gray traces
Tracing the Tibetan Teaching Transmission of the Mngon pa kun btus (Abhidharmasamuccaya)
through the Early Period of Disunity.*
Dan Martin, Jerusalem
Gray Traces: Tracing the Tibetan Teaching Transmission of the Mngon-pa Kun-btus (Abhidharmasamuccaya) through the Early Period of Disunity. Contained in: Helmut Eimer & David Germano, eds., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, Brill (Leiden 2002), pp. 335-357. I've added the charts now, so the text of it ought to be complete. Still, I recommend citing the original publication rather than this pre-published draft.
The Abhidharmasamuccaya (AS), composed by Asaṅga, is a text well known to general Buddhology. The original Sanskrit, although only partially preserved, has been filled out and edited with the help of the complete Chinese and Tibetan translations and then translated into French.[1] From a number of different research motives, I became interested in the Tibetan transmissions of Abhidharma teachings based on this text. What I found most intriguing of all was, naturally, the very obscure segment of this transmission lineage spanning the post-Imperial times (from 842 ce until about the end of the tenth century) which we will here refer to as the ‘gray period.’ The present essay may be considered as a report about an attempt to find out certain things, a quest which, in some part, failed. Much of what is written here is an effort to find a context for better comprehending the reasons for that failure.
On the more general level of its significance, the Tibetan AS transmission represented the continuity of one of the Three Baskets of Buddhist scriptures through the gray period. This may seem to be stating the obvious, but it is simply a fact that specific scriptures, or specific sets of scriptures, were made to represent each of the Three Baskets. The set of Prajñāpāramitā scriptures represented the Sūtra Basket, the main Vinaya texts were, of course, the Vinaya Basket, and the AS in particular stood for the Abhidharma Basket. In each case there was a discontinuity, that was at the same time a continuity, with imperial period Buddhism — perhaps we could say, ‘A continuity that served to bridge over a larger discontinuity.’
Now it is said that, near the end of the eighth century during his brief reign, Emperor Mu-ne-btsan-po had instituted three distinct holidays for making offerings to the three Baskets. They were called the Sūtra Basket Offerings (Mdo-sde mchod-pa), the Vinaya Basket Offerings (’Dul-sde mchod-pa) and the Abhidharma Basket Offerings (Mngon-sde mchod-pa). They were called the ‘Four Great Offerings [Holidays]’ because the Vinaya Basket Offerings was held at Lhasa, the Abhidharma Basket Offerings was held at Khra-’brug, and at Bsam-yas were held both the Sūtra Basket Offerings and the Abhidharma Basket Offerings. The Sba-bzhed Zhabs-btags-ma[2] links their celebration with the agricultural cycle— The Abhidharma Basket Offerings occurred during Sa-ga zla-ba, when all the farmers would take leave of their plowing to bring offerings. For the Sūtra Basket Offerings, in the middle summer month, they would leave off their irrigation. The Vinaya Basket Offerings were held in the last month of autumn [after the harvest]. Little more is known about how these holidays were celebrated, and little may be said about their subsequent fate. The Sūtra Basket Offerings was said to have been in some way revived in the late twelfth century at Tshal Gung-thang under the name of the Flower Offerings (Me-tog mchod-pa).[3] The existence of these holidays would at least seem to indicate a general level of public knowledge of the Three Baskets.
One reason the AS transmission is important, historically speaking, is because understanding it may help us to understand and assess the historical significance of the Prajñāpāramitā (PP) and Vinaya teaching transmissions. Of the different transmissions that are believed in some way to have bridged over the late Snga-dar into the Phyi-dar, the best known by far is the Vinaya ordination transmission called the Lowland Vinaya, while the AS and PP teaching transmissions have been very little studied, most probably because of their relative lack of narrative drama. They ought to be studied more, in the first place because their lineages cross with that of the Lowland Vinaya (a few members are held in common). More generally, the three lineages share the same historic space and they are traced with similar motives, so that in order to make sense of the conflicting accounts of the Lowland Vinaya, the PP and AS lineages might need to be brought into the equation.[4]
Both Asaṅga’s “higher Abhidharma,” the Abhidharma-samuccaya, and Vasubandhu’s “lower Abhidharma,” the Abhidharmakośa, had teaching transmissions that entered Tibet through the translating triad of Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs, Cog-ro Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan and Sna-nam Zhang Ye-shes-sde. However, according to the earliest source, that of Nyang-ral, there was a hiatus in the teaching transmission of the Abhidharmakośa (AK), which was reinstituted only in the late tenth century, at the cusp of the Snga-dar and Phyi-dar, by Smṛti, after whom it continued and eventually came to flourish thanks to members of the Mchims family at Snar-thang Monastery. In short, the AS had a continuous teaching lineage linking it back to imperial times, while the AK did not.
However, the same source says that the AS lineage remained, although ‘underground’ (or ‘concealed’, bskungs), during the time following Glang-dar-ma.[5] There are those who tell how the main lineage holder had to move to Khams, but these are late sources and it is unclear how much one ought to rely on their testimony (more discussion on this point later on).
Now we should have a look at the lineage itself, starting with the author Asaṅga and his half-brother Vasubandhu. It might prove useful, while reading the following discussions, to consult the appended charts from time to time.
