A Fifteenth Century Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od(947-1019/24):

Part One: Its Prolegomenon and Prophecies*

Leonard W.J. van der KuijpHarvard University

[Note: Originally delivered as a conference paper in Vienna,this essay has been in press for several years and is nowalready bit dated. The manuscript of Lha bla ma's biographywas published in Lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi rnam[s] thar rgyas pa, Bodkyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pa [13], ed. Dpalbrtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Xining: Mtshosngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011), 273-356 [fols. 1-41a].In the meantime, two annotated editions have becomeavailable. These are the published edition by Do rgya Dbangdrag rdo rje (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,2013) and the unpublished edition by Khyung bdag, which is amarked improvement of the former, even if it still containssome problems. I hereby should like to thank Khyung bdag forsharing with me the latest iteration of his edition while hewas in Chengdu, in May of 2015.]

PREAMBLE

If anyone, then Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od surely deservesto be singled out as one of the most remarkable figures inthe entire religious and political history of cultural Tibet– I use the phrase "cultural Tibet" to denote the enormousarea where Tibetan cultures, religions, andlanguages/dialects hold sway, stretching from Gilgit-Baltistan to Yunnan and Sichuan Provinces, PRC, and from thenorthern reaches of India, Nepal, and Bhutan to largeswathes of Qinghai and Gansu Provinces, PRC. Lha bla ma was

1

born into that branch of the Tibetan imperial family thathad settled in Mnga' ris upon the empire's implosion anddissolution in the early 840s. The patriline of this branchissued from ‘Od srung[s] (?843-?81), the son of the lastTibetan emperor Khri 'u dum btsan (803-42), alias Glang darma, and his junior queen G.yor mo Tshe spong bza' Yum chenBtsan mo 'phan. The title "Lha bla ma" indicates that he wasa teacher (bla ma, guru) of divine (lha, deva), that is, ofroyal descent. And "Ye shes 'od" was his name in religion.Curiously, what his actual name was before he had taken hisvows is not known with absolute certainty, but it may verywell have been Khri lde srong gtsug btsan, as we are told bylater sources in which late tenth and early eleventh centuryarchival documents apperar to have been used.

The territory that Mnga' ris occupied around his timewas essentially co-extensive with the western region of whatI have called cultural Tibet and should therefore not beconfused with the area that is currently designated as Mnga'ris, that is, the westernmost part of the Tibetan AutonomousRegion [TAR], PRC. For example, at the time, Mnga' riscovered 'Bru zha [Gilgit] and Sbal ti [Baltistan], areasthat are currently part of Pakistan, and northern HimachalPradesh, including Ladakh, and Uttarakhand, both of whichare now part of India. Indeed, present day Mnga' ris isgeographically severely truncated and bears very littleresemblance to what this toponym covered during the tenthand eleventh centuries and somewhat beyond.1 Indian forms of1

* Unless the scribal errors, typographical errors or otherinconsistencies were especially egregious, I have not madeany editorial changes in the orthography of the Tibetantexts that I cite in this essay. The abbreviation LHA refersto the manuscript of Lha bla ma's biography, the Lha bla ma yeshes 'od kyi rnam[s] thar rgyas pa in forty-one folios, which Gu geTshe ring rgyal so kindly shared with me.

? For a truly magisterial survey of the history of thisarea, see L. Petech, "Western Tibet: HistoricalIntroduction," in D. Klimburg-Salter, Tabo. A Lamp for the Kindom.

2

Buddhism and her accompanying institutions that had becomepart of the Tibetan intellectual and physical landscapesince the second half of the eighth century experienced asevere downturn from circa the middle of the ninth centuryand, though by no means entirely absent from cultural Tibet,there is no doubt that by Lha bla ma's time they werelanguishing due to a lack of economic support from the top.No doubt as a result of their decline, there seems to haveprevailed a distinct lack of theoretical orthodoxy andorthopraxy, very broadly defined, in its associated ritualand spiritual practices. Lha bla ma's personal investment ofhis material resources, the natural charisma that was anindelible part of his line of descent and social standing,and his obvious profound commitment to Buddhism enabled himto bring about a revival in the theory and practice ofBuddhism and a return to what may be a semblance of esotericBuddhist orthodoxy in the Tibetan cultural area that hascontinued to this day. The various Chos ‘byung chronicles ofIndo-Tibetan Buddhism that were written over the centuriescontain merely fragmentary information about his life, as doseveral biographies, such as the ones of Lo tsā ba Rin chenbzang po (958-1055) – he is often simply referred to as Lochen, that is, the great translator (lo [tsā ba] chen po) andSanskritist - and Atiśa (982-1054), the famous Bangladeshimaster who stayed in the Tibetan cultural area from 1042until his passing. On occasion, the authors were quitemisinformed. One oddity that surfaces every so often is thatLha bla ma is said to have been so closely associated withAtiśa that he had even sacrificed his life for him.2 Thismisguided opinion is based on having confounded him with hisnephew Lha lde, the father of his great-nephews Pho brang

Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya (New York: Thamesand Hudson, 1998), 229-55.2 This point was recently reiterated in D.B. Gray, "On theVery Idea of a Tantric Canon: Myth, Politics, and theFormation of the Bka' 'gyur," Journal of the International Associationof Tibetan Studies 5 (December 2009), 14, http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5690 (published in December 2010, accessed May 8,2011).

3

Byang chub 'od (984-1078) and Lha btsun Zhi ba 'od (1016-1111), a confusion that, H. Eimer dispelled some time ago.3

To be sure, nothing of the kind is met with in the study ofhis life that, I am virtually certain, Gu ge Paṇ chen Gragspa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) completed in 1480.Henceforth designated as LHA, this newly available work, ofwhich some particulars are detailed below, forms the obviouspoint of departure for the present essay, which in factfocuses on the contents of its opening, introductory threeand a half folios that I have called "the prolegomenon andprophecies."

It may hardly be necessary to point out that recentyears have witnessed a surge in interest in Lha bla mahimself and in Mnga' ris in particular. That said, a fewpreliminary bibliographical remarks might not be altogetherout of place, even if these are admittedly quite incomplete.It is generally the consensus that the publication of R.Vitali's truly astonishing and densely annotated work on thereligious and political history of Mnga' ris,4 with specific3 See his "Die Gar log-Episode bei Padma dkar po und ihreQuellen," Orientalia Suecana XXIII-IV (1974-5), 182-99; seealso Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po, "Lha bla ma ye shes 'od garlog tu 'das min skor la rags tsam dpyad pa," Gu ge'i tshe ringrgyal po'i ched rtsom phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig padpe skrun khang, 2005), 74-92.4 The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Guge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa (Dharamsala: Tho ling gtsuglag khang lo gcig stong 'khor ba'i rjes dran mdzad sgo'i gosgrig tshogs chung, 1996); pp. 174-279 deal with the era ofLha bla ma in particular. An earlier study of Mnga' ris asdefined as part of the TAR, past and present, is Stod mnga' risskor gsum gi lo rgyus 'bel gtam rin chen gter gyi phreng ba, ed. Mnga' rissrid gros rig gnas lo rgyus bsdu rub u yon lhan khang(Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1996). Mnga'ris' monasteries of the TAR are examined in some detail inChos ngag, Stod mnga' ris kyi dgon sde'i lo rgyus dag gsal mthong ba'i melong (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1999). Forthe Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in this region of culturalTibet, see the surveys in R. Khosla, Buddhist Monasteries in the

4

emphasis on the two principalities of Gu ge5 and Pu hrang,effected a quantum leap in our understanding of thepolitical and cultural dynamics of the region, and of thespecifics of Lha bla ma's contributions. Vitali took anincomplete and what thusfar appears to be unique manuscriptof the so-called Mnga' ris rgyal rabs, Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, asthe point of departure for his thick and very rewardingbook. The manuscript has a number of scribal problems thatin some cases, notably with regards to its narrative of thelife and times of Lha bla ma, can be solved with the help ofwhat I take to be his biography by Gu ge Paṇ chen.

The manuscript of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris has nocolophon where the name of the author or the date of itscomposition would otherwise be given. In fact, it comes toan abrupt mid-narrative halt. On what he felt was sufficienttext-internal evidence, Vitali argued that it was written byGu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa in 1497, but I believethat his argument rests on a misreading of the text's briefsection on chronology, which he combines with two otherdata, namely, that the last year mentioned in the manuscriptis the year 1480 in which the ruler of [Nam mkha'i dbang po]Phun tshogs lde (b. 1409) passed away and that Tsong kha paBlo bzang grags pa (1357-1419) counted a Gu ge Mkhan chenNgag dbang grags pa among his principal disciples.6 Let us

Western Himalaya, Bibliotheca Himalayica, Series 3, vol. 13(Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, 1979), O.C. Hāṇdā, BuddhistWestern Himalaya (New Delhi: Indus Pub. Co., 2001), and forspecifically northern India, N. Upādhyāya, The Temples ofHimachal Pradesh. Architectural, Sculptural, Religious and Cultural Significance(New Delhi: Indus Pub. Co., 2008). For recent work by Gu geTshe ring rgyal po, see below, n. 53.5 A fundamental study of the architecture, art, andartifacts found at the site of Gu ge is still Gu ge'i gna' grongrjes shul / 古古古古 Guge gucheng [The Old City of Gu ge] 2 vols., ed. Bodrang skyong ljongs rig gnas dngos rdzas u yon lhan khang(Beijing: Rig gnas dngos rdzas dpe skrun khang / 古古古古古 Wenwuchubanshe, 1990). 6 The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Guge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 89-96. For Gu ge Ngag dbang

5

first consider the latter. The two sources that he cites onTsong kha pa's life or, rather, the life of a Ngag dbanggrags pa from Gu ge in connection with Tsong kha pa, are Paṇchen Bsod nams grags pa's (1478-1554) chronicle of the Bka'gdams pa school of 1538 and Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgyamtsho's (1653-1705) 1698 history of the Dge lugs pa school7

- they respectively refer to him Gu ge or Chos rje Ngagdbang grags pa, and thus omit the epithet mkhan chen, "greatscholar." It is true that the Royal Succession of Mnga' rismentions the presence of a "lord of scholars" (mkhas pa'idbang po) Ngag dbang grags pa at Phun tshogs lde'scoronation and it is he whom Vitali takes as its author. Butit is rather odd that, at this juncture, the text makes no

grags pa, see also the note in the large 1845 biography ofTsong kha pa by Blo bzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal, alias 'BrugRgyal dbang chos rje, in 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chenpo'i rnam thar, ed. Grags pa rgya mtsho et al. (Xining: Mtshosngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981), 604; this biographywas eloquently described and analyzed in K.R. Schaeffer,"Tibetan Biography: Growth and Criticism," Edition, éditions:l'écrit au Tibet, evolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet et al.,Collectanea Himalayica 3 (Munich: Indus Verlag, 2010), 276-82, 292-4. There also exists a Chinese translation by 古 古古Guo Heqing, for which see 古古古古古古古传 Zhizun zonggaba dashi zhuan(Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1988), where the brief,alluded to passage is found on p. 484.7 See, respectively, Bka' gdams gsar rnying gi chos 'byung yid kyi mdzesrgyan, Two Histories of the Bka' gdams pa Tradition (Gangtok, 1977),58, 195-6, and Dga' ldan chos 'byung baiḍūrya ser po, ed. Rdo rjergyal po (Xining: Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang,1989), 72, 272-3. The planned sequel to this paper willinclude an examination of the chapter on the activities ofGu ge Ngag dbang grags pa and others that is contained inthe quite recently published chronicle of Zhang zhung Dpal'byor bzang po (?15thc.) titled Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i yid 'phrog,for which see Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Nyi,ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang(Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 2011), 256-84.

6

self-reflexive indication that he was in fact the author –one would expect something like bdag ngag dbang grags pa, "I,Ngag dbang grags pa" - and that, if he were its author, hewould not refer to himself as a mkhas pa'i dbang po! Of coursea later editor or a disciple may have added the epithet, butthe problem of the absence of the reflexive pronoun remains.A further minor point: Vitali dates the coronation of Phuntshogs lde to 1424. But the author of the Royal Succession ofMnga' ris uses a finite construction in his narrative when herelates that this ruler of Gu ge married the daughter of theking of Mar yul [= Ladakh] when he was sixteen [= fifteen],that is, in 1424. However, there is no guarantee that thesame age also applies to his coronation, which is mentionedimmediately following this notice of his wedding in asentence that is not dated. And Vitali does not mention anyother source that would further corroborate his assertion.Finally, Vitali is of course well aware that there is aprobable chronological conflict with Ngag dbang grags pabeing already a senior scholar in 1424, and that this wasthe same Ngag dbang grags pa who went on to write the RoyalSuccession of Mnga' ris seventy-three years later, in 1497! Buthe seems more than willing to brush this pesky detail asideas if it were a mosquito.

But mosquitos sting and their itch lasts for some time.In his review of Vitali's book, the regretted L. Petechrightly called the identification of its author and theproposed date of composition into question on grounds thatthis section on chronology that Vitali used for hisconclusions on these matters – this section falls into threedistinct parts - only serves to determine the year in whichLha btsun Zhi ba 'od, Byang chub 'od's much younger brotherand thus another one of Lha bla ma's great-nephews, passedaway.8 The last sentence with the implicit copula embedded8 "A Regional Chronicle of Gu ge pu hrang," The Tibet JournalXXII (1997), 107-8, ad Mnga' ris rgyal rabs in R. Vitali, TheKingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga’ ris rgyal rabs by Gu geMkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 67-8, and Vitali'sinterpretation. In this connection, we should also signalthe recently published anonymous Mnga' ris phyogs kyi chos 'byung,

7

in the final particle so, which seemingly concludes thissection and which is the one and only passage in themanuscript that mentions a Ngag dbang grags pa from Gu ge,is rather cryptic, to say the least, for it reads:

lo stong bdun brgya lnga bcu nga drug gu ge bstan chos pa ngagdbang grags pa'i lugs so //

And Petech translates this as:

Year 1756; this is the system of the Gu gecommentator Ngag dbang grags pa.

The Tibetan text has no equivalent for ";" or for "this."Pointing out the equivalence of bstan chos and bstan bcos on thebasis of a relevant dictionary entry – chos and bcos are ofcourse closely related -, Petech is at the same time willingto grant that bstan chos "might be equivalent to bstan rtsis,"and I believe this suggestion, even if he does not pursueit, is not altogether unreasonable. The words rtsis and chosare certainly not always easily kept apart in some cursiveTibetan dbu med scripts and this inherent ambiguity isexacerbated by the fact that, let us call a spade a spade,the scribal niveau of the original manuscript of the RoyalSuccession of Mnga' ris is rather low and often leaves a greatdeal to be desired, as Vitali himself has stated -unfortunately, Vitali's book does not contain a facsimilereproduction of the manuscript, so that we are whollydependent on his understanding of its readings and itsteeming scribal errors. Indeed, the expression bstan chos/bcospa is of quite rare vintage and in a section on chronologythe more obvious choice would no doubt be to read here gu gebstan rtsis pa, "Chronicler of the Teaching from Gu ge," whichthen stands in an appositional relationship to the name Ngagdbang grags pa.

Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Chi, ed. Dpal brtsegsbod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpeskrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011),455-88.

