kyi dbang phyug gi rgyal pos zhus pa’i mdo) in the Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya. See Shaoyong Ye, “A Preliminary Report on a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa or Dhāraṇīśvararāja.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 69 (3), 2021, pp. 76–81 (particularly, p. 76). Cf. also Yoshiyasu Yonezawa, “The Dhāraṇīśvararājaparipṛcchā Quoted in the Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya.” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 66 (3), 2018, pp. 1115–1121.

(5) Aṅgulimālīyasūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 62, pp. 409.19–410.9):  sngon sems can gang lug tu gyur pa glen zhing kho re chung ba mi’i yon tan mi shes pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po btsun par mi byed cing | mdo sde la smod pa de dag da dung yang mdo sde la smod de |  sems can de dag ni nges par lug tu gyur pa glen zhing kho re chung ba yin te |  ma ’ongs pa na yang sems can gang gnyid che zhing de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po thos na smod pa de dag ni gzhan ma yin te | nges par kho re chung zhing zhan pa’o || sngon ma he kho re chung bar gyur pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po las phyir phyogs pa’i sems can de dag ni da dung yang nges par zhen cing brkam ste |  lta ba gsum gyis ’jungs pa’i ma he lta bu’o ||  ma ’ongs pa na yang brkam zhing khro la zhen cing kho re chung ste |  de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po las phyir phyogs pa’i sems can de dag ni gzhan ma yin te |  nges par lta ba gsum gyis ’jungs pa’i ma he’o ||.

(6) Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra (D483; P116; T442; Bᴷ, vol. 85, pp. 226.20–227.5): de nas tshangs pa la sogs pa lha chen po rnams kyis bcom ldan ’das la phyag ’tshal nas ’di skad ces gsol to || bcom ldan ’das rgyal po dang  |  rgyal po’i bu dang |  rgyal po’i blon po dang  |  rgyal rigs dang  |  bram ze dang  |  rje’u rigs dang  |  dmangs rigs dang  |  gzhan yang dman zhing kho re chung ba phyag dar ba dang | mtha’ ’khob pa’i rigs ngan gyi skye bo rnams dkyil ’khor gyi rgyal po ’dir zhugs na de dag gi rnam par smin pa ji lta bur ’gyur |. This Tibetan translation of the Tantric scripture is what Skorupski called “Version A.” It appears that the passage has no parallel in the Tibetan translation Version B and the Sanskrit. At any rate, one has to study the policies employed in: Tadeusz Skorupski (ed. & tr.), The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra: Elimination of All Evil Destinies: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with Introduction, English Translation and Notes. Delhi/Varanasi/Patna: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.

(7) Kāmadhenu, Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantraṭīkā (D2625; P3452; Bᵀ, vol. 33, p. 1488.6–11): de ltar na dga’ ba’i tshal ni ha cang ches la |  ’khor dang bcas pa bcom ldan ’das rab tu yang rgya che ba ji ltar ’dzin nus she na |  de ni sangs rgyas kyi byin gyi rlabs kyis bsnyung gi rtse tsam gyi sa phyogs kyang rab tu yangs la yid du ’ong bar ’gyur zhing  ||  rgyal ba zhi bar gshegs nas ni dman zhing kho re chung bar ’gyur te |.  To be noted is that this was translated by Vinayacandra and Chos-kyi-shes-rab. The latter had connections with Rong-zom-pa.

(8) Vasubandhu/Sthiramati? (ascribed), Akṣayamati­nirdeśasūtra­ṭīkā (Bᵀ, vol. 66, p. 435.12–17): sems can mthu chung ba’i nyes pa dang du len pa las byung bas na zhes bya ba ni gdol ba dang  |  rigs ngan pa la sogs pa sems can kho re chung ba rnams kyis gnod pa byas pa’i nyes pa thams cad bzod pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’i rgyu las byung bas na |  snying rje chen po ni bla ma’i bzod pa yang dag par blangs pa ste |  sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa skyes bu dam pa rnams kyi bzod pa yang dag par blangs pa zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go ||.

(9) Viniścaya­saṃgrahanī (Bᵀ, vol. 74, p. 356.10–15): de la ma rig pa’i rtags dag gang zhe na |  smras pa |  ma rig pa’i rtags ni ’dod chags kyang yin |  khong khro ba yang yin |  nga rgyal yang yin |  ngar ’dzin pa dang nga yir ’dzin pa yang yin |  ngo tsha med pa dang khrel med pa yang yin |  bag med pa yang yin |  rang bzhin gyis kho re chung ba dang rmongs rtul ba yang yin |  gnyid che ba yang yin |  sems zhum pa yin |  sdig pa’i las kun tu spyod pa yang rtags yin no ||. In addition to these sources, I feel that also the Sagaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra may have had an expression that means kho re chung ba.

Rong-zom-pa, Theg chen tshul ’jug (bKra-rdo 2021: 552): de bas na so so’i mtshan nyid kyi bye brag ’di dag so sor grub par sgrub par byed pa na | yang dag par bsgrub par bya ba gcig kyang yod par sgrub cing | gang zag thun mong gi snang ba yang mthun pa | bye brag gi snang ba yang mthun pa | kho re chung ngu tsam la sgrub par byed na | kun rdzob kyi bye brag de dag thams cad ji ltar grags pa bzhin du bsgrub tu rung bar ’gyur ro ||.

Rong-zom-pa, mNyam sbyor ’grel (p. 467.14–17): dpal rdo rje spyan gyi phyag rgya ni | dam tshig gi phyag rgya bsdus pa yin te | ’di ni gang dag zab cing rgya che ba la mi mos shing kho re chung ba rnams phyag rgya ’di tsam bca’ ste | rdo rje sems dpar byin gyis brlabs nas dngos grub thams cad sgrub par byed pa’o ||.

Rong-zom-pa, mNyam sbyor ’grel (p. 612.13–16): de bas na ’di ni gang zag zab cing rgya che ba la mi mos shing kho re chung ba rnams phyag rgya ’di tsam zhig la brten te dpal rdo rje sems dpar byin gyis brlabs nas dngos grub thams cad bsgrub par bya ba’i phyir rtog pa bcu pa ’di bstan zhes shes par bya’o ||.

If we look at the usage of the word kho re chung ba in the preceding passages, especially together with what seem to be synonyms and quasi-synonyms, the suggestion I made in 2014 was not wide off the mark. It does seem to mean something like “lowly,” “simpleton,” “ignoramus,” or, “weakling.” Of the three questions I asked, the question regarding the meaning of kho re chung ba seems to be more or less answered. Let us now turn to the second question regarding the Sanskrit word underlying the Tibetan translation. This question could not be answered because almost all the Indic sources that we have seen above do not seem to be extant in Sanskrit except the Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya. Our term kho re chung ba occurs towards the end of the commentary and in a citation from the Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśasūtra, which is, as pointed out above, also known as the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra and Dhāraṇīśvararājaparipṛcchāsūtra. This part of the Sanskrit text of the Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya is currently being studied by Professor Yoshiyasu Yonezawa. Dr. Anne MacDonald kindly asked permission from him to at least report what the Sanskrit manuscript reads, and he not only graciously granted the permission but also sent the reference to the reading of the Dhāraṇīśvararājaparipṛcchāsūtra found in the sDe-dge bsTan ’gyur. In addition, he notes: “In the Chinese translation (T no. 398), we find the equivalent phrase 意劣弱顏不爲應器 ([their] mental is inferior, [having] a weak face, [and] not being a suitable vessel) for kho re chung ba | blun pa | snod du ma gyur pa. (NB. No equivalent in No. 397).” I am tremendously thankful to both Professor Yonezawa and Dr. MacDonald. Now, the Sanskrit manuscript is said to read: mandātmāmūhā abhājanībhūtā (qualifying sattvā). Not being a Sanskrit, I cannot propose anything meaningful but I feel that we should at least read °mūḍhā instead of °mūhā. We can also be somewhat confident that kho re chung ba has been a translation of the Sanskrit mandātman (or ones of its synonyms such as mandamedhas and mandadhī), and mandadhī is said to mean “slow-witted, simple, silly” (MW, s.v. mandadhī). But evidently, kho re chung ba is an archaic rendering of mandātman and elsewhere it has been rendered differently. The Sanskrit text of Bodhicittavivaraṇa 49 (Lindtner 1997: 48) has been cited by Ratnarakṣita (ca. 1150–1250) in his Padminī, a commentary on the Saṃvarodayatantra (Kuranishi 2016: 56): anutpādeti śūnyeti nirātmeti ca dharmatām | yo bhāvayati mandātmā na tāṃ bhāvayati hy asau ||; Tib. (Lindtner 1997: 48): skye med dang ni stong nyid dang || bdag med ces byar stong pa nyid || bdag nyid dman pa gang sgom pa || de de sgom par byed pa min ||.

Now, I wish to turn to my third and last question: What could be the etymology of the Tibetan word kho re chung ba. Of the two components, chung ba needs no explanation. We are left with kho re. This word is known in the Khams-pa dialect. It is said to be a word of interjection referring to a man (Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. kho re). The word, in this sense, could be translated as “Hey, man!” It also seems to have the meaning of German man (as a pronoun). This is supported by the meaning of kho de recorded in bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol gser gyi me long (s.v. kho de): kho re zhes pa’i ’bod sgra ste | «bka’ chems deb ther» las | nged rang gnyis dgos mthun yin la yang | kho yis nga la kho de zer bas | ngas mo de byas pas | khos nga bdas pa [= nga de? nga de pa?] | zhes pa lta bu’o ||. So it appears that kho de (= kho re), mo de, and nga de are three personal pronouns in the singular (i.e., “he,” “she,” and “I”). Now the question is whether the Sanskrit ātman, too, can be used pronominally. We are told that ātman “in the singular is used as reflexive pronoun for all three persons and all three genders” (MW). It appears that earlier Tibetan translators understood kho re chung ba to mean something like “[one with] small/weak/dull self.” In short, we now know two Tibetan translations of mandātman: kho re chung ba (a lectio difficilior) and bdag nyid dman pa, which should be understood as “slow-witted.” There may be other Tibetan translations as well.

རྩ་མཇིང་།

This is a note on the Tibetan word rtsa mjing that occurs in the Vinayakṣudrakavastu (Bᴷ, vol. 11, pp. 44.21–45.1): des smras pa | lha | sdar ma sna tshogs go gyon dang || rtswa mjing [= rtsa mjing] chung ngu nor mang dang || rgan po chung ma gzhon len pa || de dag rang gis nad bslangs so || zhes bgyi ba khyod kyis ma gsan tam ||. This is obviously a rare Tibetan word. I did not check other textual witnesses but the editors of the dDe-dge bKa’ ’gyur has obviously read rtswa, thus clearing understanding it as “grass.” Anton Schiefner is said to have translated rtsa mjing as “meadow.” He obviously followed the reading rtswa. This translation is supposed to be found in the Memoirs of the Petersburg Academy 22 (7), 1875, but I have not seen it yet. But at any rate, see Berthold Laufer, “The Stanzas of Bharata.” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1912, pp. 1070–1073 (especially, p. 1072). Edward Huber righty criticized Schiefner’s translation, but he did not succeed in explaining the word. It is Laufer who satisfactorily explained it as a synonym of rtsa lag and hence a translation of bandhu. Laufer himself has derived benefit from the bilingual (Tibetan-Mongolian) dictionary called the Zla ba’i ’od snang. There, rtsa mjing and rtsa lag have been listed one after the other. Tibetan dictionaries do not seem to have recorded this word at all.

དམ་ཁ།

Giuseppe Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. 1. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1949, p. 34: “… which the Tibetans called dam kha (Wylie mine), a word taken from the Turkish through the Mongol.” Several orthographic variants are possible: dam ga, tham ga, tham ka, etc. Cf. also words such as phyag dam/tham and dam rgya.

འུ་ལག

Some sources on Tibetan word ’u lag being Turkish (in its origin): (a) Giuseppe Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. 1. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1949, p. 36. Françoise Pommaret, however, points out (via FB) that it is said to be a Mongolian term, so with linguistic proximity to Turkish. (b) Berthold Laufer, “Loan-Words in Tibetan.” T’oung Pao (Second Series) 17 (4/5), 1916, pp. 408–552 (especially, p. 492). (c) Giuseppe Tucci (ed. & tr.), Tibetan Folk Songs from Gyantse and Western Tibet. With two Appendices by Namkhai Norbu. Ascona: Artibus Asiae Publishers, 1966, p. 43, n. 38. Thanks Nicola Bajetta for drawing my attention to the latter two sources.

ཞལ་འདོན་སྐད་གཉིས་ཤན་སྦྱར།

Always use: https://www.saugatam.org/

§1.

སངས་རྒྱས་གཙོ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །སྐྱོབ་པ་ཆོས་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

དགེ་འདུན་ཆེ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །གསུམ་ལའང་རྟག་ཏུ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

namo buddhāya gurave, namo dharmāya tāyine | 

namo saṃghāya mahate, tribhyo ’pi satataṃ namaḥ ||

∼ Lévi 1933: 79; Hartmann 1987: 26, n. 38; Skilling 2018: 117; etc.

Cf.

སངས་རྒྱས་བླ་མར་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །སྐྱོབ་པའི་ཆོས་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

དགེ་འདུན་ཆེ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །གསུམ་ལའང་རྟག་ཏུ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

§2.

རྐང་གཉིས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་མཆོག །སངས་རྒྱས་ལ་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆིའོ། །

འདོད་ཆགས་དང་བྲལ་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་མཆོག །ཆོས་ལ་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆིའོ། །

ཚོགས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་མཆོག །དགེ་འདུན་ལ་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆིའོ། །

buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi dvipādānām agryam |

dharmaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi virāgāṇām agryam |

saṃghaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi gaṇānām agryam |

∼ Mahāvyutpatti (Sakaki 1916–1925: nos.  8689–8691; Fukuda & Ishihama 1989: nos. 8628–8630).

§3.

བྱང་ཆུབ་སྙིང་པོ་མཆིས་ཀྱི་བར། །སངས་རྒྱས་རྣམས་ལ་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆི། །

ཆོས་དང་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཡི། །ཚོགས་ལའང་དེ་བཞིན་སྐྱབས་སུ་མཆི། །

buddhaṃ gacchāmi śaraṇaṃ yāvad ābodhimaṇḍataḥ |
dharmaṃ gacchāmi śaraṇaṃ bodhisattvagaṇaṃ tathā ||

∼ Bodhicaryāvatāra 2.26.

§4.

སྟོན་པ་བླ་མེད་སངས་རྒྱས་རིན་པོ་ཆེ། །སྐྱོབ་པ་བླ་མེད་དམ་ཆོས་རིན་པོ་ཆེ། །

འདྲེན་པ་བླ་མེད་དགེ་འདུན་རིན་པོ་ཆེ། །སྐྱབས་ཀྱི་དམ་པ་སྐྱབས་སུ་འོས། །

The first three pādas are very popular in the Tibetan tradition and the source seems to be the ’Khor ba dongs sprugs kyi rgyud which is obviously a gTer-ma scripture (rKTs) and one would look for Indian sources in vain. Was it revealed by Guru Chos-dbang (1212–1270)? This would require further investigation.

§5.

བསོད་ནམས་འདི་ཡིས་ཐམས་ཅད་གཟིགས་པ་ཉིད། །ཐོབ་ནས་ཉེས་པའི་དགྲ་རྣམས་ཕམ་བྱས་ཏེ། །

རྒ་ནད་འཆི་བའི་དབའ་ཀློང་འཁྲུགས་པ་ཡི། །སྲིད་པའི་མཚོ་ལས་འགྲོ་བ་འདོན་པར་ཤོག །

anena puṇyena tu sarvadarśitām avāpya nirjitya ca doṣavidviṣaḥ | 

jarārujāmṛtyumahormisaṅkulāt  samuddhareyaṃ bhavasāgarāj jagat ||

§6.

འཇམ་དཔལ་དཔའ་བོས་ཇི་ལྟར་མཁྱེན་པ་དང་། །ཀུན་དུ་བཟང་པོ་དེ་ཡང་དེ་བཞིན་ཏེ། །

དེ་དག་གི་ནི་རྗེས་སུ་བདག་སློབ་ཅིང་། །དགེ་བ་འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ཡོངས་སུ་བསྔོ། །

mañjuśirī yatha jānati śūraḥ so ca samantatabhadra tathaiva |
teṣu ahaṃ anuśikṣayamāṇo nāmayamī kuśalaṃ imu sarvam ||

དུས་གསུམ་གཤེགས་པ་རྒྱལ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས། །བསྔོ་བ་གང་ལ་མཆོག་ཏུ་བསྔགས་པ་དེས། །

བདག་གིས་དགེ་བ་འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱང་། །བཟང་པོ་སྤྱོད་པ་མཆོག་ཕྱིར་བསྔོ་བར་བགྱི། །

sarvatriyadhvagatebhi jinebhiryā pariṇāmana varṇita agrā |
tāya ahaṃ kuśalaṃ imu sarvaṃ nāmayamī varabhadracarīye ||

From the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra (also cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya).

§7.

མགོན་པོ་ཐུགས་རྗེ་ཆེ་ལྡན་པ། །ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པ་སྟོན་པ་པོ། །

བསོད་ནམས་ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོའི་ཞིང་། །དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

དག་པས་འདོད་ཆགས་བྲལ་བར་འགྱུར། །དགེ་བས་ངན་སོང་ལས་གྲོལ་བ། །

གཅིག་ཏུ་དོན་དམ་མཆོག་གྱུར་པ། །ཞི་གྱུར་ཆོས་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

གྲོལ་ནས་གྲོལ་བའི་ལམ་ཐོབ་པ། །བསླབ་པ་དག་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་གནས། །

ཞིང་གི་དམ་པ་ཡོན་ཏན་ལྡན། །དགེ་འདུན་ལ་ཡང་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

§8.

དགེ་བ་འདི་ཡིས་སྐྱེ་བོ་ཀུན། །བསོད་ནམས་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཚོགས་བསགས་ཏེ། །

བསོད་ནམས་ཡེ་ཤེས་ལས་བྱུང་བའི། །དམ་པ་གཉིས་ནི་ཐོབ་པར་ཤོག ། (Nāgārjuna, Yuktiṣaṣṭikā; no Sanskrit).

§9.

སྐར་མ་རབ་རིབ་མར་མེ་དང་། །སྒྱུ་མ་ཟིལ་པ་ཆུ་བུར་དང་། །

རྨི་ལམ་གློག་དང་སྤྲིན་ལྟ་བུར། །འདུས་བྱས་དེ་ལྟར་བལྟ་བར་བྱ། །

tārakā timiraṃ dīpo māyāvaśyāya budbudam |
svapnaṃ ca vidyudabhraṃ ca evaṃ draṣṭavya saṃskṛtam ||

A Rare Obscure Word: སྒོ་རིས།

Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā ad Ratnāvalī 1.62 reads (Okada 1990: 52): sgo ris dang ’dra bas na khud pa ste thun mong ma yin pa zhes bya’i don to || (Wylie is mine). This explanation is obviously a continuation of the explanation of dharmayautaka (chos kyi khud pa), and specifically yautaka (khud pa). Now note the remark in Okada 1990: 166 “sgo ris ist mir unklar.” Indeed, the word sgo ris does not seem to be recorded in any of the lexicons that I know of, not even in bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol gser gyi me long. It is also not found in the OTDO. The only occurrence in the bsTan ’gyur seems to be our occurrence here. But we do see a couple of occurrences in the bKa’ ’gyur. In cases such as this, we have three issues. (a) What could be the meaning of the word? (b) What could be the Sanskrit word? (c) What could be the etymology of the Tibetan word? (a) As for the meaning of the word, Ajitamitra explains that it is something that is like yautaka (khud pa), which I already discussed on an earlier occasion (i.e., my blog on ltog mo). (b) The Sanskrit word for sgo ris cannot be yautaka for the former is used to explain the latter, although theoretically the construction “It is X because it is similar to X” is possible. For example, “Because he is similar to a pramāṇa, he is called a pramāṇa.” So, it seems that we cannot rule out sgo ris as a rendering of yautaka. If this is not possible, what could have been the Sanskrit word? Perhaps śulka? (c) When speculating about the etymology of sgo ris, we will have to assume that it is indeed an indigenous Tibetan word. If it is a loanword, any attempt to etymologize the word by assuming the components to be Tibetan would inevitably fail. To be sure, it does not seem to mean “drawing/painting on the door” nor a “door with paintings.” Let us look at some of occurrences. Notably, the word sgo ris occurs in two different contexts, namely, in (a) the Vinaya literature and in (b) the (rNying-ma) Tantric scriptures. (a) In the Vinaya context, Karma-pa Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje’s writings on the Vinayasūtra seem very helpful. In this regard, the expressions sgo ris su bcad pa’i dge ’dun gyi dngos po and sgo ris su ma bcad pa’i dge ’dun gyi dngos po should first be understood. The former seems to mean something like “property of the saṃgha that has been distributed [to its individual members],” and the latter something like “property of the saṃgha that has not [yet] been distributed [to its individual members].” Such issues in the Vinaya relate to transgressions pertaining to possession and ownership (’chang ’jog gi nyes pa) of properties/possessions. That sgo ris su bcad pa means “distributed/allocated” is corroborated by the expressions such as gang zag so sor bgos pa “divided among individual persons.” So, simplistically, sgo ris by itself seems to mean something like “an allocated share [of something],” “dividend,” “bonus.”

In the rNying-ma Tantric scriptures, the expression sgo ris so sor gcod pa seems to mean “to split up,” “to separate/divide.” Although there seem to several textual problems, I reproduce the passages containing sgo ris. Interesting is that also the word sho gam (for śulka) occurs in one instance.

(a) *Mahāvratasādhanatantra = brTul zhugs chen po bsgrub pa’i rgyud (Bᴷ, vol. 101, pp. 890.19–891.17): yang smra ba’i seng ges gsol pa | gang zag la la dag bdag nyid kyis tshogs skyong ba’i ’khor bla ma gzhan gyi dbang du ’gyur du dogs nas | dge ba’i sgo ’gegs pa dag mchis na | de’i rnam par smin pa ji lta bu zhig lags | gsang ba mchog gi bdag pos bka’ stsal pa | smra ba’i seng ge ’khor sgo rigs [= sgo ris] dang rkyen mtshan [= rkyang tshan? cf. below] so sor bcad cing | bla ma gzhan la nyon mongs pa’i sgo ’byed pa ni ngan song gsum gyi kha brgyud cing | sho gam gcan chen gyi rigs su skye bar nges so || de yang ji ltar yongs su shes par ’gyur zhe na | sngon ’das pa’i dus nga dran pa thog ma’i tshe | dge slong zhi gnas pa zhes bya ba’i tshom bu lnga brgya dang bcas pa | don dang mi ldan pa zhig shin tu gsang ba’i sngags pa spyod do zhes zer nas | dgon pa’i gnas bzung ste yul khams chen po de na gnas pa’i mi rnams kun ’dul ba’i dbang du spyod do || de’i tshe de’i dus su gzhan gyi sde par gyur pa’i dge slong grol ba’i blo gros zhes bya ba’i don dang ldan pa zhig yul khams de yang dag pa’i don la gzud pa’i ched du ’ongs nas | gsang ba’i theg pa’i don rgya cher bstan par bsams pa las | zhi gnas pa zhes bya ba’i dge slong des nyon mongs pa’i bsgo ba drag po byas te | ’khor ’di dag ni bdag gi zhing khams yin pas na | khyod ’di la ma rtog [= gtogs] shig ces bsgo  ris [= sgo ris] so sor bcad pas de’i tshe dge slong zhi gnas pa’i tshom bu lnga brgya’i ’khor dang bcas pa nyon mongs pa ’khor ba’i lam du lhung ste | sho gam gcan chen gyi rigs su gyur to || de bas na de bzhin du shes par bya’o ||. 

(b) *Yogasiddhitantra = rNal ’gyor grub pa’i rgyud (Bᴷ, vol. 102, pp. 113.16–114.8): rnyed dang bkur stis ’tsho ba’i ’khor || gzhan gyi dbang du gyur dogs nas || sgo ris rkyang tshan so sor gcod || ’khor ’di bdag gis smin bya yi || gdul bar bya ba’i zhing yin gyis || gang dag ’di dang ma ’brel zhes || nyon mongs tshig gis sgo byed nor || de yang ji lta bu zhe na || rnal ’byor na zhi gnas pa zhes || bya ba’i tshom bu lnga brgya zhig || shin tu gsang sngags spyod do zhes || dgon pa’i gnas su ’dug nas ni || yul khams chen po de dag gis || gnas par gyur pa’i mi rnams kun || gdul bar bya ba’i zhing du spyod || gzhan gyi sde par gyur pa yi || dge slong don dang ldan pa zhig || yul der ched du ’ongs nas ni || rnal ’byor nges pa’i lam mchog gcig || rgya cher bstan par bsams pa las || dge slong dgon par gnas pa des || nyon mongs tshig gi bsgo ba byas || ’khor ’di bdag gi zhing yin gyis || khyod ni ’di la ma gtogs zhes || sgo dang tshan dang ris bcad pas || nyon mongs ’khor ba’i lam du lhung || de ’dra’i tshul du ma spyod cig ||.

If to judge by the use of the word sgo ris, specially together with rkyang tshan so sor gcod pa, sgo ris seems to be analogous to phyogs ris. It appears that rkyang tshan so sor gcod pa and sgo ris so sor gcod pa are used synonymously, hence these may be understood as “to partition/split/cut/separate [something] (as if by means of sgo) into single/individual (rkyang) sections/units/shares/blocks/parts (tshan = ris).

Postscript: I would like to record here Professor Péter-Dániel Szántó’s suggestion that sgo ris  may perhaps be a rendering of the Sanskrit dāyabhāga, i.e, “partition of inheritance” (MW).

On a Rare Tibetan Word: ལྟོག་མོ།

The Tibetan translations of the Ratnāvalī and Ratnāvalīṭīkā seem to preserve several archaic Tibetan words whose meanings we no longer know for sure. One such word is ltog mo. See Ratnāvalī 3.79 (Hahn 1982: 87): ’di ltar rtag tu chos mdzad na || ’jig rten kun dang bdag nyid la || nyams bder ’gyur ba gang lags pa || de nyid re zhig ltog mo lags || (Wylie is mine). The Tibetan translation of Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā (Okada 1990: 114) explains: ltog mo ni chog pa ste te por mang ba’o || (Wylie is mine). In this regard, Professor Michael Hahn states the following (Hahn 1982: 17):  “Ad d) In 3.19d, RĀT has a difficult Tibetan word, rtog mod in NP and ltog mo in CD. RĀṬ and GT. Here not only the correct reading of this word is confirmed by RĀṬ but also its meaning, which is not given in any Tibetan dictionary known to me, is properly explained by RĀṬ: | ltog mo ni chog pa ste te por maṅ ba’o | (Wylie is mine). ‘As for ltog mo, (it means) sufficient, very much.’ This meaning is confirmed by RĀC which has yuán  źú ‘complete’. I would like to add here an attempt at an etymological explanation of this word. It might be taken as a derivative of thog ‘what is uppermost’. Combined with the prefix l–, thog will lose its aspiration, and the meaning will change from the local to a more abstract concept ‘high(ly)’. For the rule of formation I refer to parallels like the pairs thag and ltag, thaṅ and ltaṅ, and so on.”

This was in 1982. I do not know what Professor Hahn would have said in 2023. Let us consider Ratnāvalī 3.79 (Hahn 1982: 87) itself. “If [you] practice the Teaching in this way constantly, that experience of wellbeing that would come about for all the people/world and oneself would be temporarily the ltog mo.” Now what the Tibetan translation of Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā seems to be saying is that the outcome mentioned in the verse is temporally more than enough. What he seems to be suggesting is that temporary wellbeing (cf. abhyudaya = mngon par mtho ba) for oneself and others is a byproduct of one’s practice of the Teachings of the Buddha. The actual and ultimate goal is Buddhahood (cf. niḥśreyasa: nges par legs pa). In other words, temporary wellbeing that comes about as a result of practicing the Teachings of the Buddha is, if to use my own words, a “bonus” (i.e., “an extra and unexpected advantage”), and it should be tentatively more than sufficient. Ultimately, of course, it is not sufficient. One has to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings! What could have been the Sanskrit word for ltog mo? Perhaps something like yautaka?  Now we have bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol gser gyi me long (p. 262) and it does record our word and it is said to mean khud pa and skyes rdzongs. It is said to mean something like “present,” “gift,” “dowry” (Mitgift), and so on. Leaning on this one can think of a “bonus,” “special treat,” “exclusively private assest.”

In a note to his English translation of the Dharmaśāstra, Patrick Olivelle writes the following (Olivelle 2005: 328): “separate property: the technical term yautaka refers to any kind of separate property remaining within the umbrella of common property or carved out of it. See 9.214, where the yautaka refers to the separate property of the oldest brother.” Certainly every culture would have the idea of something that is exclusively private. I wish to provide one example from the Tibetan culture and one from my own Tshangs-lha culture of East Bhutan. First, those of us who have read the hagiography of Mi-la-ras-pa would know that the ever motherly bDag-med-ma, Mar-pa’s wife, had received from her parents, before she was married off to the short-tempered Mar-pa, a huge piece of excellent turquoise. Her parents were not quite sure how long would the marriage last. The turquoise was a present for their daughter and meant to be a kind of backup in the case of a crisis. It was not really dowry because her husband was not even supposed to know about it. It was exclusively her own property. The turquoise here can be called a yautaka. Second, in Tshangs-lha, there is such a thing called yongs gnang. Since, Tshangs-lha is not a written language, I do not how to spell this word. Normally, every member of the family should have equal right to the family property. But even within the members of the family, there would be certain property or possession that is exclusively owned by a certain member of the family. Various factors would be responsible for such an exclusive ownership. Such a private property/possession can be in the form of land, domestic animals, jewellery, artifacts, religious objects, and even utensils. A daughter, for example, may have inherited from her mother a piece of jewellery and this would not be considered a common property of the entire family. It would be exclusively hers. So, yautaka seems to have a sense of yongs gnang.

Now regarding Professor Hahn’s speculation of the etymology, I must confess it does not sound very probable and convincing. For the want of a better suggestion, I am wondering if ltog is etymologically connected with ltogs. As a bisyllabic Tibetan word with mo as the second component, is ltog mo analogous to ltad mo, ston mo, and the like? If ltad mo is a “feast for the eyes,” can ltog mo be a kind of “[private] asset/gift [meant for times of crisis such as] famine”?

What Does “bstad pa” Mean?

In a note to the critical edition of the Tibetan translation of Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā, Yukihiro Okada pointed out the following (Okada 1990: 180): “bstad pa scheint ein bisher unbelegtes Wort mit der Bedeutung ‘nützlich’ zu sein.” That is, bstad pa seems to be a hitherto unattested word having the meaning of “beneficial” or “useful.” I did not do any investigation other than just looking up a couple of sources. The OTDO database does show a couple of some Dunhuang manuscripts containing the word bstad. But I must confess, I could not confidently figure out its meaning. Okada’s statement seems to be supported by the fact that the pratīka that Ajitamitra comments is indeed bstad pa and Ratnāvalī here has hitāyedam and that Ajitamitra explains the pratīka as follows (Okada 1990: 119): bstad pa ni rigs pa ste phan pa’o ||. Also, the word phan pa occurs in this explanation, which would support Okada’s statement. To be sure, the reading bstad pa does not seem to be a corruption. Immediately following the explanation, we encounter the expression bstad dam mi bstad pa’i tshig gi don. As opposed to Okada, however, I have been wondering if bstad pa is an archaic form of ’thad pa “reasonable,” “appropriate/suitable/befitting.” Also, Ajitamitra’s use of the word rigs pa in his explanation seems to support such a suggestion. To be noted is that both hita and yukta are said to have the meaning of “suitable.” But it does not seem necessary to propose that Ajitamitra did not read hitāyedam but rather something else. This is a mere speculation and it should by no means hinder other scholars shedding light on the obscure word bstad pa.

Eating or Itching?

Many years ago, to be precise on May 10, 2012 (11:42 PM), I wondered about the meaning of verbalizer za ba and put my speculation in a blog. Today (26.06.2023), I am still wondering about it. The word that triggered me to return to this issue is khu ’phrig(s) za ba. The spelling khu ’khrig za ba, too, is found. See bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol (s.v. khu ’khrig). It turns out that khu ’khrig za ba and g.yang za ba (“to be reluctant, to have scruple about, to have some inhibition”) are synonymous. According to the brDa dkrol, khu = g.yang. What is g.yang supposed to mean? In this context, it seems to mean “skin,” and specially, “human skin” (as in g.yang gzhi and g.yang shun). To be noted is that g.yang za ba (brDa dkrol) is said to have second meaning “to be dizzy/giddy” (klad yus ’khor ba). I suspect that g.yang za ba in this second sense means “to have fear for heights/depths” (i.e., acrophobia).

Let us now turn to the possible meaning of the za ba as a verbalizer? Does it mean “to eat” or “to itch”? If to use my usual verbal categories, the verb “eat” would be transitive and autonomous, where the verb “itch” would be intransitive and heteronomous. (a) Thus, za ba in all those verbs that seem to be transitive and autonomous can be said to have the meaning “to eat.” Here are some examples: gsug za ba “to take bribe,” lkog rngan za ba “to take bribe,” khe bzang za ba “to take/make (illegal/unethical) profit,” and dbang za ba “to abuse one’s power.” I would say also mna’ za ba “to swear” or “to take an oath” belongs to this group. (b) The verbalizer za ba in the following cases all seem to be intransitive and heteronomous, and there seem to be at least three types. (1) dogs pa za ba “to have doubt,” the tshom za ba “to have doubt,” ’phrig za ba “to have doubt,” khu ’phrig/’khrig za ba “to have doubt,” som nyi za ba “to have doubt,” ag za ba “to have doubt,” gdon mi za ba “to be there no doubt” (only in the negative), and so on. It is noteworthy that all these words have to do with what I may call “cognitive” inkling. (2) There is then a group of verbs expressing some sort of what I call “emotive” irritation such as tshig/’tshig pa za ba “to get angry” and khong khro za ba “to get angry.” I am not sure if rnam rtog za ba “to be superstitious (about something)” would belong to this group. The component za ba in these cognitive and emotive verbs may be said to be have a “subjective” sense. (3) The following verbs with za ba all seem to have something to do with “objective” occurrences/incidents/events:  gzugs po za ba “to itch,” chud za ba “to go waste” (not in the sense of “to lay waste”), g.yur (du) za ba “(fruits) come to ripe/mature” (i.e., ’bras bu seems to be the subject of g.yur (du) za ba and not its accusative object and hence not to be understood in the sense of “to bear fruits”), ltogs tshig za ba (“to be starving,” and perhaps not “to starve”), tshos za ba “dyeing [process] to be effective/successful,” and so forth. The verb btsa’ brgyab pa (Tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. (1) btsa’) having the sense of “to rust, to oxidize, to corrode/erode” seems to occur, though not as a lexeme. I attempted to find btsa’ za ba having the same meaning but I was not thus far successful. But we do come cross btsas zos pa “rusted, corroded,” and hence we should consider the verb btsas za ba or simply btsa’ za ba in the sense of btsa’ brgyab pa.

In sum, transitive and autonomous za ba as in khe bzang za ba may be understood as having the sense of “to eat,” “to partake of,” and the like. Perhaps one can link the objective and subjective senses of intransitive and heteronomous za ba with the English word “eat.” That is, if something objectively happens “to eat into (someone)” or “to gnaw at (someone),” what would that person feel/sense? The person would feel a sense of irritation. In other words, the person would “itch.” Itching has obviously something to do with eating into something or someone. All of these are, however, mere speculations!

Aide-Mémoire: Dharmadāna

Recently (12.06.2023), on my FB, I wrote the following: The idea that the gift of teaching is the best gift is so popular. We often hear about it. But when I wrote my article on secrecy, I found one source but was not particularly satisfied. I provided the following (Wangchuk 2020: 80): Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra (Bᵀ, vol. 60, p. 360.18–19): gzhan yang chos kyi sbyin pa ni gang sbyin pa thams cad kyi mchog ni chos kyi sbyin par rig nas chos kyi sbyin pa yongs su gtong ba’o ||. I also referred to Norman 1997: 116 and Schmithausen 2000: 126, n. 37. The following source should have been given as well. Karmāvaraṇapratiprasabdhisūtra (cited by dPal-brtsegs in his gSung rab rin po che, Bᵀ, vol. 115, p. 935.9–11): sbyin pa rnams kyi nang na ni ’di lta ste | chos kyi sbyin pa mchog ces ngas bshad do ||.

Today (25.06.2023), I wish to add a small, but in my view, significant old source for the idea in question, namely, Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā 27.9c (Obermiller 1937: 101): agraṃ … varauttamadharmadānam (chos kyi sbyin pa rab mchog dam pa). We may also just consider the compound: vara-uttama-dharma-dāna (chos kyi sbyin pa rab mchog). Note, however, variant (preferred) reading in Yuyama 1976: 108: vara-uttamu-dharma-dāna.

When the King of the Jungle Dies

I have a FB page called “Buddhist Ideas Through the Ages (BITA).” On December 9, 2020, I wrote a piece with the title “A Buddhist Perspective on the Destruction of Buddhism.” I am self-plagiarizing here.

I remember the keynote lecture by Professor Richard Salomon during the 18th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies held in University of Toronto (August 20–25, 2017). His initial aim was to discuss the causes of the demise of Buddhism from the land of its origin and in the end instead of trying to answer the question; he ended up reformulating the question. After the lecture, I did get an opportunity to talk to him and I happened to mention to him an idea that we find in some Mahāyāna scriptures that Buddhist monks would destroy the teachings of the Buddha, not those heretics (who are opposed to Buddhism). At that time, I was thinking of such a statement referred to by Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on Padmasambhava’s Man ngag lta phreng. Rong-zom-pa’s context is a different one. He refers to this statement only to explain the use of the term mu stegs pa (tīrthika). I somehow assumed the source to be Kāśyapaparivarta but I was disappointed for I could not trace such a statement in the Kāśyapaparivarta. Only now I see that the gSung rab rin chen (P, fol. 236a1–4) by sKa-ba dPal-brtsegs does contain such a statement and the source is obviously the Ratnarāśisūtra. We cannot say if Rong-zom-pa was referring directly to the Ratnarāśisūtra or he was in fact referring to it via the gSung rab rin chen. We shall have to see if this idea found in the Ratnarāśisūtra was discussed by Professor Jonathan Silk in his dissertation. At any rate, the basic idea is that just a carcass of a lion cannot be eaten by other wild animals and birds but the worms from within, the teachings of the Buddha cannot be destroyed by non-Buddhists but will be destroyed by bad Buddhist monks from within. This idea shows the readiness of the Buddhists to take responsibility for the demise of Buddhism. Nonetheless, we shall have to bear in mind that Buddhism rejects mono-causality. Hence no one cause can be held accountable for the demise of Buddhism in India. One can thus imagine a number of internal causes and external conditions for it. But unless one is omniscient, how can one know all the causes and conditions!

Today (June 23, 2023), I notice that the Bodhisattvapiṭakasūtra also says something similar (Bᴷ, vol. 41, p. 265.7–9): shā ri’i bu de bzhin gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i bar du gcod par ’gyur ba dang | de bzhin gshegs pa’i bstan pa rab tu ’jig par byed pa ni dge slong sdig can las gzhan gang yang med do ||. The same is cited in the gSung rab rin chen by sKa-ba dPal-brtsegs (Bᵀ, vol. 115, p. 667.5–7): shā ri’i bu de bzhin gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i bar du gcod par ’gyur ba dang | ’jig par byed pa ni dge slong sdig can las gzhan gang yang med do ||. We may also find similar and earlier statements elsewhere.

“Eating Father’s Meat”

Last year, to be precise on 16.11.2022, I posted a query on my FB page, with the hope that someone may provide me with some insight. Except for a few likes and shares, however, no insights were forthcoming. My query was about an Indic source of a popular floating verse that we find mostly in Tibetan Lam-rim literature. My first encounter with the verse is the one we find in dPal-sprul’s Kun bzang bla ma’i zhal lung (p. 313.14–15): pha sha za shing ma la rdeg || las ngal dgra bo pang na bzung || chung mas khyo yis rus pa ’cha’ || ’khor ba’i chos la gad mo bro ||. Naturally, this verse has been translated into several modern languages. For an English translation, see, for example, Thondup 1990: 153. To be sure, one can find several versions of the verse. Thanks to the BuddhaNexus, we can see that one of the earliest Tibetan sources could be the Kun ’dus rig pa’i sgron me by the thirteenth-century Tibetan scholar Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje. The Great Fifth very likely had access to this work. Hor-po Shākya-rdo-rje has the same standing as Rong-zom-pa and Klong-chen-pa, hence the expression: rong klong shāk gsum (cf. rong klong ’ju gsum). For mNga’-ris-paṇ-chen, Klong-chen-pa and Shāk-rdor were like the sun and the moon (Rin phreng lta bu’i gtam, pp. 61–62). The verse cited there reads: pha sha za zhing ma la brdeg || las ngan dgra bo pang du khur || chung mas khyo yi rus pa ’cha’ || ’khor ba’i chos la gad mo bro ||. Here is yet another version of the verse: las ngan dgra bo pang du thogs || pha sha za zhing ma la rdung || chung ma khyo yi rus pa ’cha’ || ’khor ba’i chos la gad mo bro ||. Many more versions can be found.

Despite the availability and accessibility of numerous electronic texts, I had not been able to trace an Indic source of this verse, and hence I had to post a query on the FB page. But I felt lonely in the absence of any light of insight. Last night, no, actually this morning (21.06.2023), I almost exploded with joy. I was going through Sylvain Lévi’s edition of the Karmavibhaṅga, and lo, it was right there. See the Mahākarmavibhaṅga §.XL (Skt. Lévi 1932: 73): pitur maṃsāni khādate, mātuḥ kṣipati kaṇṭakān | bhāryā jāraṃ ca poṣeti, loko mohatamovṛtaḥ ||  (punctuation mine); Tib. (Lévi 1932: 202): de yi pha yi sha za zhing || ma la rus pa gra ma ’dor || chung ma’i byi bo gso byed pa || gti mug dang ni chags pas bsgribs ||. The Karmavibhaṅga provides also the background story. To be noted is that the Karmavibhaṅga has already been translated by the 84,000. The electronic version of the Indic text, too, has been all the time in the BuddhaNexus (GRETIL). The lesson I learnt is that despite the availability and accessibility of numerous electronic texts, it is not always easy to trace the source that one seeks. Obviously tracing texts is a bit easier but tracing ideas is a bit more challenging. Finally and most importantly, it is not Mahākātyāyana who is speaking here but Mahāmaudgalyāyana.  

A Partial Bibliography

Lévi 1932 = Sylvain Lévi (ed. & tr.), Mahākarmavibhaṅga (La Grande Classification des Actes) et Karmavibhaṅgopadeśa (Discussion sur le Mahā Karmavibhaṅga): Textes sanscrits rapportés du Népal, Édités et traduits avec les textes parallèles en Sanscrit, en Pali, en Tibétain, en Chinois et en Koutchéen. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1932.

Kun bzang bla ma’i zhal lung = dPal-sprul O-rgyan-’jigs-med-chos-kyi-dbang-po, rDzogs pa chen po klong chen snying tig gi sngon ’gro’i khrid yig kun bzang bla ma’i zhal lung. In dPal sprul o rgyan ’jigs med chos kyi dbang po’i gsum ’bum. 8 vols. [Xining]: mTsho-sngon-nang-bstan-rig-gnas-sgyu-rtsal-zhabs-zhu-lte-gnas-zhabs-zhu-khang, n.d., vol. 7.

Thondup 1990 = Tulku Thondup (tr.), Enlightened Living: Teachings of Tibetan Buddhist Masters, edited by Harold Talbott. Boston: Shambhala, 1990.

Māgadhī in Tibetan?

In the context of allocating a certain scriptural/canonical language to a certain Nikāya school of Buddhism, allochthonous and autochthonous Tibetan sources mention a certain language rendered into Tibetan as “’Bring-du-’don-pa,” “Bar-mar-’don-pa.” sTag-tshang-lo-tsā-ba even calls it “’Bring-du-’don-pa’i-skad” (via BDRC). My old friend and colleague, Dr. Karma Phuntsho, while reading the Pad dkar chos ’byung, encountered these two variant names of the language and is wondering which language it could be. Obviously, the term svarita, one of the Tibetan renderings of which is ’bring du ’don pa (https://www.itlr.net/hwid:108314) has nothing to do with our topic unless one wishes to consider the possibility that there was an Indic language by this name. I must admit that I did not carefully explore secondary sources that could shed light on this issue. Dr. Phuntsho’s question raised my curiosity and hence I wish to make a couple of points here.

First, the main source of information on this language for the Tibetan scholars seems to be the Tibetan translation of Śākyaprabha’s Mūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikāvṛtti Prabhāvatī (D4125; P5627; Bᵀ, vol. 93) translated by Sarvajñadeva and Devendrarakṣita. They simply refer to it as ’Od dlan and they obviously had the following in mind (Prabhāvatī, Bᵀ, vol. 93, pp. 414.21–415.2): de lta bas na thams cad yod par smra ba ni gzhi zhes bya’i | sde pa gzhan dag ni ma yin te | tha mal pa dang | zur chag pa dang | ’bring du ’don pa’i tshig gis [P?; gi D] tha snyad brjod pa’i phyir ro ||. We should also consider Vinītadeva’s Triśatakārikāvyākhyāna (D4126; P5628; Bᵀ, vol. 93) translated by Buddhaśānti and dGe-ba’i-blo-gros. It states the following (Bᵀ, vol. 93, pp. 700.4–701.3): gzhir gyur pa zhes bya ba gang las she na | smras pa | legs par sbyar ba’i skad kyi tha snyad du byed pa’i phyir ro || de ltar yang ya rabs dag ni legs par sbyar bas tha snyad du byed kyi | tha mal pa’i skye bo ni ma yin no zhes zer ro || don de ni ya rabs su shes par bya ba’i phyir sgra’i mtshan nyid bstan pa yin la | ya rabs kyang ’jig rten na gzhir gyur pa yin te | de dag las ’jig rten gyi tha snyad ’byung ba yin pa’i phyir ro || gzhi thams cad yod par smra ba de dag kyang de dang ’dra ba yin te | de las sde bar gzhan gyi tha snyad du bya ba ’don pa yin gyi | gzhan dag las ni ma yin te | tha mal pa dang | zur chag dang | ’bring du ’don pas brjod pa’i phyir dang | dus phyis byung ba nyid yin pa’i phyir ro || ’di skad du yang bcom ldan ’das yongs su mya ngan las ’das nas ring po ma lon par dgra bcom pa lnga brgya rgyal po’i khab tu ’dug nas sde snod gsum bsdu ba mdzad la | de’i ’og tu mya ngan las ’das nas lo brgya rtsa bcu lon pa na ’phags pa thams cad ’dod pa la sogs pa nas sgur po dang | zhing ldan la thug par dgra bcom pa bdun brgya yangs pa can du ’dus nas | bsdu ba gnyis pa mdzad de hu lu hu lu ka’i rung ba la sogs pa bcu bsal ba yin te | rgya cher ni phran tshegs las ’byung ngo || de nas rgyal po dharma a sho ka shi ba dang dgra bcom pa rnams kyis tha mal pa dang | zur bcag pa dang |  bar mar ’don pa’i tshig la mngon par zhen pa’i gdul ba’i dbang gi phyir rim gyis snegazhung gzhan dang gzhan du sbyar te | rgya chen po’i skad du sbyar ba’i mdo sde la sogs pa lta bu ste | bstan pa rnam pa bco brgyad du gyur pa yin no ||.