There is a well-known scholarly debate about the dates of Vasubandhu, and we offer no solution to the problem here. Marek Meior has already studied the Tibetan sources on his life.[6] But no matter what date might be proposed for him, surely two generations are insufficient to cover the period between him and Jinamitra. Somewhere between Purṇavardhana (line 6) and Dānaśīla with Jinamitra (in lines 7 to 8) there is a huge chronological gap. It seems quite likely that the Indian segment was constituted in Tibet itself, and based solely on the fact that these figures either translated the AS, as in the case of Śīlendrabodhi and Jinamitra, or, in the case of Pṛthivībandhu[7] and Śāntipa (in column G only), wrote Abhidharma commentaries. Historically speaking, the Indian segment of the lineage tells us very little. In any case, it doesn’t supply a full lineage account. Bu-ston, in his history, probably had similar chronological problems in mind when he said with a certain measure of skepticism, “The pupil of Sthiramati was Pūrṇavardhana, and it is said that the pupils of the latter were Jinamitra and Śīlendrabodhi. This however must be examined.”[8]
In the space remaining, we will concentrate on the Tibetan history of the AS teaching transmission. Furthermore, we will restrict our attention to the earliest members of the Tibetan lineage, basically ending with Brang-ti who was active between the years 1076 and 1103 ce.
Looking at line 10 of the chart, observe first of all that Ka, Cog, and Zhang are very well known translators. Some of the compositions of Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs, a native of ’Phan-yul,[9] and Zhang Ye-shes-sde, a Ngam-shod native of the Sna-nam clan, have miraculously survived in the Tanjur. To give one example, a philosophical text by Ye-shes-sde, preserved in both Tanjur and Dunhuang versions, has been studied by David Ruegg (1981). One of the surviving works by Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs, little more than a set of doctrinal lists, does extract some of those lists from the AS, including the list of Mental Factors.[10] Cog-ro Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan, native to Yar-lung valley, is mentioned as a translator working together with Jñānagarbha in a Dunhuang text (Richardson 1998: 190). These three translators mainly (although not exclusively) worked with the Kashmiri pundit Jinamitra, whom Peter Skilling (1997: 122) has called “an important—and probably the most important—Indian figure in the introduction of Abhidharma in Tibet.” Although neither Jinamitra nor the three Tibetan translators are mentioned in the Sba-bzhed, the Sba-bzhed Zhabs-btags-ma states clearly that Jinamitra was invited by Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan (official throne name of Ral-pa-can, reigned 815-838),[11] and so I consider doubtful the accounts in other historical sources which would place his and the three Tibetan translators’ activities in the times of Khri-srong-lde-btsan (reigned 756-797).[12] The Rgyal-rabs Gsal-ba’i Me-long among others, it is true, includes them in a list of nine translators active under Khri-srong-lde-btsan, but this is rather suspect, since an earlier list of the nine translators working in Khri-srong-lde-btsan’s reign contained in Mkhas-pa Lde’u’s history does not include them. The names in Lde’u’s list are for the most part obscure (most of them do not surface among the translators in the canon catalogues), but they are found in the Sba-bzhed.[13] This seems to violate what we think we know from some of the other sources, which even give Jinamitra as well as Dānaśīla a role in the ordination of the Seven Test Monks (Mang-thos 1987: 52), include Ye-shes-sde in the list of twenty-five disciples of Padmasambhava or have Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs greeting Padmasambhava on his arrival at the Tibetan border. One simple, albeit disappointingly so, explanation is possible: that Tibetan history writers in the past mistook the regnal name for Ral-pa-can, Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan, for that of Khri-srong-lde-btsan. In any case, the historians’ tendency to push events and personages of the first decades of the ninth century back into the last half of the eighth requires further evaluation.[14]
Note that Zla-ba’i-rdo-rje (line 11) and the very famous monk assassin of Emperor U’i-dum-brtsan (aka Glang-dar-ma) named Lha-lung Dpal-gyi-rdo-rje (line 12)[15] first make their appearance in the lists of Bu-ston (column C).
Comparing columns A through C at lines 13-15, we may see that a mistake has crept into the Gsan-yig of Bu-ston which was later on copied (in columns F and I). A single Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes has been made into two separate figures: Dbas (or Sbas) Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes (line 13) and Cog-gru Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes (line 14). We may know that this is mistaken by looking at the AS lineage contained in Bu-ston’s history (Obermiller 1986: 212), where only Sbas Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes appears — likewise in a separate lineage list (with the names Sanskritized) in another part of Bu-ston’s works (1966: XVI 19-20).[16] We might slightly support this argument by noting that no Gru or Cog-gru Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes seems to be mentioned in any other context. However, Dbas Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes is obscure himself,[17] as is his lineage successor Gru Mchog-gi-ye-shes. The two latter are the ones that serve to bridge the gap across the grayest parts of the Period of Fragments. The Blue Annals (cf. Roerich 1976: 345) is the earliest source which tells us, Dbas Dbus-su ’khrug-pa byung-nas Khams-su gshegs, “Because of the disturbances in Central Tibet, Dbas went to Khams.” Later on, Padma-dkar-po’s (1968: 346) history would state more briefly, Dbas-kyis Dbus-nas Khams-su byon, “Dbas went from Central Tibet to Khams.” It is uncertain if the ‘disturbances’ refers to the disorder during the final years of Emperor U’i-dum-brtsan or the peasant revolts that occurred later on.[18]
Now we should concentrate first of all on the most illustrious members of this final segment of the lineage (nos. 16-18). It is rather well known that Khu-ston Brtson-’grus-g.yung-drung was student of both Se-btsun and Gar-mi.[19] Our earliest list confuses us by giving the name Khu-ston Shes-rab-brtson-’grus. It is true that the two Khu-ston’s are often confused in historical works. However, the earlier and more famous one, the disciple of Atiśa and author of the often cited if no longer extant history called the Lo-rgyus Chen-mo, surely the one in question here, was Khu-ston Brtson-’grus-g.yung-drung, whose dates are 1011-1075. Khu-ston Shes-rab-brtson-’grus lived from 1075 to 1143; he was the third abbot of Spyan-g.yas Monastery, founded by Grwa-pa Mngon-shes (d.1090) at the source of the ’Phyongs-rgyas river. Besides, the Nel-pa history (1990: 46) clearly associates Khu-ston Brtson-’grus-g.yung-drung with Lha-sdings Monastery. Hence, we have every reason to believe that our earliest lineage list from Nyang-ral’s history, as well as the Dge-ye list (in column E), and Bu-ston’s history are all mistaken in listing Khu-ston Shes-rab-brtson-’grus. The latter was important for the Prajnāpāramitā teaching transmission, and not for that of the AS. This shows, too, that the earliest source may also be misleading, although it is certainly possible that the mistaken identification entered in late in the manuscript transmission and was not the responsibility of the author.