8

Several authors have had something to say about thebstan bcos – bstan chos [or: 'chos] alternative. But as usual,the extant manuscripts of their writings are far fromconsistent and in places even internally contradictory, thusmaking it rather difficult to come to a conclusion as towhat they may have intended. Dar ma rgyal mtshan (1227-1305), alias Bcom ldan rig[s pa'i] ral gri, is thusfar thefirst known Tibetan intellectual roughly to have divided thedevelopment of the orthography/orthotactics and the lexiconof written "church" Tibetan (chos skad) into three separate"official [imperial] decisions" (bkas bcad)9 – the firstextends from the era of the legendary Thon mi Saṃbhota(7thc.), and the alleged translations that were made by himto the era of the Mighty One (btsan po) Emperor Khri sronglde btsan (ca.742-ca.800), the second refers to the era ofbtsan po Khri gtsug lde btsan (ca. 806-38), alias Ral pa can,and the third to the period of time that extends from Lhabla ma and Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po up to that of his ownteacher Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal (1197-1264). And hestates that during the period of the third bkas bcad, bstanbcos was written bstan chos/'chos (bstan bcos la bstan chos/'chos). Ofsome interest is of course that this passage recurs, albeitin a slightly but yet significantly altered form, in theintroductory matter of the 1536 compilation of archaisms(brda rnying) and their equivalent updates (brda gsar) that isattributed to Skyogs ston Lo tsā ba Rin chen bkra shis(ca.1480-ca.1540). One of the differences is that the nameof Skyogs ston Lo tsā ba's teacher Zhwa lu Lo tsā ba Chosskyong bzang po (1444-1528), alias Dharmapālabhadra,10 is9 See his Sgra yi bstan bcos smra ba rgyan gyi me tog ngag gi dbang phyuggrub pa, dbu med manuscript, 29 folios, 6b [= Ibid., dbu medmanuscript, 24 folios, 5a]. For these "decisions," see nowthe detailed discussions in C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "EnactingWords: A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial Decrees (bkasbcad) and their Application in the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis paTradition," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25(2002), 281 ff. 10 For him, see K.R. Schaeffer, The Culture of the Book in Tibet (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 2009), 44-53.

9

substituted for that of Chag Lo tsā ba. A recent edition ofSkyogs ston Lo tsā ba's work and an earlier critical editionof the same that was prepared by A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kundga' bsod nams (1597-1659), the great Sa skya pa scholar andtwenty-sixth abbot of Sa skya, have the same bstan bcos la bstanchos/'chos.11 But let us now return to the phrase underdiscussion:

lo stong bdun brgya lnga bcu nga drug gu ge bstan chos pa ngagdbang grags pa'i lugs so //

Vitali rendered it as if it were a sentence without thebenefit of the copula-ending:

175696 years [after the Buddha's nirvana] Imyself, Gu.ge bstan.chos.pa ("the Gu.ge author")Ngag.dbang grags.pa, wrote this [work].

96 sic for 3756.

Why he chose, in his translation, to bracket only certainand not all words that did not have a Tibetan counterpart isnot entirely obvious to me. Indeed, greater consistency inthis regard should have given us the following:

175696 years [after the Buddha's nirvana Imyself], Gu.ge bstan.chos.pa ("the Gu.ge author")Ngag.dbang grags.pa, [wrote this work].

96 sic for 3756.

11 See, respectively, Brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag li shi'i gur khang,ed. Mgon po rgyal mtshan (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,1981), 2, and Gsar rnying gi brda'i rnam dbye legs par bshad pa gsung rabkun la lta ba'i sgron me, Collected Works, vol. 26 (Kathmandu: Saskya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2000), 257-8 [=Dpal ldan sa skya pa'i gsung rab, Bod gnyis pa. Sum rtags dang dag yig, ed.G.yag 'Jam (Beijing/Xining: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang/Mtshosngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), 415].

10

Vitali reacted to Petech's criticisms with a detailed andspirited rejoinder.12 In his defense, he argued that lugs isused here as a verb, "wrote." It is quite difficult to arguefor this and I would contend that, if this use is attestedelsewhere and I cannot think of any example for this, thenit would be a rather precious use of the expression. Infact, he is without doubt very well aware that it is by farmore commonly used as a noun meaning "way, position, system,etc." Furthermore, whatever the various meanings that aregiven for the two verbs that appear to have the stem lugs incommon, they do not mean "wrote" or anything like it.13 Whatis more, I fully share Petech's opinion that this phraseoccurs after the three passages that make up thischronological calculation, each of which ends in song, "haveelapsed." As a matter of fact, I am under the impressionthat this sentence was originally an editorial gloss tothese three calculations. And, indeed, I must confess that Iremain entirely unconvinced by the counterarguments ofVitali's rejoinder.

Vitali is furthermore of the firm opinion that his Ngagdbang grags pa was a disciple of Tsong kha pa. Thisassertion is somewhat fraught with difficulties andambiguities, for the latter's earliest availablebiographies, namely, Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po's(1385-1438) monograph study and the one embedded in Las chenKun dga' rgyal mtshan's 1496 chronicle of the Bka' gdams paschool do not mention a Ngag dbang grags pa from Gu ge at12 See, respectively, R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrangAccording to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang gragspa, 120, and The Tibet Journal XXII (1997), 135-40.13 See N.W. Hill, A Lexicon of Tibetan Verb Stems as Reported by theGrammatical Tradition, Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zurtibetischen Lexicographie, Band V (München: Kommission fürZentral- und Ostasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie derWissenschaften, 2010), 280. No verb form with lugs as oneits stems is listed in Mkhar stod Rdo rje dbang phyug [DorjeWangchuk Kharto], Thumi: Dgongs gter (The Complete Tibetan VerbForms) / Dus gsum re'u mig thu mi'i dgongs gter (Delhi: C.T.Kh[a]rto, nd).

11

all among their notices of Tsong kha pa's disciples! Thisought to be a slight cause for concern. To be sure, Vitaliwas quite aware that some later sources do attest to aconfusion between him and Zhang zhung pa Chos dbang grags pa(1404-69) – the Zhang zhung pa prefix marks the latter asbeing of West Tibetan origin and Zhang zhung14 is indeedsometimes used as the equivalent of Gu ge - and he cites inthis connection a passage from excerpts of Zang zang Nerings pa 'Chi med rgyal mtshan's (?-?) biography of Tsongkha pa. Similar, albeit somewhat truncated passages are alsofound in the large-scale studies of Tsong kha pa's life byCha har Dge bshes Blo bzang tshul khrims (1740-1810) and Blobzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal.15 A Gu ge Sangs rgyas rgyalmtshan (15thc.) is the only person with whom I am familiarwho not only hailed from Gu ge but was also involved inchronological calculations, in addition to being a discipleof both Tsong kha pa and Zhang zhung pa. He was apparentlyan expert in Kālacakra-derived computational astronomy andcalendar making. Dga' ldan khri pa XIV Rin chen 'od zer(1453-1540) has a brief note on him in his work on Buddhistchronology, which he wrote in the year 'dzin byed (dhātṛ)[1516].16 On the other hand, the Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pawho is mentioned in connection with Tsong kha pa in thewritings of Paṇ chen Bsod nams grags pa and the Sde srid wasapparently the first abbot of the new (gsar ma) Mtho glingmonastery in Gu ge – the name of this institution is14 For Zhang zhung, see now J.V. Bellezza's very large Zhangzhung. Foundations of Civilization in Tibet. A Historical and EthnoarchaeologicalStudy of the Monuments, Rock Art, Texts and Oral Tradition of the AncientTibetan Upland (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 2008). 15 See, respectively, R. Kaschewsky, Das Leben des lamaistischenHeiligen Tsongkhapa Blo-Bzaṅ-Grags-Pa (1357-1419), dargestellt und erläutertanhand seiner Vita: Quellort allen Glückes, Teil 1, AsiatischeForschungen, Bd. 32 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971),209, 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po'i rnam thar, ed.Grags pa rgya mtsho et al., 615-6.16 Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i sgron me, dbu med manuscript, 145 fols.,15b-6a.

12

variously spelled in the literature: Tho ling, Mtho lding,etc. In what amounted to an equally comprehensive but morefocused sequel, Vitali dealt in exquisite fashion with thisimportant monastery, which Lha bla ma had founded in 996.17

The Sde srid also notes that he was active in at least oneother monastery of the region. This was Ma nang Byang chubgling that was also founded by Lha bla ma. But let mereiterate at this juncture something that, I think, bearsrepetition, namely, that informed as Vitali's work is by aformidable array of primary sources, the author has treatedus in his work on a veritable tour the force around Gu geand Pu hrang, and the fascinating history of these areas.His large study has indeed answered many outstandingquestions while, at the same time, and as is only to beexpected from a work of this high caliber, it has raisedmany new ones as well. It is indeed an indispensibleresource for anyone working in this area and thus deservesour full attention and respect.

Though the discovery of Lha bla ma's biography has avery short history, certain passages it from have alreadybeen singled out or studied, albeit in a preliminaryfashion, in recent publications. For example, Ra se Dkonmchog rgyal mtshan reproduced some seven fragments, Ka [1]to Cha [7], of what he calls official documents (bka' gtsigs)17 Records of Tho.ling. A Literary and Visual reconstruction of the "Mother"Monastery in Gu.ge (Daramshala: High Asia, 1999). For hisremarks on the Gu ge Ngag dbang grags pa who was itsfifteenth century abbot, see pp. 37-8. For some iconographicdetails, see also A. Heller, "Preliminary Remarks on theDonor Inscriptions and Iconography of an 11th-Century Mchodrten at Tholing," 43-74, and the literature cited therein.Of course, it is on occasion explicitly stated that Tho lingis located in an area that belongs to Zhang zhung. A shortmanuscript on its abbatial succession titled Mtho gling mkhanbrgyud by Blo bzang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal (?-?) waspublished in Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pi, ed.Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Sikhron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 2011), 107-14.

13

which, he writes, he had apparently located these among theold documents in a library of 'Bras spungs monastery thatDalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-82) hadconsolidated.18 Be this as it may, the documents reproducedin Ra se's paper correspond exactly to passages that weencounter in Lha bla ma's biography, and this can betabulated as follows:

1. Fragment Ka [pp. 117-20] is LHA, 24a-30a.2. Fragment Kha [pp. 120-23] is LHA, 30b-35a.3. Fragment Ga [pp. 123-] is LHA, 35a-b.4. Fragment Nga [pp. 124-5] is LHA, 12a-14b.5. Fragment Ca [p. 125] is LHA, 14b.6. Fragment Cha [p. 125] is LHA, 8a-b.7. Fragment Ja [p. 125] is LHA, 9a.

It is quite doubtful that these existed independent of thebiography and I suspect that Ra se lifted these fragmentsfrom the biography. Finally, 古 古 Huang Bo devoted quiterecently a long essay on Lha bla ma in which he made ampleuse of the manuscript [and the translation] of the RoyalSuccession of Mnga' ris that Vitali published in his book.19

Furthermore, as far as recent examinations of thearcheology, art, and architecture of Western cultural Tibetare concerned, we are all much indebted to the incisivelabors of A. Heller, 古 古 Huo Wei, D. Klimburg-Salter, andL.S. Thakur, to name but a few.20 Mention should also be18 See "Btsan po khri lde srong gtsug btsan gyi bka' gtsigskyi yi ge thor bu," Bod ljongs zhib 'jug 2 (2004), 117-25.19 See "古古古古古古： 古古古古古古古古古 古古古一 La lama yu guowang: zaochao gugewangguo zhengjiao he yizhi chutan [Lha bla ma and the King:An Initial Discussion of the Union of Politics and Religionin the Early Gu ge Kingdom],"古古古古 Zhongguo zangxue 4 (2010),5-17. Huang Bo did not overtly use the fragments that wereisolated by Ra se Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan.20 For the first two, see, respectively, Hidden Treasures of theHimalayas. Tibetan Manuscripts, Paintings and Sculptures of Dolpo (Chicago:Serindia Publications, 2009), and 古古 古西西 古 古 古 古 Xizang xibu fojiaowenming [Buddhist Culture of Western Tibet] (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin

14

made of two significant conference volumes that arededicated to this area's culture, history, and religion, oneedited by D. Klimburg-Salter, K. Tropper and C. Yahoda, andthe other by A. Heller and G. Orofino.21 Beginning withMnga' bdag 'Od zer lde (995-1037), [or: 'Od lde], the son ofKhri bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal and thus Lha bla ma's secondcousin, one branch of the family was in steady control ofthe Many yul Gung thang area, which is located on the fareastern side of Mnga' ris. K.-H. Everding translated andmade a detailed study of Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin Tshe dbang norbu's (1698-1755) tract on the vicissitudes of the House ofGung thang, which the historian from Khams completed in 1749while he resided in the palace of the King of Smon thang[Nep. Mustang].22

chubanshe, 2000) and [with 古古古 Li Yongxian] 古古 古西西古古古古 Xizang xibufojiao yishu [Buddhist Art in Western Tibet] (Chengdu: Sichuan renminchubanshe, 2001). For Klimburg-Salter, see her Tabo. A Lamp forthe Kindom. Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya andalso the collection of articles, and the literature citedtherein, in 古古 古古古古古古西西 .古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古古 / The Cultural History ofWestern Tibet. Recent Research from the China Tibetology Research Center andthe University of Vienna, ed. D. Klimburg-Salter, 古 古 古 LiangJunyan, H. Tauscher and 古 古 Zhou Yuan, Wiener Studien zurTibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 71 (Beijing/Wien:China Tibetology Research Center / Arbeitskreis fürTibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien,2008), and for Thakur, see his Buddhism in the Western Himalaya. AStudy of the Tabo Monastery (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,2001).21 See, respectively, Text, Image, and Song in TransdisciplinaryDialogue, Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the InternationalAssociation for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) andDiscoveries in Western Tibet and the Western Himalayas. Essays on History,Literature, Archeology and Art, Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the TenthSeminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003(Leiden: Brill, 2007). 22 Das Königreich Mang yul Gung thang. Königtum und Herrschaftsgewalt imTibet des 13.-17. Jahrhunderts, Teil1/2, Monumenta TibeticaHistorica, Abteilung I - Band 6(1-2) (Bonn: VGH

15

1. UNCERTAINTIES WITH LHA BLA MA'S PATRILINE

All our sources agree that the families that ultimatelycontrolled Mnga' ris issued from Khri gnam lde 'Od srung [orsimply 'Od srung(s)]. However, they differ considerably whenthey discuss the patrilines that begin with his great-grandsons and, as a consequence, there is a great deal ofhistorical uncertainty. One of the earliest authorities inwhich this genealogy is traced is Slob dpon Bsod nams rtsemo's (1142-82) circa 1167 chronicle of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism,the Chos la 'jug pa'i sgo, Introduction to the Dharma, where thissecond patriarch of the Sa skya pa school proffered thefollowing patrilines ["x" means "married {to}"]23:

Khri Nam lde 'Od srung x ?

Khri Dpal 'khor btsan x ?

Khri Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal x ?

Dpal lde'Od lde Skyid lde

Khri Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ?

Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000). Rig 'dzin's work wasrecently edited and re-published in Kaḥ thog rig 'dzin tshe dbangnor bu'i bka' 'bum, Smad cha [vol. 3], ed. Padma dbang chen rdorje et al. (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,2006), 61-94. 23 For what follows, see Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print],vol. 2, comp. Bsod nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,1968), no. 17, 343/4-4/2 [Nga, 313b-4b] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag,vol. 8, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang(Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 488-90}.

16

Lde gtsug mgonBkra shis mgonDpal gyi mgon

[Bkra shis mgon x ?]

Khri Dpal srong nge x ?[or: Lde khri Srong nge,Lde srong btsan]

Khri Dpal 'khor sde [?read: lde] x ?

Lha lde x ?

Btsun pa Byang chub 'od

Tse [?read: Rtse] lde

What is perhaps the most important item for this paper isthat, according to the Slob dpon, Srong nge was the oldestof Bkra shis mgon's two sons and that it was he who receivedhis monk's vows and was given the name in religion of Yeshes 'od after he had renounced (rab tu byung) the worldlylife.24 To be noted is furthermore that while the Slob dponmentions King 'Od sde [read: lde] as governing the patrimonyduring the later years of the Lo chen, he does not provideany details regarding his parentage. However, he does writethat he was succeeded by [his son] King Tse [read: Rtse]lde.

