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).
6mKhyen-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 ||.
Pratisaṃvid 