Second, to make the context clear, it may be pointed out that the language in question is juxtaposed to Saṃskṛta, Prākṛta (Tha-mal-pa), and Apabhraṃśa (Zur-chag/bcag-pa). This seems to be one of the reasons why some Tibetan scholars identified it with Paiśācika (Sha-za’i-skad). Some identified it with Apabhraṃśa. Third, according to some sources, the ’Bring-du-’don-pa’i-skad is said to be the canonical language of the Sthaviras (gNas-brtan-pa’i-sde). But the difficulty is that it is not easy to pinpoint Sthavira at any given point in time and place and is hardly equitable with what we know today as Theravāda. Cf. André Bareau, The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle, translated into English by Sara Boin-Webb and edited by Andrew Skilton [English Translation of: Les sectes boudhiques du petit véhicule. Saigon: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1955]. Honululu: University of Hawai’i Press in association with The Buddhist Society Trust, 2013. Others ascribe this language to the Mahāsāṃghikas. Thus, when our sources attribute this language to a certain school, one can at best only vaguely associate it with a certain school at a certain time and certain place.

Fourth, even when we assume that neither the language, nor the school, nor the attribution can be precise, we would still wish to know which Indic language the authors of our sources had in mind. Not being a specialist in this area and not having investigated these issues carefully, I can hardly propose anything that would satisfactorily answer this question. Nevertheless, I venture to propose a hypothesis. That is, it is probable that ’Bring-du-’don-pa or Bar-mar-’don-pa had been a rendering of something like Māgadhī. That Māgadhī is the name of a language is clear. Cf. MW (s.v. māgadhī): “(with or scil. bhāṣā), the language of the M°s (one of the Prakṛt dialects), Sāh. &c. (cf. ardha-m°).” But why did, or, how could, the Tibetan translators translate Māgadhī as ’Bring-du-’don-pa or Bar-mar-’don-pa? It may be pointed that one of the Tibetan renderings of Magadha has been “dBus-’gyur-’chang” (see: https://www.itlr.net/hwid:34679). See particularly the following statement therein: “As recorded above, Magadha/°dhā has also been translated into Tibetan as dBus ’gyur ’chang. It is obvious that ’chang is a rendering of √dhā in the sense of “holding” or “possessing” (MW, s.v. dha). But it is not obvious how one can account for the rendering dbus ’gyur. A conceivable possibility is that Tibetan translators interpreted maga as an abbreviation of madhyaga “going or being in the middle or among (with gen. or ifc.)” (MW). That is, Magadhā was understood as “that which holds what happens to be in the middle.” A similar explanation has been offered by Si tu paṇ chen, an English translation of which has been given by Verhagen.” It seems probably that the Tibetan translators interpreted the first component of the name as madhya and translating it as if it were an adverb (e.g., madhyam, madhye, madhyena) and hence ’bring du or bar mar. How can one but account for ’don pa “reciting,” or perhaps “accentuation.” Tibetan translators seem to have read adhī into the name. See MW (s.v. adhī): “to study, learn by heart, read, recite.” I must confess that I do not know how to interpret and translate ’Bring-du-’don-pa or Bar-mar-’don-pa. A language “characterized by moderate/medium accentuation”? The following statement from the Tibetan translation of the *Nāmasaṃgītiṭīkā by one *Mañjuśrīkīrti also shows that the Māgadhī language has been listed among other Indic languages (D2534; P3357; Bᵀ, vol. 32, p. 503.9–12): saṃ skṛ ta dang | skad tha mal pa dang | zur bcag pa dang | sha za’i skad dang | ma ga dhā pa’i skad (sic) dang | zung du ’jug pa’i skad dang tha dad pa la sogs pa’i skad thams cad la mkhas shing thams cad du tshig gis ston pas na tshig la dbang ba’o ||. The Tibetan Magadhā-pa’i-skad here may reflect Magadhabhāṣā, Māgadhabhāṣā, Māgadhībhāṣā, or, simply Māgadhī. The famous statement in the Vimalaprabhā that the Piṭakatraya was written in Magadhabhāṣā (Negi 1993–2005: s.v. ma ga dha’i skad) should also be taken into account. Also regarding the scriptural language assigned to the Theravādins, see Eltschinger 2017: 309, n. 1 “The Theravādins call māgadhī or māgadhabhāsā the language of their sacred scriptures; the word pāli traditionally refers to the canonical scriptures themselves.” For details, see Vincent Eltschinger, “Why did the Buddhists adopt Sanskrit?” Open Linguistics 3, 2017, pp. 308–326.

A Drop in the Ocean

I have been telling myself and my students that there may not be a great deal of mundane and supra-mundane incentives for trying to keep on studying. There is also no explosion of immense joy, something like what a bodhisattva upon attaining the pramuditābhūmi is said to experience. But there are small moments of joy that arise when discovering tiny details. I just had such a moment today. The theory and practice of the “dedicatory transfer of beneficial earnings” (puṇyapariṇāmanā: bsod nams yongs su bsngo ba) or the “dedicatory transfer of basic virtues, or, wholesome [deeds]” (kuśalamūlapariṇāmanā: dge ba’i rtsa ba yongs su bsngo ba) is so popular in the Buddhist traditions, that is, both in the Northern and Southern Buddhist traditions. The topic has drawn the attention of several prominent Buddhologists. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, Klong-chen-pa (1308–1363), for example, has summed up the role of pariṇāmanā in his Yid bzhin mdzod thus: khyad par theg chen dge ba rlabs po che || sbyor ba sems bskyed dngos gzhi dmigs pa med || rjes la bsngo bas yongs su zin pa ni || thar lam bgrod pa’i gces pa rnam gsum nyid ||. Later rNying-ma scholars would not fail to cite this verse when it comes to the topic pariṇāmanā. This is, however, not my concern today. My concern is this verse: ji ltar rgya mtsho che nang chu thigs lhung || rgya mtsho ma zad bar du de mi mdzad || de bzhin byang chub yongs bsngos dge ba yang || byang chub ma thob bar du de mi ’dzad ||. A quick search in the digital platforms would confirm its popularity. But also the confusion or uncertainty that reigned in the Tibetan tradition would become apparent. Some scholars simply cite it with the phrase ji skad du. If one is not sure of the source, it is a good solution. Most scholars provide the source as the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra. If one were to search the verse in the Tibetan translation of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra, however, one would be frustrated and disappointed. Some scholars seem to have made this experience. So they explained that this verse was composed by some bKa’-gdams masters based on the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra. It is often tempting to attribute all subhāṣitas to bKa’-gdams masters. Some explained that this verse is a versified summary of the idea of pariṇāmanā found in the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra as cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. But one would look for a possible passage in the Śikṣāsamuccaya in vain. One Tibetan scholar identified the source as Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra. One may easily like to dismiss it as a mere confusion of Blo gros mi zad pa (Akṣayamati) and Blo gros rgya mtsho (Sāgaramati). Now it turns out that it is not the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra that has this pertinent idea. It turns out that it is not the Śikṣāsamuccaya that cites such a Sūtric passage but the Sūtrasamuccaya (Pāsadikā 1989: 25) that cites such a passage, purportedly from the Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra. I did not check the Tibetan translation of the Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra yet. sKa-ba dPal-brtsegs’s gSung rab rin po che’i gtam (P, fol. 163b4–6) also cites the Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra. Such an idea can also be found in the Dharmasaṃgītisūtra cited in the same work (P, fol. 176b1). It also turns out that the verse is not likely composed by a bKa’-gdams master but it stems from Āryaśūra’s Pāramitāsamāsa, and the Tibetan translation of it reads: rgya mtsho chen por chu thigs gcig bor ba || rgya mtsho ma zad dus su zad mi ’gyur || de bzhin byang chub mchog tu bsngos pa yi || bsod nams rnam pa zad par ’gyur ba med ||. And fortunately, the Sanskrit text of the Pāramitāsamāsa does exist and it has drawn the attention of modern scholars. See Pāramitāsamāsa 4.13 (Meadow 1986: 210): mahatsu vāmbhaḥsu yathā niṣikto naivodabinduḥ kṣayam abhyupaiti | saṃbuddhabhāve pariṇāmitasya tathaiva puṇyasya na saṃkṣayo ’sti ||. For an English translation of the verse, see Meadow 1986: 211 “As surely as a drop of water sprinkled into the ocean does not perish, so in like manner there is no perishing of merit that has been dedicated to the state of a complete Buddha.”

“Seven Later Ācāryas”

The lDe’u chos ’byung speaks of “twenty-one/two/three Indian paṇḍitas” (rgya gar mkhas pa nyi shu rtsa gcig/gnyis/gsum). See Martin 2022: in the precincts of nn. 2336, 2525, 5322): “twenty-three adepts.” It also refers to “Seven Later Ācāryas” (slob dpon phyi ma bdun). Cf. “seven later teachers” and “For an account of the seven later adepts, although the names in the list are not identical, see Pema Kunsang, Wellsprings, 95–96” (Martin 2022: n. 2337). The Nyang ral chos ’byung, however, does not seem to employ these collective terms. The rKTS reveals that the expression “twenty-one paṇḍitas” (mkhas pa nyi shu rtsa gcig) occurs in some of rNying-ma Tantric scriptures. One thus wonders if the number twenty-one is the product of three septets of Ācāryas, namely, “Seven Earlier Ācāryas” (slob dpon snga ma bdun), “Seven Intermediate Ācāryas” (slob dpon bar ma bdun), and “Seven Later Ācāryas” (slob dpon phyi ma bdun). Although I have not found the former two expressions, the latter does seem to suggest the “earlier” and “intermediate” septets. The Great Fifth also uses the expression  “twenty-five paṇḍitas” (mkhas pa nyi shu rtsa lnga). These are certainly meant to be Indic paṇḍitas and hence not to be confused with “twenty-five rulers and subjects” (rje ’bangs nyer lnga), all of whom are Tibetan disciples of Padmasambhava. The “twenty-one paṇḍitas” (mkhas pa nyi shu rtsa gcig) are said to be those Indic masters from whom Vairocana received the highly esoteric teachings of Atiyoga, or, rDzogs-chen (see, for example, Palmo 2004: 97–98, 114, 134). Also the expression “Seven Later Ācāryas” (slob dpon phyi ma bdun) occur in the ’Dra ’bag chen mo (Palmo 2004: 113, 117).

While it seems not possible to identify all the “twenty-one paṇḍitas” mentioned in the hagiography of the legendary Vairocana, at least we have the names of “Seven Later Ācāryas,” although, as suggested by Dan Martin, the names in the list are bound to differ from source to source. My interest here is speculating and trying to reconstruct/Sanskritize the names of these Ācāryas. Let us say that of these, only two names—i.e., Mañjuśrīmitra (II) and Śrīsiṃha—are provided in Sanskrit. I venture to Sanskritize Khyi’i-rgyal-po as “Kukkurarāja” (II) and dGe-slong-ma Kun-dga’-mo as “Bhikṣuṇī Ānandā.” Although Māmakī has been rendered by scholars such as Rong-zom-pa as “bDag-gi-ma,” Mi-pham seems to have translated it as “bDag-nyid-ma” (Negi). So our sMad-tshong-ma bDag-nyid-ma may have been “Māmakī.” Or, it could also have been something like “Ātmyā.” Cf. Nairātmyā (bDag-med-pa), the consort of Hevajra. The remaining two are difficult both of which, however, sound like Indic names: Drang-srong Sab-shi-ta and Ghurda kunda. One wonders if the former is meant to be “Savaśita” and the latter a corruption of something like “Gūrdakuṇḍa” or “Darbhakuṇḍa.” In the latter case, it is not clear if the person is a male or female. If female, then something like “Gūrdakuṇḍā” or “Darbhakuṇḍā”? But do these sound like plausible names of a person? Sanskritists’ opinions would be crucial here.

Dan Martin (tr.), A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet: An Expanded Version of the Dharma’s Origins Made by the Learned Scholar Deyu. Library of Tibetan Classics. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2022.

Palmo 2004 = Eugenie de Jong (alias Ani Jinpa Palmo), The Great Image: The Life Story of Vairochana the Translator Compiled by Yudra Nyingpo and Other Disciples. Boston & London: Shambhala, 2004.

Erik Pema Kunsang (comp. & tr.), Wellsprings of the Great Perfection: The Lives and Insights of the Early Masters in the Dzogchen Lineage. Boudhanath, Hong Kong, Esby: Rangjung Yeshe Publications, 2006.

Gomādevī? Gomāsālā?

The component “Goma” is known via Gomasalagandha, as the name of a stūpa, found in Tibetan sources concerning Khotan (e.g., Emmerick 1967: 3, 5, 99). To be sure, Emmerick does not comment on the spelling or etymology of the name. The name has been occasionally spelled “Gomasālagandha” as in Zhu 2018: 149, n. 17. Most of the time, however, it is spelled there “Gomasalagandha.” In the transmission lineage of the Atiyoga or rDzogs-chen tradition, a princess named Gomadevī appears. See, for example, Karmay 2007: 19. The name is spelled there as such. This spelling has been followed in Li 2018: 25–26. Her name also appears in a Mahāyoga context in the Dunhuang materials (Dalton & van Schaik 2006: 324). There the name has been spelled “Gomadevi.” There is yet another princess by the name “Gomasala” that appears in a transmission lineage of the *Guhyagarbhatantra (see, for example, Martin 1987: 201).

Could these names be in Khotanese? If these were Sanskrit, how would/should one spell them? And what would be the meaning of goma? There seems to be no Sanskrit word goma or gomā although gomātṛ can be found. Should Gomadevī be perhaps spelled “Gomādevī”? Should Gomasala be perhaps spelled Gomāsālā/Gomāśālā? I wish I knew.

Emmerick 1967 = R.E. Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan. London Oriental Series 19. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Zhu 2018 = Lishuang Zhu, “The Annals of the Noble Land Khotan: A New Translation of a Chapter of rGya bod yig tshang chen mo.” In Great Journeys across the Pamir Mountains: A Festschrift in Honor of Zhang Guangda on his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Huaiyu Chen & Xinjiang Rong. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2018, pp. 146–175.

Karmay 2007  = Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2007 [second and revised edition of Karmay 1988].  

Li 2018 =Mengyan Li, Origination, Transmission, and Reception of the Phur-pa Cycle: A Study of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Cycle of Tantric Teachings in Tibet with Special Reference to Sog-bzlog-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan’s (1552–1624) Phur pa’i lo rgyus. Doctoral Dissertation. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2018 (published electronically in 2019 at: https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de).

Dalton & van Schaik 2006 = Jacob Dalton & Sam van Schaik, Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Stein Collection at the British Library. Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 12. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2006.

Martin 1987 = Dan Martin, “Illusion Web—Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual History.” In Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, edited by Christopher I. Beckwith. Bloomington: The Tibet Society, 1987, pp. 175–220.  

Why “dbu ma” and not “dbus ma”?

2014: It is very refreshing to listen to the talk of gZam-gdong Rin-po-che posted on the youtube. One of the intriguing questions posed by him concerns the etymology of the Tibetan word dbu ma. The key question is: Why dbu ma and not dbus ma? Along with gZam-gdong Rin-po-che, one does feel that Tibetan translators must have had a reason for choosing the expression dbu ma. During that session, several scholars offered different kinds of explanations. The first explanation is that the component dbu in dbu ma is indeed the same dbu, namely, honorific of mgo (“head”). That is, madhyamaka is called dbu ma because it is the “head” or “crown” or “zenith” of the four Buddhist philosophical systems. The second explanation is that madhya is rendered into Tibetan as dbus and madhyama as dbu ma. The third explanation is that the primary postscript (rjes ’jug) s in dbus has been eventually dropped because it has no longer been reflected in the pronunciation. There were also other attempts at explanation. None of the explanations convinced gZam-gdong Rin-po-che. The first explanation, as gZam-gdong Rin-po-che pointed out, is an indigenous Tibetan interpretation. Apparently he is also not convinced of the second explanation mainly because the word dbu in Tibetan (apart from the case of dbu ma) does not have a known meaning of “middle.” The third explanation is not convincing because one may drop secondary postscript (yang ’jug) but one usually does not drop primary postscript (rjes ’jug). To add would be that it is not quite true that dbus ma and dbu ma would be phonetically indistinguishable (at least not according to all Tibetan regional dialects). Besides, even some of the earliest Tibetan sources seem to have only dbu ma and never dbus ma. A search for the word dbus ma in http://otdo.aa.tufs.ac.jp does not yield any result. In such a situation, I wish we had a comprehensive and reliable historical-etymological Tibetan dictionary. Just like gZam-gdong Rin-po-che, perhaps most of us are not convinced of the above attempted explanations. The fact that madhya is rendered as dbus and madhyama as dbu ma, though an important observation, still does not answer the question whether the word dbu in Tibetan ever meant “middle” (except of course in our case). 

2018: I shall attempt two wild speculations. The first one was made in 2014. The second was made yesterday (10.01.2018). Firstly, could it be that the Tibetan word dbu had another meaning which got faded away in course of time? The only word I can think of which contains dbu but one that does not mean “head” (honorific) is dbu ba (= lbu ba) “bubble.” Let us also consider: sbug ma (= nang gi nang) “inner chamber,” sbu gu (= sbug) “hollow/cavity,” ’bigs pa (verb) “to pierce,” dbugs (“breath”), and sbubs “interior space.” I do not know if you can sense anything common in all of these words. I, on my part, would like to think that these words are somehow connected with “an empty space inside,” let us say, a “space in the middle.” My speculation is that Tibetan translators indeed understood dbu ma in the sense of “innermost” or “middlemost” or “centermost” dimension of reality (like the centermost space in a room). Perhaps they intended to distinguish madhya (i.e., positive) from madhyama (i.e., superlative) by rendering the former as dbus and the latter as dbu ma. Finally the component ma in dbu ma might have been intended to express the feminine gender (of madhyamā pratipad) (as in the case of gzungs ma).

Secondly, Orna and I were able to call on Professor Seyfort Ruegg at his place in London. We spent several hours talking about all kinds of things. One of the topics was why Tibetans translated madhyamaka as dbu ma. It was important for him not to confuse madhyamaka with madhyamā pratipad. Of course, I consented. All Buddhist schools would maintain that they endorse and follow the madhyamā pratipad, and yet some would oppose the Madhyamaka philosophy. Go-ram-pa has made this point explicit already. He also wondered why madhyama has also been rendered as ’bring. I suggested that when madhyama referred to degree, mass, measurement (of space and time), and the like, Tibetans seem to have translated it as ’bring and bar ma. Cf. rab ’bring tha gsum, chung ’bring che gsum, thog tha bar gsum, etc. See, for example, the Tibetan translation of mṛdumadhyādhimātra. We asked many such questions without proposing any answers. But now, I wish to return to the question: why dbu ma and not dbus ma? I venture to make a new speculation again. But first, let us consider the Tibetan translation of madhyāha (“mid-day”) as nyi ma’i gung (Mahāvyutpatti, no. 8248). Here, madhya has been rendered as gung. What does gung really mean? I would like to think gung should mean something like “highest point, high point, crowning point, height, top, acme, peak, pinnacle, apex, apogee, vertex, tip, crown, crest, summit, climax, culmination, meridian.” That is, the sun at his highest point when it is right “over-head.” The key Tibetan word here is “head,” here honorifically rendered as dbu, and the key word here is also “meridian” which contains the word medius. The success and elegance of translating madhya as dbu ma is two-fold. It not only expresses “meridian” but also the “zenith.” To translate such a key philosophical term as bar ma or ’bring would have been neither accurate nor elegant nor flattering. We notice that my suggestion here is somehow in conformity with one of the suggestions given above. However, the idea of zenith or “crown” alone does not seem sufficient in explaining the word dbu ma. The idea of medius must be there. If we, thus, understand dbu ma in the sense of gung as in nyi ma gung (“meridian”), the etymology seems plausible. Thus dbu ma seems to have been intended to express the “mid-point” as well as the “highest point.”

2023: Until today (i.e., 27.05.2023), the answers (including my own) to the question “Why dbu ma and not dbus ma?” have not been satisfactory or convincing. But today a Facebook friend (i.e., Gonpo Wangdrak) posted something on the Facebook. According to him, dbu had initially two meanings, namely, dbu “centre/central” (as in dBu-ru “Central Horn”) and “head” (honorific). Similarly, g.yo has two meanings, namely, “left” (as in g.Yo-ru “Left Horn”) and in g.yo as in g.yo sgyu “crook/crooked.” Later on, in order to avoid confusion, an s post-script was added to the dbu in the sense of “center” and hence resulting in dbus. Similarly, to avoid confusing g.yo having the sense of “left” with g.yo having the sense of “to oscillate,” “crook/crooked,” “deceit/deceptive,” and so on, the postscript n was added to the former thus yielding g.yon. We do, however, also find what seems to be the nominalized form of g.yo in the second sense, namely, g.yon as in g.yon can. Additional cases and counter-examples may help us further corroborate the explanation. The orthography dbu ma can thus be said to have been fixed and “frozen” before such a distinction was introduced. This explanation seems to be as simple as it is convincing. But does this mean than dbus ma never occurs? A quick search in the Negi’s Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionary (s.v. dbus ma) reveals that it is actually not true (i.e., si lectio certa). Also a search in the rKTS yields numerous hits. What is, however, conspicuous is that almost all of these hits have to do with the literal or non-technical meaning of dbus ma. Even in rare cases such as in skye ba dang ’jig pa med pa’i phyir dbus ma dbus su gnas pa yang med pa’o || (i.e., si lectio certa and if there is no varia lectio), the expression dbus ma seems to be still used in a literal sense. By the way, we notice that also dbu ma has been used in a literal and non-technical sense. My conclusion for now would be that while both dbu ma and dbus ma have been employed in a literal or non-technical sense of the “middle,” only dbu ma seems to be employed as a terminus technicus for the “Middle/Middlemost Way.” Thus, while the occurrence of dbu ma’i lam is abundant, the occurrence of dbus ma’i lam seems to be either considerably insignificant or doubtful.

April 23, 2024: Let us say that dbu did once have the meaning of “central/middle” as in dbu ru. In addition, I wish to note that madhyama as been translated as gung (Ejima 1985: 792) meaning “highest point, high point, crowning point.”

What is “mya”?

Tibetan words containing the component mya seem to be rare. I know of only two words, namely, mya ngan “trouble, misery, affliction” (Jäschke 1881) and mya ngam “a fearful desert” (ibid.) in which the component mya appears. The former can be contracted to myang just as yi ge contracted to yig and cho ga to chog (Beyer 1992: 93).  But what could be the meaning of mya? I wonder.

PS. Out of a desire to know what I did not know, I exposed my ignorance. And now I am happy that I did. Nicola Bajetta brought this article to my attention, for which I am thankful: Joanna Bialek, “The Tibetan Fiery Way to Nirvāṇa: Reflections on Old Tibetan mya ngan.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 52 (2), 2017, pp. 60–96. I am yet to study this article carefully. The crux of the matter seems to be that the component mya is derived from mye?

Kamalaśīla on Tathāgatagarbha

I am not aware of any study that is devoted exclusively to Kamalaśīla’s interpretation of the tathāgatagarbha theory. We do know, however, that “Kamalaśīla was perhaps the first of the leading Madhyamaka masters to incorporate the theory of the tathāgatagarbha into one of the main schools of Madhyamaka thought” (Seyfort Ruegg 1981: 95, n. 308). We do not have any work of Śāntarakṣita that could disclose his position on the tathāgatagarbha theory. Kamalaśīla in his Madhyamakāloka  (Penpa Dorjee 2001: 20) refutes those who interpret away the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha and ekayāna. He defends these doctrines as reasonable (Penpa Dorjee 2001: 500–501). He explicitly mentions the term tathāgatagarbha and the theory that all sentient beings will become buddhas, an idea proposed by the Samādhirājasūtra (Kano 2015: 72, n. 92): buddha bhaviṣyati sarvajano ’yam nāstiha kaścid abhājanasattvo ||; Tib. ’gro ba ’di dag thams cad sangs rgyas ’ gyur || ’di na snod min sems can gang yang med ||. As far as I understand, Kamalaśīla seems to offer two interpretations of tathāgatagarbha. First, he is interpreting the tathāgatagarbha as the attainability (thob par rung ba nyid) of Buddhahood, or rather, the potentiality/feasibility of becoming a buddha. For this, he is resorting to the idea of the intrinsic luminosity/purity of the mind and the extraneity of the impurities of the mind. Second, he interprets tathāgata as dharmadhātu characterized by pudgaladharmanairātmya and is prakṛtiprabhāsvara. Significantly, he states that “all [sentient beings] are characterized by the nature of anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi” (thams cad bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub kyi rang bzhin). Kamalaśīla’s logic behind the ekayāna theory seems to be similar to that of Candrakīrti’s. That is, because there is only one true reality as the cognitive object, there can only be one cognitive subject. That is, so to speak, there is only one starting point, one path/vehicle, and one goal. This is what I can make of Kamalaśīla’s interpretation of the tathāgatagarbha theory based on the Tibetan translation of his Madhyamakāloka. One question that comes to my mind is whether his Yogācāra-Madhyamaka philosophy can be considered, at least in essence, consistent with the philosophy of the Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda. Considering his understanding of the idea of the Middle Way found in the Kāśyapaparivarta(sūtra) and Samādhirājasūtra, my answer would be in the affirmative.

A Mantricized Diesease?

Rong-zom-pa, in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, cites a verse from a certain Tantric source. See the dKon mchog ’grel (pp. 230.23–231.1): gsang sngags kyi tshul las kyang ’di skad du | sngags kyis yongs su zin pa’i nad || kun la gnod par byed mi nus || de bzhin thabs kyis zin pa yis || dug gsum sdug bsngal gnod mi ’gyur || zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs pa lta bu’o ||. I am actually not sure of the syntax of the verse cited by Rong-zom-pa. It seems to mean that a mantricized disease is incapable of harming a person even if he or she may have got the disease. What is the source of this verse? Perhaps it is the *Guhyagarbhatantra in 80 Chapters (Bᴷ, vol. 102, pp. 695.20–696.1): sngags kyis yongs su zin pa’i nad || kun la gnod par byed mi nus || de bzhin thabs dang shes rab rtogs || dug gsum sdug bsngal gnod mi ’gyur ||. Something similar can also be found in the *Vajravyūhatantra in 75 Chapters states (Bᴷ, vol. 101, p. 651.17–18): sngags kyis yongs su zin pa’i nad gang la’ang gnod par byed mi nus | de bzhin nyid kyis zin pa yi || dug gsum dug lngas gnod mi ’gyur ||. It appears that these should be in verses: sngags kyis yongs su zin pa’i nad || gang la’ang gnod par byed mi nus || de bzhin nyid kyis zin pa yi || dug gsum dug lngas gnod mi ’gyur ||. By the way, it is possible that the title of the principal Anuyogatantric scripture,  the *Vajravyūhatantra, was inspired by the chapter title of the Guhyasamājatantra. The title Vajravyūha occurs as the name of the third chapter, the Samādhipaṭala of the Guhyasamājatantra (Matsunaga 1978: 11). A similar idea can be found in the Kāśyapaparivarta(sūtra) (Bᴷ, vol. 44, p. 357.16–18): dper na sngags kyis yongs su zin pa’i dug ||  skye bo rnams la nyes pa byed mi nus || de bzhin byang chub sems dpa’i ye shes can || nyon mongs rnams kyis log ltung byed mi nus ||. The corresponding Sanskrit text should be traced and added here.

A Note on the Madhyamakāloka

I wish to simply note here a few points regarding Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka (D3887; P5287; L585; K537). The Sanskrit text of the Madhyamakāloka is not known to exist. But the Sanskrit texts of its passages cited in the Munimatālaṃkāra have been published by some Japanese scholars. One would also expect to find a number of Sanskrit texts of scriptures and treatises cited in the Madhyamakāloka. Leonard van der Kuijp has drawn our attention to an Indic commentary of it mentioned in the elusive Jñānavajra’s commentary on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. It is called there De kho na nyid kyi sgron ma and reconstructed as *Tattvapradīpa (van der Kuijp 2014; Tibskrit). It has been compounded with Madhyamakālokabhāṣya, which seems to be less probable. rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab is said to have composed a summary of it (van der Kuijp 2014: 2). Phya-pa composed an introduction to the Madhyamakāloka. It is called the dBu ma snang ba’i gzhung gi don rigs pa’i tshul dang myi ’gal zhing blo chung bas kyang bde blag tu rtogs pa byis pa’i ’jug ngogs (ibid.).  Sog-po bsTan-dar (1835–1915) also composed the dBu ma snang ba’i brjed tho (Penpa Dorjee 2001: 62; van der Kuijp 2014: 2). Some Tibetan scholars such as mKhas-grub-rje and lCang-skya questioned Kamalaśīla’s authorship of the Madhyamālaṃkārapañjikā but Tsong-kha-pa himself had accepted the attribution on the ground that Dharmamitra had  accepted it (Penpa Dorjee 2001: 57). There is, however, no doubt regarding the authorship of the Madhyamakāloka. To be noted is that it was translated into Tibetan by Śīlendrabodhi and dPal-brtsegs-rakṣi-ta. It is also recorded in the lDan dkar ma (L585) and ’Phang thang ma (K537). Perhaps the most detailed study of the Madhyamakāloka is Keira 2004, although it only deals with selected sections of the second chapter. The Tibetan text has been critically edited in Penpa Dorjee 2001. Attempts have been made there to identity sources cited  in the Madhyamakāloka (from the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur). But there remain several unidentified sources. For example, on one occasion, the text states (Penpa Dorjee 2001: 380–381): de bzhin du gtsug lag gi tshigs su bcad pa | gang la ngo bo nyid ni yod min pa || dngos po med de ji ltar gzhan rkyen can || ngo bo nyid med gzhan gyis ci zhig skyed || gtan tshigs de ni bde bar gshegs pas bstan || ces bya ba yin no ||.  Here the editor states: “Source not obtained” (khungs ma rnyed). The verse, obviously a different translation,  can be found in the Tibetan translation of the Prasannapadā (Bᵀ, vol. 60, p. 72.6–8): gang gi ngo bo nyid ni mi rnyed pa || rang bzhin med de ji ltar gzhan gyi rkyen || rang bzhin med pa gzhan gyis ci zhig bskyed || rgyu de bde bar gshegs pas bstan pa’o ||. Here the source is specified as the Ratnākarasūtra (dKon mchog ’byung gnas kyi mdo). Indeed, these verses can be found in the Tibetan translation of the Ratnākarasūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 54, p. 327.3–6): gang gis ngo bo nyid ni mi rnyed par || rang bzhin de med ji ltar gzhan gyi rkyen || rang bzhin med pa gzhan gyis ci zhig skyed || rgyu de bde bar gshegs pas bstan pa’o ||. I am not reproducing here the variae lectiones. The text should be checked against the Sanskrit text of the Prasannapadā. It is possible that Pa-tshab is taking over the existing translation of the Ratnākarasūtra and not translating from the Sanskrit text of the Prasannapadā, in which case, it would further support Anne MacDonald’s theory that this is how he usually worked.

My Confusion of Byang-chub-rdzu-’phrul & Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan

Past mistakes feel like fishbones that one has swallowed but that somehow got stuck somewhere. For example, let us take the following bibliographical detail in my monograph on bodhicitta (Wangchuk 2007: 401): “Byang-chub-rdzu-’phrul, Saṃdhinirmocanasūtravyākhyāna. P 5845; D 4358, S 3603, vol. 115.” There are two mistakes here. I stupidly gave the siglum S (Sichuan) instead of perhaps B (Beijing). This was, however, corrected in Delhey 2013: 513, n. 65. The next mistake is that I indicated Byang-chub-rdzu-’phrul as the author of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtravyākhyāna (P5845; D4358). The authorship of this commentary has been an issue also in the Tibetan tradition. Some had attributed it to Asaṅga but Bu-ston rejected this attribution. He instead believed it to be by Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan. Recently, mKhan-po dPal-bzang-dar-rgyas followed his suit. See mKhan-po dPal-bzang-dar-rgyas Dol-po (Khenpo Palzang Dargye Dolpo), Bod kyi tshad gzhung thog ma: Chos rgyal khri srong lde’u btsan gyi rnam thar dang | bka’ yang dag pa’i tshad ma’i brjod bya rjod byed la zhib ’jug. Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre Publication Series 2. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2021, pp. 7, 507, etc. mKhan-po here is of course mainly using Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan’s commentary as a testimony to support his identification of the author of the bKa’ yang dag pa’i tshad ma.

All About Pravṛtti & Nivṛtti

dKon mchog ’grel (p. 64.14–15): gnyis pa dam tshig ni | bdag nyid chen po rnams kyi bka’ bzhin byed pa’i mtshan nyid de | de yang bya ba dang bya ba ma yin pa la ’jug pa dang ldog pa’i mtshan nyid yin no ||; Dam tshig mdo rgyas (p. 245.1–18): de la gsang sngags kyi tshul rnams las dam tshig mdo rgyas su gsungs pa rnams ji ltar shes par bya zhe na | de ltar | sngags pa khyim pa dang rab tu byung ba’am | rdo rje slob dpon byed pa dang byed pa ma yin pa’am | sgrub pa po mthong ba’i chos la dngos grub chen po la sbyor bar ’dod pa’i rtsol ba dang ldan pa ’am | de lta ba’i rtsol ba dang mi ldan pa’am | sgrub pa po nyid dam sgrub pa’i grogs mchog rnams kyis rig sngags dang gsang sngags yongs su mnyes par bya ba’i cho ga la brten nas zhi ba la sogs pa’i las phra mo bsgrub pa dang | mngon par shes pa dang rang gi lus ji rdzu ’phrul la sogs pa’i dngos grub chen po rnams bsgrub pa dang | mtho ris dang thar pa mchog nyid bsgrub par ’dod pa rnams kyi phyir | rgyal ba rnams kyis bya ba dang rnal ’byor gyi rgyud rnams su | dkon mchog dang gang zag rnams dang spyod yul dang de dag gi chos la brten pa las byung ba’i dge ba dang mi dge ba’i dngos po bya ba dang bya ba ma yin pa la ’jug pa dang ldog pa’i mtshan nyid | dam tshig gi sdom pa rnams brda sna tshogs kyi sgo nas gsungs pa ni | ’di ltar | dam tshig dang | sdom pa dang | tshul khrims dang | dka’ thub dang | brtul zhugs dang | dka’ spyod dang | ’dul ba dang | spyod pa dang | spyod yul la sogs pa’i brda sna tshogs kyis gsungs pa thams cad kyang mdor bsdu na | gzhung dang lha dang gang zag rnams kyi dbang las | spyi dang | khyad par dang | lhag pa’i dam tshig rnam su ’dus par shes par bya ste | de las kyang kun nas bsdu na ni | byang chub kyi sems yongs su gzung ba’i mtshan nyid do ||.

Nāgārjuna, Ratnāvalī 1.22 (Hahn 1982: 10): nivṛttir aśubhāt kṛtsnāt pravṛttis tu śubhe sadā | manasā karmaṇā vācā dharmo ’yaṃ dvividhaḥ smṛtaḥ ||; Tib. (Hahn 1982: 11): yid dang lus dang ngag gis ni || mi dge kun las ldog bya zhing || dge la rtag tu ’jug bya ba || chos ’di rnam pa gnyis su bshad ||.

Apropos Rong-zom-pa & the Tantrārthāvatāra

On an earlier occasion I alluded to Rong-zom-pa’s reliance on Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra. Here is one more case. See the dKon mchog ’grel (p. 231.3–5): de la gsang sngags kyi tshul du ji ltar nyon mongs pa rnams kyis phan ’dogs par byed ce na | ’di skad du |  ’jig rten chags pa med pas ’dul || phyag rgya grub pa chags las byung || zhes gsungs pa lta bu dang |. Cf. Buddhaguhya, Tantrārthāvatāra (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 1175.12–16): lhag par rjes su chags pas rang gi lha’i bsgom pa ni thabs kyi cho ga ste | de yang ’dir gsungs pa | ’jig rten chags pa med par ’dul || phyag rgya grub pa chags las ’byung || de la chags ni bsgom pa ste || thams cad ’grub par byed pa’i mchog || ces bya’o ||.  The editors seem to have considered the pādas c and d to be part of the prose text. I treated these as verse lines. The verse text seems to be treated by Buddhaguhya to be scriptural/authoritative and not certainly as his own composition. It appears that Rong-zom-pa is actually relying here on the Tantrārthāvatāra and not on its source. I cannot for now trace the two verse lines anywhere else.

On “ngas” in “brjed ngas pa”

Recently Nicola Bajetta was wondering what ngas in brjed ngas pa could mean. I had no clue either. We looked up Jäschke. The first meaning (i.e., instrumental of nga) is irrelevant and uninteresting. The second is ngas in mi ngas (occurring in Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos ’gyung), to which he states: “is undoubtedly a typographical error,” that is, for mi nad. He also points out that Schiefner, who translated the rGya gar chos ’byung, “has left it without an annotation.” We then looked up bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol (s.v. ngas), which gives thal ches pa and thal drags pa as its meaning. Interestingly bTsan-lha records here brjed ngas, brtun ngas, and mu ngas. bTsan-lha’s meanings have been noted by Dung-dkar and Dan Martin as well. Of course, we know that  brjed ngas pa (TSD) renders the Sanskrit vismaraṇa, saṃpramoṣa, vismṛta, muṣitasmṛti, etc. In short, brjed ngas pa, as a noun, would mean “forgetfulness” and if it is an adjectival verb, as it seems to be, it would be something like “to be forgetful.” Second, brtun ngas pa is supposed to render rabhasa (TSD), “impetuous, violent” and “impetuosity, vehemence” (MW). Third, mi ngas is said to render māri (→Udrāyaṇāvadāna), “pestilence.” Tibetan dictionaries also record it as a lexeme. In this case,  Jäschke is both right and wrong. He is right because mi ngas has been glossed as a kind of mi nad. But he is wrong because mi ngas is certainly not a typographical error. A search in the BDRC yields several instances where the word seems to be used either in the sense of “pestilence” or of some kind of “calamity.” Now the question is: What is the common semantic element in these three words expressed by ngas? bTsan-lha’s meaning does not seem to work here. I also cannot account for his mu ngas. Perhaps, this is an error for mi ngas? He seems to have deduced the meaning of ngas wrongly. In my view, ngas in the first two words seems to carry the semantic weight of “to have the likeliness/tendency” or “to be prone to” (something). Thus, brjed ngas pa seems to mean something like “to have the likeliness/tendency to forget” and brtun ngas pa “to have the tendency to explode” (i.e., to have the tendency to lose one’s temper). What about mi ngas pa? I must admit that my explanation does not work well with this. Perhaps “to have the potential to [cause disaster to] humans”? I wish I had a better explanation.

Postscript: As pointed out by Chung-tshe-ring brjed ngas has also been spelled brjed ngad. This can be confirmed by searching the BDRC. What is, however, note worthy is that this spelling does not seem to occur in allochthonous Tibetan sources but does so only in some autochthonous Tibetan sources. Of course, the various shades of the meaning of ngad have been well documented. The question is whether brjed ngad pa is simply an orthographical/typographical error for brjed ngas pa, or, whether it is an acceptable orthographical variant. If it is an acceptable orthographical variant, the meaning nus pa might work best here. That is, brjed ngad pa might mean something like “to have the potency/potentiality (i.e., tendency) to forget.”

A Verse from the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra

Rong-zom-pa cites a verse in his lTa ba’i brjed byang (pp. 25.19–26.1): ji skad du | gang gis stong nyid mi shes pa || de yis mya ngan ’das mi shes || de phyir dngos dang dngos med pa || ’jig pas stong nyid shes par bya || zhes gsungs pa lta bu yin te | dngos por lta ba ma log par mtshan nyid kyi blo ldog par mi ’gyur ro || de ma log na sred pa’i blo ldog par mi ’gyu ro || ji srid du sred pa ma log pa de srid du | srid pa kun tu sbyor ba ldog par mi ’gyur ro || ’di ni gang zag la bdag med par rtogs pa’i shugs kyis | chos mnyam pa nyid du lam bstan pa yin no ||. The verse may sound as if it were from one of the verses from Nāgārjuna’s works but it is not the case. It is from the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra (T454; P126; D494; Bᴷ, vol. 86, p. 447.2–4): gang dag stong nyid mi shes pa || de dag mya ngan ’das mi shes || de phyir dngos dang dnogs med pa || ’jig pas stong nyid shes par bya ||. Of course, Rong-zom-pa could have cited either from the Tibetan translation of the Tantric scripture directly or from the Tibetan translation of Buddhaguhya’s commentary. In terms of Rong-zom-pa’s line of thought here, it reminds one a little of Ratnāvalī 1.35.

Rong-zom-pa and the *Amṛtāgama Again

In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote a small piece on “Rong-zom-pa and the bDud rtsi’i lung.” See https://sudharmablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/10/rong-zom-pa-and-the-bdud-rtsii-lung. To judge by the rKTS, what Rong-zom-pa calls the bDud rtsi’i lung has several long and short alternative titles, but the closest ones seem to be bDud rtsi chen po mchog gi lung and bDud rtsi bum pa’i lung (D841; P464; Bᴷ, vol. 103). I realize that there is one more piece of evidence suggesting that this Tantric (i.e., Anuyogatantric according to the epilogue/colophon) scripture (i.e., *Amṛtāgama) was known to Rong-zom-pa in the eleventh century. In his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, he states (p. 233.15–17): de bas na ’di lta bu’i ngang la gnas na | mi zhes bya ba sangs rgyas yin || bcom ldan ’das ni gud na med || ces gsungs pa lta bu yin la | ’das na sangs rgyas ma yin no || zhes gsungs pa yin no ||. The pāda, ’das na sangs rgyas ma yin no ||, is from the *Guhyagarbhatantra. As we can see, Rong-zom-pa specifies no source. But the two-pāda citation can be traced in the *Amṛtāgama (Bᴷ, vol. 103, p. 593.2): mi zhes bya ba sangs rgyas yin || bcom ldan ’das ni gud na med ||. The citation may be terse but doctrinally the concept that a human being is an awakened being by nature is quite significant.

Rong-zom-pa and the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra

There are two similar sounding Tantric scriptures in Tibetan translation in the bKa’ ’gyur, namely, the *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra (D451; P86; T413; Bᴷ, vol. 82) and Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra (D490; P123; T449; Bᴷ, vol. 86). The former was translated by Kamalagupta and lHa Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan. Kamalagupta also collaborated with Lo-chen Rin-chen-bzang-po (958–1055). The latter was translated by Sugataśrī and Sa-skya-paṇḍita but was somewhat incomplete (cung zad ma rdzogs pa). Blo-gros-brtan-pa completed it. It is then said to be revised by Bu-ston (according the colophon in T).

As Péter-Dániel Szántó points out, the Sanskrit title Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra is well attested (Vilāsavajra’s Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī and (Mantric) Āryadeva’s Sūtaka). Of the two early attestations, the former is significant for our present purpose, especially because, as Nicola Bajetta has demonstrated a couple of times, Rong-zom-pa, in his commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti, has heavily relied on it. See Vilāsavajra, Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī (Tribe 2016: 257.4); Tib. (Bᵀ, 32, p. 99.2); Isaacson & Sferra 2014: 28). These details are from our unpublished ITLR entry. As for the title *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra, we shall, for now, mark it with an asterisk. The *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra (D451; P86; T413) is said to be one of the six “explanatory Tantric scriptures” (vyākhyātantra: bshad pa’i rgyud) of the Guhyasamājatantra (Sugiki 2022).

Now the  eleventh-century Rong-zom-pa alludes to one rDo rje snying po rgyan gyi rgyud at least on two occasions, namely, in his commentary on the Man ngag lta phreng by Padmasambhava (according to communis opinio). See his lTa phreng ’grel pa (p. 345.10–12): rdo rje snying po rgyan gyi rgyud las | sangs rgyas kyi sa’ bcu’ gnyis gsungs te | de yang thabs dang shes rab gnyis | sku lnga ye shes lnga ste bcu’ gnyis la bzhag par snang ngo ||. Similarly, his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra (p. 152.17–19) states: ’di ltar rdo rje snying po rgyan gyis rgyud las | sangs rgyas kyi sa bcu gnyis gsungs pa yang rigs lnga dang ye shes lnga dang | thabs dang shes rab kyi bdag nyid du gsungs pa lta bu’o ||. In the former instance, he seems less certain but in the latter more confident. I failed to find the reference to the twelve buddhabhūmis in the *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra but in the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra, we find the following verses (Bᴷ, vol. 86, pp. 133.17–134.9): byang chub sems ni ’od gsal ba || kun du ’od kyi sa chen po || nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor gzi brjid ldan || gnyis pa bdud rtsi’i ’od ces bya || zla ba’i ’od ni ’od gsal ba || gsum pa nam mkha’i ’od ces bya || mkha’ bzhin legs par rab tu gnas || rdo rje’i ’od mtha’ gang zhig sa || bzhi pa de ni yid ’ong ba || bsam pa brtan pa’i sbyor ba yis || rdo rje zhes ni yongs su bsgrags || lnga pa rin chen ’od ces bya || dbang bskur bar ni rab tu gnas || drug pa padmo ’chang zhes bya || pad bzhin rab tu rnam par snang || rang bzhin gyis ni chos nyid dag | bdag gi med cing yongs bzung mad || bdun pa las kyi ’od ces bya || sangs rgyas ’phrin las mdzad pa che || brgyad pa dpe med pa zhes bya || dpe ni de la yod ma yin || dgu pa dpe dang bral zhes bya || dpe rnams thams cad rab ’jug pa || bcu pa shes rab ’od ces bya || sangs rgyas sa ni bla na med || bcu gcig kun mkhyen nyid ces bya || sa chen po ni ’od gsal ba || bcu gnyis so sor bdag rig pa || rnal ’byor ye shes yongs rdzogs nyid || sa chen po ni ’di dag rnams ||. Fortunately, the Sanskrit text of these verses can be recovered from the Gūḍhapadā possibly by Advayavajra (Tribe 1994; Szántó 2010). I reproduce here the Sanskrit text kindly shared by Szántó. Gūḍhapadā (Ms Royal Asiatic Society, Hodgson 34, fols. 17v–18r): śrīvajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantre dvādaśatathāgatabhūmayaḥ paṭhyante—samantaprabhā mahābhūmiḥ sūryamaṇḍalavarcasā | amitaprabhā dvitīyā tu candravat suprabhā tathā || gaganaprabhā tṛtīyā tu gaganabhūmipratiṣṭhitā | vajraprabhā tu yā bhūmiḥ caturthī sā manoramā || dṛḍhādhyāśayayogena vajreti parikalpyate | pañcamī ratnaprabhā nāma abhiṣeke pratiṣṭhitā || ṣaṣṭhī padmaprabhā nāma padmavat suvirājate | svabhāvaśuddhadharmatvān nirmalā niṣparigrahā || saptamī karmaprabhā nāma buddhakarī smṛtā | aṣṭamī anupamā nāma upamā tatra na vidyate || navamī nirupamā nāma sarvopamā prativedhakaḥ | daśamī prajñāprabhā nāma buddhabhūmir anuttarā || ekādaśī sarvajñatā mahābhūmiḥ prabhāsvarā | dvādaśī pratyātmavedyā tu yogijñānaprapūraketi || etā dvādaśa tathāgatabhūmayo ’kārādi dvādaśasvaraiḥ pariniṣpannā veditavyāḥ ||.

