A Greater Perfection? Scholasticism, Comparativism and Issues of Sectarian Identity in Early 20th Century Writings on rDzogs-chen

A Greater Perfection?

Scholasticism, Comparativism and Issues of Sectarian Identity in Early 20th Century Writings on rDzogs-chen

Adam Scott Pearcey

Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD 2018

Department of History, Religions and Philosophies SOAS

University of London

Declaration

I have read and understood Regulation 21 of the General and Admissions Regulations for students of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination.

Abstract

This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the early decades of the twentieth century. This was an era of flourishing scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools in Eastern Tibet, especially the rNying-ma and Sa-skya. It was also a period when a supposed non-sectarian (ris med) movement occurred. These two developments—in education and intersectarian relations—are at the heart of this inquiry. Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952), a follower of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar ’Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas.

The study offers evidence that rDzogs-chen authors variously ignored, championed or challenged many of Mi-pham’s scholarly innovations during this period. Moreover, I shall argue, these choices reflected differing attitudes towards intersectarian relations.4

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed over the years to the completion of this study.

I must begin by thanking my supervisors at SOAS, Ulrich Pagel, Nathan Hill and Vincent Tournier, for their insightful comments and support. I wish also to express my indebtedness to Alak Zenkar Rinpoche and Tulku Thondup Rinpoche, who tirelessly answered questions about history, people and places, and helped to resolve many difficult points of translation.

I am deeply grateful to all my Buddhist teachers past and present, especially H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Kyabje Trulshik Rinpoche, Kyabje Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche Jamyang Dorje, Khenchen Appey Yönten Zangpo, Khenchen Namdrol Tsering, Khenchen Pema Sherab, Sogyal Rinpoche, Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche, Garje Khamtrul Rinpoche, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche, Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche and Ringu Tulku Rinpoche. Several khenpos and acharyas who taught me Buddhist philosophy over the years deserve a bow of gratitude: Khenpo Yeshi Thinley, Khenpo Jampa Lodrö, Khenpo Sherab, Khenpo Pema Gyaltsen, Sangngak Tenzin Rinpoche (as he is now called) and the late Khenpo Dorje. I offer sincere thanks as well to my instructors in the Tibetan language and the art of translation, including Philip Denwood and Sangye T. Naga, but especially Patrick Gaffney.

Much of what follows was sparked by my first encounter with the writings of the late mahāpaṇḍita E. Gene Smith, who generously encouraged the earliest stages of this research. I am also deeply grateful to the late Alexander Piatigorsky, a wonderfully eccentric genius who first introduced me (in his own inimitable way) to Buddhist philosophy and kindly offered advice that I have always cherished.

I offer special thanks to my learned friends Steven Goodman, Douglas Duckworth, Sean Price, Gyurme Avertin, Stéphane Arguillère and Stefan Eckel/Gueffroy, as well as to the many genuine and generous mitras and dharma siblings who have advised and assisted me in various ways during this process, including Janine Schulz, Philip Philippou, Michèle Phamtan, Nikko Odiseos, David Haggerty and Ani Ngawang Tsöndrü. Finally, I offer my heartfelt gratitude to my kind sponsors, to my mother and father, and, above all, to my partner Lucie, for all her patience, encouragement and support.

“Great Perfection carries a sense of a perfectness we have to strive to attain, a goal that lies at the end of a long and gruelling journey. Nothing could be further from the true meaning of Dzogchen: the already self-perfected state of our primordial nature, which needs no ‘perfecting,’ for it has always been perfect from the very beginning…”

Sogyal Rinpoche

“Traditions develop because the desire to create something truer and better or more convenient is alive in those who acquire and possess them.” Edward Shils

Introduction

1. The Notion of Tradition

The present study is about traditions.1 In particular, it examines how followers of one tradition, the Great Perfection (rDzogs-chen),2 came to view that tradition’s relationship with other traditions and also with its own past. Among the questions that arise as part of this enquiry is whether followers of rDzogs-chen in the early twentieth century regarded their own system of beliefs and practices as greater (more profound, more effective, etc.) than other systems, and, if so, how. Did they regard their tradition as a continuation of long-established ideas and practices, or as constantly evolving and improving? To address such questions, it is necessary to refer to and take account of several other forms of tradition, beginning with that of the school or order.3 Modern textbooks generally refer to four main Tibetan Buddhist schools (chos lugs rnam bzhi), i.e., the rNying-ma,4 Sa-skya,5 bKa’-brgyud6 and dGe-lugs.7 This list reflects

1 Raymond Williams (2014: 314) reminds us that a tradition in the literal sense of a ‘handing over’ or ‘delivery’ (tradere) of knowledge requires only a single act—and stage—of transmission. The notion of a tradition as something ancient or established over several generations is therefore potentially misleading, to some extent, and could even obscure the innovative elements and subtle changes that tend to occur in the transmission of knowledge. Still, Edward Shils (1981: 15), in perhaps what is the most extensive sociological study of tradition, insists that at least three generations are required for something to qualify as tradition. 2 See Chapter Three for a discussion of the meaning and history of rDzogs-chen. 3 Others have referred to these major dharma traditions (chos lugs chen po) as sects. While retaining that term as part of sectarian[ism]/non-sectarian[ism], I avoid this usage because of its connotation of heresy or deviation from orthodoxy. Similarly, although the term ‘order’ appears as a translation of chos lugs in some secondary sources, I avoid it because of its associations with monasticism. The relationship between the Tibetan schools, especially the rNying-ma, and monasticism is complex. 4 The rNying-ma (or Ancient School) acquired its name retrospectively with the rise of the gSar-ma (New) Schools and the so-called later dissemination (phyi dar) of Buddhism in Tibet, beginning in the late tenth century CE. The school traces its origins to the period of the earlier dissemination (snga dar) during the royal period and especially to the teachings of the mysterious figure known as Padmasambhava, who visited Tibet in the eighth century. On the creation of rNying-ma identity and the legends surrounding Padmasambhava see Hirshberg 2016. On the history of the rNying-ma school see Dudjom Rinpoche 1991. 5 Named after the location of the school’s principal monastery, the Sa-skya (“grey earth”) traces its lineage back to the Indian adept Virūpa. In Tibet, it was members of the ’Khon clan who acquired instructions belonging to Virūpa’s lineage from ’Brog-mi lo-tsā-ba Śākya ye-shes (992/3–1043/72). ’Brog-mi’s disciple, ’Khon dKon-mchog-rgyal-po, founded Sa-skya monastery in 1073. The

the contemporary religious and political scene among Tibetan Buddhists in exile, where the Jo-nang tradition continues to struggle for official recognition as the fifth school.8 The historical picture is, of course, more complex. The bKa’-gdams,9 for example, was a school of considerable importance until its disappearance.10 Moreover, even minor traditions such as the Bo-dong11 and Zhi-byed12 are sometimes classed as schools and listed alongside those mentioned above. In monastery later served as the base for school’s political hegemony of Tibet during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. On the history of the Sa-skya school see Dhongthog 2016. 6 The various sub-branches of the bKa’-brgyud school all trace their origin to the Tibetan translator Mar-pa Chos-kyi-blo-gros (11th C.) and the teachings he received from India, primarily from the adept Nāropa (956–1040). Mar-pa passed on these teachings to Mi-la-ras-pa (1040–1123), whose biography, especially in the version gTsang-smyon Heruka composed in 1488, became one of Tibet’s favourite works. Mi-la-ras-pa was the teacher of sGam-po-pa bSod-nams rin-chen (1079–1153), who introduced monasticism to a lineage that had been dominated by lay yogis. Traditionally, the bKa’-brgyud school is divided into four major (or senior) and eight minor (or junior) branches, not all of which survive independently. The most important surviving branches are the Karma bKa’-brgyud, ’Bri-gung bKa’-brgyud and ’Brug-pa bKa’-brgyud. On the history of the bKa’-brgyud school and its branches see “Golden Rosaries of the Bka’ brgyud pa Schools” in Smith 2001: 39–51. See also Roberts 2011: 1–25. 7 The school was originally named Ri-bo dGe-ldan-pa, after the hill on which Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang-grags-pa (1357–1419) founded a monastery in 1409. It developed in the early fifteenth century among Tsong-kha-pa’s disciples and soon grew in influence. The dGe-lugs became the de facto rulers of Tibet with the ascension of the dGa’-ldan pho-brang government during the reign of the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1642. On the early history of the school see Ary 2015; on the later dGe-lugs and its political influence see Schwieger 2015. 8 The Jo-nang regards Yu-mo Mi-bskyod rdo-rje (11th C.) as its founder. The school produced a number of accomplished scholars, most notably Dol-po-pa Shes-rab-rgyal-mtshan (1292–1361) and Tāranātha (1575–1634), but it came to be regarded as heretical. In 1650 with the political ascendency of the dGe-lugs, Jo-nang monasteries were forcibly converted to the dGe-lugs and the school effectively banned. The tradition survived in secret in outlying areas and is today rebuilding itself. See Ruegg, Recently the school’s followers have campaigned for it be added to the list as a fifth major school. In 2015, a demonstration took place outside the headquarters of the Tibetan parliament-in-exile in Dharamsala, as part of a campaign for official recognition as the fifth Buddhist school.