To follow the two Lde’u histories, Khu-ston Brtson-’grus[-g.yung-drung] belonged to the monastic ordination lineage that was initiated when the Six Sog-mo of Khams went to receive their vows from Dgongs-pa-rab-gsal.[20] Four of the Six Sog-mo ordained both Se-btsun and Gar-mi. These latter two, in turn, ordained Khu-ston. This particular segment of the AS lineage crosses with the history of an ordination lineage, although not the one led by Klu-mes which came to dominate Central Tibet.
Se-btsun Gzhon-nu-dbang-phyug is a figure frequently mentioned in the Bka’-gdams-pa histories, although there seems to be no general biographical passage about him. It is said that Se-btsun studied Sanskrit with Smṛti, and that he was a teacher of all three of Atiśa’s chief disciples: Khu-ston, Rngog Lo-tsā-ba, and ’Brom-ston-pa (see Stein 1972: 72-73).
Gar-mi Yon-tan-g.yung-drung (line 17) is the most significant person for the remainder of the lineage. This is because in the early eleventh century he founded a monastery at Rdzing-phyi in ’Ol-kha which included a Abhidharma Teaching College (bshad-grwa). The Las-chen history (1972: I 238) has the only brief sketch of his life available to me at the moment. Following is a complete translation: “Gar-mi Yon-tan-g.yung-drung was one of the eleven great teachers of Central Tibet. He erected the Vihāra of Rdzong-phyi [i.e., Rdzing-phyi] in ’Ol-kha. He went to Mnga’-ris to invite Atiśa and he heard much Dharma. While Atiśa was staying in Bsam-yas, he prepared and offered only yoghurt and milk. There he was the chief of those who requested the Eight Thousand Prajñāpāramitā. Because he was skilled in the Abhidharma, he produced a number of students including Khu-ston.”
The Bai-ḍūrya Ser-po (Sde-srid 1960: 160) informs us that the AS lineage members from Gar-mi through Brang-ti belonged to the ‘generations of Lamas’ (bla-rabs) of Rdzing-phyi Monastery. After Brang-ti (line 22), the lineage began to fork out and spread widely in Central Tibet. The Guidebook to Rdzing-phyi, known to exist only in the Tucci Collection, is not available to me, although it has been studied by Federica Venturi (forthcoming 1 and forthcoming 2), who tends toward dating its composition to about the late seventeenth century. Nowadays, Rdzing-phyi is probably most famous because Tsong-kha-pa stayed there for some time and restored its Maitreya Temple. However, it is clear that during the eleventh century its main claim to renown, apart from its cubit-high reddish-gold-alloy Maitreya image made by a Khotanese king,[21] was as a center of AS studies. In effect, the eleventh century was a heydey for AS studies, and Kong-sprul could even say that some time after Brang-ti the teaching transmission of the AS was neglected and that it was, at the time of writing, no longer current.[22] This would seem to have been due to the rise to prominence and influence of the Mchims School of AK teaching at Snar-thang.
In the future, historians of Tibet will be relying more and more on lineage records, on evidence contained in the ‘records of teachings received,’ known as thob-yigs or gsan-yigs. In order to understand the historical import of these lineage records, it will be necessary to closely compare whole sets of lineages, to treat them as ‘texts’ and attempt to isolate errors in their textual transmissions, as we have attempted to do here. This is not a modern or post-modern idea. In fact, most of the records of teachings received, particularly the more recent ones since the four-volume set of the Fifth Dalai Lama, as for example the set of equal length by Dza-ya Paṇḍi-ta, because of their strong concern for the validity of their transmission lineages, have already done a great deal of critical comparative work in course of their compilation. Regardless of that fact, very interesting and unusual things may and do occur in the histories of these lists. For example, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s list (column I) and three eighteenth-to-nineteenth-century sources—Dza-ya Paṇḍi-ta (1981: I 264), Klong-rdol Bla-ma (1991: II 130-131), and A-khu-ching (1974: 44-45)—who ultimately copied their AS lineages from the gsan-yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama, all rename it as an AK lineage. It is clear that lineage lists are not just passive historical sources, but texts with interesting histories of their own to tell. In this case, it tells the story that the AK had, by the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, so thoroughly replaced the AS in the monastic curriculum that the AS’s unbroken lineage could be better employed to supplant and replace the broken lineage of the AK.
