Author Archives: Stéphane Arguillère

About Stéphane Arguillère

IFRAE / INALCO

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 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. ↩︎

སོག་པོ་ཇུན་གར་བས་བོད་ལ་བཙན་འཛུལ་གྱིས་སྔ་འགྱུར་རྙིང་མའི་བསྟན་པ་བསྣུབས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་དང་དེའི་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་ལ་དཔྱད་པ།

བསྟན་པ་ཚེར་རིང་ (Tenpa Tsering Batsang, IFRAE, INALCO)

གནད་བསྡུས

རྩིམ་ཡིག་འདིར་དུས་རབས་བཅོ་བརྒྱད་ནང་སོག་པོ་ཇུན་གར་བས་བོད་ལ་བཙུན་འཛུལ་མ་བྱས་གོང་དགའ་ལྡན་ཕོ་བྲང་གི་དབང་འཛིན་མི་སྣ་དང་རྡོ་བྲག་རིག་འཛིན་པདྨ་འཕྲིན་ལས་སོགས་རྙིང་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་བསྟན་འཛིན་སྐྱེས་ཆེན་ཚོའི་དབར་གྱི་མཆོད་ཡོན་གྱི་འབྲེལ་བ་དང་། དེ་རྗེས་ཇུན་གར་བས་བོད་ལ་བཙན་འཛུལ་བྱས་པའི་བརྒྱུད་རིམ་ནང་རྙིང་བསྟན་བསྣུབས་པར་ཀུན་སློང་བྱེད་མཁན་སོག་རིགས་སྒོ་མང་མཁན་པོ་བློ་བཟང་ཕུན་ཚོགས་གཙོས་དགེ་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་བླ་གྲྭ་ཉུང་ཤས་མཉམ་ཞུགས་བྱས་ཡོད་པ་རྭ་སྤྲོད་ཀྱིས་གླེང་སློང་བྱས་ཡོད།

བརྡ་ཆད་གཙོ་བོ

དགའ་ལྡན་ཕོ་བྲང་། རྒྱལ་དབང་ལྔ་པ་ཆེན་པོ། སྨིན་གྲོལ་གླིང་། རྡོ་རྗེ་བྲག ཇུན་གར་བ། རྙིང་བསྟན་བསྣུབས་པ། བཙན་འཛུལ། ཕྱོགས་ཞེན།

གླེང་གཞི།

དེ་ཡང་ཇི་སྐད་དུ།
མིས་རང་གི་སྐྱེ་ཁུངས་མ་ཤེས་ན། །ནགས་ནང་གི་སྤྲེའུ་དང་འདྲ། །
མི་རང་གི་ཆོ་འབྲང་མ་ཤེས་ན། །སྒོ་ཁའི་ཕྱུགས་ཟོག་དང་འདྲ། །
ཡབ་མེས་ཀྱི་ཆེ་དགེ་ཡིག་ཚང་མ་ཤེས་ན། །མཛོ་རྒྱན་འཁྱམ་པོ་དང་འདྲ། །

Continue reading

An Unknown Master of Rig ‘dzin rgod ldem: Sba ston/rGa ston dpal ba and Mañjuśrī’s Dzogchen

Rigdzin Gödem – Unknown source.

An Unknown Master of Rig ‘dzin rgod ldem: Sba ston/rGa ston dpal ba and Mañjuśrī’s Dzogchen: Rig ’dzin rGod ldem in the ’Jam dpal rDzogs chen lineage stemming from Sar ban phyogs med (XIth century) and its possible connections with ’Jam dpal tshe bdag

During my preliminary investigation in the fifth Dalai Lama’s Record of Teachings Received (gSan yig), I spotted the presence of Rigdzin Gödem in the context of a little-known lineage, that of ’Jam dpal rdzogs chen. There is actually no doubt about his identity, as the next figures in the lineage are very well-known masters of the Northern Treasures.

Continue reading

The Life of Gönpo Wangyal (1845-1915)

Thanks to Dr. Martin Boord and David Cowey for the kind revision of the version of this text that is about to be printed in the introduction of our translation of Tülku Tsullo’s practice manual for the Direct Revelation.

Gönpo Wangyal: vignette from the 16-volume edition of the Complete Works of Tülku Tsullo: vol. 5.

Gönpo Wangyal (mGon po dbang rgyal, 1845-1915) was a Nyingma master, active in the Golok area. He was the nephew and successor of Terchen Nüden Dorje of Khordong (‘khor gdong gter chen Nus ldan rdo rje). He was the head of the Khordong monastery for many years and did much to make it a stronghold, in the Golok area, of both the Jangter and the revelations of his uncle Terchen Nüden Dorje. He was himself a tertön who mostly had revelations connected to the practice of Chöd (gcod).

Here is a short summary of Gönpo Wangyal’s biography by Tülku Tsullo (sprul sku tshul khrims bzang po, 2014: vol. 8 p. 1-110). I also used a shorter one (30 p.) in the History of the Jangter (Byang gter chos ’byung) by Chöying of Khordong (Byang gter phyogs bsgrigs : vol. 62, p. 757-787).