Officially recognized schools and the Bon are each entitled to two representatives in the parliament, elected by their monastic communities. In September 2015, the parliament-in-exile voted to reject the inclusion of the Jo-nang. 9 The school began with the Indian master Atiśa’s foremost disciple ’Brom-ston rGyal-ba’i ’byung-gnas (1004/5–1064) and his founding of Rwa-sgreng monastery in 1056. 10 Later writers continue to refer to the bKa’-gdams and its major figures in prayers to those responsible for the propagation of Buddhism in Tibet. See, for example, Gangs can bstan pa’i srol ’byed chen po nyer lnga la gsol ’debs dad pa’i me tog by ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po (1820–1892) (JK vol. 1, 280.3–281.5) and Thub bstan ris med rgyas pa’i smon lam drang srong bden pa’i dbyangs snyan by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (see Bibliography). 11 The Bo-dong was founded in 1049 by Mu-dra pa chen-po and rejuvenated by the polymath Bo-dong Phyogs-las-rnam-rgyal (1376–1451), on whom see Smith 2001: 179–208. 12 The “Pacification” tradition was founded by the Indian adept Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas (b. 11th C.). Sometimes the Zhi-byed is referred to in combination with the gCod (“Severance”) system established by Pha-dam pa Sangs-rgyas’s female disciple Ma-gcig Lab-sgron (1055–1149). 13 Even Bon, which is generally considered to be non-Buddhist, but which clearly owes much of its current form to borrowings from Buddhism, is sometimes included in surveys of Tibetan tenet systems (grub mtha’). See, for example, Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long, 378–390.14 addition, one must take account of the important pairing of the Ancient Tradition of Early Translations (snga ’gyur rnying ma), which is equivalent to the rNying-ma school, and the New Tradition, or gSar-ma, which includes all the later schools.

The distinction between a tradition qua school, such as the rNying-ma, and a tradition qua system of thought and practice, such as rDzogs-chen (or Mahāmudrā), is crucial to what follows. rDzogs-chen is chiefly associated with the rNying-ma school in which it first arose.14 Nevertheless, Tibetan history affords many examples of members of other schools studying and practising rDzogs-chen; indeed, some of these figures even taught and wrote about the system. Such crossing of sectarian boundaries presupposes a certain willingness to share ideas and meditative technologies. Openness of this kind has existed throughout Tibetan history, but has occasionally been countered by outbreaks of intolerance, even persecution.15 Indeed, Tibetan Buddhism features both exclusivism and inclusivism16 (and arguably even pluralism too), as I discuss in detail in later chapters.

14 My remarks here are to be understood purely in the context of the Tibetan Buddhist schools. I am not making any claims as to the origin of rDzogs-chen, which is beyond the scope of this study. Nor am I suggesting that the rNying-ma school was so named, or even necessarily understood as a school, at the time when followers of what came to be known as the rNying-ma school first wrote and taught about rDzogs-chen. 15 See Smith 2001: 237–247 for a brief historical overview of sectarian conflict in Tibet. 16 The notion of inclusivism (inklusivismus) was first introduced into Indology by the German scholar Paul Hacker (1913–1979) in 1957. Although Hacker first used the term in his 1957 article “Religiöse Toleranz und Intoleranz im Hinduismus” (Saeculum 8: 167–179), his most elaborate discussion of the concept is contained in an article published posthumously (see Hacker 1983). According to Hacker’s own definition: Inclusivism is a concept […] to describe data from the area which we term Indian religion and, in particular, Indian religious philosophy. Inclusivism means declaring that a central conception of an alien religious or ideological (weltanschaulich) group is identical with this or that central conception of the group to which one belongs oneself. To inclusivism there mostly belongs, explicitly or implicitly, the assertion that the alien [[[Wikipedia:conception|conception]]] declared to be identical with one’s own is in some way subordinate or inferior. In addition, no proof is generally furnished for the identity of the alien with one’s own. (This translation is amended slightly from that provided in Ruegg 2008: 97. The original German appears in Hacker 1983: 12.) For Hacker, then, inclusivism is particular to Indian religion, and is to be compared and contrasted with the approach of non-Indian religions, especially Christianity. Although Hacker’s own focus was on Hindu borrowings from other religions, his definition does permit wider application, and could include intra-religious as well as inter-religious appropriation.

A third aspect of tradition that is relevant here is invention. By this, I do not mean the concept which the historian Eric Hobsbawm made famous17 (although that too has its uses in a Tibetan Buddhist context). Rather, I refer to the decisive moment when what will become a tradition first emerges—as a movement.18 Clearly, this involves a degree of interaction: in what one might describe as a dialectical process, the nascent tradition reacts against, and often defines itself (at least partly) in contradistinction to, established tradition(s). Two such movements feature in what follows. The first is the Non-Sectarian (Ris-med) Movement, which began in mid- to late nineteenth century Khams, and which is much discussed in secondary literature.19 The second, which E. Gene Smith called the dGe-mang movement, was contemporaneous and involved some of the same figures, but has not received as

Hacker’s student Lambert Schmithausen, who is among those to have applied the concept of inclusivism to Buddhism, defines it as “a method of intellectual debate in which the competing doctrine, or essential elements of it, are admitted but relegated to a subordinate position, or given a suitable reinterpretation, and which aims not so much at reconciliation but at prevailing over the other doctrine or its propounders.” (Schmithausen 1981: 223). Still, other scholars have urged caution when applying Hacker’s inclusivism to Buddhism. David Seyfort Ruegg, for example, sees it as “not unproblematic in the form in which he [i.e., Hacker] presented it” (Ruegg 2008: 99). Ruegg objects to Hacker’s reference to the foreign or alien (fremd) since he regards as unproved the proposition that the shared Indian “religious substratum” is alien to Buddhism. Still, there have been attempts to apply a modified version of the concept to Buddhism and even to formulate a “Buddhist Inclusivism”, most recently, for example, in the work of Kristin Beise Kiblinger (see Kiblinger 2005). The latter draws upon comparative theology and the writings of scholars such as George Lindbeck and Paul J.

Griffiths. Following Griffiths, Kiblinger distinguishes between “open inclusivism” and “closed inclusivism”; the former signalling an openness that makes it possible to learn new truths from an alien tradition, while the latter denotes an unwillingness to view other traditions on their own terms. (Kiblinger 2005). Alongside inclusivism, Kiblinger and other Buddhist scholars make use of two further categories, taken from comparative theology, to make a triad of inclusivism, exclusivism and pluralism. (See Kiblinger 2005: 1–2, & Burton 2011.) Ferrer (2002: 165) glosses these terms as “dogmatic exclusivism”, “hierarchical inclusivism” and “ecumenical pluralism”. In a recent study of Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol (1781–1851), Rachel Pang has argued that these categories “do not enable us to fully and accurately capture Buddhist responses to religious difference” (Pang 2015: 470). Instead, she seeks to understand Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol’s attitude to religious diversity on its own terms, while noting some similarity between his openness to other traditions and the concept of pluralism, especially as it is defined in the work of Diana Eck. (Ibid., 466.) It should also be noted that Wangchuk (2004: 191) sees Hacker’s inclusivism (as defined by Schmithausen) as the polar opposite of a “reconciliatory” or “harmonising” approach. 17 On this popular notion of the “invention of tradition” see Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983. 18 As the sociologist Randall Collins observes, “The history of philosophy is to a considerable extent the history of groups. Nothing abstract is meant here—nothing but groups of friends, discussion partners, close-knit circles that often have the characteristics of social movements.” (Collins 1998: 3). 19 Two pioneering articles by E. Gene Smith, published in 1969 and 1970 (and republished in Smith 2001: 227-272), first introduced the term “Ris med Movement” and have been much relied upon ever since. Although the notion of such a movement has long been accepted and repeated, it has recently been challenged, as I discuss in Chapter One.

much attention. The dGe-mang teachers, such as rGyal-sras gZhan-phan mtha’-yas (1800–1855) and gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba (1871–1927), helped to strengthen rNying-ma scholasticism.20 They thus played an important role in the broader shift in monastic education that took place among the non-dGe-lugs schools during this period.21 Both the Ris-med Movement and the scholastic renaissance (of which the dGe-mang movement was a part) influenced the rDzogs-chen tradition, and the ways in which they did so lie at the heart of this study. It is a truism to say that all traditions evolve, but the incontrovertible fact of constant, subtle development is occasionally worth emphasising. Innovation often meets resistance, but it is inevitable; true stasis is impossible and even resistance to change requires a certain force. Conservative followers—the ones usually called traditionalists—often resort to rhetorical strategies as part of their struggle against innovation. They might, for example, claim to represent the true, original or authentic doctrine. But such a reaction against the modern—which is by implication false, unoriginal and inauthentic—is, in its own way, innovative. All forms of Tibetan Buddhism present themselves as conservative.22 Thus, even while initiating changes, proponents of rDzogs-chen (or any other system) strive to demonstrate their loyalty to that system’s (perceived) history and origins. Rarely do they portray innovation as modernisation or improvement. The comparative term greater (with a question mark) in the title of this thesis refers primarily to the comparative elements in the writings of three authors active in 20 I discuss the term scholasticism as it applies in the Tibetan context in Chapter One below. 21 See Chapter One below. 22 Shils (1981: 14) notes that traditions might undergo great change while its followers regard it as “significantly unchanged”. What counts most is “a sense of filiation with a lineage of prior possessors of a tradition.”

