A Preliminary Study of Biographical Material Relating to rDo rje gling pa (1346–1405) and What it Might Contribute to Research on the Northern Treasures

Stéphane Arguillère (IFRAE / Inalco)

rDo rje gling pa is an almost exact contemporary of Rig ’dzin rGod ldem (1337–ca. 1401). They were admittedly not active in exactly the same region, although both were in Central Tibet. They had some of their interests in common, not only because were important treasure discoverers (gter ston), but also insofar as both had very extensive revelations about rDzogs chen of a comparable nature. Indeed, rDo rje gling pa’s Pha rgyud lta ba klong yangs and would deserve a careful comparison with Rig ’dzin rGod ldem’s Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal. Extracts of both have been compiled together by Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (as well as passages of some of their other rDzogs chen treasure cycles) in vol. 88 of the Rin chen gter mdzod (1976), with the idea that they both belong to the category which the compiler calls Padma snying thig—meaning: the system of rDzogs chen Heart Essence (snying thig) associated with Padmasambhava, the prototype of which is Padma las ’brel rtsal (1291–1319)’s mKha’ ’gro snying thig (1313). Another element is the centrality of Ba gor Bee ro tsa na to rDo rje gling pa—which is reminiscent of the way in which rGod ldem’s dGongs pa zang thal presents itself as a combination of the highest rDzogs chen teachings of the rig ’dzin rnam gsum—Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and Bee ro tsa na. For these reasons, we could not avoid examining his biography to see how far it could provide elements of context for Rig ’dzin rGod ldem.

To cut to the chase, although some important rNying ma masters of the previous generation are mentioned in rDo rje gling pa’s biographical material, this is not the case for Rig ’dzin rGod ldem or any of his masters or students, at least in any recognizable form (the name rgod ldem can is found in a text by rDo rje gling pa—2009, vol. 11, p. 774—but it appears in a list of ’gong po, demons—presumably without any ironic or polemical intention). Thus, the contribution of a study of rDo rje gling pa to Northern Treasures studies is indirect—more to do with revealing both common and divergent interests among 14th century treasure revealers. In addition, the available sources on rDo rje gling pa‘s life—including autobiographical material—are much more abundant than in the case of rGod ldem and, mutatis mutandis, this may give us a much more concrete idea of what some aspects of rGod ldem’s own life may have been.

rDo rje gling pa is not undocumented in academic research. Samten G. Karmay’s paper “Dorje Lingpa and His Rediscovery of the Gold Needle in Bhutan” (2017) is rich in information about his chronology, although it focuses on two aspects that may not be central for our present purposes: Bhutan and rDo rje gling pa’s Bon discoveries.

Samten Karmay’s article contains (pp. 2-5) elements for a chronology of rDo rje gling pa. Here is an excerpt of the chronological information contained therein, presented in the form of a timeline:

  • 1346: Birth of rDo rje gling pa (his name as a child is O / U rgyan bzang po).
  • 1348: Death of his mother. This is the information given by Samten Karmay, however, the gTer ’byung (rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, p. 16) rather seems to say that his mother abandoned him because she took another husband (lo gsum la mas bor nas gzhan du bag mar song|). In other variants, she remarried after rDo rje gling pa’s father died; in any case, he was brought up, as Samten Karmay says, by one of his aunts.
  • 1352: Death of his father.
  • 1353: “Novice” (dge tshul) “ordination.”
  • 1358: first rediscoveries of texts, including the prophetic guide (kha byang) for some of his later findings.
  • 1360: first important gter ma revelations at gNam lcags brag, including his extensive rDzogs chen cycle Pha rgyud lta ba klong yangs. This is of great importance to Byang gter studies, because the Pha rgyud lta ba klong yangs is in many ways comparable to Rig ’dzin rGod ldem’s Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal, and happens to have been revealed a few years earlier than the Zang zang lha brag discoveries (1366). rDo rje gling pa, although nine years younger than Rig ’dzin rGod ldem, was much more precocious.
  • 1362: further gter ma revelations that seem to be less relevant to us.
  • 1369: more gter ma discoveries in which rDo rje gling pa’s connection to Bee to tsa na is made clearer and he is prophesied that he must go to Bhutan.
  • 1370: rDo rje gling pa arrives in Paro and reveals the Bon rDzogs chen cycle rDzogs chen gser thur, which is the central focus of Samten Karmay’s paper. Later that year, he visits bSam gtan rin chen gling, a monastery founded during his Bhutanese exile (ca.1354–ca.1360) by Klong chen rab ’byams, who had recently died (1364).
  • In 1371, he performs a series of public gter ma revelations (khrom gter). This is also the year when, urged by a vision of Padmasambhava, he begins teaching the rDzogs chen gser thur, despite his reluctance due to his purely Buddhist training.
  • 1374: he moves to Bum thang, undergoing serious difficulties from the climate.
  • 1376: he returns to Tibet.
  • 1380: a possible second trip to Bhutan.
  • 1388: rDo rje gling pa is back in Bum thang. However, Samten Karmay also writes (op. cit., p. 7) that “at any rate, there are no records of travelling after 1384 in the Collected Works.”
  • Samten Karmay (2017) does not document rDo rje gling pa’s later years until his death in 1405 because they are not relevant to his purpose. This article does not contain further information that would be directly relevant for our purposes. Indeed, its very interesting considerations about Bon and Chos in the context of rDzogs chen teachings make less sense to us now that it all the ascribed connections of Rig ’dzin rGod ldem to Bon tend to appear as unfounded legend due to his impossible assimilation with the much earlier dPon gsas Khyung rgod rtsal.

What, then, do we have to add to the information provided by Samten Karmay?

Volume 11 of the 32-volume collection of rDo rje gling pa tradition (Do rje gling pa 2009) is very instructive, especially because the gTer ’byung (pp. 1-174) it contains is fully autobiographical and very usefully completes the elements found in the biography (rnam thar, pp. 175–212) that follows it. It is followed by a large collection of songs of accomplishment and autobiographic sketches (pp. 213–888) that bring complementary information. If we extract from this text the elements that may be of some interest to Northern Treasures research, or at least as elements that may prove to be indirectly relevant at a later stage, here is a complementary timeline:

  • His father is described in autobiographical writings contained in vol. 11 (p. 216) as well-versed in all sorts of teachings, including both sNying thigs (rdzogs chen bi ma la’i snying thig dang mkha’ ’gro snying thig rnams kyang gsan zhing thugs nyams su blangs pa yin par gda’|). This is interesting given the presumable rarity of the mkha’ ’gro snying thig in the 1340s. Unfortunately, it is not said from whom he received this teachings and his very common name, bSod nams rgyal mtshan, does not help to trace him.
  • 1353: first mention (op. cit., p. 16) of rDo rje gling pa main master Kun mkhyen Khras pa. Unfortunately unidentified so far, he seems to have been teaching a combination of gSar ma (bKa’ brgyud, presumably) and rNying ma traditions. The (non-autobiographic) rnam thar (rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, pp. 195 & 197) mentions two other names of masters: sMan lung pa sprul sku Shāk gzhon (cf. Gu bkra’i chos ’byung 1990: p. 123) and one rDo rje rgyal mtshan who could be bdr:P1328. It is quite possible that sMan lung pa sprul sku Shāk gzhon is the same person as Kun mkhyen Khras pa, as they are not mentioned in ways that would allow us to be sure that they are two distinct lamas (cf., e.g., rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, p. 236).
  • ca.1356: he has a long vision of a woman that finally reveals herself as being Ma gcig Lab sgron. This is important, because Rig ’dzin rGod ldem‘s gSang ba rmad byung, a sub-cycle of the dGongs pa zang thal, appears one of the earliest combinations of gCod and visionary rDzogs chen, and that it is visible that rDo rje gling pa also had a strong interest in gCod.
  • ca.1357: rDo rje gling pa is said (vol. 11, p. 525) to receive sNying thig gsang skor, which could either be two different things (both the Heart Essence and the Secret Cycle as sub-sections of the Man ngag sde) or the special way of teaching the sNying thig that is documented in the second half of Klong chen pa’s Zab mo yang tig.
  • An aspect not mentioned by Samten Karmay in the context of the 1360 gter ma revelations at gNam lcags brag is that aside of the Pha rgyud lta ba klong yangs, it also included (gTer ’byung, pp. 33-38) all a cycle called mKha’ ’gro gsang thig and its root tantra, which is a specific version of the Klong gsal nyi ma’i rgyud. This is important, given that rGod ldem’s dGongs pa zang thal is not only similar to the Pha rgyud lta ba klong yangs, but also includes full sections of Padma las ’brel rtsal’s mKha’ ’gro snying thig (1313), based on a more standard version of the Klong gsal nyi ma’i rgyud and with which rDo rje gling pa’s mKha’ ’gro gsang thig should be systematically compared.
  • Close to a mention (op. cit., p. 65) of a Dragon year that may be 1364, the text mentions (p. 67) rDo rje gling pa’s meeting with a “gNyos mthing ma’i bla ma” who is probably mThing ma ba Sangs rgyas grags ’od, the main master from whom Klong chen pa received the gter chos of Nyang ral Nyi ma’i ’od zer. This poorly documented figure is important in connection to both Klong chen pa and rDo rje gling pa, as he was (according to the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Thob yig) and indirect disciple of Padma las ’brel rtsal through Lo ston rDo rje ’bum, which may imply that he was well-versed in the mKha’ ’gro snying thig and may have been the one through whom rDo rje gling pa received it.
  • Some time between 1370 and 1376, when he is in Bhutan, he gives teachings to gTer ston Shes rab me ’bar (bdr:P9KT5, 1310–?, a Khams pa treasure discoverers, who is known to have been active in Bhoutan around 1349—See rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, p. 242; this surely happened close to 1370, as in the quoted mgur, this event immediately follows the mention of the discovery of the rDzogs chen gser thur). This figure is interesting because there are few cases of early gter ston from Khams.
  • Another very interesting element is the mention in a context (p. 106) that seems to refer to sometime between 1373 and 1375 of the ’Bras mo gshongs kyi lam yig. This is quite surprising, given the fact that this text is mentioned close to the time in which it seems that Rig ’dzin rGod ldem was himself in search of the hidden land of Sikkim, and that rDo rje gling pa is not said to have travelled there. No version of the ’Bras mo gshongs kyi lam yig has resurfaced yet among the 32 volumes of rDo rje gling pa’s tradition, but they have not been thoroughly catalogued so far.