The chronicle of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (chos 'byung) thatis attributed to the the Rnying ma pa seer Nyang ral Nyi ma'od zer (1124-92) contains several additional items that areabsent from the Slob dpon’s outline: [a] the patrimony ofthe offspring of Khri 'Khor dpal btsan's grandchildren and24 See also Nor brang O rgyan, Bod sil bu'i byung ba brjod pa shel dkarphreng ba (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,1991), 231 ff., 246 ff., which is a systematic, albeitsomewhat incomplete discussion of Bkra shis mgon and hisdescendants.

17

where their descendants settled down, [b] the names of Khriskyid lde Nyi ma mgon's two wives, [c] the different orderin the birth of his three sons and where their descendantssettled, and [d] the patrilines that issued from Bkra shismgon25:

a. Three sons of Khri Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal and theirdscendants ([b]rgyud pa) [and patrimony]:

Dpal lde - Gung thang pa, Klu rgyal pa, Spyi pa,Lha rtse pa, Glang lung pa,Rtsad skor pa

'Od lde - Grom pa ba, Srad pa, Lha chen dpalof Nyang stod

Skyid lde - Mus pa, 'Dzad pa, also some in Nyangstod

b. The two wives of Khri skyid lde Nyi ma mgon that weregiven to him by his two in-law ministers (zhang blon):

1. Pa tshab bza' – they had no offspring2. Cog ro bza' Zangs kha ma – they had three sons:

c. The three sons and where their descendants settleddown:

1. Dpal gyi mgon - Yar lung, Spu rang 2. Bkra shis mgon - Outer (phyi) and Inner

(nang) Zhang zhung, Spu25 For what follows, see Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'ibcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, Gangs can rigsmdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988),456-66, 498 [= Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alterTradition, ed. R.O. Meisezahl (Sankt Augustin: VGHWissenschaftsverlag, 1985), Tafel 329c-33bc, 362b; Manuscript"B" (Paro, 1979), 539-51, 590]. My impression of the longernarrative is that it is a patchwork of passages from varioussources, which, if true, would explain the amount of overlapthat we find here and the absence of a sustained narrative.

18

rang, Ya rtse, and many in Mon yul

3. Lde gtsug mgon - Khum bu pa, Ding ri ba,some alleg- edly inMon yul

d. Bkra shis mgon x ?

Kho re x ?

De ba ra dzaNa ga ra dza

Srong nge x

Bkra shis ldeLha lde x ?

Lha Byang chub 'odZhi ba 'od Lha zhal / 'Od lde

Contrary to the Slob dpon, his senior contemporary Nyang ralappears to suggest that it was Kho re who had become a monkand that it was therefore he who was Lha bla ma! Finally,towards the very end of what is allegedly his work, we comeacross a more truncated genealogy, one where Bkra shis mgonis now styled Bkra shis brtsegs pa mgon, and where Rtse ldeis mentioned among the patrilines, albeit without anindication of his parentage.

The third Sa skya pa patriarch Rje btsun Grags pa rgyalmtshan (1147-1216) and the Slob dpon’s younger brother wrotea short Rgyal rabs, Royal Succession, around the year 1200. Heincluded in this piece the patriline that issued from Bkrashis brtsegs pa btsan – not "Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal" ofthe Slob dpon and perhaps Nyang ral - and his remarks aboutthe whereabouts of its descendants are identical to those inwhat allegedly is Nyang ral's work. He admits that much of

19

what he had written was from "hearsay" (thos pa).26 However,interestingly, he omits in its entirety the patriline thathad its beginning with Khri skyid lde Nyi ma mgon. Indeed,it is likely that this had everything to do with what hewrote after his remark on "hearsay," namely, that he "hadseen on many occasions corrupt writings on royal successionsas well" (rgyal rabs ma dag pa yang mang du mthong /). Evidently,there was not much that he could do with the conflictingreports. This could indicate that something had taken placein the area that may have resulted in a loss of archivalmaterial from which these twelfth century historians andtheir successors would have otherwise been able to drawtheir information. Might this lacuna have been theconsequence of the various Qarluq raids that the regionwitnessed during the eleventh century?

Things get exponentially more complicated when weexamine the relevant passages in the late twelfth centuryand mid-thirteenth century chronicles of Indo-TibetanBuddhism by, respectively, the Rnying ma pa historians Lde'uJo sras and Mkhas pa Lde'u. Both have quite detailednarratives of the patrilines that originated with Khri Nyima mgon and thus provide much information that we do notfind in other sources, which would suggest that they hadaccess to more detailed documents. Unfortunately, thesedocuments also contain a number of problematic passages, asNor brang O rgyan and Vitali have pointed out, and depart inimportant ways from the foregoing. All this lends strengthto Rje btsun's assertion that the relevant sources aregenerally corrupt. Lde'u Jo sras sets the scene at the veryoutset. Describing the precipitous decline of Buddhistinstitutions during the very short-lived reign of Glang darma and that in some source "it was said: the fire of the

26 Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 4, comp. Bsod namsrgya mtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), no. 128, 296/3[Ta, 199b] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 14, ed. Dpal brtsegs bodyig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rigpa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 147-8}.

20

dharma was hidden away in some patrilines" (chos kyi me ni gdungrabs 'ga' ru sbas skad /), his text first writes27:

de nas dar ma'i sras 'od srungs / de'i sras dpal dgon / de'i sras nyima dgon / bkra shis mgon / 'od kyi rgyal mtshan / de'i sras lha blama'i bar du gdungs rabs drug tu chos snubs skad /

It is said: From that time on, for six generations(gdungs rabs), Glang dar ma's son 'Od srungs – hisson Dpal mgon – his son Nyi ma dgon [read: mgon] –[his son] Bkra shis mgon – [his son] 'Od kyi rgyalmtshan – up to his son Lha bla ma, the dharma hadgone under.

And we pick up the thread when the text gives the genealogythat issued from Mnga' bdag Dpal 'khor:

Khri Skyid sde [lde] Nyi ma mgon x Zangs dkar bza'[went to Pu rangs] x Stag gzigs bza'

Dpal gyi mgon [was given Mang yul] x ?

Dpa' tshab 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan[?also called Kho re]

Bkra shis mgon [was given Pu rangs] x?

Sde [Lde] gtsug mgon [was given Gu ge]

The text states immediately following the mention of 'Od kyirgyal mtshan [ste]28:

27 Lde'u chos 'byung, ed. Chos 'joms (Lhasa: Bod ljongs midmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 141, 146-7. 28 This contrasts with the passage that is cited below in n.29. For the confusion caused by this, see R. Vitali, TheKingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu geMkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 172-6. My renditions are very,very tentative.

21

gcen kho re zer ro // de la sras gsum chen po bla ma lde ste / lhabla ma ye shes 'od gong ma gnyis grongs nas rjes la btsas / gongma de ba ra tsa dang na ga ra tsa ste rab tu byung yang zer /

The elder brother was called Kho re; the eldest ofthe three sons, Bla ma Lde, ?that is (ste), Lhabla ma Ye shes 'od was born after the first twohad died. Supreme One[s] De ba ra dza [*Devarāja]and Na ga ra dza [*Nāgarāja]?; it is said thatthey also renounced the world.

The questions marks simply indicate that I am not quite surehow to interpret these sentences, not to mention the use ofthe epithet gong ma, "supreme one." After a briefdescription of Lha bla ma's activities, Lde'u Jo srascontinues:

gcung po srong nge'i [?read: nge ni] bkra shis lde btsan zhes pa...

The younger brother Srong nge was called Bkra shis ldebtsan...

'Od kyi rgyal mtshan's younger brother Srong nge was alsocalled Bkra shis lha lde btsan and he had two sons:

'Od lde Byang chub 'od

The text of Mkhas pa Lde'u's chronicle basically followssuit29:

Dpal mgon x ?29 Mkhas pa lde'us mdzad pa'i rgya bod kyi chos byung rgyas pa, ed. Bodrang skyong ljongs spyi tshogs tshan rig khang, Gangs canrig mdzod 3 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,1987), 381: che shos dpal gyi mgon gyi sras la spa tshab 'od kyi rgyalmtshan te / de dang bkra shis lha lde btsan gnyis te / gcen kho re yang zer ro /de la sras gsum lha bla ma lde ste / lha bla ma ye shes 'od do / de'i 'og ma de bara dza dang / na ga ra dza'o / de gnyis rab tu byung /.

22

Spa tshab 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan x ?[Kho re]

Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od*Devarāja*Nāgarāja

Bkra shis lha lde btsan x ?

'Od ldeByang chub 'od

What is quite remakable is that of these five early sourcesonly the chronicle that is attributed to Nyang ral mentionsZhi ba 'od as the younger brother of 'Od lde and Byang chub'od!

The name Dpa' tshab' Od kyi rgyal mtshan - recall thatDpa' tshab, Spa tshab, and Pa tshab are variants of the nameof the clan of at least one of the in-law families - and theidea that he was Lha bla ma's father, as appears to bestated in the chronicles of Lde'u Jo sras and Mkhas paLde'u, reappears in the Sa skya pa hierarch Bla ma dam paBsod nams rgyal mtshan's (1312-75) 1344 history of the Path-and-Result (lam 'bras) precepts.30 The very passage in which30 Bla ma brgyud pa'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, Sa skya lam'bras Literature Series, vol. 16 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983),11. The Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long chronicle is usually, but Ibelieve, erroneously attributed to Bla ma dam pa. Altogetherabsent from this work is 'Od kyi rgyal mtshan and it alsovirtually uniquely has it that Lha bla ma was the son of Ldebtsug [= gtsug] mgon, Bkra shis mgon's younger brother!; seeP.K Sørensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historiography. The Mirror Illuminating theRoyal Genealogies. An Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century TibetanChronicle: Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, Asiatische Forschungen, Band128 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994), 453. For adiscussion of the problem of attributing the Rgyal rabs gsal ba'ime long to him, see my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan CulturalHistory III: The Oeuvre of Bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyalmtshan (1312-1375), Part Two*," which is forthcoming in The

23

this occurs is also cited in the manuscript of the Sa skyapa scholar Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho's (1523-94)treatise on Buddhist chronology (bstan rtsis) of 1587 when hedeals with the revitalization of Buddhism in Tibet in theaftermath of the persecution of the early 840s and thebeginnings of the "later propagation of the faith" (phyidar), and roles played by memebers of Mnga' ris' royalfamilies.31 However, this is not Mang thos' position on thematter. The patriline he sketches can be tabulated asfollows:

Dpal 'khor btsan x ?

Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal x ?

Dpal lde'Od ldeSkyid lde

Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ?

Lde gtsug mgonBkra shis mgon x ?

Khri lde Srong nge[Lha bla ma]

Khri Dpal 'khor lde

Dpal gyi mgon

His view is therefore that Bkra shis mgon was the father ofKhri lde Srong nge and Khri Dpal 'khor lde, and that it wasthe latter who was ordained as Lha bla ma.

Tibet Journal.31 Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar, ed. Nor brang Orgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 4 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang, 1987), 71-2.

24

According to the biographies of Atiśa, Pho brang Byangchub 'od charged Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul khrims rgyal ba(1011/2-ca.1070) in 1037 with the task to travel to theIndian subcontinent and invite and escort the master to Guge. Nag tsho Lo tsā ba left behind a series of notes onwhich basis much later Bya 'Dul dzin pa Zul phu ba Brtson'grus 'bar (1091-1166) compiled his Rnam thar rgyas pabiography of the master.32 The text of a later, somewhatedited version of the original compilation gives thefollowing patriline33:

Bkra shis mgon x [Pu hrang]

Mnga' bdag Kho re x ?

*Nāgarāja*Devarāja

Srong nge x ?

Lha lde x ?

Lha Pho brang Zhi ba 'odLha btsun pa Byang chub 'od'Od lde x ?

Dpal gyi mgon[Zhang zhung]

32 In this connection, the notes in Nag tsho Lo tsā ba's Jobo'i rnam thar kha skong zur du gleng ba thor bu pa should be of somesignificance; see Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Ca,ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang(Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 2010), 533-62.33 See H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zu einer Biographie desAtiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrī-jñāna), 1. Teil, Asiatische Forschungen, Bd.67 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), 215-6, and 2. Teil,142-5.

25

Lde gtsug mgon [Mang yul]

Though closely related to the original text of Zul phuba, the extant blockprint and manuscript witnesses of MchimsNam mkha' grags' (1210-85) Rnam thar yongs su grags pa biographyof Atiśa are more sparing in the relevant details.34 ButMchims has something different to say in another work ofhis. A tantric text that Śāntarakṣita (8thc.) apparentlyintroduced in the court of Khri srong lde btsan focused on acomplex of rituals and liturgies in which the Buddha ashealer, as Bhaiṣajyaguru, played a central and, indeed, afundamental role.35 The idea and driving force behind thisritual complex is that, when carried out, a substantialmeasure of karmic merit is created to the extent that itensures the stability of the reign/nation, the longevity ofthe emperor and members of his family, etc. It is perhapsimportant to recall that Śāntarakṣita himself is said tohave been a prince of the House of Za hor, which mostprobably was an area that is now in part occupied bysprawling Dacca, the capital of Bangladesh.36 Among Mchims’34 See, respectively, H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zueiner Biographie des Atiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna), 1. Teil, 215, and 2.Teil, 142-5, the blockprint of the Jo bo rin po che rje dpal ldan a tisha'i rnam thar rgyas pa yongs grags in Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogsbsgrigs, vol. 48, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khronmi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 47a-8a [354-5], as well asthe text in Jo bo rje dpal ldan a ti sha'i rnam thar bka' gdams pha chos,ed. Mkha' 'gro tshe ring (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpeskrun khang, 1994), 112-3.35 See R. Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (Boulder: Shambhala,1979) and now also Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Medicine BuddhaTeachings, ed. Lama Tashi Namgyal (Ithaca: Snow LionPublications, 2004), for translations of some of therelevant texts.36 For this royal house, see my "On the Edge of Myth andHistory: Za hor, its Place in the History of Early IndianBuddhist Tantra, and the Genealogy of its Royal Family in

26

recently published writings, there is a little work on thisritual complex where, in fact, he credits its enactment at'Od srungs' court with the successes of his rule. In thehistorical prolegomenon that precedes the description of theactual rituals, Mchims gives in places more details aboutthe families of Mnga' ris than he did in his biography ofAtiśa, and the manuscript of his work also contains a seriesof additional notes by an anonymous reader.37 What we learnthere can be tabulated as follows:

Dpal 'khor btsan x Mchims za Mu en 'od

Lha Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal

x Sna nam za Mtsho btsun

Lha Skyid lding [read: lde] Nyi ma mgon38

x

Bkra shis lde39 x ?

Kho re x ?

Tibet," Studies on Buddhist Myths: Texts, Pictures, Traditions, and History,ed. 古 古 古 Chen Jinhua, 古 古 Chen Ming, and 古 古 古 Wang Bangwei(Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju, 2013), 114-164.37 De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, Bka' gdamsgsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 47, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpernying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogspa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 368-70.38 He counted Gilgit, Sbal ti, and Gu ge, etc. as his domainand is said to have used the rituals anent the Gtsug tor drimed kyi gzungs [Vimaloṣnīṣadhāraṇī] at his court; for this work,see The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK],ed. A.W. Barber (Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991), vol.18, no. 596 [#599], 245/7-8/5 [Pha, 250a-9b]. 39 A gloss states that in some sources give a different theorder of Nyi ma mgon's three sons with Dpal gyi lde beingthe eldest rather than Bkra shis lde.