the early twentieth century: ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1865–1926),23 g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings rang-grol (1871–1952)24 and mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903–1957).25 Right from its emergence, however, rDzogs-chen was subject to comparison with other systems and traditions. At first, the chen po in rDzogs-pa chen-po signified superiority over the mere perfection stage (rdzogs rim).26 Later, doxographical models placed rDzogs-chen (= Atiyoga) at the apex of all Buddhist systems and vehicles (theg pa; yāna).27 Moreover, as we shall see, even on those occasions when followers of rDzogs-chen seek to highlight its similarity to other systems, they still maintain its ultimate superiority. A further comparative element concerns not so much the relationship of rDzogs-chen to other systems as its connection to its own past. Here, the question posed by the title may be understood as whether the introduction of scholastic ideas and methods brought about improvement. Needless to say, this is not a question that the tradition ever asked (or asks) itself directly, but debates around scholarly innovation did occur. These debates also touched upon sectarian identity and whether rDzogs-chen should accommodate external ideas or focus on what are its own supposedly unique elements.

2. Overview of Chapters

The following chapters explore these themes in detail. Chapter One charts the expansion in scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. It considers how the philosophical writings of ’Ju Mi-pham rNam-rgyal-rgya-mtsho (1846–1912)28

23 Chapter One discusses the life of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma and introduces his works, which are then discussed in more detail in Chapters Two and Three. 24 Chapter Four briefly discusses his life and some of his writings on rDzogs-chen. 25 Chapter Five examines his life and works. 26 See Germano 1994: 223–224. 27 On the nine vehicles see Cabezón 2013. 28 Hereafter referred to simply as Mi-pham. Chapter One discusses the sources for his life and work. 18 strengthened the scholastic identity of the rNying-ma school in the late nineteenth century. In particular, the chapter considers how scholasticism and sectarianism affected one of Mi-pham’s principal students, the Third rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma.

Chapter Two introduces ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s rDzogs-chen writings. These typically brief works, which date from around the turn of the twentieth century, demonstrate clear signs of scholasticism,29 including the desire to reconcile apparently disparate points. They also include extensive comparisons between rDzogs-chen and Highest Yoga Tantra (rnal ’byor bla na med pa’i rgyud/ *yoganiruttaratantra),30 based on a comprehensive theory of clear light (’od gsal: prabhāsvara), which is itself the focus of Chapter Three.

Chapter Four considers a short rDzogs-chen text by g.Yu-khog Chos-dbyings-rang-grol (1871–1952). This work discusses three analytical contemplations that constitute a form of rDzogs-chen preliminary (sngon ’gro). The text is unusual insofar as it shows the extent of Mi-pham’s influence on rDzogs-chen, especially in its insistence that Mi-pham’s interpretation of Madhyamaka31 is an essential component of the preliminary meditations.

Finally, Chapter Five examines the rDzogs-chen writings of the dGe-lugs/rNying-ma scholar mDo-sngags Chos-kyi-rgya-mtsho (1903–1957). He 29 In defining scholasticism here and elsewhere I rely upon Cabezón 1994: 15, as Chapter One explains. 30 On Highest Yoga Tantra see Cozort 1986. My use of the Sanskrit *yoganiruttaratantra here follows Sanderson 2009 (146 n.337), who notes, “I have seen no occurrence in any Indian source of the term *Anuttarayoga, commonly encountered in secondary sources. It is evidently an incorrect modern translation into Sanskrit of the ambiguous Tibetan rendering of Yoganiruttara (rnal ’byor bla na med).”. See also Dalton (2005: 152, n. 84), who calls the rendering anuttarayoga[[[tantra]]], which appears in many secondary sources, “a time-honoured mistake that needs to be abandoned”. (The rendering persists nonetheless and often without comment; see, for example, PDB: 55). It should be noted that the various tantras which Tibetans classify under the general heading of Highest Yoga are by no means homogeneous. 31 In what follows I use the spelling Madhyamaka to refer to the general theory and the school and Mādhyamika to refer to that school’s adherents and to the Prāsaṅgika or Svātantrika Mādhyamika as a sub-branch of Madhyamaka.

implicitly rejected Mi-pham’s form of rNying-ma doctrine and instead proposed a merger between rDzogs-chen (and Mahāmudrā) and elements of dGe-lugs thought. Through this syncretism and his claims to represent a form of non-sectarianism, he ultimately brings into question what it means to be truly ris med.

1. Scholasticism and Sectarian Identity

“Cultivate mutual accord, devotion, and pure perception, and, while focusing on your own tradition, avoid belittling others.” ’Ju Mipham

1. Introduction

This chapter examines the impact of Buddhist scholasticism33 in Eastern Tibet from the mid- to late nineteenth century to the early decades of the twentieth century. Scholars have associated this period’s re-shaping of monastic education in the non-dGe-lugs schools with the emergence of the Ris-med Movement. Yet, the very notion of such a movement is in need of re-evaluation following recent critical remarks. While this is not the place for an extensive reassessment, it is at least important to gauge how a changing intellectual climate and shifting notions of scholastic identity might have influenced the subjects of this study, beginning with ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma.

2. The Question of the Ris-med “Movement”

The late nineteenth century witnessed a religious and cultural renaissance in and around sDe-dge (Eastern Tibet). Many believe that this renaissance included, or

MPc. vol. 32, 410. 33 The most extensive study of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism appears in Dreyfus 2003a, which is especially helpful in its analysis of dGe-lugs education. Cabezón 1994 and Kapstein 2000b also contain many valuable insights into the nature of Tibetan scholasticism. For example, Cabezón (1994: 15) notes some of the general characteristics of scholasticism, many of which are in evidence in what

follows: “These include scholasticism’s formal nature, its systematicity, its preoccupation with scriptures and their exegesis in commentaries, its rationalism and its reliance on logic and dialectics in defense of its tenets, its penchant for lists, classification and categorization, and its tendency toward abstraction.” I have previously discussed some aspects of rNying-ma and Sa-skya scholasticism in Pearcey 2015a.

was initiated by, the so-called Ris-med Movement. Several of ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s teachers played a prominent role in this movement;34 some sources even claim that he was himself a participant.35 The key figures associated with Ris-med all lived in the nineteenth century, but their disciples and followers continued to be active in the early decades of the twentieth century.36 Moreover, the effects of the movement, it is often said, persist into the present day.37 Scholars are yet to chart the full history of Ris-med, and there is clearly a need for a diachronic and synchronic analysis of all that has come to be associated with the term. This is clearly not the place for such a vast undertaking, but a brief overview of some key themes will serve as a foundation for subsequent chapters.

Smith’s pioneering articles of 1969 and 1970 were the first English-language sources to use the term “Ris-med Movement” and have been much relied upon in academia ever since.38 Yet, even though the notion of a movement gained widespread acceptance,39 some have recently begun to question its accuracy. Alexander Gardner, in his 2006 thesis on the sacred geography of Khams, was the first to challenge the use of the term: What seems to have been the case in the late nineteenth century, and perhaps the early twentieth as well, was not a “movement” but simply a sizeable community of scholars who put long-held values of inter-sectarian exploration and respect into a regionally and historically specific practice. Yes, ’Jam mgon Kong sprul was nonsectarian, but so too were those who came before him. He and his colleagues

34 i.e., ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po (1820–1892), rDza dPal-sprul O-rgyan chos-kyi-dbang-po (1808–1887) and ’Ju Mi-pham rNam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912). 35 See, for example, Garson, 2004: 421 and Ringu Tulku 2006: 13. 36 Several sources describe Ris-med as a 19th century phenomenon: for example, Dreyfus 2005: 287 and Deroche 2009: 320. 37 In an oft-quoted statement, Samuel (1993: 537) asserts that Tibetan Buddhism today outside the dGe-lugs is largely a product of the Ris-med Movement. 38 See Smith 2001: 227-272 for reprints as “Mi-pham and the Philosophical Controversies of the Nineteenth Century” (originally published 1969) and “‘Jam mgon Kong sprul and the Nonsectarian Movement” (1970). There is no exact equivalent for “Ris-med movement” in Tibetan, but the term Ris-med (as an abbreviation of phyogs ris med pa or ris su ma chad pa) is widely used in Tibetan sources in connection with figures such as Kong-sprul and mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po. 39 Tibetans also use the term; see, for example, Ringu Tulku 2006 passim.