Tsullo’s biography starts with a summary of Gönpo Wangyal’s previous lives in India and Tibet. He was regarded as an emanation of Buddhas’s disciple Ananda, of Atsara Sale (Yeshe Tsogyal’s legendary male consort), Phadampa Sangye, Drapa Ngönshe, and, as for his Jangter connections, of Legdenje (Legs ldan rje) and Yölmo Tülku Tendzin Norbu (Yol mo sprul sku btTsan ‘dzin nor bu), etc.

Continue reading

Summary of the biography of Khordong Choktrül Gyurmé Dorjé (1887-1967)

Khordong Choktrül Gyurmé Dorjé

There is a 10 pages biography of him in the large Jangter Chöjung by Khenpo Chöying.

He was born in 1887 and died in 1967. He was regarded as an emanation of Gyalwa Chok Yang. The texts gathers prophecies about him as usual. It is Tertön Sogyal who said to Tülku Tsullo: «Your brother is the [predestined] master of a mind-treasure…». He was the son of Gönpo Wangyal who told him that he had a special connection with Hayagriva, so he put him to practice Tamdrin Drekpa Wangdü (one of the two Jangter cycles of this deity) and then a horse neighing from above his head was heard in Khordong […] There are prophecies about him in the termas of Nüden Dorje. [….] He was the younger brother of Tülku Tsullo, so, the son of Gönpo Wangyal and Khordong Terchen’s daughter.

In 1896, together with his brother Tsullo, he received from Gönpo Wangyal the instructions from the Jangter Lung Phagmo Zabgya, the Kadak [Rangjung Rangshar] and the Gongpa Zangthal “with the manual composed by Ado Könchok Gyaltsen” (this perplexing indication means the Kathok tradition that was, it seems, preserved in Shukjung Monastery).

Continue reading

Recovering the tantras of the Brahmin Cycle of the Dzogchen Yangti (rDzogs chen Yang ti bram ze’i skor)

In Rigdzin Gödem’s biographies, it appears that his father, Lopön Düdül (sLob dpon bDud ’dul, or Sidüdül–Srid bdud ’dul), was a practitioner of the Yang ti bram ze. What do we know about this little-known cycle of Dzogchen tantras?

There are clearly none extant practice instruction manuals (khrid yig), let alone masters who would know the practice in concrete terms. I could not even find a precise list of the tantras of this class. After a discussion with Jean-Luc Achard, I understood that we were indeed in such a total vagueness that his own efforts produced only a tentative list of these tantras by starting from the idea that the Yang ti was subdivided into two–Yang ti nag po and Yang ti bram ze. The Yang ti nag po being a living tradition, its tantras are well known (or at least, there is no ambiguity as to their list). It would therefore be possible to reconstitute the list of tantras of the Yang ti bram ze by eliminating the tantras of the Yang ti nag po from the whole of the tantras of the Yang ti (assuming that there are indeed only these two classes–which is not self-obvious, as, sometimes, one also finds mention of the Yang ti sangs rgyas mnyam sbyor, to which a cycle revealed by Guru Chöwang (Gu ru Chos dbang) belongs).

Continue reading

The First Practice in which Rigdzin Gödem Obtained Signs of Accomplishment as a Teenager

It is said that in his 13th year (so, in Western style, when he was twelve), Rigdzin Gödem obtained accomplishments through ‘The Wheel of Activities of Black Leprosy.’

This is a tantra that is not unknown, as it is found (under another title) in the Collection of the Ancient Tantras;* unfortunately, though it has in its colophon marks that show that it is a ‘hidden treasure,’ there are no clues about its discoverer that would help us to know more about the lineages that transmitted it.

In fact, though there is no clear information about the origins and transmission lineage of this tantra, it is clearly connected to Yamāntaka, not in his form ‘Mañjuśrī Master of Life,’ (’Jam dpal tshe bdag) more connected to the termas of Gyazhangtrom (and very much practised nowadays in Dorjedrak and its branch monasteries), but in the form Nāgarakṣa–to be understood, in this context: ‘Demon for the Nāgas,’ or ‘Guardian against the Nāgas,’ the chtonian spirits supposed to cause all sorts of illnesses that are put in the general category of ‘leprosy,’ but which in fact includes all kinds of diseases affecting body tissues that would be classified otherwise in moderne medical science–from eczema to cancerous tumours.

Nāgarakṣa is described as an ‘extraordinary wrathful form of the deity Mañjuśrī; he is black, either with ten heads and eighteen arms, the principal face being that of a rākṣasa and extremely wrathful or with nine wrathful faces; either way nine snake’s heads move in the air above; on the crown of the central snake’s head is the conqueror Akṣobhya; eight right hands hold knives or swords; eight left serpent nooses, while the first pair are together at his heart; his upper body is that of a rākṣasa; his back leaning on Mount Meru; his lower body is the tail of a snake, coiled in the depths of the sea; all his mouths are emitting hissing sounds; trampled beneath him a black caṇḍāla (outcaste), he abides amidst a blazing mass of fire.’

Continue reading