Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer (Hrsg.)

NEPALICA-TIBETICA

FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS

BAND 1

2013

IITBS International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH

Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer (Hrsg.) NEPALICA-TIBETICA

FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS BAND 1

BEITRÄGE ZUR ZENTRALASIENFORSCHUNG

begründet von R. O. Meisezahl ! und Dieter Schuh herausgegeben von Peter Schwieger

Band 28, 1

NEPALICA-TIBETICA

FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS

BAND 1

Herausgegeben von

Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer

2013 IITBS

International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH

Abbildung Umschlag Band 1: Rolf A. Kluenter © ALI-Ranjana, 1998

Blackened, handmade Nepalese paper Pigment, binder 120x120 cm

Verso dated and signed by the artist

ISBN 978-3-03809-119-6 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus fotomechanisch oder auf andere Weise zu vervielfältigen. © (IITBS) International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast

Courtesy of Cristina Scherrer-Schaub

PREFACE A person’s 65th birthday is often considered as the occasion to reflect on his or her life and achievements and to express one’s thanks. This opportunity has arisen this year in the case of our friend and travelling companion Christoph Cüppers, who has dedicated his life to Tibetan and Nepalese Studies and assisted and supported many academic projects and careers in these fields. Christoph was born into a family of lawyers from the Rhineland. His academic background is unusual as he began by studying art from 1970 to 1975 at the “Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsseldorf”. He trained under artists such as Joseph Beuys and Gotthard Graubner. It was during that time that he first travelled to Asia and, on reaching Southern India, encountered Tibetan culture and its exile communities. On his return to Germany the decision was made: he changed to Oriental Studies and started to learn Tibetan, Sanskrit, Pali and Chinese at the University of Hamburg. At an Institute where the study of Tibet and its Buddhist traditions had attracted a small band of fellow students, his teachers were, to name a few, dGe-bshes dGe-’dun blo-gros, Lambert Schmithausen and Albrecht Wezler. Fascinated by Asia he returned frequently to Southern India and Himachal Pradesh. A scholarship of the “Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes” enabled him to continue his practice on the spot: at Sera Monastery in Bylakuppe he studied Tibetan language and philosophy. With the death in 1979 of his teacher dGe-bshes dGe-’dun blo-gros, who had been a formative influence on his students, it was planned to fill the recently established chair in Tibetan Studies at the University of Hamburg with a native scholar. It was Christoph who facilitated the stay of dGe-bshes Tshul-khrims phun-tshogs at the Institute, helped in practical matters and acted as translator. Soon afterwards, in 1983, Christoph finished his dissertation, a textual study of the ninth chapter of the Samādhirājasūtra. Immediately after taking his degree he was offered by Albrecht Wezler the position of Deputy Director of the Nepal-German Manuscript Project (NGMPP) and Nepal Research Centre (NRC) in Kathmandu. On his first arrival he fell in love with the country, and his feelings towards Nepal have remained constant for the last thirty years. During his time at the NGMPP and NRC, of which he later became Director, he worked in close cooperation with the National Archives and the Department of Archaeology, collecting Tibetan manuscripts and block prints in the Kathmandu valley, and conducting expeditions to photograph manuscripts in regions of the Nepalese Himalayas such as Helambu, Southern Mustang, Jumla and Solu Khumbu. Besides his duties as Director, he supported many individual scholars in their research and assisted larger projects sponsored by the German Research Council such as the Nepal Research Programme under Bernhard Kölver. These activities continued even after his term had finished and after the establishment under Willibald Haffner and Dieter Schuh of a new programme of the German Research Council called Tibet Himalaya. In 1989 Christoph returned together with his wife Savitri and their son Bikas to his hometown of Düsseldorf in order to work on a project at the University of Bonn. His interests had changed to politics and history: the new project was concerned with state formation in 17th-century Tibet and was based on a critical edition and annotated translation of the “Guidelines for Government officials” written by the regent Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho. During this time he also worked on the edition and translation of a manuscript containing a Tibetan-Newari Lexicon and on a compilation of Tibetan proverbs and sayings. He also undertook a longer field trip in 1992 to Dharmsala, where he studied and collected Tibetan documents, and in 1994 he assisted the Austrian-Italian research team in Tabo in the region of Spiti.

viii Preface

In 1995, with the establishment by the Reiyukai of the Lumbini International Research Institute (LIRI) at Buddha’s birthplace, Christoph and Savitri returned to Nepal. Their home in Sano Thimi has served since then—like the LIRI—as a centre for scholarly exchange and personal encounters between foreign researchers and native scholars. As Director, Christoph has initiated several series of publications with a growing number of titles; they are for the most part results of research projects in the fields of Buddhist, Tibetan and Nepalese Studies, supported by the LIRI and conducted on the spot. Successful seminars have also been held in Lumbini, the first of these in the year 2000 on the subject of the “Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet.” Although the administrative duties are heavy, Christoph continues to travel and to cooperate with researchers, working, for example, with the International Tibetan Archives Preservation Trust (ITAPT) and the Tibetan Autonomous Regional Archives (TARA) in Lhasa, and finds the time to continue his research work. It is therefore a great pleasure to present to Christoph this Festgabe with contributions from friends and colleagues covering the fields of his interest and documenting his influence and inspiration. We would like to thank Dieter Schuh und Nikolai Solmsdorf, who were of great help in producing this volume and bringing the individual articles into a coherent format. Special thanks go to all the authors for delivering their articles in time and making this collection a true offering. Munich, September 2013 Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer

TABULA GRATULATORIA

JOHN ARDUSSI

EBERHARD BERG

ROLAND BIELMEIER

HORST BRINKHAUS

KATIA BUFFETRILLE

GUDRUN BÜHNEMANN

VOLKER CAUMANNS

MICHELA CLEMENTE

OLAF CZAJA

HUBERT DECLEER

HILDEGARD DIEMBERGER

BRANDON DOTSON

FRANZ-KARL EHRHARD

HELMUT EIMER

FELIX ERB

FRANZ XAVER ERHARD

MARTIN GAENSZLE

REINHARD GREVE

NIELS GUTSCHOW

MICHAEL HAHN

PAUL HARRISON

JENS-UWE HARTMANN

JÖRG HEIMBEL

AMY HELLER

NATHAN HILL

TONI HUBER

ROLF A. KLUENTER

ANDREAS KRETSCHMAR

DAVID P. JACKSON

MATHEW KAPSTEIN

LEONARD VAN DER KUIJP

CHRISTIAN LUCZANITZ

KAMAL PRAKASH MALLA

DAN MARTIN

KLAUS-DIETER MATHES

PETRA MAURER

ADELHEID METTE

AXEL MICHAELS

MICHAEL PAHLKE

ULRICH PAGEL

FRANCOISE POMMARET

KARIN PREISENDANZ

BURKHARD QUESSEL

CHARLES RAMBLE

ALEXANDER VON ROSPATT

CRISTINA SCHERRER-

SCHAUB

LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN

DIETER SCHUH

MARTA SERNESI

PETER SCHWIEGER

DAVID SEYFORT RUEGG

WEIRONG SHEN

PETER SKILLING

PER K. SØRENSEN

ERNST STEINKELLNER

KIMIAKI TANAKA

TASHI Y. TASHIGANGPA

MANFRED TREU

HELGA UEBACH

ROBERTO VITALI

MICHAEL WALTER

ALBRECHT WEZLER

MICHAEL WITZEL

ALEXANDER WUNDER

KODO YOTSUYA

CONTENTS

Volume One

Publication List of Christoph Cüppers

xiii

EBERHARD BERG On the Current Revitalization of the rNying ma Tradition among the Sherpas of

Nepal

1

ROLAND BIELMEIER Das Land Marutse in den Biographien des Padmasambhava

27

KATIA BUFFETRILLE The rTsib ri Pilgrimage: Merit as Collective Duty?