One of the mgurs included in the third group of texts of vol. 11 (p. 368) shows that he was aware of the existence not only of Nyang ral and Chos dbang, which is self-obvious, but also of U rgyan gling pa (i.e., Yar rje O rgyan gling pa), Rin chen gling pa (1289–1368) and sPrul sku Tshul rdor, i.e., Padma las ’brel rtsal (1291–1319). This is further confirmed, for what it is worth (as it is known that some of these predictions were more or less rewritten at later stages), by prophecies in his large revealed biography of Padmasambhava contained in volume 15 of the same edition (p. 620: Rin chen tshul rdor and Tshe brtan rgyal msthan; p. 621: Rin chen gling pa and U rgyan gling pa; p. 622: Dri med ’od zer, i.e., Klong chen pa [1308–1364]; p. 624: rDo rje gling pa himself, and then a few later figures), which also mentions Klong chen pa (under the name Dri med ’od zer). The absence of Rig ’dzin rGod ldem under any of his known names is striking. Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (xxxx-xxxx) is also mentioned in passing (vol. 11, p. 379).

More relevant for our purpose is the mention (vol. 11, p. 381) of Guru Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan, known to be the origin of the doctrine of the hidden lands (sbas yul) in its final form, which was clearly so decisive for Rig ’dzin rGod ldem. The term sbas pa’i yul appears indeed, with all the characteristics elements, in the same volume, p. 400 and p. 474. The passage is very interesting, because it says that Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan, who was old, prophesied his disciple Bla ma rDo rje that he has to meet rDo rje gling pa in a dragon year which seems to be 1376. This seems to settle the matter of when Guru Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan approximately lived: he must have been active in the early 14th century, maybe born at the end of the previous one, so that one of his direct disciples was able to meet rDo rje gling pa in the 1370s (Bla ma rDo rje may not have been young, though, as it seems that he died in this very Dragon year when he passed to rDo rje gling pa the materials from Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan). This is consistent with the order in which the prophecies about Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan occur in the various revealed biographies of Padmasambhava: between Padma las ’brel rtsal (b. 1291) and Rin chen gling pa (b. 1289). It is reasonable to assume that Tshe brtan rgyal mtsan belonged to the same generation—that, also, of Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje, g.Yung ston pa rDo rje dpal, or Padma las ’brel rtsal’s disciple rGyal sras Legs pa. There must be some link between Tshe brtan rgyal mtsan and Rig ’dzin rGod ldem, but it has not yet been found.

Bibliography

Primary sources

  • Karma mi ‘gyur dbang rgyal. 1978. Gter bton brgya rtsa’i mtshan sdom gsol ‘debs chos rgyal bkra shis stobs rgyal gyi mdzad pa’i ‘grel pa lo rgyus gter bton chos ‘byung. Darjeeling: Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche Pema Wangyal, Orgyen Kunsang Chokhor Ling, p. 127.4 ff.
  • Gu ru bKra shis, 1990. Gu bkra’i chos ’byung. Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang.
  • ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas. 1976. Gter ston brgya rtsa. In Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo Paro: Ngodrup and Sherab Drimay, p. 79B.2. ff.
  • rDo rje gling pa 2009: gTer chen chos kyi rgyal po u rgyen rdo rje gling pa’i zab mo’i chos sde. Vol. 1-32. Katmandu: Khenpo Shedup Tendzin & Lama Thinley Namgyal / Gam-po-pa Library.
    • a. “gTer ’byung“: sNgags ’chang ba rdo rje gling pas zab gter rnams dang mjal ba’i gter byang rnams thar gter rabs rgya mtsho, in rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, pp. 1-174.
    • b. “rNam thar“: rDo rje gling pa’i rnam thar thog tha’ bar gsum rgya mtsho lta bu las nye bar gsungs te dad ldan gsol ba ’debs pa’i rten du bkod pa, in rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, pp. 175-212.
    • c. rDo rje gling pa’i bka’ ’bum nyon mongs dug lnga ’joms pa thar pa’i rgyun rgyun lam thes bya ba legs pa’i lam ston , in rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 11, pp. 213-888.
    • d. “Revealed biography of Padmasambhava”: U rgyan padma’i skyes rabs rnam thar rgya bod lo tstsha’i ’gyur byang chen mo, in rDo rje gling pa 2009, vol. 15, pp. 1-770.

Secondary sources

  • Karmay, Samten G. 1998. The Great Perfection. Leiden: Brill, 216 ff.
  • Karmay, Samten G.. 2000. “Dorje Lingpa and His Rediscovery of the ‘Gold Needle’ in Bhutan.” Bhutan Studies Journal, Volume 2 No. 2.
  • Dudjom Rinpoche. 2002. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Translated by Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein. Boston: Wisdom.

The History of the Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra as Portrayed in Jamyang Sönam Gyeltsen’s Garland of Jewels — Part II — The Symbolic Transmission of the Knowledge-Holders

 Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)

Edited by Marianne Ginalski

2. The Entrustment of the teachings to
Garab Dorje, Indra, and Tröma Nakmo

Then, Vajrasattva emanated from the sanctuary of Akaniṣṭha into the pure realms of the Enjoyment Body where he remained for sixty-one years,1 absorbed in the radiant state of his own Wisdom of Awareness. He then emanated himself in the sanctuary of the Thirty-three Gods and stood on the Armolika stone, with his retinue consisting of the three groups of the Vajra clan.2 He stayed there for twenty-three years, and in the abode of the gods, gave teachings on symbols (brda) and their meaning (don) to Garab Dorje,3 Indra (the Lord of the Gods), and to the Protectress Tröma Nakmo.4

To liberate gods, he taught symbols to Indra; to liberate men, he taught the condensed meaning of these symbols to Garab Dorje; and to fiercely protect the teachings of Dzogchen, he gave Tröma Nakmo a seal of entrustment. He also gave a seal of entrustment to Garab Dorje, addressing him with the following words:

You, the emanated Garab Dorje, perform the good of Jambudvīpa for one hundred and one human years! (Then,) in three thousand and five hundred years from now, an emanated son of the noble Mañjuśrī, bearing the name of Mañjuśrī(-mitra) will come, so entrust him (with these teachings)! (…)5

Then, the Emanation Body Garab Dorje went to the southern island of Jambudvīpa where he entrusted Mañjuśrīmitra6 with the Dzogchen teachings similar to the Body of the Buddha. He gave the king, his minister, and the son of a brahman7 the Dzogchen teachings similar to the Buddha’s Speech. Eventually, he gave the erudite Śrī Siṃha the Dzogchen teachings similar to the Buddha’s Mind.8