During the eleventh century, even as the new schools were emerging on the basis of their differences with the old translation tantras, they simultaneously sought to underscore, by means of the Lowland Vinaya ordination lineage and the teaching lineages of the Prajñāpāramitā and the AS, their continuity with old translation scriptures and treatises of the non-tantric kinds. But within this continuity is a discontinuity; each of the three lineages was forced (whether in fact or only in historical narrative) to transfer out of Central Tibet to what was, in those days, called Khams. The transference of the Lowland ordination lineage to Khams is a very well-known story, but there are several other less-famous accounts of people loading up their mules with Vinaya texts, or with Abhidharma texts, or with a combination of the two.[23] The AS was transferred out of Central Tibet, as we have seen, by the rather obscure Dbas Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes. Likewise it is said that the PP teaching tradition of ’Bre was known to have emerged from the Earlier Propagation’s explanation lineage that had transferred to Khams.[24] The ’Bre tradition of PP studies was founded by a disciple of Rngog Lo-tsā-ba Blo-ldan-shes-rab (1059-1109) by the name of ’Bre Shes-rab-’bar (aka Shes-rab-bla-ma). So far I have been unable to locate the specific lineage of PP that is supposed to have continued without break through Tibet’s gray period.[25]
There is a certain amount of parallelism at work, raising the suspicion that the parallelism might have resulted from the [re-]writing of history, and have little to do with what in fact occurred. The Dharma Histories, while they acknowledge that some thin strands of Vinaya and PP traditions were continuing in Central Tibet, tended to disparage and belittle them with their brief narratives about the ‘tufted Arhats’ and the practices of reading differently lengthed PP texts at funerals depending on the age of the deceased. So far, I have not noticed any narrative that, in a similar manner, belittles Abhidharma teachings that might have existed during that same time.
Could we argue, nevertheless, that Abhidharma ideas had some form of general cultural transmission during the gray period? In a separate paper (Martin 2000), I have attempted to trace the ‘Mental States’ theory of the AS, in particular to try to discover how it could have entered into the bilingual Zhang-zhung-Tibetan text of the Mdzod-phug excavated by Gshen-chen Klu-dga’ in 1017. Although this was my initial motive for going into the transmissional histories of the Abhidharma treatises, I still have no real answer to this question, and there is no specific reason to connect the transmission lineage investigated here with Gshen-chen or the Mdzod-phug. It is quite clear that, even though the AS no longer serves as a core textbook for study in Tibetan monasteries as it did at Rdzing-phyi in the eleventh century, certain parts of it have taken on a life of their own in Tibetan Buddhist tradition. For example, there are a number of recent Dge-lugs-pa treatises of the ‘Mind and Mental Factors’ (Sems dang Sems-byung) genre which employ the AS’s categories either directly or, perhaps, filtered through summaries such as that by Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs or early commentarial literature not now available.
This attempt to study how the AS bridged the gray period may not be considered very successful. The two lineage members who actually lived within the gray period remain very obscure figures, leaving the gray period itself almost as gray as ever. However, gaps in knowledge are not necessarily total vacuums. By investigating the areas of relative light surrounding the gray period, the gray period itself, if not exactly illuminated, will begin to bear import of an increasing historical significance. Certainly future research will succeed in locating patches of different shades of gray within its somewhat less gloomy outlines.
Key to the sources used in the charts:
A. Nyang Nyi-ma-’od-zer (1124-1192 or 1136-1203), Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, Gangs can rig mdzod series no. 5, Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa 1988), pp. 472-473.
B. ’Phags-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan (1235-1280), Lung dang brgyud pa sna tshogs thos pa’i gsan yig, contained in: Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Toyo Bunko (Tokyo 1968), vol. 7, pp. 286/4-297/3 at p. 292/3-4.
C. Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364), Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba'i tshul bka' drin rjes su dran par byed pa (= Bu-ston gsan yig), contained in: Collected Works, vol. 26, pp. 1-142, at pp. 37-38.
D. Rgyal-tshab Rje Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432), Legs par bshad pa chos mngon rgya mtsho'i snying po, contained in: The Collected Works (Gsung 'bum) of Rgyal-tshab Rje Dar-ma-rin-chen, Ngawang Gelek Demo (New Delhi 1981), vol. 4, pp. 1-440, at p. 438-440.
E. Dge-ye Tshul-khrims-seng-ge, Chos ’byung thos pa’i rgya mtsho dad pa’i ngang mo rnam par rtse ba (composed in 1474), Otani University Library, no. 11847, fol. 7.
F. Hgos-Lotsawa Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481), The Blue Annals, Lokesh Chandra, The International Academy of Indian Culture, Śata-Piṭaka Series vol. 212 (New Delhi 1971), section cha, fols. 8-9.
G. Gser-mdog Paṇ-chen Shākya-mchog-ldan (1428-1507), Dam pa'i chos mngon pa kun las btus pa'i rnam bshad rnal 'byor spyod gzhung rgya mtsho'i rlabs phreng, contained in: The Complete Works (Gsung 'bum) of Gser-mdog Paṇ-chen Shākya-mchog-ldan, Kunzang Tobgey (Thimphu 1975), vol. 14, pp. 1-340, at p. 339.