37

VOLKER CAUMANNS Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I):

The History of its Foundation

65

OLAF CZAJA Tibetan Medicinal Plants and Their Healing Potentials

89

HILDEGARD DIEMBERGER & MICHELA CLEMENTE Royal Kinship, Patronage and the Introduction of Printing in Gung thang: From

Chos kyi sgron ma to lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal

119

FRANZ-KARL EHRHARD The Royal Print of the Maṇi bka' 'bum: Its Catalogue and Colophon

143

KARL-HEINZ EVERDING Introduction to a Research Project on Documents Issued During the Period of the

Great Mongolian Empire to Tibetan Recipients

173

JÖRG HEIMBEL The Jo gdan tshogs sde bzhi: An Investigation into the History of the Four

Monastic Communities in Śākyaśrībhadra’s Vinaya Tradition

187

AMY HELLER A Sculpture of Avalokiteśvara Donated by the Ruler of Ya tse (Ya rtse mnga’

bdag)

243

NATHAN W. HILL The Emergence of the Pluralis majestatis and the Relative Chronology of Old

Tibetan Texts

249

TONI HUBER The Iconography of gShen Priests in the Ethnographic Context of the Extended

Eastern Himalayas, and Reflections on the Development of Bon Religion

263

DAVID P. JACKSON Several Episodes in the Recent History of Lumbini

295

xii Contents

MATTHEW T. KAPSTEIN A Fragment from a Previously Unknown Edition of the Pramāṇavārttika

Commentary of Rgyal-tshab-rje Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432)

315

LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) on the Nyi ma'i

rabs (*Sūryavaṃśa) and the Tibetan Royal Families

325

PUBLICATION LIST OF CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS

Monographs

1. The IXth Chapter of the Samādhirājasūtra: A Text-critical Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras (= Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 41). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990.

2. (together with K. Tamot und P. Pierce) A Tibetan-Newari Lexicon Cum Phrase Book (=

Nepalica, 10). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1996. 3. (together with P.K. Sørensen) Collection of Tibetan Proverbs and Sayings: Gems of Tibetan

Wisdom and Wit (= Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies, 7). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998. 4. Die Verordnungen für das Abrechnungswesen tibetischer Amtsstellen der dGa’ ldan pho

brang-Regierung. Faksimile-Edition und Transliteration der Hs. Cod. Tibet 24 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica).Andrast: International Instiute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press a).

5. Staatsdienst in Tibet: Die Richtlinien für die Beamten der dGa’ ldan pho brang-Regierung

nach dem Text Blang dor gsal bar ston pa’i drang thig dvangs shel gyi me long nyer gcig pa des Regenten Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press b).

6. Materialien zur Erforschung des traditionellen tibetischen Rechts. Faksimile und

Transliteration der HS. Bell 50.31.113 b: The Tibetan Codes of Law (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press c).

Articles

1. “On the Manufacture of Ink.” Ancient Nepal. Journal of the Department of Archaeology,

113, 1989, pp. 1-7. 2. “Some Remarks on a Tibetan-Newari Lexicon cum Phrase-Book.” In S. Ihara & Z.

Yamaguchi (eds.), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Narita 1989, Vol. 1 (= Monograph Series of Narita Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, 1). Narita: Narita Shinshoji, 1992, pp. 413-419.

3. “Zhabs-dkar bla-ma tshogs-drug rang-grol’s visits to Nepal and his Contribution to the

Decoration of the Bodhnāth Stūpa.” In G. Toffin (ed.), Nepal. Past and Present: Proceedings of the Franco-German Conference, Arc-et-Senans, June 1990. Paris: CNRS / Dehli: Sterling, 1993, pp. 151-158.

4. “Short Remarks on the Caves of Tabo in Spiti.” Ancient Nepal. Journal of the Department of

Archaeology, 138, 1995, pp. 131-134. 5. “A Ban on Animal Slaughter at Buddhist Shrines in Nepal.” In S. Karmay and P. Sagant

(eds.), Les Habitants du toit du Monde. Études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald (= Recherches sur la Haute-Asie, 12). Nanterre: Société d’Ethnologie, 1997, pp. 677-687.

xiv Publication List of Christoph Cüppers

6. “Some Aspects of Tibetan Administration under the dGa’-ldan pho-brang Government.” H. Krasser, M.T. Much, E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (eds.), Tibetan Studies I: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Asociatin for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, Vol. 1 (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse Denkschriften 256 / Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 21). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997, pp. 189-193.

7. “The ’Phags-pa Script.” In A. Kretschmar (ed.), The Fifth Seal: Calligraphic Icons /

Kalligraphikons. Paintings by Rolf A. Kluenther. Kathmandu 1998, pp. 49-50. 8. “Eine Merkliste mit den Aufgaben der Distriktbeauftragten (rdzong dpon) aus dem 17.

Jahrhundert.” In H. Eimer, M. Hahn, M. Schetelich & P. Wyzlic (eds.), Studia Tibetica et Mongolica: Festschrift für Manfred Taube (= Indica et Tibetica, 34). Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 1999, pp. 51-70.

9. “A Letter Written by the Fifth Dalai Lama to the King of Bhaktapur.” Journal of the Nepal

Research Centre, 12, 2001, pp. 39-42. 10. “Some Remarks on the Tibetan Language used in Former Government Decrees.” In Srong

btsan spyi’i tshogs ’dus thengs dang po / bod kyi brda sprod skad yig gi skor. Dehradun: Songtsen Library, 2003, pp. 222-229.

11. “Ein Glossar zur Terminologie der tibetischen Urkundensprache.” Zentralasiatische

Studien, 33, 2004, pp. 25-98. 12. “Newar Craftsmen Employed by the Early dGa’-ldan pho-brang Rulers.” In C. Jest, T.R.

Kansakar and M. Turin (eds.), Kesar Lall: a Homage on the Occasion of his Buraa Kanko. Kathmandu: Marina Paper, 2004, pp. 30-33.

13. “Brag-dkar-ba Chos-kyi dbang-phyug’s reminder notes for the duties of a dkon-gnyer.” In

S. Hino and T. Wada (eds.), Three Mountains and Seven Rivers: Prof. Musashi Tachikawa’s felicitation volume. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004, pp. 601-606.

14. “The classification of people: romanized text edition and English translation of the sKyes

bu rnam ’byed bshad pa gzhon nu’i mgul rgyan attributed to Sa-skya Paṇḍita Kun-dga’ rgyal-mtshan.” Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 7, 2004, pp. 107-160.

15. (together with Dieter Schuh, Roland Bielmeier und Burghart Schmidt) “Forschungsbericht

über die Exploration der Höhlen des Muktinath-Tales (1986-1987).” Zentralasiatische Studien, 35, 2006, pp. 107-172.

16. “bsTan ’dzin Chos rgyal’s Bhutan Legal Code of 1729 in Comparison with sDe srid Sangs

rgyas rgya mtsho’s Guidelines for Government Officials.” In J.A. Ardussi and F. Pommaret (eds.), Bhutan: Tradition and Changes (= Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, 10/5). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007, 45-52.

17. “Registers and Account Books of the dGa’-ldan pho-brang Government.” In R. Prats

(ed.), The Pandita and the Siddha: Tibetan Studies in Honour of E. Gene Smith. Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 2007, pp. 12-15.

18. “Die Reise- und Zeltlagerordnung des Fünften Dalai Lama.” In B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H.

Lasic, W.T. Much and H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇkīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Part 1 (= Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie

Publication List of Christoph Cüppers xv

und Buddhismuskunde, 70.1). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien, 2007, pp. 37-51.

19. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard) “Die Kupferplatten der Könige Ādityamalla und

Puṇyamalla von Ya-tshe.” In P. Maurer und P. Schwieger (eds.), Tibetstudien: Festschrift für Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag. Bonn: Bier’sche Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 37-42.