To be sure, Rong-zom-pa does not cite the verses from the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra in full. He is merely referring to the idea of the twelve buddhabhūmis found therein and trying to make sense of it. He could not have referred to the *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra translated by Kamalagupta and lHa Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan because we do not find the pertinent verses in it. Chronologically, Rong-zom-pa referring to the Tibetan translation of the *Vajrahṛdayālaṃkāratantra would pose no difficulties. Rong-zom-pa’s reference to the Tibetan translation of the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra would be chronologically not possible because it was translated later by Sa-paṇ (although not quite complete). Rong-zom-pa’s knowledge of the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāratantra and its idea of the twelve buddhabhūmis must be based on Vilāsavajra’s Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī or/and the Gūḍhapadā possibly by Advayavajra, although the latter has apparently not been translated into Tibetan (Tribe 2015: 358). This is, however, not an occasion to explore Rong-zom-pa’s possible doctrinal affinity with that of Advayavajra.

Rong-zom-pa’s Source of the Tetralemmic Deconstruction of Arising

Rong-zom-pa, while explaining “tetralemmic refutation/negation of arising [of phenomena]” (mu bzhi’i skye ba ’gog pa), also called in other Tibetan sources “the reasoning of the tetralemmic refutation/negation of arising” (mu bzhi skye ’gog gi gtan tshigs; mu bzhi skye ’gog gi rigs pa), cites a verse simply stating “from an authoritative source” (lung las). See his Grub mtha’i brjed byang (p. 210.12–14): mu bzhi’i skye ba ’gog pa ni | lung las | gcig gis gcig gi dngos mi skyed || gcig gis du ma’i dngos mi skyed || du mas gcig gi dngos mi skyed || du mas du ma’i dngos mi skyed || ces ’byung ngo ||. It is evident that it is a tetralemmic version of the reasoning of “being devoid/bereft of the essential nature of one and many” (ekānekasvabhāvarahita: gcig dang du ma’i rang bzhin dang bral ba), or, “absence/lack of one and many” (ekānekaviyoga: gcig dang du ma bral ba) employed for deconstructing the origination, or, the notion of the origination of phenomena. My concern here is trying to identify Rong-zom-pa’s source.

We find several Indian works in Tibetan translation that contain this verse with some variations. The idea itself is found also in some prose works, for example, in Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka (Bᵀ, vol. 62, pp. 1127.9–1128.8). But two of these sources seem to be primary, and the rest of the sources seem to be drawing on from one of these. First, we have Jñānagarbha’s Satyadvayavibhaṅgakārikā (D3881; missing in P) translated by Śīlendrabodhi and Ye-shes-sde, which reads (Satyadvayavibhaṅgakārikā 14, Bᵀ, vol. 62, p. 756.16–18; Eckel 1987: 165): du mas gcig gi dngos mi byed || du mas du ma byed ma yin || gcig gis du ma’i dngos mi byed || gcig gis gcig byed pa yang min ||. Of course, we also have the auto-commentary, Satyadvayavibhaṅgavṛtti (Bᵀ, vol. 62, p. 771.2–4): du mas dngos po gcig mi byed || du mas du ma byed ma yin || gcig gis du ma’i dngos mi byed || gcig gis gcig byed pa yang min ||. In addition, we have Śāntarakṣita’s Satyadvayavibhaṅgapañjikā (D3883; P5283; Bᵀ, vol. 62, p. 827.17–19): du mas dngos po gcig mi byed || du mas du ma byed ma yin || gcig gis du ma’i dngos mi byed || gcig gis gcig byed pa yang min ||. The variants are hardly significant except that the wording and sequence of the verse lines here differ from those cited by Rong-zom-pa. The verse cited in the A ti sha’i gsung ’bum (p. 682.6–7) follows the readings of the Satyadvayavibhaṅgapañjikā: du mas dngos po gcig mi byed || du mas du ma byed ma yin || gcig gis du ma’i dngos mi byed || gcig gis gcig byed pa yang min ||.

Second, the other primary source of the verse is the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa by one Bhavya/Bhāviveka/Bhāvaviveka (Bᵀ, vol. 57, p. 1500.14–16): gcig las du ma’i [mas B] dngos mi skye || du mas gcig gi dngos mi skyed || gcig las gcig kyang mi skye zhing || du ma las kyang du ma min ||. The issue of the authorship of the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa is, however, not resolved. According to Lindtner 1980: 31–32, the same author, namely, the sixth-century Bhavya/Bhāviveka/Bhāvaviveka, who composed the Tarkajvāla, also composed the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa. But the problem is that it contains references to Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti, and also “its doctrine bears the stamp of later developments, including some inspired by the Vajrayāna” (Seyfort Ruegg 1981: 66; Eckel 1987: 18–19; 58–59, n. 5). According to Seyfort Ruegg, this “Bhavya” is presumably an another later Bhavya.

My initial feeling has been that Rong-zom-pa is citing from the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa (D3854; P5254) translated by rGya brTson-’grus-seng-ge and Nag-tsho Tshul-khrims-rgyal-ba. But now I am no longer sure. He might have also had access to the Sanskrit texts of one of the two works, and offered his own translation. Apart from some differences in the wording, we also notice three different sequences of one and many: (1) one, one, many, many; (3) many, many, one, one; and (3) one, many, one, many.

Rong-zom-pa and Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 22

Rong-zom-pa in his lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 25.4–6) cites Yuktiṣaṣṭikā/Yuktiṣaṣṭi 22: skye ba shes pas ’jig pa shes || ’jig pa shes pas mi rtag shes || mi rtag nyid la ’jug shes pas || chos kyi dam pa rtogs par ’gyur ||. He does indicate the source as “Ācārya Nāgārjunapāda” (Slob-dpon Klu-sgrub-zhabs) but without mentioning the title of the work. Two Sanskrit reconstructions of the verse can be found in Li & Ye 2014: 48, but obviously Yuktiṣaṣṭikā/Yuktiṣaṣṭi 22 in original Sanskrit has not yet been recovered. A total of 22 and a half verses in Sanskrit have been recovered thus far. For the variants of the part of pāda-c, see the following:

Nāgārjuna, Yuktiṣaṣṭikā/Yuktiṣaṣṭi 22 (Scherrer-Schaub 1991: 11; Lindtner 1997: 78; Li & Ye 2014: 48): skye ba shes pas ’jig pa shes || ’jig pa shes pas mi rtag shes || mi rtag nyid la ’jug shes pas || dam pa’i chos kyang rtogs par ’gyur ||. This is from the Tibetan translation of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā/Yuktiṣaṣṭi “revised and finalized” (bcos te gtan la phab pa) by Muditaśrī and Pa-tshab Nyi-ma-grags (Scherrer-Schaub 1991: 18).

Candrakīrti, Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti (Scherrer-Schaub 1991: 61; Li & Ye 2014: 48): skye ba shes pas ’jig pa shes || ’jig pa shes pas mi rtag shes || mi rtag nyid la ’jug shes pas || des ni chos kyang rtogs par ’gyur ||. This is from the Tibetan translation of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti made by Jinamitra, Dānaśīla, Śīlendrabodhi, and Ye-shes-sde (Scherrer-Schaub 1991: 98).

Rong-zom-pa’s reading may reflect the reading of the unrevised earlier translation of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā/Yuktiṣaṣṭi. The earlier translation of it is recorded in the lDan dkar ma (L591) and ’Phang thang ma (K529). Also the Tibetan translation of the commentary is recorded in the two imperial catalogs (L592, K530).

Rong-zom-pa and Ācārya Sūryasiṃha

Kong-sprul, in his Shes bya gter mdzod, speaks of six Indian commentaries on  the *Guhyagarbhatantra: (1) Vilasāvajra/Lilavajra’s sPar khab,  (2) Buddhaguhya’s rNam dbye ’grel, (3) Vimalamitra’s ’Grel pa khog gzhung, (4) Candragomin’s rGya mdud ’grel, (5) *Sūryasiṃhaprabha’s rGya cher ’grel, and (6) Padmasambhava’s rNam bshad chen mo. The textual history of each of these allochthonous commentaries is, however, uncertain. Among the autochthonous Tibetan commentaries, Rong-zom-pa’s dKon mchog ’grel is the earliest full-fledged commentary. In my view, it is also the best. One of the questions that arises is whether Rong-zom-pa in the eleventh century knew these allochthonous commentaries. My concern here is whether he knew *Sūryasiṃhaprabha’s rGya cher ’grel. Usually it is said that Vilasāvajra/Lilavajra interpreted the *Guhyagarbhatantra in the light of the Mahāyoga system and *Sūryasiṃhaprabha according to the Atiyoga (i.e., rDzogs-pa-chen-po) system. In Tibet, the Rong-Klong tradition followed the latter interpretation. Indeed, as Orna Almogi, for example, pointed out (Almogi 2014: 50), this commentary does mention the term rdzogs pa chen po. I have thus far assumed somehow that Rong-zom-pa probably did not know *Sūryasiṃhaprabha’s rGya cher ’grel (*Guhyagarbhatantravyākhyāna, P4719; Bᵀ2595, vol. 43). Exceptionally, Rong-zom-pa, in a minor work of his, let us call it, the mChod pa ’bul pa, which is devoted to the topic of sbyor sgrol, states that Ācārya Sūryaprabha has taught six kinds of sbyor sgrol. He states (mChod pa ’bul pa, p. 53.20–23): slob dpon sūrya sing has | rang bzhin gyi sbyor sgrol dang | ting nge ’dzin dang | dbang po yul dus kyi dang | thabs chen po’i dang | mngon du byung ba dang | sbyor sgrol bdag la rdzogs pa drug drug tu bstan no ||. Noteworthy is that he uses the Sanskrit name “Ācārya Sūryasiṃha” and not “Ācārya *Sūryasiṃhaprabha.” Indeed, the six kinds of sbyor sgrol are discussed in Ācārya Sūryasiṃha’s *Guhyagarbhatantravyākhyāna (Bᵀ, vol. 43, p. 654.15–21): de la | sbyor sgrol bya ba kun byas kyang || rdul cha tsam yang byas pa med || ces bya ba gsungs te | kun zhes bya ba’i sgras ni sbyor sgrol rnam pa drug gzung bar bya ste | de yang gang zhe na | rang bzhin gyi sbyor sgrol dang | ting nge ’dzin gyis sbyor sgrol dang | dbang po yul dang dus kyi sbyor sgrol dang | thabs chen po’i sbyor sgrol dang | mngon du byung ba’i sbyor sgrol dang | sbyor sgrol bdag la rdzogs pa dang drug go ||. This shows that Rong-zom-pa did know Sūryasiṃha’s rGya cher ’grel. While we still cannot be sure of the history of the translation and transmission of the commentary, we can at least be sure that the commentary existed in the eleventh century, and perhaps even before.

PS. See also the dKon mchog ’grel (p. 195.18–20): slob dpon nyin byed seng ges | rnal ‘byor pa chen po’i tshul la brten nas yab yum gnyis su med par sbyor ba’i byang chub sems kyi bde ba chen po bskyed pa’i thabs su gyur pa | bde ba chen po’i man ngag ces bya ba zhig yod par grags |. It seems likely that Slob-dpon Nyin-byed-seng-ge mentioned here is our Ācārya Sūryasiṃha.

Rong-zom-pa and the Vairocanābhisambodhitantra

Rong-zom-pa, lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 7.19–21): ’di ni phung po tsam nyid de || bdag ni nam yang yod ma yin || dbang po’i grong khyer khams rnams kyis || ’jig rten don med rnam par nyams || = Vairocanābhisambodhitantra (Bᴷ, vol. 86, p. 451.10–12): ’di ni phung po tsam nyid de || bdag ni nam yang yod ma yin || dbang po’i grong khyer khams rnams kyis || ’jig rten don med rnam par nyams ||. 

Rong-zom-pa, lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 19.23–24): sems ni ngo bo nyid med phyir || rgyu dang ’bras bu rnam spang zhing || las dang tshe las rnam grol na || nam mkha’ lta bur ’gyur ba yin || = Vairocanābhisambodhitantra (Bᴷ, vol. 86, p. 574.5–7): sems ni ngo bo nyid med phyir || rgyu dang ’bras bu rnam spang zhing || las dang tshe las rnam grol na || nam mkha’ lta bur ’gyur ba yin ||.

Rong-zom-pa, lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 25.19–21): gang gis stong nyid mi shes pa || de yis mya ngan ’das mi shes || de phyir dngos dang dnogs med pa || ’jig pas stong nyid shes par bya || = Vairocanābhisambodhitantra (Bᴷ, vol. 86, p. 447.2–4): gang dag stong nyid mi shes pa || de dag mya ngan ’das mi shes || de phyir dngos dang dnogs med pa || ’jig pas stong nyid shes par bya ||. 

Rong-zom-pa and the Bhadrapālaparipṛcchāsūtra

I have been struggling quite a while trying to trace the exact location of the Bhadrapālaparipṛcchāsūtra (bZang skyong gis zhus pa’i mdo) that Rong-zom-pa  in his lTa ba’i brjed byang refers to in the following manner (p. 26.2–15): sems tsam gyis phyi rol gyi rdul phra rab la phyogs cha’i gnod pa bsgrub pas | rang gi sems dang sems las byung ba’ang rnam pa dang dus kyi cha shes kyi gnod pa ’grub bo || rdul phra rab la chos can shes pa gang gis kyang ma gurb zhes brgal na’ang | rang gi sems kyi dus kyi mtha’i skad cig ma | shes pa gang gis kyang ma dmigs so || dus kyi mtha’i skad cig ma lta zhog gi | rnam par shes pa’i khams kyi rgyu ba nyid dkyang rjes su dpag pa tsam gyi yul te | ’di skad du | bzang skyong gis zhus pa’i mdo las gzhon nu sman chen gyis zhus pa’i skabs nas | sman chen rlung gi khams ni | sgra ’ur ’ur por grags pa dang | rtsi shing g.yo ba dang | sa tshub ldang ba dang | lus g.yo bar byed pa la rjes su dpag gi | rlung gi khams ni mi mthong mi rig go ||de bzhin du rnam par shes pa’i khams de yang | dran pa dang tshor ba dang | sems pa dag las rjes su dpag gi | rnam par shes pa’i khams ni mi mthong mi rig go || zhes gsungs pa yin te | rnam par shes pa nyid kyang sems las byung ba las | rjes su dpag par bya ba yin na | de’i dus kyi mtha’i skad cig la lta ci smos | de bas na gzugs kyi mtha’ rdul phra rab dang | dus kyi mtha’ skad cig ma gnyis la | rigs pas gnod pa mtshungs so ||.

One of the factors for not being able to trace the location faster is that I have wrongly assumed that there is no Bhadrapālaparipṛcchāsūtra other than the Pratyutpannanuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra and I have been skimming through the text edited by Paul Harrison. By now it is clear that in addition to the Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra (T150; P801; Bᴷ, vol. 56; Harrison 1978), we also have the Bhadrapālaśreṣṭhiparipṛcchāsūtra (T11.39; P760.39; Bᴷ, vol. 44) transmitted in the Ratnakūṭa (dKon-brtsegs) section of the bKa’ ’gyur. The affinity of these Sūtric scriptures seems obvious. In both cases, Bhadrapāla is the main protagonist. But in the latter, there is yet another protagonist, namely, Prince *Mahābhaiṣajya (sMan-chen). Though not verbatim, Rong-zom-pa is evidently referring to the following passage from the Bhadrapālaśreṣṭhiparipṛcchāsūtra (Bᴷ, vol. 44, p. 220.7–17): dper na | rlung gi khams grang bar yang ’gyur zhing tsha bar yang ’gyur la | dri zhim por yang ldang zhing dri nga bar yang ldang ste | spyod pa de dag thams cad ni rlung gi khams kyi rkyen las byung yang rlung gi khams de yang gzugs can ma yin la | len pa’i rgyus snang ste | ji ltar rlung gi khams kyis shing g.yo ba dang | grang ba dang | tsha ba’i reg pa len pa’i rkyen byed pa las rlung gi khams shes par ’gyur ba de bzhin du rnam par shes pa’i khams ’di yang gzugs can ma yin te | gzugs len pa’i rkyen dang | ’dod pa len pa’i rkyen dang | lta ba len pa’i rkyen dang | tshul khrims dang brtul zhugs mchog tu ’dzin pa len pa’i rkyen gyis tshor ba myong bar ’gyur ro || tshor ba’i rkyen gyis lus dang kha dog skye zhing ’grub par byed pas na rnam par shes pa zhes bya’o ||. The context in which Rong-zom-pa refers to the source is the assessment of the mind-only philosophy of the Cittamātravādins. Typically, his line of argument is that the same logical analysis that Cittamātravādins employ to refute the ‘atomism’ of Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas would also refute their own ‘idealism.’

Rong-zom-pa on Transcending Even the Middle Way

One would not expect a consecration manual to contain interesting philosophical ideas. But one of Rong-zom-pa’s works, let us call it the Rab gnas shan sbyar, actually contains several interesting philosophical ideas. One of these is the Madhyamic-Mantrayānic idea of reality. The context is the explanation of what is called ātmatattva (bdag gi de kho na nyid) according to the Niṣpannayoga system that conforms the Madhyamaka system. Here ātmatattva is defined as “that which is characterized by the ab initio purity and quiescence of manifoldness of all phenomena/entities” (dngos po thams cad gdod ma nas rnam par dag cing spros pa nye bar zhi ba’i mtshan nyid gang yin pa). In this context, Rong-zom-pa cites one Tantric and one Prajñāpāramitā source. The Tantric source is the Māyājālamahātantra (Bᴷ, vol. 83, p. 385.18–20; R, p. 152.6–8): gang la dngos rnams dngos med cing || mtha’ gnyis kyi ni mtshan ma med || dbus la’ang [= la R] dpyad pa med pa dag || dus gsum ’das pa’i [= pa R] nam mkha’ ’dra ||. The Tibetan translation of this Tantric scripture, by the way, is Lo-chen Rin-chen-bzang-po’s. The Prajñāpāramitā source cited here is Abhisamayālaṃkāra 3.1 (Bᵀ, vol. 49, p. 13.12–13; R, p. 152.9–10; Stcherbatsky & Obermiller 1929: 28): tshu rol pha rol mtha’ la min || de dag bar na mi gnas shing || dus rnams mnyam pa nyid shes pa || shes rab pha rol phyin par ’dod ||; Skt. (Stcherbatsky & Obermiller 1929: 15): nāpare na pare tīre nāntarāle tayoḥ sthitā | adhvanāṃ samatājñānāt prajñāpāramitā matā ||. These verses from the two sources are, according to Rong-zom-pa, similar in their content (don ’dra). Rong-zom-pa seems to be somehow more interested here in underpinning the idea of the atemporality found in the former and the temporal identicality/homogeneity found in the latter. Both of these, however, do allude to the idea of true reality that transcends even the middlemost point between the two extremes, the locus classicus of this idea being Samādhirājasūtra 9.27 (Cüppers 1990: 43): astīti nāstīti ubhe pi antā śuddhī aśuddhīti ime pi antā | tasmād ubhe anta vivarjayitvā madhye pi sthānaṃ na karoti paṇḍitaḥ ||; Tib. (Cüppers 1990: 44): yod dang med ces bya ba gnyi ga mtha’ || gtsang dang mi gtsang ’di yang mtha’ yin te || de phyir gnyis ka’i mtha’ ni rnam spangs nas || mkhas pa dbus la’ang gnas par yod mi byed ||. See also the critical apparatus therein that provides some variae lectiones. This verse is so popular and has been cited by so many scholars including Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā ad Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15.7 (de La Vallée Poussin 1903: 270): astīti nāstīti ubhe ’pi antā śuddhī aśuddhīti ime ’pi antā| tasmād ubhe anta vivarjayitvā madhye ’pi sthānaṃ na karoti paṇḍitaḥ ||. Rong-zom-pa does not seem to cite our locus classicus but he cites and comments on a verse from Mañjuśrīmitra’s Bodhicittabhāvanā, which alludes to the idea in question. See his Theg chen tshul ’jug (Tashi Dorjee 2021: 648–649): de ltar dngos po’i mtha’ rnams brtags dang rang bzhin sgyu ma’ang med ’gyur phyir || yod la ltos pa’i med pa’ang med de med  med pa’ang med || mtha’ rnams med phyir dbus med dbus la’ang gnas par mi byed do || ldang dang mi ldang ched du mi spong sems rten mi ’cha’ mngon du min ||. In his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, he cites the following verse (dKon mchog ’grel, p. 113.4–6): yod med dbus las ’das pa las || ’byung dang ’byung las gyur pa ’byung || sems can thams cad kun gyi gzugs || skyes pas rgyal ba dzi na dzik ||. This verse, which seems to reflect an earlier translation of the Tantric scripture, can be found in the Guhyasamājottaratantra (Bᴷ, vol. 81, p. 589.5–7): yod dang med dang dbus las ’das || ’byung dang ’byung las gyur las ’byung || sems can kun gyi lus yin te || skye las rgyal ba dzi na dzik ||; Guhyasamājottaratantra 18.41 (Matsunaga 1978: 116): sadasanmadhyamaṃ khyātaṃ bhūtabhautikasambhavam | vigrahaḥ sarvasattvānāṃ jinajigjanaṃ jinaḥ ||. Of course, there would an abundance of other Indic sources that allude to the idea of the transcendence of the Middle Way, but these are some of the sources that Rong-zom-pa cited and commented upon.

Rong-zom-pa’s Source of the Sāṃkhya Philosophy

Rong-zom-pa, while presenting Sāṃkhya philosophy in his lTa ba’i brjed byang (p. 5.6–8), cites the following verse, which he says is “from the scripture of the Sage Kapila” (drang srong ser skya ba’i lung las): rang bzhin gang zhig mthong ba min || yon tan gsum tshogs kun tu skyed || de las bzlog pa skyes bu nyid || de la rtag tu goms par gyis ||. If we look for this verse in the BuddhaNexus, BDRC, rKTS, and so on, we may not find it. This is because we are constrained by the “wording” of the verse. But does it mean it does not exist somewhere in the ocean of texts? Evidently not. If we think of the content of the verse, we may eventually come to works such as Bhavya’s Madhyamakahṛdaya, and specifically its sixth chapter devoted to the Sāṃkhya philosophy. The bsTan ’gyur version of the Tibetan translation of the Madhyamakahṛdaya reads (Bᵀ, vol. 58, p. 57.1–2): rang bzhin gang zhig rtogs pa med || yon tan gsum dang skyed bdag nyid || de las bzlog pas skyes bu nyid || ’di dag rtag tu goms par bya ||. Fortunately, the edition of the Sanskrit text is available.  Madhyamakahṛdaya 6.1 (Lindtner 2001: 72): acetanā hi prakṛtis triguṇā prasavātmikā | viparītaḥ pumān asmād ity abhyāsavataḥ sadā ||. Noteworthy is that the Tibetan translation of the verse cited by Rong-zom-pa is clearly different from the one found in the bsTan ’gyur. Rong-zom-pa is probably citing it from the early translation recorded in the lDan dkar ma (L602) and ’Phang thang ma (K552). The bsTan ’gyur version is said to be Nag-tsho-lo-tsā-ba’s translation.

Rong-zom-pa and the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ

In his Grub mtha’i brjed byang (p. 216.2–4) Rong-zom-pa cites the following two pādas from what appears to be the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ (6th Bhūmi of the Maulī Bhūmiḥ = Yogācārabhūmi):  rgyun la gang zag ces bya ste || mtshan nyid ’dzin la chos zhes bya ||. He simply states: lung las. On the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ, Martin Delhey wrote in 2013: “The Sanskrit text of the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ is only preserved in the YoBh MS (139a1–153a3) and has not been published so far. The original Sanskrit titles of its main sections are contained in a short article by Sugawara (1998) who is working on a critical edition of this chapter.” Maybe by now the Sanskrit text of the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ has already been published?

Which Work of Padmasambhava Refers to Twenty-Eight Tantric Pledges?

There are all kinds of works ascribed to Padmasambhava. But most of these are gTer-ma (“treasure”) materials, which do not predate eleventh century. Two early prominent Tibetan scholars who cite Padmasambhava’s Man ngag lta phreng are gNubs-chen and Rong-zom-pa. The latter, in his commentary on the Man ngag lta phreng, also ascribes the Ma mo gsang ba las kyi thig le to Padmasambhava. Many years ago, I (Wangchuk 2007: 315, n. 26) pointed out that according to Rong-zom-pa, Padmasambhava classified Tantric pledges (samaya: dam tshig) into twenty-eight. Now the question is: Which work of Padmasambhava had he in mind? If we search BuddhaNexus and rKTs, we would come across numerous works that allude to the scheme of dam tshig nyi shu rtsa brgyad. If we sift out all later Tibetan works, we would be left with several rNying-ma Tantric scriptures that allude to the twenty-eight-samaya scheme. If Rong-zom-pa knew a Tantric scripture that contains this idea, would he have not referred to it? Rong-zom-pa, however, clearly attributes the classification to Padmasambhava. For now, I do not know, whether any work ascribed to Padmasambhava refers to twenty-eight Tantric pledges. In a kind of postscript to the mKha’ ’gro ma me lce ’bar ba’i rgyud (Bᴷ, vol. 103, p. 705.5–13), however, we find the following: mkha’ ’gro ma me lce ’bar ba’i rgyud las yongs su lung bstan pa’i le’u ste nyi shu rtsa gnyis pa rdzogs so || || mchod na rgyal ba rigs lnga rtag tu mchod || srung na dam tshig nyi shu rtsa brgyad srungs || dgra byung lha mo nag mo mtshon char phyung || nyes chung kha ’thab tsam la mtshon mi dbyung || nga yi dkor khang ’jig na mtshon char phyung || dkon mchog dbu ’phang smod na mtshon char phyung || sangs rgyas bstan pa ’jig na mtshon char phyung || dkon mchog sku dgra dar na mtshon char phyung || zhes slob dpon padmas slob bu glang (sic) dpal gyi seng ge la de skad ces bka’ stsal zhing gdams so || ||. This is said to be addressed to Rlangs-chen dPal-gyi-seng-ge, one of the twenty-five disciples of Padmasambhava. This matter, however, requires further investigation.

Buddhagayā: A Ghost Word?

Modern Sanskrit dictionaries (e.g., MW, PW, and PWK) record the name Buddhagayā as a lexeme. But one would soon realize that sources given are all secondary. There also seems to be no Pāli source that attests this particular name. No Tibetan source seems to attest its existence either. We shall have to let the experts of Chinese Buddhism comment on this. The name Buddhagayā thus seems to be a ghost word, invented by modern scholars. Lokesh Chandra’s dictionary has Bodhigayā (= rDo-rje-gdan) instead. But this too seems to be a ghost word. The CPD, in one instance, uses the form “Bodh Gayā,” but not implying of course that it is a Sanskrit or a Pāli name. I do not wish to imply that invention of a ghost word is a bad thing. It can even be a useful thing. But one would still wish to know what “the Mecca of the Buddhist world” was called by the classical Buddhist sources themselves. Otherwise it would be somewhat strange to assume that the Buddhist sources did not even have a name for their most sacred place on earth! One of the names attested in Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources seems to be Gayā. This seems indisputable. The BHSD records the Aparagayā (“Other/Western Gayā”). The specific spot where Siddhārtha became a buddha is called Vajrāsana (rDo-rje-gdan), “Adamantine Seat.” It is also called the bodhimaṇḍa  (byang chub snying po), “spot of awakening.” Also the tree (Ficus Religiosa) under which Siddhārtha attained awakening is called the bodhivṛkṣa/bodhitaru (byang chub shing), “Tree of Awakening.” We can thus see here and there buddha, bodhi, and gayā, but the place in classical Buddhist sources was most probably never called Buddhagayā or Bodhigayā.

On the Contrastive Particle kyis

It is known to Tibetan grammarians that according to the sMra sgo and its commentary, three particles (i.e., la, kyi, and kyis) can also have, among others, the function of showing a contrast. Such particles are called mi mthun pa’i rgyan. The authorship of both the basic work and the commentary (transmitted in the Tibetan Buddhist canon) is controversial. According to some, the commentary is by Rong-zom-pa. The term mi mthun pa’i rgyan (“ornament/accessory of dissimilarity”) is clearly to be seen in Indian works in Tibetan translation (via rKTs) but I cannot tell what the Sanskrit expression could be.  For the present purpose, let me call it “contrastive particle,” although the term mi mthun pa’i rgyan also seems to refer to the “concessive particle” (e.g., kyang). For the sake of simplicity, contrastive particle may be considered to indicate the sense of “but” and concessive particle a sense of “although.” One can already sense how the semantic borders of the two can overlap, be fluid, or be fuzzy.

I wish to focus on kyis (and its saṃdhi-determined variants) maintained by the sMra sgo and its commentary to have a contrastive function. Two examples have been given by the commentary: de lta yin mod kyis and ’on gyis kyang. Unlike dPang-lo, who is hypercritical of the sMra sgo and commentary, Si-tu is generally less critical of these works. But in this case, Si-tu thinks that the contrastive function and the examples given here are untenable. He provides two similar examples of his own trying to understand the intention of the commentary: (a) rtag par yod kyis | mi rtag par ma yin no ||; (b) bsgrub tu rung gis kyang mi bsgrub bo ||. Si-tu concludes that kyis here simply has an instrumental function, and not what I call here a “contrastive” function (cf. Graf 2019: 257). To be sure, there seems to be no disagreement regarding the “contrastive” function of kyi (and its saṃdhi-determined variants).

I indeed see a problem with the two examples given by the sMra sgo commentary (i.e., de lta yin mod kyis and ’on gyis kyang). One would, for example, argue that the contrastive nuance is expressed rather by mod and kyang and not by kyis or even without the particle kyis (e.g., yin mod & ’on kyang). But the question is is Si-tu right in maintaining that kyis cannot have a contrastive function? I personally do not think he is, even according to the example he provides. His first example rtag par yod kyis | mi rtag par ma yin no ||, in my view, says “[It] exists as eternal but not as transient.” “[It] exists as eternal and by no means as transient.” Even if we replace “but not” with “and not,” the contrastive sense here, in my view, would prevail. How about his second example? bsgrub tu rung gis kyang mi bsgrub bo ||. Also here I feel that the contrastive sense is conspicuous. “It is provable but will not be proven.” “It is attainable/accomplishable but will not be attained/accomplished.” It is thus surprising that Si-tu did not see the contrastive nuance in the examples given by the sMra sgo commentary and even in his own examples.

If we search the adverbial phrase ’on gyis kyang in the bsTan ’gyur, we may get the impression that it is a Hapax legomenon (found only in the sMra sgo commentary), but it occurs several times in the bKa’ ’gyur. For example, we encounter: de lta lags mod kyi (!) ’on gyis kyang, de ltar ma lags mod kyis kyang, ma lags mod kyis, and so on. Actually, even without kyis in both of the examples given by the sMra sgo commentary, de lta yin mod and ’on kyang would still bear the contrastive sense. The crux, thus, seems to be whether it should be: verb stem + kyi or verb stem + kyis. Should it be byang chub sems dpa’ ltar sems can mang po’i don du byang chub tu sems mi bskyed kyi | rang ’ba’ zhig thar par bya ba’i phyir sems bskyed pas de skad ces bya’o || (RZ1: 45)? Or, should it be byang chub sems dpa’ ltar sems can mang po’i don du byang chub tu sems mi bskyed kyis | rang ’ba’ zhig thar par bya ba’i phyir sems bskyed pas de skad ces bya’o ||?

To provide unambiguous, credible, and convincing examples or cases, we will have to assume that the readings transmitted in our textual witnesses are correct. But a random search in the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur via rKTs reveals that both kyi and kyis are possible and acceptable. So it does not seem to be appropriate to censure the sMra sgo and its commentary.

While Si-tu did not recognize the contrastive function of kyis, Jäschke did. Jäschke (s.v. kyi) was not only aware of the interchangeability of kyi and kyis—his convention being kyi(s)—but clearly recognized that these have the sense of “but” and “though” and clearly stating “when denoting an antithesis.” He also provides examples such as zas bzang po mi ’dod kyis tha mal pa zos and bden pa yin gyis rdzun pa ma yin.

In this connection, I may add one function of x + kyis (“according to x”), which we may encounter infrequently. For example, slob dpon la la dag gi thugs bzhed kyis “According to the position of some teachers, ….” Note, however, that thugs bzhed here is a noun and not a verbal stem. I wonder if Si-tu, while assessing the sMra sgo position in question, was misled by such a construction. Indeed kyis in such a case expresses the instrumental sense. “Through or by means of the thugs bzhed” can only be understood as “according to the thugs bzhed.”

PS. As an afterthought, I wish to consider this famous verse lines (not attested ad verbum in allochthonous Tibetan sources but quite popular in autochthonous Tibetan sources): ngas ni khyod la thar pa’i thabs bstan gyi/gyis/pas || thar pa rang la rag las shes/brtson par gyis ||. To be sure, sources cite it with slight variations. Let us for now ignore the clause shes/brtson par gyis. Here, we may on the one hand say that Si-tu’s argument would be supported by the fact that some sources read bstan pas instead of bstan gyis and that we should understand the subordinate clause to be an adverbial clause of reason: “Because (or insofar as) I have shown the means of salvatory release, ….” But on the other hand, this construction seems to rather support the point made by the sMra sgo. It does not seem to make good sense to say something like: “Because I have shown the means of salvatory release, the salvatory release depends on you.” The thrust of the statement seems to be clear and it makes much better sense to say something like: “I have shown the means of salvatory release but the salvatory release is dependent on you.” The point made by the sMra sgo and its commentary is that instrumental case or instrumental particle can be used in different kinds of adverbial clauses/phrases. The consensus, thus, is that the instrumental case or instrumental particles (e.g., kyis) can be used to construe, for example, adverbial clauses/phrases of cause/motive. The dissensus is that according to Si-tu instrumental particles (e.g., kyis) cannot be used to construe adverbial clauses/phrases of contrast whereas according to the author(s) of the sMra sgo and its commentary, these can be used to construe adverbial clauses/phrases of contrast. Jäschke may be considered an independent witness to the sMra sgo’s position. The author(s) of the sMra sgo and its commentary would have maintained that this is borne by the facts on the ground. And I would have thought they are right.

Are ya yo, gya gyu, and g.yo sgyu Connected Somehow?

I cannot tell why but I feel that there must be some etymological connection amongst ya yor, gya gyu, and g.yo sgyu not only because they all seem to mean something like “crooked.”

On the Etymology of gor ma chag

We all certainly know what gor ma chag, gor ma chag pa, and gor ma chag par mean, don’t we? But have we ever thought of the etymology of gor ma chag? One problem is should we understand it as gor ma + chag or rather as gor + ma chag? We can easily make the wrong decision. For example, dgag pa gnyis kyis rnal ma + go ba for pratiṣedhadvayena prakṛtagamana (www.itlr.net/hwid:627156) can be misunderstood as dgag pa gnyis kyis rnal + ma go ba. I personally think that we should understand it to be gor ma + chag and not as gor + ma chag. And its etymology would be “the stone (gor ma) is broken (chag),” meaning that it is now “certain,” “final/finalized.” It is a bit comparable to the English idiom “the die is cast.”

Taking an Orthography for Granted

Recent and contemporary Tibetan sources seem to take the orthography shag as in “X” yin shag byed pa,“Y” yod shag byed pa, and the like, for granted. These expressions would mean something like “to take for granted that [it] is X,” “to take for granted that Y is existent,” and so forth. In classical Tibetan sources, however, one may not come across the orthography shag, except in cases such as of grwa shag “a cell for monks.” bTsan-lha records yin gsha’ under which we also see yin du gsha’, yin gsha’, bden gsha’, and yod gsha’. The source given there is the Ngag sgron ’grel pa. I assume it is the one by Khu-nu-bla-ma bsTan-’dzin-rgyal-mtshan. I did not check it. The explanation reproduced by bTsan-lha also conforms the sense of “to take something for granted as true, existent, etc.” The orthography gsha’ thus seems to be preferable: yin gsha’ byed pa, yod gsha’ byed pa, etc.

PS. There are several sources on the word gsha’ ba, mi gsha’ ba, etc. which need to be considered as well.

A Speculative Etymology of yud tsam

Recording here a quick random speculation before it vanishes in the blink of an eye. We know yud (as in yud tsam zhig na “in a split-second”) and yun (as in yun ring por “for a long duration”). One may speculate that yun is derived from yud. But from what is yud derived?  It is perhaps derived from yid “mind.” This is based on bTsan-lha’s recording of yid tsam, which is said to mean yud tsam. We may also bear in mind that mind is said to be like a flash of lightning, lightning fast.

A Note on the Etymology of na ning

Have you ever thought of what ning in the Tibetan word na ning (“last year”) could mean? I personally have not. Not until today. So I looked up our Jäschke (1881). He says “for na rnying” by referring to Alexander Csoma de Kőrös’s Bod skad kyi ming gi mdzod (1834). Also in his German version of the dictionary (Handwörterbuch der Tibetischen Sprache) from 1871, he refers to Csoma de Kőrös’s dictionary. That na can mean “year” seems to be adequately secured although Jäschke places a question mark (s.v. na). It thus turns out the etymology of na ning is “old year.” This insight thus must be credited to Csoma de Kőrös.

Rong-zom-pa and Ācārya *Yāvadvīpaka

The story of Rong-zom-pa’s encounter with Jo-bo-rje, *Adhīśa (982–1054), when he was still a child is well known through various sources. But in the extant writings of Rong-zom-pa, we do not seem to find a single reference to Jo-bo-rje and his writings. We do, however, seem to find some key doctrinal positions that these two figures seem to share. But this is not my concern here, and hence I do not wish to delve into it. My concern is something else.

While studying the idea of bodhicitta (Wangchuk 2007: 318, 320, 328), I realized that Rong-zom-pa, in his Dam tshig mdo rgyas, mentions a certain Slop-dpon Nas-gling-pa on two occasions. There I reconstructed the name as “Ācārya Yavadvīpa” (Wangchuk 2007: 318, n. 144). Of course, some Sanskrit lexicons such as the PW makes it clear that Yavadvīpa is an island (i.e., Java). The occurrence of the name Yavadvīpa in the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa has been noted by Sylvain Lévi, who identifies it with Java (Lévi 1933: x). In the Indo-Tibetan sources, however, Yavadvīpa seems to refer to an “islander” rather than to an “island,” for example, in *Adhīśa’s writings (Eimer 1978: 174, n. 36; Seyfort Ruegg 1981: 110, n. 347; Sherburne 1983: 186, n. 23; Newman 2021: 316, n. 15). I cannot say whether Yavadvīpa can also refer to “Java-Islander,” or “Javanese.” Rong-zom-pa’s “Slop-dpon Nas-gling-pa” is unambiguously a person. One (along with Nicola Bajetta, to whom I am thankful for bringing up this suggestions) wonders if the Sanskrit personal name underlying Nas-gling-pa, assuming it did exist, had been something like *Yāvadvīpaka, analogous to jāmbudvīpaka and tāmradvīpaka (MW & BHSD). One may also bear in mind two other derivatives of dvīpa, namely, dvaipa and dvaipaka. At any rate, the person in question has been identified as Paiṇḍapātika, although this, like Piṇḍo, may simply be a suggestion that he was a bhikṣu. There do not seem to occur many figures in the Indo-Tibetan sources that bear the name *Yāvadvīpaka (Nas-gling-pa). I do not know if the proper name Paiṇḍapātika is attested in Sanskrit sources, but the term paiṇḍapātika (bsod snyoms pa) is attested (see TSD, Mahāvyutpatti, no. 1131). In the history of the Kālacakra doctrine, this person is said to be nicknamed Piṇḍo (Newman 2021; Newman 2004). Most important of all, both Piṇḍo (tenth–eleventh century) and Nāropāda (died ca. 1040) are said to be the teachers of *Adhīśa. The point I am trying to make here is that although Rong-zom-pa does not mention *Adhīśa or his writings by name, he does mention one of *Adhīśa’s teachers, namely, the Javanese Piṇḍo (= Bhikṣu), Ācārya *Yāvadvīpaka.

The next question that concerns me is Rong-zom-pa’s connection with the Kālacakra cycle of Vajrayāna teachings. In a previous blog article, I made a couple of points in this regard. As demonstrated by John Newman, it turns out that the two—namely, the Javanese Piṇḍo, who is to be identified with the Senior *Kālacakrapāda (Dus-zhabs-che-ba), and the Kashmiri Nāropāda alias Yaśobhadra (sNyan-grags-bzang-po), to be identified with the Junior *Kālacakrapāda (Dus-zhabs-chung-ba)—were two principal figures responsible for the creation of the Kālacakra cult in India. Rong-zom-pa’s explicit reference to Ācārya *Yāvadvīpaka (Slop-dpon Nas-gling-pa) (i.e., the Javanese Piṇḍo) thus seems to be yet another dot that links him with the Kālacakra milieu and tradition.

What Would a Monk Use a Sling For?

We all know that ordained community of Buddhist monks and nuns are not supposed to live in luxury although the problem is not really the luxury but the attachment to it.  One may attach even to a begging bowl and thus be reborn as a snake in it. The Vinaya does, however, permit an ordained person to possess what is called jīvitapariṣkāra (’tsho ba’i yo byad), which is the bare minimum means of livelihood/subsistence. There is said to be thirteen of them (Tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. ’tsho ba’i yo byad bcu gsum). In the Mahāvyutpatti, the number of items in the list is not confined to thirteen. A Buddhist mendicant can also possess a sling (kṣampana: ’ur rdo). In this regard, Edgerton states the following (BHSD): “kṣampana, nt., Mvy 8965, some article of a monk’s equipment; acc. to Tib. ḥur rdo, lit. noise-stone, but as a cpd. sling (for throwing stones; so also Jap. and one Chin. rendering, the other cannon, perh. orig. catapult?). But what would a monk use a sling for? In a wholly different direction leads AMg. khampaṇaya, winding-sheet (Ratnach.); if our word is related to this it might mean sheet or large piece of cloth of some kind. Uncertain.”

So, Edgerton’s question is why would a monk need to bear a sling. To be sure, possessing a sling has indeed been prescribed by the Vinaya. For example, the Vinayasūtra (TSD, s.v. ’ur rdo) does state: dhārayet kṣaṃpanam (’ur rdo bcang bar bya’o ||). Negi places a question mark after kṣaṃpana and inserts kṣepaṇa, because he doubts the reading kṣaṃpana and expects here a Classical Sanskrit word kṣepaṇa. He probably did not consult our BHSD in this regard. Edgerton’s question “What would a monk use a sling for?” can be answered based on some Vinaya sources. According to one Vinaya commentary, the purpose is “to threaten or scare away thieves” (rkun po la bsdigs pa’i phyir). Such a scare tactic also becomes clear in the Vinayasūtra (TSD, s.v. ’ur rdo): kuryāt taskaraparibhūtyai phipphiram (rkun po spa bkong ba’i phyir tsham ngam bya’o ||). Some other sources make it clear that a monk is not only permitted to bear a sling but even use it albeit only imprecisely or making sure that he misses the target.

The word phipphira, however, causes me a great deal of headache. It occurs in the Vinayasūtra and is cited by Negi in his TSD (s.v. tsham ngam, etc.). Other attestations seem to be rare. Negi places an asterisk before the word to mark his doubt. Since ākṣepa is also rendered as tsham ngam, we may suppose that it and phipphira are synonymous and that the latter is to be understood in the sense of “threatening movement of the hands.” bTsan-lha’s brDa dkrol gser gyi me long records two entries, namely, tsham ngam and tshams rngams. Under the former, it states: ’jigs stangs te skrag pa’i stangs ka ston pa’i don (“a manner/mode of threatening, having the sense of showing the posture of scaring [someone away]”). Jäschke (1881) also records tsham dam (instead of our tsam ngam) and is supposed to mean “noisy, blustering, alarming.” He provides Schmidt’s (1841) Tibetan-German dictionary as his source, and it (s.v. tsham dam, p. 455) has: furchterregend, lärmend, tosend. Probably Schmidt or his source simply misread tsham ngam as tsham dam or that tsham dam had simply been an error for tsham ngam. According to the Tshig mdzod chen mo, tsham ngam is a variant of tsham rngam, and we also find expressions such tsham ngam bskyed, which Ives Waldo translates as “get panicky/ frightened, panic, fright.” But probably it is to be understood as “to cause/instill panic/fright.” The variants of ngam (i.e., rngam and rngams) suggests what ngam should mean something like “rage,” “wrath,” “threat” and not something like “splendor.” The question is how to explain tsham. Perhaps we should think of expressions such as tsham tshom med par (“without any hesitation/inhibition”) and the tshom (“doubt/hesitation”). In such contexts, tsham and tshom seem to mean something like “inhibition/hesitation.” Thus, tsham ngam (tsham rngam/s) may be interpreted as meaning something like “inhibited/restrained (i.e., feigned) rage/wrath/threat.” The point in the context is that monks should put up a show of rage/wrath/threat to drive away thieves. Regarding the Sanskrit word phipphira, one wonders if it is an onomatopoeia and means something like “whistling,” “clamor,” “uproar,” “tumult,” etc. created, for example, by monks to “scare away thieves.”