H. Paṇ-chen Bsod-nams-grags-pa (1478-1554), Chos mngon pa kun btus kyi dka' ba'i gnad dgrol ba'i dka' 'grel mkhas pa'i yid 'phrog, Nang bstan shes rig 'dzin skyong slob gnyer khang (Sbag-sa 1964), in 77 fols., at fol. 75.
I. Dalai Lama V Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho (1617-1682), Thob yig Ganggā’i chu rgyun: The Gsan-yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Nechung and Lhakhar (Delhi 1970-71), vol. 1, p. 45.
ABHIDHARMASAMUCCAYA LINEAGES
Note: > means that the lineage was passed on to the next person. + means "and" the following person. | means that the person did not pass on the lineage.
Bibliography
A-khu-ching 1974: A-khu-ching Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho (1803-1875), Thog mtha' bar du dge ba'i dam pa'i chos kyi thob yig mdo sngags zab rgyas bdud rtsi'i mtsho las skra rtses blangs pa'i chu thigs, contained in: Collected Works of A-khu-chiṅ Śes-rab-rgya-mtsho, Ngawang Sopa (N.Delhi 1974), vol. cha (i.e., vol. 6), pp. 3-1027.
Bod-kyi thang-ga 1984: Bod kyi thang ga, Bod rang skyong ljongs rig dngos do dam u yon lhan khang (Lhasa).
Bsod-nams-rtse-mo 1968: Bsod-nams-rtse-mo (1142-1182), Chos la ’jug pa’i sgo, contained in Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, The Toyo Bunko (Tokyo), vol. 2, pp. 318/3-345/3.
Bu-ston 1966: Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub, Rgyud sde bzhi’i gzungs ’bum, contained in: The Collected Works of Bu-ston, ed. by Lokesh Chandra, International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi), vol. 16.
Dpa’-bo 1986: Dpa’-bo II Gtsug-lag-phreng-ba (1504-1566), Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, ed. by Rdo-rje-rgyal-po, Mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Beijing), in 2 volumes.
Dudjom 1991: Dudjom Rinpoche Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje (1904-1987), The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism, Its Fundamentals and History, tr. by Gyurme Dorje, Wisdom Publications (Boston), in 2 volumes.
Dza-ya Paṇḍi-ta 1981: Dza-ya Paṇḍi-ta Blo-bzang-’phrin-las (b. 1642), Zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig gsal ba’i me long, contained in: Collected Works of Jaya-Paṇḍita Blo-bzaṅ-hphrin-las, Lokesh Chandra, International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi), vols. 1-4. Composed in 1702 ce.
Gnubs 1974: Gnubs-chen Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes, Gnubs-chen Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes Rin-po-ches mdzad pa’i sgom gyi gnad gsal bar phye ba bsam gtan mig sgron, S.W. Tashigangpa (Leh).
Hackin 1924: Joseph Hackin, Formulaire sanscrit-tibétain du Xe siècle, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner (Paris).
Jackson 1988: David P. Jackson, Rong-ston on the Prajñāpāramitā Philosophy of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra: His Sub-Commentary on Haribhadra’s Spuṭārthā, Nagata Bunshodo (Kyoto).
Karmay 1988: Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, The Great Perfection, E.J. Brill (Leiden).
——1989: Btsan-po Lha-sras Dar-ma dang de’i rjes su ’byung ba’i rgyal rabs mdor bsdus, Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig, 1st issue of the year 1989 (5th in the general series), pp. 81-103.
Klong-rdol Bla-ma 1991: Klong-rdol Bla-ma Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang (1719-1794), Mdo sngags kyi dbang lung khrid gsum thob pa’i gsan yig thar pa’i them skas kyi stod cha, contained in: Klong-rdol Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-gi Gsung-’bum, Gangs can rig mdzod series nos. 20-21, Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang (Lhasa), vol. 2 [smad-cha], pp. 1-187.
Kong-sprul 1985: Kong-sprul Yon-tan-rgya-mtsho (1813-1899), Shes bya kun khyab (= Theg pa’i sgo kun las btus pa gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod bslab pa gsum legs par ston pa’i bstan bcos shes bya kun khyab), Mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Beijing), reprint of 1982 edition.
Las-chen 1972: Las-chen Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan, Bka’ gdams kyi rnam par thar pa bka’ gdams chos ’byung gsal ba’i sgron me (composed in 1494), B. Jamyang Norbu (New Delhi), in 2 volumes.
Lde’u Jo-sras 1987: Lde’u Jo-sras, Lde’u chos ’byung (= Chos ’byung chen mo bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan Lde’u Jo-sras kyis mdzad pa), Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa).
Mang-thos 1987: Mang-thos Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho (1523-1596), Bstan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed and Tha snyad rig gnas lnga’i byung tshul blo gsal mgrin rgyan, Bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang (Lhasa).
Martin 1997: Dan Martin, Tibetan Histories, Serindia Publications (London), in collaboration with Yael Bentor.
——2000: Comparing Treasuries: Mental States and Other Mdzod-phug Lists and Passages with Parallels in Abhidharma Works by Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, or in Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, contained in: Samten Karmay & Yasuhiko Nagano, eds., New Horizons in Bon Studies, National Museum of Ethnology (Osaka), pp. 21-88.
Meior 1984: Marek Meior, A Contribution to the Biography of Vasubandhu from Tibetan Sources, contained in: L. Ligeti, ed., Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Koros, Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest), vol. 2, pp. 159-174.