27

*Nāgarāja*Devarāja

Srong nge

Dpal gyi ldeLde gtsug lde

Thus, these rituals that continued to be enacted after thedissolution of the Tibetan empire at some of the courts ofthose petty rulers who were descendants of the imperialfamilies, once again demonstrate the close connectionbetween Buddhist tantra and royal power. Mchims alsomentions that Śāntarakṣita had apparently introduced theGtsug tor dri med kyi gzungs and its attendant liturgies intoTibet.40

And, finally, let us recapitulate what Bu ston Rin chengrub (1290-1364) recorded in his chronicle of 1322-641:

Khri Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon x ?

Dpal [gyi] lde rig pa mgon [took Mar yul]Bkra shis lde mgon [took Pu rangs]Lde gtsug mgon [took Zhang zhung] x ?

'Kho[r] re [became Lha bla ma]Srong nge x ?

Lha lde'Od lde x ?

Rtse lde

Pho brang Zhi ba 'od40 De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, 368. 41 J. Szerb, Bu ston's History of Buddhism in Tibet (Wien: Verlag derÖsterreichischen Aka-demie der Wissenschaften, 1990), 54,84-6, 91 [= Bu ston rin chen grub kyi gsung 'bum, ed. Dpal brtsegsbod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang, 24 [24/28/3] (Beijing:Krung go'i bod rig dpe skrun khang, 2008), 1203, 1218, 1221.

28

Btsun pa Byang chub 'od

It is of course not possible to disentangle the web ofconflicting narratives that are contained in the availablesources. Luckily, for my present purpose it really matterspreciously little whether Lha bla ma's identity as a laymanwas 'Kho[r] re or Srong nge!42 But as for the area occupiedby Mnga' ris, Zul phu ba, Mchims, and Mkhas pa Lde'u statein unison that Mnga' ris skor gsum or the "Three Circuits ofMnga' ris" comprised Mang yul, Spu rang, and Zhang zhung,and that its origin should be sought with the three sons ofSkyid lde Nyi ma mgon.43 This appears to be a little tooneat and unnecessarily restrictive as far as the extent ofMnga’ ris is concerned. Mnga’ ris was divided in Stod andSmad, and the Stod portion became the domain of the threesons of Skyid lde Nyi ma mgon, whereas the Smad region wasthe domain of the three sons of Bkra shis brtsegs pa dpal.Nyi ma mgon’s eldest son Bkra shis mgon seized Sku mkhar nyirdzong, which seems to have been some sort of afortification that had been built by his father, and thiswas his base from which he was able to seize control over Puhrang, Zhang zhung, Glo bo, Dol po, Gu ge, Ya tshe and otherareas.

With the era of Lha bla ma, we have before us areemergence and reassertion of this area's history after ahiatus of little more than two hundred years of virtualliterary silence, and it should perhaps not be surprisingthat there is some controversy about the identity of Lha bla42 Further details can be found in R. Vitali, The Kingdoms ofGu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chenNgag dbang grags pa, 177, n. 245. 43 For Mnga' ris in general and especially Gu ge, see R.Vitali, Records of Tho.ling. A Literary and Visual reconstruction of the"Mother" Monastery in Gu.ge, 9-12, and Brtson 'grus rnam rgyal,"Bod sil bu'i dus stod mnga' ris phyogs su byung ba'i rgyalphran so so'i rgyal rgyud skor rags tsam gleng pa," Bod btsanpo'i lo rgyus dang 'brel ba'i mtha' dpyod gces bsdus, tr. Cha ris Skalbzang thogs med (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2010),286-91.

29

ma's father. It takes time to regain a foothold in a cultureof letters and writing, not to mention the possibility thatso much was lost due to neglect, warfare, and revolution,and the fact that the economic fortunes of Mnga' ris havebeen on a downward slide over the last centuries. Themajority of the available sources suggest that his fatherwas Bkra shis mgon (?-?). There is also some debate aboutthe identity of his mother about whom nothing is knownexcept that her name was probably Zangs kha ma. Most likelythe younger of two brothers, his given name was apparentlyKhri lde srong gtsug btsan – this name is sometimesabbreviated metri causa to Khri lde srong btsan -, but mostsources use the abbreviation Srong nge which is undoubtely anickname of sorts; his elder brother was nicknamed 'Khor re(?-?), the longer version of which may have been Khri Dpal'khor lde.44 The latter was initially ruler of Pu hrang,whereas Srong nge had inherited control over Gu ge. In 989,Srong nge was given the name in religion of "Ye shes 'od"44 Nor brang O rgyan, Bod sil bu'i byung ba brjod pa shel dkar phreng ba,246, cites a manuscript of Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin 1745 generalstudy of the Tibetan imperial families to the effect thattheir names were Drang srong lde and 'Khor lo lde; for thelatter, see now also Rgyal ba'i bstan pa rin po che byang phyogs su'byung ba'i rtsa lag bod rje btsan po'i gdung rabs tshig nyung don gsal yid kyime long, Kaḥ thog rig 'dzin tshe dbang nor bu'i bka' 'bum, Smad cha [vol.3] (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006),54. Apropos of of these names, Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin writesthat these names that "are found in a tattered book that ?had been given to an old ?Ka ni ka in Mnga' ris Gung thangseem to be certainly correct." (mnga' ris gung thang du dpe hrul kani (kakṇi) ka rnying par brdzangs ba zhig tu 'dug pa 'thad nges su snang /).Truth be told, I do not know what to do with ka ni ka (kakṇi),but I cannot folllow the interpretation of this line givenin S.G. Karmay, "The ordinance of Lha bla ma ye shes 'od,"The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet(Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998), 4: "He [Rig 'dzin,vdK] discovered a fragment of an old manuscript from anancient Kanika stūpa in Gung thang, a district of Mnga'ris."

30

when he received his vows as a Buddhist monk. He hadabdicated his throne just prior to his renunciation of theworld (rab tu byung ba) and full ordination, and thus hadhanded his reign over to his elder brother. Thereafter, heand his two sons, who had in the meantime also taken theirvows, gave Buddhism in cultural Tibet a new lease on lifethrough their unequivocal and generous acts of patronage.Indeed, things may have looked quite different for thehistory of Buddhism in this area had it not been for thewide-ranging support they were able to give to the religionof their ancestors. In this they emulated in particularbtsan po Khri srong lde btsan under whom Indian Buddhism hadbeen elevated to a national, state religion. But Lha bla maand his sons could not have had the same impact on thereligious life of their environment had it not been for onewho we might consider to have been their court chaplain,namely, the Lo chen. Buddhism is a religion not of the bookbut of many books and the Lo chen and his disciples wereinstrumental in the revitalization of Buddhism through theirnumerous translations of Sanskrit Buddhist works intoTibetan and their many revisions of earlier translations ofBuddhist scriptures that were still extant, as well as forgiving their attendant enpowerments and rituals to thoseable and willing to receive them. Lha bla ma and his sons,and the Lo chen and his disciples founded scores ofmonasteries and temples, the lifeline of institutionalizedBuddhim, in what is now Mnga' ris, Zangs dkar sgo gsum-Ladakh, and Himachal Pradesh, and established a flourishingSangha through the ordination of numerous young men intomonkhood. It is then the combination of these two parties,Lha bla ma and his family on one hand, and the Lo chen andhis disciples on the other, that made the rebirth ofBuddhism in the Tibetan cultural area possible.

His turn to the religious life resulted in a series ofpersonal imprints on Tibetan Buddhism that has so far beenavailable from three primary sources, one is the famousstele inscription that was most recently studied by L.S.Thakur, one is his equally well known open letter that wasexamined by S.G. Karmay, and the last one are fragments of

31

his Religious Declarations (chos rtsigs) that are quoted in the RoyalSuccession of Mnga' ris.45 Fortunately, we are now in thepossession of additional, most probably archival but stillfragmentary, materials that shed much light on hisactivities as a monk and what he thought a state that isgoverned in accordance with Buddhist principles should looklike. These are found in the third and longest part of Lhabla ma’s biography. As mentioned, Ra se Dkon mchog rgyamtsho reproduced some of these materials and 古 古 Huang Bostudied some of them in their articles that are cited aboveunder nos. 18-9, as did S.G. Karmay and J. Dalton in theiras yet unpublished public lectures.46 What is also to benoted is that the passages that are in one way or anothermarked by chos rtsigs in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris are notonly retrievable from Gu ge Paṇ chen's biography of Lha blama, but can also be given a better edition on its basis.47

45 See, respectively, "A Tibetan Inscription by Lha bla maYe shes 'od from Dkor (Spu) Rediscovered," Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society, Series 3 (1994), 369-75, "The ordinance of Lhabla ma ye shes 'od," The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths,Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998),3-16, and R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to theMnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 53, 56,59-60, and 108, 111, 113-4. For the term rtsigs [sometimeswritten gtsigs and tshigs] as "claim" and "proposition," seeBtsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 705-6. Theexpression chos rtsigs also occurs in connection with theirancestor 'Od srung[s], for which see Rgyal rabs gyi phreng ba,212. 46 For Karmay, see his lecture "Bon Institutions Referred toin the Newly Discovered Decrees of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od,"that he apparently gave at the last IATS meeting inVancouver, Canada, in the summer of 2010, and Dalton hasgiven several public lectures on his research and the one Iheard was titled "Reformation and Contestation in the NewlyDiscovered Decrees of King Yeshe Ö," which he gave atHarvard University on February 13, 2012. 47 LHA, 23a-b, 26a, 33b.

32

Not insignificant is that Gu ge Paṇ chen also used, if onlyonce, the expressions khrims gnyis, "the two laws," and lugsgnyis, "the two systems," which are expresssions that refersto the secular-political (rgyal khrims) and the religious (choskhrims)48 domains of human affairs, and, on occasion, theirinterplay.49 It appears that Lha bla ma had composed a workon the subject (lugs gnyis kyi ye ger mdzad) in circa 986, for Gu gePaṇ chen writes that his subject had composed the chos rtsigsthat he had signaled in a document on these systems (lugsgnyis kyi yi ger mdzad). The author of the Royal Succession of Mnga' risalso used the terms rgyal khrims and chos khrims, but not lugsgnyis [or, for that matter, khrims gnyis].50 Lastly, I mustconfess that it is not entirely obvious to me to what degreethe chos rtsigs might differ from what Gu ge Paṇ chen hasdesignated elsewhere in his work a bca' khrims kyi yi ge, a "legaldocument," or a khrims yig chen mo, "a large legal document."51

48 So familiar to us from the literature that was producedwhen the Tibetan area was under the control of the Mongolsand their 'Bri gung and Sa skya allies, respectively from1240 to circa 1260 and from 1260 to circa 1355, these twoterms occur side by side in LHA, 26a.49 LHA, 9b, and 23b; for these concepts see now also thecollection of essays in The Relationship between Religion and State(chos srid zung ‘brel) in Traditional Tibet, ed. C. Cüppers (Lumbini:Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004) and theliterature cited therein. In this connection, one might alsoconsult M. Zimmerman, “A Māhāyanist Criticism of Arthaśāstra:The Chapter on Royal Ethics in the Bodhisattva-gocaropāya-viṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa-sūtra,” Annual Report of the International Research Institutefor Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 1999(Toyo: The International Research Institute for AdvancedBuddhology Soka University, 2000), 177–211, in which hediscusses this sutra's sixth chapter, in the Tibetan, orfifth chapter in the Chinese translation, which deals with"rājadharma, the moral, ritual and political codes of aking."50 R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' risrgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 53, 186.51 LHA, 30b, and 35a.

33

The first apparently had to do with the regulations of theBuddhist community and thus should most probably beconsidered to fall in the domain of chos khrims, whereas thelatter would most probably need to be tied to rgyal and notchos khrims. Last but not least, the final folios of thebiography are taken up by a very detailed description of thesacred objects in the monastery of Pe par dbu sde chen po [=Dpe pa chos sde] that was built by Lha Nāgarāja, the list ofwhich Gu ge Paṇ chen found in an archival scrolledmanuscript (dril).52 The enormous amount of wealth that is ondisplay in this inventory suggests that the economy of thearea had significant surpluses and these resources hadeffectively made the renaissance of Buddhism and itsinstitutions in Mnga' ris possible.

Before we delve into the very beginning of thebiography's narrative, we should spend a littlebibliographical and biographical time with its manuscriptand its author.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE BIOGRAPHY OF LHA BLA MA

The title page of the manuscript of Lha bla ma’sbiography on which the remainder of this essay is by andlarge based titles it Lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi rnams (sic) thar rgyaspa, Extensive Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od. It was written byone who signs himself in the colophon as "Grags pa rgyalmtshan dpal bzang po, a Paṇḍita-scholar of the five domainsof knowledge" (rig pa’i gnas lnga’i paṇ ḍi ta / grags pa rgyal mtshan dpalbzang po). The author wrote it while he resided in Mtho glingmonastery's Gser gyi lha khang chapel and I quite stronglysuspect that he is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen whom Iwill introduce below. I owe a copy of an dbu med manuscriptof his work to the kindness and generosity of Mr. Gu ge Tshering rgyal po, himself one of Mnga' ris' most eminenthistorians, who shared it with when he was a Harvard-52 LHA, 36b-40b; for this monastery, see R. Vitali, TheKingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu geMkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 272 ff.

34

Yenching scholar in 2008.53 The manuscript was recentlypublished in one volume of the supremely important seriesthat contains facsimile reproductions of exceedingly [andnot so exceedingly] rare biographies and histories.54 At theend of this work, the author characterizes his achievementas a "poetic narrative (rtogs pa brjod pa) of Bla ma Ye shes'od, the three, the father and his two sons" (bla ma ye shes 'odyab sras gsum gyis (sic) rtogs pa brjod pa).55 True enough, itcontains a great deal of narrative, but one may be inclinedto take exception to what is oblioquely asserted about itsits poetic form, diction, or structure when we think about artogs pa brjod pa (*avadāna). I am afraid that these are by andlarge absent from this work! The term rgyas pa, "extensive,"in the title may indicate the existence of separate, shorternarratives of Lha bla ma's life in toto, possibly of the kind

53 He is the author of Mnga' ris chos 'byung gangs ljongs mdzes rgyan(Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2006), and acollection of his articles was published as Gu ge tshe ring rgyalpo'i ched rtsom phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpeskrun khang, 2005). Together with C. Jahoda, he is also theauthor of The Buddhist Monuments of Khartse Valley, Western Tibet,Austrian Academy of Sciences ‘Working Papers’, 2009, online-edition: http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/wpsa/wpsa9.pd, as as wellas, with C. Jahoda and C. Papa-Kalentar, of the forthcomingmonograph Khorchag Monastery. Tshe ring rgyal po used Gu gePaṇ chen's Life of Lha bla ma for a capsule biography in hisMnga' ris chos 'byung gangs ljongs mdzes rgyan, 460-5. While both ofus were in Chengdu in May of 2012 and shortly before Icompleted this essay, he kindly made available to me Khyungbdag's as yet unpublished, edited and text-criticallyannotated version of the manuscript of LHA in which he madesome valuable references to Mnga' ris vernacular expressionsthat occur in LHA. 54 See Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pi, ed. Dpalbrtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Sikhron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 2011), 273-356. 55 LHA, 40b.

