Category Archives: History

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. ↩︎

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

Revisiting the Revelation of the Gongpa Zangthel

Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)1

The cycle of the Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra or Künzang Gongpa Zangthel (Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal) contains several non-doctrinal narrative works explaining the history of the lineage, the contents of the collection, prophecies, and other similar texts.2 At the very outset of the first volume, the collection includes an interesting short work dedicated to the story describing the actual revelation of the treasure (gter ma). What is even more interesting is that it is written in the first person, which means that what we read in this text is said to have been directly written down by the tertön, namely Rigdzin Gödem (1337–1408) himself.3

The narration itself is very straightforward and replete with details which give it a definite flavor of authenticity. As will be seen in the translation, extraordinary marvels and wonders are at the core of the story, but given the nature of the event, the intervention of such elements in the narrative does not come as a surprise. As a matter of fact, the role played by atmospheric miracles and the encounters with the Guardians of the Treasure (gter srung) are standard topics occurring in such a revelatory context. Therefore, they should not be automatically dismissed as superstitions since there are numerous elements at play during the revelation of a terma that would easily challenge the most skeptical minds.4 Many of these elements—provided they have not been produced by the imagination of the tertön—are impossible to analyze from a scientific perspective but would nevertheless definitely deserve to be investigated in an emic perspective. I have just mentioned two of them—atmospheric “events” and contacts with local entities5—as these are central in the text translated below, but other modalities such as prophecies, environmental disturbances, collective karma, astrological conjunctions, etc., play crucial roles before, during, and after the revelation itself.

Continue reading

  1. My thanks go to Marianne Ginalski for her corrections and suggestions on the original draft of this paper. []
  2. These appear either as compositions or as revealed material. The text translated below is a composition. []
  3. There are other works directly attributed to rGod ldem’s hand, such as The Symbolic Omens Appearing in Dreams, in Eight Chapters (mNal lam brda’i ltas le’u brgyad ma) which will be discussed in another paper. []
  4. I am not formulating here a panegyric of some sort of the gter ma phenomenon but the recurring nature of these elements during the revelation of a treasure must certainly be studied on its own, even if only for proposing a hermeneutic interpretation of some of its components. Having recourse to hackneyed arguments limiting the interpretative process to cultural representations that have no reality at all is evidently a dead-end that has deviated research into fossilized, clearly uniformed opinions. The process of revealing treasures is much more complex as is evidenced by the Third rDo grub chen rin po che (1865–1926)’s work on the topic, entitled The Ocean of Wonders (Ngo mtshar rgya mtsho); see the translation of this text in T. Thondup, Hidden Teachings of Tibet, passim. []
  5. The first ones can possibly be witnessed by a third party but not necessarily the second ones. []

Nyingma Perspective on Obstacles to the Revelation of Treasures (gter ma)

by Jean-Luc Achard
(CRCAO, CNRS)1

While the discovery of Treasures is generally seen as a very auspicious sign, in particular for those attending a “public revelation” (khrom gter), as well as for the immediate environment of the treasure site (gter gnas) and the locals, situations (lit. “defects”) resulting from not revealing Treasures (ma thon pa’i skyon) are the particular causes of ominous events. Thus, when the circumstances surrounding a revelation fall under the power of demonic forces (bdud), the Treasure Revealer will potentially lack the specific “good fortune” necessary to carry out his revelation. In a wider perspective, this is often portrayed in apocalyptic literature as a dramatic state of affairs leading to the arising of intense sufferings for Tibet and its inhabitants. In such a context, both the “king of Tibet” (bod kyi rje) and the population will face dire obstacles. To illustrate this situation, in his Precious Garland (Rin chen phreng ba), Setön Pema Wangchen first quotes a passage from the Seven Topics of the Crucial Precepts of the Heart Drops (sNying tig gnad kyi man ngag don bdun), a treasure revealed by tertön Zangpo Drakpa, in which it is said:

If, having fallen under the power of the demons, (the tertön) lacks the good fortune to reveal Treasures,
The Tibetan king and his people will experience unbearable sufferings.
2

Continue reading

  1. I would like to thank Marianne Ginalski for her kind suggestions and corrections. []
  2. As quoted by Setön in his Precious Garland (Rin chen phreng ba), p. 391: gal te bdud kyi dbang du gyur nas gter thon pa’i skal ba dang mi ldan na: bod kyi rje ‘bangs bzod pa’i thabs med pa’i sdug bsngal la sbyor ro/. []

Apocalyptic Times and the Revelation of Rigdzin Gödem’s Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra

by Jean-Luc Achard

(CNRS, CRCAO)1

In his Garland of Jewels (Rin chen phreng ba), a fascinating work devoted to the “General Presentation of the Cycles of Teachings of the Northern Treasures” (Byang gter gyi chos skor rnams kyi spyi chings), Setön Pema Wangchen (15th c.) provides a brief analysis of the period in which Rigdzin Gödem was to reveal the treasure of the Transparent Contemplation of Samantabhadra (Kun bzang dgongs pa zang thal). Basing himself on a series of prophecies, Setön uses five main sources from which he has extracted brief excerpts. These are the subject of the present short paper.