were scholars and practitioners who participated in a religious blossoming that celebrated commonality and intra-sectarian exchanges.40 The 2014 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism echoes Gardner’s concerns: …the notion that ’Jam mgon kong sprul, ’Jam dbyang [sic] mkhyen brtse, and Dpal sprul Rin po che were at the center of a “nonsectarian movement,” in the sense that there was a widespread institutional reformation in their lifetimes, is not historically accurate. It is perhaps better to speak of the nonsectarian ideal and their lives as models of its expression.41 It is not clear why the term “movement” should imply “widespread institutional reform”. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a movement as simply: A course or series of actions and endeavours on the part of a group of people working towards a shared goal; an organization, coalition, or alliance of people working to advance a shared political, social, or artistic objective.42 Now, the Ris-med figures did not have a single “shared goal”—aside, perhaps, from simply furthering the notion of non-sectarianism itself. Smith’s articles describe diverse initiatives, none of which involved all the figures he cites in his relevant writings. He launches his article on Kong-sprul with a list of key Ris-med participants:43 ’Jam-mgon Kong-sprul blo-gros mtha’-yas (1813–1899/1900),44 ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po (1820–1892),45 mChog-gyur bde-chen gling-pa (1829–1870), ’Ju Mi-pham rNam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846–1912), gZhan-

40 Gardner 2006: 136. 41 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism 2014: 716. 42 http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/123031 [Accessed 28 October 2016] No one would argue that the slow food movement, which began in Italy in the 1980s, required or sought widespread institutional reform. Still, it was a reaction against something—fast food—and thus a product of its time. Thus, while it is true that the term is frequently used by representatives of minority groups seeking increased rights (for example, animal rights, LGBTQ rights, etc.) there are other kinds of movement. 43 Smith 2001: 235 44 Smith gives the year of Kong-sprul’s death as 1899, and this is also the date given on the TBRC website Accessed 28 October 2016. The Tibetan date of his death was either late on the 27th or early on the 28th day—for it was “around midnight” according to the first-hand account of gNas-gsar Karma bkra-shis chos-’phel (Barron 2003: 384)—of the eleventh month of the earth-pig year (15th sexagenary cycle). Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein (Dorje & Kapstein 1991 vol. 1, 867) have proposed an equivalent date for this (based on the Tshur-phu system) of 28 December 1899. The same authors (vol. 2, 85, n. 1201) also note, however, that according to the new Phug-pa system this would be 27 January 1900. Richard Barron, in a note to his translation of Kong-sprul’s autobiography, favours the 1900 date, saying the death would have occurred “sometime in January of 1900” (Barron 2003: 403 n.30). 45 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism consistently misspells the name of ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po as ’Jam dbyangs mKhyen brtse dbang po (see, for example, the entry on p.379).

phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba (1871–1927) and rDza dPal-sprul O-rgyan chos-kyi-dbang-po (1808–1887). Additional lists in the same article provide more names,46 and scholars have added further figures Smith omitted. All those listed could not possibly have collaborated with one another; for one thing, their dates make this impossible.

To be sure, mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and Kong-sprul were close allies who worked together on a number of projects, including the compilation of Kong-sprul’s “Five Great Treasuries” (mdzod chen lnga).47 The pair also spent much time with mChog-gyur bde-chen gling-pa.48 Still, Smith includes masters who were active in other areas and at other times.49 The lives of mChog-gyur bde-chen gling-pa and gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba, for example, did not overlap at all. Moreover, gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba was unable to study with dPal-sprul directly, even though the two were alive at the same time; instead he received instruction from dPal-sprul’s disciple O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu (1841–1900).50 Evidently, then, Smith did not

46 See, for example, Smith 2001: 250. 47 See Smith 2001: 262–267. The five are Shes bya mdzod, bKa’ brgyud sngags mdzod, Rin chen gter mdzod, gDams ngag mdzod, and Thun mong ma yin pa’i mdzod. It should be noted that these compilations did more than simply preserve traditions; they also reshaped them. Decisions surrounding inclusion and/or exclusion were highly consequential and invited criticism. For example, in the case of the Rin chen gter mdzod collection of gter ma, the exclusion of the revelations of Nyi-ma grags-pa (1647–1710) and the inclusion of certain Bon-po texts both proved controversial. 48 Indeed, mKhyen Kong mChog gsum (or mKhyen Kong mChog sde gsum) became a popular phrase for the trio in Eastern Tibet. See Gardner 2006: ix. mKhyen Kong mChog gsum occurs five times in Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse’s biography (rnam thar) of ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse Chos-kyi-blo-gros.

Given the similarity of the final three syllables, the epithet is clearly a play on the phrase dkon mchog gsum, i.e. the triratna: buddha, dharma and saṅgha. 49 Schapiro 2012: 51 notes that there is no evidence in the biographical archive that dPal-sprul had a direct relationship with Kong-sprul. It is indeed true that, as Schapiro points out, there is no mention of Kong-sprul in the various biographies of dPal-sprul, nor is there any mention of dPal-sprul in Kong-sprul’s autobiography. However, both figures are mentioned in the biography of ’Gyur-med mthu-stobs rnam-rgyal (1787–1854), a teacher to them both at more or less the same time (c.1830).

See Zhe chen dbon sprul ’gyur med mthu stobs rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar: 138–139. Still, regardless of whether or not they met as fellow students of ’Gyur-med mthu-stobs rnam-rgyal, it would be naïve to assume that direct contact is required for one person to influence another, especially in a highly literate milieu. It seems likely that in nineteenth century eastern Tibet teachers were often aware of what other teachers were doing, either through indirect oral communication or through exchanging letters and manuscripts, and that this alone could contribute to a zeitgeist.

50 The dates of O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu remain contested. I have discussed issues related to the various suggestions for the years of his birth and death in some detail in two short essays on my blog (adamspearcey.com/blog). The dates given here are those which also appear in the biography I wrote for Treasury of Lives (Pearcey 2015b).

intend to portray a contemporaneous group; his lists demonstrate that, in his view, the movement endured beyond a single generation.51 Many of those who feature in Smith’s article were eminent figures in their own fields. It is not clear though whether all their activities should be grouped together or classified as “non-sectarian”. Gardner argues (with some force) that some later scholars relied too heavily on Smith’s articles and sought to include all the activities and achievements he describes in their definitions of Ris-med. He claims that by distorting Smith’s original message, these scholars rendered the concept of Ris-med virtually meaningless: …later authors mined Smith’s many illuminating remarks to gradually grind a[n] opaque lens through which events of the nineteenth century in Khams were viewed.

Appealing aspects of ’Jam mgon Kong sprul’s career mentioned by Smith, as well as other random matters he raised, were cobbled into a conceptual grid that grew increasingly larger and eventually came to dominate discussions of the period and its luminaries. Reified, “Rimay” obscured events and made investigation difficult, for it has come to be the case that anything said to have occurred in all of Tibet, much less Khams, in the second half of the nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth, is part of the “Rimay”—unless, that is, it was in reaction to or conflict with it.

There is some value in Gardner’s critique here: it is true that the complex events summarised in Smith’s articles have been oversimplified. Yet, it is equally clear that Smith did not invent the notion of Ris-med.53 The term ris med already featured prominently in Tibetan literature about Kong-sprul, mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po and their heirs before Smith’s articles. Consider, for example, Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse’s (1910–1991) biography of ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse Chos-kyi-blo-gros,

51 This point was apparently missed by some scholars, who describe the movement as a nineteenth century phenomenon, as noted above. 52 Gardner 2006: 156–157. 53 As Viehbeck 2012: xiv notes, some of the content of Smith’s article is most likely a reflection of the feelings of his teacher, sDe-gzhung Rin-po-che Kun-dga’ bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma (1906–1987). 54 i.e., ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse chos kyi blo gros rin po che’i rnam thar. (See bibliography for full publication details).

which was written in the early 1960s.55 The author employs ris med once in the title and then a further 27 times in the text itself—quite apart from the dozen times he uses the equivalent ris su ma chad pa.56 Such emphasis likely signifies an attempt to establish the biographical subject as the genuine heir of mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and his legacy. It is also possible that Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse sought to promote the non-sectarian cause himself. After all, the adoption and promotion of terms, phrases and rhetoric—linguistic change—is often a key objective for those seeking broader social and political change, as is attested even today.57 In the introductory section of the biography, Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse discusses the life of mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po. He portrays him as the key figure of Ris-med who inspired the achievements of all his associates, including Kong-sprul.