35

that we meet in, for example, Nyang ral's chronicle.Vertically positioned, we read

phyi ra 106

above the title of the title page. This is the inventory orcatalog number of the library in which the manuscript washoused, where the word phyi may suggest that it had recentlycome from the outside (phyi) as opposed to "inside" (nang) orperhaps even that it could be taken outside, that is,borrowed. The manuscript itself consists of forty-two smallfolios56 with the vast majority having seven lines per folioside and it is virtually free from interlinear or marginalglosses.57 Orthographically, it leaves somewhat to bedesired and it contains many scribal errors, some of whichare quite egregious, other much less so. The scribe alsoused various abbreviations (skung yig) and only irregularlyuses such archaisms as an 'a after round vowels as, forinstance, in such words as mdo' for mdo. It must bestressed that the typed dbu can text that is currently incirculation is no substitute for the original, for itcontains many additional misreadings and misspellings. It isfor this reason that in what follows, I will only cite theoriginal text of the biography in full where appropriate andmake the corrective philological remarks where necessary. Iwill not cite the typed dbu can text. As already mentioned,it turns out that the manuscript of Gu ge Paṇ chen's workcan serve as a valuable philological control for a small56 To be noted is that the numbering of the folios is fromone to forty-one, but that there are two folios 17, that is,17 proper and 17 'og.57 LHA, 1b, 16a-b and 17['og]a-b, have five lines each.Editorial corrections by a proofreader, possibly the scribehimself, rather than explanatory glosses, are found in thelower margins of LHA, 9a, 12b, 17a, 31a; in the same vein,LHA, 18a, has an interlinear gloss, and LHA, 24b, contains agloss in the upper margin.

36

portion of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris and vice versa. A ratherclear example for this is offered below at nos. 83-4.

3. THE AUTHOR OF THE BIOGRAPHY OF LHA BLA MA

Styling himself as a "scholar who knows the fivedomains of knowledge" (gnas lnga rig pa'i paṇḍita) whose name inreligion was Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, I stronglybelieve that he is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen, "GreatPaṇḍita of Gu ge." Gu ge Paṇ chen is perhaps not a strangerto those interested in the Sa skya pa school of TibetanBuddhism. Indeed, he was a major disciple of the greattantric virtuoso Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po (1382-1456),the founder of the Sa skya pa monastery of Ngor Evaṃ chosldan [in 1429], and his bstod pa-panegyric is quoted severaltimes in Ngor chen's biography, which Sangs rgyas phuntshogs (1649-1705), himself Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan monastery'stwenty-fifth abbot, compiled from various written sources in1688.58 Foremost among them was the crucial study of Ngorchen's life that his close disciple Mus chen Dkon mchogrgyal mtshan (1388-1469), Ngor monastery's second abbot,completed on the fifteenth day of the month 'gro bzhin(*śrāvaṇa), August 24, 1457, that is, some fifteenth monthsafter his master's passing on the twenty-fifth day of the

58 Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chubo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yid bzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, Lam 'bras slobbshad [Sde dge print] vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre,1983), 480, 519, 535. A scan of a different sixty–nine folioSde dge print of this biography from printing blocks thatwere prepared at the behest of Tshe dbang rdo rje rig 'dzin(1786-1842), an erstwhile ruler of Sde dge principality andthe author of the well known 1828 chronicle of his family,the Sde dge'i rgyal rabs, can be found at tbrc.org, no. W2CZ7950.For Gu ge Paṇ chen’s connections with Ngor chen, see now J.Heimbel, "Biographical Sources for Researching the Life ofNgor chen Kun dga' bzang po (1382-1456)," Revue d'étudesTibétaines 22 (2011), 73-6.

37

month sa ga (*vaiśākha), May 28 or 29, 1456.59 Referring to theSa skya pa scholar Glo bo Mkhan chen Bsod nams lhun grub(1456-1532) as his source, Sangs rgyas phun tshogs'compilation includes a brief oral account (gsung rgyun) inwhich Gu ge Paṇ chen had apparently detailed the salvificqualities (yon tan) of Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan monastery.60 Glo boMkhan chen had probably recorded the verses in questionduring his studies with him about which, for some reason, heseems to be a trifle reticent, as he is about much else, inhis autobiography that was edited and studied by J.Kramer.61 Unfortunately, equally less forthcoming in thisrespect is the short study of his life that his disciple Saskya Lo tsā ba 'Jam dbyangs kun dga' bsod nams (1485-1533),the twenty-third abbot of Sa skya, completed in 1518.62

59 An dbu med manuscript of this work in forty-one folios isextant; see the scan of Rje btsun dam pa kun dga' bzang po'i rnam parthar pa at tbrc.org, no. W2CZ7931. Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga'bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yidbzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, 565, reproduces the colophon of Muschen's work, whereafter what follows is a supplement to thepreceding. 60 Rgyal ba rdo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chubo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho yon tan yid bzhin nor bu'i 'byung gnas, 569-70.61 See A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen(1456-1532), Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie undBuddhismuskunde, Heft 68 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetischeund Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2008), Index,317. On pp. 52-3, Kramer refers to his Thob yig-record ofteachings received in which we learn that of the fourmasters who are mentioned, Gu ge Paṇ chen was by far themore influential. This work is preserved in an dbu medmanuscript of his writings, Glo bo Mkhan chen wrote severalpraises of his master, for which see his Collected Works, vol.1, 46b-8b [these are also reproduced in vol. 4], tbrc. org,no. W00KG01660. 62 Mkhan chen bsod nams lhun grub kyi rnam thar blo gsal klu'i dbang po'igtsug gi nor bu, Gsung thor bu, tbrc.org, no. W00KG04094. Glo boMkhan chen's more detailed biography by Jo nang Kun dga'grol mchog (1507-66) is not available to me at the present

38

Further particulars about Gu ge Paṇ chen can be gleanedfrom his brief biography that his disciple 'Jam dbyangs Nammkha' bstan pa completed in 1488 in Evaṃ chos ldan.63 Asidefrom the fact that Glo bo Mkhan chen is mentioned almostperfunctorily towards the end of this work,64 we learn therethe following: As regards his gdung, he was born into one ofthe five rus of Zhang zhung named the Skyi nor blon 'khor ba– I purposefully leave gdung and rus untranslated, since,aside from the fact that these have to do with his paternalline of descent, the semantic range of these kinship termsis not altogether transparent to me. We also discover thathis ancestors had apparently been in the service of thepatriline (gdung rgyud) of the historical Buddha (nyi ma'ignyen, *sūryamitra/sūryavaṃśa), that is to say, they wereBuddhists [and not Bon!], and that they were inclinedtowards Rnying ma pa and Bka' brgyud pa spiritual practice.His father was Rig[s] 'dzin rdo rje, his mother Skyid pa – agloss relates that her patriline (gdung rus) was Choms. Hisfirst religious encounters were with members of the 'Brigung pa sect of the Bka' brgyud pa school, but his firstmeeting with Ngor chen at the age of twenty changed allthat. In 1436 or shortly thereafter, Nam mkha'i dbang pophun tshogs lde (1409-?), then king of Gu ge, invited Ngorchen to his domain and ultimately took his monk's vows fromhim and built a large monastery. Ngor chen may have stayedin the area for several years and this seems to have beenthe beginning of a relationship between the young Gu ge Paṇchen and Ngor chen that, according to Nam mkha' bstan pa,

time.63 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, dbu med manuscript in nineteenfolios, Nationalities Library, Cultural Palace ofNationalities, catalog no. 002813(4). The manuscriptcontains a post-colophonic note: lcags thang pas sor ma'i 'du byed //,which means: "a fingerprint by Lcags thang pa [= ?Lcagsthang Rab byams pa Byams pa bsod nams (1474-1540)]." That isto say, Lcags thang pa was the owner of the originalmanuscript. For Lcags thang pa, see Mang thos, Bstan rtsis gsalba'i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar, ed. Nor brang O rgyan, 238-40. 64 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba,13a.

39

lasted for some seventeen years until Ngor chen's passing.He also studied with Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449), Chos rje Sems dpa' chen po [= ?Mus chen]; he studiedSanskrit grammer and related "linguistic" subjects with Snarthang Lo tsā ba Dge 'dun dpal, alias Saṅghaśrī, and he alsoreceived instructions from a certain Bsam gtan 'od zer, whohimself had studied with the Newar scholar PaṇḍitaMahābodhi. Nam mkha' bstan pa recommends that should hisreader be interested in finding out even greater detailsabout what and with whom Gu ge Paṇ chen had studied thanwhat he was able to provide in this biography, he or sheshould avail him or herself of his master's Gsan yig-recordof teachings heard, which is subtitled Yid bzhin rin po che'i dbanggi rgyal po d...ya'i mdzod.65 He writes as if a copy of this workwere freely available! This Gsan yig has not yet been locatedand, indeed, manuscript copies of this document must havebeen rather rare! Nam mkha' bstan pa is not altogetherhelpful where basic personal or historical details areconcerned of the era in which Gu ge Paṇ chen lived. But hedoes note in passing the volatility of the area in which hissubject lived. 66 For example, he notes that Gu ge Paṇ chenmet A mgon bzang po, now ruler of Glo bo Smon thang and muchelse besides being Glo bo Mkhan chen's father, while thispetty king was leading an army against Gu ge. This wouldhave taken place in the 1450s and thus well after Gu ge Paṇchen had taken his vows from Ngor chen in Glo bo at Bragdkar theg chen dar rgyas gling monastery with 'Jam dbyangsShes rab rgya mtsho (1396-1474) and Khwa char Bsod namsrgyal mtshan co-officiating. No doubt owing to his expertisein tantric ritual and practice, he seems to have been askedto take on the abbacy of Ngor Evaṃ chos ldan, but this wasnot to be due to unspecified "obstacles" (bar chad). We arealso not very well informed about his scholarship, but Nammkha' bstan pa does refer his reader to a catalog that hehad prepared of his master's oeuvre, the Gsung rab gi dkarchag.67 This would have included the title of his large65 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 6b-7a. 66 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 8b-9a, 12a.67 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 12a.

40

chroncicle of Mnga' ris, the recent publication of which Guge Tshe ring rgyal po kindly drew my attention.68 A study ofthis work, which is replete with unprecedented informationthat is in part drawn from local archival material, will nodoubt shed further and new light on his biography of Lha blama as well as on the region's history in general. A true"great paṇḍita" (paṇ chen), there is no question that he wasan unusual intellectual with many talents and areas ofexpertise that even included medicine and the arts.69 Wealso learn that he painted inter alia murals at Evaṃ chos ldanand in Byams pa gling in Glo bo Smon thang, and that hedesigned statuary and stupas in Glo bo, that is, probablyfor Brag dkar theg chen dar rgyas gling and Chos 'khor glingmonasteries. Unfortunately, we still know too little abouthim to be able fully to appreciate his legacy. Aside fromthe colophon where he identifies himself as the author ofthe biography, he inserted, in a moment of exultation, thefollowing verse in the middle of his text70:

lha las phul byung lha sras srong btsug [gtsug] lde //rab byung lha rgyal bla ma ye shes 'od //mdo rgyud rnam[s] nas rgyal bas lung bstan brnyes //sa[r] gnas sems dpa' de'i rnam[s] thar ni //mnga' ris [b]stod dang dbus gtsang khams rnams su //cha [r]tsam gsungs pa mang yang nor 'khrul mang // rnam[s] dag tshul 4n brjod la mkhas pa can //

68 This is Nyi ma'i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu'i cod pan nyi zla'i phrengmdzes, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Chi, ed. Dpalbrtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Sikhron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 2011), 181-454. For a study of a passage from thiswork, see my "Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpalbzang po (1415-86) on the Nyi ma'i rabs (*Sūryavaṃśa) and theTibetan Royal Families," Nepalica et Tibetica. Festgabe für ChristophCüppers, Band 1, ed. F.-K. Ehrhard and P. Maurer (Andiast:International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies,2013), 325-335.69 Rnam thar dgos 'dod 'byung ba, 13a-b.70 LHA, 23b.

41

sa skya par grags mnga' [lnga] rig paṇ chen yin //

More perfect than a god,71 divine son Srong gtsuglde,Renouncer, divine king Lama Ye shes 'od,Obtained prophecies by the Victorious One insutras and tantras. Although there are many peacemeal statements aboutthe biographyof the [Bodhi]sattva who lived there, In Mnga' ris Stod, Dbus, Gtsang and Khams,The one who has the skill to explain by way ofeliminating the many mistakes and errors,Is the great scholar in the five domains ofknowledge renowned as a Sa skya pa.

4. THE BIOGRAPHY OF LHA BLA MA: PROLEGOMENA AND PROPHECIES

But let us now briefly turn to what I have taken to beGu ge Paṇ chen's biography of Lha bla ma. Reading this workof fairly modest proportions, we immediately notice threeoutstanding features. Firstly, Gu ge Paṇ chen does notdevote any separate space to bibliographic details thatwould otherwise have informed his readership what kind ofliterary or other sources he had been able to use for hisstudy. This is hardly unusual for a Tibetan work of this or71 One wonders if this phrase might be a nod atŚaṇkarasvāmin's praise of the Buddha as one who is moreperfect than all the [Hindu] gods (lha las phul byung, devatā-vimarśana) in his Devatāvimarśanastuti [not Devātiṣayastotra as perthe translation in the Tanjur] for which see M. Hahn,"Śaṇkarasvāmin's Devatāvimarśastuti," Vividharatnaka- randaka.Festgabe für Adelheid Mette, ed. C. Chojnacki et al, Indica etTibetica, Bd. 37 (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et TibeticaVerlag, 2000), 313-29, and the literature cited in U.Roesler, "The Great Indian Epics in the Version of Dmar stonChos kyi rgyal po," Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet, TibetanStudies II, ed. H. Blezer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 439-40.

42

any other kind. With some exceptions, bibliographic silenceis a generally adhered to Tibetan intellectual practice andGu ge Paṇ chen's work is not one of these exceptions.However, what a quick perusal of his work does tell us isthat, in the first place, he used several canonical sourcesin order to engage his reader in the spiritual connectionthat existed between the historical Buddha and Lha bla mahimself.72 He shows that at one time, in the hoary past, theBuddha himself had informed different audiences of Lha blama's coming in the form of prophecies. Now Gu ge Paṇ chenwas by no means the first to cite the relevant "prophetic"passages from scripture that foretold Lha bla ma's advent.Indeed, a precedent for this had been already set in thetwelfth, if not already in the second half of the eleventhcentury. These will be discussed below in some detail. Gu gePaṇ chen also quotes or alludes to several colophons oftranslated canonical works. One of these is directly citedto bring out some salient features of his religious personaand to legitimize him being styled Byang chub sems dpa',that is, Bodhisattva.73 He seemingly alludes to othercolophons, such as those pertaining to various translationsof texts belonging to Buddhist discipline ('dul ba, vinaya)that were made in Mnga' ris, via a substantial quotationfrom an unspecified work by an otherwise [to me] unknown'Dul 'dzin Byang chub seng ge.74 This passage will be dealtwith in the sequel to this paper. Gu ge Pan chen also refersto an account that he found in "a certain biography" (rnamthar 'ga' zhig tu) [of Lha bla ma] and cites a portion of aspeech Lha bla ma had made sometime toward the end of 995 orin the beginning of 996, in any event not long after hearrived in Pu hrang during the intermediate summer-month[May-June] of 995.75 I surmize that it must be the speech he

72 What follows is taken from LHA, 2a-3a.73 LHA, 3a, for which see below. 74 LHA, 18a-9a. 75 See, respectively, LHA, 11a, and 13a-5a, and R. Vitali,The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu geMkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 55-6, 110-1.