——1991: Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma-kośa and the Commentaries Preserved in the Tanjur (Stuttgart).
Mkhas-pa Lde’u 1987: Mkhas-pa Lde’u, Rgya Bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa (composed after 1261), Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa 1987).
Nel-pa 1990: Ne’u (= Nel-pa) Paṇḍita Grags-pa-smon-lam-blo-gros, Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba (composed in 1283), contained in: Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag lnga (= Gangs can rig mdzod series no. 9), ed. by Chab-spel Tshe-brtan-phun-tshogs, et al., Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang (Lhasa), pp. 1-54.
Nyang 1988: Nyang Nyi-ma-’od-zer, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sprang rtsi’i bcud, Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa).
Obermiller 1986: E. Obermiller, tr., The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston, Sri Satguru Publications (Delhi), reprint of 1932 Heidelberg edition.
Padma-dkar-po 1968: Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po (1527-1592), Tibetan Chronicle of Padma-dkar-po (= Chos ’byung bstan pa’i padma rgyas pa’i nyin byed), Lokesh Chandra, Śatapiṭaka Series no. 75, International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi).
Pradhan 1950: Pralhad Pradhan, ed., Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asanga, Visva-Bharati (Santiniketan).
Rahula 1971: Walpola Rahula, tr., Le Compendium de la super-doctrine (philosophie) (Abhidharma-samuccaya) d’Asaṅga, École Française d’Extrême-Orient (Paris).
Rikey & Ruskin 1992: Thupten K. Rikey & Andrew Ruskin, trs., A Manual of Key Terms: Categorization of Buddhist Terminology with Commentary, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala). Includes translations of two works by Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs: Chos kyi rnam grangs and Chos kyi rnam grangs kyi brjed byang.
Roerich 1976: George N. Roerich, et al., trs., The Blue Annals, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi). ’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal, composed this history in 1476-1478.
Ruegg 1981: David Seyfort Ruegg, Autour du lTa-ba’i khyad-par de Ye-shes-sde, Journal Asiatique, vol. 269, pp. 207-229.
Sa-bzang 1977: Sa-bzang Ma-ti Paṇ-chen ’Jam-dbyangs-blo-gros, Dam pa’i chos mngon pa kun las btus pa’i ’grel pa shes bya rab gsal snang ba, Gonpo Tsheten (Gangtok), in 2 volumes.
Samten 1997: Jampa Samten, Notes on the Late Twelfth or Early Thirteenth Century Commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra: A Preliminary Report of a Critical Edition, contained in: Helmut Krasser, et al., eds., Tibetan Studies, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien), vol. 2, pp. 831-841.
Satō 1975: Satō Hisashi, The Route from Kokonor to Lhasa during the T’ang Period, Acta Asiatica, vol. 19, pp. 1-19.
Schmithausen 1983/1995: Lambert Schmithausen, The Darśanamārga Section of the Abhidharmasamuccaya and Its Interpretation by Tibetan Commentators (with Special Reference to Bu ston Rin chen grub), contained in: E. Steinkellner & H. Tauscher, eds., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi), pp. 259-274.
Sde-srid 1960: Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho (1653-1705), Vaiḍūrya-ser-po (A History of the Dge-lugs-pa Monasteries of Tibet), ed. by Lokesh Chandra, International Academy of Indian Culture (New Delhi).
——1990: Mchod sdong ’dzam gling rgyan gcig rten gtsug lag khang dang bcas pa’i dkar chag thar gling rgya mtshor bgrod pa’i gru rdzing byin rlabs kyi bang mdzod, Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa).
Simonsson 1957: Nils Simonsson, Indo-tibetische Studien. Die Methoden der tibetischen Übersetzer, untersucht im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung ihrer Übersetzungen für die Sanskritphilologie, Almqvist & Wiksells (Uppsala).
Skilling 1997: Peter Skilling, Mahāsūtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha, Volume II, The Pali Text Society (Oxford).
Sørensen 1994: Per K. Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies, an Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century Tibetan Chronicle: rGyal-rabs gsal-ba’i me-long, Harrassowitz (Wiesbaden)
Stein 1961: R. A. Stein, Une chronique ancienne de Bsam-yas : Sba-bzhed, Publications de l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises (Paris 1961).
Stein 1972: R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, Stanford University Press (Stanford), tr. by J.E. Stapleton Driver from the 1962 French edition.
Tarthang Tulku 1977: Tarthang Tulku, A History of the Buddhist Dharma, contained in: Crystal Mirror, vol. 5, pp. 3-330.
Tucci 1999: Giuseppe Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, SDI Publications (Bangkok), reprint of 1949 Rome edition.
Uebach 1987: Helga Uebach, Nel-pa Paṇḍitas Chronik Me-tog Phreṅ-ba, Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München).
Uray 1989: Geza Uray, Contributions to the Date of the Vyutpatti-Treatises, Acta Orientalia Hungarica, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 3-21.
Van der Kuijp n.d.: Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Paṇ-chen ’Bum-phrag gsum-pa and His Contribution to Buddhist Scholarship: A Biographical and Bibliographical Note. An unpublished draft, courtesy of the author.
Venturi forthcoming 1: Federica Venturi, Research Report on the dkar-chag of the Monastery of rDzing-phyi in ’Ol-kha. Forthcoming in the proceedings of the 8th seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies (Bloomington 1998).