Continue reading

  1. There is probably a hermeneutical interpretation of that number of years but it currently eludes me. []
  2. rdo rje rigs kyi sde gsum. This expression is not listed in the dictionaries at my disposal. Given the context, I would suggest that this corresponds to three groups comprising gods (lha), humans (mi) and Protectors of the teachings (bka’ srung). The Armolika stone is also often spelt Amolika and is a large slab that supports Indra’s throne. It is on this stone slab that Vajradhara and others have preached Dharma in the realm of the Thirty-three Gods. See inter alia, Martin, A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet, p. 373 (PDF version) n. 1212. See also, id., “Ar mo” https://lists.h-net.org/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Buddhism&month=1001&week=c&msg=LTCjmKyDJGXaZRaHvFNqVg&user=&pw=. []
  3. dGa’ rab rdo rje is traditionally presented as having been the first human lineage holder of the Dzogchen teachings. Depending on the sources that explain his place in the line of transmission of the Great Perfection, he received these teachings either from Vajradhara, Vajrasattva, or even Vajrapāṇi. See a version of his life-story in Nyoshul Khenpo, A Marvelous Garland of Rare Gems, pp. 37-38. See also Düdjom Rinpoche, The Nyingma School, pp. 490-494. []
  4. She is a wrathful form of Vajravārāhī who plays an important role in the practice of Chö (gCod, in particular in the Düdjom Tersar tradition) and in the protection of Dzogchen teachings. She is often presented as the “Lady of Cemeteries” (dur khrod kyi bdag mo); see for instance, Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Oracles and Demons, p. 474. In the cycle of The Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra (Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal), she plays a crucial role as the Protectress of the lineage known as the Contemplative Transmission of the Victorious Ones (rgyal ba dgongs brgyud); see Turpeinen, Vision of Samantabhadra, p. 43. []
  5. P. 48 : sprul pa dga’ rab rdo rje khyod mi lo brgya dang rtsa gcig bar/ /’dzam bu’i gling gi don gyis shig /da nas stong gsum lnga brgya nas/ /’phags pa ‘jam dpal sprul pa’i sras/ /’jam dpal ming can ‘byung gis gtod/ (…). The temporal periods that are referred to in this quote are rather puzzling, to say the least. To my knowledge, they are quite unusual when compared to other narratives associated with dGa’ rab rdo rje. The same remark applies to other durations that are mentioned below. []
  6. On this historical figure, see Nyoshul Khenpo, op. cit., pp. 38-39. []
  7. The king is possibly Dha he na ta lo, on whom see Karmay, The Great Perfection, p. 19. However, later, on p. 51, the author states that the account regarding the king, his minister and the son of a brahman mentioned here is unclear (gsal kha med pa) and is actually of little importance (gal chung). He therefore unfortunately does not provide any information on these figures. []
  8. There is evidently a progression in the increasing subtlety of the teachings that were transmitted, those associated with the Buddha’s Mind (sangs rgyas kyi thugs) being both essentialized and deeper than the previous ones. []

A Critical Remark about Misleading Polemical Amalgamations: “emptiness-of-other,” “subitism” and “practice linages”

Stéphane Arguillère (IFRAE / Inalco)

Much has been written about the debate on “emptiness-of-other,” “subitism” and “practice linages,”1 to the extent that some may have presented it as something that became central as early as the 14th century and remained so for the rest of Tibetan intellectual history. At some point, such an ideological device was constructed, but it actually became central as a commonly shared doxographical framework only in the nineteenth century with the “non-sectarian” (ris med) masters of eastern Tibet in their struggle for life against Gelug hegemony. In historical research, it is important to deconstruct false historiography—that is to say, to understand these late narratives as an ideological product of their own time, expressing the power games of that period, and basically irrelevant to the era we are studying.

In this later doctrinal construction, one witnesses a massive conflation of two completely unrelated issues: the Sakya polemic against subitism, on the one hand, and the (much later) Gelug denial of any “positive” aspects in the ultimate nature, on the other. Along with this conflation of two logically unrelated issues, another polemical boundary is fabricated: a distinction between the “practice lineages” (sgrub brgyud) and the “study lineages” (bshad brgyud). To summarize all this simply, the entire intellectual (and even spiritual) history of Tibet is fancifully portrayed and brutally simplified as a battlefield between only two camps: on the one hand there are the “practice lineages,” namely the Kagyüpas and the Nyingmapas (and perhaps all the other “red hat” schools), who are supposedly all subitistspartisans of the emptiness-of-other, and strong practitioners, and on the other hand there are the “study lineages,” namely the Gelugpas (the Sakyapas are presented in an ambiguous way), who are portrayed as dry intellectuals who hardly ever practice, are partisans of the “emptiness-of-self,” and gradualists.

It is a fact that Sakya Paṇḍita’s polemics2 target the Kagyüpas’ Mahāmudrā in a formula that also seems to blame the Nyingmapas, as it calls it “Chinese-style Dzogchen.”3 However, his anti-Mahāmudrā arguments are of three kinds. One is about the lack of real textual sources for such an approach. The Nyingmapas cannot be blamed for this, as they have a large canon of Dzogchen tantras, which is one among many important factors that distinguishes Dzogchen from Kagyü Mahāmudrā. For a supporter of neo-conservative orthodoxy such as Sakya Paṇḍita, the issue with the Nyingma lineages would then rather have been the authenticity of this literature in terms of Indian sources. However, for some reason,4 Sakya Paṇḍita does not discuss this aspect in that context, and his line of anti-Dzogchen arguments must not be confused with the anti-Mahāmudrā polemics, which do, nonetheless, take aim at Dzogchen too. The phrase “Chinese-style Dzogchen” can either be taken to mean that Dzogchen as such is a Tibetan outcome of Chan or perhaps that some have bent authentic Dzogchen in the direction of Chan ideas, which Sakya Paṇḍita rejects.

The second line of argumentation targeted by Sakya Paṇḍita’s treatise is about presenting this ultimate approach, Mahāmudrā, as being accessible without the tantric apparatus of empowerments, etc. This objection, which is relevant to Gampopa and his followers, is much less significant for the Nyingmapas, who generally practice Dzogchen on the basis of empowerments and specific texts they call tantras. The idea that ultimate nature can be accessed without any method is also present, of course, but perhaps this is what Sakya Paṇḍita calls “Chinese-style Dzogchen,” meaning that from his point of view there can be good and bad Dzogchen.

This brings us to the third point, which is the only one that could be linked, albeit rather artificially, to the “emptiness-of-other” question. Sakya Paṇḍita is definitely a strong gradualist, in the sense that he sees enlightenment as what Tibetan scholastics would call a “fruit of production,” (grub ’bras) something that results from causes and conditions: namely, the accumulations of merit and wisdom. Contrary to this assumption, the partisans of the “emptiness-of-other” understand it as something eternally pre-existing in ourselves, as our Buddha-nature. Enlightenment would then mean revealing this Buddha-nature.

Now, it is not at all in the context of his anti-Mahāmudrā polemic that Sakya Paṇḍita discusses the question of an eternally pre-enlightened Buddha nature, and it is only later authors who have amalgamated the two lines of arguments. Sakya Paṇḍita definitely rejects the idea that the accumulations of merit and wisdom do not need to be completed because they are originally present in our own essential nature5. On this particular point, he is probably addressing Lama Zhang.6 rather than Gampopa. And it is clear that, although he may not have been thinking of them, the Nyingmapas would be within the scope of the refutation, because if Dzogchen does not mean that all that is required for enlightenment is complete in our own nature, then it would mean nothing.

It must be understood, however, that the assumption that our own nature is always already perfect does not logically imply either the “emptiness-of-other” in any precise sense, nor does it imply subitism. 

On the first side, unless we want to stretch the concept to the point where it no longer has a definite meaning, “emptiness-of-other” implies the assumption that this ever-perfect Buddha nature is empty of the phenomenal aspects of the empirical world and ordinary mind, but not of itself, which means that it is absolutely real in and of itself, albeit in a way that may be inconceivable. Ultimate reality is then understood as that which remains when all that does not withstand critical analysis has been refuted. Now it is clear that such a line of reasoning is never to be found in Nyingma literature: its tendency, when it philosophizes, is rather to go to the very extreme of Madhyamaka negative reasonings in Candrakīrti’s style and then, admittedly, to describe what is discovered in positive terms, but never ever to say that it is something real that is immune to reasoning about emptiness, as Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), the inventor of the “emptiness-of-other,” would have it.