43

made in Wi phug mo76 at a gathering of his brothers, unclesand nephews and the citizens ('bangs) of Mnga' ris. Heobserves at the end of the passage that there was more toit, but that he did not write it down out of fear ofbecoming too prolix (…zhes sogs 'byung ste / yi ge mangs pas ma bris),and he does the same elsewhere in the biography.77 This isvery unfortunate for us. He cites other passages that occur"in a biography" (rnam thar gcig tu) and "in some [text or ?biography]" ('ga' zhig tu).78 Noteworthy is that Gu ge Paṇ chenrelates that Lha bla ma had authored several treatises otherthan his famous open letter that was studied by Karmay,79

namely, [1] Rnam snang mngon byang gi rgyud kyi spyi don, evidently,a survey of the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra, [2] Bstan pa spyi'i khogphubs, a general overview of Buddhism, [3] Mchod sbyin chen mo'iyig cha, a text on "the large offering," and [4] Dkon mchogmchod pa'i gzhung rten thig rtsa, Treatise on Offering to Three Jewels,Proportions of the Receptacle, which may be a work on theiconometry of statues and stupas. He follows thisenumeration with the interesting remark in which he citesthe Lo chen to the effect that Lha bla ma had created thepossibility for him to do religious work and in which heexplicitly links Lha bla ma with several of the Lo chen'sown compositions:

sngags log sun 'byin gyi bstan chos chen po mdzad cing / 'di nimdo dbus khams rnams kyi mkhas shing grub pa brnyes pa mtha'dag gi yid kyi shing rta gang bar byed pa / bcom ldan 'das kyi bka'ltar tshad mar gyur to // gzhan yang rab gnas kyi sdom dang /dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i ṭi ka la sogs pa gzhung mang du mdzad/

He wrote the great Sngags log sun 'byin gyi bstan chos,Treatise that Refutes False Mantra Texts,80 and this work,filling the vehicle of the mind of all of Mdo [?A

76 This place is once again mentioned in LHA, 30b, in thevery same context.77 LHA, 15a, 35b, 40b.78 LHA, 22a-b. 79 What follows is taken from LHA, 20b-1a.

44

mdo], Dbus and Khams who had acquired learning andspiritual realization, became authoritative likethe pronouncement of the Blessed One. Furthermore,he wrote many texts such as the Rab gnas kyi sdom,Précis on Consecration, and the Dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i ṭika, Commentary on the *Śrī-abhisamaya, etc.81

The second thing that we notice is that the organization ofthe biography is somewhat flawed and unbalanced, and thatsome of its narratives are repeated. The imbalance isperhaps in part owed to the literary sources with which theauthor was working; there were not very many of them andthey evidently did not have very much concrete to say aboutLha bla ma's life. A number of these appear in the form ofverses. At least one was taken from an afterword to atranslation of an Indian Buddhist text, but we cannot butwonder whether some of these were not adapted from inscribedmural paintings. The Lo chen plays a very important role inthe religious life of Lha bla ma. This is no doubt why atone point the flow of the biography's narrative isinterrupted and we are suddenly and without warning given aprécis of the Lo chen's life, from his twelfth year when hereceived his novice vows from Gnas brtan Legs pa bzang po tohis undated translations of several tantras, in particular,the yogatantras.82 And the Lo chen makes cameo appearanceselsewhere as in the biography. Thirdly and lastly, we have80 For several quotations from this work, see Ny[w]a dbonKun dga' dpal's (1285-1379) post-1371 Gzhi lam 'bras gsum lasbrtsams pa'i dris lan yid kyi mun sel, ed. 'Bras Rab 'byams pa Dkonmchog chos kho et al. (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2006), 102 ff. 81 These two works appear to be the Rab tu gnas par byed pa dongsal and Dpal mngon par rtogs pa'i dka' ba'i gnas bshad pa that werepublished in Bka' gdams gsung 'bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, ed.Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 'jug khang (Chengdu: Sikhron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 2006), 37-40 [and again on 71-72] and 46-70. Thelatter was written on the basis of Atiśa's explanations.82 LHA, 11b-2b.

45

to admit that the biography leaves somewhat to be desired onstylistic grounds. Yes, as far as biographies go, Gu ge Paṇchen's work is not a really beautifully written piece ofliterature and it is obviously a patchwork of many sources.But he should not necessarily be held responsible for theerratic punctation, especially where lines of verse areconcerned, and orthographic inconsistencies that are mostlikely due to scribal oversights and/or misunderstandings.Nonetheless, even with these defects, the manuscript of thiswork can on occasion provide an important control for someof the uneven readings of the Tibetan manuscript of theRoyal Succession of Mnga' ris. An example of this is found in thesection where Gu ge Paṇ chen addresses Lha bla ma's birth.The Royal Succession of Mnga' ris states at this juncture ...rgyal posrong nge 'di mgon gdung gi che bur / pun ta ri ka'i me tog gnyis khrungs te,which truly makes no sense, even if Vitali, trying to makesense of it, offered the translation: "...king Srong.nge wasborn, like a second Pun.ta.ri.ka flower, as a son of a lineof the protectors (kings)."83 And he states in a note to "asecond," "if gnyis is corrected to gnyis.pa." But, surely,more needs to be done to this line in order to make it havesense. First citing a series of verses, Gu ge Paṇ chen thencomments to the effect that: ...'di ni dkon gdung gi mtsho bur punrda ri ka'i me tog ltar 'khrungs shing. Obviously, this phrase isquite similar to the one of the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, butit translates much better as: "...he was born as if a whitepuṇḍarika-lotus in the small pond of a precious-rarepatriline."84

83 R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' risrgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 52, 108.84 LHA, 4b. Reading mtsho 'ur instead of mtsho bur as we find inLHA, 4b, Khyung bdag suggests in a long note [n. 17] on p. 7of the manuscript of his annotated edition of LHA that weread for both: ...dgon dung gi mtshe 'ur puṇḍa rī ka ltar 'khrungsshing..., on the strength of the entry in Btsan lha Ngagdbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long, 105, to theeffect that dgon dung has the sense of: "a ravine, an areathat has no water" (grog rong chu med pa'i sa phyogs).

46

Now Gu ge Paṇ chen begins his biography with a verse ofhomage to "the golden monument which is the Sage’s Teaching"and a statement in which expresses the hope that his workwill spread in the ten directions, a hope that we can nowsay with some reassurance has now pretty much gone intofulfillment! This is followed by a brief genealogy of Lhabla ma's family that begins with Divine Mighty One of Tibet(bod kyi lha btsan po) Kyi [read: Skyid] lde Nyi ma mgon, Bkrashis mgon's father. He then points out the nagging issuethat has haunted many historians of Mnga' ris, if not driventhem to drink, namely, the lay-identity of Lha bla ma.While ever so aware that "many Tibetan scholars" (bod khamskyi mkhas pa mang po[s]) held that it was the elder 'Khor rewhose name in religion was Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od," hedismisses this by saying that this opinion "is somewhatuneven" (cung zad mnyam par ma bzhag pa) and that, in fact,according (las) to "many of his own," that is, Lha bla ma's,"impressions of their own religious markers" (rang rang gi chosrtags kyi mnan pa)85 that were attached to legal documents ofappointment there occurred the phrase:

cung rab tu byung ba byang chub sems dpa' lha bla ma ye shes 'od/ gcen mnga' bdag chen po 'khor re btsan dang / lha sras de ba rādzā / lha sras nā ga rā dzā / lha sras lha lde btsan / lha sras u dharā dzā / lha sras lham zlas sku mched / khu dbon yab mchedrnams gdan 'dzoms nas /

85 The term chos rtags has a parallel in bka' rtags of LHA, 30b,the meaning of which is also not altogether clear to me. Thesame chos rtags also occurs in a quotation from a work by Globo Mkhan chen that is cited below in n. 97, 105. There welearn that it is something that can be affixed to adocument. In conversation, Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po made thevaluable suggestion that chos rtags may refer to the thumbprints that the participants of the meeting in questionaffixed as ratifying witnesses to the resulting document,for which there are numerous archival instances andparallels.

47

The younger brother, the renunciate Byang chubsems dpa' Lha bla ma Ye shes 'od with his elderbrother Grand Sovereign 'Kho re btsan and Lha srasDevarāja, Lha sras Nāgarāja, Lha sras Lha ldebtsan, Lha sras Ud[h]arāja, Lha sras Lham zlas,the brothers,86 and uncles, nephews and fathers'sbrother, having gathered…

Some of these names are fairly known quantities. Lha ldebtsan is most likely 'Kho re's son and the father of 'Odlde, Pho brang Zhi ba 'od, and Btsun pa Byang chub 'od.Others are not. This latter remark contains two names, Lhasras Ud[h]arāja and Lha sras Lham zlas, that were so farquite unknown, and further suggests that Gu ge Paṇ chen wasable to use old archival documents that were housed in,perhaps, the archive of Mtho gling monastery. In addition,Gu ge Paṇ chen writes, other authoritative chronicles saythe same thing about Lha bla ma’s identity as Srong nge.

Following this, Gu ge Paṇ chen cites two passages fromcanonical sources that had already become part of a fairlylong tradition by the time of his writing when it came todealing with Lha bla ma. These concern passages in which theBuddha had ostensibly foretold the future coming of Lha blama, notably, the famous lines from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa87 and86 Reproducing several Mnga' ris patrilines from Gu ge Paṇchen's chronicle - see above n. 68 - Gu ge Tshe ring rgyalpo relates, on pp. 22-23, in an unpublished paper titled"Paṇḍita Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis mdzad pa'i << [Mnga'ris] nyi ma'i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu'i cod pan nyizla'i phreng mdzes >> zhes bya ba'i nang bkod pa'i mnga' rislo rgyus skor brjod pa," that 'Kho re had three sons: Lhasde [read: lde] Bkra shis btsan, Lha sras Lham zlas, andŪd[h]arāja, that the two younger ones led a religious life,and that the youngest passed away at the age of fourteen [=thirteen].87 Bu ston extensively cites the prophecies from this workin his chronicle, for which see E. Obermiller, tr., History ofBuddhism (chos-'byung) by Bu ston. II. Part. The History of Buddhism in Indiaand Tibet (Heidelberg: O. Harrassowitz, 1932), 111 ff.

48

the Kāruṇapuṇḍarikasūtra. As said, both had already been usedfor this purpose in earlier accounts, but what is strikingis the extent to which the citations of the passages fromthese texts vary so widely and so wildly. In connection withthese prophecies, Gu ge Paṇ chen refers to the earlierwritings of the students of the Lo chen such as Lce zhar,Rtsa skya pa [Khri brtan or Dkon mchog grags], 'Dzims pa aswell as the first Sa skya pa patriarchs, each of whichunderscores that the prophecies intend the advent of Lha blama. It should be pointed out that the "modernist," Gsar matradition considers the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa and theKāruṇapuṇḍarikasūtra as the preeminent sources for harvestingprophecies, whereas the "old" Rnying ma tradition adds tothese the Sgra thal 'gyur gyi rgyud.88

None of the writings of the students of the Lo chen areavailable, but Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo's oeuvre doescontain the work to which Gu ge Paṇ chen most likelyreferred,89 and its quotation of a Tibetan rendition of theMañjuśrīmūlakalpa runs as follows:

Obermiller revisited these when an edition of a Sanskritmanuscript of this tantra had become available to him, forwhich see "Bu-ston's History of Buddhism and the Mañjuśrī-mūla-kalpa," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(1935), 299-306.88

See, for example, Klong chen Rab 'byams pa's (1308-64)Theg pa'i mchog rin po che'i mdzod, Collected Works, vol. Ca [6] (A'dzom chos sgar: Dkar mdzes bod rigs rang skyong khul, ?1999), 232 ff., 249 ff. My thanks go to David Germano forkindly reminding me of this. Klong chen pa chacterizes theSgra thal 'gyur or Thal 'gyur in different ways for which see hisTheg pa mtha' dag gi don gsal bar byed pa grub mtha' rin po che'i mdzod,Collected Works, vol. Cha [7] (A 'dzom chos sgar: Dkar mdzesbod rigs rang skyong khul, ?1999), 390, 392, 394 [= ThePrecious Treasury of Philosophical Systems, tr. R. Barron (JunctionCity, Calif.: Padma Publishing, 2007), 365-6, 368].89 Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 2, 344/1 [Nga,314a] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 8, 489}.

49

kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs //ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //

In the snowy90 land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will appear.

Note: It is to be understood that the expression rgyal [po'i]rigs, here rendered as "royal descent," does have theattested Sanskrit equivalents of kṣatriya and rājakula.

Gu ge Paṇ chen was not familiar with the chronicle thatwas allegedly written by Nyang ral, which also containsquotations from both texts. However, the witnesses of thiswork read the alleged quotation from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpadifferently; the printed text that was published in Lhasahas91:

byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud can du /rigs ni rgyal sras zhes bya ste /ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung /

zhes dang /

It is said:

In the North that has an icy mountain range.In a family called Rgyal sras, One called Ye shes 'od will occur.

90 On the difference between kha ba, snow that is fallingfrom the sky, and gangs, snow that has turned into ice, bothof which occur in the various prophecies that are detailedbelow, see the extremely rewarding autobiography of Rig'dzin Chos kyi grags pa (1595-1659), up to the year 1658, inRang gi tshul gyi rtogs pa brjod pa'i gtam rang bzhin brjod pa'i rgyan kho nassmras pa gsong po'i dga' ston, Collected Works, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun:Drikung Kargyu Institute, 1999), 125 [= Ibid., 'Bri gung paTexts, vol. I (Leh, 1972), 157-8].91 Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyenrab 'od gsal, 460-1.

50

and...

Thus, there is an explicit recognition that this curious andcorrupt passage is a quotation of three lines of verse, andwe find the very same thing with the citations from a"sutra" (mdo) of a very similar passage that we find in thechronicles of Lde'u Jo sras and Mkhas pa Lde'u.92 Bycontrast, the manuscript that was published by R.O.Meisezahl – its variant readings are given in [ ] - and theone published in Paro punctuate the passage quitedifferently and therefore do not contain the recognitionthat it consists of three lines of verse or even that it isa quotation and not a paraphrase93:

byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud can du rigs ni rgyal sras zhes byaste [/ {space}] : ye shes 'od : ces bya ba ['byung {space}]'byung ngo :

Striking is that we do not encounter any of these variouswordings of the prophecy in question in either the Tibetantranslation of this tantra by the team of *Kumārakalaśa andLo tsā ba Shākya blo gros that was included in theblockprinted canons or what used to be the only Sanskritmanuscript of this work that was recovered in the early partof the last century.94 This particular Tibetan version was92 See Lde'u chos 'byung, ed. Chos 'joms, 146: byang phyogs gang rirgyud kyi bar //mi rigs bzhi ni gnas pa las // rigs ni rgyal po'i rigs dag las // yeshes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //, and Mkhas pa lde'us mdzad pa'i rgya bod kyichos byung rgyas pa, ed. Bod rang skyong ljongs spyi tshogstshan rig khang, 381: byang phyogs gangs ri'i rgyud kyi bar // rigs nirgyal po'i rigs las su // ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //.93 R.O. Meisezahl, ed., Tafel 334/c-5/a, and Manuscript "B"(Paro, 1979), 544.94 See, respectively, the text in The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition[= Sde dge xylograph, vdK], ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 18, no.540 [# 543], 25/7-96/2 [Na, 88a-334a] and Bka' 'gyur, vol. 88,ed. Krung go'i bod rig pa zhib 'jug lte gnas kyi bka' bstandpe sdur khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrunkhang, 2008), no. 0571, 354-1051. What used to be a unique

51

completed sometime between 1037 and 1078 in Mtho gling, atthe request and doubtless with the financial backing of Lhabla ma's grand-nephew, the Divine-Mighty One, Divine-Monk(lha btsan po lha btsun) Byang chub 'od. At least two or perhapseven three other Tibetan renditions of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpaor a portion thereof are known to have circulated incultural Tibet at some time. If it be not an oversight, then*Kumārakalaśa had also been involved with Lo tsā ba Shākyaye shes in yet another translation of the text, a copy ofwhich was included in the manuscript of the so-called Phugbrag Kanjur in West Tibet.95 Another one is datable to the