20. “Some Remarks on the Entries and Quotations Taken from the rtsis gzhi phyogs

bsgrigs (Rtsii) in S.C. Das’ Tibetan-English Dictionary.” In B. Huber, M. Volkart and P. Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Vol. 1: Chomolangma(= Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung, 12.1). Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2008, pp. 15-28.

21. “Some Remarks on Bka’ ’gyur Production in 17th-Century Tibet.” In A. Chayet, C.

Scherrer-Schaub, F. Robin & J.-L. Achard (eds.), Edition, éditions: l’écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir (= Collectanea Himalayica, 3). München: Indus Verlag, 2010, pp. 115-128.

22. “Ein Erlaß des Königs Gushri Khan aus dem Jahr 1643.” Zentralasiatische Studien, 40,

2011, pp. 165-177. 23. “Gtsang khrims yig chen mo — A Tibetan legal code kept in the National Archives of

Nepal.” Abhilekh, 30, V.S. 2069 (2013), pp. 87-106.

Edited Volumes

1. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Philip Pierce) Views of the Bodhnath Stupa (= Bauddha Books, 1). Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 1991.

2. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Ulrike Roesler) Ulrike & Hans-Ulrich

Roesler: Kadampa Sites of Phenpo: A Guide to some early Buddhist Monasteries in Central Tibet (= Bauddha Books, 2). Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 2004.

3. The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibe:

Proceedings of a Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000 (= LIRI Seminar Proceedings Series, 1). Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004.

4. (together with Max Deeg and Hubert Durt) The Birth of the Buddha: Proceedings of the

Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, October 2004 (= LIRI Seminar Proceeding Series, 3). Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2010.

5. (together with Leonard van der Kuijp, Ulrich Pagel. With a Chinese Introduction by Dobis

Tsering Gyal) Handbook of Tibetan Iconometry. A Guide to the Arts of the 17th Century (= Tibetan Studies Library, 16:4). Leiden / Boston, 2012.

Reviews

1. Tachikawa, Musashi & Yasuhiko Nagano: A Catalogue of te United Staes Library of Congress Collection of Tibetan Literature on Microfiche. Part II (= Bibliographica Buddhica, Series Maior, 3 b). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1988. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 142, 1992, pp. 208-210.

xvi Publication List of Christoph Cüppers

2. Ehrhard, Franz-Karl: “Flügelschläge des Garuḍa.” Literar- und ideengeschichtliche Bemerkungen zu einer Liedersammlung des rDzogs-chen (= Tibetan- and Indo-Tibetan Studies, 3). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 450-452.

3. Eimer, Helmut: Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu-ston im Vergleich mit der Abteilung Tantra des

tibetischen Kanjur (= Indica et Tibetica, 17). Bonn: Indica et Tibetica, 1989. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 201-202.

4. Harrison, Paul: The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present (= Studia

Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, 9). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 199-201.

Lexicographical Contributions

1. “Religionen des Himalaya.” In Bertelsmann Handbuch Religionen der Welt: Grundlagen,

Entwicklung und Bedeutung in der Gegenwart. Gütersloh / München: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag GmbH, 1992, pp. 419-421.

2. http://www.tibet-encyclopaedia.de/kompensationsrecht.html 3. http://www.tibet-encyclopedia.de/gesetzbuecher.html 4. http://www.tibet-encyclopedia.de/regierungsverordnung.html

CONTENTS

Volume Two

CHRISTIAN LUCZANITS The Buddha Beyond: Figuration in Gandharan Cult Imagery

1

DAN MARTIN Pavements Like the Sea and the Name of the Jokhang: King Solomon and the

Queen of Sheba in Lhasa?

23

KLAUS-DIETER MATHES Clouds of Offerings to Lady g.Yang ri—A Protector Practice by the First Yol mo

sprul sku Shākya bzang po (15th/16th Cent.)

37

PETRA MAURER Pferderennen und ihre Bedeutung in Tibet

57

CHARLES RAMBLE Both Fish and Fowl? Preliminary Reflections on Some Representations of a

Tibetan Mirror-World

75

ALEXANDER VON ROSPATT Altering the Immutable: Textual Evidence in Support of an Architectural History

of the Svayambhū Caitya of Kathmandu

91

CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB A Frontier Tale: Fragmented Historical Notes on Spiti Monasteries Documents

Kept in the Museum of Lahore. Part I.

117

DIETER SCHUH Tibetischen Inschriften ins Maul geschaut: Beobachtungen zu Stein- und

Felsinschriften sowie den Schriften des 7. bis 9. Jahrhunderts in Tibet

143

PETER SCHWIEGER A Forbidden Nepalese-Tibetan Love Affair

185

MARTA SERNESI Rare Prints of bKa’ brgyud Texts: A Preliminary Report

191

WEIRONG SHEN Revitalizing Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Studies: Some Old and New Thoughts

211

PETER SKILLING The Samādhirāja-Sūtra and its Mahāsāṃghika Connections

227

PER K. SØRENSEN & FRANZ XAVER ERHARD Tibetan Proverbial Literature: Semantics and Metaphoricity in Context

237

MANFRED G. TREU Lakṣmīprasāda Devakoṭās Essay "Auf der Sitzmatte"

253

Contents

vi

HELGA UEBACH The lHo-brag Cliff Inscription: An Attempt to Read it with the Help of Katia

Buffetrille’s Photographs of 1988

261

ROBERTO VITALI From Sum ru to the Great Central Asian “Sea of Sand”: Hints on the Role of the

mThong khyab in the State Organisation of Dynastic Tibet

269

MICHAEL WALTER ‘All that Glitters Is Gold’: The Place of the Yellow Metal in the Brahmanic,

Scythian, and Early Buddhist Traditions

283

ZUHIŌ YAMAGUCHI The Connection Between Tu-fan (��) in the First Half of the Seventh Century

and Nepal

299

KODO YOTSUYA dGe lugs pa Interpretation of Bhāvaviveka’s Critique of Buddhapālita’s

Argumentation of Non-Origination from Self

323

GU GE PAṆ CHEN GRAGS PA RGYAL MTSHAN DPAL BZANG PO (1415-86) ON THE NYI MA’I RABS (*SŪRYAVAṂŚA) AND THE TIBETAN ROYAL FAMILIES

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp

This short paper is written in celebration of my old friend Christophji’s sixty-fifth birthday. Hard to believe how fast the years have passed! We go back a fairly long way, in fact, way back to the winter of 1977 when, as a young and eager DAAD Stipendiat, I switched from Bonn University to Hamburg University to take up doctoral studies. I seem to remember that he was in South India at the time and, again, if memory serves, that when he returned shortly after my arrival, he did not come empty-handed; he returned with a Tibetan carpet or two. Our student years in Hamburg were fine years, indeed! In the early eighties, we met up again in Nepal and traveled to India several times. In the meantime, we also took the road to Tibet on a number of occasions and most recently we visited and walked on Mounts Wutai and Emei. For some time now, Christoph has been in-terested in questions of statehood, administrative law, and rulership, and the ways in which these manifested themselves in the Tibetan cultural area during the sev-enteenth century. It is with this admittedly slight token of our long friendship, a brief consideration of a recently published Tibetan treatise on older notions of Ti-betan royal ancestry [and legitimacy], that I venture to wish him many more fine and productive years of scholarship and much happiness in the company of his dear wife Savitri and his son and his family.