On the other side, Dolpopa is a very strong gradualist: he describes the path as a progressive purification of the two obscurations, achieved mainly through the two stages of higher tantric practice. For him, enlightenment is a “fruit of a suppression” or “of a privation” ( ’bral ’bras), not something that can be achieved by merely recognizing the ultimate nature in his own light. Therefore, in this respect as well, his teaching cannot be assimilated to either Kagyü Mahāmudrā or Nyingma Dzogchen.

As for the last ideological opposition to be deconstructed, that between “practice lineages” and “study lineages,” it obviously does not even deserve to be discussed. Of course, there is a historical tendency in all the countries where Buddhism has spread for it to become a mere object of pure scholarly discourse in monastic circles. But between two or more groups whose doctrines contain complete instructions for practice and an equally strong exhortation to apply them, to say that one is more meditation-oriented than the other can be at best a sociological fact, at worst a derogatory stereotype, but in no case is it relevant to describing the beliefs of either group.

  1. The full history of the fabrication of these amalgamations and stereotypes has not yet been written. The fact that they cannot be used as a frame of reference for serious history would not prevent them from being good objects of study for the historian. The purpose of inserting these explanations is merely to exorcise them so that we can appreciate the actual facts without the superimposition of irrelevant ideology. []
  2. For the actual meaning of this controversy in its original context, see especially David Jackson 1994. Most of what follows is a summary of the analyzes presented in this book, except for the more application to rNying ma doctrines which is based on Arguillère 2007, pp. 214–287, which present arguments in the sense of the radical incompatibility of the doctrines of gZhan stong and rDzogs chen. []
  3. rGya nag lugs kyi rdzogs chen la|… Sa skya paṇḍita 2006: p. 52. []
  4. Political explanations of doctrinal debates should be avoided, because they explain away the debates instead of really explaining them: they do not take them seriously because they want to believe that what is really at stake is not openly stated in the texts. Genuine “charitable reading” implies that we do not presume to know better than the author what he really thinks, and especially that we do not do so out of conceptual laziness, deciding before examination that a debate is futile. In this particular case, Sa skya paṇḍita’s opposition to bKa’ brgyud teachings cannot be reduced to the very real divergent interests of the two schools or groups of schools at the time. He did not ignore the rNying ma pas although, from a political point of view, they certainly did not weight much in his time. Other passages of the sDom gsum rab dbye contain a strong charge against the rNying ma pas: for example, on the rNying ma classification of the tantras and the nine graded vehicles (Sa skya paṇḍita 2006, p. 63); on the next page, he refuses the idea that a ti yo ga is a vehicle or, in fact, anything other than ye shes. In ibid., p. 83, he seems to be attacking the gter ma tradition as a whole as something purely fantastic (gter nas byung ba’i glegs bam dang|…). []
  5. It should be noted that this point occurs in a completely different part of the sDom gsum rab dbye (Sa skya paṇḍita 2006: p. 7 ff—the dharmadhātu is unconditioned and therefore is not “virtuous”) in a development altogether unconnected to the discussion about Mahāmudrā and maybe Dzogchen, and separated by 45 pages. Sa skya paṇḍita rejects the idea of a Buddha nature eternally endowed with all the attributes of perfect Buddhahood, and in this he would have rejected Dol po pa’s doctrine. However, he would have regarded it as merely philosophically wrong, and not as practically problematic, as Dol po pa did not in the least posit the possibility of direct enlightenment by a mere recognition of the ultimate nature through a path beyond the higher tantras with their four empowerments and two stages of practice. []
  6. Bla ma Zhang brTson ’grus grags pa (1123–1193). This figure and the opposition of Sa skya paṇḍita to his doctrines is well documented in David Jackson 1994. []

The History of the Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra as Portrayed in Jamyang Sönam Gyeltsen’s Garland of Jewels — Part I — The Contemplative Transmission of the Buddhas

Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)

Edited by Marianne Ginalski

The first volume of the Compilation of Northern Treasures (Byang gter phyogs bsgrigs) contains an interesting proto-historical work dealing with the origins, early transmission, and revelation of the central treasure cycle of Jangter known as The Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra (Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal). This text has been composed by Jamyang Sönam Gyeltsen1 and is entitled The History of the Lineage, the Garland of Jewels (brGyud pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i ‘phreng ba).2 The narrative given in the text is rather classical but it is also a departure from similar works in terms of several details and transmission schemes. In general, the history of cycles belonging to the Precepts Section (Man ngag sde) is organized according to three main lineages of transmission:

  1. the Contemplative Transmission of the Victorious Ones (rgyal ba dgongs brgyud),
  2. the Symbolic Transmission of Knowledge-Holders (rig ‘dzin brda rgyud), and
  3. the Oral Transmission of Great Beings (gang zag snyan brgyud).3

This of course also applies to the present text except that these lines of transmission are not precisely defined and do not follow with accuracy the details of the traditional history as for instance recorded in other Heart Drops (sNying thig) cycles. There are also several elements that will certainly seem unusual to readers reasonably accustomed to the “standard” histories of the Precepts Section (Man ngag sde) as we shall see below. Continue reading

  1. On this personage, see Achard, “A Line of Transmission of the dGongs pa zang thal according to the History of the Lineage known as the Garland of Gems (brGyud pa’i lo rgyus nor bu’i ‘phreng ba)”. The identification with the well-known sa skya master of the same name is problematic since the dates that are traditionally attributed to him (1563–1617) conflict with the chronology he himself introduces at the end of his work. []
  2. See the bibliography in fine under the name of ‘Jam dbyangs bSod nams rgyal mtshan. []
  3. This is the scheme followed by Klong chen pa (1308–1364), in several of his works. See inter alia, his Lo rgyus rin po che’i phreng ba, in the Bla ma yang tig. It is the same in the dGongs pa zang thal: see for instance, Rig ‘dzin rgod ldem, Yid ches brgyud pa’i lo rgyus stong thun gyi spyi chings chen mo, p. 6. According to Düdjom Rinpoche (and the sources he uses), the three transmissions respectively correspond to the lineages of Victorious Ones, bodhisattvas, and yogins (see Düdjom Rinpoche, The Nyingma School, p. 447). The first line of transmission is defined as “Contemplative” because it was given through the state of Contemplation (dgongs pa), without uttering a single word. The second line is described as “Symbolic” or transmitted through symbols (brdas brgyud pa) because Knowledge-Holders (rig ‘dzin, corresponding to the category of bodhisattvas in Düdjom Rinpoche’s The Nyingma School referred to above) used specific symbols to illustrate the natural state and transmit the knowledge associated with it. Then, the third line is that of “individuals” (gang zag) who used oral transmission (snyan brgyud) to communicate that knowledge and all its related secret precepts. We will see below that other modes of transmission are used in the revealed literature. See Tulku Thondup, Hidden Teachings of Tibet, p. 102 et seq. []

The Unknown Source of the Hidden Lands: A Note about Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan’s dates

Stéphane Arguillère (IFRAE / Inalco)

sPrul sku Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan (also known as gTer ston Chos kyi blo gros) is a treasure revealer who has been placed in either the 12th or the 13th century. His dating is important, since he is the first known figure to be associated with hidden lands (sbas yul). He was once regarded as a very important gter ston, sometimes counted as one of the five “gTer ston Kings”, as well as among the five emanations of Padmasambhava. According to The Prophecy of O rgyan gling pa quoted by the Fifth Dalai Lama (Thob yig 1970-71: vol. 3, f°11b):

sKu sprul nyi ma ‘od zer yin ༔ 
gSung sprul chos kyi dbang phyug yin ༔ 
Thugs sprul rgod kyi ldem phru yin ༔
Yon tan o rgyan gling pa yin ༔ 
‘Phrin las tshe brtan rgyal mtshan yin ༔ 
‘Di lnga padma ‘byung gnas dngos ༔ 

gter ma of his on the hidden land, the sBas yul padma tshal gyi gnas yig kun tu gsal ba’i me long, which seems to be the oldest text we have about the sbas yul theme (in its “classical”, complete, form), is available : the sBas yul padma tshal gyi gnas yig kun tu gsal ba’i me long (Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan, sPrul sku —, 1983). However, in the absence of a colophon allowing to date the text, the various dates included in this document cannot be interpreted without deciding when he actually lived.