——forthcoming 2: The Guide Book of the Monastery of rDzing-phyi in ’Ol-kha, a forthcoming publication in the Serie Orientale Roma (SOR).
Wangdu 2000: Pasang Wangdu & Hildegard Diemberger, trs., dBa’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien).
Yongs-’dzin 1970: Tshe-mchog-gling Yongs-’dzin Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan, Biographies of Eminent Gurus in the Transmission Lineages of the Teachings of the Graduated Path, Being the Text of Byang chub lam gyi rim pa’i bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa rgyal bstan mdzes pa’i rgyan mchog phul byung nor bu’i phreng ba, Ngawang Gelek Demo (N. Delhi 1970), in 2 volumes.
* I would like to thank in particular Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, Federica Venturi, Henk Blezer, Khang-dkar Tshul-khrims-skal-bzang, and David Germano for various kinds of kindness and help with the research for this paper.
[1] Pradhan (1950), Rahula (1971). A number of studies on more as well as less minor aspects of the AS have also been published, but very little will be said in the present context about the content of the text; here I will mention only Schmithausen (1983/1995), which contains valuable information on the Indian and Tibetan commentarial literature.
[2] Stein (1961: 67).
[3] On these holidays, see Sørensen (1994: 404 et passim). See also Sde-srid (1990: 799), which lists them quite differently, based on the “Thang-yig.” There are scenes of the three different ‘offerings’ holidays in Bod-kyi thang-ga (1984: 19). Dpa’-bo (1986: 404-5, says that the Vinaya and Abhidharma Offerings were held in Lha-sa and Khra-’brug; the Sūtra Basket and Abhisambodhi (Mngon-par byang-chub-pa) Offerings were held at Bsam-yas, these being the Four Great Offerings. Note, too, that a Me-tog mchod-pa observance is in use in Bon religion.
[4] On the 11th- to 12th-century PP transmissions, see Tarthang Tulku (1977: 157-160), which is based on a text corresponding to that found in Kong-sprul (1985: 445-449); see also Jackson (1988: xxi-xxii) and Samten (1997: 835). Numbered among the PP lineage members is Khu-ston Shes-rab-brtson-’grus, on whom more will be said.
[5] Nyang (1988: 472-3). No other historical source for the early Tibetan Abhidharma transmissions appears to employ this expression.
[6] See Meior’s (1984) article on the subject, as well as his more recent book (1991). The relatively early version of Vasubandhu’s life by Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 103-108, 178 et passim) still remains to be taken into account in future surveys of the Tibetan biographical sources.
[7] Sa’i-rtsa-lag is the Tibetan form for the name of the Sinhalese commentator Pṛthivībandhu (active during the reign of King Gopāla; 685-720 ce). It is not an Old Tibetan translation of the name Vasubandhu (Chimpa 1990: 261; cf. Karmay 1988: 150).
[8] Obermiller (1986: 148-9).
[9] In the tenth-century (?) Bsam-gtan Mig-sgron (Gnubs 1974: 406), we find a mention of Skol-mdo Lo-tswa-ba Dpal-brtsegs. This might be Ka-ba Dpal-brtsegs, although this is not certain. There are quotations, too (at pp. 151-152), from a meditation text (bsgom lung) by Lo-tsā-ba Ska-ba Dpal-brtsegs (consult also Karmay 1988: 103).
[10] Rikey & Ruskin (1992: 13-31).
[11] Stein (1961: 73). Compare also Wangdu (2000: 90), where again they are only mentioned in the appended sections. Bsod-nams-rtse-mo (1968: 343/3), writing in 1167, agrees in placing the translation activities of Klu’i-rgyal-mtshan and Dpal-brtsegs in Ral-pa-can’s reign. For a later list of the nine translators, see Sørensen (1994: 398-399). As I hope to be able to demonstrate in a separate place, later sources had an increasing tendency to push the translating triad back into the latter half of the 8th century, and one way they did this was by inserting them into the list of nine translators.
[12] In the catalogue of the Derge Kanjur, Ye-shes-sde always works with one or two from a group of Indian masters comprised of Śīlendrabodhi, Surendrabodhi, Dānaśīla and, most often, Jinamitra. Some of his translations were also done with Prajñāvarman. These Indians are usually said to have been invited by Ral-pa-can (although in the 814 Sgra-sbyor Bam-po Gnyis-pa, we find the Indian pundits listed as Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Śilendrabodhi, Dānaśīla, and Bodhimitra so it is rather certain that these particular pundits had arrived in Tibet before the final year in the reign of Sad-na-legs; see Uebach [1987: 107] and also Simonsson [1957: 241, as well as the list of earlier Tibetan translators whose works were then deemed inadequate on p. 243]).
[13] Stein (1961: 52), which must be compared to Sba-bzhed (1980: 60). See, too, Nyang (1988: 332), Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 301), Dpa’-bo (1986: 402) and Sørensen (1994: 398-9). In another passage, Nyang (1988: 420) says that the triad came in the latter days of Khri-srong-lde-btsan, while later on (p. 421) saying that Ral-pa-can invited four pundits: the Kashmiri Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Vidyākaraprabha and Dānaśīla).
[14] In Uray (1989) there is a different argument that some of the accomplishments of Sad-na-legs (Khri-lde-srong-btsan, re. 799-815), in particular the Language Reform [of 814], have been pushed forward by some historians into the reign of Ral-pa-can (Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan, re. 815-838), in part because of confusion about their regnal names.