The Don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i mdo

This is really a note for myself. But it may be of some use to some. The point of departure is a Sūtric scripture called the Don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i mdo. An unsuspecting scholar may look for it in the Tibetan canon or one of its catalogues under this title and realize that the Sūtric scripture is not to be found. But one will find a commentary on it, namely, the Don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i ’grel pa (P5852; D4365 = Tibskrit), devoid of any colophonic information. To be sure, the occurrence of the title in the commentary is secured. One may subsequently jump to the conclusion that the sūtra is no longer extant or that it has never been translated into Tibetan. Is this, however, really the case? Nay! The Sūtric scripture is, in fact, transmitted in the bKa’ ’gyur (T70, P983). But how could one miss it? It turns out that Don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i mdo is one of the alternative Tibetan renderings of the Sanskrit title Arthaviniścayasūtra, for which one would anticipate something like Don rnam par nges pa’i mdo and indeed this is what we find several Tibetan sources. We find at least three different translations for the Sanskrit word viniścaya, namely, (a) rnam par gtan pa dbab pa as in Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (rNam par gtan la dbab pa bsdu ba), (b) rnam par gdon mi za ba as in *Vinayaviniścaya (’Dul ba mam par gdon mi za ba), and rnam par nges pa as in Pramāṇaviniścaya (Tshad ma rnam par nges pa). Did Tibetan scholars realize that Don rnam par gdon mi za ba’i mdo and Don rnam par nges pa’i mdo are the one and the same scripture? It appears that the Great Fifth, for example, was aware of this (gSung ’bum, vol. 4, p. 281). The Sanskrit text of the Arthaviniścayasūtra and its Nibandhana by Vīryaśrīdatta was already studied by N. H. Samtani (1971) and an English of the scripture and its commentary was published in 2002. With the help of Ngagwang Samten, Samtani could confirm that the Arthaviniścayasūtraṭīkā and Arthaviniścayasūtranibandhana are not the one and the same commentary. Samtani knew of no extant Sanskrit text of the Arthaviniścayasūtraṭīkā. The Tibetan translation of the Arthaviniścayasūtra (called the Don rnam par nges pa zhes bya ba’i chos kyi rnam grangs = *Arthaviniścaya nāma dharmaparyāya) was made during the sNga-’gyur period as it has been recorded in the ’Phang thang ma (K261). The Great Fifth points this out as well. Although the Tibetan translation of the Arthaviniścayasūtraṭīkā is not mentioned in the ancient catalogues and although there are no colophonic details, it is most probably an earlier translation as well. At any rate, the anonymous author of the commentary seems to postdate Śāntarakṣita for he cites works such as the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, and he also seems to be deeply rooted in the traditions of Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga. The commentary makes a scholarly impression.

What is Ri in Gro-bzhin-skyes rNa-ba-bye-ba-ri?

Research is never without problems. One of the many reasons why I hardly get my research results published is that one problem leads to another. Solving my initial problem presupposes that I have got at the root of the problem and solved it first at least tentatively. Finding pragmatic solutions seems like a kind of scientific compromise or complacency. Here is one example. I am trying to study the strategies employed in a multi-layered Buddhist apology. I will relinquish here the details. Apologies in general seem to be responses to polemics. Polemics are by nature conflicts. Why do conflicts at all exist? Trying to answer this question would lead one to Buddhist “conflictology.” One can think of all sorts of reasons and factors for conflicts and all sorts of motives for creation and resolution of conflicts. It turns out that external conflicts are manifestations of one’s inner and inherent conflicts. Let us say we are born with our own angelic and demonic forces. This idea may be found in many cultures. This is even more evident in Sinitic and Tibetic cultures. In the Tibetic sources, our inherent angelic and demonic forces are called lhan cig skyes pa’i lha and lhan cig skyes pa’i ’dre, respectively. In some later Tibetan sources, these are called lha dkar po and ’dre nag po.  I do not want to give away everything here prematurely but in Indic sources, we only find the idea of one lhan cig skyes pa’i lha, who keeps a record of one’s positive and negative karmic scores. This deity (not a demon) constantly accompanies one, and thus also during the postmortem day of judgement. According to the Sinitic and Tibetic sources, one will be accompanied by one’s angelic and a demonic spirit. One Indic source for the idea of an inherent deity is the various versions of the story of Śroṇakoṭīkarṇa (Gro-bzhin-skyes rNa-ba-bye-ba) or Śroṇaḥ Koṭīkarṇaḥ (Gro-bzhin-skyes rNa-ba-bye-ba-ri or Bye-ba’i-ze-ba) as found, for example, in the Avadāna and Vinaya sources. Sanskritists may immediately understand what the name means. For someone like me who mainly only read Tibetan, what, for example, does ri in rna ba bye ba ri mean? Suddenly I realize how little I know of the Tibetan language. It is a very humbling experience. It turns out that ri is for “value/worth” (mūlya) added to help us understand the expression koṭīkarṇa (“ten million eared/chaffed-grains”). So, it seems that we are supposed to understand the name as meaning something like “Śroṇa, who is worth ten million eared/chaffed-grains (i.e., valuables/gems).” In other words, “Śroṇa, the Priceless.” The heteronomous and intransitive verb ri ba (“to be worthy of,” “to have the value/worth of”) is well attested in Tibetan lexicons. Now my question is if the Tibetan rin (as in rin po che) is derived from ri, just as the noun skyin is derived from the verb skyi. I think it is.

Gan dzir is a Corrupt Form of Which Sanskrit Word?

Perhaps this question has long been answered by someone and that I am only being too ignorant. Once upon a time, Jäschke pointed out that gañjira is “obviously a Sanskrit word, though not in our dictionaries.” The WTS (s.v. gan dzir) does provide the text and translation of dGe-bshes Chos-grags’s explanation, according to which gan dzir is a corrupt (zur chag) form of the Sanskrit gañjira. But my problem is that I do not seem to find gañjira in any Sanskrit dictionary. I thus wonder if the Tibetanized gañjira is actually a corrupt form of gañja (usually rendered as mdzod), and which, in turn, is said to be a Persian loanword (BHSD, PW, MW).

*Vajragadātantra?

The Tibetan word be tson (also spelled be con, be chon) renders both gadā and daṇḍa. There is a Tantric scripture called the Vajrapāṇinīlāmbaravidhivajradaṇḍatantra. The truncated title is the rDo rje be tson gyi rgyud (for Vajradaṇḍatantra). This is, for example, found in Klong-chen-pa’s Grub mtha’ mdzod. By the way, the word vajradaṇḍa is recorded (e.g., in MW). Would Vajragadātantra be also a possibility? At least there is said to be a village in Andhra Pradesh with the name Vajragadā.

Much Ado About “Bar ma do”

Just the other day, I happened to look at how the Sanskrit word antarābhava has been translated into Tibetan. In due course I ended up ruminating on the Tibetan word bar ma do (often contracted as bar do). We all know that the construction “X ma Y” in Tibetan. It usually has the sense of “neither X nor Y but somehow both.” One example would suffice here: ra ma lug “neither goat nor sheep but somehow having the traits of both.” In bar ma do, it is clear what bar is. It is “intermediate.” But what about do? There must be some kind of meaning but what? Also the construction “X ma Y” requires that Y has a meaning. So following my own advice that I give my students, I looked up Jäschke 1881 first. Look elsewhere only if you do not find anything there. Indeed, one of the meanings of do given by Jäschke is “this” (as in do nub “this-evening,” “tonight”). I think this is it. For now, I think it makes sense to understand bar ma do as “neither there nor here,” “neither that (state) nor this (state).” Perhaps we may also say in German: weder jenseits noch diesseits (adverb) or weder Jenseits noch Diesseits (noun).

But I am beginning to have doubts regarding my own speculative etymology of bar ma do or bar do. This is mainly because of the feedbacks given by Dan Martin and Daniel Wojahn. I must admit that I did not initially want to consider the possibility that do here could mean “two.” Both Dan and Daniel pointed out that do means “two.” But we know that this is general knowledge. It is lexically attested. Jäschke, for example, already records it. Contemporary Tibetans and other Himalayan people use it in this sense today. What is somewhat remarkable is that do in the vernacular language seems to be used when counting something countable starting with gang (in the sense of “one”), and do, gsum, and so on. The plausibility of our interpretation of do seems to hinge on how we understand bar. Of course, we know that bar here means “interspace” (spatial), “interval” (temporal), “inter-stage” (situational), “intermediate space and time” and thus often translated as “intermediate state.” It is a kind postmortem existence in limbo. But the interpretation of bar do, as if it means “two” bars seemed to me a bit too forced and artificial. So, I went for the interpretation “neither bar nor do.” That is, I took ma as a negative particle. But the more I think of this, the less plausible it appears to me. I now wish to try and take ma in bar ma as a “nominalizer” (as in rnying ma and gsar ma). So bar ma dor (adverbial) should mean something like “betwixt/between interstices/interludes” or “in between two interstices.” The point is, in this case, bar ma must be a noun and only then can we make some sense of do “two.” By the way, how did Tibetans came to use do in the sense of “two.” It is reminiscent of Hindī do and Sanskrit dva. Had do been a loanword? If not, had it been a cognate of zlo or zla? I wish I knew.

The most popular usage of bar ma do is in the sense of antarābhāva (bar ma do’i srid pa). But apparently we cannot afford to forget that bar ma do is also used in other contexts such as in the expression bar ma do’i ’chi ba (RZ1: 44), which is obviously to be understood as “untimely death/dying.” In such contexts, bar ma do must mean something like “midway.”

A Note on Klong-chen-pa’s “mna’ dang chad”

Although Klong-chen-pa in his Yid kyi mun sel (p. 109.13–14) has mna’ dang chad (i.e., si lectio certa), we should take it to be semantically identical with mna’ chad, which is well attested. A search in the BDRC yields several relevant results. This term, however, does not appear to be recorded in any of the existing lexicons, also not in bTsan-lha’s gSer gyi me long. It does, however, record mna’ dgag and mna’ sgog both of which mean mna’ skyel ba (“telling truth under an oath,” “swear”). bTsan-lha gives mna’ skyel du bcug pa (causative) as the meaning of mna’ dgag but his source states: ’phrang srung la mna’ dgag bcug go ||. In Dunhuang texts (OTDO), we find mna’ bchad and mna’ mtho bchad pa (cf. Tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. mna’ tho bcad pa). In short, mna’ chad pa (from mna’ bchad pa) is evidently identical with mna’ dgag pa, mna’ sgog pa, mna’ bor ba, mna’ ’dor ba, mna’ bca’ ba, mna’ za ba, mna’ skyel ba, etc. Negi provides mna’ bsgag for śapatha, mna’ bor ba for śapathaḥ kṛtaḥ, and mna’ ’dor ba for śapathakaraṇa. Importantly, the Vinaya rule (i.e., na śapathaṃ kurvīta = mna’ ’dor bar mi bya’o ||) underscores the semantic nuance of “curse/swear” rather than of “oath.”

Rong-zom-pa and Kālacakra

Here is another note-taking. There are at least three indications for Rong-zom-pa’s knowledge of some Kālacakra sources. (a) In one instance in his Dam tshig mdo rgyas (p. 356.6), he explicitly mentions one dPal dus kyi ’khor lo’i dbang bskur ba’i cho ga. (b) In another instance, he mentions the dPal dus kyi ’khor lo (p. 339.17–18) by citing three pādas. Although not certain yet, he seems to be alluding to something similar to the clause śrīguroś cittakhedāt (dpal ldan bla ma’i thugs dkrugs pa las) found in the Vimalaprabhā (cited in Negi 1993–2005: s.v. thugs dkrugs pa). (c) The third indication is his discussion of the ṣaḍaṅgayoga in his Theg chen tshul ’jug, although his knowledge of it could have come via other Tantric sources. For this I refer to mKhan-po bKra-rdo’s Chos bzang rigs pa’i rnam dpyod.

mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje (Khenpo Tashi Dorjee), Chos bzang rigs pa’i rnam dpyod: Rong zom pa ma hā paṇḍi ta’i theg tshul rjod byed zhib dpyad zhu dag lung khungs ngos ’dzin dang | brjod bya gnas lugs rig par rtsad zhib tshom bu. Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre Publication Series 3. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2021.

Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po, gSang sngags kyi dam sdom spyi dang khyad par lhag pa’i dam tshig tu phye ste mdo rgyas su bstan pa. In Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi- rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1999, vol. 2, pp. 241–389.

J. S. Negi et al., Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo: Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Dictionary Unit, 1993–2005.

Vimalamitra (IOL Tib J 688)

I am merely taking down a note. The epithet “Crown Ornament of Five-Hundred [Paṇḍitas]” (lnga brgya’i gtsug rgyan) is used for Vimalamitra and *Adhīśa. It will be nice to know the earliest attestation of this expression. In this regard, there is a small work called the ’Phreng ba’i lung  (IOL Tib J 688) ascribed to Vimalamitra. For some details, see Dalton & van Schaik 2006: 294–296; Norbu-Dondrup-Phuntshok-Choekyi 2022: 241, n. iv. The work seems to be interesting for several reasons. It clearly refers to what one might call rtsis ’go (yan lag) bdun although only the expression rtsis ’go (yan lag) lnga is well known in Tibetan sources. This would be relevant as a kind of exegetical scheme. There are a couple of important details that need to be clarified. But for now, I am interested in how Vimalamitra is described there. He is described as “[the Crown Ornament] amongst 1500 Indian Upādhyāyas [and] Paṇḍitas” (rgya gar gyi mkhan po pan pyi ta [= paṇ ḍi ta] stong lnga brgya’i nang na). See La Vallée Poussin 1962: 222. I take the expression mkhan po paṇ ḍi ta to be a dvaṃdva compound but of course it may also be interpreted as a karmadhāraya compound (e.g., one who is an upādhyāya as well as a paṇḍita). The term gtsug rgyan does not occur here. It may mean that Vimalamitra is “one amongst 1500 Indian upādhyāyas and paṇḍitas,” or he is “the best amongst 1500 Indian upādhyāyas and paṇḍitas.”

Louis de La Vallée Poussin, Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Tun-huang in the India Office Library: With an Appendix on the Chinese manuscripts by Kazuo Enoki. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Jacob Dalton & Sam van Schaik, Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Stein Collection at the British Library. Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 12. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2006.

mKhan-po Chos-’phel-nor-bu, mKhan-po sKal-bzang-don-grub, Slob-dpon O-rgyan-phun-tshogs & Slob-dpon-ma Padma-chos-skyid (Choephel Norbu, Kalsang Dondrup, Ugyen Phuntshok & Pema Choekyi), Bi ma la mi tra’i mdzad rjes nyul ba: Paṇ chen bi ma la mi tra’i mdzad pa dang | sher snying rgya cher bshad pa’i brjod bya rjod byed la dpyad pa. Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre Publication Series 5. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2022.

What is the bDe spyod kyi mdo?

There has been a great deal of dissent regarding the authorship of the sMra sgo and its commentary (see, for example, Almogi 1997; Verhagen 2001; Sad-mi-mi-bzhi 2018: 78–79). Relevant information found, for example, in Si-tu’s Mu tig phreng mdzes and Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung’s Thon mi’i zhal lung, too, should be taken into account. Leaving aside the intricate issue, I wish to merely note that the hypothesis that the commentary was composed by Rong-zom-pa seems to be supported by a couple of things. The strongest of these seems to be Rong-pa Me-dpung’s list of Rong-zom-pa’s writings (Almogi 1997: 16, 58, 82, 221; Sad-mi-mi-bzhi 2018: 78–79). And if the “master himself” (bla ma nyid) in the colophon who is stated to have checked and annotated the list had indeed been Rong-zom-pa himself (Almogi 1997: 226), we can be pretty sure of the authorship of the commentary. This attribution is the earliest and perhaps predates most of what has been said regarding the authorship of the commentary.

My actual concern here is the identity, or, rather the identification of a source that is mentioned in the commentary, namely, a certain bDe spyod kyi mdo in the context of explaining the mahāprāṇa. Some witnesses seem to read sde for bde. This has to be examined more closely. If bde has been the original reading, the change to sde by an editor or scribe may have been motivated by the assumption that the source occurs in the context “phoneme classes,” or, “classes of sounds” (varṇa) (Wezler 1994: 227–228), and that it should refer to the vargas (sde). No scholar thus far seems to have shed light on the identity of the source in question.

The question is: What did Rong-zom-pa, whom I consider to be the commentator, mean by bDe spyod kyi mdo? For want of a better solution, I propose that he meant the Śivasūtra (in the sense of Monier-Williams 1899: “N. of the 14 Sūtras with which Pāṇini opens his grammar (containing a peculiar method of arranging the alphabet or alphabetical sounds, said to have been communicated to him by the god Ś°”). Would it be justified to translate śiva as bde spyod? If we look at the various semantic shades of the word śiva, some at least, such as “happiness,” “welfare, ” “prosperity,” and “bliss” seem to be not all too remote from bde spyod. If bDe spyod kyi mdo cannot be Śivasūtra, what else can it be then?

Bibliography

Almogi 1997 = Orna Almogi, The Life and Works of Rong-zom Paṇḍita. Magister Thesis. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 1997.

Monier-Williams 1899 = Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899. Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986. 

Sad-mi-mi-bzhi 2018 = mKhan-po bKra-shis-rdo-rje, mKhan-po O-rgyan-rig-’dzin, mKhan-po dPal-bzang-dar-rgyas & Slob-dpon-ma Karma-dbyangs-can, sNang ba lhar sgrub pa’i tshul la brtag pa | rong zom pa’i mdzad rnam dang | snang ba lhar sgrub chen mo’i zhib dpyad zhu dag | de’i brjod bya rjod byed la brtag pa |. sNga-’gyur-rnying-ma’i-zhib-’jug 1. Bylakuppe, Mysore: Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre, 2018.

Verhagen 2001= Pieter Cornelis Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet. Volume 2: Assimilation into Indigenous Scholarship. Handbook of Oriental Studies 2, India 8–2. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: E. J. Brill, 2001.

Wezler 1994 = Albrecht Wezler, “‘Credo, Quia Occidentale’: A Note on Sanskrit ‘Varṇa’ and Its Misinterpretation in Literature on Mīmāṃsā and Vyākaraṇa.” In Studies in Mīmāṃsā: Dr. Mandan Mishra Felicitation Volume, edited by R.C. Dwivedi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1994, pp. 221–241.

A Note on the Neuter Vowels in Śaiva and Buddhist Sources

The idea of napuṃsaka (aka ṣaṇṭhavarṇa?) “neuter vowels,” rendered into Tibetan as ma ning gi yi ge, can be traced in Śaiva scriptures. We notice that there are two different identifications of “neuter vowels,” namely, “five neuter vowels” (i.e., a, i, u, e, and o) found in the Śaiva scriptures such as the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha (Mirnig 2018: 226, 383, n. 33) and “four neuter vowels” (i.e., ṛ, ṝ, ḷ, and ḹ) for which several sources have been provided in the Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III (s.v. napuṃsaka; see also Mirnig 2018: 383, n. 33). The concept of the “four neuter sounds” can also be found in Buddhist Tantric traditions. The eleventh-century Tibetan scholar Rong-zom-pa, in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, for example, speaks of subsuming the “four neuter sounds” (ma ning gi yi ge bzhi) into ṛ and ḷ. The four napuṃsakas have not been specified by him. But what he seems to saying is that the four (i.e., ṛ, ṝ, ḷ, and ḹ) should be reduced/compressed into two (i.e., ṛ and ḷ). One wonders why these are called neuter. At any rate, this is mentioned in the context of compressing 50 varṇas (i.e., bījas/hṛdayas of the tathāgatas) into 42. The number 42 is the total number of peaceful deities according to the tradition of the *Guhyagarbhatantra.

dKon  cog ’grel = Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po, rGyud rgyal gsang ba snying po dkon cog ’grel. In Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 31–250.

Mirnig 2018 = Nina Mirnig, Liberating the Liberated Early Śaiva Tantric Death Rites. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2018.

Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III = Hélène Brunner, Gerhard Oberhammer & André Padoux, Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III: Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique / A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature / Wörterbuch zur Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013.

Rong-zom-pa on the Akāra-Formula

The fourth chapter of the *Guhyagarbhatantra deals with the “illusory net of sounds/letters” (yi ge’i sgyu ’phrul). Rong-zom-pa’s commentary employs what is called the six kinds of analysis (brtag pa rnam pa drug) to examine the “illusory net of sounds/letters.” One will notice that these analyses actually cover a wide of Buddhist perspectives on sounds/letters (phonemes and graphemes), ranging from the Abhidharmic position through Madhyamic/Prajñāpāramitāic position all the way to the Atiyogic position. Using the idea of “illusory net of sounds/letters” to explain Buddhist ontology, Buddhology, and the like, is fascinating. But for now, I wish to only note the statement: akāro mukhaṃ sarvadharmāṇām ādyanutpannatvāt |. Rong-zom-pa records this statement in Sanskrit (although slightly corrupt) and renders it into Tibetan thus (p. 136.9–12): gzod ma nas ma skyes pa’i phyir | a ni chos thams cad kyi sgo’o ||. I propose to translate it thus: “Because the sound a is ab initio non-arisen, [it] is the source of / entrance to all phenomena.” He simply states that this has been taught in “most scriptures” (bka’ phal mo che). We can mention two important scriptures for now, namely, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā as a representative of Sūtric scriptures and the Hevajratantra as a representative of Tantric scriptures (cf. http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2007/07/).

Buddhaguhya, Tantrārthāvatāra (Bᵀ, vol. 27, p. 1134.9): ma skyes pa’i phyir a ni chos thams cad kyi sgo’o ||. Translated by Mañjuvarman (’Jam-dpal-go-cha).

On Ratnāvalī 1.94

Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvalī has drawn a great deal of scholarly attention. It has also been translated into several languages, and it has been translated several times into English. My concern here is, however, the reading gnas thod that we find in the Tibetan translation of Ratnāvalī 1.94 (Hahn 1982: 37): rnam shes bstan med mtha’ yas pa || kun tu bdag po de la ni || sa dang chu dang me dang ni || rlung gis gnas thod ’gyur ma yin ||. Almost all of the available (canonical) textual witnesses read thod (Hahn 1982; Okada 1990) except rGyal-tshab-rje’s commentary, the Dar ṭīk, that reads: rlung gis gnas thob ’gyur ma yin (Okada 1990; Samten 1990; Dhondup 2010). There are other variants as well but I consider gnas thod and gnas thob to be more significant. The Lung gi gsal byed, Glag-bla bSod-nams-chos-grub’s commentary, obviously read gnas mthong (p. 175.18–23). The basic text reproduced in the same volume, however, reads gnas thod. The Tibetan translation of Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā reproduced there also reads gnas thod (p. 86.10–11). It has to be seen how what Hahn called the “para-canonical” version reads. Fortunately, Peter Szántó kindly sent me Phutshang 2016, containing a bilingual texts of Ratnāvalī 1.77–100. I shall return to the Sanskrit text of Ratnāvalī 1.94. One important question is whether the version that rGyal-tshab-rje used read gnas thob or whether it was his emendation. Regardless of whether gnas thob was the original reading or not, it actually does seem to make sense, but unlike some of the translations, for which, see below, it neither seem to mean “wind cannot find any place [to exist]” nor “wind do not appear to that.” Actually, I think the translation “[… fire, and] wind do not have a chance” is what the clause in Tibetan is trying to say. This is supported by Ajitamitra’s Ratnāvalīṭīkā (Okada 1990: 73): ji skad bshad pa’i rnam par shes pa de na ni gnas thod par ’gyur ba ma yin te | gnas skabs rnyed par mi ’gyur ro ||. Cf. Okada 1990: 171. The suggestion and translation offered there do not seem to be particularly convincing. Okada, like many Tibetan scholars, prefers gnas thob because obviously gnas thod, which is certainly a lectio defficilior, made no sense. The second clause has been rendered there as: “sie werden keinen Platz [in Bewußtsein] erlangen.” The commentator explicitly paraphrases/explains gnas thod as gnas skabs, which is actually not simply a “place” but contextually more suitable to be understood as “occasion/chance/opportunity.” The Tibetan syntactic construction is: “X” la “Y” gis gnas thod par ’gyur ba ma yin. In my view, it should be understood as: “Y” does not stand a chance against “X.” The expression gnas thod par ’gyur ba seems to be synonymous with glags rnyed par ’gyur ba. Cf. MW (s.v. avatāra): “acc. with √labh, ‘to get an opportunity’.” The meaning of thod in this sense may sound a bit more plausible if we consider the adverbial phrase gang thod thod du (“randomly, arbitrarily,” beliebig, “as and when the chance/occasion/opportunity arises”) which practically means gang byung byung, gang rung rung, gang bde bde, and so on. The Sanskrit text of Ratnāvalī 1.94 (Phutshang 2016: 33) reads: anidarśanaṃ ca vijñānam anantam sarvataḥ prabhuḥ | atrāpaḥ pṛthivī caiva tejā vāyur na gāhate ||. Sanskrit experts should guide us in this regard. It may only be noted here that the Sanskrit parallel for gnas thod ’gyur ma yin turns out to be na gāhate. Let us take a look at √gāh and √gādh (MW). The former is said to mean “to dive into, bathe in, plunge into (acc.), penetrate, enter deeply into (acc.) … (with kakṣām, ‘to be a match for (gen.)’.” The latter is said to mean “to stand firmly” (among other things). In keeping with what I initially suggested (i.e., before seeing the Sanskrit text), I wonder if we can still understand na gāhate and gnas thod ’gyur ma yin as “does not stand a chance (against),” “does/can not match up to,” “cannot withstand,” and the like. Cf. MW, s.v. prabhū “to be a match for (dat.),” s.v. prabhu “a match for (dat.).”

The actual message of the verse seems to be that tangible phenomena (e.g., the four gross elements) stand no chance against the substrate-less and intangible phenomena such as vijñāna. The substrate-less vijñāna offers no Angriffsfläche/Zielscheibe, or, a vulnerable spot, so to speak, an Achilles heel. This reminds us of the story of Godhika. The Māra could not find the vijñāna of Godhika, who has become an arhat.

Tucci and Frauwallner did not translate this verse.  Let us take a look at some English translations.

Translation A (Hopkins & Lati 1975: 30): “The spheres of earth, water, fire And wind do not appear to that Undemonstrable consciousness, Complete lord over the limitless.”

Translation B (Hopkins 2007: 49): “Earth, water, fire, and wind Do not have a chance In the face of that undemonstrable consciousness Complete lord over the limitless.”

Translation C (Dunne & McClintock 1997: 12): “Earth, water, fire, and wind cannot find any place (to exist) in that undisclosable, limitless, fully sovereign awareness.”

Translation D (Carlie & Chodron 2017): “Earth, water, fire, and wind cannot find any place [to exist] in that indemonstrable, limitless, fully sovereign awareness.”

Translation E from the Chinese (Dharmamitra 2009: 59): “Just as no forms exist in the station of boundless consciousness, And just as it is boundless and universally pervasive, So too in this [wisdom]: Earth and the other primary elements Are all brought to complete destruction.”

Bibliography

Yukihiro Okada, Die Ratnāvalīṭīkā des Ajitamitra. Indica et Tibetica 19. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1990.

Ācārya Ngawang Samten (ed.), Ratnāvalī of Ācārya Nāgārjuna with the Commentary by Ajitamitra. Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 23. Sarnath, Varanasai: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1990.

Michael Hahn (ed.), Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvalī. Vol. 1: The Basic Texts (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese). Indica et Tibetica 1. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1982.

Jeffrey Hopkins (tr.), Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland: Buddhist Advice for Living and Liberation. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2007.

Bhikshu Dharmamitra (tr.), A Strand of Dharma Jewels: A Bodhisattva’s Profound Teachings On Happiness, Liberation, and the Path: The Rāja Parikathā Ratnāvalī Composed by Ārya Nāgārjuna for a South Indian Monarch Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha’s Sixth-Century. Seattle, Washington: Kalavinka Press, 2009.

Jeffrey Hopkins, Lati Rinpoche with Anne Klein (trs.), The Precious Garland and The Song of the Four Mindfulnesses. Nagarjuna Kaysang Gyatso, the Seventh Dalai Lama. The Wisdom of Tibet Series 2. New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, 1975.

John D. Dunne & Sara McClintock (trs.), The Precious Garland: An Epistle to a King: A Translation of Nāgārjuna’s Text from the Sanskrit and Tibetan. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1997.

Bhikshu Steve Carlier (tr.) & Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron (ed.), Practical Ethics and Profound Emptiness: A Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland. Khensur Jampa Tegchok. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2017.

dGe-slong Phun-tshogs-don-grub, dBu ma rin chen phreng ba’i snying po’i don gsal bar byed pa = Rin chen phreng ba dar ṭīk. Sarnath, Varanasi: Siddhārtha Publication, 2010 [2nd edition].

Glag-bla bSod-nams-chos-’grub, “dBu ma rgyal po la gtam bya ba rin po che phreng ba’i ’grel pa lung gi gsal byed.” In dBu ma rin chen phreng ba’i rtsa ba dang ’grel pa. [gSer-rta-rdzong]: gSer-ljongs-bla-ma-rung-lnga-rig-nang-bstan-slob-grwa-chen-mo, [2006], pp. 124–413.

Phutshang, “Preliminary Report on Sanskrit Manuscript Ratnāvalī Written by Nāgārjuna [Sanskrit-Tibetan 1.77–100].” Tibetan Palm-Leaf Manuscript Studies 2016, pp. 26–36.

A Note on the Mantric Syllable Bhyo

The Indic origin of the Mantric syllable bhyo (often also bhyoḥ) is indisputable. In one instance in the *Guhyagarbhatantra, the syllable is repeated 28 times (Dorje 1987: vol. 3, p. 1145). Rong-zom-pa in his commentary explains thus (p. 212): dbang phyug ma rnams kyi snying po yi ge bhyo zhes bya bar bstan pa ni | bhyo ni ma mo’i tshogs kyi don yin pas | bud med kyi snying po yang yin | ’bod pa yang yin | bskul ba yang yin pa’i phyir ro ||. According to him, it is the seed-syllable of the īśvarīs. This would explain the 28 bhyos because the *Guhyagarbhatantra has 28 īśvarīs. The syllable also stands for a host of mātṛkās. It is also the seed-syllable of women. It is vocative as well as imperative. In this case, the form bhyo would be preferable. See also IOL Tib J 331.III (Cantwell & Mayer 2008: 121), where the Mantric syllable occurs. Interestingly, the Adhyardhaśatikā contains the Mantric syllable (see Tomabechi 2009:  lvi, n. 56; lvii, n. 58; especially p. 18, n. 9; 58). The Sanskrit passage containing bhoḥ is missing but Tomabechi makes clear that the mantra itself is attested.  See also Conze 1967: 147. One important Sanskrit source is the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (Yamada 1981: 294): oṃ bhyo bhyo huṃ phaṭ ||.

Tomabechi 2009 = Toru Tomabechi (ed.), Adhyardhaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā. Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. Sanskrit Texts from Tibetan Autonomous Region 5. Beijing/Vienna: China Tibetology Publishing House / Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2009. 

Dorje 1987 = Gyurme Dorje, The Guhyagarbhatantra and Its XIVth Century Commentary Phyogs-bcu mun-sel. PhD Thesis. 3 vols. London: SOAS, University of London, 1987.

Cantwell & Mayer 2008 = Cathy Cantwell & Robert Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa from Dunhuang. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

Conze 1967 = Edward Conze, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays by Edward Conze. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1967.

Yamada 1981 = Isshi Yamada (ed.), Sarva-Tathāgata-tattva-saṅgraha Nāma Mahāyāna-Sūtra: A Critical Edition Based on a Sanskrit Manuscript and Chinese and Tibetan Translations. Śata-Piṭaka: Indo-Asian Literature 262. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1981.

Karma-Pakshi (1204/1206–1283) on Kaśmīra

Just the other day I took a note of the Tibetan name for Khitan. In this connection, I took a look at Kapstein 2011: 272–273, n. 32, where a phrase from the Mo gho ding ri’i sgra tshad (= Mo go di ri sgra tshad) by Chos-kyi-bla-ma (1204/1206–1283), Karma-Pakshi, has been cited. But actually the text is riddled with problems. The pertinent line reads (p. 294): khyad par ga smin [= kaśmīra] gyi yul padmo dka’ du ba [= padmodaka ’du ba?] kha che’i grong khyer krigs brten [= khri brtan] zhes bya bar grags pa las [= la?]| rgyud ’bum tsho bye ba sum cu so drug yod par grags pa na | dgra bcom pa nyi ma ’bum gyis gzhung lugs bskyang ba yin |. The translation reads (p. 272): “In particular, in the land of Kashmir, Padmo dka’, there is the Kashmiri city called Krigs brtan, (3a.5), as it is famed, where there are known to be 360 million collections of a hundred thousand tantras, and the arhat Nyi-ma-’bum [i.e. Nyi-ma-gung, or Madhyāhnika] preserved the scriptural traditions.” I am not sure if the reading Padma-dka’ is correct. I wonder if we should try reading padmodaka ’du ba (“[with] throngs of lotus water/lakes” (cf. padmasaras)? Reading du ba “smoke” makes little sense here.

Matthew T. Kapstein, “The Doctrine of Eternal Heaven: A Tibetan Defense of Mongol Imperial Religion.” In Mahāmudrā and the Bka’-brgyud Tradition. PIATS 2006. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006, edited by Roger R. Jaskson & Matthew T. Kapstein. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2011, pp. 239–315.

Rong-zom-pa and the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra

To my knowledge, Rong-zom-pa cites the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra only on one occasion, namely, in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra (p. 178.9–10): ’di ltar dgongs pa nges par ’grel ba las kyang | sngon gyi las kyi sgrib pa sbyong ba’i tshad nges pa med de zhes rgya cher gsungs pa dang |. The context is the relativity/indeterminacy of the time or duration of the realization of one’s soterial goal. The problem is that I have not been able to trace such a statement in the edition of the Tibetan translation of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Lamotte 1935), that is, despite an impression of an ad verbum citation. Usually, his ad verbum citations turn out to be indeed ad verbum. Did he have a different version of the translation? Did he cite from a secondary source? Did he simply get confused? Did he cite it from his memory? To be sure, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra does discuss at length the hindrances/obscurations, but not in the context that Rong-zom-pa’s citation demands. Does the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra at all allude to the relativity/indeterminacy of the time or duration of the realization of one’s soterial goal? It actually does, namely, in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra 9.§30 (Lamotte 1935: 146). Here Avalokiteśvara asks the Buddha within what duration of time would badness (dauṣṭhulya: gnas ngan len) be eliminated. The Buddha answers that it would range (depending on many factors) from a split second to countless aeons. This is exactly the point that Rong-zom-pa intends to make.

A Note on Rematī

There seem to be plenty of secondary sources on Rematī (e.g., Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956) based on Tibetan sources. Among other things, she is a form of Śrīdevī. Despite an abundance of occurrences of Rematī (often spelled Remati) in Tantric scriptures transmitted in the bKa’ ’gyur, I have not been able to find any Sanskrit source that mention the name Rematī. The name Revatī (Nam-gru), on the other hand, seems to be well attested in Sanskrit sources. We may consider Revatī and Rematī to be synonymous (cf. rayivat/revat and rayimat/remat; rayi/re = śrī). Thus: Rematī = Revatī = Śrīmatī = Śrīdevī.

A Note on the *Ratnāsūkośa

A Note on the *Ratnāsūkośa (sKye med rin po che’i mdzod)

Recently a Tibetan monk-scholar posted some excerpts on the FB from the sKye med rin po che’i mdzod (D3839; P5239) taking for granted that it was composed by “the Nāgārjuna” (i.e., the author of the MMK). My instant and instinctive reaction was that of skepticism. Since I have thus far not paid particular attention to the work and its authorship, I looked at Lindtner 1997 (revised version of Lindtner 1982) but the work seems to be mentioned no where. There is no mention of it in Seyfort Ruegg 1981 either. In the Tibskrit, the work has been listed under Nāgārjunagarbha (Klu sgrub snying po) as found in the colophons and catalogues. It was translated by Kanakavarman and Sūryakīrti, and Dan Martin adds Nyi ma grags pa within parentheses with a question mark. The ATTI project has confirmed that Sūryakīrti should indeed be Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. This is also confirmed by the Bu ston chos ’byung (BDRC): skye med rin po che’i mdzod du grags pa pa tshab kyi ’gyur |.

Now, if we do a quick search in the BDRC, we shall notice that Tibetan scholars such as Klong chen pa have often cited the sKye med rin po che’i mdzod. To judge by online sources, contemporary scholars (perhaps following Klong chen pa’s citations of the works) have also referred to the sKye med rin po che’i mdzod, specifying the attribution to Nāgārjuna. Some scholars have used the Sanskrit title *Ratnāsūkoṣa (asterisk is mine). In the Tibetan tradition, however, there seem to be at least two positions on the authorship attribution, namely, one that ascribed the work to Nāgārjuna (obviously not differentiating him from Nāgārjunagarbha), and another that ascribed it to Āryadeva. Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339), in his bsTan ’gyur dkar chag (accessed only via BDRC), clearly attributes this work to Nāgārjuna: skye med rin po che’i mdzod slop dpon klu sgrub kyis mdzad pa. Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen ascribes it to Nāgārjunagarbha but I am not sure if he intended to differentiate him from Nāgārjuna. I feel that he did intend to differentiate the two because the immediately preceding work is ascribed to Nāgārjuna. I have not cross-checked Bu ston’s other catalogues, but his Chos ’byung, in my view, ascribes it to Āryadeva. This is because he listed the sKye med rin po che’i mdzod among Āryadeva’s writings. The attribution of the work to Āryadeva has been made explicit in Kong sprul’s Shes bya mdzod (accessed via BDRC). Perhaps we may have to propose that the work was neither by Nāgārjuna, the author of the MMK nor Āryadeva, the author of the Catuḥśataka but by a different person bearing the name Nāgārjuna, Nāgārjunagarbha, or Āryadeva.

Finally, I would think that the Sanskrit title *Ratnāsūkoṣa has been a mere reconstruction. One would have thought the Sanskrit title would have been something like *Ratānutpattikośa or *Ratnānutpādakośa, but instead we have *Ratnāsūkośa (ratna + asū + kośa). Not being a Sanskritist, it is difficult to know whether these titles sound natural. Compared to anutpatti and anutpāda, asū seems to me a lectio difficilior and perhaps this might rather speak for the originality of the title.

Which (Mūla)sarvāstivādavinaya Tradition Would the New Bhikṣuṇīs Follow?

In connection with the recent bhikṣuṇī ordination given by sPrul-sku ’Jigs-med-chos-grags (b. 1955), the 70th rJe-mkhan-po of Bhutan, one question that does not seem to be addressed or clarified for the general public is in which of the three Vinaya traditions of the (Mūla)sarvāstivāda school—Upper Vinaya (bsTod-’dul), Lower Vinaya (sMad-’dul), and Middle Vinaya (Bar-’dul)—has the  rJe-mkhan-po himself has been ordained. I have thus far not paid any attention to the question. In general, some issues related to the Upper Vinaya (bsTod-’dul) has been discussed in Martin 2016. The Middle Vinaya is also called the “Kashmiri Tradition” (Kha-che-lugs).

Online sources state that the rJe-mkhan-po received his śrāmaṇera ordination at the age of eight from ’Brug-pa Thugs-sras-rin-po-che (1916–1983) and bhikṣu ordination at the age of twenty-one from Slop-dpon Sangs-rgyas-bstan-’phel. We have to study the Vinaya lineages of these masters. But in general, we shall have to assume that the Vinaya tradition of the rJe-mkhan-pos would follow the tradition of Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po (1527–1592). Which tradition did Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po follow? The answer seems to be found in the So so thar pa’i sdom pa ’bog pa’i cho ga bstan pa’i snying po (from the Pad dkar gsung ’bum): gsol ba mngon du ’gyur pa ’di la byed pa bu ston rin po che sogs dang | smad ’dul ba’i lugs bzhin | kun mkhyen rang gi so thar ’grel chen sogs mthun kyang | ’bogs chog ’dir ’og gi gsol gzhi’i las kyis gsol ba la mdzad pa stod ’dul ba’i lugs dang bstun pa’o ||. Does this show a syncretism of all three Vinaya traditions?

According to the Ris med chos ’byung (pp. 106.1–107.2), however, the Upper Vinaya lineage has come to cease later and what continued later as the Upper Vinaya lineage is actually the Middle Vinaya lineage. The ’Dul ba’i chos ’byung by Grags-pa-yongs-’dus identifies his lineage as the Kashmiri tradition. This, however, seems to apply only to the Karma-bka’-brgyud school, and hence it does not say anything about the Vinaya lineage of the ’Brug-pa-bka’-brgyud school.

Martin 2016 = Dan Martin, “The Highland Vinaya Lineage: A Study of a Twelfth-Century Monastic Historical Source, the ‘Transmission Document’ by Zhing-mo-che-ba.” Zentralasiatische Studien 45, 2016, pp. 279–308.

Ri med chos ’byung = Padma-kun-bzang-rang-grol, rGyal bstan grub mtha’ ris med kyi chos ’byung mdor bsdus. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1987 (Reprint: 1990).

Some Mantras in IOL Tib J 332 (based on Tanaka 2020: 77)

IOL Tib J 332 (Tanaka 2020: 77): Tacitly Corrected:

1. oṃ  mahāśūnyatājñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

2. oṃ  mahādarśajñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

3. oṃ  mahāpratyavekṣaṇājñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

4. oṃ mahāsamatājñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

5. oṃ mahākṛtyānuṣṭhānajñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

6. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

7. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatakāyavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

8. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatavāgvajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

9. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatacittavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

10. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatānurāgaṇasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

11. oṃ mahāsarvatathāgatapūjameghasvabhāvātmako ’ham |

Mi-pham on Juggling Balls

One of the bedrocks of Mi-pham’s intellectual edifice is Dharmakīrt’s ideas. He even composed a guruyoga manual to invoke Dharmakīrti. Unlike some of his works, which were posthumously completed, his commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika, the Legs bshad snang ba’i gter, is a work to which he paid great deal of attention and caution. He had consulted several Indian and Tibetan commentaries and tried his best to come as closest as possible to Dharmakīrti’s own ideas. Mi-pham’s context in which the term sgong is his brDa shan ’byed the tshom drwa ba gcod pa’i ral gri seems to be clear. I try to understand his ideas by only using his own words found in the basic text and the commentary: “It is difficult to distinguish/differentiate/discriminate (dbye tshul dka’ = dbye bsal dka’) the referents (i.e., dngos po’i tshul = “modes of reality, modes of entity”) by ascertaining “This is it; this is not,” and so on, namely, on account of being confused in the convention of how terms are applied/employed” (sgra ’jug pa’i rnam gzhag la rmongs nas = sgra ’jug rmongs nas).” Why is it difficult? The reason he gives is: “on account of the influence” (shan gyis). The reading shan gyi, found in some editions, should be deprecated. The auto-commentary reads shan gyis and so does mKhan-chen Padma-shes-rab’s commentary. I propose to paraphrase the phrase shan gyis here as “through or because of the contamination/adulteration of accidental/coincidental causes of errors” (’phral gyi ’khrul rgyus bslad pas). We can in general think of all kinds of external or internal factors that could trigger, for example, perceptual, conceptual, or, cognitional errors. Now the pertinent phrase that needs clarification is sgong bzhin (basic text), or, ji ltar sgong bzhin du (commentary). All elements of a formal syllogism seem to be present in this statement: A is B because of C, for example, D. The crux here is: How are we to understand the example or case expressed by “like D”? First, let us be clear that etymologically the Tibetan word sgong seems to be cognate with gong bu. In fact, I feel that the latter is more common than the former. Thus mKhan-chen’s literal explanation of the word sgong as spungs pa’i don “having the sense of ‘heap/heaped’” is actually correct. The question here is thus not so much about the meaning of the word sgong per se but its pragmatic use in the given context. Second, there are several Sanskrit words that have been translated as sgong or gong bu: golaka, leṣṭu (as in sa’i gong bu), piṇḍa, guḍikā, śimbi (as in til gyi gong bu = tilaśimbi). But we can be quite sure that our sgong here is a rendering of golaka in the sense of a “ball” or “globe” for playing with. Third, it seems also worth keeping in mind that not all translators chose to translate golaka as sgong (or gong bu) but as ri lu, which etymologically seems to mean something like “that which rolls,” and hence a “ball” or “pill” (which is globular in shape). Fourth, we should rule out that our sgong here refers to “crystal ball” (sphāṭika/sphaṭika: shel sgong) although the analogy of “crystal ball” is often used in Buddhist sources. Fifth, our sgong is clearly a rendering of the Sanskrit māyāgolaka, which has been employed by Dharmakīrti in the Pratyakṣa-Chapter (verse no. 104) of his Pramāṇavārttika (Miyasaka 1972: 54–55): kvacit tad aparijñānaṃ sadṛśāparasambhavāt | bhrānter apaśyato bhedaṃ māyāgolakabhedavat ||; Tib. ’dra ba gzhan ni yod pa’i phyir || la lar yongs su mi shes te || ’khrul phyir sgong gi tha dad bzhin || tha dad mthong ba med phyir ro ||. Naturally post-Dharmakīrti Indian authors employed this term as well. I cannot go into these details. As I mentioned above, the reason for rendering māyāgolaka simply as sgong seems to be the metrical constriction in the Tibetan translation. Indeed, we do find the translation sgyu ma’i sgong and sgyu ma’i ri lu in the Tibetan translations of other commentaries in prose (Negi: passim). Sixth, I do not seem to find the word māyāgolaka recorded and explained in the Sanskrit lexicons available to me. We can only hope to learn from our Sanskritist colleagues. But I feel that the word māyāgolaka, which seems to mean something like “balls of illusion,” actually mean “juggling balls.” Mi-pham’s commentary on this verse clearly seems to support this understanding (Beijing, 1995, p. 277). His rtsed mo mkhan should be our “juggler.” He mentions only two balls (gong bu gnyis) but a skilled juggler can throw many more balls. Note his formulation: dper na rtsed mo mkhan gyis gong bu gnyis ’dor len myur bar ’phangs pa’i sgong gi tha dad pa. The edition I use reads ’dod len but it should be, in my view, emended to ’dor len “throwing and catching.” Seventh, the use of the analogy of māyāgolaka in the Pramāṇavārttika and the one in Mi-pham’s The tshom drwa ba gcod pa’i ral gri are not totally identical. The general context of the former seems to be the refutation of the position that recognition is a valid perceptual cognition. For Dharmakīrti, however, recognition may look like a valid perceptual cognition but it is not. Recognition seems to be understood as an erroneous blend of recollection and the current perception of something else. It is a kind of conceptual association/integration. The actual point of the above Pramāṇavārttika verse is that owing to causes of error, one may not always cognize the separateness/difference of the juggling balls although the balls are undeniably separate/distinct. In the The tshom drwa ba gcod pa’i ral gri, however, the difficulty in distinguishing one referent of a certain term from the other is compared to the difficulty in distinguishing one juggling ball from the other. Thus the verse may be translated thus: “It is difficult to distinguish the [specific] referents on account of being confused in the application of term, [that is,] owing to the impact [of the causes of error] just as [it is difficult to distinguish] juggling balls [from one another for the same reason].”