Sanskrit manuscript of this work was originally edited by T.Gaṇapati Sāstrī in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, nos. LXX,LXXVI, LXXXIV (Trivandrum, 1920-5), and it is now availablein digital form from various sources including www.sub.uni-goettingen.de. A study of its historical section that islaced with prophecies can be found in K.P. Jayaswal, AnImperial History of India in a Sanskrit Text (Patna: Eastern Book House,1988) - this work was first published by Motilal Banarsidassin 1934, in Lahore. See further Matsunaga Yūkei, "On theDate of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa," Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour ofR.A. Stein, vol. 3, ed. M. Strickmann (Brussels: Institut Belgedes Hautes Études Chinoises, 1985), 882-94. For this tantrain general, see now G. Wallis, Mediating the Power of Buddhas:Ritual in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 2002). Finally, M. Delhey is currently workingon an edition of a newly discovered Nepalese manuscript ofthis tantra that was filmed by the Nepal German ManuscriptPreservation Project [NGMPP] and an article on thisparticular manuscript is apparently still in press; see his"The Textual Sources of the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa(Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa): With special Reference to its EarlyNepalese Witness A39/4," Newsletter of the Nepal-German ManuscriptCataloguing Project 7 (2009).95 J. Samten, Catalogue of the Phug brag Manuscript Kanjur(Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1992),184. Samten writes in a footnote that this translation isidentical to the one of the printed canons, even if theysuggest that Shākya blo gros was *Kumārakalaśa's

52

eleventh century as well and issued from the pens of DpalDga' ba'i bshes gnyen (*Śrī Nanda-/Utsavamitra) and Mang 'orLo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab, yet another disciple of thelong-lived Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po. Glo bo Mkhan chencertainly knew this version, since it was included in aKanjur manuscript in Glo bo Smon thang (Mustang, Nepal) forwhich, not before 1447, Ngor chen had written a catalog atthe behest of Glo bo Mkhan chen's grandfather, King A madpal Bzang po rgyal mtshan.96 In fact, he cites two passagesfrom it in his reply to the third of a total of six querieson various historical topics put to him by his nephew Mgonpo rgyal mtshan (ca. 1505), then ruler of Glo bo, where theissue was the identity of Lha tho tho ri, the father ofGnya' khri btsan po, the legendary progenitor of the Tibetanimperial family, sometimes called the "Spur rgyal bod"dynasty.97 The third and last rendition of at least asection of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra, from the hand ofDharmatāśīla (*Chos nyid tshul khrims), is extant by way ofa fragment from Dunhuang. It is datable to circa 850.98 Aside

counterpart. This Shākya ye shes is probably none other than'Brog mi Lo tsā ba who must be reckoned as the founder ofthe Lam 'bras system in Tibet.96 The Kanjur manuscript registers this work under volume Bain the Bka' 'gyur ro cog gi dkar chag bstan pa gsal ba'i sgron me, Sa skyapa'i bka' bum, vol. 10, ed. Bsod nams rgya mtsho (Tokyo: TheToyo Bunko, 1968) no. 154, 346/3 [= Evaṃ bka' 'bum 7/20, Mespo'i shul bzhag, vol. 138, Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib'jug khang (Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,2010), 226]. For this Kanjur and the reference to thetantra, see now also H. Eimer, The Early Mustang Kanjur Catalogue,Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 45(Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische StudienUniversität Wien, 1999), 20, 51, no. 108.97 Mi'i dbang po mgon po rgyal mtshan gyi dris lan sngon rabs gsal ba'i melong, Collected Works, vol. III (New Delhi, 1977), 25-6 [=Collected Works, vol. Ga [III], tbrc.org, W00KG01660, 17a-b].98 See Y. Imaeda, "Un extrait tibétain du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpadans les manuscrits de Touen-Houang," Nouvelles contributions deTouen-Houang, ed. M. Soymié (Geneva: Droz, 1981), 303-20 and

53

from the interesting questions raised by these prophecies,not to mention the yet to be explored role of prophecy assuch in Tibetan historiography, there are numerous problemswith the texts of many of these, ranging from quitedifferent readings of one and the same prophecy to theirentire absence from the late south Indian manuscript of thetantra - the consensus is that it dates from the sixteenthcentury. It is well known that this manuscript belongs to aradically different filiation of the text than the ones usedfor the late tenth century Chinese translation by theKashmirian *Devaśānti [and others], or the Tibetan one by*Kumārakalaśa and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros.99 It is forthis reason that we are eagerly awaiting the results ofDelhey's edition of a Sanskrit manuscript of the text thatwas recovered in the Kathmandu Valley.

R.E. Lerner quite brilliantly traced the so-calledCedar of Lebanon prophecy that an unknown Cistercian monkbrought into circulation in Hungary against the backdrop ofthe imminent Mongol invasion of that land which nevermaterialized.100 The prophecy itself was written sometimebetween 1238 and 1240. Among other thngs, Lerner showed how,over the next few centuries, this particular prophecyspawned a series of modulated and varying prophecies thatoften responded to current concerns. When more is knownabout the specific circumstances and the ends to whichprophecies may have been used in the Tibetan cultural area,a similar case can perhaps be made that the wording of not afew of these Indo-Tibetan prophecies was frequently modified

R. Stein, "Tibetica Antiqua IV: La tradition relative au débutdu bouddhisme au Tibet," Bulletin de L'École Française d'Extrême OrientLXXV (1986), 172. Already A. Macdonald pointed out in her LeMaṇḍala du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1962),17-9, that the tradition was well aware of multipletranslations of this work. 99 A. Macdonald, Le Maṇḍala du Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, 16, gives ahandy overview of these disparities.100 The Powers of Prophecy. The Cedar of Lebanon Vision from the MongolOnslaught to the Dawn of Enlightenment (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1983).

54

[and thus reinterpreted and reevaluated] in order that theymight give support and conform to new historicalcircumstances.

Now in his undated response to the question Mgon porgyal mtshan that posed him about the identity of Gnya' khribtsan po's father, Glo bo Mkhan chen first states that nosources, scriptural or otherwise, are really clear on this.He then cites this passage from what he identifies as[*Kumārakalaśa's and] Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros' mid-eleventh century translation of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra as aprophecy of a Tibetan ruler:

lha ldan zhes bya'i yul gyi ni // [a]gangs can ri'i nang gnas par // [b]rgyal po mi'i lha zhes pa // [c]li tsha byi zhes rigs su 'byung // [d]

Of course, there is something seriously amiss with line [a],and lines [b] and [c] do not strictly follow thequantitative Tibetan prosodic rules, which can, however, beeasily remedied by reading ri yi for ri'i and mi yi for mi'i. Thewording of this prophecy corresponds pretty much to thequotation of the text in the catalog of the Snar thangKanjur101:

lha ldan yul zhes bya [bya] ba yi // [a]gangs can ri yi nang gnas par // [b]rgyal po mi yi lha zhes pa // [c]li tsa bī rnams zhes rigs su 'byung // [d]

We can venture the following translation:

Living among the snow-icy mountains,Which is called Lha ldan yul, A king called Mi yi lhaWill occur in the line of descent called the Licchavis.

101 Bka' 'gyur, vol. 106, 114

55

On the other hand, the text of *Kumārakalaśa's and Lo tsā baShākya blo gros' translation of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra that iscontained in the block printed Kanjurs reads102:

lha ldan yul zhes bya ba yi // [a]gangs can ri yi nang gnas pa’i // [b]rgyal po mi yi lha zhes pa // [c]li tstsha bī rnams rigs su byung //[d]

The first three lines translate as:

A king called Mi yi lha,Who lives among the snow-icy mountains,Which is called Lha ldan yul, ...

Glo bo Mkhan chen then juxtaposes the quatrain with onefrom Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab's translation and with theSlob dpon's quotation of the text; the first apparentlyread:

kha ba'i spyan/rlan can nang gnas par // [a]nga rgyal bral ba'i rgyal po lha // [b]rgyal ba'i rigs su 'byung ba ste // [c]

Line [a] is problematic and we should, I think, dispensewith spyan, which is the reading of the manuscriptspublished in New Delhi and opt for rlan, even though this isnowhere else attested. These three lines can be rendered as:

Living within an area with the moisture of snow,A divine king bereft of pride,Will occur in the Victorious One's line of descent.

Here we have this king being born in the family in which thehistorical Buddha was born! And this is a recurring motif.102 The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK],ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 18, no. 540 [# 543], 89/5 [Na, 311a].The text in Bka' 'gyur, vol. 88, 910, reads the same.

56

By contrast, the citation of the Slob dpon's prophecy in theMañjuśrīmūlatantra that we have in the manuscript of Glo boMkhan chen's work that is made available through tbrc.orgreads:

kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs //ye shes 'od ces bya 'byung //

In the snowy land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will occur.

Aside from the fact that Lha bla ma is explicitly mentionedin this particular reading, this contrasts sharply with thereading of the first line in the New Delhi edition of thissame work, which has:

kha ba can du rgyal ba'i rigs //ye shes 'od ces bya 'byung //

In the snowy land, one of the Victorious One's line ofdescent,

Called Ye shes 'od, will occur.

Here, too, instead of having Lha bla ma being born in anondescript rgyal po'i rigs, his text of the Slob dpon's workapparently rgyal ba'i rigs, that is to say, Ye shes 'od's lineof descent is now traced back to the great Shākya family(shakya chen po'i rigs), that is, to the family of the historicalBuddha himself! Indeed, there is no better way to underscorethe sanctity of Lha bla ma than to link him also geneticallyto the historical Buddha! Rather charitably stating thatthese versions are different but similar translations, Globo Mkhan chen evidently agreed with the rgyal ba'i rigs reading!But he does find fault with the observation made by "some"who suggested that this passage from the tantra foretellsthe coming of Lha tho tho ri. According to him, the reasonwhy this is not correct is that the passage from the tantrawould have foretold (lung bstan) that Lha tho tho ri wouldlive ('tsho) for eighty [= New Delhi edition] or eighty-four

57

[tbrc.org edition] years, whereas [I suppose for himreliable sources have] stated (bshad) that he lived for onehundred and twenty years.103 And he cites once again thetranslation of Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab:

lo ni stong dang brgyad bcu 'tsho/mtsho //

Lived for a thousand and eighty years."

The text for this line in the published Sanskrit text is104:

aśītivarśāṇi kṛtvāsau / 551c

Assuming that Lo tsā ba Chos kyi shes rab's was an incorrectrendition ('gyur ma dag pa), he is quite right to doubt theintegrity of the translation of the Sanskrit line, which*Kumārakalaśa and Lo tsā ba Shākya blo gros more or lesscorrectly translated as:

lo ni brgyad cur rgyal srid byas //

Governed for eighty years.

But he nonetheless wonders whether, if it were not so, theprophecies of both Lha bla ma and Lha tho tho ri would be bevitiated, and then concludes as follows:

kho bo ni lugs de rnams gyi nang nas / lugs phyi ma de sngon gyilha bla ma la sogs pa'i yig tshang rnying pa chos [b]rtags 'byarba rnams na yod ces / chos rje paṇḍi ta gsung ba ltar 'thad parsems so /

103 This year is given in, for example, the chronicleattributed to Nyang ral and in Bu ston's work, for whichsee, respectively, Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed.Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 164, and E. Obermiller, tr.,History of Buddhism (chos-'byung) by Bu ston. II. Part. The History of Buddhismin India and Tibet, 183.104 The Sanskrit text is taken from K.P. Jayaswal, An ImperialHistory of India in a Sanskrit Text, *40.

58

I think that, from among these views, what theChos rje had said is correct, namely, that thelatter position, is present in the "religiousmarkers" (chos rtags)105 that are affixed to the oldarchival documents of the early Lha bla ma.

The phrase sngon gyi lha bla ma, "the early Lha bla ma," shouldperhaps be understood when we consider that Byang chub 'odis also on occasion referred to as Lha bla ma, which wouldthen make him "the later Lha bla ma" (*phyi[ ma]'i lha bla ma),although I have yet to come across this phrase. But it isclear from the foregoing that Lha tho tho ri as the possiblesubject of the prophecy is no longer an issue, as is thestarting point of Glo bo Mkhan chen's deliberations, namely,the question of the identity of Gnya' khri btsan po'sfather. Furthermore, it would appear that the Chos rjePaṇḍita is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen, for, in hisbiography of Lha bla ma, he quotes the following lines fromthe Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa that, in his opinion, have him as theirsubject106:

lha ldan yul zhes bya ba yi /gangs can ri yi nang gnas pa /rgyal po lha yi bla ma zhes /shākya yis [read: yi] ni rigs las 'khrungs /

de yang sngags kyi don bsgrubs ste /chos dang longs spyod ldan pa 'gyur /rig pa longs spyod ldan zhes pa /mi yi bdag pos de'ang 'grub /lo ni brgyad bcur rgyal srid byed /

We have seen what the Tibetan text of the first four linesis all about as far as the published Kanjur texts of theMañjuśrīmūlakalpa are concerned. The last five lines are notas problematic, but some tweaking will be necessary. I will105 See n. 85.106 LHA, 2a-b.

59

not dwell on this - note for example Gu ge Pan chen's chosdang longs spyod ldan pa instead of longs spyod che dang ldan parwhich is the correct translation of mahābhogī -, but it maybe useful to reproduce these here from the Sde dge print andthe Bka' 'gyur dpe bsdur ma107:

de yang sngags kyi don bsgrubs ste //longs spyod che dang ldan par 'gyur //rig pa longs spyod ldan zhes bya //mi yi bdag pos de yang grub //lo ni brgyad cur rgyal srid byas //

The putative Sanskrit text of this passage is108:

nepālamaṇḍale khyāte himādriḥ kukṣimānśrite //109 549c-drājā mānavendrastu licchavīnāṃ kulo vaḥ /so'pi mantrārthasiddhastu mahābhogī bhaviṣyati // 550vidyā bhogavati nāma tasya siddhā narādhiye /aśītivarśāṇi kṛtvāsau rājyaṃtaskaravajitam // 551

Following these lines from the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, Gu gePaṇ chen then cites another prophetic statement, which hesays is taken from the Snying rje pad dkar che ba[Mahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra], where the Buddha apparently hadsaid the following:

kun dga' bo nga 'das pa'i dus na / ma 'ongs pa na byang phyogskyi brgyud / kha ba can gyi yul / spos kyi ngad ldan pa'i gram du /dge slong ye shes 'od zhes bya ba byung ste / de ni mang du thosshing / 'dul ba dang mdo dang ma mo 'dzin pa / gzhung 'dzin du'jug par 'gyur gyi / nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed do /

107 See above n. 102.108 K.P. Jayaswal, An Imperial History of India in a Sanskrit Text, *40. 109 The reference to Nepal, that is, the Kathmandu Valley asper nepālamaṇḍale, "in the Nepal mandala," is fullysurpressed in the Tibetan translation that we have before usin the canon, and its possible Tibetan equivalent *ne pāl/balyul [gyi] dkyil 'khor [du], is replaced by the non-committal andinnocuous lha ldan yul, "the divine land"!

60

Ānanda! When I have passed on, in the future, amonk called Ye shes 'od will have occured on theslope of the Spos kyi ngad ldan [*Gandhamādana]mountain range of the snowy land in the northernreaches; being learned, he is one who is anadherent of the disciplinary code, the sutra, the"mother" (ma mo, *mātṛkā = abhidharmaphenomenology), and the textual tradition, and hewill increase my Teaching.

Neither this citation nor any of the other citations fromthis sutra that figure below are retrievable from the circa800 translation of the sutra by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi,and Sna nam Ye shes sde that came to be included in all theavailable Kanjurs. Many of the other sources that I haveused for this essay allegedly cite passages from this samesutra, and these present us with as many variant readings asdid the quotations that were allegedly derived from theTibetan version[s] of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. Again, citing thevery same sutra, the Slob dpon has110:

byang phyogs su 'od kyi mthas brgyan pa can gyi dge slong 'byungbar 'gyur ro // des kyang bstan pa rgyas par byed do //

In the northern area, a monk who[se name] isadorned with the ending 'od will occur; he, too,will increase the Teaching.

