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.