To him, mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po was responsible for the textual compilations of the Five Treasuries as well as comparable collections, such as the rGyud sde kun btus58 and sGrub thabs kun btus.59 Moreover, it was mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po who inspired the scholastic writings of his disciple ’Ju Mi-pham: [mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po] cared for the mahāpaṇḍita Mi-pham ’Jam-dbyangs rnam-rgyal by bestowing on him an ocean of profound and vast instructions and opening the door to the wisdom of perfect knowledge. He made Mi-pham the ritual offering of representations of enlightened body, speech and mind, and offered him his own paṇḍita hat and other articles. He then named him Mi-pham ’Jam-dbyangs rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho—which has fourfold significance60—to create the auspicious 55 And even before this, Pha-bong kha[-pa] bDe-chen snying-po (1878–1941) expressed his opposition to the movement’s activities. See below. 56 These calculations were made using a computer input version of the Zhe-chen edition of Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse’s collected works. 57 Consider the use of citoyen/citoyenne in post-revolutionary France, or “comrade” (kamerad) among Marxist revolutionaries, or the practice of ‘reclaiming’ terms of abuse or oppression, as with “queer” within the gay rights movement, or modern attempts to promote “non-binary” gender pronouns. 58 The rGyud sde kun btus was compiled by ’Jam-dbyangs blo-gter dbang-po (1847–1914). Its contents are listed in Barron 2003: 544–549. 59 The sGrub thabs kun btus was compiled by mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and ’Jam-dbyangs blo-gter dbang-po. Its contents are listed in Barron 2003: 532–543. 60 don gyi rgyu mtshan chen po bzhi. As Pettit (1999: 472, n. 105) suggests, these four forms of significance are specified in four lines of praise, which mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po is said to have written on the back of a thang ka of White Tārā and offered to Mi-pham: oṃ swasti dza yantu| mi pham mgon po’i dgongs don ji bzhin rtogs| ’jam pa’i dbyangs bzhin shes bya kun la mkhas| phyogs las rnam rgyal chos kyi grags pa ltar| snyan pas rgya mtsho’i gos can khyab gyur cig| (MPc vol. 9:

circumstances for his future activities. In this way, mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po empowered Mi-pham as a propagator of the Buddha’s teaching with the three skills of a scholar (mkhas tshul gsum). He authorised Mi-pham to compose a great many fine explanations (legs bshad) of sūtra and mantra. And, because of these aspirations and the auspicious circumstances he created, Mi-pham became a scholar whose fame spread in all directions.61 I revisit the role mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po played in Mi-pham’s scholarly career below. What is important to note here is that even in Tibetan writings that predate Smith’s articles, mKhyen-brtse and Kong-sprul’s activity encompasses the deeds of their disciples and immediate circle. Thus, Mi-pham’s commentarial writings—like the textual compilations of Blo-gter dbang-po—were at least partly attributable, says Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse, to mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po’s magnanimous aspirations (thugs bskyed). Hence, the view that mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po alone, or mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and Kong-sprul together, instigated these various textual projects aligns well with the notion of a movement, or at least matches the Tibetan interpretation. Dil-mgo mKhyen-brtse paints a picture of a group working together towards a shared goal—of literary production, if nothing else. But the recurring emphasis on non-sectarianism also suggests that the promotion of the ris med idea was itself an objective. The extent to which the activity of mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and his allies was truly non-sectarian is a separate question, but one to which I shall return.

570.6–571.1) The bestowal of the name therefore indicated that Mi-pham would 1) realize the intent of the Invincible Lord Maitreya; 2) become learned in all areas of knowledge just like Mañjughoṣa; 3) be utterly victorious in all directions like Dharmakīrti; and 4) attain a level of fame that would be as pervasive as the ocean. 61 JCLb vol. 1: 370.1: ma hā paṇḍita mi pham ’jam dbyangs rnam par rgyal ba la zab rgyas kyi gdams pa rgya mtsho lta bus rjes su bzung zhing mkhyen rab ye shes kyi sgo phyes te sku gsung thugs kyi rten dang rje nyid kyi dbu zhwa paṇ zhu sogs stsal nas don gyi rgyu mtshan chen po bzhi dang ’brel ba’i mtshan mi pham ’jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho zhes gnang ste| mkhas tshul gsum gyis rgyal bstan spel ba’i phrin las can du mnga’ gsol| mdo sngags kyi legs par bshad pa rab ’byams mdzad ’os par bka’ gnang ba ltar thugs bskyed dang rten ’brel gyi bden don ji bzhin mngon du gyur te mkhas pa’i grags snyan phyogs kun tu khyab

3. The Rise of Scholasticism

In his articles that touch upon the Ris-med Movement, Smith notes a significant expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools, particularly the rNying-ma and Sa-skya, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.62 He even views this as a feature of “the nonsectarian tradition” itself, and describes how the new model of monastic education differed pedagogically from the system favoured in dGe-lugs establishments: The nonsectarian tradition emphasized a different aspect of religious education: scriptural exposition (bshad pa). The trend was towards simplification. In their exposition seminaries (bshad grwa), monastic educators continued to teach a small number of classical Indian Buddhist śāstras in their Tibetan translations as the curriculum.63 Smith thus highlights two parallel developments: 1) the establishment of scriptural colleges—or exposition seminaries, as he calls them—with their unique pedagogical approach; and 2) the increased prominence of Indian treatises in the curricula of these colleges. gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba (1871–1927) played a major role in both developments, which situates them in the early years of the twentieth century.

However, the roots of a scholarly renaissance in Khams can readily be traced at least as far back as the monumental publication of the Tibetan canon at sDe-dge 62 See, for example, Samuel 1993: 538 and Viehbeck 2016: 27f. The bKa’-brgyud were not entirely excluded from these advances, and dPal-spungs was undoubtedly a hub of intellectual activity, not least during gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba’s tenure there. Still, the bKa’-brgyud-pa’s general distaste for intellectual pursuits made them a target of Mi-pham’s satire and censure: “Most followers of the bKa’-brgyud school dislike classical exposition and logic, preferring the approach that is based purely on mind and meditation. If they are those in whom realization and liberation are simultaneous, I take refuge! But, in general, this closed-minded attitude is harmful to the bKa’-brgyud teachings and must be abandoned!” (Grogs dang gtam gleng ba’i rkyen las mtshar gtam du byas pa, MPc vol. 7: 231.4: bka’ brgyud pa phal cher bshad pa dang tshad ma la sdang| sems rkyang chig ded la dga’| rtogs grol dus mnyam rnams ni skyabs su mchi| spyir ni gti mug ’di bka’ bstan la ’tshe bas spang|) 63 Smith 2001: 246. Although the scriptural colleges did not place such great emphasis on debate as did their dGe-lugs equivalents, debate was not necessarily neglected entirely. See Dreyfus 2005: 283.

Cabezón 1994: 84 considers that “there is hardly a more curious fact in the history of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism than this one: that from about the year 1700, once the monastic textbooks (yig cha) had been written, there is virtually no new commentarial literature in the dGe lugs school of Tibetan Buddhism.” He also notes that from this time, for the dGe-lugs school, “debate came to replace commentary as the prevalent form of scholastic exegesis.” (Ibid.).28 printing house. Conducted under the patronage of the ruler bsTan-pa tshe-ring (1678–1738), this project drew upon the editorial expertise of both Si-tu Paṇ-chen Chos-kyi-’byung-gnas (1700–1774) and Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims rin-chen (1697– 1774).64 Of Si-tu, Smith said: “His influence on the following three or four generations was enormous; Kong sprul, Mkhyen brtse, Dpal sprul and Mi-pham were all in some way Si tu’s heirs.”65 Among the other significant intellectual figures of earlier times were Kaḥ-thog Tshe-dbang-nor-bu (1698–1755)66 and ’Gyur-med mthu-stobs rnam-rgyal (1787–1854) of Zhe-chen. The latter was a Sanskritist and teacher to Kong-sprul, mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po and dPal-sprul, but the story of his influence on these students is yet to be fully told.67 Even if non-dGe lugs scholasticism did not develop ex nihilo in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Khams,68 it expanded greatly and in new ways. Two major developments are significant in the present context. Firstly, as Smith observed, there were increasing numbers of scriptural colleges, with their unique pedagogy. The second major development was curricular: not so much the emphasis on Indian śāstra, which was undeniably important, but the interpretation of these Indian treatises by Tibetan commentators. For this was a time when monastic educators also turned increasingly to the exegetical writings of iconic figures from their own traditions. For the rNying-ma, this meant Mi-pham, while for the Sa-skya, it meant above all Go-rams-pa bSod-nams seng-ge (1429–1489).

64 On this project see Scheier-Dolberg 2005: 87–98 and Schaeffer 2009: 90–119. 65 Smith 2001: 90. This point is underscored in Jann Ronis’s recent study of Si-tu Paṇ-chen’s role as a monastic preceptor. See Ronis 2013: 72. 66 On his life see Richardson 1967. 67 Smith 2001: 20. The availability of an extensive biography (Zhe chen dbon sprul ’gyur med mthu stobs rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar, published in 2000) should facilitate this assessment, which is clearly a desideratum for scholars of nineteenth century Khams and its scholasticism. 68 It is equally important to note that rNying-ma scholasticism did not begin ex nihilo in the nineteenth century. As the present chapter makes clear, writers such as Mi-pham repeatedly call attention to their own indebtedness to past scholars such as Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po and Klong-chen rab-’byams.