Elsewhere, I examined a few aspects of the life of the great Lha bla ma Ye shes ’od (947-1019/24) on the basis of his biography, which Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) authored in 1480.1 In that contribution, I mainly sought to introduce this important work and its author to a wider audience. I also made a few text-critical remarks on the texts of the prophecies that allegedly foretold Lha bla ma’s coming, which Gu ge Paṇ chen cited. Gu ge Paṇ chen’s disciple ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ bstan pa completed a study of his master’s life in 1488, thus two years after his passing. Regrettably, this work is by no means among the most informa-tive or detailed specimen of its genre, but his reticence about his master’s scholarly activities is still surprising, particularly in view of the fact that the latter was after all a paṇ chen/mahāpaṇḑita! Indeed, Nam mkha’ bstan pa makes but a few stereotypical remarks about his oeuvre and, aside from a reference to Gu ge Paṇ chen’s record of teachings receiv- ed (gsan yig), he makes no mention of even one title of a tract that his master may have written! Thus, till very recently, Gu ge Paṇ chen’s Life of Lha bla ma was the only complete work by him that was known to be extant. But, Christophji, how fast things bibliographical tend to change in our com-mon passion, Tibetan Studies! Only a few years had passed since Lha bla ma’s biography had surfaced when, in 2011, a ma-nuscript of a hitherto unknown, large Tibetan study of the South Asian line of kings that issued from the sun, the so-called “solar dynasty” (nyi ma’i rigs, *sūryavaṃśa), saw the light of day. The notion of Indian royal-kṣatriya dynasties having solar and lunar lines of descent goes back to the great epics of the Rāmāyaṇa, Harivaṃśa, and Mahābhārata, not to mention various Purāṇa texts.2 Titled Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, a facsimile edition of this work was published in volume Cha [6] of the second installment of the remarkable Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs series.3 Initially, its authorship may have been somew- 1 See van der Kuijp (forthcoming). 2 A useful summary of the intricacies of the solar and lunar dynasties is found online in Brodbeck (2009). 3 Ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 181-454 [fols. 1-137b]. Its pagination is a bit erratic. Probably owing to some damage, the Tibetan numbering on the left margin does not begin until fol. 6a [193]. I should like to thank Sha bo Kha byams for graciously send-ing me a PDF of volume Cha [6] in its entirety. The table of contents of this volume states that the last text

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 326

hat open to doubt, since it has neither an author’s colophon nor does it provide a time or a place of its composition. But, as we shall see, there is some evidence that this work was in fact written by our Gu ge Paṇ chen. Internally, it refers to itself as Shā kya’i rgyal rabs [s]kye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng ba and Rgya bod kyi rgyal rabs nyi zla phreng ba.4 And this already tells us so-mething of its purpose. The historical Buddha was born in the royal line of the sūryavaṃsa and, if we were to characterize Gu ge Paṇ chen’s work in a few words, then to my limited knowledge it may be the very first treatise in which a full blown actual argument is made for integrating the Tibetan royal families into the South Asian “solar dynasty” and linking them therewith to an In-dic idea of divine kingship. Ultimately, then, the Tibetan royal families would accordingly be related by blood, even if it was considerably diluted by this time, to the historical Buddha him-self, who would be their distant Indic ancestor!5 This is not a new idea, however. To be sure, it almost goes without saying that we meet with something like it in the earliest Tibetan religious chronicles and this scenario is generally known as the Gsang ba chos lugs, Secret Buddhist Position, which is one of the five [main] scenarios, the so-called Can lnga, that figure with different labels in the discussions of the origins of the Tibetan royal house.6 A good example of a chronicle in which these and others are discussed is the large-scale work that is perhaps not unproblematically attributed to Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124-92). There, a number of different competing scenarios are given for the origin, the aetiology, of the Tibetan royal families.7 These are in a nutshell: an Indian Buddhist—we must of course not lose sight of the fact that Buddhism was essentially foreign to Tibet—, a native Tibetan, and a Tibetan “Bon po” scenario. At issue is of course the question of where to situate the ancestry of Gnya’ khri btsan po, the consensual progenitor of the Tibetan royal families. Beginning with the well-known narrative from Prajñāvarman’s Devātiśayastotraṭīkā on which basis he is interpreted to have been a descendant of the five Pāṇḍava brothers known from the Mahābhārata, Nyang ral

in this collection [455-88] is a manuscript of history of Mnga’ ris. But this is mistaken, for it is simply the version of the Dba’ bzhed that was recently published in Dba’ bzhed (2010); see van der Kuijp (2011 [2012]). For the various versions of the Dba’ bzhed/Sba bzhed/Rba bzhed, see now Rme ru Yul lha thar (2012), in which a number of published versions of the text are discussed, as well as van der Kuijp (2013), 130-2, n. 45. Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus recently reissued the text of the Dba’ bzhed plus “appendix” that was published in Vienna, Austria, together with an English rendition, and provided a new and improved translation in Chinese, for which see Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2012a). This manuscript of the Dba’ bzhed plus an “appendix” is identical to the one published in Dba’ bzhed (2011). 4 See, respectively, Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 19a [217], and 69b [319]. 5 In Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 67a [313], Gu ge Paṇ chen gives the following incomplete chronology of the historical Buddha, albeit without stating how many years had passed since his nirvana: born in the fire-female-hare year; renounced the world (rab ’byung) in the wood-female-sheep year; achieved “awakening,” that is, became buddha in the iron-female-ox year, that is, when he was thirty-four years old. In spite of his affiliation with the Sa skya pa school, this chronology is not entirely identical with the one found in this school’s fifth patriarch, ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan’s (1235-80) Sangs rgyas kyi dus chen bzhi’i ngos ’dzin, Collected Works, vol. 15 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Center, 1992-3), 596-7, where the three years are, respectively, fire-female-hare, wood-female-sheep, and iron-male-rat, meaning that he was thirty-three years of age when he achieved “awakening.” I have not [yet] found another source for the iron-female-ox year as the year in which he achieved buddhahood. 6 See the discussion of the five different scenarios, the Can lnga, that have specific labels in Sørensen (1994), 519-26. See also below n. 16. 7 See Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab ’od gsal, Gangs can rigs mdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 143-7, and a parallel passage in Bu ston Rin chen grub’s (1290-1364) chronicle of 1322-6, for which see Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod, The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa, Lhasa Zhol print], part 24 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 876-7 [= Ober-miller (1932), 181-2]. But see also the longer passage in Dpa’ bo II Gtsug lag phreng ba’s (1504-64/66) chronicle in Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, vol. 1, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986), 157-160, and its translation in E. Haarh’s monumental study of the Tibetan ruling house and its origins (Haarh [1969], 172-5), which is not always unproblematic.

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po 327

reviews some seven options, one of which he explicitly characterizes to be of Bon po origin, but ultimately sides with the views expressed in the Bka’ chems ka khol ma which represents the Gsang ba chos lugs. The tradition holds that the Bka’ chems ka khol ma was written by King Srong btsan sgam po (?605-49) and was only much later recovered by Atiśa (982-1054) in the late 1040s from a hole in a pillar of Lhasa’s Jo khang temple. The original text appears to have been lost for some time and, from at least the fifteenth century on, Tibetan scholars have bemoaned the fact that all they had to work with were bowlderized and corrupt versions of the original text, whatever they thought what kind of text this might have been.8 One published version states that the Śākya line in which the historical Buddha was born was part of the solar dynasty and that it branched out into three lines of descent; these are [1] Śākya chen po, [2] Śākya licchavī, and [3] Śākya Ri brag pa.9 The Buddha was born into the first of these as one of the three sons of King [*Śuddhodana], but his line fell into oblivion, because his son Rāhula took vows as a monk and had no male offspring, as we are told by this version of the text.10 Gnya’ khri btsan po was born in the third line as the son of Ru pa skyes [*Rupati], himself the unfortunate and disavowed son of King Dmag brgya [*Śātānīka], as was foretold by an astrologer. In any event, in Nyang ral’s account of the text we read that Gnya’ khri btsan po ultimately descended from King ’Char byed [*Udayana] of Vatsa and thence from the proto-historic Ur-King Mang pos bkur ba [*Mahāsaṃmata], the ultimate progenitor of royalty, who stood at the very beginning of the Bhadra aeon.11 Gu ge Paṇ chen cites some unnamed “scholars” who counted a total of 1.616.513 generations between King Mahāsaṃmata and Rāhula, the Buddha’s son.12 The two versions of the Bka’ chems ka khol ma counted the same number of generations between the King and the Buddha, namely, 1.250.495, which flies against the number of generations between the King and Rāhula that we find in the