As remarked by Jean-Luc Achard (email to the FCHNT team, 2025/01/23), Gu ru bKra shis (Chos ’byung, 1990, p. 596) places Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan in the fouth rab ’byung (1207–1266), which in any case excludes the 12th century. He is the last figure named for this sexagenary cycle, but this should maybe not be over-interpreted.

However, Gu ru bKra shis places his biography (pp. 403–404) between that of Padma las ’brel rtsal (1290–1319) and that of Rin chen gling pa (1289–1368), which can be interpreted as an indication of the generation to which he belonged, according to the series of prophecies Gu ru bKra shis is following.

More importantly, a detailed account of his revelations can be found in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Record of Teachings Received (gSan yig 1970-71: vol. 3, f°55b–63b). It is unfortunately short on biographical information, but conclusions can be drawn from lineage accounts, especially f°62b: sprul sku tshe brtan rgyal mtshan nam chos kyi blo gros| tsa ri ba śan tiṃ pha la| zur pa śākya ‘byung gnas|, etc.

Zur Śākya ‘byung gnas is, in context, obviously Zur haṃ Śākya ‘byung gnas, and this is confirmed by gTer bdag gling pa’s Thob yig (1998: vol. 2, p. 54) which calls him “Zur Śākya ‘byung gnas phyi ma.” This important figure remains difficult to date, but was definitely active in the middle of the 14th century, as he was (Dudjom Rinpoche 1991: pp. 671-672) a disciple of sGrol ma ba bSam grub rdo rje (1295–1376) and g.Yung ston pa rDo rje dpal (1284–1365), and was a master to sGrol ma ba’s son Sangs rgyas rin chen (1350–1431).

The previous figure in the lineage, “Śan tiṃ pha,” would remain obscure if we had not already met him (Arguillère 2024: p. 123 & 125) as a disciple of Rin chen gling pa (1289–1368) and, precisely, a master of Zur haṃ Śākya ‘byung gnas. This proves that both gter stons were active, at some point, in the same time and region.

What is more, further in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Record of Teachings Received (vol. 4, f°. 137a), Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan seems strangely to appear as a disciple of rGya Zhang khrom—which must allude to some mystical connection with this very early figure—and, much more meaningfully, as a master of Rin chen gling pa—but the passage is not quite clear:

gTer ston nas | sangs rgyas bla ma| sangs rgyas mgar| rdor ’bum chos grags|  lha btsun sngon mo| se ston ring mo| rdo rje ’od ‘bar| rgya zhang khrom| tshe brtan rgyal mtshan| rin chen gling pa| badzra ma ti rnams kyi gter byung lo rgyus|…

This passage, however, is difficult to interpret, for example because rDo rje ’od ’bar is the personal name of rGya Zhang khrom, and it is not clear why the two names appear in this order. However, even if the precise meaning and status of this passage is unclear, the main element remains that Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan had one disciple in common, which implies that their lives overlapped to some extent: if Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan was both a master of Rin chen gling pa and of someone Rin chen gling pa was old enough to teach, he was definitely still active in the first decades of the 14th century, as Rin chen gling pa found his first gter ma around 1311 and does not seem to have taught much before 1321.

This connection Rin chen gling pa makes great sense, in any case, in the very likely hypothesis in which Rin chen gling pa was rGod ldem’s rDzogs chen master: we would then have a continuous human chain leading from Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan’s text on the sbas yul to Rig ’dzin rGod ldem through Rin chen gling pa.

Later sources mostly repeat these pieced of information found in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s gSan yig. However, in a passage1 in Kong sprul’s background materials for his Rin chen gter mdzod (Rin chen gter gyi mdzod chen por ji ltar bzhugs pa’i dkar chag dang smin grol rgyab brten dang bcas pa’i brgyud yig dngos grub sgo brgya ‘byed pa’i lde’u mig), we discover another lineage from Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan:

brgyud pa bla ma sku gsum| mtsho rgyal| mchog dbyangs| gter ston chos kyi blo gros| chos kyi seng ge| rdo rje rin chen| bla ma sher tshul| chos nyid shes rab|, etc.

However, since I have not been able so far to recognize Chos kyi seng ge or rDo rje rin chen, this does not lead us anywhere in the present state of our research.

Be that as it may, this implies that Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan was still alive in the first half of the 14th century.

If we now return to the sBas yul padma tshal gyi gnas yig kun tu gsal ba’i me long supposing that Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan was born in the fouth rab ’byung but active in the fifth — that he lived sometime between 1250 and 1350—the dates for opening the sbas yul in this text (p. 96)—between chu mo yos and byi—can be interpreted as either 1303–1312 or 1363–1372. The text lacks a colophon indicating when it was discovered. It should however be inquired whether this text, possibly transmitted to rGod ldem by Rin chen gling pa, may have influenced his departure in search of the sbas yul soon after the Zang zang lha brag discovery.

Bibliography

Arguillère 2024: Arguillère Stéphane, “A King of Dharma forgotten on the Jewel Island: Was Me ban Chos rgyal Rin chen gling pa Rig ’dzin rGod ldem’s rDzogs chen master? (How half of the mKha’ ’gro snying thig got included in the dGongs pa zang thal)”, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 68, Janvier 2024, pp. 69-147.

Dudjom Rinpoche, Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje. 1991. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals & History. Translated and edited by Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.

gTer bdag gling pa ’Gyur med rdo rje. 1998. Zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig rin chen ’byung gnas. In gTer bdag gling pa ’gyur med rdo rje’i gsung ’bum (vol. 1-14): vol. 1-3. Dehra Dun: D. G. Khochhen Tulku.

Gu ru bKra shis. 1990. bsTan pa’i snying po gsang chen snga ’gyur nges don zab mo’i chos kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa’i legs bshad mkhas pa dga’ byed ngo mtshar gtam
gyi rol mtsho
. Beijing: mTsho sngon mi rigs par khang / Krung go’i bod kyi shes rigs dpe skrun khang.

Kon sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas. 2007-2016. Rin chen gter gyi mdzod chen por ji ltar bzhugs pa’i dkar chag dang smin grol rgyab brten dang bcas pa’i brgyud yig dngos grub sgo brgya ‘byed pa’i lde’u mig. In Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo (The Great Treasury of Rediscovered Teachings) Volume 2, pp. 1-524. New Delhi: Shechen Publications.

Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (5th Dalai Lama). 1970–1971. Thob yig gaṅga’i chu rgyun, vol. 1-4, Delhi: Nechung & Lakhar.

Tshe brtan rgyal mtshan, sPrul sku —, 1983. sBas yul padma tshal gyi gnas yig kun tu gsal ba’i me long. In sPrul sku tshe brtan rgyal mtshan, and Brag dkar rta so sprul sku chos kyi dbang phyug. Phur pa drag sngags kyi smad las dgra bgegs sgrol baʼi rim pa drag po zor gyi man ngag rno myur las kyi mtshon cha, pp. 81-120. Gangtok: Bla-ma Zla-ba and Sherab Gyaltsen.

  1. I have used the Tsadra digitalized searchable text (https://rtz.tsadra.org/index.php/Terdzo-KHA-001#tab=null), which unfortunately does not give page-references. The passage is easily found. ↩︎

Report on the First International Conference on the Northern Treasures

Written by Cécile Ducher (FCHNT)

From the 17th to the 19th of October, 2024, the First International Conference on the Northern Treasures took place in Paris. Twenty participants were gathered and gave talks in the auditorium of the Inalco on Rue de Lille, a few steps away from the Musée d’Orsay and the Seine.

During this conference, the Northern Treasures’ history and ritual traditions were discussed by an international panel of speakers coming from Tibet, India, Italy, China, the USA, Japan, Russia, Hungary, Greece, and France.

Continue reading

The Five Repositories of the Zangzang Lhadrak Discovery and Further Conditions of Revelation

 Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)1

The Termas revealed by Rigdzin Gödem (1337–1409) in Zangzang Lhadrak2 are known under the collective appellation of the “Five Repositories” (mdzod lnga). They were found in a chest of rhinoceros hide (bse sgrom) divided into five parts: a central one and four sections, dispatched in the four directions. Each of these sections makes up a repository containing a specific set of teachings. Thus, according to the Root-Sādhana of the Knowledge-Holders (Rig ‘dzin rtsa ba’i sgrub thabs), these teachings are organized as follows:

In the eastern direction, within the White Conch Repository,
There is a statue of guru Vajrasattva
And the practice (to perform) in the mode (characterizing) pacifying (activities).