Other notable rNying-ma authors of previous centuries include mNga’-ris Paṇ-chen Padma dbang-rgyal (1487–1542), Lo-chen Dharma-śrī (1654–1717) and O-rgyan Chos-grags (b. 1676).

Together, these two factors contributed to “sectarian differentiation”—to adopt a phrase from Cabezón69—or a strengthening of sectarian identity. 3.1. The Establishment of Scriptural Colleges The first major rNying-ma scriptural college (bshad grwa) to emerge in the sDe-dge region was Śrī Siṃha at rDzogs-chen, founded in 1848.70 rGyal-sras gZhan-phan mtha’-yas (1800–1855/1869)71 helped to establish Śrī Siṃha, and, it seems, also drew up the curriculum. Although the precise content of that original curriculum is unknown, sources say that it included ’Jigs-med gling-pa’s Yon tan mdzod, mNga’-ris paṇ-chen’s sDom gsum rnam nges treatise on the three sets of vows, and the *Guhyagarbha Tantra.72 But the same sources do not speak of the “thirteen great texts” (gzhung chen bcu gsum),73 for which gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba later

69 Cabezón 2007: 7. 70 Dreyfus 2005: 289. 71 See Smith 2001: 22–23 and Tulku Thondup 1996: 198-199. Since Thondup wrote this biography, more details on the life of this important figure have become available. See GZT Vol. 1: 1-24. There is some disagreement about the date of the death of gZhan-phan mtha’-yas. gZhan-phan snang-ba was identified as his incarnation, and his own efforts to establish a scriptural college at rDzong-gsar paralleled those of gZhan-phan mtha’-yas at rDzogs-chen more than half a century earlier. gZhan-phan mtha’-yas was clearly an influential figure and a major influence on rDza dPal-sprul among others. It is possible that his role in Khams’s nineteenth century renaissance is insufficiently acknowledged, at least in the secondary sources, but this also reflects a lamentable lack of biographical literature. Among gZhan-phan mtha’-yas’s available writings is a non-sectarian prayer to Tibet’s greatest religious figures, entitled Yul dam pa rnams la gsol ba ’debs pa’i tshigs bcad gzhan phan sgra dbyangs, which is similar to later compositions by mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and Kong-sprul. The text’s identification of Atiśa as an “emanation of Padma[[[sambhava]]]” (gZhan phan sgra dbyangs 2a: padma’i rnam ’phrul jo bo a ti sha|) echoes Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol’s claim in O rgyan sprul pa’i glegs bam that both Atiśa and Tsong-kha-pa were Padmasambhava’s emanations.

See Ricard 2005: 26. gZhan-phan-mtha’-yas was assisted in the establishment of Śrī Siṃha by Seng-phrug Padma bkra-shis (b.1798?), who became its first senior instructor (mkhan po). 72 GZT vol. 1: 12–13. See also Thondup 1996: 1999. gZhan-phan mtha’-yas himself wrote a commentary to the *Guhyagarbha entitled Kun bzang thugs kyi ṭi ka (GZT vol. 345–447). On the *Guhyagarbhatantra see Dorje 1987: 13–127. 73 i.e., 1) Prātimokṣa-sūtra (so sor thar pa’i mdo); 2) Vinaya-sūtra (’dul ba’i mdo); 3) Abhidharmakośa (mngon pa mdzod); 4) Abhidharmasamuccaya (mngon pa kun btus); 5) Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab); 6) Madhyamakāvatāra (dbu ma la ’jug pa); 7) Catuḥśataka (bzhi brgya pa); 8) Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra (byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa); 9) Abhisamayālaṃkāra (mngon rtogs rgyan); 10) Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (mdo sde rgyan); 11) Madhyāntavibhāga (dbus mtha’ rnam ’byed); 12) Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga (chos dang chos nyid rnam ’byed); 13) Mahāyana-uttaratantra (rgyud bla ma).

As I have pointed out elsewhere (Pearcey 2015a: 459 n.7), Dreyfus misidentifies the thirteen (Dreyfus 2003:130 & 2005:277 n.11) by excluding the Bodhicaryāvatāra and replacing it with the Pramāṇavārttika. It is worth noting that the Pramāṇavārttika does not appear in modern collections of the gZhung chen bcu gsum, nor did Zhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba write a commentary upon it. It is 30 composed his famous interlinear commentaries (mchan ’grel).74 Dreyfus believes that the original purpose of Śrī Siṃha was not the study of major Indian treatises, but “the development of Nyingma monasticism in Kham.”75 While monasticism was undoubtedly a major concern, it obviously did not, in and of itself, preclude the simultaneous development of scholasticism.

More than half a century elapsed between the foundation of Śrī Siṃha and the period in which college building76 truly flourished in Khams and beyond. In order to learn what happened in the intervening years, we need to turn to what Smith called the dGe-mang Movement:77 Gzhan phan mtha’ yas and his lineage of disciples became closely identified with Dge mang, a retreat in the Rdza chu kha area belonging to Rdzogs chen Monastery. It was here that Gzhan phan mtha’ yas’s reforms continued to prosper. From here they spread throughout Khams.78 It is through this dGe-mang connection, then, that the tradition initiated by rGyal-sras gZhan-phan mtha’-yas eventually passed to his grand-nephew, O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu.79 The latter also studied extensively with the highly influential rDza dPal-sprul. And it is O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu who provides the connection between the first generation of teachers at Śrī Siṃha and gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang ba. Unfortunately, O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu’s writings are unavailable, so a full assessment of his views and explanatory style is not currently possible. It is thus

unclear how Dreyfus could have made this error, as he cites (2005: 278 n. 14) Zur-mang rNam-rgyal’s guide to teaching the thirteen texts, gZhung chen bcu gsum gyi ’chad thabs dang mtshan don ’grel pa blo gsal ngag gi rgyan (although giving the title incorrectly), which opens with a list of the thirteen (1.1–1.3). 74 Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult Bayer 2000, because the author twice refused my request for a copy. As the only major study of gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba’s life and work, it may well answer this question. 75 Dreyfus 2005: 288. 76 Or at least college-inaugurating. Whether new buildings were created or existing buildings were put to a new purpose is often unclear, but is not relevant to what follows. 77 Smith 2001: 23. This movement, as Smith sees it, was characterized by “devotion to education and the sincere practice of monasticism.” 78 Ibid. 79 Smith (2001, 26) notes that he was a “grand-nephew” of gZhan-phan mtha’-yas, but some scholars incorrectly refer to him simply as a nephew. According to the biographical accounts, it was O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu’s father, bSod-nams dar-rgyas, who was the nephew.

difficult to gauge the extent of his influence on gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba. From what little information is available, however, it does seem likely that gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba at least borrowed pedagogical elements from his teacher(s).

gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba was directly or indirectly responsible for the founding of multiple scriptural colleges. After he taught at rDzogs-chen Śrī Siṃha,81 he went to dPal-spungs in 1910, where he helped to establish a scriptural college in collaboration with Si-tu Padma dbang-mchog (1886–1952).82 He was then involved in the launch of Khams-bye college at rDzong-gsar in 1918/19 and served as its first senior instructor.83 Khams-bye soon became a major hub of intellectual activity: it produced influential teachers, who, in turn, taught and established colleges elsewhere at other monasteries.84 gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba himself founded several other bshad grwa, including Nyi-ma lcang-ra at ’Bri-gung, as well as sKye-d[/r]gu-mdo

80 See Jackson 1997: 141. The colophon to gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba’s mchan ’grel on mNgon rtogs rgyan (KZG vol. 11, 273) also makes this indebtedness clear. There is reason to believe that O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu composed mchan ’grel of his own. See, for example, mKhan po ngag chung gi rnam thar, 102, which refers to a mchan ’grel by O-rgyan bstan-’dzin nor-bu on Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra. 81 Dreyfus credits gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba with the “transformation” of Śrī Siṃha and “the creation of the commentarial school as we know it now, with its particular curriculum and pedagogical approach” (2005:289). This revolutionary role is not borne out, however, by the testimony of Ngag-dbang dpal-bzang (1871–1941), who records in his autobiography his experiences of studying at the college from the year 1900 onwards. He describes a vibrant and thriving intellectual scene involving a number of teachers even before gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba’s tenure. See mKhan po ngag chung gi rnam thar 99ff. 82 KZG vol. 1, 112. According to Jackson (2003: 30) gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba remained at dPal-spungs from c.1910–1918. 83 bsTan-’dzin lung-rtogs nyi-ma (2004: 310) gives the western date as 1919 but gives the Tibetan date as the earth-horse year, which was 1918–9, so whether it was 1918 or 1919 depends on the month in which the inauguration took place. I have been unable to consult the detailed history of rDzong-gsar bshad-grwa (rDzong gsar khams bye’i bshad grwa chen mo’i lo rgyus dang mkhan rabs kyi rtogs brjod) written by mKhan-po Kun-dga’ dbang-phyug (1921/23–2008) and published in 1987, as it does not appear in the TBRC database. (Contrary to what is written in the entry in Martin 1997: 214, it would seem to be 89 not 600 pages in length.) 84 See Jackson 1997: 143 and Dreyfus 2005: 290.