A Note on the Tibetan Word ga’u lo

Recently, my colleague, Dr. Jörg Heimbel, asked me if I had any idea what the Tibetan expression ga’u lo bzang po could mean. For the want of a better solution, I speculated that it could mean something like “fortunate [wish-fulfilling] chest [of treasures].” Now, firstly, I am not sure if this is, more or less, correct. Secondly, even if it is correct, where do the syllables ga’u and lo come from? I am tempted to further speculate about the word ga’u lo. A couple of points may be made in this regard. First, to be sure, ga’u lo appears to be real word, and not something gibberish that crept into Tibetan literature. Thanks to the BDRC, we can quickly trace the pertinent word in context. For example, the 32nd Sa-skya-khri-chen Ngag-dbang-kun-dga’-blo-gros (1729–1783) states the following (via BUDA by BDRC): … ’o skol tshang ma sdig bral bkra shis pa’i phyir | phyar mo che sne bzhi nas ’degs pa’i bsam ’khu ga’u lo gru bzhi chud zos su ma song bar mdzad ’tshal |. The context here makes clear that ga’u lo is a precious object, and it is used figuratively. It is a metaphor for altruistic attitude (bsam pa or lhag pa’i bsam pa: āśaya or adhyāśaya) and sense of responsibility. It is conceived of to be cubic or rectangular in shape. But it could be that the rectangular shape was simply meant to conform the “four edges” (sne bzhi) of the “large canvas sheet” (phyar mo che), usually made of yak hair in Tibet. Sa-skya-khri-chen, thus, seems to be saying something like: “…In order that we be free from vices and be [endowed with] auspiciousness, please ensure that the rectangular ga’u lo of altruism and responsibility, which is held up on a large canvas sheet by [holding its] four edges/sides/corners, do not go to waste (or, are ruined).” The word phyar mo che appears to be rare. But it should practically mean the same as phyar ba in the second sense recorded in the Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v. phyar ba): spu rtsid ko ras sogs las bzos shing | ’bru ’bras sogs ’grems stan dang | khebs g.yog byed pa’i yo byad cig |…’bru rnams phyar ba’i steng du bkram nas nyi skam byed |… slel phyar|… ko phyar |… ras phyar |… smyug phyar |… char pa ’bab tshe phyar bas ’bru rigs ’gebs pa |). What would be perhaps helpful here is the idiomatic phrase phyar ba gru ’degs (ibid.): sle’u gru sne bzhi nas ’gyogs pa ste | las don la tshang mas hur skyed dgos pa’i dpe |… mi tshang mas phyar ba gru ’degs kyi sgo nas thon skyed do dam byed bzhin pa …|. The expression phyar ba gru ’degs may mean something like “supporting/propping up canvass sheet by [its four] sides/edges/corners.” A canvass sheet, or, simply a sheet made of bamboo, for example, is used for spreading and drying grains/crops in the sun. The expression is used as a metaphor for “responsibility.” It is not enough to simply spread the grains on the sheet. Ensuring that edges of the sheet are consolidated so that the sheet does not fly away with the wind; ensuring that birds do not peck on the grains; ensuring that grains are covered in the likely event of a rainfall, and the like, are all signs of taking care of the grains and of taking responsibility.

The to-be-protected object in Sa-skya-khri-chen’s text is the ga’u lo, and in the example provided by the Tshig mdzod chen mo, it is the grains (’bru rigs). The two questions that concern us here are: (a) What exactly is a ga’u lo? (b) How are we to explain the word ga’u lo etymologically? (a) Contextually, it appears that ga’u lo is a casket, or, an amulet, of some kind, and hence it is virtually identical with ga’u. It could be of various sizes and shapes. (b) Initially, I wondered if ga’u lo is derived from a Sanskrit word such as goloka. See, for example, MW (s.v. goloka): “m. (n., Tantr.), ‘cow-world’, a part of heaven, or (in later mythol, RTL. 118 and 291) Kṛṣṇa’s heaven, MBh. xiii, 3195 (cf. 3347); Hariv. 3994 (cf. 3899); R. ii; BrahmaP.” I was also thinking of forms such as *golokya and *gaulokya. But I soon abandoned my speculation in this direction. There seems to be no justification to link ga’u lo with goloka. Instead, with a great degree of plausibility, the Tibetan word ga’u lo should be understood simply as an abbreviated form of and in the sense of ga’u ’khor lo (“ga’u, a circular object”), which is obviously to be differentiated from ga’u’i ’khor lo (perhaps “the rounded vault of a ga’u”). The compound ga’u ’khor lo should be seen in the same vein as in the compound srung ’khor. As for the etymology, or, rather the origin of the Tibetan ga’u itself, I do not wish to risk saying anything here.

Śatasahasrika Scriptures in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism

Well-Known and Little-Known Concepts of the Śatasahasrika Scriptures in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism

Dorji Wangchuk

(Hamburg)

December 25, 2021

The concept of the Śatasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā scriptures is well known. What is perhaps less known is the concept of other Śatasahasrika scriptures that can be found in Tibetan Buddhist sources. U-rgyan-gling-pa’s bKa’ thang sde lnga (p. 359), for example, speaks of the Mahāyāna Sūtric scriptures in terms of the ’Bum sde lnga, namely, (1) the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in hundred-thousand lines, (2) the Ratnakūṭasūtra in hundred-thousand lines (dKon mchog brtsegs pa’i ’bum), (3) the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra in hundred-thousand lines (), (4) the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra in hundred-thousand lines (Mya ngan ’das pa’i ’bum), and (5) the Laṅkāvatārasūtra in hundred-thousand lines (Lang kar gshegs pa’i ’bum). The expression śatasahasrika (’bum (pa); stong phrag brgya (pa)) may be understood in the sense of an enormous number or size of a collection. Also the word ’bum sde seems to mean a huge collection or corpus, and its usage is not confined to the context of scriptures. The use of the word ’bum in rgyud ’bum, gzungs ’bum, gsung ’bum, bka’ ’bum, mgur ’bum, and the like, can be understood in the sense of a collection or corpus of writings.

If we think in tripiṭaka terms, the expression ’bum sde has also been employed not only to characterize Sūtrapiṭaka, so to speak, but also the Vinayapiṭaka and Abhidharmapiṭaka as well. The expression ’dul ba ’bum sde occur frequently in Tibetan sources. What about the expression mngon pa ’bum sde? Such an expression does not seem to be found, but we do find the expression chos mngon pa stong phrag brgya pa in IOL 615 (de La Vallée Poussin 1962: 190; Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa, B, vol. 77, p. 669.9–10).

The expression stong phrag brgya pa has also been used in the Tantric context. For example, Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra (B, vol. 27, p. 1003.19–20) calls the Sarvatathāgatasaṃgrahatantra the Theg pa chen po mngon par rtogs pa stong phrag rgya pa. Rong-zom-pa follows suit in his Dam tshig mdo rgyas (D, p. 324). Similarly, the Ur-Tantra of the Guhyagarbhatantra is called the rDo rje sems dpa’ sgyu ’phrul drwa ba le’u stong phrag brgya pa, for example, by Rong-zom-pa in his dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 33). The use of stong phrag brgya pa in the Guhyagarbhatantra context may be considered as an example from the Tantra-Section (rGyud-sde) of the Mahāyoga system. But how about such a use in the Sadhāna-Section (sGrub-sde) of the Mahāyoga system? The famous Pelliot tibétain 44 (see also Kha-sgang et al. 2014: 344–352), where the Vajrakīla Tantric scriptures have been referred to as the Phur bu’i rgyud ’bum sde, Phur bu’i ’bum sde, and ’Bum sde, and which may be identified with the Vidyottamatantra (Rig pa mchog gi rgyud), as done by Nyang-ral does (Nyang ral chos ’byung, p. 284) seems to offer a good example of the use of the expression ’bum sde to characterize a Tantric scripture of the Sadhāna-Section of the Mahāyoga system.

There may be other instances of the use of ’bum sde or stong phrag brgya pa to characterize other scriptural collections or corpora, but I hope I have been able to show that the concept of śatasahasrika scriptures has been applied to describe several Sūtric and Tantric Mahāyāna scriptures.

Tibetan Verbs That Are Both Heteronomous-Intransitive and Autonomous-Transitive

Some verbs in Tibetan seem to have both heteronomous-intransitive and autonomous-transitive senses: (a) slu ba “to be deceptive” (heteronomous-intransitive), e.g. x la mi slu ba “to be non-deceptive with regard to x,”  rang gi don byed pa la mi bslu ba (RZ1: 192) “to be non-deceptive with regard to fulfilling one’s objective.” (b) slu ba “to deceive” (autonomous-transitive), eg. x slu ba “to deceive x,” gzhan bslu ba (RZ1: 217) “to deceive others.”

Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes (11–12th Century) on the Madhyamaka Subclassification

Among the Tibetan Buddhist Abhisamayālaṃkāra exegetes, ’Bre Shes-rab-’bar and Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes came to be referred to as the ’Bre-Ar Duo (’bre ar gnyis). As pointed out by sKa-ba Shes-rab-bzang-po in his forward to the collected writings of Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes published in Lhasa (pp. 1–5), Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes who lived in the eleventh–twelfth century is not to be identified, as done by Dung-dkar Blo-bzang-phrin-las, with dBus-pa Blo-gsal who lived in the thirteenth century. Until recently, we had no direct access to the writings and thoughts of Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes. But thanks to recent discoveries published in the bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum, materials of untold value are now at our disposal. The current prevailing Tibetan Buddhist schools may not directly identify with the doctrinal positions of Ar Byang-chub-ye-shes, but in terms of the history of the Buddhist ideas in Tibet, his writings are significant textual testimonies. I wish to mention just one example.

In her study, “Māyopamādvayavāda versus Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda: A Late Indian Subclassification of Madhyamaka and its Reception in Tibet,” Orna Almogi states the following (Almogi 2010: 136):

“However, I should perhaps concede from the very outset that while I was preparing this article for publication it became increasingly clear that I have just barely managed to scratch the surface and that there is still a long way to go before we can fully understand this division of Madhyamaka in general, and Madhyamaka in Tibet during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries in particular.”

And further on, she states (Almogi 2010: 182):

“Nonetheless, since all Indian sources cited above present the matter from the Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin viewpoint, one wonders whether there was anyone at all who considered himself a Māyopamavādin—that is, in the sense portrayed by their Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin ʻopponentsʼ—or whether the entire ‘controversy’ and ʻdebateʼ took place, at least initially, within Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin circles alone with (more or less) imaginary opponents.”

In his commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra called the mNgon rtogs rgyan gyi ’grel pa rnam ’byed, which is indeed a super/sub-commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, Ar identifies those who have fallen into the extremes of depreciation (apavāda: skur pa ’debs pa) and superimposition (samāropa/ samāropaṇa; adhyāropa/adhyāropaṇa: sgro ’dogs pa), and both Mādhyamikas, namely, dBu-ma-sgyu-ma-lta-bu (i.e. Māyopamādvayavādin) and [dBu-ma]-rab-tu-mi-gnas-pa (i.e. Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin) have been equally presented positively as those who are in the right tract. And then Ar states the following (p. 298.6–9):

de yang yang dag tu zhen pa dang | sgyu mar zhen pa na yang [= pa yang?] shes bya’i sgrib pa yin pas de gnyis dgag pa’i don du rim gyis bstan pa yin gyis | sgyu ma rig pa’i [= rigs pas? cf. the expression: sgyu ma rigs grub pa] shes byar khas len pa ni ma yin no || des na dbu mar khas len pa gcig gis kyang gnyis ka khas len par bya ba yin no || don du na bden pa gnyis la mkhas pa’o ||; “That is, also the clinging to [phenomena] as being truly/absolutely existent and clinging to [phenomena] as being illusory are obscurations [that hinder the cognitive access to] the objects of knowledge (jñeyāvaraṇa: shes bya’i sgrib pa). Thus, in order to negate these two [kinds of clinging], [the Māyopamādvayavāda and Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda doctrines] have been taught in a sequence, and it is not so [that the Māyopamādvayavādins] posit the illusory [phenomena] to be objects of [Madhyamic] logical reasonings. Thus both [positions of Māyopamādvayavāda and Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda] should be accepted even by one Mādhyamika proponent. Actually, [both Māyopamādvayavādins and Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādins] are [equally] skilled in the two modes of reality.”

I wish to make two points in this regard. First, if the above text is tolerably correct and if my hypothetical understanding of it holds, at least Ar’s understanding of the Māyopamādvayavāda–Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda distinction seems to corroborate Almogi’s statement above, that is, we need not anticipate the existence of separate Māyopamādvayavādins. And indeed, it appears that Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda position presupposes and rests on Māyopamādvayavāda illusionism. This seems particularly true for Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādins such as Rong-zom-pa. The metaphysical ground-less-ness, or, abyss, of all saṃsāric and nirvāṇic phenomena, and the feasibility of Karmological and Budhological mechanism, and the ideas of pratibhāsamātra and idaṃpratyayatāmātra, proposed by the Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādins hinge on the doctrine Māyopamādvayavāda illusionism. Second, Ar’s distinction of the Māyopamādvayavāda and Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda somehow reminds one of Mi-pham’s distinction of the Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka. That is, according to Mi-pham, the difference between the two does not lie in whether or not the two establish the true reality fully and correctly but rather in how they eliminate the four extremes. Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas do so gradually/sequentially, and the Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikas negate all four extremes from the very outset. What Ar is saying in effect is that one can be both a Māyopamādvayavādin and a Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin. One starts as a Māyopamādvayavādin and culminates as a Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin.

Bibliography

dPal-brtsegs-bod-yig-dpe-rnying-zhib-’jug-khang (ed.), Ar byang chub ye shes kyi gsung chos skor. bKa’- gdams-dpe-dkon-gces-btus 2. Beijing: Krung-go’i-bod-rig-pa-dpe-skrun-khang, 2006.

Orna Almogi, “Māyopamādvayavāda versus Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda: A Late Indian Subclassification of Madhyamaka and its Reception in Tibet.” Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 14, 2010, pp. 135–212.

Iconic Figures of the rNying-ma School of Tibetan Buddhism

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung = bDud-’joms Jigs-bral-ye-shes-rdo-rje, Gangs ljongs rgyal bstan yongs rdzogs kyi phyi mo snga ‘gyur rdo rje theg pa’i bstan pa rin po che’i ji ltar byung ba’i tshul dag cing gsal bar brjod pa lha dbang g.yul las rgyal ba’i rnga bo che’i sgra dbyangs. In bDud ’joms jigs bral ye shes rdo rje’i gsung ’bum dam chos rin chen nor bu’i mdzod. 25 vols. Kalimpong: Dubjung Lama, 1979–1985, vol. 1, pp. 1–845.

Śrīsiṃha (bDud ’joms chos ’byung, p. 66).

Jñānasūtra (bDud ’joms chos ’byung, p. 66).

Kukurāja (bDud ’joms chos ’byung, p. 67).

King Jaḥ (bDud ’joms chos ’byung, p. 67).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 68).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 68).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 69).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 69).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 147).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 2).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 2).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 147).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 2).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ‘bum (vol. 3, p. 5).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 148).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ‘bum (vol. 3, p. 5).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 3).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 148).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 7).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 149).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 7).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 3).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 149).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 150).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 3).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 150).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 151).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 151).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 152).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 152).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 9).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 4, p. 9).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 179).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 79).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 180).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 180).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 181).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 181).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 182).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 182).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 183).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 183).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 281).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 281).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 282).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 283).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 283).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 284).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 284).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 285).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 285).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 511).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 511).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 512).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 512).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 513).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 513).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 514).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 514).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 515).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 515).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 516).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 516).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 517).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 517).

Source: bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 845).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 393).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 393).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 497).

Source: bDud ’joms gsung ’bum (vol. 3, p. 497).

Source: mKhas-btsun-bzang-po, Biographical Dictionary (vol. 3, p. 280).

Rong-zom-pa and the bDud rtsi’i lung

A study of the origination, formation, and transformation of what came to be known as the sGrub-pa-bka’-brgyad cycle of the Mahāyoga strand of Vajrayāna tradition of the rNying-ma school of Tibetan Buddhism is a desideratum. Although the tradition classifies the bKa’-brgyad cycle into bKa’-ma and gTer-ma traditions, the textual evidences for the former seem not to be forthcoming. Even the term sgrub pa bka’ brgyad or bka’ brgyad seems hardly attested in the pre-twelfth-century textual sources. Of the eight cycles, the first five are said to pertain to supramundane and soteriological concerns and the last three are mundane and do not directly concern soteriology. Also there seems to be a tacit assumption that the first five are Indic in their origination and the last three are rather Tibetic adaptation. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to try and prove this. As already pointed out by Mengyan Li (Li 2018: 24, n. 1), the term sgrub pa sde lnga can be traced in the the lDe’u chos ’byung and the like. The sgrub pa sde lnga are: bDud-rtsi, Phur-pa, Padma-dbang-chen, Yang-dag and gShin-rje. These are said to have been transmitted into Tibet by Vimalamitra. We, however, notice that what we have here bDud-rtsi in place of Che-mchog in the more popular and later bKa’-brgyad scheme. There is much to explore in this regard. My interest lies in trying to shed light on the history of bKa’-brgyad in the pre-twelfth-century sources. As far as I can see, Rong-zom-pa, for example, does not seem to employ expressions such as sgrub pa sde lnga, sgrub pa sde brgyad, sgrub pa bka’ brgyad, and the like. We cannot draw any sure conclusion from the argumentum ex silentio, but we should nonetheless bear this in mind. What seems reasonable to do is to find out if individual components, let us say, building blocks of the sGrub-pa-sde-lnga, sGrub-pa-sde-brgyad, or, sGrub-pa-bka’-brgyad, can be traced in the pre-twelfth-century sources. In this regard, it also seems worth keeping in mind that sGrub-pa-bka’-brgyad cycle is seen as the sādhana-section (sgrub sde), as opposed/juxtaposed to the tantra-section of the Mahāyoga, and hence the origin of the sādhana-section is to be sought not outside but rather in the tantra-section. This can be one of the reasons why the history of the sGrub-pa-bka’-brgyad cycle cannot be explained or fully explained without first explaining the history of the the tantra-section comprising of the eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric cycles. Based on Orna Almogi’s study, the terminus ante quem of the great part of the eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric cycles can be set to the tenth or eleventh century. While the writings of Rong-zom-pa do not allude to the schemes of sgrub pa sde lnga and sgrub pa bka’ brgyad, Rong-zom-pa seems to have known the individual components of at least the sgrub pa sde lnga.

Rong-zom-pa in his Theg pa’i bye brag briefly refers to a certain bDud brtsi’i lung (D, p. 35.19–21): thabs mi mkhas pa’i byang chub sems dpa’ bkag ste | bdud rtsi’i lung las | mdo sde’i byang chub sems dpa’ ming yang mi grags pa’i nang du zhes gsungs so ||. This text is being studied by Ms. Jing Yi for her MA thesis. The difficulty has been the terseness of the title and of the idea referred to there. It is as if Rong-zom-pa had been deliberately leaving behind only small traces of the existence of a certain text and of a certain idea to challenge future detectives. Ms. Jing Yi informs me that she has been, with the help of our BuddhaNexus database, able to trace a similar verse in the Thams cad bdud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin dngos grub chen po nye ba’i snying po mchog bam po chen po brgyad pa. The pertinent verses that Ms. Jing Yi is referring to seems to be the following:

Thams cad bdud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin dngos grub chen po nye ba’i mchog bam po chen po brgyad pa (B, vol. 103, p. 560.7–14): bcom ldan gsang ba mchog gi dkyil ’khor na || shin tu rnal ’byor dbang phyug tshogs || rgyal ba rgya mtsho ’khor dang bcas || skal ldan rnams dang thabs cig bzhugs || gnas mchog yum gyi dkil ’khor na || gnyis med lhun gyis gnas pa’i tshe || de tshe nyan thos dge ’dun dang || rang rgyal theg chen mdo sde dang || nyan thos dge ’dun chen po dang || dgra bcom ming yang med nang du || kun bzang thugs kyi dkyil ’khor nas dgongs te ’di skad bstan pa’i lung ||.

I am too lazy to provide here the corresponding references to the other bKa’ ’gyur editions.

The idea that the exclusive Tantric doctrine has been taught to a milieu where even the designation non-Mantric bodhisattva is not known can be found in some Tantric scriptures from the rNying ma rgyud ’bum clearly from the cycle associated with the bDud-rtsi. The following results have been extracted from the BuddhaNexus. Here, too, the exact references to the rNying ma rgyud ’bum editions have not been provided by me.

Thams cad bdud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin (NG0647): ’di skad bdag gis thos pa’i dus gcig na | bcom ldan ’das gsang ba mchog gi dkyil  ’khor na | shin   tu rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug chen po dang thabs cig tu bzhugs te | nyan thos dang rang sangs rgyas dang  | theg pa chen po’i mdo sde’i rgyal po byang chub sems dpa’ dang | dgra bcom pa’i nyan thos kyi dge ’dun chen po dag ming yang mi grag pa’i nang du | gsang sngags kyi snying po bdud rtsi’i mchog tu bya ba’i blta ba dang | spyod pa dang bsgrub pa ’di gsungs so ||.

Thams cad bdud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin dngos grub chen po nye ba’i snying po mchog (NG0276): ’di skad bdag gis thos pa’i dus gcig na | bcom ldan ’das dpal kun tu bzang po | kun rig chos kyi rje dpal chen po shri he ru ka sthi ra ma ti de gsang ba mchog gi dkyil ’khor na | rigs lnga’i ’khor tshogs rgya mtsho dang bcas pa dang | lha dang klu dang mi’i rig ’dzin rnams dang thabs cig tu bzhugs te | nyan thos dang | byang chub sems dpa’i dge ’dun ni ming yang mi grag pa’i nang du | gsang sngags kyi snying po || bdud rtsi’i mchog bcud du bya ba’i lta ba dang | man ngag bsgom pa dang | bsgrub pa dam tshig rnams bsdus te gsungs so ||.

Thams cad bud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin (NG0269): ’di skad bdag gis thos pa’i dus gcig na | bcom ldan ’das gsang ba mchog gi dkyil ’khor na | shin tu rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug chen po dang thabs cig tu bzhugs te | nyan thos dang rang sangs rgyas dang | theg pa chen po’i mdo sde’i rgyal po byang chub sems dpa’ dang | dgra bcom pa’i nyan thos kyi dge ’dun chen po dag ming yang mi grag pa’i nang du | gsang sngags kyi snying po bdud rtsi’i mchog tu bya ba’i blta ba dang | spyod pa dang bsgrub pa ’di gsungs so ||.

The title of the Tantric scripture, bDud rtsi chen po mchog gi lung, found in the Thams cad bdud rtsi lnga’i rang bzhin dngos grub chen po nye ba’i mchog bam po chen po brgyad pa (B, vol. 103, p. 562.20–21) is the closest to the bDud rtsi’i lung, mentioned once by Rong-zom-pa. Rong-zom-pa’s allusion to the bDud rtsi’i lung can be considered a valuable testimony to the existence of the bDud-rtsi cycle of the sGrub-bka’-brgyad and its scriptures in the eleventh century.

Rong-zom-pa and Sambhoṭa

Tho-mi Sambhoṭa, a minister of King Srong-btsan-sgam-po, is counted as one of the “seven wise men” (mdzangs pa mi bdun). He is said to have composed eight grammatical treatises out of which only two have been transmitted to us, namely, the Sum cu pa and rTags kyi ’jug pa. A history of the reception of these two treaties, as fascinating as it may be, is not our concern here. Our concern is what seems to be one of the earliest reference to what we now call the rTags kyi ’jug pa. Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on the Guhyagarbhatantra states (D, p. 195.12–14): yang byā ka ra ṇa’i gzhung las | yi ge’i khongs nas ming dbyung ste || ming gi khongs nas tshig phyung nas || tshig gis don rnams ston par byed || ces gsungs te | de bas na snga ma ltar rigs par mngon no ||. These three pādas have been cited while commenting on a verse from the thirteenth chapter of the Guhyagarbhatantra. The verse embedded in the commentary reads (D, p. 195.16–17): yi ge sgra btags ming tshogs la || brten pa’i tshig gis rab mtshon te || khong nas gab sbas don ’byin pa || ston pa’i rdo rje thugs la gnas ||. The Buddhist concept of vyañjanakāya (yi ge’i tshogs), nāmakāya (ming gi tshogs), and padakāya (tshig gi tshogs) is implicit in the Guhyagarbhatantra as well as in the rTags kyi ’jug pa. Significant is that Rong-zom-pa does not call his source the rTags kyi ’jug pa. Instead he simply calls it “grammatical treatise” (byā ka ra ṇa’i gzhung: vyākaraṇaśāstra). As already pointed out by Tibetan scholars, some editions of the rTags kyi ’jug pa colophon read (as published together with the Mu tig phreng mdzes, p. 10.17–18): byā ka ra ṇa’i rtsa ba brgyad pa las kun tu bzang po’i byā ka ra ṇa gnyis pa’i skabs te drug pa’o ||. This colophon is not at all straightforward. According to sKyogs-ston, the Sum cu pa was the fifth chapter of the first part, and the rTags kyi ’jug pa the second chapter of the sixth part. All these are quite uncertain. Was there a conflation of the concept of the eight grammatical treatises by Sambhoṭa and the concept of the eight Sanskrit grammatical treatises/traditions? Could the occurrence of the expression Sāmantabhadravyākaraṇa be a hint of this possibility?

Rong-zom-pa and Jñānayaśas

Rong-zom-pa cites the following two pādas in his dKon mchog ’grel by just stating “elsewhere” (D, p. 68.18–19): gzhan las | ⟪dnyis med yid ni skyob pa na || gal te de lta na yang sngags ||⟫ zhes gsungs pa lta bu ste | tshul ’di dag gis na shes pa nyid skyob pa yin pas | shes skyob zhes bshad do ||. The source turns out to be the De kho na nyid la ’jug pa zhes bya ba bde bar gshegs pa’i bka’ ma lus pa mdor bsdus te bshad pa’i rab tu byed pa by Jñānayaśas (Ye-shes-grags-pa) and translated by Padmākaravarman and Rin-chen-bzang-po. Jñānayaśas, Tattvāvatāra (B, vol. 41, p. 135.18–19): gnyis med yid ni skyob pas na || gal te de lta na yang nsgags ||.

Rong-zom-pa’s Source for the Ekayāna Concept

  

Actually there should be several Indic Sūtric scriptures and Śāstric literature that allude to the one-vehicle/way (ekayāna: theg pa gcig) concept. The most famous of all would be the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. But Rong-zom-pa, while speaking of the ekayāna, referred to a certain ’Phags pa rtogs can phyag rgya pa. See his  dKon mchog ’grel (Wangchuk 2007: 112, n. 30): ’di ltar ’phags pa rtogs chen phyag rgya pa las | «theg pa ni gcig tu bas te | gnyis dang gsum du ma mchis so ||» zhes gsungs pa lta bu ste | ’di ltar yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas gcig kho na’o ||. Unfortunately I could not trace the source then and had to state “This citation has not been identified.” Also in an article that appeared in 2019 (i.e., Dorji Wangchuk, “Where Buddhas and Siddhas Meet: Mipam’s Yuganaddhavāda Philosophy.” In The Other Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael Sheehy & Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2019, pp. 273–322 (p. 206, n. 13), no attempt has been made to trace the source. Thanks to the easy accessibility of texts (via rKTS, BDRC, and BuddhaNexus), we can now trace our sources much easier. The source of our citation turns out to be the ’Phags pa rtogs pa chen po yongs su rgyas pa’i mdo (P931; T156; Bᴷ, vol. 67). The titles in Tibetan found in the various bKa’ ’gyurs vary but the basic/shared component seems to be the ’Phags pa rtogs pa chen po yongs su rgyas pa’i mdo. The (reconstructed) Sanskrit title, when found, seems to be too uncertain to use here. There is also no translation colophon. One wonders if the component phyag rgya in the title used by Rong-zom-pa is actually a corruption of phyag ’tshal ba because none of the extant textual witnesses seems to include the component phyag rgya whereas our Sūtric scripture is presented as having two chapters, namely, on phyag ’tshal ba and bshags pa. At any rate, our pertinent lines read (rTogs pa chen po yongs su rgyas pa’i mdo, Bᴷ, vol. 67, p. 745.1–2): bcom ldan ’das bcom ldan ’das  kyis bka’ stsal pa ltar na theg pa yang gcig tu bas te gnyis dang gsum du ma mchis so ||.

Rong-zom-pa and Buddhaguhya

Some questions that need to be resolved are: Are the eighth-century Buddhaguhya and Buddhagupta one and the same person? Which works can plausibly be considered to be by Buddhaguhya? When and by whom were his works translated into Tibetan? That several works of Buddhaguhya were translated during the earlier translation (snga ’gyur) period is attested by the lDan dkar ma catalogue (Herrmann-Pfandt 2008). The Tantrārthāvatāra, translated into Tibetan by Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam-dpal-go-cha), as been ascribed to Buddhaguhya, for example, by Rong-zom-pa. See below. Rong-zom-pa mentions Buddhaguhya (Sangs-rgyas-gsang-ba) at least twice by name in his works: once in his Sangs rgyas kyi sa chen mo (Almogi 2009:  407) and once in his Dam tshig mdo rgyas (see below). Rong-zom-pa seems to have made ample use of Buddhaguhya’s Tantric works in Tibetan translation. For example, Orna Almogi poins out that Rong-zom-pa in his rGyud spyi’i dngos po seems to have relied on Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra  (Almogi 2009: 90). In fact, it seems desirable to trace other works of Buddhaguhya that Rong-zom-pa resorted to without specifying as such. In the following, we see a long passage that Rong-zom-pa cited from the Tantrārthāvatāra. The expression slob dpon sangs rgyas gsang ba’i zhal snga nas rgyud kyi don la ’jug pa’i sgrub thabs mdzad pa might give us impression that Buddhaguhya composed a separate sādhana on, or, related to the Tantrārthāvatāra. But obviously this is not what Rong-zom-pa seems to intending to say. He appears to understand the Tantrārthāvatāra as a kind of a sādhana.

Rong-zom-pa, Dam tshig mdo rgyas (D, pp. 319.24–321.8): gzhan yang lha rnams kyi sku’i tshul yang snying po dang phyag rgya dang gsang sngags dang rig sngags kyi gzugs su bzhugs par grags te | de bas na lha rnam pa lnga’i bye brag gis dam tshig rnam pa lngar gsungs so || de la de bzhin gshegs pa rnams kyi dam tshig ni ’di skad du | gang dag ’dod chags snyoms ’jug pa || de ni ’dod chags nyid kyis sbyang || ’di ni sangs rgyas phyag rgya che || ye shes dam tshig yin par bshad || ces gsungs te | ’di yi don yang slob dpon sangs rgyas gsang ba’i zhal snga nas rgyud kyi don la ’jug pa’i sgrub thabs mdzad pa las | ⟪’dod chags la snyoms par ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i sgras ni byang chub kyi sems goms par ’jug pa nyid la bya’o || ’dod chags kyis sbyang zhes bya ba ’dis kyang | byang chub kyi sems goms par byed cing rjes su chags par bdag nyid de bzhin gshegs pa’i skur sgrub pa dang | sems can smin par bya ba dang | grol bar bya ba la chags pa dang nan tan bya’o zhes bstan pa’o || de bzhin gshegs pa’i rigs kyi dam tshig kyang ’di ltar | ’dod la skyo bar mi bya ba || dam tshig shin tu tshul chen te || de bzhin gshegs pa’i rigs dag la || rgyal ba rnams kyang ’da’ mi mdzad || ces gsungs te | ’dod pa zhes bya ba’i sgra yang ’dir byang chub kyi sems nyid brtan pa la sogs pa’i yon tan dang ldan pa | rdo rje sems dpa’ la sogs pa’i mtshan nyid la bya ste | ’dod cing mngon par dad par bya ba yin pas ’dod pa zhes bshad do || de bas na byang chub kyi sems kyi rang bzhin bdag gi rnam par grol ba la rjes su zhen pa | rang gi lha’i ting nge ’dzin la skyo bar mi bya ste | nyin mtshan du ci nus par ngal gso zhing der bsam pa la brtan par bya’o zhes bshad do || rdo rje rigs kyi dam tshig ’di ltar || sems can don phyir mi khro ba’ang || khro bo chen po rab ston pa || ’di ni rdo rje rigs chen gyi || dam tshig ’da’ bar dka’ ba’o || zhes gsungs te | khro bo chen po’ang ’dir ’jig rten gsum las rnam par rgyal ba’i phyag rgya chen po la sogs pa yin par bstan to || pad ma’i rigs kyi dam tshig ni || rang bzhin dag par shes nas ni || dgos pa de dag de dag byed || ’di ni pad ma’i rigs chen gyi || dam tshig ’da’ bar dka’ ba’o || zhes so || rin po che’i rigs kyi dam tshig ni | nyung ba’am yang na mang yang rung || ji ltar ’dod pa bzhin du ni || sbyin pa nyin gcig bzhin du yang || bya ba ’di ni dam tshig go || zhes gsungs te |⟫ ’di dag rigs so so’i dam tshig tu gsungs kyang rigs gzhan gang yang rung ba zlos pas kyang rnam pa lnga char bsrung dgos te | de bas na rnal ’byor ba bde bar gshegs pa’i go ’phang thob par ’dod pa rnams kyis kyang | sems can gyi khams mtha’ yas pa rnam par sbyang ba’i thabs rdo rje sems dpa’ la sogs pa’i mtshan nyid ’dod pa’i yon tan rnams la shin tu brtan par rjes su chags par bya’i | nyan thos ltar phung po lhag ma med pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings la gzhol bas | rnam pa thams cad du gzugs la sogs pa’i phung po la skye ba snyed par mi bya’o ||.

Buddhaguhya, Tantrārthāvatāra (B, vol. 27, pp. 1010.16–1012.11): ’dir ni ’dod chags la snyoms par ’jug pa zhes bya ba’i sgra ni byang chub kyi sems goms par byed pa nyid la bya’o || ’dod chags kyis spyang zhes bya ba ’dis kyang byang chub kyi sems goms par byed cing rjes su chags pas bdag nyid de bzhin gshegs pa’i skur bsgrub pa dang | sems can smin pa  dang | grol bar bya ba la chags par nan tan bya’o zhes bstan pa’o || de bzhin gshegs pa’i rigs kyi dam tshig kyang ’di lta ste | ’dod la skyo bar mi bya ba || dam tshig shin tu tshul chen te || de bzhin gshegs pa’i rigs dag las || rgyal ba rnams kyang ’da’ mi mdzad || ces gsungs so || ’dod pa zhes bya ba’i sgra yang ’dir byang chub kyi sems nyid bstan pa dang | rjes su chags pa dang | ’gugs pa dang | rab tu ’gugs pa la sogs pa’i yon tan dang ldan pa rdo rje sems dpa’ la sogs pa’i mtshan nyid la bya ste | ’dod cing mngon par dad par bya ba yin par rgyud nas bshad pa’i phyir ro || de bas na byang chub kyi sems kyi rang bzhin bdag gi rnam par grol ba la rjes su zhen par rang gi lha’i ting nge ’dzin la skyo bar mi bya ste | nyin mtshan du ci nus par ngal bso zhing der bsam pa brtan par bya’o zhes bstan pa yin no || ’di skad du | ’dod pa bcom ldan rtag pa ste || sems can thams cad bde stsol ba || rdo rje sems dpa’ bdag nyid ces || bsgoms na rab tu ’grub par ’gyur || zhes gsungs so || yang de bzhin gshegs pa’i mchod pa’i ting nge ’dzin gyi dbang du byas te | ’dod pa la sogs bde ba kun || rtag tu bdag nyid snying gar gnas || ae ma’o sems can don gyi phyir || ma chags pa yang chags par bshad || ces gsungs so || don de nyid dam tshig chen po de kho na nyid kyi rtog pa  las dam tshig bshad pa’i phyir gzhung ’dis gsal bar bstan te | ’di skad du || sgrub pa chen po dang ldan par bya ste | de la sgrub pa ni ’dod pa rnams las mi skyo bas so || de ci’i phyir zhe na | ’dod pa zhes bya ba ni bcom ldan ’das rdo rje sems dpa’o zhes rgya cher  bstan to || rdo rje dang | padma dang | rin po che’i rigs kyi dam tshig ’di ni ’di lta ste | sems can don phyir mi khro ba’ang || khro bo chen por rab ston pa || ’di ni rdo rje rigs chen gyi || dam tshig ’da’ bar dka’ ba’o || khro bo chen po zhes bya ba’i sgras ni ’jig rten gsum las rnam par rgyal ba’i phyag rgya chen po la sogs pa yin par bstan te | khro bar bcos pa dang bcas pa zhes bshad do || padma rigs kyi dam tshig ni || rang bzhin dag par shes nas ni || dgos pa de dang de dag byed || ’di ni padma’i rigs chen gyi || dam tshig ’da’ bar dka’ ba’o || ’dir yang rang bzhin dag pa ni chos thams cad rnam pa med par mos pa ste | de sngon du byas nas phyag rgya chen po la sogs pa’i dgos pa bsgrub pa’i mtshan nyid dgos pa de dang de bya’o zhes pa’i tha tshig go || rin po che’i rigs kyi dam tshig ni | nyung ngam yang na mang yang rung || ji ltar ’dod pa bzhin du ni || sbyin pa nyin gcig bzhin du yang || bya ba ’di ni dam tshig go || zhes gsungs so ||.

A Note on the sGrub thabs rin chen drwa ba

rDo-grub bsTan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926) in his mDzod kyi lde mig (C, vol. 3, p. 35.13–14) refers to the tradition of the Drwa ba che chung. The author assumes that the potential readers (i.e. sgyu ’phrul mkhan pos) would know the insiders’ scholarly jargon. But this does not seem to be always the case. I may straight away come to the point.  I suspect that the Drwa ba chen po, although I wonder if it is ever known under this title (except, of course, in the compound Drwa ba che chung), is what is called the sGyu ’phrul zhi ba ’bring po’i sgrub thabs rin chen drwa ba (http://www.tbrc.org/eBooks/W1PD100944-I1PD106600-303-322-abs.pdf) transmitted in the rNying ma bka’ ma but not in the bsTan ’gyur (i.e. not even in the Peking and sNar-thang editions). The Drwa ba chung ngu, on the other hand, is transmitted in the Peking and sNar-thang editions of the bsTan ’gyur. Although not transmitted under the title sGrub thabs rin chen drwa ba, the concluding verse of the Dra ba chung ngu sees itself as such (B, vol. 43, p. 949.1–3): rgyud kyi don las sgrub pa’i thabs || rin chen dra ba ’di bsdus pas || bcom ldan kun bzang sku gsung thugs || sems can kun gyis ’thob par shog ||. So it seems that the Drwa ba che chung refers to the two versions of the sGrub thabs rin chen drwa ba (= sGrub pa’i thabs rin po che’i drwa ba), namely, a larger and a smaller one. The word drwa/dra ba in the title may refer to both sgyu ’phrul drwa ba (māyājāla) in the sense of the *Vajrasatvamāyājāla(tantra) including the Guhyagarbhatantra) and rin po che’i (or rin chen) drwa ba (ratnajāla/ratnajālin/ratnajālinī). These two sādhanas consist of verses and mantras from the Guhyagarbhatantra and those that deal with peaceful deities.

The sGrub thabs rin chen drwa ba has been cited by Klong-chen-pa on several occasions: 

Klong-chen-pa, Don khrid byang chub lam bzang [Ngal gso skor gsum, p. 154.22–23]): ’di dag rgyas par | zhi ba rin po che’i dra ba dang | khro bo snang ba rgyan du blta bar bya’o || khrid rkang dgu bcu rtsa brgyad pa’o  ||.

Klong-chen-pa, Shing rta chen po ([Ngal gso skor gsum, p. 468.23–25)]: zhi ba rin po che’i dra ba las bshad pa ltar | bdag dang mtha’ yas sem sa can rnams || ye nas sangs rgyas yin pa la || yin par shes ba’i bdag nyid kyis || byang chub ma chog tu sems bskyed do || shes pa gsum brjod nas |.

Klong-chen-pa, Shing rta chen po ([Ngal gso skor gsum, p. 288.25–26)]: rin chen dra ba las | bdag dang mtha’ yas sems can rnams || ye nas sangs rgyas yin pa la || rtog pa’i dbang gis ’khor ba las || byang chub mchog tu sems bskyed do || zhes dang |.

Klong-chen-pa, Yid kyi mun sel (§): ba byed pa ni gdan thog gcig tu rdzogs par byed pas | sangs rgyas kyi chos thams cad cig char nyid du bsgom pa ste | zhi ba rin po che’i drwa ba dang | khro bo dam pa rgyan gyi sgrub thabs ltar shes par bya’o ||.

Sa-chen Kun-dga’-snying-po (1092–1158) is said to have received the Zhi ba’i lha buddha bzhi bcu rtsa gnyis kyi sgrub pa’i thabs rin po che’i drwa ba. This is an important piece of testimony. 

Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 157.13–14): de la bstod pa ’di yang sgrub thabs rin po che’i dra ba las ni sngon la bya bar ’byung ste | de lta na yang bstod pa dang phyag go chu rub yin pas ’gal ba med do ||. This is the only reference to the sGrub thabs rin chen drwa ba by Rong-zom-pa that I know of. It does not reveal much information but nonetheless it is one of the earliest testimonies to the existence of the work.

A Note on the *Vajravyūhatantra

On two earlier occasions (Wangchuk 2020: 123–124, n. 254; Wangchuk 2021: 708), I referred to two principal Anuyogic Tantric scriptures of the rNying-ma school of Tibetan Buddhism, namely, the 33-chapter *Vajravyūhatantra (rDo rje bkod pa’i rgyud) and the 75-chapter *Vajravyūhatantra. But the state of affairs is complicated. The shorter *Vajravyūhatantra bears the title: De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi thugs gsang ba’i ye shes don gyi snying po khro bo rdo rje’i rigs kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo rnal ’byor grub pa’i rgyud ces bya theg pa chen po’i mdo (B1121 = B, vol. 102). In the chapter colophon, the title rGyud kyi rgyal po chen po rdo rje bkod pa kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo occurs. The longer *Vajravyūhatantra bears the title De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi thugs gsang ba’i ye shes don gyi snying po rdo rje bkod pa’i rgyud rnal ’byor grub pa’i lung kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo theg pa chen po mngon par rtogs pa chos kyi rnam grangs mngon par bkod pa zhes bya ba’i mdo (B1119 = B, vol. 101). In the chapter colophons, we find the title Sangs rgyas kun kyi dgongs pa ’dus pa’i mdo chen po. Tibetan sources may use various abbreviated titles of these two Tantric scriptures and thus it is not easy to find out which of the two the sources refer to. If to follow the chapter colophons, it seems reasonable to reserve the title Kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo for the shorter *Vajravyūhatantra and the title dGongs pa ’dus pa’i mdo for the larger *Vajravyūhatantra. A problem would arise if the readers understand the Kun ’dus rig pa’i mdo and the dGongs pa ’dus pa’i mdo to be two different titles for the one and the same Tantric scripture. At any rate, the dGongs pa ’dus pa’i mdo or dGongs ’dus should not be confused with the gTer-ma cycle of Sangs-rgyas-gling-pa. One can also notice an attempt to characterize the scripture as a mahāyānasūtra, mahāyānābhisamaya, dharmaparyāya, āgama, and tantra. One reason for my preference for the title *Vajravyūhatantra is a practical one. But it, too, is not without difficulties. There is another Tantric scripture of the Vajrakīla cycle called the rDo rje bkod pa’i rgyud (Li 2018: 162). In other words, the former is an Anuyogic *Vajravyūhatantra and the latter a Mahāyogic *Vajravyūhatantra (i.e. Phur pa rdo rje bkod pa rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud). Although the relative chronology of the two is uncertain, the Anuyogic *Vajravyūhatantra may antecede its Mahāyogic counterpart. The reference to (probably the Anuyogic) *Vajravyūhatantra in these early sources is significant for its history. First, the Thabs zhags don bsdus, a commentary on the *Upāyapāśa(tantra)  attributable to Padmasambhava/Śāntigarbha, alludes once to the *Vajravyūhatantra (rDo rje bkod pa’i tan tra) (Cantwell & Mayer 2012: 84). Second, gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes (9/10th century) in his bSam gtan mig sgron refers to the *Vajravyūha(tantra) on several occasions (pp. 8.1, 88.3–4 (twice), 91.3, 94.4, 211.4, 216.5, 217.4, 232.6, 240.4, 245.6, 248.3,  269.5, 273.4–5 (twice), 276.3, 335.6, 377.5, 407.5, 441.4, 448.2–3, 451.1). I may have missed some references. gNubs-chen also refers to the Kun ’dus (p. 262.1–2 (twice), 244.1) and dGongs ’dus (p. 228.5). Whether gNubs-chen considered the rDo rje bkod pa(’i rgyud), Kun ’dus (rig pa’i mdo), and dGongs (pa) ’dus (pa’i mdo) to be the one and the same scripture remains to be seen. As someone associated with the Anuyogic Tantric tradition, it is not at all surprising to see him referring to the *Vajravyūha(tantra), and the like, repeatedly.

Third, Rong-zom-pa (florit second half of the eleventh century and first half of the twelfth century) also referred to the *Vajravyūhatantra (e.g. mDo rgyas, pp. 360, 375, 382). Rong-zom-pa seems to have known both the shorter and longer versions of he *Vajravyūhatantra. In his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhtantra, Rong-zom-pa cites from the shorter version of the *Vajravyūhatantra in the following manner (D, p. 111.6–14): rnam par grol ba’i ye shes mthong ba ni thugs kyi bdag nyid de | de ltar sku gsung thugs yon tan phrin las lnga’i dbang gis rigs lnga’i sangs rgyas yin par ’gyur ro || de bas na sangs rgyas grangs med pa thams cad kyang chos ’di lnga tsam du ’dus pas | longs spyod rdzogs pa dang sprul pa’i sku mtha’ dag kyang rigs rnam pa lngar bsdus pa yin no || de ltar yang rdo rje bkod pa las kyang | sku ni ma bcos de bzhin nyid || thugs ni mi ’gyur rdo rje’i rigs || yon tan kun ’byung rin chen rigs || gsung ni chags med padma’i rigs || don grub spyod pa las kyi rigs || zhes gsungs pas na | rigs rnam pa lnga kho nar bsdus pa’i don yang gong du mdor bstan pa bzhin du | rgyud de nyid las rgyas par gsungs so ||. See the shorter 33-chapter *Vajravyūhatantra, which states (B, vol. 102, p. 73.4–6): ma bcos sku ni de bzhin nyid || mi ’gyur rigs ni rdo rje’i rigs || yon tan kun ’byung rin chen rigs || chags med gsung gi padma’i rigs || bya ba byed pa las kyi rigs ||. The longer 75-chapter *Vajravyūhatantra has been cited by Rong-zom-pa in his Theg chen tshul ’jug without, however, actually specifying the source (D, p. 545.1–17): rgyal po’i dkar mdzod kha phye zhes bya ba ni | kun gzhi rnam par shes pa’i mtshan nyid la mkhas par byas pa ste | dper na rgyal po’i mdzod na nor bu rin po che la stsogs pa nor run thang med pa’ang yod la | dug la stsogs pa dman pa’i rdzas kyang yod do || de bzhin du kun gzhi rnam par shes pa ni zag pa dang bcas pa dang | zag pa myed pa’i chos thams cad kyi mdzod yin te | shes bya thams cad kyi gnas yin no || de yang theg pa ’og ma ba’i tshul gyis | kun gzhi’i mtshan nyid ni zag pa dang bcas pa’i chos thams cad kyi rgyu dang ’bras bu’i ngo bor gnas shing smin pa yin pas | shing thog smin pa dang ’dra la | zag pa myed pa rnams kyi ni rten dang gnas tsam yin te | dug gi bum pa’i nang na sman gnas pa lta bu’o || zhes bshad | theg pa gong ma’i tshul las ni | kun gzhi’i mtshan nyid ni gdod ma nas byang chub kyi snying po’i rang bzhin du dag pa yin pas kun gzhi byang chub kyi sems zhes bya la | nyon mongs pa dang gnas ngan len gyi bag chags ni blo bur gyi dri ma ste | gser g.yus g.yogs pa’am | nor bu rin po’i che ’dam du bsubs pa bzhin yin tan cung zad mi snang bar zad de | rang bzhin nyams par byas pa myed do || ji skad du | {rdo rje bkod pa las |} sgron ma ’bar ba’i rin chen ni || gnas ngan ’dam du bying ’gyur yang || de nyid yon tan rang snang bas || ’od ni mkha’ la gsal ba yin || de bzhin sems nyid rin po che || lus ngan ’khor bar bying ’gyur yang || de nyid rang bzhin ’og gsal bas || shes rab chos nyid mkha’ la gsal || zhes gsungs pa lta bu yin no ||. The verse can be found in the larger 75-chapter *Vajravyūhatantra (B, vol. 101, pp. 559.21–560.3): sgron ma ’bar ba’i rin chen ni || ji ltar ngan khung sbas gyur yang || de yi rang bzhin rang snang bas || ’od ni mkha’ la gsal bar ’gyur || de bzhin sems nyid rin chen sgron || lus ngan ’dam du bying gyur yang || rang byung rang zhi rang snang bas || ma bcos rang bzhin yongs kyis gsal ||. Note that verses cited by Rong-zom-pa read like a different translation.