8 An example is ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481), for which see van der Kuijp (2010), 456-7. At one point in his narrative, Dpa’ bo II, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, 159, makes mention of a version [or: versions] of the Bka’ chems ka khol ma that “was [or: were] written on the basis of the words of Lhasa’s sacristan” (lha sa’i dkon gnyer gyi ngag las bris) “after the original manuscript had disappeared (phyi mo nub nas).” Haarh (1969), 174-5, has [mis]read lha sa’i dkon gnyer gyi dag las bris and attempted a forced translation. One is of course reminded of this sacristan in the narrative of the problem of the author-ship of the Rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long, for which see Sørensen (1994), 28 ff. 9 Titled Patrilines and the Chronicle of the Patrilines of Kings (rigs rgyud dang rgyal po’i gdung rgyud kyi lo rgyus), the relevant details are provided in the fifth chapter of Bka’ chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 58-89; 75-84 detail the Shākya lines up to and including Gnya’ khri btsan po. Almost all of this is missing in the parallel text, this time of the fourth chap-ter, of Bka’ chems ka khol ma, Ms., 20b-3a, which is simply titled Showing the Patrilines (rigs rgyud bstan pa). 10 Bka’ chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho, 76. The names given for the three sons are: Mos pa [*Adhimukti], Don grub [*Siddhārtha], and Dga’ bo [*Nanda]. On the other hand, Bka’ chems ka khol ma, Ms., 21a, relates that Śuddhodana had only two sons, Bcom ldan ’das [*Bhagavat] and *Nanda, and this is also repeated by the author of the Rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long, for which see Sørensen (1994), 52. 11 See Bka’ chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho, 59, 90, and also Bka’ chems ka khol ma, Ms., 20b. The Dkon brtsegs/Ratnakuṭa section of the Tibetan Buddhist canon contains a sutra in which the historical Buddha answers questions raised by a King Udayana; see the *Ārya-Udayanavatsarājāpariprcchāparivarta. For this work, see also Pad dkar bzang po’s 1445 Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag, ed. Mi nyag Mgon po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006), 89-90, and also the somewhat incomplete manuscript of Zhwa dmar IV Chos grags ye shes’ (1453-1524) undated Mdo sde’i spyi’i rnam par bzhag pa gsung rab rin po che mchog tu gsal bar byed pa’i snang ba, that was published in his Col-lected Works, vol. 3, ed. Yangs can dgon ris med dpe rnying myur skyob khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009), 272-3, who comments on ba [= va] tsa. Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449/51) wrote a short study of this relatively brief work, for which see Rgyal po chen po ’char byed la gdams pa’i mdo’i ’grel pa zab don gnad kyi sgron me, Collected Works, vol. Ka [I], ed. Bsod nams tshe ’phel (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2008), 420-3. He com-posed this piece at his see of Nā lendra in the year 1447. 12 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 69b [318].

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 328

Rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long, namely, 1.110.500.13 Lastly, I think it is noteworthy that of the seven different accounts that the chronicle attributed to Nyang ral enumerates, three are taken from indigenous Tibetan narratives. The first of these three has it that he hailed from a line of descent of such creatures as the The’u rang demons14; the second is that his ancestry is divine but entirely non-Indic.15 And the third which is identified to be Bon po in origin involves a narrative in which the name Gnya’ khri btsan po is not mentioned at all, but where a divinity does descend from heaven who then was the ancestor of Lha tho [tho] ri, the legendary Tibetan king with whom later sources associate the first familiarity with Budd-hism. To be sure, thusfar, nothing has surpassed the thickly descriptive and most fully analytical comments yet on the subject that we have in Haarh’s study.16 It was but a question of time before the Tibetan Buddhist intellectual communities fully reco-ded members of the royal family and placed them into an Indo-Tibetan Buddhist context, which then be-came the dominant narrative. One instance of this was of course the notion that Srong btsan sgam po was the re-embodiment Avalokiteśvara, which is altogether well known. But the invisible hand of Avalokiteśvara as a virtual bodhisattva-ex-machina had an even farther reach into Tibetan history. The series of re-embodiments in which Rong chen Ljags nag pa Dge ’dun rgyal mtshan (1374-1450), the founder of Kirti monastery [in 1412] in northern Rnga ba County of Amdo [in Sichuan Province], was born is a case in point.17 Rong chen was the forty-fifth of a series of re-embodiments that began with a disciple of the Buddha, the Arhat Nye bar ’khor [*Upāli]. The latter’s twenty-fifth re-embodiment was a certain Bzang bo, who, we are told, was the handsome and “good” (bzang ) son of Bzang dga’ and Bsod nams mtsho. In addition, he was blessed by Avalokiteśvara. One day he conversed with Legs mthong of Zhang zhung, Smad sna nam pa ’Bur legs lde, Rmug gshin, and others, and they reached a decision to look for one who could be the sovereign over all of Tibet; the “citizens” (’bangs) also said that this was a reasona-ble thing to do. At around this time, the son of an Indian king was wandering about the Tibetan area and had somehow gotten from the peak of Lha ri yol ba to Btsang thang sgo bzhi.18 He was there met by Bzang po and his companions. When they questioned him whence he came, he poin-ted to Heaven and said that he descended from the gods (lha) and they “made a throne on [their] necks” (gnya’ bar khri byas). Thus he became known as Gnya’ khri btsan po. Appointing him king, Bzang bo was made minister, and the famous Pho brang Yum bu bla sgang castle was built [it was destroyed during the “Cultural Revolution” and was rebuilt in 1982-3]. The persisting relevance of Gnya’ khri btsan po and his descent from the Śākya Ri brag pa is also on occasion tied to the narratives of the origins of several Tibetan families. This is what we find, for example, in the capsule biography of Rgyal ba seng ge (1509-80), the second Chos rje re-embodiment of ’Dzam thang monastery in Rnga ba County, where the following is related:19

chos rje ’di’i sku rus yang lha rigs mang bkur gyi gdung brgyud rgya gar rgyal po shā kya ri brag pa’i sku rigs las byung ba’i bod rgyal thog ma gnya’ khri btsan po nas rgy-al rabs sum bcu (so gsum) pa srong btsan sgam po / de’i sras gung ri gung btsan / de’i

13 Bka’ chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho, 83-4, and Bka’ chems ka khol ma, Ms., 21b. See also the discussion of this number in Sørensen (1994), 52. 14 For these demonic forces, see Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993), 282-3. 15 Haarh (1969), 213-4. 16 See Haarh (1969), 168 ff, and for footnotes to Haarh’s study, Karmay (2009)—there Karmay pointed out the similarities between the accounts given in PT 0126 and PT 1038, and the extensive quotations from the otherwise lost Can lnga found in the 13th century Lde’u chos ’byung—, and, indeed, most of Sørensen (1994), passim. 17 What follows is based on Phyogs bzhi tshang Blo bzang ye shes rgya mtsho, Kirti’i ma dgon chen mo’i chags rim, Stod cha [vol. 1] (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 172, 149-50. 18 Haarh (1969), 272-4. 19 See Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa’s (1920-75) Jo nang chos ’byung zla ba’i sgron me, Collected Works, ’Dzam thang print, vol. Ka [2] , 259 [= ed. Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims et al. (Xining: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1992), 123].

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po 329

sras mang srong mang btsan / de’i sras ’dus srong mang rje rlung nam ’phrul gyi rgyal po’am lce zhes grags pa de’i rigs las chad pa ni... As for the patriline of this Chos rje, moreover,—Srong btsan sgam po—the thir-ty(third) generation from Gnya’ khri bstan po, the first Tibetan king who came from the patriline of the Indian King Śākya brag ri, a descendant of King Mahāsaṃmata—his son was Gung ri gung btsan, his son was Mang srong mang btsan—his patriline is-sued from ’Dus srong mang rje (676-704),20 who is known as King Rlung nam ’phrul or Lce21...

Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po was, I believe, the first to publish a brief paper on an unprecedented passage from the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes in which Gu ge Paṇ chen dealt with the “decline and fall” of the Zhang zhung kingdom, but he did not elaborate there on the particular features and architecture of this work.22 Indeed, the last portion of the manuscript deals with the royal genealogies of Mnga’ ris, and the last ruler of Ya tshe/Seṃjā or Khāsa in West Nepal who is mentioned therein is a certain Mañjuśrīkīrti [’Jam dpal grags pa], who is also known as Gnya’ khri lde; he figures as the son of Khri Bkra shis bsod nams lde, alias Puṇyamalla, the fourteenth century ruler of Ya tshe.23 While the manuscript of the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes addresses the same givens as the text of the Mnga’ ris rgyal rabs / Royal Succession of Mnga’ ris, which R. Vitali edited, trans-lated, and provided with a detailed commentary,24 there are some notable variant readings and I believe that in most cases the former has the better ones. Let NYI stand for the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes and MNGA’ for the Mnga ris rgyal rabs, so that we can juxtapose the variant readings in their narratives: NYI MNGA’ 1. mon ko phral drug btul gon go phra la sogs pa btul 2. dgung lo bcu gsum pa la dgung lo bdun cu pa la 3. dbus lha rje rin po che lha sar jo bo rin po che 4. de’i sras dpal mgon lde dang de la sras lnga ste dpal mgon dang kirti mal lde dang kyir ti mel The upshot of these variants is: [1] he pacified, that is, conquered, the six Mon ko phral,25 [2] he became sovereign over Ya rtse at the age of thirteen [= twelve] and not seventy [= sixty-nine], [3]

20 Sørensen (1994), 348-50. 21 I do not quite understand this. The mention of “Lce” may very well indicate his connection through mar-riage with a member of the ancient Lce clan that ultimately settled down in the vicinity of what was to become Zhwa lu, the family’s home-monastery. Rgyal ba ye shes’ ancestors also included a certain Dkon mchog skyabs who lorded over “the twelve myriarchies (khri skor) of the eighteen great eastern valleys.” Later, Prince Qubilai met him during his 1253 campaign in Yunnan, and he was given an official Hor-Mongol position (hor gyi las ka). And, again some time thereafter, when a Sog-Mongol army was in Mdo smad, he was given an official Sog-Mongol position (sog gyi las ka). 22 See Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po (2012); we read there on 121, n.1, that Gu ge Paṇ chen passed away in 1496, but this is not borne out by his biography. For some reason, Tshe ring rgyal po did not indicate which passages of the text he is discussing; the passages in question are found in Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 124b-9b [428-38]. When we met in Chengdu in the summer of 2012, he very kindly shared with me his forthcoming essay “Paṇḑita Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis mdzad pa’i << [Mnga ’ris] nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes >> zhes bya ba’i nang bkod pa’i mnga’ ris lo rgyus skor brjod pa” in which he also does not comment on some of the particular features of this work. 23 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 138b-9b [452-4]. For Bkra shis bsod nams lde and his son, see also Petech (1988), 379-81. 24 See Vitali (1996), 71-2, 122-3, 453 ff. 25 To be sure, gon go phra occurs several times in Vitali (1996), 122, 453, 455, n. 764, 456, n. 766, and he identifies it with “Gangotri, the famous Hindu holy place in Garhwal.”

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 330

donated a golden pinnacle to the temple (lha khang) of Lha rje Rin po che [?= Dwags po Bsod nams rin chen (1079-1153), alias Dwags po Lha rje and Sgam po pa] in Dbus, and not the Jo bo statue in Lhasa’s Jo khang temple—this variant must be judged in favor of the Mnga ris rgyal rabs—, and [4] he had two and not five sons, Dpal mgon lde and Kirtimalla. Khri Bkra shis bsod nams lde was able to spread his very considerable wealth far and wide, which seems to indicate an upswing in the economic fortunes of his kingdom. Not only did he refurbish and restore Kh[w]a char and other monasteries in his domain, but he also lavished gifts on Sa skya monastery, not least because this was the locus of Mongol power in Tibet for, let us recall, Sa skya ruled Tibet from circa 1260 to the 1350s on behalf of the Mongol invaders. Ho-wever, both sources agree that the lion’s share of his gifting went to the Bka’ brgyud traditions, namely, the Tshal pa Bka’ brgyud and most prominently the ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud. He gifted Kha char monastery with numerous silver statues and copies of the extensive, intermediate, and summary versions of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras as well as of a Kanjur that was written in silver ink. He also lavished gifts of silver, gold, and pearls on ’Bri gung. The Mnga ris rgyal rabs states that that he had “golden” copies made of Bu ston’s editions of the Kanjur and Tanjur. Bu ston is not a associated with a specific Kanjur manuscript, but he completed his edition of the Zhwa lu Tanjur in 1335. The Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes adds thereto that he gifted bu dol sher many precious objects. The first two refer to Bu ston and Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361), and the third, sher, possibly refers to another Shes rab rgyal mtshan who was active in Tshal Gung thang at this time. The Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes states that Khri Bkra shis bsod nams had two sons, Dpal mgon lde and Kirti mal [*Kīrtimalla], and that the son of the elder son (chen = gcen) was Mañjuśrīkīrti. Mal seems to have taken charge of Ya tshe, spon-sored restoration activities (mchod thang) of Vajrāsana [Bodhgayā], invited many Indian scholars to his court, and held a religious council (chos ’khor). And with the final phrase: “These involve the genealogy of Pu hrangs” all comes to a screeching halt. An unidentified hand, a hand that is quite different from the scribe of this manuscript, then makes the observation that the manuscript of this work “by Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, the spiritual son of the great Rje btsun Rdo rje ’chang”—the latter most probably refers to Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1385-1456)—had a number of lacunae, missing passages (yig ’phreng ’ga’ yar chad), that he filled. He then exits with a final maṇgalaṃ, “May there be happiness!,” and this wish concludes this interesting work. Absent from the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, the Mnga’ ris rgyal rabs states that Dpal mgon lde’s son was Gnya’ khri lde, a name that is suggestive of an atavistic longing for the remote and ever receding past. There is a long note in the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes’s section on the royal genealogies of Mnga’ ris that has to do with Lha bla ma and that, by the way, is written in the very same hand as the notice at the end of this work in which Gu ge Paṇ chen is identified as its author. Here, the anonymous disciple refers to a biography of Lha bla ma that “my teacher” had written for further details.26 There is additional unambiguous text-internal evidence that Gu ge Paṇ chen was its author, for this is precisely what we read at the end of the third section (sarga):27 .... ’phags pa’i yul dang bod khams kyi // rgyal rabs nyi zla’i phreng ba yang // rgyas par spel la dad pa can // gnas lnga rig pa’i paṇḍita // grags pa rgyal mtshan ’dzin gyis brtsams //

26 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 129b-30a [438-9]. 27 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 69b [318].