and Me-nyag85—no fewer than eighteen in total, according to the historian sMyo-shul ’Jam-dbyangs rdo-rje (1931/2–1999).86 Still, gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba was not solely responsible for the surge in college building at the beginning of the twentieth century. Among the major monasteries to open colleges without his assistance was Kaḥ-thog, where the Nor-bu lhun-po bshad grwa opened in 1907 with Kun-bzang dpal-ldan (1872–1943) as its first teacher.87 dPal-yul college dates from 1922, when the influential rDzogs-chen commentator Ngag-dbang dpal-bzang (1879–1941) began to teach there.88 Zhe-chen, another of the six major rNying-ma monasteries,89 was relatively late in establishing its college; although the precise date is unclear, Zhe-chen Kong-sprul Padma dri-med (1901–1960) oversaw its inauguration and invited Bod-pa sprul-sku mDo-sngags bstan-pa’i nyi-ma (1898–1959) to teach.90 These rank among the largest, but they were by no means the only colleges to spring up in Khams during this period. bsTan-’dzin lung-rtogs nyi-ma’s sNga ’gyur rdzogs chen chos ’byung chen mo lists other minor institutions and offers a brief account of their history.91 Moreover, monk-scholars graduating in Eastern Tibet travelled throughout Tibet and even further afield in the Himalayan region where some established institutions modelled

85 rDzogs chen chos ’byung vol. 2, 198a.3 (395) 86 Ibid. 198a.4 87 Kun-bzang dpal-ldan is known, above all, for his commentary on Bodhicaryāvatāra, which preserves the teaching style of rDza dPal-sprul, and his biography of Mi-pham. He also wrote a commentary on Mi-pham’s Nges shes sgron me. 88 bsTan-’dzin lung-rtogs nyi-ma 2004: 313. Smith 2001: 13–31 discusses the life and work of Ngag-dbang dpal-bzang as an introduction to his autobiography. See also mKhan po ngag chung gi rnam thar. The biography has also been translated into English in Nevin and Leschly (trans.) 2013. 89 The standard list of six is 1) rDo-rje-brag, 2) sMin-grol-gling, 3) rDzogs-chen, 4) Zhe-chen, 5) Kaḥ-thog, 6) dPal-yul. (See Smith 2001: 17) 90 bsTan-’dzin lung-rtogs nyi-ma 2004: 314 91 See bsTan-’dzin lung-rtogs nyi-ma 2004: 304–318.33

on their almae matres.92 Khams’s educational reform was thus (quite literally) far- reaching.

3.2 Reliance on Iconic Figures Changes in monastic education transformed notions of sectarian identity in the non-dGe-lugs schools, especially the rNying-ma. Many colleges drew on the commentarial works of their school’s foremost scholars: Mi-pham’s writings among the rNying-ma and Go-rams-pa bSod-nams seng-ge’s among the Sa-skya. These writers articulated what became orthodox positions, creating a corresponding concept of heterodoxy—or at least unorthodoxy—that encompassed many tenets of dGe-lugs doctrine. Students from non-dGe-lugs schools thus acquired the means to challenge their dGe-lugs opponents, both in writing and in oral debate, and there is evidence that they did so. Before we turn to those debates, however, let us briefly consider the status and influence of these two major thinkers. 3.2.1 rNying-ma and Mi-pham

As a monk-scholar, Mi-pham was not a typical rNying-ma hierarch. The archetypal preceptor of the rNying-ma school was its supposed founder Padmasambhava/Padmākara (padma ’byung gnas). This semi-legendary figure is generally portrayed as a powerful tantric guru, an adept (siddha) and thaumaturge.93 Iconographically, Padmasambhava resembles a typical Indian siddha but with the addition of royal insignia.94 His representation thus reflects the traditional rNying-ma focus on tantric ritual performance. Exoteric (i.e., non-tantric) scholasticism of the

92 One such graduate was dBon-stod ’Jam-dbyangs mkhyen-rab (b. 1889), gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang-ba’s successor at rDzong-gsar. He later founded a college at dBon-stod. 93 Of the eight forms or “names” of Guru Padmasambhava (gu ru mtshan brgyad), only one (known, rather confusingly, as Guru Padmasambhava) is shown in the guise of a paṇḍita. 94 In later traditions, his hat is described as a gift of the king of Zahor. His silken robes and vajra sceptre also betoken regal status. In addition, his seated posture is often described in later gter ma literature as that of “kingly exuberance” (rgyal po rol pa’i stabs).34

kind that became increasingly popular in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was not a prominent feature of early rNying-ma identity. There is little evidence of widespread training in debate, for example.95 Even textual composition, another of the three normative activities of a scholar (i.e., ’chad rtsod rtsom gsum), was predominantly concerned with the esoteric or tantric realm. There were exceptions, of course, such as mNga’-ris paṇ-chen Padma-dbang-rgyal’s (1487–1542) sDom gsum rnam nges treatise on the three sets of vows, which includes the prātimokṣa and bodhisattva vows in addition to the tantric commitments (samaya).96 But the school’s more prominent figures, in particular those who appear in bDud-’joms ’Jigs-bral-ye-shes rdo-rje’s history, tended to be tantric adepts and/or treasure-revealers (gter ston).97 Beginning with dPal-sprul, Mi-pham and their contemporaries, however, this began to change: rNying-ma teachers started to compose commentaries on key Indian (and especially Madhyamaka) śāstras for the first time.98

Mi-pham, in particular, was so prolific and influential in his commentarial writing that he almost single-handedly transformed rNying-ma scholasticism.

Beginning with his first major commentary—on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra—in 1876,99 he introduced what became the distinctive rNying-ma approach to Madhyamaka philosophy. His Nor bu Keṭaka commentary on the ninth chapter of 95 Even the scriptural colleges placed less emphasis on debate in their curricula than the dGe-lugs institutes. See Dreyfus 2003a: 132–137. 96 The text is now a feature of the curricular at rNying-ma colleges, such as at rNam-grol-gling, for example. See Dreyfus 2005: 278; Pearcey 2015a: 456. 97 See Dorje & Kapstein 1991: 743ff. 98 Smith 2001: 231 makes this point in relation to Mi-pham. See Viehbeck 2016: 10 for a discussion of how dPal-sprul was the first rNying-ma commentator on the Bodhicaryāvatāra. See also Chapter Four below. 99 i.e., dBu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad ’jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa’i zhal lung (MPp vol. 13: 1–415; MPc vol. 13: 333–743). Translated in Doctor 2004 and Shantarakshita and Mipham (trans. Padmakara Translation Group) 2005.35 the Bodhicaryāvatāra, followed some two years later.100 Despite initial controversy (discussed below), the views set out in these and later works came to define rNying-ma orthodoxy. Largely as a result of such works,101 Mi-pham gained a reputation as a great scholar (mahāpaṇḍita) and emanation of Mañjuśrī. He became known as ’Jam mgon Mi-pham,102 and was represented iconographically as a monk-scholar holding a volume of Prajñāpāramitā as well as, at least in some images, Mañjuśrī’s sword of wisdom.103 He thus became—both iconographically and iconically—the rNying-ma-pa equivalent of Tsong-kha-pa for the dGe-lugs and Go-rams-pa bSod-nams seng-ge for the Sa-skya.104