In the southern direction, within the Golden Yellow Repository,
There is a (statue of) the master (in the form) of the great and glorious Heruka
And the practice (to perform) in his wrathful form for increasing (activities).
 

In the western direction, within the Red Copper Repository,
There is a (statue of) the master (in the form) of the Protector Amitāyus
And the practice (to perform) in the mode of the subjugating (activities).

In the northern direction, within the Black Iron Repository,
There is a (statue of) the master (in the form) of the Blood-Drinking Heruka
And the practice (to perform) in the mode of the wrathful (activities).

In the central direction, within the Brown Heart Repository,
There is a (statue of) the master (in the form) of the Emanation Body of the Knowledge-Holder3
And the practice of secret methods
.4

Continue reading

  1. Thanks to Marianne Ginalski and Jay Valentine for their suggestions and corrections. []
  2. On Mount Zangzang Lhadrak, see Achard, “The Location of Zang zang lha brag according to Se ston Padma dbang chen’s General Presentation of the Northern Treasures and the Concealment of the Treasures.” []
  3. I.e. Padmasambhava. []
  4. From Se ston, Byang gter spyi bcings, pp. 408-409: shar phyogs dung mdzod dkar po na: bla ma rdo rje sems dpa’ sku: zhi ba’i tshul du sgrub pa yod: lho phyogs gser mdzod ser po nas: bla ma dpal chen he ru ka: rgyas pa khro bo’i tshul du sgrub pa yod: nub phyogs zangs mdzod dmar po na: bla ma mgon po tshe dpag med: dbang gi tshul du sgrub pa yod: byang phyogs lcags mdzod nag po na: bla ma khrag ‘thung he ru ka: drag po’i tshul du sgrub pa yod: dbus kyi snying mdzod smug po na: bla ma rig ‘dzin sprul pa’i sku: gsang ba thabs (p. 409) kyi sgrub pa yod:. The original text is actually slightly different and reads as follows (p. 114; parts in bold show the variant reading): shar phyogs dung mdzod dkar po na: bla ma rdo rje sems dpa’i sku: zhi ba’i tshul du sgrub thabs yod: lho phyogs gser mdzod ser po na: bla (missing: ma) dpal chen he ru ka: khro bo’i tshul du sgrub thabs yod: nub kyi zangs mdzod dmar po na: bla ma mgon po tshe dpag med: dbang gi tshul du sgrub thabs yod: byang phyogs lcags mdzod nag po na: bla ma khrag ‘thung he ru ka: drag po’i tshul du sgrub thabs yod: dbus kyi snying mdzod smug po na: bla ma rig ‘dzin sprul pa’i sku: gsang ba thugs kyi sgrub thabs yod:. []

དཔལ་ལྡན་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མ་ཞེས་པ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་ཡང་སྲིད་ཡིན་མིན་ལ་རོབ་ཙམ་དཔྱད་པ་བྲེ་མོའི་གཏམ།

By Tenpa Tsering Batsang བསྟན་པ་ཚེ་རིང་། CRCAO, INALCO

གླེང་གཞི།

སྤྱིར་བོད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་བརྒྱུད་ཆེ་ཁག་གི་བླ་བརྒྱུད་དང་རུས་ཆེན་དཔེར་ན། འཁོན་དང་། རླངས་དང་། རྔོག་དང་། གནུབས་དང་། དེ་བཞིན་ཟུར་ལ་སོགས་པའི་མེས་པོ་རྣམས་ནི་དུས་རབས་བརྒྱད་པའི་ནང་བོད་དུ་བྱོན་པའི་ཨོ་རྒྱན་གྱི་སློབ་དཔོན་པདྨ་འབྱུང་གནས་ཀྱི་བཀའ་འབངས་སུ་གཏོགས་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཡིན་པ་སྨོས་མེད་ཐོག་བསྟན་པ་ཕྱི་དར་ནས་བཟུང་ད་བར་གྱི་གསར་རྙིང་གི་གཏེར་སྟོན་ཕལ་མོ་ཆེའང་སློབ་དཔོན་པདྨའི་ཐུགས་སྲས་རྗེ་(ཆོས་རྒྱལ་ཁྲི་སྲོང་ཡབ་སྲས)འབངས་ཉེར་ལྔའི་རྣམ་སྤྲུལ་ལམ་སྐུ་སྐྱེ་ཡིན་པ་ལུང་བསྟན་ཅི་རིགས་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ངོས་འཛིན་བྱེད་བཞིན་ཡོད།1 དེའི་ཁྲོད་ནས་དུས་རབས་བཅུ་བཞིའི་ནང་ལ་སྟོད་བྱང་ངམ་རིང་གི་ཉེ་འགྲམ་ཟང་ཟང་ལྷ་བྲག་ནས་བློན་པོ་ལྟ་བུའི་གཏེར་མཛོད་ལྔ་བཞེས་ཏེ་བྱང་གཏེར་གྱི་2 བསྟན་པའི་སྲོལ་གཏོད་པ་པོ་གཏེར་སྟོན་དངོས་གྲུབ་རྒྱལ་མཚན་ནམ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ཅན་༼༡༣༣–༧༡༤༠༩༽ཡང་སློབ་དཔོན་པདྨའི་དངོས་སློབ་དང་། རྡོ་རྗེ་ཕུར་པའི་ཉམས་ལེན་པ་སྣ་ནམ་རྡོ་རྗེ་བདུད་འཇོམས་3 ཀྱི་རྣམ་སྤྲུལ་ལམ་སྐུ་སྐྱེ་ཡིན་པ་གཏེར་སྟོན་བཟང་པོ་གྲགས་པའི་གཏེར་ལུང་ 4 དང་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་གཏེར་ལུང་5 སོགས་ནས་གསུངས།

རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ཅན་གྱི་ཡབ་མེས་ཚོར་ཆ་མཚོན་ན། བསྟན་པ་ཕྱི་དར་སྐབས་ཀྱི་ཟུར་ཆུང་ཤེས་རབ་གྲགས་པ། ༼༡༠༡༤–༡༠༧༤༽ དང་ཉང་རལ་ཉི་མ་འོད་ཟེར་༼༡༡༢༤–༡༡༩༣༽ དེ་བཞིན་གུ་རུ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་དབང་ཕྱུག་ ༼༡༢༡༢ ༡༢༧༠༽ ལྟར་རྟེན་སྔགས་འཆང་རྡོ་རྗེ་འཛིན་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་དང་གདུང་རྒྱུད་ལ་གཙིགས་ཆེར་འཛིན་མཁན་ཡིན།6 དེར་བརྟེན་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་རྟེན་སྔགས་འཆང་ཡིན་ལ་དགོངས་པ་མ་རྫོགས་གོང་དུ་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་བསྟན་པའི་བདག་པོར་རིགས་སྲས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་མགོན་པོ་༼༡༣༩༩–༡༤༢༤༽ བཀོས། སྲས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་མགོན་པོས་བདག་མོ་བཞེས་ཀྱང་སྲས་མ་འཁྲུངས་པས་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་གདུང་རྒྱུད་ཆད་པར་མངོན་ནོ།7 གལ་སྲིད་སྲས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་མགོན་པོར་སྲས་འཁྲུངས་ཡོད་ཚེ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་གདུང་རྒྱུད་དེད་པ་ལས་ཡང་སྲིད་བརྩི་སྲོལ་བྱུང་མེད་པའང་སྲིད་། གང་ལྟར་རིགས་སྲས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་མགོན་པོ་དགུང་ལོ་༢༥་ལ་དགོངས་པ་རྫོགས་པར་བརྟེན་དུས་རབས་ཀྱི་འགྲོས་(དུས་རབས་བཅུ་གསུམ་ནང་གྲུབ་ཆེན་ཨོ་རྒྱན་པས་༼༡༢༢༩–༡༣༠༩༽ཀརྨ་པ་རང་བྱུང་རྡོ་རྗེ་༼༡༢༠༤ ༡༢༨༣༽ཀརྨ་པཀྴིའི་༼༡༢༨༤–༡༣༣༩༽ ཡང་སྲིད་དུ་ངོས་འཛིན་ཡོངས་གྲགས་གནང་བ་ནས་བཟུང་བོད་དུ་སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་ངོས་འཛིན་གྱི་སྲོལ་ཤུགས་ཆེར་དར)8 དང་བསྟུན་ནས་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ལའང་ཡང་སྲིད་འཚོལ་བའི་སྲོལ་བྱུང་། རྒོད་ལྡེམ་སྐུ་ཕྲེང་གཉིས་པ་ལེགས་ལྡན་རྡོ་རྗེའི་༼༡༤༥–༢༡༥༦༥༽9 དང་དེའི་ཡང་སྲིད་དུ་རྡོ་རྗེ་བྲག་གི་དགོན་པ་ཕྱག་བཏབ་མཁན་བྱང་བདག་བཀྲ་ཤིས་སྟོབས་རྒྱལ་༼༡༥༥༠? –༡༦༠༣༽ གྱི་སྲས་ངག་གི་དབང་པོ་༼༡༥༨༠–༡༦༣༩༽ ངོས་འཛིན་བྱུང་པ་ནས་བཟུང་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་པའི་ཡང་སྲིད་ན་རིམ་ལ་རྡོ་རྗེ་བྲག་རིག་འཛིན་ཞེས་པའི་མཚན་འདི་བྱུང་། ད་བར་ཡོངས་གྲགས་སུ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ཅན་ནས་ཐུབ་བསྟན་འཇིགས་མེད་རྣམ་གྲོལ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་༼༡༩༣–༣༢༠༢༤༽་བར་རྡོ་རྗེ་བྲག་གི་རིག་འཛིན་སྐུ་ཕྲེང་བཅུ་བྱུང་ཡོད། འོན་ཀྱང་དུས་རབས་བཅུ་བདུན་དང་ཕྱིས་ཀྱི་ཡིག་ཆ་འགའ་ཞིག་ལྟར་ན་དུས་རབས་བཅོ་ལྔའི་10 ནང་གཙང་མྱང་སྟོད་ཕྱོགས་སུ་དཔལ་ལྡན་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མའམ་གུ་རུ་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མ་ཞུ་བའི་གཏེར་སྟོན་ཞིག་བྱོན་ཅིང་། ཁོང་པ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་ཡང་སྲིད་དང་རྣམ་སྤྲུལ་ཡིན་པ་གསུངས་འདུག དེ་ལྟར་ན་ཁོང་པ་ཡོངས་གྲགས་སུ་ཁས་ལེན་པའི་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་སྐུ་ཕྲེང་གཉིས་པ་ལེགས་ལྡན་རྡོ་རྗེ་11 དང་དུས་མཉམ་པའམ་ཅུང་སྔ་བར་བྱོན་པ་མངོན་པས་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་སྐུ་ཕྲེང་གཉིས་པ་ནི་དཔལ་ལྡན་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མ་ཡིན་དགོས། 

