Category Archives: 14th century

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.

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. ↩︎

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:. []

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. []

The Proto-Historical Origins of the Northern Treasures according to Se ston Padma dbang chen (15th c.)

Jean-Luc Achard
(CNRS, CRCAO)1

In the first part of his Garland of Jewels (Rin chen ‘phreng ba), Se ston Padma dbang chen briefly describes the origins of the Northern Treasures tradition, dating it back to the imperial period. We shall briefly recall here the well-known narrative that structures these origins. Se ston explains that in “earlier times” (sngon gyi dus na),2 there came an emanation of Mañjughoṣa (‘Jam pa’i dbyangs) who manifested as a king protecting Dharma under the name of Khri srong lde’u btsan (r. 755–797). At the age of thirteen, the young prince took hold of the royal seat and started to govern the country.3 Soon, his heart started to turn toward virtues and he became interested in Buddhist teachings. At the time, he was eighteen. He financed the building of temples (gtsug lag khang) that would lay the basis for the spread of Buddhism in the Tibetan kingdom, styled as a “region of darkness” (mun pa’i gling). To ensure this diffusion he decided to invite important masters from India, starting with the abbot Śāntarakṣita who was born in Zahor and whom Tibetans nicknamed “Abbot Bodhisattva”. The Abbot performed the ritual for subjugating the soil (sa ‘dul) and workers started to build the first Buddhist temple in bSam yas. However, as the now famous story goes, what was built by humans during the day was destroyed during the night by ill-intentioned demons.

Since the abbot failed to succeed in the building of the temple, the king was rather displeased. To counter the situation, Śāntarakṣita advised him to invite the ācārya Padmasambhava from India. Presented as having been miraculously born from a lotus on a lake, this master was described as not covered by the impurities of the womb. He had furthermore obtained the immortal Diamond Body (‘chi ba med pa rdo rje’i sku) and was said to be able to perform the activities of a thousand Buddhas.4 In India itself, he was already renown as an Emanation Body (sprul pa’i sku) capable of binding the Eight Classes of Gods and Demons (sde brgyad) into servitude.5 In reality, he was the concrete manifestation of Buddha Amitābha, living in the cave of Yari Gong (g.Ya’ ri gong) in India. Thus, three envoys were dispatched with gold in order to invite him.6 They met him in India and owing to the latter’s aspiration prayers formulated in a previous rebirth, Padmasambhava accepted the invitation to go to Tibet.7 The anachronistic date of their departure for Tibet is said to have been the 15th of the middle winter month of an Earth-Male-Horse year.8

Continue reading

  1. Thanks to Marianne Ginalski and to Jay Valentine for their suggestions and corrections. []
  2. I.e., during the 8th century. []
  3. At that time, the kingdom of Tibet was not limited to Central Tibet but embraced large parts of Central Asia, Northern China, most of the Himalayan regions, and so forth. However, this state of affairs was not to last long. []
  4. With such a Body, Padmasambhava is said to have obtained power over his lifetime (tshe la dbang ba). []
  5. On these eight classes, see Samten Karmay, “Une note sur l’origine du concept des huit catégories d’esprit”, passim. []
  6. These three envoys were sBa mi khri zher (of Yar klung), Śākya pra ba (of the ‘Chims clan), and Shud pu dPal gyi seng ge. []
  7. His aspiration prayers associated with a previous rebirth are an explicit reference to the legend surrounding the Bya rung kha shor (Bodnath) Stūpa on which see sNgags ‘chang Śākya bzang po, mChod rten chen po bya rung kha shor gyi lo rgyus thos pas grol ba, pp. 302-339. See the excellent translation of this work by Adam Pearcey, “Liberation Upon Hearing —The History of the Great Jarung Kashor Stūpa”, passim. []
  8. P. 4: sa pho rtsa dgu zla ‘bring po’i tshe bco lnga. The date is anachronistic because the addition of the element (‘byung ba) only happened after the introduction of the Kālacakra calendar in Tibet in the mid-11th century. []