Rong-zom-pa, Dam tshig mdo rgyas (D, pp. 375.22–376.12): de la dran pa la bsngo ba ni | rdo rje bkod pa las | mdor na bdag gi sgo gsum po || dag pa gsum gyi mtha’ bzung nas || lha dang grogs dang slob dpon dang || bdag nyid bdag la ma khrel ba’i || tshul gsum mi gtong dang bcas gsum || yongs su ma nyams mdo bzhi po || mthar phyin rgya rtags rnam bzhir bcas || mdo don dran pa la bgrang bsngo || zhes gsungs te | de la mdor bsngo na lus ngag yid gsum gyi tshul las bya ba ma yin pa las ldog pa’i sgo nas dag pa ni ji ltar byas shing bya | bya ba la ’jug pa ni sngags dang phyag rgya dang ting nge ’dzin dang mchod pa rnams kyi sgo nas | yon tan mngon par sgrub cing | dge ba’i chos bsdu ba dang | sems can gyi don bya ba rnams ni ji ltar byas shing bya | sgo gsum nas ma dag par gyur cing | zhig ral dang chag ’dres su gyur pa ni | gang dang gang shor bar gyur ces bgrang zhing bsngo bar bya’o ||.

The Smaller 33-Chapter *Vajravyūhatantra (B, vol. 102, p. 90.3–6): mdor na bdag gi sgo gsum po || dag pa gsum gyi mtha’ bzung nas || lha dang grogs dang slob dpon dang || bdag nyid bdag pa ma khrel ba’i || tshul gsum mi gnod dam bcas gsum || yongs su ma nyams mdo bzhi po || mthar phyin rgya rtags rnam bzhir bcas || mdo don dran pa la bgrang bsngo ||.

Rong-zom-pa, Dam tshig mdo rgyas (D, pp. 382.22–383.14): ’di ni mdor bsdus pa tsam ste | spyir shes par bya ba ni | ’dir yang bshags pa dang | gso ba dang | blang ba dang sbyang ba’i cho ga rnams gsungs te | de yang rdo rje bkod pa las | bcom ldan ’das la rig ’dzin mi’i thod pa can rnams kyis gsol ba | bcom ldan ’das kyis thugs rjes gzung ’tshal na | gnyen po ni gang lags | thabs ni ji ltar bshags | yul ni gang la bshags | rgyu ni gang mchis | bcom ldan ’das kyis bshad du gsol | bde bar gshegs pa thugs rjes skyabs su gsol | bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa | rig ’dzin chen po mi’i thod pa can rnams nyon cig | ltung ba ’gyur ba’i las rnams la | ’gyod pa skyes nas zhus pa legs so || ltung ba’i gnyen po gang zhe na nyes pa rnams bshags par ’dod na || gang ’gyod pa drag po skyes nas ba spu gzings | mchi ma ’byin pa yin no || thabs ni rnam pa bzhi yod de | gang zhe na shes rab chen po’i rgyud kyis | bag chags thams cad rang bzhin med par bshags pa dang | ting nge ’dzin chen po’i mes bag chags thams cad bsregs te med par bya ba dang | byang chub kyi sems kyi ’od zer gyis | bag chags kyi mun nag thams cad bsal te | dag par bya ba dang | spyod pa rlab po che’i chus bkru ba’o || de la bshags par bya ba’i yul ni ’di lta ste | sangs rgyas dang | rig ’dzin dang | lha dang bla ma dang | glegs bam dang | grogs po dang | rten du gyur pa rnams so || bshags par bya ba’i rgyud ni ’di lta ste | sgrib pa che chung bshags pa’o zhes gsungs so ||.

The Shorter 33-Chapter *Vajravyūhatantra (B, vol. 102, pp. 137.24–139.9): nyon mongs pa lnga’i bdag nyid rig ’dzin rnams kyis … sgrib pa che chung cha shas kyis phye la gus par bshags par gyis shig ||. The passage is somewhat long and Rong-zom-pa seems to have partly paraphrased.

Rong-zom-pa, Dam tshig mdo rgyas (D, p. 387.6–20): dam tshig nyams pa bskangs pa rnams skongs pa dang ma skongs pa’i rtags kyang | de bzhin gshegs pa’am rig ’dzin rnams las byung ba’i sku gdung bsten pas rtogs par ’gyur bas | de bsten par gsungs te | ’di ltar | rdo rje bkod pa las | rdo rje snying po’i tha tshigs las || bskangs pas skongs par gyur pa yi || rtags chen dag kyang ’di lta ste || rgyal ba sangs rgyas rigs chen gyi || gdung chen dag las byung ba yi || sha ri ram zhes bya ba de || thams cad ltas su ston par byed || shel gyi za ma tog nang du || dag par bcug ste btsas pa las || nyams pa’i chad pa ’byung ba’i tshe || kha dog gnag cing ’bros par ’gyur || bskangs pas skongs sam sor chud cing || gal te dam tshig ma nyams na || kha dog dkar zhing ’tsher bar ’gyur || legs pa’i yon tan ’byung ba’i tshe || grangs mang rgya cher ’phel bar ’gyur || gal te gnag gam mi gsal na || myur du sgrim nas skong zlog [= bzlog] bya || ’on tang nyams pas mi bog cing || de dag so ru gso ba na || rtags chen ’di ni bsten bya ste || ’di dag shin tu brtags nas ni || dkar la ’tsher ba gyur pa na || rtsa ba yan lag nyams pa rnams || skongs te sor chud rtags yin no || des na rnal ’byor las kyi gtsor || sbyong dang skong ba’i las rnams bya || zhes gsungs te |.

The Shorter 33-Chapter *Vajravyūhatantra (B, vol. 102, p. 136.1–14): | rdo rje snying po’i tha tshigs la || bskangs pas skongs par gyur pa yi || rtags chen dag kyang ’di lta ste || rgyal ba sangs rgyas rig ’dzin gyi || gdung chen dag las byung ba yi || sha ri ram zhes bya ba de || thams cad ltas su ston par byed || shel gyi za ma tog nang du || dag par bcug ste btsas pa las || nyams pa’i chad pa byung ba’i tshe || kha dog gnag cing ’bros par ’gyur || nyams pa skangs sam sor chud cing || gal te dam tshig ma nyams na || kha dog dkar zhing ’tsher bar ’gyur || legs pa’i yon tan ’byung ba’i tshe || grangs mang rgya cher ’phel bar ’gyur || gal te gnag gam mi gsal na || myur du bsgrims nas bskor bzlog bya || ’on tang nyams pas mi phog cing || de dag so ru gso ba na || rtags chen ’di ni bsten bya ste || ’di dag shin tu brtags nas ni || dkar la ’tsher bar gyur pa na || rtsa ba yan lag nyams pa rnams || skongs te sor chud rtags yin no || des na rnal ’byor las kyi gtsor || sbyong dang skong ba’i las rnams bya ||.

Some Remarks: The *Vajravyūhatantra, both in its shorter and longer versions, was known to Rong-zom-pa. It seems to have served as an important source of his ideas. His Dam tshig mdo rgyas, dKon mchog ’grel, and Theg chen tshul ’jug have been considered to be his magna opera. The first is said to elucidate the Mantrayānic adhiśīla and hence a treatise on Mantrayānic Vinayapiṭaka. The second is said to elucidate the Mantrayānic adhicitta and hence a treatise on Mantrayānic Sūtrapiṭaka. The third is said to elucidate the Mantrayānic adhiprajñā and hence a treatise on Mantrayānic Abhidharmapiṭaka. Significant is that he cited the *Vajravyūhatantra in all of his three magna opera. And as far as I can tell now, he does not cite the *Vajravyūhatantra in other writings of his. I also wish to point out elsewhere that Rong-zom-pa’s source, or, at least, one of his sources, of the idea of ri dwags me’i gtsang sbra can seems to have been the *Vajravyūhatantra.

A Note on the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud

A study of the origination and evolution of individual and collective rNying-ma Tantric scriptures transmitted in the rNying ma rgyud ’bum is difficult for a number of reasons. It is comparable to the study of the origination and evolution of a forest and its individual trees. In this regard, the typology of rNying-ma Tantric scriptures—Indic, hybrid Indic-Tibetic, and Tibetic—proposed by Orna Almogi seems to be a judicious point of departure,¹ for the history of the origination and evolution of rNying-ma Tantric scriptures would differ depending on which of the three distinct categories they belong to. While not ruling out the possibility of a Tantric scripture having undergone the processes of evolution after its origination, one of the reasonable strategies for studying its history seems to be to first try and trace the earliest possible trace of its existence. In this regard, the writings of gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes (ninth century) and Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po (flourished later half of eleventh century and early twelfth century) seem to be very useful for proposing a plausible terminus ante quem of any given rNying-ma Tantric scripture. This presupposes that the attribution of authorship and dates and relative chronology of the authors and works are correct. In her study of the Eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric cycles, Orna Almogi, whenever possible, points out whether a Tantric scripture within the cycle was known to gNubs-chen and Rong-zom-pa. Almogi states that “[a]ltogether he [i.e. Rong-zom-pa] seems to have known at least eleven such scriptures.”² A rNying-ma Tantric scripture called the rNying rje rol pa’i rgyud or He ru ka rol pa’i rgyud, one of the eighteen such Tantric scriptures, is, however, not in the list.

What I wish to suggest here is that most probably Rong-zom-pa also knew the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud. In his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra, Rong-zom-pa cites two pādas from a source which he identifies as the lHa rgyud rtog pa:³ lha rgyud rtog pa las | dbu gsum dug gsum sku gsum lhun gyis grub || lta spyod rnam pa gsum gyis grub pa’i rtags || zhes gsungs pa lta bu ste | lta spyod gsum ni grogs dang gsum mo ||. His interest in this citation is the idea of lta spyod grogs gsum. The difficulty, however, is that the title lHa rgyud rtog pa is too terse and we do not seem to find such a title anywhere else. The expression lha rgyud kyi rtog pa, though not as a title, can be found in the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud (B, vol. 103, p. 453.12–13): da ni lha rgyud kyi rtog pa so sor bshad par bya ste |. Some textual witnesses read, in my view, wrongly, rtogs pa for rtog pa. At any rate, the two pādas cited by Rong-zom-pa can be found in the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud (B, vol. 103, pp. 445.21–446.1), which reads: de la grub pa’i rtags kyi phyag rgya ni | dbu gsum dug gsum sku gsung thugs lhun grub || lta spyod rnam gsum grub pa’i rtags ||. The text transmitted in the rNying rgyud section of the bKa’ ’gyur seems to be truncated. The pādas in this part of the text are overall nine-syllabic as is the case in the text cited by Rong-zom-pa but the second pāda in the bKa’ ’gyur version is only seven-syllabic. The title of the Tantric scripture in the bKa’ ’gyur is given as the He ru ka snying rje rol pa’i rgyud gsang ba zab mo mchog. The component gsang ba zab mo mchog seems to be descriptive. The component snying rje rol pa, though primary, seems to be found only in the title and in the colophon but not in the chapter colophons. If to judge by the chapter colophons, the title He ru ka rol pa seems to be primary. At any rate, the discrepancy in the names of the Tantric scripture seems worth bearing in mind. Also in the context of the Eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric cycles, we can notice that sources do not always agree regarding the identities of the He ru ka rol pa’i rgyud and sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud. Some seem to have considered the two to be titles of two different Tantric scriptures. The version in the bKa’ ’gyur seems to represent the tradition that considered the two to be the one and the same Tantric scripture. That the component rtog pa (kalpa) in the title lha rgyud kyi rtog pa can also refer to a tantra has been made clear by Rong-zom-pa himself.⁴ The occurrences of expressions such as lha rgyud kyi rtog pa (as mentioned above) and srin mo’i lha rgyud (B, vol. 103, p. 457.7) in the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud may provide us with some hints that Rong-zom-pa’s lHa rgyud rtog pa may indeed has to do with the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud. Again as mentioned above, the verse lines dbu gsum sku gsum lhun gyis grub || lta spyod rnam pa gsum gyis grub pa’i rtags || do not seem to be found anywhere else. We also find a Tantric scripture in some rNying ma rgyud ’bum called the Chos nyid zhi ba’i lha rgyud and also a small Tantric work in the bsTan ’gyur called the Zhi ba’i lha rgyud (ascribed to Vimalamitra). The expression lha rgyud or lha’i rgyud seems to be a technical term but I am not sure of its exact meaning. At any rate, the word rgyud does not seem to mean tantra (as a scripture). I wonder if lha rgyud means something like the “characteristic (physical) features of a deity” along with their significance.

If Rong-zom-pa’s lHa rgyud rtog pa can indeed be identified with sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud, we may suppose that this Tantric scripture in some form existed before the eleventh century. This should not come as a surprise for Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer have shown that the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud has been alluded to twice in the commentary on the *Upāyapāśatantra (i.e. Thabs zhags don bsdus) attributed/attributable to Padmasambhava (or Śāntigarbha).⁵ The commentary, however, does not cite anything from the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud verbatim. I made an attempt to trace ideas in the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud to which the Thabs zhags don bsdus may be referring to but the point of reference seems to be too vague.

A question that arises is to which of the three distinct categories of the rNying-ma Tantric scriptures would the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud belong. My initial impression is that some chapters are Indic. The latter part of the scripture in verses appear to be a kind of commentary and these parts may well be Tibetic. Those parts, for example, dealing with Tantric precepts clearly presuppose other Tantric scriptures such as the *Guhyagarbhatantra. It also seems to represent a phase of the development of rNying-ma Vajrayāna Buddhism which already contains a full-blown idea of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadrā as the central figures of the maṇḍala. For now, I am tempted to place the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud in the category of hybrid Indic-Tibetic.

Theoretically, the Tantric scripture known to Rong-zom-pa as the lHa rgyud rtog pa may have been a mere core or simply one of the many building blocks of the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud. But on several accounts, I feel that the sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud did not undergo radical processes of evolution and transformation. First, the Tantric scripture was already known to the author of the Thabs zhags don bsdus as the sNying rol pa’i tan tra and Tan tra snying rje rol pa. Second, that part of the Tantric scripture which is mostly in verses and which seems to be rather Tibetic and later was already known to Rong-zom-pa. This is the part from which he cited. Third, that a scripture can have more than one title, or, can be known under more than one name, is hardly unusual. Fourth, a general tendency seems to be that more popular a scripture is, the greater is the likelihood to undergo transformations. The sNying rje rol pa’i rgyud may have been regarded sacred by its tradition but it does not seem to be particularly popular. As far as I know, there is not a single commentary on it or any work dealing with it. Hardly anybody seems to have laid his hands on it and thereby sparing it from any drastic changes.

¹ Orna Almogi, “The Human behind the Divine: An Investigation into the Evolution of Scriptures with Special Reference to the Ancient Tantras of Tibetan Buddhism.” In Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, Nikolai Solmsdorf. Indica et Tibetica 59. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019, pp. 1–26 (pp. 16–18); Id., Authenticity and Authentication: Glimpses behind the Tibetan Buddhist Canon. Indian and Tibetan Studies 9. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg, 2020, p. 16; Dorji Wangchuk, “The Trope of a Lioness’s Milk in Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Literatures.” In Gateways to Tibetan Studies: A Collection of Essays in Honour of David P. Jackson on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by Volker Caumanns, Jörg Heimbel, Kazuo Kano & Alexander Schiller. Indian and Tibetan Studies 12.1 & 12.2. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg, 2021, pp. 1019–1054 (p. 1045).

² Orna Almogi, “The Eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric Cycles: A Real Canon or the Mere Notion of One?.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 30, 2014, pp. 47–110 (p. 69).

³ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 48.11–13).

⁴ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 52.6–14): ’phags pa rtog pa’i rgyal po rdo rje sems dpa’ sgyu ’phrul sems drwa ba zhes bya ba yin te | de la ’phags pa ni thabs kyi theg pa’i gzhung ’di nyid yin te | gang las cis ’phags pa ni | gong du bstan pa’i theg pa khyad par las shes par bya’o || rtog pa’i rgyal po yang thabs kyi theg pa ’di nyid yin te | de la rtog pa zhes bya ba’i sgra ’jug pa ni | rnam par mi rtog pa’i don mtshon pa’i mtshan ma’i thabs la bya ste | de yang rgyal ba rnams kyi rtog pa’i thabs kyi mtshan mar sprul pa’i phyir ro || de nas rgyud dang lha dang dngos grub dang de’i thabs rnams la ’jug pa las ’dir ni gzhung nyid rtog pa yin no || gzhung rnams kyi nang na gong du bstan pa ltar ’bras bu mchog ’di nyid yin pas rtog pa’i rgyal po’o ||.

⁵ Cathy Cantwell & Robert Mayer (eds.), A Noble Noose of Methods, the Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mahāyoga Tantra and its Commentary. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 73. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012 (pp. 84, 323).

Rong-zom-pa and Ratnākaraśānti?

The *Triyānavyavasthāna has been attributed to Ratnākaraśānti. The translation colophon (in the sDe dge bstan ’gyur as reproduced in the Tibskrit) reads: de ltar theg pa gsum rnams gsal bkod pas || ’gro rnams gus bcas theg gsum myur zhon nas || srid mtsho las rgal bde ba chen po’i bdag || stug po bkod pa nyid du ’gyur bar shog || theg pa gsum rnam par bzhag [= gzhag] pa zhes bya ba slob dpon mkhas pa chen po rin chen ’byung gnas zhi ba’i zhal snga nas mdzad pa rdzogs so || || rgya gar gyi mkhan po kṛ ṣṇa pa dang | zhu chen gyi lo tsā ba dge slong chos kyi shes rab kyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa’o ||. The attribution of the authorship has been questioned.¹ Hayashi has suggested that the *Triyānavyavasthāna must have been composed by someone from the intellectual milieu of Advayavajra (Kano 2015: 64). The *Sarvasamayasaṃgraha ascribed to Adhīśa cites the Triyānavyavasthāna (B, vol. 41, p. 692.1–4; Kano 2015: 65, n. 63): slob dpon ratna ā ka ra shānti pa’i zhal snga nas ’dir | dmigs pa rnam par dag pa dang || grogs kyi mthu dang spyod pa yis || blo ldan rnams kyi theg pa ’di || chen po’i chen po nyid du grags ||. The *Sarvasamayasaṃgraha clearly attributes the author of the source of this citation to Ratnākaraśānti. On the assumption that the *Sarvasamayasaṃgraha is indeed by *Adhīśa, Kano proposed the terminus ante quem of the Triyānavyavasthāna’s composition to be the year of *Adhīśa’s departure from Vikramaśīla, ca. 1040. Mainly for internal criteria such as the typology of secrecy, that is very typical to the *Guhyagarbhatantra and the Tantric terms that are typical to the Anuyogic scriptures,² the attribution of the *Sarvasamayasaṃgraha to *Adhīśa’s seems to be hardly plausible. The author of the *Sarvasamayasaṃgraha must have be someone who was familiar with both rNying-ma and gSar-ma Tantric sources including Kālacakra sources. While the issue of the authorship of the *Triyānavyavasthāna remains uncertain, the translation team consisting of Kṛṣṇapā[da] and dGe-slong Chos-kyi-shes-rab is quite interesting. The latter, who is also called Go-rub-lo-tsā-ba Chos-kyi-shes-rab, reportedly had an intense relationship with Rong-zom-pa. He was first a critic, and later an admirer of Rong-zom-pa. They are also said to have jointly translated a grammatical work called the rKyen gsum bshad pa.³

The actual purpose of this article is to merely point out that Rong-zom-pa cites the *Triyānavyavasthāna on two occasions in his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra. In the first instance, he cites the work by identifying its title:⁴ gsum gyis ’phags pa bstan pa’i tshul yang snang ste | ’di ltar theg pa gsum rnam par gzhag pa las | dmigs pa rnam par dag pa dang || grogs kyi mthu dang spyod pa’i sa || blo ldan rnams kyi theg pa ni || chen po’i chen por yongs su bsgrags || zhes gsungs pa lta bu dang | lha rgyud rtog pa las | dbu gsum dug gsum sku gsum lhun gyis grub || lta spyod rnam pa gsum gyis grub pa’i rtags || zhes gsungs pa lta bu ste | lta spyod gsum ni grogs dang gsum mo || de ltar na khyad par rnam par gsum ni dmigs pa’i sgo nas chos thams cad dbyer med par dkyil ’khor gsum gyi rang bzhin zhing dang spyod yul yongs su dag par lta bas dmigs pa rnam par lta ba dang | de’i grogs thun mong ma yin pa’i dam tshig gi sdom pa dang ldan pa’i mthu dang | de bzhin gshegs pa’i mdzad spyod nyams su len pas ’phags par bstan to ||. Noteworthy is that Rong-zom-pa does not specify the name of the author. In fact, I do not recall any instance where he mentions Ratnākaraśānti by name. Nonetheless, one may assume that the attribution of the *Triyānavyavasthāna to Ratnākaraśānti, whether correct or not, was known to Kṛṣṇapā[da] and dGe-slong Chos-kyi-shes-rab and their milieu including Rong-zom-pa. In the second instance, he cites the work by merely stating “also elsewhere” (gzhan las kyang):⁵ gzhan las kang | dmigs pa rnam par dag pa dang || grogs kyi mthu dang spyod pa’i sa || blo ldan rnams kyi theg pa ni || chen po’i chen mor yongs su grags || zhes gsungs te | ’di ltar na yang pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul la dmigs pa yongs su ma dag pa yod par bshad do ||.

¹  Kazuo Kano, “Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-nature.” China Tibetology 2, 2015, pp. 52–77 (p. 55, n. 16). Kano is here referring to Hayashi 1999.

² See, for example, Dorji Wangchuk, “Secrecy in Buddhism.” In Birds as Ornithologists: Scholarship between Faith and Reason. Intra- and Inter-disciplinary Perspectives, edited by Orna Almogi. Indian and Tibetan Studies 8. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg, 2020, pp. 7–177 (pp. 123–124, n. 254).

³  Orna Almogi, The Life and Works of Rong-zom Paṇḍita. Magister Thesis. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 1997 (pp. 249, 163, 61–62).

⁴  Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 48.8–18). For the edition the verse, see Keijin Hayashi (ed. & tr.), “Ratnākaraśānti no kōyōsho: Triyānavyavasthāna shiyaku Ratnākaraśānti: Triyānavyavasthāna (Ratnākaraśānti’s Triyānavyavasthāna: Tibetan Text and Japanese Translation).” Ronsō­­ajia­­no bunka to shisō 5, 1996, pp. 34–93 (p. 56).

⁵  Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (D, p. 193.17–20).

Who Is Saukhyadeva?

In the hagiographies of Padmasambhava found in the gTer-ma literature, we encounter a person with the name Saukhyadeva. The Padma bka’ thang by U-rgyan-gling-pa (1323–ca. 1360) seems to be one of the earliest such gTer-ma sources. Later sources such as the O rgyan gu ru rin po che’i rnam thar bka’i thang yig gi don bsdus gsol ’debs ngo mtshar u dumba ra’i phreng mdzes, revealed, according to the colophon, by Klong-gsal-snying-po (1625–1692), and transmitted in the Rin chen gter mdzod, the electronic version of which is easily accessible (via BDRC, and so on), are hence no longer surprising. Analogies to several Indian works containing 108 names of deities such as Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara, it appears that Saukhyadeva is considered to be one of the 108 names or manifestations of Padmasambhava. Noteworthy is that the name seems to invariably occur as Saukhyadeva and not as Sukhadeva. Occasionally, it has also been rendered into Tibetan as Phan-bde’i-lha. This Tibetan translation, however, seems to be rather recent. Kong-sprul Blo-gros-mtha’-yas (1813–1899) may have been the first person to render the name into Tibetan. At any rate, the rendering can be found in his gTer ston rgya rtsa’i rnam thar (via the Rin chen gter mdzod).

The question that interests me for now is not so much whether the name Saukhyadeva can be attested in Indian sources and whether the person is to be identified with Padmasambhava but rather how far can one trace back the name in Tibetan sources. This brings me to my actual topic. There is a small work by Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po (flourished during the later half of the eleventh century and beginning of the twelfth century) that deals with the incantation of mantras.² Such a work is, in effect, mentioned in the list of his writings prepared by Rong-pa Me-dpung, and all in all, there seems to be no reason to doubt its attribution. This works cites the following verse attributing it to Saukhyadeva:³  ’di ltar dge slong so’u khya de bas tshigs su bcad pa brjod pa | smra ba thams cad spangs nas su || gsang sngags smra ba brtsam par bya || bde ba’i lha yang bsgrub pas na || sngags kyi mthu ni shin tu che || zhes pa lta bu’o ||. To be sure, this verse, with some slight variants, has also be cited in some later works but I suspect that Rong-zom-pa’s work has been the source. Interestingly, Rong-zom-pa does not seem to identify Saukhyadeva with Padmasambhava, that is, despite the fact he does refer to Padmasambhava elsewhere on several occasions. He seems to have considered Saukhyadeva to be a separate person, obviously as someone from a Mantrayāna milieu. Interesting though is that Saukhyadeva is considered also here to be a bhikṣu. Also in Padmasambhava’s hagiographies, Saukhyadeva bears the bhikṣu (dge slong) title. It remains to be seen if we can trace more information on the person Saukhyadeva and also the work from which the above verses has been cited.

¹ gTer-ston U-rgyan-gling-pa (revealed), Padma bka’ thang. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1996, p. 310; Kenneth Douglas & Gwendolyn Bays (trs.), The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava. Part I: India & Part II: Tibet. As Recorded by Yeshe Tsogyal, Rediscovered by Terchen Urgyan Lingpa. Translated into French as Le Dict de Padma by Gustave-Charles Toussaint. Translated into English by Kenneth Douglas and Gwendolyn Bays. Corrected With the Original Tibetan Manuscripts and with an Introduction by Tarthang Tulku. Emeryville, California: Dharma Publishing, 1978, p. 301.

² See Orna Almogi, The Life and Works of Rong-zom Paṇḍita. Magister Thesis. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 1997, p. 194 (Catalogue no. 2–14: gSang sngags kyi bzlos brjod bya thabs kyi lan lag).

³  Rong-zom-pa, bZlos brjod bya thabs (D, p. 111.9–11).

Rong-zom-pa on Ahetukavāda View

Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. (Ye 2011: 12): na svato nāpi parato na dvābhyāṃ nāpy ahetutaḥ | utpannā jātu vidyante bhāvāḥ kvacana kecana ||; Tib. bdag las ma yin gzhan las min || gnyis las ma yin rgyu med min || dngos po gang dag gang na yang || skye ba nam yang yod ma yin ||. The verse as cited by Rong-zom-pa reads (lTa grub brjed byang, p. 199): bdag las mi skye gzhan las min || gnyis ka las min rgyu med min || dngos po gang dang gang skyes kyang || nam yang skye bar mi ’gyur ro ||. He calls the tetralema reasoning proposed in this verse dbu ma’i phur bzhi. We do not find this expression anywhere else. But this is not our concern here. Our concern is the Ahetu(ka)vāda philosophy discussed in this context. Rong-zom-pa states (p. 205): rgyu med pa las kyang skye zhes bya ba ni | ston ka’i sha mos spang btol te skye ba la rgyu ga la yod | sran ma zlum pa’i rgyu ni sus bzlums | tsher ma rno ba’i rgyu ni sus bzhogs te rno bar byas | rma bya bkra ba ni sus bkra bar byas | lung las kyang | sran zlum yungs zlum tsher ma ngo bo nyid kyis rno ba dang || rma bya bkra ba sus kyang ma byas ngo bo nyid kyi bkra || zhes ’byung ste | ngo bo nyid kyis rgyu rkyen la ma ltos par yang skye’o zhes zer ro ||.

Exact Indian sources of these ideas seem rare. Nonetheless, I have been able to trace some sources that more or less allude to these ideas, namely, one source from the bKa’ ’gyur and one from the bsTan ’gyur, and both of the above sources belong to those sources that were translated during the period of earlier translation. Ramkrishna Bhattacharya has identified several non-Buddhist Indian sources.

(a) In the Tibetan translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra made from Dharmakṣema’s Chinese translation, there is a long account of how a minister of King Ajataśātru named bKra-shis attempts to console the remorseful king by attempting to indoctrinate him with several nihilistic views of Ajitaḥ Keśakambalaḥ. At one point, the minister tells the king (B, vol. 52, p. 690.13–20): blon po des yang gsol pa | sems can dmyal ba yod do zhes rgyal po la su zhig gis ’di skad ces brdzun du smras | dper na tsher ma rang bzhin gyis rno ba sus  bzhogs | bya’i ’dab ma ser por ’dug pa sus byas  | chu rang bzhin gyis gsher ba dang  | rdo rang bzhin gyis sra ba dang  | rlung rang bzhin gyis g.yo ba nadang  | me rang bzhin gyis tsha ba dang ’dra ste | dngos po ’di dag thams cad kyang rang skye la rang ’chi ste su zhig gis byas |.

(2) One Indian source found in the bTan ’gyur is the Skhalitapramathanayuktihetusiddhi ascribed to one Āryadeva (ascribed), (B, vol. 57, p. 827.13–17): phyi nang skye mched chos rnams thams cad ni || ngo bo nyid las grub pa gzhan las min || sran zlum skyer tsher gzang rings rno ba dang || rma bya’i mjug ma mgrin pa’i tshogs bkra dang || nyi shar chu rnams thur du ‘bab pa rnams || ngo bo nyid las grub ste rgyu yod min ||.  

Studies of Ramkrishna Bhattacharya offer several Sanskrit sources that more or less allude to the idea found, for example, in the Skhalitapramathanayuktihetusiddhi. See, for example, Śīlāṅka, Sūtrakṛtāṅgasūtravṛtti (cited in Bhattacharya 2011: 38, n. 10): kaṇṭakasya ca tīkṣṇatvaṃ, mayūrasya vicitratā | varṇāś ca tāmracūḍānāṃ, svabhāvena bhavanti hi ||; Eng. “The sharpness of the thorn, the variety of the peacock and the colour of the cocks are (due to) natural development.”  See also Bhattacharya 2002: 77. Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, Studies on the Cārvāka/Yokāyata. Cultural, Historical and Textual Studies of Religions. London / New York / Delhi: Anthem Press, 2011; Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, “Verses Relating to Svabhāvavāda: A Collection.” Sambodhi (Ahmedabad) 25, 2002, pp. 75–90.

Āryaśūra, Jātakamālā (D4150, Tr. by Vidyākarasiṃha and Mañjuśrīvarman) (B, vol. 94, p. 200.13–15): padma’i sdong po lo ma me tog snying po dang || kha dog dbyibs dang ’jam la sogs pa’i rgyu ni gang || bya yi ’dab ma sna tshogs ris su bris pa su || ’gro ba ’di dag ngo bo nyid kyis de bzhin nges ||; cf. also the commentaries in the Jātakamālāṭīkā.

Buddhaguhya (?), Ṭippaṇī of the Subāhuparipṛcchātantra (B, vol. 36, p. 204.17–21): rgyu med pa can zhes bya ba ni | ji skad padma’i sdong bu || lo ma snying po dang || kha dog dbyibs dang ’jam la sogs pa’i rgyu ni gang || bya yi ’dab gshog sna tshogs ri mor ’bri ba su || ’gro ba ’di dag ngo bo nyid kyis de bzhin nges || zhes smra ba ste | de’i phyogs gcig pa ni ’jig rten nyid kyis gsal bar zad pas cung zad kyang mi brjod do ||. To be noted is that the later often cites the former.

To be added is that also in the context of the Ban–Bon debate in Tibet, we find some similar ideas. Dan Martin (email from 26.11.2021) also points out the idea that the smoothness of lotuses and sharpness of thorns were not made by any creator but they came from their own nature can be found in an enigmatic piece of text from the first chapter of the Srid pa’i mdzod phug revealed in 1017 by gShen-chen-klu-dga’.

Rong-zom-pa: Plakṣa Citation

Rong-zom-pa in his commentary on Padmasambhava’s Man ngag lta phreng cites the following verse (lTa phreng ’grel pa, p. 308.11–12): ba ni ba sgra [= sbra] nyid kyi rgyu || blag sha [= plak ṣa] yal ga kun gyi gzhi || chu shel chu yang de bzhin te || sus kyang ma byas rang bzhin byung ||. The verse in slight variants (both in terms of translation and transmission) can be traced in various Indian works in Tibetan translation.

(1) Bhavya, Tarkajvāla at Madhyamakahṛdaya 8.17 (B, vol. 58, p. 621.6–7; cf. Nakamura 1990: 223): dar gyi srin bu’i rnal ma bzhin || chu shel nor bu’i chu bzhin du || nya gro yan lag zug rgyu bzhin || de ni lus can kun gyi rgyu ||. The reading zug rgyu bzhin is uncertain.

(2) Bhavya, Madhyamakaratnapradīpa (B, vol. 57, p. 1499.9–10):  ba ni ba sba [= sbra] rnams kyi yin || chu shel chu rnams kyi bzhin dang || blag sha [= plak ṣa] yal ga rnams ji bzhin || skyes bu lus can kun gyi rgyu ||. 

(3) Avalokitavrata, Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā (B, vol. 58, p. 1181.7–8): ba ni ba thag rnams kyi bzhin || chu shel chu rnams kyi bzhin dang || plak sha [= ṣa] yal ga rnams kyi bzhin || de ni lus can kun gyi rgyu ||. 

(4) An Āryadeva (ascribed), Skhalitapramathanayuktihetusiddhi (B, vol. 57, p. 832.1–3): ba ni ba sbra rnams kyi gzhi || chu shel chu rnams ji bzhin du || plak sha [= ṣa] yal ga rnams ji bzhin || skyes bu lus can kun gyi rgyu ||. This is an earlier translation.

(5) Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya ad Madhyamakāvatāra 6.46 (de La Vallée Poussin 1912: 138.6–9): ba ni ba sgra [= sbra] rnams kyi rgyu || chu shel chu rnams kyi bzhin dang || blak [= plak] sha yal ga rnams kyi ltar || de ni lus can kun gyi rgyu ||. The Sanskrit text of Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya is being edited now but is not yet accessible.

(6) Kamalaśīla, Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā ad Tattvasaṃgraha 154 (Krishnamacharya 1926: 76.4; also cited in Gokhale 1958: 178, n. 47; Kajiyama 1963: 58; Nakamura 1990: 223): ūrṇanābha ivāṃśūnāṃ candrakānta ivāmbhasām | prarohāṇām iva plakṣaḥ sa hetuḥ sarvajanminām ||; Tib. (B, vol. 107, p.  496.10–11): snal ma rnams la ba thag bzhin || chu la chu shel ji bzhin dang || lcug ma rnams kyi glag sha [= plak ṣa] bzhin || de ni skye ldan kun gyi rgyu ||. Kajiyama 1963 = Yuichi Kajiyama, “Bhāvaviveka’s Prajñāpradīpaḥ (1. Kapitel).” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 7, 1963, pp. 37–62; V. V. Gokhale, “The Vedānta-Philosophy Described by Bhavya in His Madhyamakahṛdaya.” Indo-Iranian Journal 3 (2), 1958, pp. 165–180.

Another Tibetan Case of Hapax legomenon

In the Mahāvyutpatti (Fukuda & Ishihama 1989: no. 7477; Sakaki 1916–1925: no. 7521) we find a Tibetan word son pa (as a translation of the Sanskrit nāli).¹ To be sure, there is no varia lectio here. That the Sanskrit word nāli is to be equated with nāḍi/nāḍī and that it should mean something like “tube” or “pipe” seems to be clear.² The word nāli that occurs in the Mahāvyutpatti has been discussed by Edgerton,³ who makes a number of points. Importantly, he points out that contextually it “should mean something connected with weaving” although both Tibetan and Chinese (renderings) have a word that means “arrived.” But of course, “arrived” makes no sense in the present context of the Mahāvyutpatti. Edgerton is right because the Sanskrit word occurs within several words expressing various materials and tools for weaving. The Sanskrit word nāli and its Tibetan rendering son pa, thus, seem to refer to a kind of tube, pipe, or reed that is used for weaving. The Tibetan word son pa in this sense does not seem to be attested anywhere else and hence it appears to be a Hapax legomenon. While it is true that son pa often renders Sanskrit words such as gata and that in Tibetan it occurs in words such as in nar son pa, pha rol tu son pa, lag tu son pa, and the like, son pa in the sense of a tubular tool used for weaving seems to have been forgotten. It may also be mentioned that the Tibetan son is also an abbreviated form of sa bon (“seed”). At any rate, son pa in this particular context of the Mahāvyutpatti does not seem to be used in the literal sense of “gone” or “arrived.” I wonder if it should mean something like a bamboo tube or pipe in which “woof/weft” (vitāna: spun) wound around a stick is placed and is run or passed back and forth through the “warp” (ātāna: rgyu). But unless we come across other/better sources, we cannot say anything definitive.

¹ Yōichi Fukuda & Yumiko Ishihama (eds.), A New Critical Edition of the Mahāvyutpatti: Sanskrit-Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology. Materials for Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionary 1. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1989; Ryōzaburō Sakaki (ed.), Honyaku myōgi taishū (Mahāvyutpatti). 2 vols. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1987 [Reprint of: Kyoto: Shingonshū Kyōto Daigaku, 1916–1925].

² See, for example, MW (s.v. nāli): “= nāḍī, any tubular vessel or vein … of the body,” ibid. (s.v. 2. nāḍi): “any tube or pipe, (esp.) a tubular organ (as a vein or artery of the body),” ibid. (s.v. nāḍī): “the tubular stalk of any plant or any tubular organ (as a vein or artery of the body) … any pipe or tube, … a flute.” MW = Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986].

³ Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Volume 2: Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press & London: Geoffrey Cumberlege / Oxford University Press, 1953 [Reprint: Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1985] (s.v. ?nāli): “m. or f. (°liḥ, n. sg.), Mvy 7521, from the context should mean something connected with weaving; Tib. son pa, arrived(!) and so also Chin.!; Jap. pipe, or vein, which fits Skt. nāḍī (and Lex. nālī), but not the context in Mvy.”

On Translating “Patañjali” into Tibetan

The name “Patañjali” (v.l. “Pātañjali”) has been translated into Tibetan as “Chur-lhung,” and it has been recorded in the Mahāvyutpatti (Sakaki 1916–25: no. 3498; Fukuda & Ishihama 1989: no. 3496).¹ To be sure, the name has also been rendered as “Thal-mo-lhung.”² The rendering “Thal-mo-lhung” is acceptable and it does not have to be “Thal-mor-lhung.” It is comparable to the rendering of “Devadatta.” Both “lHa-s/byin” and “lHas-s/byin” are acceptable. Ācārya Sems-dpa’-rdo-rje points out that the Tibetan translation “Chur-lhung,” or rather “Chu-lhung” (as he has it), is actually a “misunderstanding” (go nor), and he translates the name as “Thal-mo-sbyar-ba-can,”³ that is, “One Who Has Palms Folded (añjali).” But is the earlier Tibetan rendering really based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the name “Patañjali”? Not being a Sanskritist, I cannot tell with authority or certainty. But a quick online search reveals some interesting information associated with the etiology of “Patañjali.” According to one, Ādiśeṣa, the Nāga king, who is the bearer (or even emanation) of Viṣṇu, who was seeking a mother, fell into the handful of water that Goṇikā, a woman who was praying to the sun god to bestow her a son, had scooped up to offer, as the handful of water was the only gift she could find. The veracity of Patañjali’s etiology is secondary, but the Tibetan translators and their Indian collaborators who translated “Patañjali” most probably knew Patañjali’s etiology and hence translated the name as “One Who Fell into the [Handful of] Water” (Chur-lhung) or “One Who Fell on the Palms [Filled with Water] (Thal-mor-lhung).” I, thus, tend to think that the Tibetan translators did not misunderstand the name “Patañjali.” This case is very much comparable to the Tibetan rendering of the name “Umā” as “dKa’-b/zlog-ma.” Ācārya Sems-dpa’-rdo-rje’s translation does not seem to account for pat or pata. With regard to the etymology of the name, Mayrhofer, after considering some speculations, states: “Alles recht unglaubhaft.”⁴ In short, we repeatedly realize that Tibetan translators, when they did translate proper names, did not always follow what seemed to them their literal meanings but considered their etiological backgrounds. So it seems it is necessary to do some background study before we conclude that the Tibetan translators misunderstood and mistranslated certain things.

By the way, as Ācārya Sems-dpa’-rdo-rje also points out that the Tibetan translation of the title Tattvasaṃgraha should not really be De kho na nyid bsdus pa as if we have Tattvsaṃgṛhīta but should rather be De kho na nyid bsdu pa. Prima facie our Ācārya’s reflection seems to be perfectly reasonable. But if we give a second thought, it seems that the past Tibetan translators had a reason why they sometimes rendered a masculine noun (e.g. nomen actionis) with a perfect form of a Tibetan verb. My feeling is that they rendered such a noun with a perfect form of a Tibetan verb if or when they felt that such a noun expressed some kind of an outcome or result and hence is similar to a feminine abstract noun, such as siddhi (“success” or “proof”), which they always translated as dngos grub or grub pa and never, as far as I am concerned, as dngos ’grub or ’grub pa. Although it is true that saṃgraha can be rendered as bsdu ba, I feel that Tibetan translators rendered it as bsdus pa because saṃgraha here was not understood by them as an act of “gathering” or “collecting” but rather as a “collection,” which is an outcome or result of collecting or gathering. Interestingly also in English, saṃgraha has been rendered as both “collecting” and “collection.” Tibetan translators seem to have understood saṃgraha to mean “collection” and hence rendered it as bsdus pa, and not as bsdu ba.

Note: This article has been migrated from Philologia Tibetica and has been revised.

¹ Ryōzaburō Sakaki (ed.), Honyaku myōgi taishū (Mahāvyutpatti). 2 vols. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1987 [Reprint of: Kyoto: Shingonshū Kyōto Daigaku, 1916–1925]; Yōichi Fukuda & Yumiko Ishihama (eds.), A New Critical Edition of the Mahāvyutpatti: Sanskrit-Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology. Materials for Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionary 1. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1989.

² See, for example, ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, Legs par sbyar ba’i bstan bcos kyi byung tshul cung zad bshad pa ngo mtshar zla zhun gsar pa’i ’dzum phreng. In Sa skya’i chos ’byung gces bsdus. 6 vols. Beijing: Krung-go’i-bod-rig-pa-dpe-skrun-khang, 2009, vol. 6, p. 184.7.

³ Sems-dpa’-rdo-rje, mKhan chen zhi ba ’tshos mdzad pa de nyid bsdu ba’i ’grel ba (sic) dpal de kho na nyid gsal bar byed pa’i sgron ma. The Red and Black Crown Karmapa Series 41. [Kalimpong]: Shri Diwakar Publications, 2017 [Tibetan Commentary on Chapters 1–6 of Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṃgraha].

⁴ Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 volumes. Heidelberg: C. Winter 1992–2001. Cf. Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986] (s.v. patañjali): “fr. pata + añj°?” This speculation or suggestion is not found in Otto von Böhtlingk & Rudolph Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 7 vols. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1855–1875 [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000].

What is “Ru” in “Ru ’Jam-dpal-bshes-gnyen”?

A few years ago, to be precise, on 12.05.2017, I published a blog entry (in Philologia Tibetica) about the mysterious use of “Ru” as a title of Indian and Tibetan teachers, for examples, Ru ’Jam-dpal-bshes-gnyen, Ru Padma, and Ru sKa-ba dPal-brtsegs.¹ One can feel that “Ru” has been used in place of or alongside “Ācārya.” But what does “Ru” mean? And why “Ru”? There seems to exist no hitherto explanation. Mengyan Li, Dan Martin, Nicola Bajetta, and I have been trying to find an explanation.

(a) The first thing that comes to one’s mind when one thinks of “Ru” and “Slob dpon” (for Ācārya) is “Ru-dpon.” Could “Ru” have been an abbreviation of Ru-dpon? It is true that a ru dpon or ru sna is military term and can mean something like “the head/leader of a regiment” and hence a kind of a military general. But possibly ru dpon may reflect a Tibetan equivalent of ācārya or a phase of the Tibetan attempt to make sense of the Sanskrit word ācārya, which then later came to be rendered into Tibetan as slob dpon. Can it be that, at least initially, Tibetans understood both ru dpon and slob dpon as some kind of a “guide,” “instructor,” or “trainer”? Incidentally a rectangular ruler used by traditional Bhutanese architects is called a slob dpon. A search in the OTDO reveals ru dpon but not slob dpon.²  Possibly also the term slob dpon was created (somewhat later) by Tibetans to render ācārya, and slob dpon seems to literally mean “an instructing or training leader/master.” I must say, however, that this explanation is the least convincing one.

(b) Mengyan Li feels that “Ru” has been used as an abbreviation of “Guru.” Contextually, this does not seem impossible: Ācārya Mañjuśrīmitra = Guru Mañjuśrīmitra! But it does not seem probable. (c) Dan Martin feels that “Ru” could have been an abbreviation of “Rudra.” This possibility is increased by the fact that some Sanskrit dictionaries,³ as pointed out by Nicola Bajetta, suggest that “Rudra” can be used as names of various teachers and authors (also with ācārya, kavi, bhaṭṭa, śarman, sūri, and so on). Perhaps what is meant here is that “Rudra,” as recorded by Apte, can also mean, among many other things, “Praiseworthy.”⁴ If this hypothesis holds, it would mean that “Rudra (Ācārya) Mañjuśrīmitra” would mean “Praiseworthy (Ācārya) Mañjuśrīmitra.” The question is how old can such a usage of “Ru” be and whether Tibetan authors who used “Ru” with names of respectable persons knew such a usage of “Rudra.” These are a few speculations and the issue, in my view, still remains unresolved.