འོན་ཀྱང་ཡོངས་གྲགས་སུ་དེ་ལྟར་འདོད་མཁན་མེད། ལྷག་དོན་དཔལ་ལྡན་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མའི་རྣམ་ཐར་མཇལ་རྒྱུ་མེད་ཅིང་ཁོང་གི་གཏེར་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀྱང་ཕྱོགས་རེ་བ་ཙམ་དང་ཁ་བྱང་ཙམ་ལས་མཇལ་དུ་མེད་པས་སྐྱེས་བུ་སུ་ཞིག་གིས་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མའི་མཚན་ཅན་གྱི་སྐྱེས་བུ་འདི་པ་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་ཡང་སྲིད་དུ་ངོས་འཛིན་མཛད་པའམ་གཏེར་ལུང་ཅི་འདྲ་ཞིག་ནས་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་པའི་ཡང་སྲིད་དུ་ལུང་བསྟན་པ་སོགས་ཁ་མཚོན་གཅོད་ཁ་ལ་ཐུབ། དེར་བརྟེན་ཁོ་བོས་དུས་རབས་བཅུ་དྲུག་ནས་བཅུ་དགུ་དབར་གྱི་ཡིག་ཆ་<<ཟབ་ཁྱད་གཏེར་མའི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་གཏེར་སྟོན་ཆོས་འབྱུང་ནོར་བུའི་འཕྲེང་བ།>> <<གཏེར་སྟོན་བརྒྱ་རྩའི་མཚན་སྡོམ་གསོལ་འདེབས་>>དང་དེའི་འགྲེལ་པ་ལོ་རྒྱུས་<<གཏེར་བཏོན་ཆོས་འབྱུང་།>> <<མྱང་ཆོས་འབྱུང་>> << སྐུ་གསུམ་བརྒྱུད་པ་དྲུག་ལྡན་གཏེར་སྟོན་བཀྲ་ཤིས་གྲངས་མེད་ཀྱི་གསོལ་འདེབས་ཀྱི་འགྲེལ་པ་གཏེར་སྟོན་ཆོསའབྱུང་>> <<གུ་བཀྲ་ཆོས་འབྱུང་>> <<གཏེར་སྟོན་བརྒྱ་རྩའི་རྣམ་ཐར>>ལ་སོགས་པའི་ནང་གཏེར་སྟོན་འདིའི་ཐོག་ཇི་ལྟར་གསལ་བ་རྣམས་མཚུངས་བསྡུར་གྱིས་དཔལ་ལྡན་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མའི་འཁྲུངས་ཡུལ་དང་གཏེར་ཆོས་སྐོར་མདོར་ཙམ་དང་། རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་པའི་ཡང་སྲིད་དང་རྣམ་སྤྲུལ་ཡིན་གསུང་མཁན་དང་། ཡིན་མིན་གང་ཡང་མི་གསུང་མཁན་དང་། བྱང་གཏེར་ལུགས་གཙང་མ་འཛིན་པ་དག་གི་བཞེད་ཕྱོགས་བཅས་དོན་ཚན་བཞིའི་ཐོག་ལ་དཔྱད་པ་རོབ་ཙམ་བྱ་རྒྱུ་ཡིན།