[15] A base of a pillar with an Old Tibetan inscription recording Lha-lung Dpal-gyi-rdo-rje’s name (mentioned in Richardson 1998: 305) is still to be seen at Yer-pa. Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 322) lists Nam-smad Zla-ba-rdo-rje as a disciple of Rma Rin-chen-mchog. The Sna-nam of Bu-ston’s text is probably a mistaken (scribal?) correction of Nam-nang, which is Zla-ba’i-rdo-rje’s usual surname. He was probably part of the rather mysterious nation known in Old Tibetan times as Nam (Richardson 1998: 29), identified by Satō (1975: 8) with the To-mi tribe south of the Kokonoor.
[16] An alternative AS lineage (signalled in Dudjom 1991: I 526; II 44, n. 570) by the 14th century commentator Sa-bzang Ma-ti Paṇ-chen (Sa-bzang 1977: II 520), who probably wrote soon after Bu-ston, reads as follows (its mchan-notes are placed in square brackets here): dzi na mi tras ka cog zhang gsum la'o // de rnams kyis ni [nam nang] zla ba'i rdo rje dang // [lha lung] dpal gyi rdo rje [dpa'] rgyal ba'i ye shes la'o // de nas rgyal [ba'i ye shes] dang [bu] mchog gi ye shes [gsum ka] la'o //. Here, too, there seem to have been two different persons named Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes, although there are further problems with the interpretation of this passage.
[17] Dbas (or Dba’s) was an important ministerial clan of the imperial times. Dbas Rgyal-ba-ye-shes is mentioned in a late (circa 10th century) Dunhuang document composed by 'Bro Dkon-mchog-dpal (see Hackin 1924: 36), which at least informs us that he was at some time located at Bsam-yas Monastery.
[18] It does seem plausible that, if Dbas had to flee to Khams, it would not have been because of any persecution by U’i-dum-btsan, but rather because he belonged to the Dbas clan which was involved in the peasant revolts. See Karmay (1989: 84-5). To follow Dpa’-bo (1986: 431; Richardson 1998: 51), this should have been the second peasant revolt (Dbu-rur ’Bro Sbas ’khrugs pa la), probably during the later decades of the ninth century. The exact dates of the peasant revolts have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. That these large-scale social disruptions are in themselves in considerable part to blame for the grayness of the gray period perhaps does not go without saying. Dudjom (1991: I 526) says that “E Yeshe Gyelwa” went to Khams... It is not certain if he should be identified with the Sbas-rgyal Rgyal-ba’i-ye-shes of Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 323).
[19] Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 393). The Bka’-gdams-pa history by Las-chen (1972: II 215-8) says he was born in Yar-klungs in a Wood Pig year, the same year as Nag-tsho’s birth. He went together with Rngog and Bang-ston to Khams, and studied much Dharma with Jo-bo Se-btsun, while studying Abhidharma with Gar-mi Yon-tan-g.yung-drung. He was made the Elder (Gnas-brtan) of all the Klu-mes (monastic circle). His disciple was Ra Khri-bzang-’bar, and the latter’s disciple was Brang-ti Dar-ma-snying-po who made the teaching of Abhidharma spread widely. Khu-ston died in a Wood Hare, his 65th year. The same source (p. 218) says that Rngog Legs-pa’i-shes-rab also went to Khams to study with Jo-bo Se-btsun. Las-chen’s account of Khu-ston is basically repeated by Yongs-’dzin (1970: I 375-376), who does, however, correct the date of birth to an Iron Pig year.
[20] Mkhas-pa Lde’u (1987: 393) and Lde’u Jo-sras (1987: 156). Note, too, that this monastic lineage for Khu-ston contradicts that supplied in Uebach (1987: 41 [table 5]), where Khu-ston is an ordinand (mkhan-bu) of Klu-mes and Sum-pa. The Six Sog-mo are the subject of a paper by Heather Stoddard given at the 9th seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, but not yet available to me.
[21] Sde-srid (1960: 159-160). Some further details about this image were supplied in Tucci (1999: 563). He says it was given to Gar-mi by Gtsang Rab-gsal, although other sources would seem to say that Gar-mi went to Khotan to get it himself.
[22] Kong-sprul (1985: I 446).
[23] See especially Sørensen (1994: 431), and literature cited there. The most authoritative passage would seem to be Nel-pa (Uebach 1987: 122-123).
[24] Gsang-phu gdan-rabs (Otani ms.; for details, see Martin 1997: 115, 237), fol. 8r.6: ’bre’i bshad srol ni bstan pa snga dar gyi bshad brgyud khams ’phos pa las byung bar grags so. Compare Roerich (1976: 330), which says that his teachings on PP followed the tradition from the Earlier Spread that had been preserved in Khams. Compare also Tarthang Tulku (1977: 159).
[25] Jackson (1988: xxi-xxii) lists the members of three lineages of Abhisamayālaṃkāra teachings received by ‘Bre Chen-po Shes-rab-’bar: 1. the one from ’Bum-phrag-gsum-pa (the Indian by the name, although two later Tibetans were also known as ’Bum-phrag-gsum-pa; see van der Kuijp n.d.) ; 2. the ’Brom tradition (’Brom-lugs); and 3. the Khu tradition (Khu-lugs). None of these lists appear to contain any Tibetan members prior to the Second Spread.