¹ Klong-chen-rgya-ra (?), Klong chen chos ’byung. Lhasa: Bod-yig-dpe-rnying-dpe-skrun-khang, 2013 [reprint of the first edition 1991], p. 318.

² Krang-dbyi-sun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1993 (s.v. ru dpon): (1) sngar bod sa gnas srid gzhung gi dmag dpon gyi go gnas shig de’i ’og tu dmag mi nyis brgya dang lnga bcu tham pa yod | de ni mda’ dpon gyi ’og ma yin; (2) dmag dpon spyi.

³ Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986] (s.v. rudra).

⁴ Vaman Shivaram Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. 3 vols. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Edited by P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve. Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957–1959 (s.v. rudra).

Rong-zom-pa on Mahāmudrā

Several years ago, a colleague asked me whether the idea of “Great Seal” (mahāmudrā: phyag rgya chen po or phyag chen) occurs in the rNying-ma Tantric sources and if so, what kind of status it has in the school. I think I merely answered that I know of mahāmudrā in the rNying-ma Tantric systems or sources only as a kind of soteriological accomplishment (siddhi: dngos grub) such as the famous *mahāmudrāvidyādhara (phyag rgya chen po’i rig pa ’dzin pa  = phyag chen rig ’dzin = rgya chen rig ’dzin), mainly in the exegetical literature on the *Guhyagarbhatantra. In other words, the rNying-ma Tantric tradition does not have Mahāmudrā as a soteriological system or tradition as in the case of the bKa’-brgyud school of Tibetan Buddhism. Having said that, the rNying-ma school, to the best of my knowledge, would not deny the authenticity of the Mahāmudrā doctrine as such. The relationship between Phyag-chen and rDzogs-chen as perceived by Tibetan scholars would of course require a careful study. Some rNying-ma traditions have even synthesized Phyag-chen and rDzogs-chen thereby resulting in what is called Phyag-rdzogs-zung-’jug. What this really means also requires investigation. 

It seems worthwhile to make a few points regarding how mahāmudrā has been understood by Rong-zom-pa. Firstly, Rong-zom-pa, while explaining the verse line phyag rgya chen po’i ngang du gnas (from the *Guhyagarbhatantra), states that in three cases a mudrā can be called a mahāmudrā:¹ “In general, there are three ways of employing the term mahāmudrā, namely, (1) the word ‘great’ [can] be employed for all mudrās when the qualities of the various mudrās are being expressed, (2) the term mahāmudrā [can] be employed for the sign pertaining to a complete Body when the terms [relating to] the signs of Body, Speech, and Mind co-occur, and (3) in some cases the term mahāmudrā is employed for the signless dharmakāya. One should thus apply [this term] appropriately in accordance with the context.” The mahāmudrā in the third sense seems to be more pertitent to the present topic.

Secondly, in another instance,² he again identifies mahāmudrā with “sphere of reality devoid of characteristics” (chos kyi dbyings mtshan ma med pa). It is obvious that it is only mahāmudrā in this sense that it would relevant to the Mahāmudrā as a doctrinal system. We might recall that according to Rong-zom-pa, rDzogs-chen system teaches a special of kind of rdzogs pa’i rim pa (utpannakrama = niṣpannakrama) practices, that is, presupposing that all Tantric practices are subsumed under bskyed pa’i rim pa (utpattikrama) and rdzogs pa’i rim pa (i.e. rim pa gnyis = kramadvaya). It is quite likely that he would have seen Mahāmudrā doctrine also dealing with a special kind of niṣpannakrama. (In passing, I should note that *saṃpannakrama that haunts some secondary sources is a “ghost word” and thus should be “black-listed” as such. We owe this knowledge to Professor Isaacson.) If Rong-zom-pa had known Mahāmudrā as a practice system, he would have accepted it as system that mainly prescribes or accentuates the practice of “sphere of reality devoid of characteristics.”

Thirdly, Rong-zom-pa also proposes another typology of mahāmudrā:³  *sanimittamahāmudrā (mtshan ma dang bcas pa’i phyag rgya chen po) and *nirnimittamahāmudrā (mtshan ma med pa’i phyag rgya chen po). I do not know if these terms are attested in extant Sanskrit sources. In general, he also speaks of two types of mudrā,⁴ namely, *sanimitta (mtshan ma dang bcas pa) and *nirnimitta (mtshan ma med pa). A similar idea of two kinds of siddhi, namely, *sanimitta (mtshan ma dang bcas pa) and *nirnimitta (mtshan ma med pa), can also be found, for example, in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra.⁵

Fourthly, we have to consider the term and concept of mahāmudrā  in the context of the rig ’dzin bzhi,⁶ that is, how *mahāmudrāvidyādhara (phyag rgya chen po’i rig pa ’dzin  pa = phyag rgya chen po’i rig ’dzin = phyag chen rig ’dzin = rgya chen rig ’dzin) has been understood by Rong-zom-pa. He discusses two alternative interpretations of *mahāmudrāvidyādhara, namely, as accomplishment of rūpakāya (i.e. accomplishment of the second *mahāmudrā discussed above) and accomplishment of dharmakāya (i.e. accomplishment of the third mahāmudrā). In the tradition of the *Guhyagarbhatantra, *mahāmudrāvidyādhara has been counted as one of the four kinds of vidyādhara. But it appears that in the tradition of the Sarvabuddhasamayogatantra, *mahāmudrāvidyādhara is counted as the last of the seven kinds of vidyādhara. This is at least true according to *Indranāla’s commentary on the Sarvabuddhasamayogatantra.⁷

Fifthly, while discussing samaya (as one of the nine Tantric topics), Rong-zom-pa mentions mahāmudrā, again as one of the four kinds of mudrā.⁸ This is nothing special. Sixthly, he also mentions mahāmudrā as one of the three kinds of mudrā.⁹ Seventhly, he also talks about five mahāmudrās (phyag rgya chen po lnga),¹⁰ stating that all phenomena are maintained to be awakened in the sphere of the five (buddha) families (rigs lnga) and five gnoses (ye shes lnga) through (?) the method/mode of five mahāmudrās (phyag rgya chen po lnga’i tshul gyis). It seems that the five mahāmudrās are really five gestures made with the five implements of the five buddha families: “brandishing the vajra” (rdo rje gsor ba), “swinging of the sword” (ral gri bskor ba), and on. He assumes that his readers would understand. I must confess I cannot properly understand the passage dealing with five mahāmudrās.

In sum, the term mahāmudrā seems to have been understood by Rong-zom-pa mainly in the senses of conventional (sc. mtshan ma dang bcas pa’i phyag rgya chen po) and absolute realities (sc. mtshan ma med pa’i phyag rgya chen po) as well as in its ontological (sc. chos kyi dbyings mtshan ma med pa) and Buddhological (sc. chos kyi sku mtshan nyid med pa) senses. Inspired by Rong-zom-pa, we may say that Mahāmudrā is a Mantrayānic soteriological system in which the ultimate soteriological goal— the “dharmakāya devoid of defining characteristics” (chos kyi sku mtshan nyid med pa)—is obtained or realized by gaining direct gnostic access to the absolute ontological reality—the “dharmadhātu devoid of characteristic marks/signs” (chos kyi dbyings mtshan ma med pa)—that is, with or without resorting to the practice of the conventional mahāmudrā (sc. mtshan ma dang bcas pa’i phyag rgya chen po) involved in a deity yoga (devatāyoga: lha’i rnal ’byor).

¹ Orna Almogi, Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 24. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2009, p. 100, n. 198.

² Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 71.19–20): phyag rgya chen po zhes bya ba chos kyi dbyings mtshan ma med pa la ’jug pa rnams ni | mtshon par bya ba’i sgo nas rnam par gzhag pa’o ||.

³ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 214.18–20): phyag rgya chen por rdzogs ’gyur zhing || zhes bya ba ni | mtshan ma med pa’i phyag rgya chen po dang | mtshan ma dang bcas pa’i phyag rgya chen po’i tshig zur gnyis su drangs kyang ’gal ba med do ||.

⁴ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 72.2–3): dbye ba gzhan yang mtshan ma med pa’i phyag ryga dang | mtshan ma dang bcas pa zhes bya’am |.

⁵ Si-tu-paṇ-chen Chos-kyi-’byung-gnas, rGyal ba’i bka’ ’gyur rin po che’i bzhugs byang dkar chag. Chengdu: Si-khron-dpe-skrun-tshogs-pa & Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 2008, p. 264.9–12.

⁶  Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 189.8–18): rig ’dzin gyi bye brag ni gzhung kha cig las | gzhung spyi las grags pa’i lam rnam pa lnga dang sbyar ba dag kyang snang ngo || sngon gyi slob dpon rnams kyi gdams ngag las | sar chud pa dang | sa la gnas pa dang | sar smin pa zhes kyang gsungs so || gzhan yang rnam par smin pa’i rig ’dzin dang | tshe’i rig ’dzin dang | phyag rgya chen po’i rig ’dzin zhes kyang gsungs so || phyag rgya chen po’i rig ’dzin la yang | gzhung kha cig las ni ’di skad du | rang lus rgyal ba’i phyag rgya che || bsgoms pas mngon du gyur pa’i lha || mtshan dang dpe byad mngon shes ldan || phyag rgya chen po’i rig ’dzin grags || zhes gsungs so || kha cig las ni | phyag rgya chen po ni mtshan ma med pa chos kyi sku’o zhes kyang grags te | ’on kyang ’dir ni rgyu rkyen nus pa can du gyur pa de nyid rig ’dzin zhes sangs rgyas kyi zhing rnams su grags la | khyad par gyi sas bsdus pa’o zhes gsungs so ||.

⁷ Si-tu-paṇ-chen in his sDe dge bka’ ’gyur dkar chag (pp. 257.18–258.1) cites Śraddhākaravarman’s Yogānuttaratantrārthāvatāra.

⁸ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 66.7).

⁹ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 182.3–9): de la sbyor ba ji ltar shes rab kyi spyod pa yin zhe na | shes rab ni shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin ma’o || de yang rnam pa gsum ste | las kyi phyag rgya dang | ye shes kyi phyag rgya dang | phyag rgya chen po’o || de la las kyi phyag rgya ni rnam par smin pa’i lus kyi bdag nyid bud med rnams so || ye shes kyi phyag rgya ni ye shes las sprul pa’i lha mo rnams so || phyag rgya chen po ni chos kyi sku mtshan nyid med pa’o || ’di rnams ni shes rab kyi rang bzhin yin pa dang | ’di rnams la brten nas gnyis su med pa’i ye shes skye bar ’gyur ba’i gnas yin pas | shes rab kyi spyod pa’i dam tshig yin pa’i phyir thun mong ma yin pa’i shes rab kyi spyod pa’o ||.

¹⁰ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 87.17–22): de la rgyud ’di’i skabs su don spyi rgya rabs kyis gcod pa ni | phyag rgya chen po lng’i tshul gyis chos thams cad rigs lnga ye shes lnga’i ngang du sangs rgyas par ston par bzhed de | de la phyag rgya chen po lnga ni || rdo rje gsor ba lta bu nas | ral gri bskor ba’i bar dag ste | ji ltar phyag rgya de dag pa las dang yon tan bye brag med par snang ba bzhin | rgyud ’di’i dbu zhabs nas kyang chos thams cad ’bral bu’i chos su sangs rgyas par ston par bye brag med do || zhes gsungs so ||.

Another Case of Hapax Legomenon

More than four years ago (on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 [https://philologia-tibetica.blogspot.com], I briefly discussed a case of Hapax legomenon, namely, gser phye long mo gang. This expression occurs in Sog-bzlog-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan’s (1552–1624) Phur pa’i lo rgyus.¹ Actually the individual components of the expression pose no difficulty and contextually it must mean something like “a long-mo-full of gold dust.” To be sure, there is no Varia lectio. The word long mo or long bu means “ankle-bone” or “astragal.”² Something like “an ankle-bone full of gold dust” would make no sense. Merriam-Webster tells us that astragal is “a narrow half-round molding,”³ which reminds one of a “scoop.” Mengyan Li has translated it as “one full knuckle of gold dust.”⁴ I cannot say how this translation sounds in English. At any rate, gser phye long mo gang seems to mean something like gser phye spar gang or gser phye khyor gang (“a handful of gold dust”).

¹ Mengyan Li, Origination, Transmission, and Reception of the Phur-pa Cycle: A Study of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Cycle of Tantric Teachings in Tibet with Special Reference to Sog-bzlog-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan’s (1552–1624) Phur pa’i lo rgyus. Doctoral Dissertation. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2018 [https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de], p. 311 (§19.5).

² Heinrich August Jäschke, A Tibetan English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. To which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London: [Berlin, Unger Brothers (T. Grimm)], 1881 [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1987] (s.v. long bu).

³ https://www.merriam-webster.com (s.v. astragal).

⁴ Li 2018: 228.

Tibetan Rendering of “Suśroṇī”

In the Mūlasarvāstivāda narrative sources, there is a story of Suśroṇī, a queen who takes a musician and then a robber as her lover.¹ Jampa Losang Panglung usually provides the Tibetan renderings of the Sanskrit names. But not for Suśroṇī. Other lexical sources do not seem to record the name of our queen.² William Woodville Rockhill, however, records “Sho-shum-pa” as a Tibetan rendering of “Suśroṇī,” by referring to Anton von Schiefner, and also points out that it is not a literal rendering.³ Literally it should mean something like “having beautiful hips.”⁴ And indeed in some Tibetan lexical sources, we find sked legs ma in the sense of a “beautiful woman” (bud med mdzes ma) and “goddess” (lha’i bu mo),⁵ which is probably a literal rendering of suśroṇī. But the meaning of sho shum pa is not clear. Possibly sho shum is a mimetic word, comparable to ’khyug ’khyug and ldem ldem, which describes the movement and hence meaning something like “having graceful movements/gait.” The meaning of the expression ’dar shum shum⁶ as “a certain way of moving [one’s] body” (gzugs po g.yo tshul zhig) may mean something like “a certain way of swinging” (e.g. one’s hips) and hence support such a speculation. If this speculation holds, we shall have to consider sho shum and shum shum simply as phonetic variants and suppose that the Tibetan translators interpreted that “one who has beautiful hips” is also “one who has graceful movements/gait.” One should also perhaps consider the words shom ra (byed) and shom can.⁷

¹  See Jampa Losang Panglung, Die Erzählstoffe des Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya: Analysiert auf Grund der tibetischen Übersetzung. Tokyo: The Reiyukai Library, 1981, pp. 193–194. See also Anton Schiefner, Tibetan Tales Derived from Indian Sources. Translated from the Tibetan of the Kah-Gyur by F. Anton von Schiefner. Done into English from the German, with an introduction by William Ralston. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1906, pp. lv–lvi, 227–235.

² The following sources do not seem to record the name Suśroṇī: (a) Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Volume 2: Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press & London: Geoffrey Cumberlege / Oxford University Press, 1953 [Reprint: Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1985]; (b) Heinz Bechert, Michael Schmidt, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Georg von Simson, Michael Schmidt, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Siglinde Dietz, Jin-il Chung (eds.), Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden und der kanonischen Literatur der Sarvāstivāda-Schule. Begonnen von Ernst Waldschmidt. Im Auftrage der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. 4 vols. (27 Lieferungen). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994–2014; (c) J. S. Negi et al., Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo: Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Dictionary Unit, 1993–2005; (d) Vaman Shivaram Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. 3 vols. Revised and Enlarged Edition, edited by P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve. Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957–1959.

³ William Woodville Rockhill, The Life of the Buddha and the Early History of His Order. Derived from Tibetan Works in the Bkah-Hgyur and Bstan-Hgyur. Followed by Notices on the Early History of Tibet and Khoten. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1884 [= 1907], pp. 82, n. 1, 273 (Index).

⁴ Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986] (s.v. suśroṇī); Otto von Böhtlingk & Rudolph Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 7 vols. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1855–1875 [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000] (s.v. suśroṇī).

5  Krang-dbyi-sun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1993 (s.v. sked legs ma). Cf. Herbert Franke & Helga Uebach, Wörterbuch der tibetischen Schriftsprache: Im Auftrag der Kommission für zentral- und ostasiatische Studien der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommision beim Verlag C. H. Beck, 2005–? (s.vv. rked legs ma, rked phra ma, rked med).

⁶  Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.v. ’dar shum shum): gzugs po g.yo tshul zhig. It gives the following example: gangs khrod du phyin pas ha cang ’khyags te mgo lus tshang ma ’dar shum shum byas byung. It, however, simply seems to mean “trembling” or “shivering.” But it may also have the meaning of “swinging.”

⁷ Heinrich August Jäschke, A Tibetan English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. To which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London: [Berlin, Unger Brothers (T. Grimm)], 1881 [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1987] (s.v. shom pa).

On the Word Pada in Dhammapada

That A-mdo dGe-’dun-chos-’phel (1903–1951)—who was more a “Misunderstood Man” rather than an “Angry Monk”—translated the Dhammapada from the Pāli is well known.¹ As a scholar, he is either reviled or revered by fellow Tibetan scholars. One such scholar who vilified him was dGe-bshes Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho (1884–1968), who played a questionable editorial role in the preparation of the lHa sa bka’ ’gyur. According to Hor-gtsang ’Jigs-med, Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho criticized dGe-’dun-chos-’phel for translating pada in the title Dhammapada as tshigs su bcad pa.² It is true that title as it occurs both in the beginning and in the translator’s colophon is the Chos kyi tshigs su bcad pa.³  The main point of critique seems to be that pada means tshig and that tshigs su bcad pa should be a rendering of the Sanskrit kārikā. The criticism, which insinuates that the translator has misunderstood and hence mistranslated the word pada, is actually quite astonishing because it comes from someone, who, as far as I am concerned, had never himself translated anything from Pāli and Sanskrit. I am not even sure whether he had any knowledge of Pāli. It is clear that it was dGe-’dun-chos-’phel’s literary taste and choice, and not his ignorance, that he translated pada in the title as tshigs su bcad pa and not simply as tshig. This is certainly not wrong because even a lexical meaning seems to suggest that it is fully correct to translate pada as tshigs su bcad pa insofar as it is said to mean also “a portion of a verse, quarter or line of a stanza.”⁴ In addition, it is not just kārikā that has been rendered into Tibetan as tshigs su bcad pa (or tshig le’ur byas pa) but also other Sanskrit words such as śloka and gāthā.⁵ It is thus evident that several Sanskrit words that mean “stanza” have been and can be rendered into Tibetan as tshigs su bcad pa. In short, the translator chose to translate Dhammapada as chos kyi tshigs su bcad pa, and when it specifically refers to “Dharmic word” as chos kyi tshig as is evident, for example, in his translation of Dhammapada 4.1 (Pupphavagga).⁶

¹  One of the reprints is the following: dGe-’dun-chos-’phel (tr.), Chos kyi tshigs su bcad pa. Delhi: T.G. Dhongthog, 1976. There seem to exist several reprints.

² Hor-gtsang ’Jigs-med, Drang bden gyis bslus pa’i slong mo ba: mDo smad pa dge ’dun chos ’phel gyi mi tshe dpyad brjod. Dharamsala: g.Yu-rtse-dpe-’grems-khang, 1999, p. 202.8–13.

³ dGe-’dun-chos-’phel (tr.), Chos kyi tshigs su bcad pa. Delhi: T. G. Dhongthog, 1976, pp. 1, 156.

⁴ Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986] (s.v. pada); cf. Vaman Shivaram Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. 3 vols. Revised and Enlarged Edition, edited by P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve. Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957–1959 (s.v. pada).

5   J. S. Negi et al., Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo: Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Dictionary Unit, 1993–2005 (s.vv. sdud pa tshigs su bcad pa & bar gyi tshigs su bcad pa).

⁶  Dhammapada 4.1 (Ānandajoti 2020: 72): ko imaṁ paṭhaviṁ vicessati yamalokañ ca imaṁ sadevakaṁ || ko dhammapadaṁ sudesitaṁ, kusalo puppham ivappacessati ||. Bibliographical details: Ānandajoti Bhikkhu (ed.), A Comparative Edition of the Dhammapada Pāḷi text with parallels from Sanskritised Prakrit edited together with A Study of the Dhammapada Collection (4th revised edition, April, 2020) [Published online]. Tib. (p. 17): sa ’di gshin rje’i ’jig rten dang || lha dang bcas ’di rgyal ’dod su || legs bshad dge ba’i chos kyi tshig || me tog bzhin du ’tshol ba su ||.

Rong-zom-pa on the Coronation of a Cakravartin

In the history of Buddhist ideas, one often notices that a certain relatively earlier idea, let us say, “x.1,” is never equated with the corresponding later idea “x.2,” and the idea “x.2” never with the idea “x.3,” and so on, but the idea “x.2” is used to justify “x.3,” and “x.1” to justify “x.2,” and so on. Such a strategy of legitimization of the later “disputed” idea of the “higher” vehicle or system by pointing out to the existence of an ealier “undisputed” idea of the “lower” vehicle or system may be traced elsewhere but it seems to be particularly pronounced in the Gedankengebäude of Rong-zom-pa. One could devote an entire monograph to this topic. One such example can be observed in Rong-zom-pa’s strategy of the authentication of various strata of Buddhist scriptures/doctrines.¹ Another such example can be noticed in his justification of the theory of ālayavijñāna.² Actually, the underlying reasoning is a prasaṅga-type of reasoning or a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument. The logical consequence would be such that the opponent or critic is compelled either to denounce its own doctrine or position or to accept the proponent’s doctrine or position. Tertium non datur!

A similar trend of reasoning can be felt, albeit in a more subtle way, also elsewhere. I am thinking of Rong-zom-pa’s explanation of key Tantric concepts such as mudrā. In general, Orna Almogi in her study of Rong-zom-pa’s Buddhology showed that, he, for explaining the idea of mūdra, resorted to Buddhaguhya’s Tantrārthāvatāra.³ We shall assume that a Mantric mudrā “x.3,” which is specific to Mantrayāna, would be rejected by the followers of Pāramitāyāna and Śrāvakayāna. Rong-zom-pa’s argument would be that a Mantric mudrā “x.3,” though indeed special, should be acceptable to the followers of Pāramitāyāna and Śrāvakayāna because even they have the idea of mudrā “x.2,” such as the relics of the Buddha and the stūpas that contained them, which are seals of the Buddha that carry out the salvific activities of the Buddha. For non-Buddhists who reject the mudrā “x.2,” the argument would be that even they have to accept the idea of a mudrā because even in the secular world, we have the idea of a king’s “seal” or “signet,” say, “x.1,” which carries out the command of a king. Such is the trend of Rong-zom-pa’s thought.

Similarly, we can reasonably maintain that abhiṣeka “x.3”—as defined by Vajrayāna sources—is unique to Vajrayāna and that abhiṣeka is what enables one’s actual entry into Vajrayāna practice. From the perspective of Pāramitāyāna and Śrāvakayāna, what makes, among many other things, Vajrayāna suspicious is precisely abhiṣeka “x.3.” To make the point more pointed, the critics’ offense is that a form of Buddhism that contains abhiṣeka is not Buddhism. The apologists’ defense is that the presence of abhiṣeka would not undermine the authenticity because even Pāramitāyāna has the idea of abhiṣeka “x.2.” Rong-zom-pa does not elaborate on the existence of abhiṣeka “x.2” but perhaps he thought this is all too obvious. Later Tibetan scholars would explicitly point out to the idea of the “initiation or empowerment of great rays” (’od zer chen po’i dbang) found in pre/non-Mantrayāna form of Budddhism. A few important sources are the Ratnāvalī,⁴ Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra,⁵ and Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya.⁶ Noteworthy is that this empowerment is bestowed only to the bodhisattva of the tenth bhūmi, who is, like the future Buddha Maitreya, considered a “regent” or a “crown prince.” The empowerment is thus the final procedure of ablution that crowns him as a king. In Rong-zom-pa’s words, an abhiṣeka would “cause to obtain ascendancy and to enthrone/empower” (go ’phang gi chos thob par byed cing dbang bskur ba). In short, the gist of the argument is that the followers of the Bodhisattvayāna cannot say that the concept of Mantric abhiṣeka “x.3” is non-Budddhist because also Bodhisattvayāna has its concept of abhiṣeka “x.2.”

A follower of Śrāvakayāna might then question the legitimacy of abhiṣeka “x.2” found in the Bodhisattvayāna sources. The idea of the Baby Buddha being “consecrated” by the gods and nāgas as soon as he was born seems to be intended for them and understood to be a kind of abhiṣeka “x.1.” From the iconographic depictions, as seen below, we might not know whether those who bath the Baby Buddha are human beings or divine beings.

The textual sources, however, seem to take for granted that the Baby Buddha was bathed by the god (and according to Rong-zom-pa also nāga) kings. This bathing or consecretional ritual has been simulated in Mahāyāna (I would think not just in Mantrayāna) practices.⁷

Finally, non-Buddhists may not recognize the legitimacy of the Baby Buddha being empowerd by devas/nāgas, that is, abhiṣeka “x.1,” which seems to be specific to Buddhism. For such critics, Rong-zom-pa seems to allude to the idea of the ablution and coronation of a cakravartin (“universal monarch,”⁸ which would be then a kind of abhiṣeka “x.0,” acceptable to all Indian religions and philosophies that propose or presuppose the idea of a cakravartin. One would think that particularly, Jainism and, in a loose sense, Brahmanism would accept the idea of cakravartin. Although Sage Asita had foretold that Baby Siddhārtha would either beome a buddha or cakravartin, for Buddhists, it seems, he did become a buddha, and yet at the same time also a “King of the Dharma” (dharmarāja) and hence comparable to a cakravartin. In other words, for the Buddhists, Siddhārtha did not become a secular or temporal cakravartin but he did become a sacral or spiritual cakravartin!

Just as a temporal or secular cakravartin turns his wheel so does the Buddha—a sacral or spiritual cakravartin—turn his Wheel of Dharma (dharmacakra). Just as a temporal cakravartin is consecrated by the king of devas, so is the Buddha as a sacral or spiritual cakravartin consecrated by deva and nāga kings as soon as he is born.

The idea of the ablution and coronation of a temporal or secular cakravartin needs to be investigated closely. But according to Rong-zom-pa, “Airāvata (here perhaps Indra’s elephant) obtains a vessel made of precious stones filled with water of elixir from the heavenly abode of Trāyastriṃśa and pour it over the head of the king and thus [is the king] consecrated/bathed (sa srungs kyi bus sum cu rtsa gsum gnam gyi gnas nas rin po che snod bdud rtsi’i chus bkang ba blangs te | rgyal po’i spyi bor blug cing khrus byas). It appears that Rong-zom-pa is drawing on from sources such as the Daśabhūmikasūtra.⁹

In sum, the manner in which Rong-zom-pa explains the term and concept of abhiṣeka shows an attempt to justify the Mantric concept of abhiṣeka by alluding to the idea of how a temporal cakravartin is consecrated and coronated/enthroned. He does so by drawing parallel between what I call the ablution/coronation of a “secular cakravartin” acceptable also to non-Buddhist Indian religions and beliefs and the ablution/coronation of a “sacral cakravartin,” the Buddha, which is specific to Buddhism.

¹ Dorji Wangchuk, “An Eleventh-Century Defence of the *Guhyagarbhatantra.” In The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Proceedings of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, edited by Helmut Eimer & David Germano. Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp. 265–291.

² Dorji Wangchuk, “Rong zom pa on the Ālayavijñāna Theory.” In Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, and Nikolai Somsdorf. Indica et Tibetica 59. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019, [pp. 471–478], p. 473.

³  Orna Almogi, Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 24. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2009, p. 90.

⁴  Nāgārjuna, Ratnāvalī 5.59 (Hahn 1982; Wangchuk 2007: 103, n. 64): bcu pa chos kyi sprin yin te || dam pa chos kyi char ’bebs phyir || byang chub sems dpa’ sangs rgyas kyis || ’od zer dag gis dbang bskur phyir ||. The corresponding Sanskrit text is not extant.

⁵  Maitreya (ascribed), Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (cited in Wangchuk 2007: 103, n. 64): sangs rgyas kun gyis ’od zer chen pos dbang bskur byin ||. See also: sgom pa tha ma thob nas ni || byang chub sems dpa’ dbang bskur ba ||.

⁶  Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya (La Vallée Poussin 1912: 345.1–4): byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyis mi g.yo ba ’di ni gzhon nu’i sar rnam par gzhag ste | dgu  par ni rgyal tshab thob la | bcu par ni ’khor los sgyur ba ltar rgyal ba rnams kyis dbang bskur ro ||. I look foward to gaining access to the Sanskrit edition. The whole of tenth cittotpāda on Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya (La Vallée Poussin: pp. 349.10–350.14) is actually a description of how a bodhisattva of the tenth bhūmi is empowered or initiated by the buddhas through the emission of light from their ūrṇā (mdzod spu).

⁷ Found in Various Sources (but here as cited in Tanemura 2014: 119, n. 20): yathā hi jātamātreṇa snāpitāḥ sarvatathāgatāḥ | tathāhaṃ snāpayiṣyāmi śuddhadivyena vāriṇā ||. Bibliographical details: Ryugen Tanemura, “Ratnarakṣita’s Padminī, Chapter 22: A Critical Edition of and Notes on the Pratiṣṭhā Section.” Gendai Mikkyō 25 (現代密教 25), 2014, pp. 97–126.

⁸ Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (pp. 66.19–67.10): de la ci’i phyir dbang bskur ba zhes bya zhe na | a bhi ṣin tsa [= √abhiṣic] zhes bya ba’i sgra mngon par gtor ba’am chus brlan par byas pa’i tshig ste | sgra ’di dngos su na dri ma dag par byed pa tsam la ’jug la | rgyud nas ni go ’phang gi chos thob par byed cing dbang bskur ba la ’jug ste | ci’i phir [= phyir] zhe na ’jig rten du ’khor los sgyur pa’i rgyal po byung ba na | sa srungs kyi bus sum cu rtsa gsum gnam gyi gnas nas rin po che snod bdud rtsi’i chus bkang ba blangs te | rgyal po’i spyi bor blug cing khrus byas pas ’khor los sgyur ba’i rgyal por dbang thob par byas pas de la a bhi ṣintsa [= √abhiṣic] ces grags so || de bzhin du chos kyi rgyal po sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das ’byung ba na | lha dang klu’i rgyal po rnams kyis dag pa lha’i chus khrus gsol bas chos kyi rgyal po ’jig rten du ’byung bar ’gyur te | khrus de la a bhi ṣintsa [= √abhiṣic] zhes grags so || de bzhin du phyis rjes su ’byung ba rnams kyang go ’phang bsgo bar byed pa’i tshe bum pa la brten nas khrus gsol bas dbang thams cad rgya rtags yin pa’i phyir | mngon par gtor ba’i phyir dbang bskur ba zhes bya’o ||.

⁹ Daśabhūmikasūtra (Vaidya 1967: 57): tadyathāpi nāma bho jinaputrā yo rājñaś cakravartinaḥ putro jyeṣṭhaḥ kumāro ’gryamahiṣīprasūtaś cakravartirājalakṣaṇasamanvāgato bhavati, taṃ rājā cakravartī divye hastisauvarṇe bhadrapīṭhe niṣādya, caturbhyo mahāsamudrebhyo vāryānīya, upariratnavimānena dhāryamāṇena mahatā puṣpadhūpagandhadīpamālyavilepana cūrṇacīvaracchatradhvaja-patākātūryatālāvacarasaṃgitivyūhena sauvarṇaṃ bhṛṅgāraṃ gṛhītvā tena vāriṇā taṃ kumāraṃ mūrdhanyabhiṣiñcati | samanantarābhiṣiktaś ca rājā kṣatriyo mūrdhabhiṣikta iti saṃkhyāṃ gacchati |. The Sanskrit text has to be be cross-checked with other editions. Also Tibetan translation should be added here.

Rong-zom-pa and Anupamavajra

In his commentary on the *Guhyagarbhatantra and in the context of explaining the name “Śrī-Heruka,” Rong-zom-pa mentions by name “Slob-dpon dPe-med-pa’i-rdo-rje” (Ācārya Anupamavajra).¹ As far as I am concerned, this is the only instance where Anupamavajra is mentioned by him, at least by name. In this single instance, our author does not specify Anupamavajra’s work that he is alluding to. It appears that the only work by Anupamavajra found in the Tibetan canon (i.e. bsTan ’gyur) is a practice manual, namely, the *Suviśiṣṭā nāma sādhanopāyikā (Rab tu gsal ba zhes bya ba’i sgrub pa’i thabs.² According to the translation colophon of the sDe-dge edition of the bsTan ’gyur, it is said to be translated by Paṇḍita Vīryabhadra and Lo-tsā-ba Rin-chen-bzang-po.³ There seems to be no report of the existence of the Sanskrit text of the *Suviśiṣṭā. Among the Sanskritists and Buddhologists, however, the name Anupamavajra is known primarily through and as the author of the Ādikarmapradīpa.⁴

Alexis Sanderson has translated and discussed the “author’s colophon” (and not “authorship colophon”—a distinction proposed by Orna Almogi) of the Ādikarmapradīpa.⁵ The author’s colophon, however, merely tells us at whose behest he compiled his Ādikarmapradīpa, namely, a scholar called Dharmākara, “a resident of the Vikrama monastery constructed by King Devapāla.” It actually neither tells us of his own institutional affliliation nor of the date of composition. In secondary sources, we often read that Anupamavajra composed his Ādikarmapradīpa in the year 1098.⁶ Péter-Dániel Szántó—with his usual astuteness—points out the following, for which I am very thankful: “As for Anupamavajra, I’m afraid we are dealing with an old misunderstanding here. 1098 CE (NS 218) is not the date of composition, but the date of the London manuscript (moreover, it’s very likely that the letter numeral is not 200 but 300, hence 1198/NS 318.”⁷ The BDRC gives ca. 9th/10th century as the dates of Anupamavajra (P4CZ15272), which seems to have been based on Lo-chen Rin-chen-bzang-po’s dates. But these are not my actual concerns. My concern is the identity of Anupamavajra’s work alluded to Rong-zom-pa. He states: “Ācārya Anupamavajra has explained [the name Heruka?] as a term for the realization of the reality characterized by non-origination of [all] phenomena by distinguishing/explaning the six letters/syllables by the sound/syllable of A” (slob dpon dpe med pa’i rdo rje yis yi ge ’bru drug a’i sgras phye nas chos skye ba med pa’i don rtogs pa’i sgrar bshad de). My problem is that I do not even know what these six akṣaras or syllables are. Both the Ādikarmapradīpa and *Suviśiṣṭā contain several mantric formulae but I have still not been able to identify the idea that Rong-zom-pa is refering to. These works do not seem to discuss heruka. For the want of a better solution, I am wondering at the moment if Rong-zom-pa was thinking of oṃ akāro mukhaṃ sarvadharmāṇām ādyanutpannatvāt | oṃ ā hūṃ phaṭ svāhā || found in the Ādikarmapradīpa. Admittedly the only shaky link is the idea of the primordial non-arisen-ness of all phenomena and the arbitrary six syllabes (i.e. oṃ ā hūṃ phaṭ svāhā). By the way, Rong-zom-pa does allude to the universally known oṃ akāro formula also elewhere. At any rate, Rong-zom-pa’s allusion to Anupamavajra seems to give us a small and yet a significant point of reference (Anhaltspunkt) that can be pertinent to the history of reception of Anupamavajra’s ideas in Tibet.

As a final note, I am not able to read and evaluate an article in Japanese, which seems to propose that Anupamavajra is an honorific title for Advayavajra.⁸  I shall have to leave this topic to other experts in the field.

¹  Rong-zom-pa, dKon mchog ’grel (p. 210.18–20): slob dpon dpe med pa’i rdo rje yis yi ge ’bru drug a’i sgras phye nas chos skye ba med pa’i don rtogs pa’i sgrar bshad de | de dag la sogs pa gzhung so so las sgra mang por bshad mod kyi | sngon gyi mkhan po rnams kyis nye bar sgra khrag ’thung du bshad do ||.

²  *Suviśiṣṭā (P 2755; D 1891; Nishioka 2324).

³ Tibskrit (s.v. Suviśasādhana); Nishioka 2324).

⁴ Since the publication of the Sanskrit text of the Ādikarmapradīpa in 1898, Anupamavajra seems to referred to by many scholars. For editions, see Louis de La Vallée Poussin (ed.), Bouddhisme, études et matériaux: Ādikarmapradīpa, Bodhicaryāvatāraṭīkā. London: Luzac & Company (Publishers to the India Office), 1898, pp. 186–204. See also H. Takahashi (ed.), “Ādikarmapradīpa Bonbun Kōtei: Tōkyō Daigaku Shahon Ni Yoru” (The Sanskrit Text of the Ādikarmapradīpa: Based on the Manuscript of Tokyo University). In Indogaku mikkyōgaku kenkyū: Miyasaka Yūshō Hakushi koki kinen ronbunshū, vol. 2, edited by M. Tachikawa et al. Kyoto: Hazakan, 1993, pp. 129–156.

⁵ Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period.” In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, 2009, [pp. 41–350], p. 91, n. 165.

⁶  See, for example, Alexander von Rosspat, “Local Literatures: Nepal.” BEB, vol. 1, 2015 [pp. 819–830], p. 822.

⁷ The source given by Szántó is: Sylvain Lévi, Le Népal: Étude historique d’un royaume hindou. Volume II. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1905, p. 195.

⁸ Koushun Moriguchi, “Advayavajra は尊称 Anupamavajra.” Journal of Chisan Studies 4, 1996, pp. 1–29.

Khu-sen in Tibetan Sources

In some Tibetan textual sources we come across the expression khu sen gyi slob dpon brgyad,¹ and it obviously means “eight ācāryas from/of Khu-sen.” To be sure, contextually, these eight ācāryas were holders of the Vinaya. But what is Khu-sen? Where is Khu-sen? The reference to the expression khu sen gyi slob dpon was known, for example, to R. O. Meisezahl, but he, too, had obviously no clue, for he stated “acht Lehrer (ācārya) aus Khu-sen (?), wie Puṇyasena and Saṃghasena.”² It now turns out to be that Khu-sen is one of the many names (or phonetic renderings) of “Kucha,” an “ancient Buddhist kingdom located on the branch of the Silk Road that ran along the northern edge of the Taklamakan Desert in the Tarim Basin and south of the Muzat River. The area lies in present-day Aksu Prefecture, Xinjiang, China; Kuqa town is the county seat of that prefecture’s Kuqa County.”³ In Sanskrit, the name is said to be Kucina, but it needs verification. Although the Wikipedia information that I use here may not be reliable, it seems to serve the present purpose: “While Chinese transcriptions of the Han or the Tang infer that Küchï was the original form of the name, Guzan (or Küsan), is attested in the Old Tibetan Annals (s.v.), dating from 687 CE. Uighur and Chinese transcriptions from the period of the Mongol Empire support the forms Küsän/Güsän and Kuxian/Quxian respectively, rather than Küshän or Kushan. Another, cognate Chinese transliteration is Ku-sien.” As a reference to the Old Tibetan Annals, the article refers to Beckwith 1987: 50.⁴ Here, Beckwith does not explicitly mention our “Khu-sen” but only “Guzan,” but it seems to be clear that our Khu-sen is one of the many names (or phonetic renderings) of “Kucha.”

¹  See, for example, the Zhu chen gsan yig (vol. 2, p. 557.7). The bibliographical details: Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen, dPal ldan bla ma dam pa rnams las dam pa’i chos thos pa’i gsan yi ge don gnyer gdengs can rol pa’i chu gter, 2 vols. In Zhu chen tshul khrims rin chen gyi gsung ’bum, 11 vols. Kathmandu: Sachen International, Guru Lama, 2005, vols. 1 & 2.

²  R. O. Meisezahl, “Zur Klassifizierung der Kanonischen Übersetzungsliteratur des tibetischen Vajrayāna-Buddhismus im Peking- und Derge-Kanjur.” Oriens 29–30 (1), 1986 [pp. 335–350], p. 337.

³ Wikipedia (s.v. Kuchha).

⁴ See Chistopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 50, n. 66. This reference is actually for the date of the Old Tibetan Chronicle. But the note does mention “Guzan” (not our “Khu-sen”) as one of the names of Kucha. It then refers to Pelliot 1920: 181 (which I have not seen yet).

A Cruz in Rong zom pa’s Work

mKhan po bKra shis rdo rje (often called mKhan po bKra rdo) from the Ngagyur Nyingma Research Centre (of the Ngagyur Nyingma Institute, Namdroling, Mysore, Karnataka, India) has been investigating Rong zom pa’s magnum opus, the Theg tshul, for several years now as the main topic and part of his dissertation. He is finalizing and polishing it for publication. We are looking forward to seeing the work published with a great deal of anticipation. But there are several cruxes which seem unsolvable, at least for now. In this regard, I feel as helpless as mKhan po himself. One such crux is that our author employs the expression lha’i lung bcu. Dominic Sur, in his translation of the Theg tshul, makes no comment on it and the expression lha’i lung bcu has been rendered as “ten divine prophecies,”¹ which is incomprehensible. Nicola Bajetta, a doctoral student of mine, who is studying Rong zom pa’s commentary on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti for his doctoral dissertation, points out that Thinley Norbu’s English version of his gTer gsar sngon ’gro bsdus pa’i khrid yig go bde chu ’babs kyi tshul du bkod pa called “A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar” treats our pertinent phrase as a title of a Buddhist scripture and renders it as The Mantrayana Sutra of the Ten Divine Prophecies Contained in Three Points.² The corresponding Tibetan text provided in the footnote (p. 177, n. 217), lha’i lung bcu ru bstan pa’i don mdo gsum du ’dus pa, however, does not neccesarily seem to treat it as the name of a scripture but rather as “the content of lha’i lung explained/taught as tenfold, which are [here] subsumed under three succinct points.” Note that mdo in mdor ’dus/bsdus pa may not mean sūtra in the sense of a scripture. Rinpoche’s phrase in Tibetan actually paraphrases what is there in Rong zom pa’s text, namely, mtshan ma’i lha’i sku bsgoms pa’i tshad ni | lha’i lung bcu bstan pa’ang yod na | mdo gsum du ’dus te |. But in the English version, it clearly assumes the form of a scripture. Rinpoche, in his Preface (p. xxii), does complain that “[s]ometimes making the language too correct in English is very awkward.” The obvious discrepency in Tibetan and English suggests that Rinpoche, too, had difficulties with the cryptic nature of Rong zom pa’s statement and the challenge of satisfactorily rendering it into English. To be sure, the actual point that he intends to make is, in my view, not marred, for he is merely accentuating the point that “undistorted splendor means appearance that has no substance.” And actually Rinpoche’s use of the word “appearance” here is noteworthy. At any rate, we can surmise that Sur’s rendering “ten divine prophecies” is based on “A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar.”

mKhan po bKra rdo reports that he tried to trace this expression and idea elsewhere but it yielded no positive result. Perhaps the only consolation is that a negative finding is also a kind of finding. Thus the expression lha’i lung bcu remains an unsolved crux. There is, however, a cloud of discontentment hovering over a researcher’s psyche. The sense of discontentment urges me to venture a speculation here. We have basically two questions. What does he mean by lha’i lung? What are the ten (kinds of) lha’i lung that he had in mind? Before I proceed, we shall take for granted that our reading is correct. mKhan po also reports that there is no varia lectio. First, a natural instinct seems to be to check if we find a corresponding Sanskrit word for the Tibetan lha’i lung. The first candidate that comes to one’s mind is devāgama. One does find such a word in Sanskrit. But it is said to mean “the place where the gods had assembled.”⁴ This is certainly not the sense in which our author is using the word. Contextually it is clear that lha’i lung must refer to something like the “physical appearance or external expression of a deity.” One feels that our author is using the word in the sense of “appearance.” But is such a usage of the word attested in Tibetan sources? I personally am unaware of such a meaning or usage in Tibetan. How about the Sanskrit word āgama? Does it or can it have a meaning of “appearance”? Sanskrit dictionaries do record Ercheinen, or, “appearance” as one of the meanings of āgama.³

It seems quite probable that our author used the word lha’i lung in the sense of the “appearance/appearing of deities” or “coming into view of deities.” This would very well suit the context. Second, what about the number “ten”? We can deduce from the context that the author is thinking of the ten modes or manners in which a Tantric deity is visualized or depicted. Three of these modes under which he wishes to subsume the rest are: lham me, lhan ne, and lhang nge. He explains each of the three. I thus suspect that his list of ten would include these three. I may be completely off the tract, but I imagine a list that looks something like this: (1) lham me, (2) lhang nge, (3) lhan ne, (4) sa le, (5) seng nge, (6) thal le, (7) hrig ge, (8) wa le, (9) khyug ge, and (10) lam me. Some of the items in the list can be seen in some biographical sources. But unless we can trace the source of Rong zom pa’s source, we cannot tell anything with certainty.

¹  Dominic Sur (tr.), Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle: Dzogchen as the Culmination of the Mahāyāna. Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2017. 

²  Thinley Norbu, A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar. Boston & London: Shambhala Publications, 2006.

³  Renate Söhnen & Peter Schreiner, Brahmapurāṇa: Summary of Contents, With Index of Names and Motifs. Purāṇa Research Publications, Tubingen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1989, p. 256: “The place where the gods had assembled is called Devāgama (»arrival of the gods«); it is praised by the hermits perceiving the truth. There are 80,000 Liṅgas of Śiva. The mountain Devāgama is also called Priya (»dear«); ever since, this holy place has therefore been known as Devapriya (»dear to the gods«).”

⁴ Otto von Böhtlingk & Rudolph Roth, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 7 vols. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1855–1875 [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000]; Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Compact edition greatly enlarged and improved with the collaboration of E. Leumann C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899 [Reprint: Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai Co., 1986]; Vaman Shivaram Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. 3 vols. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Edited by P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve. Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957–1959.

A Buddhist Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda?

It appears that Professor Albrecht Wezler has paid a great deal of attention to the Jaina philosophy, specifically the ontology of “Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda.”¹ The gist of this philosophy can be said to be explained thus: sarvaṃ sarvātmakam = sarvam ekam ekaṃ ca sarvam = sarvaṃ sarvatra [vidyate/asti].² In Tibetan, it would be something like: thams cad thams cad kyi bdag nyid = thams cad gcig dang gcig thams cad = thams cad thams cad la [yod pa]. A full or exact Tibetan rendering of the name Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda seems to be wanting. The Tibetan translation of Jayānanda’s Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā seems to suggest “Thams cad thams cad kyi bdag nyid du khas len pa.”³ It is possible that we can find the rendering “Thams cad thams cad kyi bdag nyid du smra ba,” which would be less ambiguous, in some sources. At any rate, Wezler explains this philosophy thus: “[T]his ontological statement can be shown to mean that every phenomenon, and all phenomena are material by necessity, and contains in itself at least one representative of each and every species of individual things.” Buddhist philosophers have, of course, rejected this philosophical proposition. But I wonder if any scholar has discussed the question as to whether the Buddhist Abhidharmic concept of aṣṭadravyaka (rdzas brgyad pa = rdzas brgyad dang ldan pa)⁴—or, as the Tibetan scholars are wont to call, “a lump with eight atomic substances” (rdul rdzas brgyad kyi gong bu)⁵—in any way entail a mini-version of Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda. Unlike the bona fide Sarvasarvātmakatvavādins, of course, the Buddhist atomists merely propose that an atom of, say, water element (in the kāmadhātu), contain all eight atomic substances (i.e. four gross elements, plus rūpa, śabda, gandha, rasa, and sparśa). A downsized philosophy of Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda may become apparent here if we formulate the position of Buddhist atomism thus: All four gross elements (with their qualities) are existent in each of the four gross elements.