This is all too reminiscent of the prophetic lines that willbe signaled below which, in fact, have nought to do withthis sutra! And the three versions of the chronicleattributed to Nyang ral have111:

110 Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum [Sde dge print], vol. 2, 344/1 [Nga,314a] {= Mes po'i shul bzhag, vol. 8, 489}.111 Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud, ed. Nyan shulMkhyen rab 'od gsal, 461, R.O. Meisezahl, ed., Tafel 335/a,and Manuscript "B" (Paro, 1979), 544-5.

61

kun dga' bo mya ngan ma byed smre sngags ma 'don / nga myangan las 'das pa'i 'og tu byang phyogs su dge slong ye shes 'odzhes bya ba 'byung ste / de yis bstan pa rgyas par byed do /

Ānanda! Do not suffer! Do not utter words ofdistress! After I have passed beyond suffering, amonk called Ye shes ‘od will occur in the northernregion; he will increase the Teaching.

Indeed, the passage of sutra in the Sde dge print of theKanjur and the Bka' 'gyur dpe bsdur ma states something quitedifferently112:

kun dga' bo nga 'das nas byang phyogs kyi rgyud na yul spos 'dzinzhes bya ba na dge slong 'od srung zhes bya ba 'byung ste / rdzu'phrul che ba mthu che ba / dbang che bar grags pa gsal ba 'jigspa med pa / mang du thos pa / 'dul ba 'dzin pa / mdo 'dzin pa / mamo 'dzin pa / yang dag par ston pa / yang dag par 'dzin du 'jugpa / yang dag par gzengs bstod pa / yang dag par rab tu dga' barbyed pa nas de yang nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed…

Ānanda! In the area called Spos 'dzin [*Gandharī],in the northern ranges, a monk called *Kaśyapawill occur. He is one with magic that is great,with spiritual power that is great, renowned forhaving force that is great, lucid, fearless,learned, an adherent of Buddhist discipline, anadherent of the sutra, an adherent of the Ma mo,one who teaches the truth, one who adheres to thetruth, one who extolls the truth, one who delightsin the truth; he, moreover, will increase myTeaching...

A few phrases later we significantly read what reminds us ofthe "quotation" in Nyang ral's work:

112 The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition [= Sde dge xylograph, vdK],ed. A.W. Barber, vol. 11, no. 111 [# 111], 24/4 [Cha, 83a],and Bka' 'gyur, vol. 50, 211.

62

kun dga' bo khyod mya ngan ma byed / smre sngags ma 'don cig /kun dga' bo nga 'das nas byang phyogs kyi rgyud na....

You Ānanda! Do not suffer! Do not utter words ofdistress! Ānanda! After I have passed beyondsuffering, in the northern region....

Given all these variations aming these quotations and thefact that almost none of these are retrievable from thetexts in the canon, one hardly escape the conclusion thateither Gu ge Paṇ chen and these other writers have simplymade up the text of these prophecies, marshaling a goodmeasure of their creative imagination, or, what is perhapsequally if not more likely, but certainly more charitably,that they borrowed their texts from other works in whichtheir authors' imagination had played this creative role.The biography is replete with statements, some apparentlyissuing from Lha bla ma himself, that are decidedly anti-Bonor that voice profound opposition to practices that areassociated with this religious tradition. And there is noquestion that, according to his biography and the relevantpassages from the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, Lha bla ma soughtto curtail, if not eliminate altogether, what these sourcesrefer to as non-Buddhist Bon practices.113 A more seriousinstance where it is quite clear that, at a minimum,something truly apocryphal is going on is when Gu ge Paṇchen cites two sutras in which rather unpleasant sentimentsregarding the Bon po tradition are given expression. Thesutras in question are the Ye shes rgyas pa'i mdo and the Dge sdigbstan pa'i mdo, and these apparently contained one and thesame passage that promised in no uncertain terms a quick andone-way descent into hell should one practice thisreligion!114

We now come full circle. I noted at the beginning of mydiscussion of the prophecies that allegedly prophesy Lha bla113 See, respectively, R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrangAccording to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang gragspa, 54-5, 57, 110, 112, and LHA, 4a, 6b-7a, ff.114 LHA, 8a.

63

ma's coming that Gu ge Paṇ chen related that the disciplesof the Lo chen and several Sa skya pa scholars quotedpassages from the Tibetan Buddhist canon in which the Buddhahimself had foretold Lha bla ma's advent. He makes thisobservation after he himself had signaled the relevantpassages from what in his opinion, or from he wants hisaudience to believe, were the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa and theMahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra. He then writes that they quoted theformer as follows:

kha ba can gyi ljongs su rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung ngo //

In the region with snow, a king whose name has an'od ending, will occur.

And he adds that even though (yang) they did so, thereoccurs the statement:

kha ba can du rgyal po'i rigs ye shes 'od ces bya ba rab tu byungste / des nga'i chos rnams dar bar 'gyur ro //

In the snowy area, a Ye shes 'od of royal descentwill have renounced the world. He will spread mydharma-teachings.

He does not specifiy where the latter might be located, but,needless to say, neither of these occurs in the text of thetranslation of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa that is currently widelyavailable. Yet another version of the prophecy with thecurious "'od ending", again allegedly stemming from one andthe same Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, is cited in Zul phu ba's andMchims' biographies of Atiśa; there the text reads115:

kha ba can gyi rgyal khams 'dir //rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung //

115 H. Eimer, Rnam thar rgyas pa. Materialien zu einer Biographie des Atiśa(Dīpaṃkaraśrī-jñāna), 1. Teil, 216, and 2. Teil, 145.

64

Of course, these two lines are not found in theMañjuśrīmūlakalpa, but rather in other sources that aresignaled below. But in his study of the ritual complexcentering on the Buddha as healer Mchims has116:

gangs can du ni rgyal po'i rigs //ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //

In the icy land, one of royal descent, Called Ye shes 'od, will occur.

This text of the prophecy is almost the very same as the onefound in the Slob dpon's work. However, matters stand quitedifferently with his alleged citation from theMahākāruṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra that follows it, for there we have:

kun dga' bo mya ngan ma byed ma 'ongs na nga mya ngan las'das pa'i 'og tu byang phyogs su rgyal po'i rigs dge slong ye shes'od ces bya ba 'byung ste / des nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed do //

Ānanda! Do not suffer! In the future, after I havepassed beyond suffering, a monk called Ye shes 'odof royal descent will occur in the north; he willincrease my Teaching.

But there are additional prophecies that are aimed atLha bla ma that are not explicitly cited as such by Gu gePaṇ chen. He first reproduces the following, rather boastfulstatement from "a biography"117:

skye bo mtha' dag la 'jig rten lugs kyi mthun pa'i bka' lung / khyadpar yul dus dang 'tshams zhing bsgrub par nus pa'i dge sdig blangdor gyi rnam bzhag lugs kyi bstan bcos mang du mdzad pas slobdpon 'phags pa klu sgrub las lhag pa yin no //

Since he gave many orders to all the people inaccordance with the ways of the world [something

116 De 4n gshegs pa brgyad 'khor dang bcas pa la gsol ba gdab pa, 370.117 LHA, 22a.

65

seems to be missing and I add: and] wrote manysecular tracts, expositions of what is wholesomeand sinful, of what is to be accepted andrejected, that are in accord with a particulartime and place and that one is able to turn into areality, he was superior to Master Noble Nāgārjuna(ca. 2ndc.).118

And then reproduces the following prophecies of Lha bla maand the Lo chen without attributing them to a specificsource119:

lha rgyal bla ma ye shes 'od //sangs rgyas mdzad pa byed par 'gyur //

Divine King Lama Ye shes 'od,Will do enlightened acts.

rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can dang //dge slong bya'i gdong can gyi [read: gyis] //nga'i bstan pa rgyas par byed //

118 This most likely alludes to the politico-religiouselements of the Ratnāvalī that may have been written for aŚātavāhana king and the three collections of gnomes (lugs gyibstan bcos) that are attributed to him, namely, thePrajñāśataka, the Janapoṣanabindu, and the Prajñādaṇḍa. For somepenetrating remarks on the Ratnāvalī in connection with thepolitical, see C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "Immortality Extolledwith Reason: Philosophy and Politics in Nāgārjuna,"Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th

Birthday, ed. B. Kellner et al., Wiener Studien zurTibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.1 (Wien:Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische StudienUniversität Wien, 2007), 761 ff. LHA, 4a, relates that Lhabla ma had studied unspecified lugs kyi bstan bcos in his youth.119 These are also noted in the Royal Succession of Mnga' ris, forwhich see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to theMnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa, 58, 112.

66

The king with the name ending in 'od andThe monk with a bird's face,120

Will increase my Teaching.

We encounter these prophecies in a number of differentworks, first and formeost perhaps in a recension of thetext-historically very problematic Bka' chems ka khol ma, inNyang ral's alleged chronicle, and in the Maṇi bka' 'bum inthe formation of which Nyang ral is said to have played animportant role. A gter ma-revelatory or treasure text thatAtiśa allegedly discovered in the hollow of a pillar in theJo khang temple of Lhasa, in the late 1040s, the traditionregards, not at all unproblematically, the former to be anautobiography of Btsan po-Emperor Srong btsan sgam po (d.649). Indeed, it is the locus classicus for the narrative of theemperor being the re-embodiment of Avalokiteśvara, for thelatter to be the patron-Bodhisattva and protector of theTibetan area, for Thon mi Sambhoṭa and the invention of theTibetan script, and for much else that has beentraditionally been taken for granted. The transmission ofthis work is beset with enormous problems, as many earlierTibetan scholars such as 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481) have remarked.121 Towards the end of only one ofseveral recensions of this work, we come across a series of

120 The notion that Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po had a bird-like face is already entertained in the biography ofmiddling length (rnam thar 'bring ba) that his disciple Gu geKhyi thang pa Dpal ye shes, alias Jñanaśrī, had writtenprobably not long after his passing; see Byang chub sems dpa' lotsā ba rin chen bzang po'i 'khrungs rabs dka' spyad sgron ma rnam thar shel'phreng lu gu rgyud, ed. Tho ling gtsug lag khang lo gcig stong'khor ba'i rjes dran mdzad sgo'i go sgrig tshogs chung(Dharamsala, 1996), 13-4.121 See my "Faulty Transmissions: Some Notes on TibetanTextual Criticism and the Impact of Xylography," Editions,éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, evolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet et al.,Collectanea Himalayica 3 (Munich: Indus Verlag, 2010), 456-7.

67

prophecies of the Lo chen and, shortly following it, one inwhich figures the "'od ending"; we read122:

de'i dus nub phyogs dag tu sku 'khrungs pa'i //dge slong bya yi gdong ba can zhig 'byung //

At that time, one who is born in the western regions,A monk with a bird-like face will appear.

de dus rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can ni //byang chub sems ldan blo gros brtan pa 'byung //123

At that time, a king with a name ending in 'od,One with an enlightened mind and of firm intelligence

will appear.

Adding further layers of intertextual complexity, these verysame prophecies from this recension of the Bka' chems ka khol maare, as stated, also encountered in the chronicle attributedto Nyang ral as well as in gter ma text of the Maṇi bka' 'bum,which appears to have been more carefully transmitted thanthe first.124 Undated, the anonymous series of rebirth122 Bka' chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Gansu'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 280-1. The section onprophecies that are found at the end of this edition are notcontained in many other extant manuscripts of the text,including the manuscript that is available from tbrc.org atW00KG010083. 123 The passage is glossed by byang 'od gnyis, "the two Byangand 'Od," and I wonder whether this means that the glossatorwas of the opinion that the reference is to both Byang chub'od and Zhi ba 'od! The recently republished Chinesetranslation of the Bka' chems ka khol ma in 古古古 - 古古古古古古古 Zhujianshi - Songzan ganbu de yixun, tr. 卢卢卢 Lu Yajun (Beijing: Zhongguozangxue chubanshe, 2010), 171, ignored this gloss.124 See, respectively, Chos 'byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi'i bcud,ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab 'od gsal, 257, and Maṇi bka' 'bum,vol. 2, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe tshogs dpe rnying'tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs

68

stories ('khrungs rabs) that center on 'Brom ston Rgyal ba'i'byung gnas (1004/5-63/64) - it was he who inherited Atiśa'smantel -, seems to have grown up in a similar spiritualenvironment as the Bka' chems ka khol ma. In this environmentthat was undoubtedly local and perhaps even 'Brom-clanbased, there arose the idea that 'Brom ston was a re-embodiment of Srong btsan sgam po and thus also ofAvalokitśvara. The dynamics of these affiliations are fromclear, but in these rebirth stories we also read125:

kha ba can gyi rgyal khams su //rgyal po 'od kyi mtha' can 'byung //

In the snowy kindom,A king with the name ending in 'od will appear.

and

gangs can du ni rgyal po'i rigs //ye shes 'od ces bya ba 'byung //

In the icy land, one of royal descent, Named Ye shes 'od will appear.

Following these prophecies, Gu ge Paṇ chen furtherimpresses upon his readers the notion that Lha bla ma was abona fide Bodhisattva - indeed, he informs us later that heis Mañjuśrī -, and he cites to this effect the series oflines of verse from Zhi ba 'od, Lha bla ma's grand-nephew,that we actually encounter in the colophon of Zhi ba 'od'sand Lo chen's translation, it may even be the only source tohave preserved it, of the Śrī-Paramādiṭīkā126:

dpe skrun khang, 2011), 424.125 Jo bo rje dpal ldan a ti sha'i rnam thar bka' gdams pha chos, ed. Mkha''gro tshe ring (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang,1994), 113. And the later statement on p.305 of the sametext no doubt alludes to this prophecy with the phrase"having the ending of 'od" ('od kyi mtha' can)].

69

sngon gyi smon lam thugs rje'i dbang gis na /lha rigs byang chub sems dpa'i sprul pa ste /sa steng rgyal po'i rgyal por sku sprul pa /'gro ba skyob phyir khyim[s] gnas spangs pa yi /bla ma byang chub sems dpa' ye shes 'od /mnga' ris [b]stod 'di 'dul ba'i don du byung /

Through the force of the liberating compassion ofthe initial aspiration to resolve to become aBuddha,Of a divine line, a wondrous manifestation of anenlightened being (byang chub sems dpa'),Wondrously, bodily manifested as the king of kings ofthe world,Who forsook his residence in order to protect migratingbeings,Lama Enlightened Being Ye shes 'od,Appeared for the sake of pacifying this Mnga' ris stod.

We have now almost reached the end of the biography'sprolegomenon and prophecies. It closes with several lines ofprose stating among other things that he was a re-embodimentof Mañjuśrī and a quatrain of indirect praise, and a hint atwhat is to follow, namely, that the remainer of thebiography is divided into the following three uneven

126 LHA, 3a, ad SDE, vol. 29, no. 2516 [# 2512], 417/5 [Li,192a]; this was also used by the Slob dpon in the passagereferred to above in n. 22. See the discussion of this verse[with variant readings] in C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, "Was Byangchub sems dpa' a Posthumous Title of King Ye shes 'od? TheEvidence of a Tabo Colophon," Tabo Studies II. Manuscripts, Texts,Inscriptions, and the Arts, ed. C.A. Scherrer-Schaub and E.Steinkellner, Serie Orientalia Roma, LXXXVII (Roma: IstitutoItaliano per L'Africa e L'Oriente, 1999), 216-7. Albeit leftunidentified, this passage is also cited in the RoyalSuccession of Mnga' ris, for which see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms ofGu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga' ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chenNgag dbang grags pa, 52, 108.

70

parts.127: [1] Lha bla ma’s youthful activities, [2] hisactivities as a householder and ruler, and [3] hisactivities on behalf of the Buddha's doctrine after he wasordained a monk.

127 These three are found in LHA, 3a-6a, 6a-9b, 9b-end.

71

72