Continue reading
  1. གཏེར་སྟོན་བརྒྱ་རྩའི་རྣམ་ཐར། ཤོག ༢༩ ནས ༣༠ དབར། []
  2. བློན་པོ་ལྟ་བུའི་གཏེར་ཞེས་ཡོངས་སུ་བསྔགས་པ་ལྟར་མཐའ་དམག་ཟློག་པ་དང་། རིམས་ནད་གཅོད་པ། བོད་ཀྱི་ནང་འཁྲུག་ཞི་བར་བྱེད་པ། འགོང་པོ་ཨར་ལ་གཏད་པ། སྡེ་པའི་མངའ་ཐང་གསོ་བ། ས་ནད་དང་གཉན་ནད་འདུལ་བ་སོགས་ཀྱི་ཐབས་ཤེས་བྱང་མཛོད་ལྔའི་ནང་ཡོད་པར་གསུངས། ཞིབ་ཕྲ་༧ལྔ་པ་ཆེན་པོས་མཛད་པའི་བྱང་པ་རིག་འཛིན་ངག་གི་དབང་པོའི་རྣམ་པར་ཐར་པ་ངོ་མཚོར་བཀོད་པ་རྒྱ་མཚོའི་ཤོག་གྲངས། ༤༨༦ ནས། ༤༨༧ ལ་གཟིགས། []
  3. ཁོང་ནི་དུས་རབས་བརྒྱད་པའི་ནང་བྱོན་ཅིང་སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་པོ་པདྨ་འབྱུང་གནས་བོད་དུ་གདན་འདྲེན་མཁན་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉའི་ཁྲོད་ནས་གཅིག་ཡིན་ལ། ཆོས་རྒྱལ་ཁྲི་སྲོང་གི་ཆོས་བློན་ཞིག་ཀྱང་ཡིན། ལྷག་དོན་ཁོང་ནི་ལོ་ཙཱ་བའང་ཡིན་ཏེ་བཀའ་འགྱུར་ཁྲོད་དུ་ཁོང་གིས་བསྒྱུར་བའི་དཔེ་ཆ་ཉུང་མཐར་གཉིས་མཆིས། རྒྱས་པ་གཟིགས་འདོད་ན། གུ་རུ་བཀྲའི་ཆོས་འབྱུང་། ཤོག ༡༧༢ ནས ༡༧༢ དང་། A complete catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Cannon ཡི་ཤོག་གྲངས. ༢༠༦ དང་། ༤༣༧ ལ་གཟིགས། []
  4. གཏེར་སྟོན་བཟང་པོ་གྲགས་པའི་གཏེར་མ། སྙིང་ཏིག་གནད་ཀྱི་མན་ངག་དོན་བདུན། ཤོག་གྲངས། ༢༨༩ ནས ༢༩༠ ལས་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ལུང་བསྟན་ཚུལ་ནི། བྱང་ཕྱོགས་ཐོ་ཡོར་ནག་པོའི་ས་ཕྱོགས་སུཿ   རི་བོ་བཀྲ་བཟང་ཞེས་པའི་ཤར་འདབས་སུཿ  ཆུ་ཁམས་གླང་ལོ་སྨེ་བའི་མཚན་རྟགས་ཅནཿ   པད་མ་ང་ཡི་བྱིན་གྱིས་བརླབས་པཌྷི་རྟགསཿ སྤྱི་བོར་རྒོད་ཀྱི་ལྡེམ་འཕྲུ་ཡང་ཡང་འབྱུང་ཿ  ལས་ཅན་དེ་ལ་དགེ་བའི་བསྐུལ་འདེབས་མཛདཿ   སྤྱིར་དུ་ལས་དང་སྨོན་ལམ་སྟོབས་ཆེན་གྱིཿ  ངེས་པར་གཏེར་དེ་སྐྱེས་བུ་དེ་ཡིས་འདོནཿ གུང་ཐད་སྟོད་དུ་བདེ་སྐྱིད་འབྱུང་ལགས་ཀྱིཿ []
  5. རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་པའི་གཏེར་མ། སྙན་བརྒྱུད་དྲུག་གི་ཐོ་བྱང་སྙ་བརྒྱུད་རིན་པོ་ཆེའི་ལུང་བྱང་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཐུགས་ཀྱི་ལྡེ་མིག་གི་ཤོག་གྲངས་༡༩༢ ནས ༡༩༣ ལས་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་ལུང་བསྟན་ཚུལ་ནི། རྡོ་རྗེ་བདུད་འཇོམས་སྐུ་ཡི་སྲསཿ ཁྲོ་བོའི་ཆ་བྱད་གཟི་བརྗིད་ཆེཿ གྲུབ་ཐོབ་རྒྱལ་པོ་ལུང་བསྟན་ཅནཿ   གནས་དེར་སྐྱེ་བའི་ཚུལ་བསྟན་ནསཿ ལུས་ཀྱི་སྤྱོད་པ་མ་ངེས་ཏེཿ ངག་ཏུ་མི་རྟོག་ཆོས་འཆད་འགྱུརཿ  ཡིད་ལ་ཡང་དག་སྙིང་པོ་སྒྲུབཿ ཉི་ཤུ་རྩ་ལྔ་ལོན་པའི་ཚེཿ ཡ་མཚན་རྟགས་དང་དངོས་གྲུབ་ཐོབཿ  བྱང་ཕྱོགས་གཉན་ཡུལ་ཟང་ཟང་ནསཿ   གསང་སྔགས་བསྟན་པའི་སྒོ་རྙེད་འགྱུརཿ ཆོས་སྒོ་ལྔ་བརྒྱ་ཕྲག་གཅིག་སྟོནཿ   སོགས་གསུངས་སོ། []
  6. སེ་སྟོན་ཉི་མ་བཟང་པོས་མཛད་པའི་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་རྣམ་ཐར། རིག་འཛིན་དངོས་གྲུབ་རྒྱལ་མཚན་གྱི་རྣམ་ཐར་ཉི་མའི་འོད་ཟེར། ཤོག་གྲངས། ༡ ནས། ༧ དབར་ལ་གཟིགས། []
  7. བྱ་བཏང་ཕྱག་རྡོར་ནོར་བུས་མཛད་པའི་བྱང་གཏེར་བླ་མ་བརྒྱུད་པའི་རྣམ་ཐར་བསམ་འཕེལ་མ་ཎི་ཀའི་འཕྲེང་བ། ཤོག་གྲངས། ༤༧༥ ནས ༤༧༩ ལ་གཟིགས། []
  8. སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་ངོས་འཛིན་བྱེད་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་ཀྱི་སྐོར་མཁྱེན་འདོད་ན་བླ་བྲག་སྐལ་བཟང་གིས་བྲིས་པའི་བོད་ཀྱི་སྤྲུལ་སྐུའི་རྣམ་བཤད། ཤོག་གྲངས། ༦ ནས ༩ བར་ལ་གཟིགས། []
  9. རིག་འཛིན་ལེགས་ལྡན་རྡོ་རྗེ་ནི་ []
  10. ནང་བསྟན་དཔེ་མཛོད་ཁང་(BDRC) ནས་གཏེར་སྟོན་འདི་དུས་རབས་བཅོ་ལྔ་ལ་བཞག་འདུག []
  11. ཁོང་ནི་གཏེར་ཁ་མང་པོ་ནས་སྣ་ནམ་རྡོ་རྗེ་བདུད་འཇོམས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་སྤྲུལ་དུ་ལུང་བསྟན་པ་ཙམ་དུ་མ་ཟད། པདྨ་འཕྲིན་ལས་ཀྱིས་མཛད་པའི་འདུས་པ་མདོ་དབང་གི་བླ་མ་བརྒྱུད་པའི་རྣམ་ཐར། ཤོག ༢༦༦ ནང་ཁོང་པ་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གྱི་སྐྱེ་བ་ཡིན་པ་ཞལ་བཞེས་མཛད་ཡོད། []

རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གཏེར་ནས་བཏོན་པའི་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཀ་དག་རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་སྤྱིར་བསྟན་དང་ཁོག་དབུབ་སྐོར།

Jean-Luc Achard
CNRS, CRCAO

གཏེར་ཆེན་རིག་འཛིན་རྒོད་ལྡེམ་གཏེར་ནས་བཏོན་པའི་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཀ་དག་རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཨོ་རྒྱན་པདྨའི་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ཁོངས་སུ་གཏོགས་ཏེ་སྤྲོས་པའི་མཐའ་སྤྱོད་པའི་སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་པོའི་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ཡིན།  ཨ་འཛོམ་ཆོས་སྒར་གྱི་དཔེ་སྐྲུན་བཞིན་ཡང་ཟབ་གནད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་ཚན་ནི་ཆོས་སྡེ་བཅོ་ལྔ་ཐེམ་བྱང་དང་བཅས་པས་ཆོས་ཚན་བཅུ་དྲུག་ཡོད།  ཁྱད་པར་དུ་ཆོས་ཚན་དེ་རྣམས་དབང་དུ་བྱས་ན་ཞུས་ལེན་གནད་ཀྱི་ཡི་གེ་དང་གཅིག།  ཞལ་ཆེམས་རིན་ཆེན་གཟེར་བུ་དང་གཉིས།  མ་རིག་མུན་སེལ་དང་གསུམ།  སྙིང་པོ་བསྡུས་པ་རིག་པའི་དབང་དང་བཞི།  གནད་ཏིག་ཞལ་གདམས་ཟབ་མོའི་ཐེམས་དང་ལྔ།  ངོ་སྤྲོད་རང་རིག་རང་གསལ་དང་དྲུག།  གེགས་སེལ་ནོར་བུ་རཏྣའི་བང་མཛོད་དང་བདུན།  མན་ངག་གསལ་བའི་སྒྲོན་མ་དང་བརྒྱད་དོ།  རྒྱུད་གཉིས་ནི་ཀུན་གྲོལ་རྡོ་རྗེ་སེམས་དཔའི་རྒྱུད་ལེའུ་དགུ་པ་དང་།  རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་རྩ་བའི་རྒྱུད་ལེའུ་བཅུ་གསུམ་དང་བཅས་པའོ།  ཆོས་སྐོར་ཀུན་ཀྱང་ཚིག་དོན་གང་ཞེ་ན་མཉམ་པར་བཞག་པ་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གཙོ་བོར་སྟོན་པའི་ཡང་གསང་བླ་ན་མེད་པའི་སྙན་བརྒྱུད་ཡིན་ནོ། ༡༩༧༣ ལོར་པད་མ་ཆོས་ལྡན་གྱིས་པར་སྐྲུན་བྱས་པའི་དཔེ་ཚོགས་དེའི་སྙིང་དོན་ནི་གཤམ་གསལ་ལྟར་ཏེ།

དཀར་ཆག།

༠༽ཐེམ་བྱང་།་་་་་༡-༢

༡༽སྔོན་འགྲོ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་གནད་ཀྱི་གཟེར་ལྔ།་་་་་་་་༣-༣༡

༢༽གསོལ་འདེབས།་་་་་་་་་༣༣-༣༩ Continue reading