¹  Albrecht Wezler, “Studien zur Dvādaśāranayacakra des Śvetāmbara Mallavādin. I. Der sarvasarvātmakatvavāda.” In Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf, edited by Klaus Bruhn & Albrecht Wezler. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981, pp. 359–408; id., “Paralipomena zum sarvasarvātmakatvavāda (I): Mahābhāsya zu Pāṇ. 4.3.155 und seine einheimischen Erklärer.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 26, 1982, pp. 149–166; id. “Remarks on the sarvasarvātmakatvavāda.” In Philosophical Essays: Professor Anantalal Thakur Felicitation Volume, edited by Rama Ranjan Mukhopadhyaya et al. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1987, pp. 166–181; id., “Paralipomena zum Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda II: On the Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda and its Relation to the Vṛkṣāyurveda.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 16/17, 1992, pp. 287–315.

²  Wezler 1992: 288.

³ Jayānanda, Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā (B, vol. 61, p. 502.12–14): gos med pas kyang thams cad thams cad kyi bdag nyid yin pa dang thams cad thams cad kyi bdag nyid ma yin pa nyid du khas len pa’o ||.

⁴ J. S. Negi et al., Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo: Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Dictionary Unit, 1993–2005 (s.v. rdzas brgyad pa).

⁵ Krang dbyi sun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1993 (s.v. rdul rdzas brgyad ’dus): ’dod khams kyi gong bu | rdul phra rab lta bu’i gzhi gcig la | sa chu me rlung dang | gzugs sgra dri ro reg bcas bzhi yod pa’o ||.

A Crux in Translated Tibetan Texts

Recently Prof. Hartmann and Ven. Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā published an intriguing article on the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit expression pratijñottaraka (or pratijñottāraṇa).¹ Actually the difficulties that they discuss is of greater relevance to those who read Tibetan texts or Indic texts in Tibetan translation rather than to those who read primarily or only Sanskrit texts. If to give away the fruits of their labor, pratijñottaraka (or pratijñottāraṇa) has been rendered into Tibetan in five ways: (1) kha ’og tu lus ’khrus pa, (2) dam bcas pa las sgrol ba or dam bcas pa las sgrol bar byed pa, (3) dam bcas pa nyams su len pa, (4) dam bcas pa nyams ’og tu chud par byed pa, and (5) dam bcas mthar ’byin pa.² The fifth, which occurs in a verse, seems to pose no difficulty. The authors have rendered it as “to fullfil the promise.” I feel that a German translation might drive home the point made by the translation better: zu Ende bringen, was man verprochen hat (“to bring to an end what one has promised”). The fourth has been rendered as “to suppress breaking the promise” followed by a question mark. I feel that the Tibetan translation would be better interpreted as “to implement what one has promised.” The third has been rendered as “to hold on to the promise.” This is not so much different from the fourth translation and hence one may understand it as “to execute/practice what one has promised.” The second translation is more enigmatic. Assuming that the reading of the transmitted texts are correct, I think the suggestion offered by the authors with a question mark, namely, “to liberate from the promise” in the sense of “to liberate from the promise (by fulfilling it),” actually appears quite plausible. But somehow, I could not help considering the possibility of an accusative relationship between the two members of the compound. That is, the first member as the accusative object of the second, and hence not reading dam bcas pa las sgrol ba or dam bcas pa las sgrol bar byed pa but rather as dam bcas pa sgrol ba or dam bcas pa sgrol bar byed pa. And indeed if we do a quick search in our newly published Buddhanexus,³ we do find one occurence dam bcas pa sgrol bar byed pa in the Tibetan translation of the Bhadrakalpikasūtra. Of couse we find other translations in the Buddhanexus. If we assume that the reading is not corrupt, one might interpret it as “to deliver what one has promised.” Finally, we come to the first Tibetan translation. The English rendering of this Tibetan translation is the one that appears in the title of the article “bathing the body with face downwards.” This is the most enigmatic Tibetan translation and its explanations found in secondary sources least convincing. This seems to be a case of a Tibetan idiom the meaning of which has been forgotten. The expression kha ’og tu lus ’khrus pa seems to mean something like “steadfast,” “relentless,” or “resolute” but the metaphor presupposed in this idiom seems to remain a textual crux.

The adverbial phrase kha ’og tu seems to occur mainly in the context of describing mūdras and mantras and often qualifying verbs such as bltas, ’phyang, and so forth. It most cases, it indeed seems to mean “with the face downwards.” But in some cases, the meaning “upside down” seems to suit better. If we consider the sentence ’dod pa rnams kyi kha ’og tu ’du bar mi ’gyur ro, we may infer that “x + genitive particle + kha ’og tu” can mean something like “under the influence of x.” In the example, sngon dam bcas pa kha ’og tu lus ’khrus par byed pa, the meaning “steadfast” would not be adequate. Here, it should mean something like “causing to fulfill/realize” (what has been previously promised). We cannot deny the semantic promxity of kha ’og tu lus ’khrus par byed pa with that of the famous expression ji skad smras pa de bzhin byed pa, which shows the conformity of one’s words and deeds. In one instance, we encounter the expression lhag pa’i bsam pa sra ba’i ’breng pas bcings pa (“fastened with the hard/strong/fast leather strap of altruistic inclination”) as a kind of reason for kha ’og tu lus ’khrus par byed pa. Here, we can see a clear adhyāśaya–prayoga relation. In the brDa sprod pa’i khyad par rtogs byed (via Adarsha), we read kha ’og tu lus ’grus pa. But this seems to reflect a mere attempt to make sense of a Lectio difficilior. The over-all meaning of the expression in Tibetan seems to be more or less secured. But the difficulty in trying to make sense of the metaphor presupposed by the Tibetan idiomatic expression still remains.

For the want of a better explanation, I venture to make two wild points. First, instead of “with face downwards,” I wish to consider understanding kha ’og tu as “headlong.” Of course, in English, it has the negative connotation of “rashness” or “recklessness.” But what about something less negative, say, “ahead/forwards” as in “to go ahead/forwards,” and thus having the connotation of “to proceed, to set out” (as in prasthānacitta = prayoga) and as opposed to praṇidhicitta = adhyāśaya). Second, what about lus ’khrus pa? How do we explain it? How could have ancient Tibetans bathed? Presumably, not in a bathtub! I can imagine tough “red-faced ones” occasionally went to the rivers such as gTsang po and “plunged/dived” “headlong” into the icy cold water! So, I would like to imagine, that for Tibetans, at least at some point in time, “bathing” and “plunging headlong” or “immersing in” (river water) were understood to be more or less the same. Plunging into ice-cold water of gTsang po could have seen as a daring act and a proof of steadfastness, not just empty promises or words. In sum, I propose that kha ’og tu lus ’phrus par byed pa should mean something like “to plunge headlong in something” or “to get immersed in something,” or “to set out and perform the actual deed.” In order to envision the possible meaning of the Tibetan expression, kha ’og tu lus ’phrus par byed pa, we should perhaps think of the German figure of speech ins kalte Wasser springen (lit. “to spring into cold water”), although, of course, these two expressions mean two different things.

¹  Jens-Uwe Hartmann & Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā, “Bathing the Body with Face Downwards.” In Unearthing Himalayan Treasures: Festschrift for Franz-Karl Ehrhard, edited by Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi, and Nikolai Solmsdorf. Indica et Tibetica 59. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2019, pp. 203–217.

²  Ibid. (p. 213).

³  https://buddhanexus.net.

On Adamantine Hell (rdo rje dmyal ba / dmyal ba’i rdo rje)

One notices a tendency to “vajricize” everything in Vajrayāna, that is, to qualify an entity or phenomenon “x” with vajra. This then lends “x” a brand or mark of Vajrayāna and hence makes it typically Buddhistic. It seems to be the case also with naraka (“hell”). In the Tibetan sources, one encounters the word rdo rje dmyal ba. There may be other Indic and early Tibetic sources but I would like to first mention the bSam gtan mig sgron by gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes (b. ca. 844).¹ A ro Ye shes ’byung gnas (fl. 10th century) in his Theg chen rnal ’byor la ’jug pa also states the following (Thiesen 2009: 208):² gsang sngags skye sa gnyis ni rdo rje dmyal dang sangs rgyas sa yin gzhan ni med ||. Here the idea is that for the practioners of Vajrayāna, there are only two destinations: Vajradharahood and *vajranaraka. What kind of hell is *vajranaraka? Is it simply another name for one of the eighteen hell realms, let us say, for avīci (mnar med)? Or, is it something different, an exclusive hell reserved only for those who have transgressed cardinal Tantric pledges (samaya: dam tshig)? It appears that two positions existed in Tibet. For example, ’Bri gung skyob pa Rin chen dpal or ’Bri gung ’Jig rten gsum mgon (1143–1217) in his dGongs gcig states (p. 105.2–4):³ rdo rje dmyal ba ni dmyal ba gzhan las lhag par ’dod pa yin mod kyi | ’dir ni rdo rje dmyal ba ni mnar med la sogs nyid yin par bzhed do ||. Unfortunately, I was not able to trace any Sanskrit source that mentions the term *vajranaraka (or something similar). Nonetheless, in the Tibetan translation of Mahāmati’s commentary on the Suhṛllekha called the Vyaktapadāṭīkā, we do come across the expression dmyal ba’i rdo rje.⁴ Could it be a rendering of *vajranaraka or *narakavajra? Until we come across the corresponding Sanskrit term, we have no way to verify it.

¹ gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes, sGom gyi gnad gsal bar phye ba bsam gtan mig sgron (also called rNal ’byor mig gi bsam gtan). Leh, Ladakh: S. W. Tashigangpa, 1974, p. 503. There may be more than once occurence of the term there.

²  Katja Thiesen, A-ro Ye-shes-’byung-gnas: Leben, Werk und Tradition eines tibetischen Gelehrten – Mit einer Übersetzung seines Theg pa chen po’i rnal ’byor la ’jug pa’i thabs bye brag tu byed pa („Eine detaillierte Analyse [der] Methode für den Eintritt in den Yoga [entsprechend] der Mahāyāna-Tradition“). Magister Thesis. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2009, p. 208. This study also includes a German translation of A ro’s work.

³ ’Bri gung ’Jig rten gsum mgon, Dam chos dgongs pa gcig pa. In Byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa [not the Bodhicaryāvatāra but Phag gru’s own composition inspired by it]). Lhasa: Bod ljongs dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2010, pp. 90–110.

4 Pema Tenzin (ed.), Suhṛllekha of Ācārya Nāgārjuna and Vyaktapadāṭīkā of Ācārya Mahāmati. Bibliotheca Indo Tibetica 52. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2002, pp. 155–197.

Hapax legomenon: A Tibetan Case

In his introduction to the critical edition of the Sūtrasamuccaya in Tibetan translation, Bhikkhu Pāsādika pointed out that despite the availability of “excellent study-aids,” we still encounter “baffling words” (in Tibetan). As an example, he mentioned gshes kyi dmigs.¹ He also speaks of (baffling) “syntactical constructions,” which, he states, will be referred to in his forthcoming (English) translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya. I have not seen the translation and I cannot tell if he discusses gshes kyi dmigs there. The bibliographical details, however, suggest that the translation was published (1978–1982) prior to the publication of his critical edition (1989). Since Pāsādika’s statement about gshes kyi dmigs, the amount of accessible Tibetan texts has skyrocketed. Nonetheless, a quick search in the BDRC and the like reveals that the only occurence is in our text, namely, the Tibetan translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya. So it seems that we are dealing here with a case of Hapax legomenon. It is possible that Pāsādika has already satisfactorily explained the word elsewhere, for example, by cross-checking with the Sūtrasamuccaya in Chinese translation, which is appended to the critical edition of the Tibetan translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya. The expression gshes kyi dmigs occurs in the following manner (pp. 58.24–59.1): chu rgyus nas chu rgyus dang |  gshes kyi dmigs nas gshes kyi dmigs dang | rus pa’i tshigs nas tshigs dang | yan lan dang nying lag thams cad …. From the context, gshes kyi dmigs must refer to a part or element of the physical body. But what could it be? Without a parallel source and without being able to consult the Chinese translation, I remain clueless except that it must be an anatomical term. If to propose a wild speculation, could gshes kyi dmigs be a rare and archaic Tibetan word for mig rtsa, which, according to Jäschke, be either “(prob. Vena facialis externa)” or “blood vessels”? At least contextually, this would not be an impossibility.³

¹ Bhikkhu Pāsādika, Nāgārjuna’s Sūtrasamuccayaḥ: A Critical Edition of the mDo kun las btus pa. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989, p. xviii.

² Bhikkhu Pāsādika (tr.), The Sūtrasamuccaya: An English Translation from the Tibetan Version of the Sanskrit Original. Joinville-le-Pont. Paris: Linh-So’n publication d’études bouddhologiques, 1978–1982, vols. 2–20 [not seen].

³ Heinrich August Jäschke, A Tibetan English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. To which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London: [Berlin, Unger Brothers (T. Grimm)], 1881, p. 414 (s.v. mig rtsa).

On the Tibetan Word “Du”

Here I wish to discuss the Tibetan word du having the meaning of “how many.” That du is a particle, dependent on the saṃdhi rule (e.g. nang du “within”), or, that it has the meaning of “smoke” as in du ba, or that it can stand for the number “74,” and the like is not my concern.¹ My concern is how can we explain that du has the meaning of “how many.” To be sure, we also find expressions such as du du and du dag having a similar meaning.² Obviously the word du in the sense of “how many” is related with the word du ma having the meaning of “many.” The component ma here seems be actually a nominalizer (as in rnying ma or rnal ma, which may be used as adjectives or as substantives). But what could be the etymology of du? Perhaps there is no etymology just as we cannot expect to have an etymology for su (“who”) or ci (“what”). But there is something unsatisfying about it.

¹ Heinrich August Jäschke, A Tibetan English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. To which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London: [Berlin, Unger Brothers (T. Grimm)], 1881 (s.v. du).

²  Tshig mdzod chen mo (s.vv. du dag, du du).

A Small Note on bdag/bdog

Not being a linguist, I cannot say whether any linguist has seen and discussed the connection between the Tibetan first person (singular) pronoun bdag “I,” noun bdag po “owner” or “master,” noun bdog pa “wealth, riches,” and more interestingly verbs bdog pa and bdag pa. Jäschke records two meanings of the verb bdog pa: (a) “to take possession of” and (b) “to be in possession of” has been recorded.¹ The first meaning does not seem to be recorded in the Tshig mdzod chen po. The example for the second meaning is convincing (Jäschke 1881: s.v yug): gos su ras yug gcig las mi bdog ste (“they had but one cotton cloth for their clothing”). Here bdog is to be understood (copulatively) in the sense of yod.² In addition, it seems to be used also as a kind of modal verb.³ What about bdag pa as a verb? The Tshig mdzod chen po (s.v. bdag pa) records it as an intransitive verb and is said to be mean “to own” (dbang ba).⁴ The construction appears to be x la bdag pa (“to have the ownership over x”). So it seems, “I” (bdag) is someone who “takes possession” (bdog) of  “possessions” (bdog pa) and is thus a “possessor” or “owner” (bdag po). Jäschke also states that bdog pa (“riches”) is cognate to bdag po (“owner/possessor”).

¹ Heinrich August Jäschke, A Tibetan English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. To which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London: [Berlin, Unger Brothers (T. Grimm)], 1881, p. 271 (s.v. bdog pa).

² Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud (= Nyang ral chos ’byung). Lhasa: Bod-ljongs-mi-dmangs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1988, pp. 389–390.

³ Nyang ral chos ’byung (p. 399.1): khyed byon na bdag la bya dga’ yang gnang bar bdog (“If you come, I, too, am going to be granted the reward”).

⁴ Krang-dbyi-sun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1993.

A Note on the Study of Vairocana’s Life and Works

An English translation of the hagiography of Vairocana, the famous legendary Tibetan translator, has appeared a while ago.¹ The translation is accompanied by a foreword by Dil-mgo-mkhyen-brtse Rin-po-che, introductions by gDung-sras Phrin-las-nor-bu Rin-po-che, and rDzong-gsar-mkhyen-brtse Rin-po-che, and a summary by gZan-dkar Rin-po-che.² These introductions were perhaps felt necessary particularly because of the legendary nature of the work. As the introductory note to the modern printed edition that appeared in Chengdu suggests,³ gZan-dkar Rin-po-che and dPe-war-mchog-sprul ’Chi-med-rdo-rje appeart have been instrumental in the compilation of the extensive (i.e. ’Dra ’bag chen mo) and the brief biographies of Vairona (i.e. Padma’i dga’ tshal) included in the edition.

A work of this kind—belonging to the genre of hagiography (i.e. here in the sense of “biography that idealizes its subject”)—is very challenging to deal with it academically for at least three reasons. First, there is the issue of the historicity of the work itself. We are faced with the question of the provenance of the work. Who is said to be the author or compiler? When did the person live? If the work is a “revealed treasure” (gter ma), who was the treasure revealer? What do we know about him or her? What do we or can we know about the history of the composition or compilation of the work? How many versions or editions are available? Is it possible to gain a diachronic and synchronic overview of all sources relevant to the pertinent figure? Do we have any independent sources that could verify or falsify some accounts? Second, there is even a bigger issue of historicity of the persons, places, works, events, and the like, mentioned in the hagiography. Could they have been historical? Can we and how can we know if these are historical? Third, can we uncritically accept everything as historical or can we hypercritically reject it as ahistorical and throw the baby out with the bathwater?

One can assume that different individuals would deal with such a work differently, depending on one’s character, religious affiliation and conviction, cultural background, training, upbringing, profession, and so on. Even in the Tibetan tradition, there were people who preferred to throw the baby out with bathwater. To a greater extent, however, wise and broad-minded Tibetan thinkers always found a way to keep the baby with the bathwater. They found some kind of explanation or justification to keep the baby that they actually did not bear. I have an impression that some of these wise individuals were even a bit ashamed of the baby. With all due respect, personally I must state those who bore the baby, who may or may not be anonymous, must have had an earnest and honest motive or agenda, but were not always wise and considerate. They must have believed that by glorifying and embellishing the figure they adored, they were doing a great service to the sentient beings and the doctrine. It may be partly true and that is where the wise Tibetans who felt obliged to rear the baby come to play a role. To the group of such wise Tibetans, I count Rin-po-ches, whom we have seen above. They themselves would not think of bearing such a child but they have inherited it, and thus they wisely attempt to give the baby a place and a purpose and to rear it also for the sake of the posterity.

 As someone educated in the east and re-educated in the west, I propose a somewhat different approach to such a work. First, my basic assumption is that we should gather as many textual sources as possible to understand the textual history of the work. These materials would include whole parallel works, or parallel sections or portions of works, and even parallel phraseology and terminology. We shall have to develop an acute sense of definitive or relative chronology of these materials; have to get to know the language and ideas of the author; understand his or her cultural and intellectual milieu. If one works cautiously and precisely like a master detective, a picture of the history of the work might slowly emerge. One can then carefully propose a reasoned hypothesis of the textual history of the work. Second, regardless of whether there were actual or historical realities corresponding the ideas expressed in the work, the main priority would be to understand the ideas expressed by the text. In other words, we shall have to try and gain, to the extent possible, an accurate and reliable understanding of the history of the text and the ideas conveyed in it. Unless this is more or less secured, any attempt to judge the historicity of the actual entities and realities would be risky. Third, we shall have to reevaluate the function of such literature. It may well be that the raison d’état of the ’Dra ’bag chen mo, for example, is not the historical facticity as such. Buddhist thinkers of the past seem to have taken for granted that the means of benefitting sentient beings, broadly speaking, can be categorized into two, one kind that conforms the reality and the other kind that does not. One is, so to speak, like the medicine that heals the root cause of the disease, and the other, like a kind of balm or painkiller that soothes and relieves the pain albeit only temporarily. People who experience unbearable pain may not be able to wait until the disease is completely cured. The ’Dra ’bag chen mo should not be seen as a kind of a meditational manual. It was probably meant to inspire people. Certainly, it did not, does not, and will not inspire all people. But it certainly did, does, and will inspire some people somewhere. If we carefully observe the doctrinal presuppositions or propositions put in the mouths many Indian and Tibetan figures, we shall realize the ’Dra ’bag chen mo does contain a wide range of doctrines belonging to all nine vehicles and most teachings are main-stream Mahāyāna and rDzogs-chen teachings. Having said that, many elements therein are, strictly speaking, ahistorical. For example, many scriptures and treatises, even those that postdate Vairocana are said to be translated by him. He is also identified with sKa-cog-zhang-gsum, which is, historically speaking, completely untenable. But why does this work do something like these? I think it is a part of the means of idealization and universalization of our protagonist. The same strategy seems to be employed in the idealization and universalization of the figure of Padmasambhava or Mañjuśrī. In my view, such a thing has happened in India; it has happened in Tibet.

A study of the figure Vairocana is still a desideratum. There is a PhD thesis on Vairocana and his teachings,⁴ which is, however, to say the least, poor. It lacks the historical-philological rigor and does not shed much light, neither on Vairocana’s life nor on his teachings, which would be anyway very difficult. A starting point may be to trace and assess all sources that contain the life-story of Vairocana.⁵ One could also see how Vairocana has been presented in works other than hagiographies and also works that predate Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer. He is counted among the first ever Tibetan bhikṣus (dge slong la snga ba) called “seven men on probe” (sad mi mi bdun) or “thirteen men on probe” (sad mi bcu gsum).⁶

mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po has counted Vairocana as one of the “Ten Great Pillars that Uphold the Northern [Tibetan Buddhist Tradition of] Exposition and Meditation” (byang phyogs bshad sgrub ’degs pa’i ka chen bcu).⁷ He is also counted Vairocana as one of the “Eight Great Pillars that Uphold the Practice Lineage of the Northern [Buddhist Tradition of Tibet]” (byang phyogs sgrub brgyud ’degs pa’i ka chen brgyad), whose traditions are called “Eight Great Traditions of the Practice Lineage” (sgrub brgyud srol chen brgyad).⁸ He is clearly regarded here as a pioneer of rDzogs-chen teachings in Tibet. In addition, all works said to be translated by him and recorded as such in the catalogues and colophons should be systematically studied. All traditions and transmissions associated with him should be investigated. He is not only associated with rDzogs-chen but also with the bKa’-brgyad and so on. It will also be worthwhile to look into treasure works and persons linked with him retrospectively. Only after having thoroughly evaluated all existent sources and information about him, we might be able to get a picture of Vairocana that is somewhat closer to reality.

---

1 Eugenie de Jong alias Ani Jinba Palmo, (tr.) The Great Image: The Life Story of Vairochana the Translator. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2004.

2 Palmo 2004: vii–xxx.

3 Bai ro’i rnam thar ’dra ’bag chen mo. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1995, pp. 5–6.

4 A. W. Hanson-Barbar, The Life and Teachings of Vairocana. PhD Thesis. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984.

5 See, for example, Jo-sras or mKhas-pa lDe’u, mKhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa (= lDe’u chos ’byung). Lhasa: Bod-ljongs-mi-dmangs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1987, pp. 304.20–316.19.

6 lDe’u chos ’byung (p. 258.3–6).

7 mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, Gangs ri’i khrod kyi klog pa nyan bshad pa rnams kyi snyan du bsrings pa thos bsam ’chi med bdud rtsi. In ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po’i gsung ’bum gces sgrig. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1989 (reprint: Bir: Sherab Gyaltshen, 1992), pp. 313–336 (citing, p. 316.6–14): [1] gangs can smra ba’i srol ’byed saṃ bho ṭa || [2] dgra bgegs log ’dren tshar gcod badzra shrī || [3] mdo sngags bstan pa’i gzhir gyur pa gor zhabs || mtshungs bral bod kyi sgra bsgyur [4] ska [5] cog [6] zhang || [7 & 8] rgyal bas lung bstan sprul pa’i lo chen gnyis ||[9] gnas lnga rig pa’i mthar phyin sa skya pa || [10] yongs rdzogs bstan pa’i mnga’ bdag rin chen grub || byang phyogs bshad sgrub ’degs pa’i ka chen bcu ||.

8 mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, Gangs ri’i khrod kyi spong ba bsam gtan  pa rnams kyi snyan du bsrings pa sgom pa ’chi med bdud rtsi. In ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po’i gsung ’bum gces sgrig. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1989 (reprint: Bir: Sherab Gyaltshen, 1992), pp. 337–366 (citing, p. 340.6–15): [1] zhu chen lo tsā pa gor bai ro dang || [2] rgyal ba’i dgung ’tshob ’brom ston u pa sī || [3] mkhas grub chen po khyung po rnal ’byor pa || [4] skad gnyis smra ba bla chen ’brog mi dang || [5] rnal ’byor dbang phyug rje btsun mar pa’i zhabs || [6] grub pa’i sar bzhugs dam pa rgya gar dang || [7] gyi gyo lo tsā [8] mkhas grub o rgyan pa || byang phyogs sgrub brgyud ’degs pa’i ka chen brgyad || dpal ldan rdo rje ’chang nas legs ’ongs pa’i || gangs ri’i khrod ’dir sgrub brgyud srol chen brgyad || de dag grub chen gong ma’i gshegs shul yin || thar ’dod rnams kyang lam de’i rjes su zhugs ||.

A Note on the Classification of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Works

It is not easy to maneuver through a jungle of Tibetan literature that belongs to different time, place, author, subject, genre, school, and so on. With regard to the collected writings (gsung ’bum), Tibetan scholars often refer to the collected writings of an author by the number of volumes. For example, one can often see references to the nine-volume works of ’Jigs-med-gling-pa (1720/30–1798) (i.e. ’Jigs gling pod dgu). Of course, number of volumes is prone to differ or change depending on the type of edition. But probably, such a characterization was based on the first standard or popular edition of the collected works of an author. For someone trying to map the vast landscape of Tibetan literature, such a characterization, though not always fixed, is still useful. One can at least have an idea of how much that particular author wrote or compiled and also know that there is or was an edition that has ‘x’ number of volumes.

Khri-sprul or Tsha-ba-dpa’-shod Rag-ra Ngag-dbang-bstan-pa’i-rgyal-mtshan (born 1822), in his historical work, for example, offers a neat classification of the works of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682) according to the number of volumes.¹ That is, 16 volumes belong to the outer category; 4 volumes consisting of mostly rNying-ma stuff including the famous 4-volume records of teachings received (gsan yig) belng to the inner category; and 2 volumes consisting of works revealed in his pure visions (dag snang)² belong to the secret category. For some sample pages from a stunningly beautiful edition of the last two volumes, see Samten Karmay’s pertinent publication.³ These would make a total of 28 volumes.

---

¹ Rag-ra Ngag-dbang-bstan-pa’i-rgyal-mtshan, rGyal rabs chos ’byung shel dkar me long mkhas pa’i mgul rgyan. In Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag lnga, compiled by Chab-spel Tshe-brtan-phun-tshogs et al. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs-bod-yig-dpe-rnying-dpe-skrun-khang, 1990, pp. 195–397 (citing, pp. 297.18–298.1): gong sa mchog gi gsung rtsom bka’ pod rim pa’ang phyi ma pod bcu drug | nang ma sngags rnying ma shas chas sgrub phrin sogs drug ste gsan yig bzhi bsnan pa’i bcu | gsang ba rtsa gsum gyi lha dang mjal zhing dag snang rgya can skor pod gnyis bcas khyon pod nyi shu rtsa brgyad bzhugs |

² This cycle of secret teachings of the Fifth Dalai Lama is called the “Sealed Secret [Teachings]” (gsang ba rgya can). mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po (1820–1892) points out that there are 25 “sealed secret teachings” of the Great Fifth. See his  Gangs can bod yul du byon pa’i gsang sngags gsar rnying gi gdan rabs mdor bsdus ngo mtshar padmo’i dga’ tshal. In ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse‘i dbang po’i gsung ’bum gces sgrig. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1989 (reprint: Bir: Sherab Gyaltshen, 1992), pp. 1–216 (citing, p. 43.11–12): rgyal dbang lnga pa rin po che’i dag snang rgya can nyer lnga sogs mang tsam mchis so ||.

³ Samten Karmay, Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama: The Gold Manuscript in the Fournier Collection Musée Guimet, Paris. London: Serindia Publications, 1998 (reprint of 1988).

Thang-stong-rgyal-po: A Commissioner of the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur

Thang-stong-rgyal-po brTson-’grus-bzang-po (1385–1464 or 1361–1485) is well known as the Iron-Bridge Man (lCags-zam-pa) of Tibet. He apparently did not build only iron bridges. He reportedly built several other things including the three supports (rten gsum), namely, statues as the support of the Body (sku’i rten), scriptures as the support of the Speech (gsung gi rten), and stūpas as the support of the Mind (thugs kyi rten). But I do not wish to discuss his building activities in general. I wish to make a brief reference to his making of scriptures, most importantly the bKa’ ’gyur (“Word [of the Buddha] in [Tibetan] Translation”) and bsTan ’gyur [“Treatises in [Tibetan] Translation”). This will be done, not by assessing various kinds of primary and secondary sources but by mere looking into his biography composed by ’Gyur-med-bde-chen (b. 1540),¹ who was a disciple’s disciple (yang slob) of Thang-stong-rgyal-po himself. This biography has been translated by Cyrus Stearns, to which I also refer.²

It seems already as a child, Thang-stong-rgyal-po had contacts with people such as scribes (yig mkhan) employed by bKa’-lnga-pa dPal-’byor-shes-rab—one of his main teachers later on—for writing or copying the bKa’ ’gyur.³ His interest in building iron bridges and making the three supports (rten gsum) seems to have reflected already as a child while playing games.⁴ After his mother passed away, he made a set of three supports with his own hands, probably in her memory, and the scripture in question is said to be a deluxe manuscript edition of the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā in gold.⁵ In the year 1433, he is said to have laid the foundation for a temple of housing the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur in Chu-bo-ri, on the southern bank of the gTsang-po river in Central Tibet.⁶ Within a span of twelve years, in addition to a number of construction works, the making of the bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur was completed and consecrated.⁷ The biography, of course, does not document all the projects concerning the making of scriptures but towards the end of the biography, there is a résumé of all what Thang-stong-rgyal-po built. According to this résumé,⁸ he is said to have made eighteen sets of the bKa’ ’gyur, the first one being a golden deluxe edition, and fifteen sets of the bsTan ’gyur.

---

¹ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (= dPal grub pa’i dbang phyug brtson ’grus bzang po’i rnam par thar pa kun gsal nor bu’i me long. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1982. According to the publisher’s note (sGrig mkhan gyi gsal bshad, pp. 1–2), the Vorlage of this modern print was a xylograph edition made in sDe-sde printery, which was edited by Zhe-chen Drung-yig, a scholar from sDe-dge. The sDe-dge xylograph edition is said to be based on an earlier xylograph edition made in Ri-bo-che in upper gTsang, the seat of Thang-stong-rgyal-po himself. Cyrus Stearns has used reprints of the sDe-dge edition and this modern edition.

² Cyrus Stearns, (tr.) King of the Empty Plain – The Tibetan Iron-Bridge Builder – Tangtong Gyalpo. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2007.

³ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 23.7–11); Stearns 2007: 107, 495–496, n. 334.

⁴ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 22.15–17); Stearns 2007: 107.

⁵ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 65.2–7); Stearns 2007: 152.

⁶ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 162.11–15); Stearns 2007: 250.

⁷ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 210.6–11); Stearns 2007: 300.

⁸ ’Gyur-med-bde-chen, Thang gyal rnam thar (p. 328.13–14); Stearns 2007: 425.

Si-tu-paṇ-chen on the sMra sgo

Si-tu-paṇ-chen Chos-kyi-’byung-gnas’s (1699–1774) commentary on the two grammatical treatises ascribed to Thon-mi Saṃbhoṭa has become such an authority in the Tibetan tradition that we can no longer conceive of the Tibetan intellectual world without it. It is popularly referred to as Si tu’i ’grel chen.¹ My interest here is neither the commentary as such nor its content in general but merely wish to look into how he handles the grammatical treatise called the sMra sgo and its commentary in his Sum rtags commentary. The authorship of the sMra sgo and its commentary works is disputed but I will not go into this issue here. I shall also not bother to give an over-view of discussions by Tibetan and modern scholars on sMra sgo and its commentary. Tomás Cohen’s study will hopefully shed some light on the topic. To reiterate, I am merely interested here in how Si-tu-paṇ-chen treats them. For practical reasons, I shall number the occurrences and make a few remarks on each.

(§1) Occurrence One (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 44.18–20): If I have not overlooked, this is the first occurrence. He simply states his position according to which the term slar bsdu (i.e. the Tibetan word for the final particle) that explicitly occurs in the Sum cu pa, and the term zla sdud occurring in the sMra sgo, and what came to be nowadays called rdzogs tshig are synonymous. (§2) Occurrence Two (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 54.15–55.18): Here Si-tu-paṇ-chen cites fifteen verse lines from the sMra sgo. He also states that he cites elements from the commentary that he finds tenable and disregard those that are either insignificant or inapplicable. While editing the sMra sgo text, it maybe worthwhile to see how Si-tu-paṇ-chen had read the verses he cited here or elsewhere.

(§3) Occurrence Three (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 68.18–69.12): Here Si-tu-paṇ-chen criticizes the position in the sMra sgo according which particles such as gis have a function of “contrastive or adversative embellishment” (mi mthun pa’i rgyan). He does attempt to understand the intention of the sMra sgo by offering two possible explanations but rejects them both. But his own explanation does not seem all too quite convincing. He seems to take for granted that the particle gis and the like by themselves would express the contrastive or adversative sense, but the sMra sgo has the word rgyan, which I render as “embellishment,” which he seems ignored. Function words or phrases such as yin mod kyis (given by sMra sgo as an example) should be considered as a unit or set and kyis does “embellish” the function phrase and indeed it seem to express “and yet, however, nonetheless,” and so on. (§4) Occurrence Four (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 71.13–72.2): Here Si-tu approvingly cites the sMra sgo to discuss its usage of yang. (§5) Occurrence Five (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 73.6): Here Si-tu briefly refers to the sMra sgo in connection with the use of de particle. (§6) Occurrence Six (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 73.18–75.12): Si-tu cites five verse lines from the the sMra sgo regarding the several functions of the particle ste. By stating that most of what it states is well-said (legs bshad), he goes on to explain each of the function. (§7) Occurrence Seven (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 81.6–10): Si-tu cites two verse lines from the sMra sgo dealing with the function of las particle and also alludes to its commentary. (§8) Occurrence Eight (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 83.11): Si-tu mentions the sMra sgo briefly in connection with the function of la particle. (§9) Occurrence Nine (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 88.2–5): Si-tu mentions the sMra sgo in connection with the function of the ni particle.

(§10) Occurrence Ten (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 96.4–16): Si-tu cites twelve verse lines from the sMra sgo dealing with the particle de. Importantly he also refers to the commentary identifying it as an auto-commentary. He adds that the commentary is extremely clear and that it also tallies with the intention of the treatise (i.e. the sMra sgo). (§11) Occurrence Eleven (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 97.9–10): Here Si-tu states that some scholars interpret grammatical particles by linking them with doctrines such as Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā. Some also claim that such a practice is the tradition or position (lugs) of the sMra sgo. Si-tu dismisses such a claim. He considers it a flaw that stems from misunderstanding the content of the treatise and its commentary (gzhung ’grel gyi don). (§12) Occurrence Twelve (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 99.15–18): Here Si-tu briefly mentions both the sMra sgo and its commentary with regard to the expression rnam grangs. (§13) Occurrence Thirteen (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 105.12–106.6): Here Si-tu criticizes those who have misread those verses of the sMra sgo that deal with the agentive particle (bdag po’i sgra) and refers to other versions of the text that read correctly. He also refers to the readings found in the commentary. Importantly, he cites four lines from the sMra sgo.(§14) Occurrence Fourteen (Si tu’i ’grel chen, p. 108.14–18): Here Si-tu states that the sMra sgo and its commentary teach many elements such as the particles that are not taught in the Sum rtags, most of which are well-expounded and some of which are also not. He advises that those who wish to know should consult these works. (§15) Occurrence Fifteen (Si tu’i ’grel chen, pp. 244.8–248.12): Si-tu goes on to discuss at some length what he calls “important digression” (gal che ba’i ’phros don) particularly regarding the particles taught in the sMra sgo and its commentary. His main point is the similarities and dissimilarities between Tibetan phrad and Sanskrit nipāta, and why it is still justified to translate nipāta as phrad. He criticizes those who unwarrantedly criticize and make sarcastic remarks (zur za) against not only the sMra sgo and its commentary but also the Mahāvyutpatti. He, however, admits that the sMra sgo and its commentary contain several untenable explanations and that some of the criticisms are justified. He thus states that both the basic text and its commentary cannot certainly be Indian works. But these contain many good points relevant to the Sum rtags and hence one should not categorically denounce these works.

In conclusion, from his treatment of the sMra sgo and its commentary we learn that (a) he considered both the basic text and its commentary to be by the one and the same author (as opposed to some who have claimed that these were by two different authors) and that (b) he considered the author of these works to be certainly a Tibetan, and not an Indian (as opposed to those who attributed the basic text or also its commentary to Smṛtijñānakīrti). We also learn that  (c) on the one hand Si-tu in composing his Sum rtags commentary was heavily indebted to the sMra sgo and its commentary and (d) on the other hand he was able to fairly assess both the strengths and weaknesses of these works. In short, we can gain a fairly accurate view of how he perceived and received this important grammatical work and its commentary.

---

¹ Si-tu-paṇ-chen Chos-kyi-’byung-gnas, Yul gangs can pa’i brda yang dag par sbyor ba’i bstan bcos kyi bye brag sum cu pa dang rtags kyi ’jug pa’i gzhung gi rnam par bshad pa mkhas pa’i mgul rgyan mu tig phreng mdzes. Xining: mTsho-sngon-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1982 (reprint 1994).

An Enigma of Tibetan Verbs

Tibetan scholars over the centuries have studied and reflected upon Tibetan grammar. Modern academics are in the process of understanding Tibetan language, be it from a diachronic or synchronic perspective. The pursuit, I think, is not over. While Tibetan scholars themselves are still in the process of discovering their own language, modern scholars are still in the process of discovering what traditional Tibetan scholars have discovered. The attempt to know what has not yet been known and what has already been known is continuing.

This article concerns a difficulty faced by traditional and moderns students of Tibetan language concerning Tibetan verbs. Leaving aside all the rest such as various forms of the Tibetan verb “to be” (sein) and “to be there” (da sein or vorhanden sein), various forms of auxiliary and modal verbs, and the like, we shall concentrate on the main verbs. The well known category of transitive (bya byed tha dad pa) and intransitive (bya byed tha mi dad pa) verbs on the one hand and perhaps the less known category of autonomous and heteronomous verbs on the other and their intricate relationship make Tibetan verbs intriguing. Just as traditional Tibetan scholars have employed various terms to characterize the category of autonomous and heteronomous verbs, so, too, have modern scholars used various terms to express it. Tibetan scholars such as Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung^[1] called an autonomous verb “that which is actually associated with the agent” (byed pa po dang dngos su ’brel ba) and a heteronomous verb “that which is dissociated with the agent” (byed pa po dang dngos su ’brel ba). Perhaps what Tibetan scholars refer to as “that which involves human effort” (skyes bu’i rtsol ba dang bcas pa) and “that which involves no human effort” (skyes bu’i rtsol ba dang bral ba) seem to refer to the same category of verbs. sKal-bzang-’gyur-med may be one of the first Tibetan scholars to employ the terms autonomous verb (rang dbang can gyi bya tshig) and heteronomous verb (gzhan dbang can gyi bya tshig).^[2] Traditionally, the terms autonomous (rang dbang can) and heteronomous (gzhan dbang can) in grammar were only used to describe saṃdhi-dependent and saṃdhi-independent particles (phrad). One of the defining and decisive features of an autonomous verb is that it has an imperative (skul tshig) form. This makes much sense because one can only give an order or command to someone who has an autonomy over the action! So Tibetan scholars have made verb lists that attempted to neatly arrange according to tenses. Theoretically so far so good.

In reality or praxis, however, Tibetan scholars kept on discovering anomalies. There are no problems with, for examples, “will not cut” (mi gcod) and “will not kill” (mi gsod) as future forms, and also “did not cut” (ma bcad) and “did not kill” (ma bsad) as past forms. But what about gris mi chod, lkugs pa ’dis skad cha mi shod, shing lcug phra mos skyang ki mi sod? These words chod, shod, and sod are certainly not nouns (ming rkyang) but are verbs. But these are neither in their past, present, future, or imperative forms. There are many more examples. These are some of the problems raised by Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung, and he states that “those with clear and bright intellect should investigate” (blo gros dwangs shing gsal ba rnams kyis dpyad par ’tshal).^[3]

I do not claim myself to be such a person but still venture to propose a short explanation. Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung seems to have had two difficulties with the cases mentioned above. First, they are construed in the third grammatical case, which he presupposes is the ergative case proper. Second, to him these forms look like imperative forms. My attempt at explanation would be that the verb forms given above are not imperative forms but these are heteronomous verbs. Of the irregular (gzugs ’gyur) and regular (gzugs mi ’gyur) forms of Tibetan verbs—that is, those verbs that have different forms for all tenses and those that have just one form for all tenses—I think this kind of verbs should be regular in their form. The corresponding autonomous counterparts are evidently irregular. And in the examples above, the agents are not in the ergative case (as Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung probably presupposed) but are in pure instrumental case. There are a host of examples that can demonstrate such a case. One example should suffice here: ’dis ldang ngo (“This would suffice”). Here ’dis is in the instrumental case and not in the ergative. To be sure, ldang is a heteronomous verb and has one regular forms for all three tenses. How do we understand and translate these examples? I think gris mi chod should be understood something like “The knife won’t cut” (because it is simply not sharp enough) and chod here should be understood not in an autonomous sense of “to cut” (gcod) but in a heteronomous sense of “to happen to cut” or “to succeed in cutting.” Similarly, lkugs pa ’dis skad cha mi shod may be rendered as “The dumb won’t happen to speak.” And shing lcug phra mos skyang ki mi sod may be translated as “This thin branch won’t happen to kill the wolf.” Also passive constructions may yield a better sense of the heteronomy of these verbs.

---

^[1] Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung, Thon mi’i zhal lung. Lanzhou: Kan-su’u-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1980 (reprint 1990), p. 235.6–7.

^[2] sKal-bzang-’gyur-med, Bod kyi brda sprod rig pa’i khrid rgyun rab gsal me long. Chengdu: Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang, 1981, pp. 365.4–372.

^[3] Tshe-tan-zhabs-drung, ibid. (p. 233.15–17).

Three Kinds of Rich People

Tibetan scholars are said to have ridiculed the bKa’ thang sde lnga revealed by O rgyan gling pa (b. 1323). But scholars such as Guiseppe Tucci (1894–1984) and dGe ’dun chos ’phel (1903–1951) have pointed out that we should not wholesale denounce it because it does contain valuable information. Also those of us interested in the history of Tibetan Buddhist ideas and intellectual culture can discover many interesting ideas that have been put down into writing. Here I shall just record the idea of the three kinds of rich people. The bKa’ thang sde lnga states:^[1] ’bangs rnams phyug pa gsum las med pa yin || rab ni chos kyis phyug pas chen po yin || ’bring ni mi yis phyug pas ’bring po yin || tha ma nor gyis phyug pas tha ma yin || “There are not more than three [kinds of] rich citizens. The best [kind] is great because [they] are rich in dharma. The medium [kind] is middling because [they] are rich in people. The least [kind] is last because [they] are rich in wealth.” Of course, it will be interesting to find out if such an idea can be found in earlier Tibetan sources or possibly also in India and China. The first and third types are perhaps self-explanatory. The second type seems to refer to those who are have loving families, trustworthy friends, and kind and collegial colleagues, and if one is a king having loyal citizens, and so on. Of course, it would be worth exploring the idea of the poor and the rich in Indian and Tibetan sources.

^[1] U rgyan gling pa (b. 1323) (revealed), bKa’ thang sde lnga. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1990 (p. 444.8–10).

dPal dbyangs’s Hexalogy: “Six Lamps”

Samten Karmay, in his study of Great Perfection (rdzogs chen), discussed at some length not only the identity of a Tibetan author named dPal dbyangs but also a hexalogy called the “Six Lamps”¹ ascribed to him. The “Six Lamps” mentioned here are not to be confused with the “Six Lamps” occurring elsewhere as certain processes or stages of the rDzogs chen practice.² Samten Karmay also discusses references made by Tibetan sources and also previous modern scholars such as Guiseppe Tucci to the hexalogy. If I am not mistaken, Matthew Kapstein has been working on these texts and preparing their English translation, but admittedly I have not been able to keep abreast of the most recent studies on this topic. My concern here is very limited. In the U rgyan gling pa’s bKa’ thang sde lnga, and to be precise in the twenty-first chapter of the bTsun mo’i bka’ thang,³ not only is the hexalogy mentioned by name but also there is a narrative that explains which of the work were composed by gNyan Ācarya dPal dbyangs for whose sake. For example, the lTa ba yang dag sgron ma is said to be composed for the sake of his mother. The Zhu lan sgron me is said to composed for the sake of one sNa nam lDong khri. The fourth work, not mentioned by name, is said to be composed for sentient beings in general. There is, however, a longer narrative regarding how the Man ngag sprul pa’i ’khor lo came to his hands and how he composed the Zhu lan sgron me for the sake of one sNa nam lDong khri. It is not clear to me how the portion of the the text fits into the chapter which actually deals with the shortcomings of women and some positive and negative deeds. Not all six works seem to be mentioned there by name. Despite some scholarly interests in these, the compositional and textual history of these works still remain very doubtful and any information on them is thus bound to be useful.

---

¹ Samten G. Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching in Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, [1988 (1st edition)] 2007 (2nd edition), pp. 66–69.

² For a study of the “Six Lamps” in the context of the rDzogs-chen Thod rgal practice, see Daniel Scheiddeger, “Lamps in the Leaping Over.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 8, 2005, pp. 40–64.

³ U rgyan gling pa (b. 1323) (revealed), bKa’ thang sde lnga. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1990, pp. 292–295. Elsewhere in the same work there is an allusion to one bSam gtan mkhan po dPal dbyangs. See also ibid. (p. 466.11–12): bsam gtan mkhan po dpal dbyangs kyis bshad pa | lung dang rig [= rigs] pas thag bcad de || sems kyi rang bzhin yang dag yid ches bya ||. Notably he is cited here in the chapter dealing with the doctrine of “Simultanaeism” (gcig char ba) where several Chinese masters are mentioned as well.