In general, termas are said to be revealed during particularly difficult moments in history, in the course of degenerate times and situations. In traditional Tibetan context, this is often described as periods plagued with spiritual decay, a general decline in virtues, a fall of the royal (or local) Houses, internal conflicts, a general disintegration of familial structures, moral corruption and so forth. This degeneration of times is also expressed in the form of demonic manifestations, the spread of vicious behaviors, epidemics, epizootics, etc. For instance, in the Three Kinds of Lamps (sGron ma rnam gsum), the conditions requiring the revelation of Gödem’s terma are termed as follows:

During the period of degeneration and bad times (associated with) this Treasure,
At the time when the king falls into the populace,
When butchers become leaders of men,
When quarrels rage between fathers and siblings,
When divine supports2
 are destroyed and broken to pieces,
When one is being deceived by beloved companions,
When discord spread between masters and disciples,
When teachers are put to the sword,
When tantrikas perform (only) village rituals,
When foxes wear the hide of lions,
When Gongpo spirits carol songs,3

When scholars sell (teachings) like charlatans,
When attachments and aversions blaze like fire,
When human corpses are scattered
4 across the plains,
A noble emanated individual (arising)
From this Compassion of mine, (Orgyen) Pema,
Will come before this mountain
And, at that time, will excavate this treasure
.5
Continue reading

  1. I would like to thank Marianne Ginalski for her kind suggestions and corrections. []
  2. See below for details. []
  3. On ‘gong po, see Nebesky-Wojkowitz,Oracles and Demons of Tibet, pp. 283-285. []
  4. The verb that is used is ‘grems pa (spread out, display, etc.) in the original text. Funnily enough, Setön, in his Garland of Jewels (Rin chen ‘phreng ba, p. 30) reads that as ‘grims pa, as if understanding the verse as meaning something like “zombies rambling in the flatlands”. []
  5. sGron ma rnam gsum, p. 36: gter ‘di dus ngan snyigs ma’i dus: rgyal po dmangs su ‘bebs pa’i dus : shan pas mi mgo byed pa’i dus:  pha spun dme ‘khrug byed pa’i dus: lha rten bshig nas brdung ba’i dus: snying brtse’i grogs kyis bslu pa’i dus: slob dpon slob ma rnyog pa’i dus: dge bshes gri ru ‘chi ba’i dus: sngags pa grong chog byed pa’i dus: seng lpags wa yis gon pa’i dus: ‘gong pos rgyang glu len pa’i dus:  mkhas pas zog po brin pa’i dus:  chags sdang me ltar ‘bar ba’i dus: mi ro thang la ‘grems pa’i dus: padma nga yi thugs rje las: sprul pa’i gang zag dam pa gcig:  ri bo ‘di’i mdun du ‘byung :  de dus gter ‘di ‘don par ‘gyur:. []

Alien and Internal Prophecies regarding Rigdzin Gödem according to Setön Pema Wangchen

by Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)1

Setön’s brief analysis of the prophecies related to Gödem in his Generalities about the Northern Treasures (Byang gter spyi bcings) consists of a mere, yet logical, twofold list, enumerating first the main prophecies that are to be found in alien Terma literature (gter kha gzhan nas), i.e., outside the corpus of the Northern Treasures (Byang gter), and then listing those that are included within that corpus. In doing so, he intends to demonstrate the manifest importance of Gödem in the Nyingma tradition as a whole, and not only within his own lineage.

1. Prophecies made outside the Northern Treasures

In this first category, Setön quotes seven main sources—all of gter ma origins—, some of which have supposedly been discovered prior to Gödem’s birth. The first text that is quoted is The Prophecy of the Treasure (revealed by) Künkyong Lingpa (Kun skyong gling pa’i gter kha’i lung bstan),2 in which appears the following prophetic statement:

His miraculous power will be said to fulfill the aspirations of those to be tamed;
This man with a vulture feather on his head
Will retrieve all treasure vases (from) Trazang;
How can the summary of these be thoroughly sufficient?
3

Continue reading

  1. I would like to thank Marianne Ginalski and Jay Valentine for their kind suggestions and corrections. []
  2. So far I have been unable to locate this title. Kun skyong gling pa is said to have been born in 1396 or 1408 and to have passed away at the age of 82 (either in 1477 or in 1489). See Samten Chhosphel, “Kunkyong Lingpa”, https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Kunkyong-Lingpa/2232. []
  3. Se ston, pp. 382-383 : rdzu ‘phrul (p. 383) gdul bya’i re ba bskong ba zhes: rgod kyi ldem phru dbu la skyes pa ni: bkra bzang gter gyi bum pa thams cad ‘byin: de rnams mdor bstan zhib tu ga la ldang:. The last verse of the quatrain simply means that there would be much more to say. []