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po 331

The identification “the paṇḑita over the five domains of knowledge, Grags pa rgyal mtshan” has, by the way, a parallel in the concluding colophon of his biography of Lha bla ma.28 The work’s division into sarga-sections only holds for the first and the third; nowhere do we find an indicati-on of the end of the second and the beginning of the third one.29 Something is definitely amiss here. Its topical outline (sa bcad) is also at times out of sync and this also leads me to suspect that all is not well with this manuscript. In this work, Gu ge Paṇ chen moves from a description of the world (’jig rten, loka) to its “contents,” specifically human beings, and the beginnings of the royal lines in the subcontinent. As is to be expected, this part of his narrative is entirely Indocentric, based as it is on Indian Buddhist treatises. He then embarks on a discussion of how humanity appeared in Tibet30 and the Tibetan royal lines in what should be the fourth sarga.31 But this is an educated guess. It never gets that far, because the manuscript is not complete and the section or chapter markers always occur at the end of the sections or chapters in question. Even if this part is roughly foreshadowed earlier on in a somewhat tepid fashion,32 it is curious that he would begin this section with the invocation oṃ svasti siddhaṃ that is normally reserved for the onset of a work. Of Tibetan sour-ces, Gu ge Paṇ chen explicitly refers to Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s (1146-1217) undated annals of Indic and Tibetan sovereigns, Bu ston’s chronicle, the Bka’ chems ka khol ma, and the Rgyal bzhed and Dba’ bzhed.33 He discusses Gnya’ khri btsan po’s ancestry in some detail and ultimately declares it to be Indic and aligned, albeit indirectly, with the ancestry of the historical Buddha!34 As befits a scho-lar-paṇḑita, he also makes several text-critical remarks on the Tibetan translations of the canoni-cal Indic sources that he has used, including those of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa.35 The latter carries some significance, for he draws attention to two different translations of a passage in which the Buddha allegedly has foretold Lha bla ma’s advent. The first of these reads:

lha ldan yul zhes bya ba yi // [549a] gangs can ri yi nang gnas pa’i // [549b] rgyal po lha yi bla ma zhes // [549c] li tsha byi rnams rigs su byung // [549d]

[d] states that he will be born in the family/clan of the Licchavī. Gu ge Paṇ chen acknowledges that another translation of [d] had shākya chen po’i rigs las byung, “He will be born of the fami-ly/clan of the great Shākya.” Be this as it may, the only available Sanskrit text has for this line [549d]: licchavīnāṃ kulo vaḥ /. And this confirms the first Tibetan translation and places the other version in a curious and very tendentious light! In his Life of Lha bla ma, he discusses diffe-rent translations of this particular passage where he and others felt that it addressed Lha bla ma. But it is only in the Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes that he

28 See Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtsha dpal bzang po, Lha bla ma ye shes ’od kyi rnams (sic) thar rgyas pa, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pa [13], ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang, (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 356 [= ed. Khyung bdag, 48]. I would like to thank Tshe ring rgyal po for having generously provided me with a copy of Khyung bdag’s, I believe, as yet un-published edition of this often-faulty manuscript. While his edition is very useful, Khyung bdag does not always accurately reproduce the readings of the manuscript. 29 For the endings of the first and third sarga, see above n. 4. The ending of the second sarga and the be-ginning of the third sarga are not given in the text. 30 For a separate, traditional study of the genesis of humanity in Tibet, see the manuscript of the anonymous Bod du mi’i skye ’gro tshul, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha [6], ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 161-80. 31 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 70b [320]. 32 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 70a [319]. 33 See, respectively, Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 68a, 76a, 76b, 109b [315, 331, 332, 398]. 34 Part of what follows is taken from Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 75a-9a [330-7]. 35 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 44a-b, 53a, 76b [266-7, 285, 332].

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 332

comments the expression: lha ldan gyi yul. He cites a passage from the Za ma tog bkod pa [*Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra] in which it refers to the domain of Avalokiteśvara (spyan ras gzigs kyi zhing khams).36 What is noteworthy here is of course that he initially appears to reject the testi-mony of the Bka’ chems ka khol ma in favor of that of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. He then cites seve-ral unnamed individuals among whom there was “a great Kashmirian scholar,” as well as “old documents of yore” (sngar gyi yig tshang rnying pa) and “exceedingly ancient Tibetan docu-ments” (bod kyi yig tshang ches cher rnying pa), every single one of which representing one or another version of the Gsang ba chos lugs narrative. But he adheres to the methodological pattern of most Tibetan historians by ignoring epigraphical testimony. Thus, unlike U rgyan gling pa (1323-?), Stag tshang Dpal ’byor bzang po (15th c.), Dpa’ bo II and Rig ’dzin Tshe dbang nor bu (1698-1755), to name but four among no doubt others who had taken interest in some of the an-cient inscriptions,37 he nowhere mentions that the earliest Tibetan source so far in which Gnya’ khri btsan po surfaces is the undated Rkong po inscription of circa 800-815.38 It is quite easy to see that this inscription contains not a trace of the Indic and, indeed, that it was written in a milieu that was untouched by Buddhism. The alleged Indic connection of Gnya’ khri btsan po is thus nothing but an ideological maneuver on the part of the recently converted (and not so recently converted) further to bolster the alleged Buddhist dimension of the imperial family and thus the beginnings of Tibetan culture überhaupt. As indicated above, Gu ge Paṇ chen does not once men-tion his biography of Lha bla ma, even if he does touch briefly on him and his family. Accordin-gly, we can extract the following details of his immediate family from his remarks:39 Bkra shis mgon x Zangs kha [two sons:]

Khor re x ? [three sons:] Lha lde Bkra shis btsan x ? [three sons:] Mnga’ bdag ’Od lde Zhi ba ’od (1016-1111) Byang chub ’od (984-1078)

Lha sras Dharma slas(?) - became a monk Lha sras U da rā jā - died at the age of thirteen40

Srong nge [= Lha bla ma] x 36 Dpa’ bo II interprets this phrase to indicate Lhasa!; see Haarh (1969), 189. 37 See Li & Coblin (1987), 18, and also Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2011), 2. Pa tshab’s work seeks to correct many earlier misreadings of the inscriptions and is thus essential reading for anyone interested in these texts. Recently, an dbu med manuscript copy of the Tibetan text of the East Face of the Lhasa Zhol inscription of 822-3 was published in Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha [6] ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 156-60. This text is accompanied by the text [146-55] of a very intriguing “official document” (bka’ gtsigs yi ge)—it appears that yet another piece is actually embedded in it—that is attributed to Sad na legs, that is, Khri lde srong btsan (?776-815/17), which is written in the same hand. The latter very much echoes the sentiments he, or, that are, expressed in the well-known Skar chung lha khang inscription in Ra ma sgang; see Li & Coblin (1987), 316-31, and Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2011), 42-56. The anonymous author of the text of the manuscript of the East Face inscription appears to have been able to read it in a more complete form than has been hithero done in the research on this inscription. It was used with great profit in Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2011), 172-89. 38 For the text of the inscription, see Li & Coblin (1987) 198, 205, and Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2011), 84-5. 39 Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, 442 40 Lha bla ma ye shes ’od kyi rnams [sic] thar rgyas pa, 274 [= ed. Khyung bdag, 2] also registers these two otherwise unknown nephews of Lha bla ma, albeit with somewhat differently spelled names: Lha sras U dha rā dzā and Lha sras Ham zlas.

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po 333

Is it strange that Gu ge Paṇ chen does not at all elaborate on Srong nge’s life, let alone identify him as Lha bla ma, in his work on the origins and development of the Tibetan royal families? Is it peculiar that, aside from mentioning him as ’Khor re/Kho re’s younger brother, he completely ignores him? A possible answer is: “Probably not entirely.” After all, in this work he is princi-pally concerned with statecraft and the “rule of man” (mi chos) and the “rule of law” (rgyal khrims). Lha bla ma’s main claim to fame, on the other hand, lies in his having relinquished the throne, for the sake of “divine religion” (lha chos) and the promotion of “canon law” (chos khrims), even if his Life does suggest the efforts he made towards linking the former to the latter. While we can be sure that we will never know this to be true, it is possible that this fifteenth cen-tury son of Gu ge intended his audience to turn to his planned Life of Lha bla ma for the relevant details of his life that he composed on the basis of a combination of the archival sources to which he had access in Mtho ling monastery and his own historical imagination. A propos of this genealogy, Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus quite recently published the text of an incomplete manuscript of another hitherto unknown chronicle of Tibet in which a number of archaisms have been preserved and in which we also encounter a genealogy of the ruling families of Gu ge - Pu rang.41 He recovered this particular manuscript from a cache of manuscripts that predominantly consisted of “spells” (gzungs), which had apparently been found in a cave at Rtsa rang, Gu ge’s erstwhile capital. In Pa tshab’s considered estimation, the manuscript dates from the twelfth century or slightly earlier. The highly interesting fragment begins with the expression “lunar dynasty” (zla ba’i rigs, *candravaṃśa) and then goes on to describe different forms of kingship before dealing with the beginnings and development of Tibet’s royal families that ends with Zhi ba ’od. To be noted is that it does not contain one iota of a trace of any Indic conception in its very brief decription of Gnya’ khri btsan po’s descent from heaven (gnam) and his ascent to the “throne.” Its genealogy of Lha bla ma’s family is the following: Bkra shis mgon x ? [two sons:] Mnga’ bdag ’Khor re Srong nge [= Lha bla ma] This genealogy ends with the statement “The two brothers ‘were placed into liberation’ [they died] and their lineage was cut” (sras mched gnyis kyang thard par btsud de de nyid kyi gdung bcad). We then begin with a ruler whose parentage is not given: Mnga’ dbon Mnga’ bdag Lha lde brtsan42 x ? [three sons:] Lha btsun pa Byang chub ’od Rje Mnga’ bdag chen po Dbu ’byams pa43 Rje Bla ma chen po Zhi ba ’od

41 See Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus (2012b). 42 The manuscript also calls him Bla chen po Lha lhe brtsan, presumably because he had become a renunci-ate—lhe is of course a corruption of lde. The majority of sources state that he was ’Khor re/Kho re’s son. In fact, he is none other than Gu ge Paṇ chen’s Lha lde Bkra shis btsan. 43 He would have to be Gu ge Paṇ chen’s Mnga bdag ’Od lde.

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 334

BIBLIOGRAPHY Tibetan Sources Anonymous, Bod du mi’i skye ’gro tshul, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha [6], ed. Dpal

brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 161-80. _______ *Lha sa zhol gyi rdo ring shar ngos kyi yi ge, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha

[6] ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 156-60.

Bu ston Rin chen grub, Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod, The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa], Lhasa Zhol print, part 24 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 633-1055.

Dba’ bzhed [plus “appendix”], Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha [6] ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 1-62.

Dba’ bzhed, ed. Longs khang Phun tshogs rdo rje, Gangs can rig mdzod 56 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 2010), 259-318.

Dpa’ bo II Gtsug lag phreng ba, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Stod cha [vol. 1], ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986).

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, Nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Cha [6], ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 181-454 [fols. 1-137b].

Lha bla ma ye shes ’od kyi rnams [sic] thar rgyas pa, Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, vol. Pa [13], ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Xi-ning: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2011), 273-356 [fols. 1-41a]

Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po (forthcoming), “Paṇḑita Grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis mdzad pa’i << [Mnga ’ris] nyi ma’i rigs kyi rgyal rabs skye dgu’i cod pan nyi zla’i phreng mdzes >> zhes bya ba’i nang bkod pa’i mnga’ ris lo rgyus skor brjod pa.”

Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa, Jo nang chos ’byung zla ba’i sgron me, Collected Works,’Dzam thang print, vol. Kha [3], 193-1221.

_______ ed. Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims et al. (Xining: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1992).

Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, ed. Nyan shul Mkhyen rab ’od gsal, Gangs can rigs mdzod 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988).

Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus, Spu rgyal bod kyi rdo brkos yi ge phyogs bsgrigs kyi ma yig dag bsher dang de’i tshig ’grel dwangs sang gangs chu (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2011).

_______ tr., Bashi [in Chinese](Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 2012a). _______ “Gsar du rnyed pa’i spu rgyal bod dang mnga’ ris stod kyi rgyal rabs skor gyi rtsa che’i yig rny-

ing mtshams sbyor dpyad gleng,” Bod ljongs zhib ’jug 4 (2012b), 25-41. Pad dkar bzang po, Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag, ed. Mi nyag Mgon po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,

2006). ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, Sangs rgyas kyi dus chen bzhi’i ngos ’dzin, Collected Works, vol. 15 (De-

hra Dun: Sakya Center, 1992-3), 596-7. Phyogs bzhi tshang Blo bzang ye shes rgya mtsho, Kirti’i ma dgon chen mo’i chags rim, Stod cha [vol. 1]

(Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007). Rme ru Yul lha thar, “Sba bzhed kyi dpar gzhi’i skor dang des bod kyi lo rgyus rig gzhung la thebs pa’i

shugs rkyen skor las ’phros pa’i gtam,” Bod ljongs zhib ’jug 4 (2012), 85-92. Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan, Rgyal po chen po ’char byed la gdams pa’i mdo’i ’grel pa zab don gnad

kyi sgron me, Collected Works, vol. Ka [I], ed. Bsod nams tshe ’phel (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa/Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2008), 420-3.

*Srong btsan sgam po, Bka’ chems ka khol ma, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989).

_______ Bka’ chems ka khol ma, manuscript, 83 fols., TBRC no. W00KG010083. Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes, Mdo sde’i spyi’i rnam par bzhag pa gsung rab rin po che mchog tu gsal bar

byed pa’i snang ba, Collected Works, vol. 3, ed. Yangs can dgon ris med dpe rnying myur skyob khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009),

Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po 335

Non-Tibetan Sources Brodbeck, S. (2009) “With and Without Manu: Solar and Lunar Lines in the Sanskrit Epics.” Accessed on

the web; a paper the author presented at the World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto. Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po (2012), “A Brief Discussion of the Decline and Fall of the Zhang zhung Kingdom

[in Chinese],” Zhongguo zangxue 2, 120-3. Haarh, E. (1969), The Yar-luṅ Dynasty (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad’s Forlag). Karmay, S.G. (2009), “The Origin Myths of the First King of Tibet as Revealed in the Can-lnga,” The

Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point), 282-309.

van der Kuijp, L.W.J. (2010), “Faulty Transmissions: Some Notes on Tibetan Textual Criticism and the Impact of Xylography,” Edition, éditions: l’écrit au Tibet, evolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet et al., Col-lectanea Himalayica 3 (Munich: Indus Verlag), 441-63.

_______ (2011[2012]), “A Hitherto Unknown Tibetan Religious Chronicle From the Fourteenth Century,” Zangxue xuekan / Journal of Tibetology 7, 69-91.

_______ (2013), “Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and the Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung, a Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet,” Revue d’Études Tibétaines 25, 111-89.

_______ (forthcoming), “A Fifteenth Century Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes ’od (947-1019/24): Its Prolegomenon and Prophecies.”

Li, F.K. & W.S. Coblin (1987), A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, Institute of His- tory and Philology, Academia Sinica, Special Publications no. 91 (Taipei: Academia Sinica).

de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, R. (1993), Oracles and Demons of Tibet. The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities (Kathmandu: Pilgrims Book House).

Obermiller, E. tr. (1932), History of Buddhism (chos-ḥbyung) by Bu-ston, II. Part, The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet (Heidelberg: Otto Harrassowitz).

Petech. L. (1988), “Ya-ts’e, Gu-ge, Pu-raṅ: A New Study,” Selected Papers on Asian History, Serie Orien-tale Roma, vol. LX, (Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente), 369-94.

Sørensen, P.K. tr. (1994), Tibetan Buddhist Historiography. The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealo-gies. An Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century Tibetan Chronicle: Rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long, Asiatische Forschungen, Band 158 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).

Vitali, R. (1996), The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang According to the Mnga’ ris rgyal rabs by Gu ge Mkhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa (Dharamsala: Tho ling gtsug lag khang lo gcig stong ’khor ba’i rjes dran mdzad sgo’i go sgrig tshogs chung).

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 336