100 i.e., sPyod ’jug shes rab kyi le’u’i tshig don go sla bar rnam par bshad pa nor bu ke ta ka (MPp vol. 14: 1–96; MPc vol. 18: 45–159). See Viehbeck 2011 & 2012 and Mipham 2004. 101 The title of mahāpaṇḍita also acknowledges mastery of other branches of learning, specifically the five major and five minor sciences. The former five are often listed as: 1) crafts (śilpa; bzo rig pa); 2) logic (hetu; gtan tshigs); 3) (Sanskrit) grammar (śabda; sgra); medicine or healing (cikitsā; gso ba); 5) the ‘inner science’ or Dharma (nang don rig pa); and the latter five as: 1) poetic synonyms (abhidhāna; mngon brjod); 2) astrology (jyotiṣa; skar rtsis); 3) performance or drama (nāṭaka; zlos gar); 4) poetry (kāvya; snyan ngag); 5) prosody (chandas; sdeb sbyor). 102 Samuel (1993: 538) sees the prevalence of such epithets among “Rimed masters” and the fact that such masters as ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, ’Jam-mgon Kong-sprul, mChog-gyur gling-pa and Mi-pham were considered emanations of Mañjuśrī as implying that Ris-med “involved a renewal of the academic and intellectual tradition within the non-Gelugpa schools.” The mention of mChog-gyur gling-pa here is not without problems; although he was indeed identified with Mañjuśrī, he played little or no role in the revival of scholasticism. Yet even the other figures Samuel mentions were not—with the exception of Mi-pham—directly involved in this development. The increase in popularity of Mañjuśrī during this period is undoubtedly a related phenomenon, but it is also a complex one, which lies beyond the scope of the present study. Nonetheless, I briefly touch on the category of rDzogs-chen literature associated with Mañjuśrī (known as ’Jam-dpal rdzogs-pa chen-po) in the next chapter. 103 The painting from murals at Zhe-chen monastery in Nepal, reproduced on the cover of Pettit 1999, shows Mi-pham cradling a volume in his left hand while his right hand is in the gesture of blessing/teaching (with the thumb and index finger touching). 104 There is a great similarity between the standard images of these figures in art, as emanations of Mañjuśrī—greater in fact than there is between the three figures labelled the “Three Mañjughoṣas of Tibet” (’jam dbyangs rnam gsum), that is Sa-skya Paṇḍita Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan (1182–1251), Klong-chen rab-’byams (1308–1364) and Tsong-kha-pa blo-bzang grags-pa. It seems to have been rDza dPal-sprul who first proposed the latter grouping, but others, such as Kun-bzang dpal-ldan and ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse Chos-kyi-blo-gros also adopted it. Indeed, mKhyen-brtse Chos-kyi-blo-gros composed a short guru yoga rite focusing on the trio: Gangs can ’jam dbyangs rnam gsum gyi bla ma’i rnal ’byor mkhyen brtse nus mthu’i char ’bebs (JCLb vol. 4: 143–149). Sa-skya Paṇḍita Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan undoubtedly occupies a comparable position to Tsong-kha-pa in his stature as a scholar but the fact that he composed no commentaries on the standard Mahāyāna treatises that feature in the curricula of Sa-skya colleges means that there at least he is less prominent than Go-rams-pa. Moreover, Sa-skya Paṇḍita is typically depicted in works of art not as an emanation of Mañjuśrī but in the guise of an Indian paṇḍita.36

3.2.2. Sa-skya and Go-rams-pa

In Sa-skya colleges even today, the commentaries of Go-rams-pa bSod-nams seng-ge provide the standard interpretations of the most important Indian treatises.105 His writings are now widely available, but were at one time restricted, along with many other texts deemed critical of, or at odds with, dGe-lugs orthodoxy. The government of dGa’-ldan pho-brang effectively banned their printing and distribution, especially in dBus and gTsang, during the reign of the Fifth Dalai Lama. According to Smith, such controls prevented the widespread study of Go-rams-pa’s works and thereby contributed to a decline in Sa-skya scholarship.106 When his treatises were eventually printed at sDe-dge in the early twentieth century (1906 to 1910) this inspired an educational revival.107 David Jackson identifies mKhan-po ’Jam-dbyangs rgyal-mtshan (1870–1940) as the head of the printing project.108 Another senior Sa-skya figure, Blo-gter dbang-po (1847–1914),109 assisted. Both responded to an original instruction from gZhan-phan Chos-kyi-snang ba.110

Go-rams-pa’s writings (and other scholarly Sa-skya works) exacerbated anti-dGe-lugs sentiment around sDe-dge. A-mdo dge-bshes ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i blo-gros (1888–1936) expressed concern about such hostility in the mid-1920s, citing specifically the writings of Go-rams-pa, Shākya mchog-ldan (1428–1507) and sTag-tshang lo-tshā-ba Shes-rab rin-chen (b.1405).111 In a letter addressed to the monks of 105 See Cabezón and Dargyay 2007: 41. 106 Smith 2004: 192. 107 Jackson 2003: 57–58. 108 On the life of ’Jam-dbyangs rgyal-mtshan see Jackson 2003: 54–60. 109 On the life of Blo-gter dbang-po see Dhongthog Rinpoche 2016: 190–201. 110 Jackson 2003: 58. 111 The inclusion of Shākya mchog-ldan and sTag-tshang lo-tshā-ba Shes-rab rin-chen in this list (which derives from the colophon to the open letter by A-mdo dge-bshes ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i-blo-gros) is curious. As Smith (2004: 190) makes clear, the works of both figures were restricted even in manuscript form following the decrees of the dGa’-ldan pho-brang. Smith notes that some works by 37

sDe-dge dgon-chen,112 ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i blo-gros writes: “These days, there are many who are biased against elements of the precious teaching of the Victorious One, and many who refute the precious doctrine of the noble dharma-king, the great Tsong-kha-pa.”113 This he attributes to “people taking as definitive (nges don) the comments in the polemical texts (dgag yig) of Go-[rams-pa], Shākya [mchog-ldan] and sTag-[[[tshang]] lo-tshā-ba].”114 In response to requests to intervene, he “sends out this letter inviting debate, in the manner described in the sacred Dharma of the Vinaya.”115 The available histories do not say whether anyone responded to his challenge. In any case, ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i blo-gros secured the patronage of the sDe-dge king, A-ja rdo-rje seng-ge (1877–1926), and, with his support, published the collected writings of Tsong-kha-pa at sDe-dge printing house.116 As late as 1940, the dGe-lugs teacher, Pha-bong-kha[-pa] bDe-chen snying-po (1878–1941) criticised the publication of Go-rams-pa’s works. In a message to a Chinese disciple, he refers to Go-rams-pa’s “mass of faulty compositions” (nyes

sTag-tshang lo-tshā-ba Shes-rab rin-chen were printed in sDe-dge, together with other writings by major Sa-skya figures (ibid., 192). A set of the writings of Shākya mchog-ldan was preserved in Bhutan (from which an edition was published in 1975). The author of the preface to the 1975 edition (SC vol. 1) writes, “The works of Gser-mdog Pan-chen were for many centuries suppressed in Tibet along with the gsung ’bum of Tāranātha and [a] number of other scholars who are no more than names today. The present fame of Tāranātha results from the unsealing of the Rtag-brtan Phun-tshogs-gliṅ printer in the last half of the last century through the efforts of Blo-gsal-bstan-skyoṅ. The writings of Śākya-mchog-ldan, however, had no such reviver in Tibet, and have consequently remained unknown.” They were clearly not entirely unknown when A-mdo dge-bshes ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i-blo-gros was writing. 112 i.e., Lugs gnyis kyi mdun sa chen po sde dge lhun grub steng nas phyogs kyi mkhas pa rnams la spring ba rtsod pa’i skabs rnam par dbye ba’i yi ge yang dag rigs pa’i pho nya (AG vol., 1, 119– 126). The text is translated in Pearcey 2018. Unfortunately, there is no date in the colophon of ’Jam-dpal rol-ba’i blo-gros’s letter. The biography by bDe-legs rab-rgyas (AG vol. 1: 7-8) mentions the episode and the printing of Tsong kha pa’s collected works before discussing an event that occurred in the fire-hare year (1927). If A-ja rdo-rje seng-ge was the patron for the printing of Tsong-kha-pa’s works this puts the terminus ante quem for the project at 1926, the year of his death. 113 AG vol. 1, 125f.: deng sang rgyal bstan rin po che ris su gcod pa ches mang zhing| khyad par du rje btsun chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po’i bstan pa rin chen dgag pa’i ’khur len pa mang ba’i rkyen gyis… 114 AG vol. 1, 126: khyad par du khams gsum chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po’i gzhung lugs rnams ni nyes bshad kho nar ’dug pa’i gtam go shākya stag gsum gyi dgag yig ltar du nges don la gnas shing| 115 AG vol. 1, 126: dam pa’i chos ’dul ba nas bshad pa ltar rtsod pa’i skabs rnam par dbye ba’i zhu yig ’di spring ba yin… 116 AG vol. 1: 7–8.38

bshad kyi phung po)117 and “many egregious statements” (ngan smras mang).118 “A lama from sDe-dge called ’Jam-dbyangs,” he writes, “made efforts to gather a set of original manuscripts (ma dpe) and had them carved on printing blocks.”119 Rather scornfully, he notes that reading transmissions and teachings were granted without any continuous, uninterrupted lineage.120 His comments clearly testify to the significance of the publication of Go-rams-pa’s works for Sa-skya scholarship and the challenge they posed to dGe-lugs dominance.

Evidently, then, Sa-skya education received a fillip from both the creation of scriptural colleges and the reprinting of previously banned works. Even though these projects were initiated and supported by figures linked to the Ris-med Movement, most notably gZhan-phan Chos-kyi snang-ba, they may have contributed to inter-sectarian tension. Similar strains on relations sprang from Mi-pham’s writings, so much so that some scholars even question his inclusion within the Ris-med fold.

3.3. Mi-pham & the Ris-med Movement Mi-pham championed the cause of rNying-ma scholasticism to such a great extent that his identification as a Ris-med figure is difficult to justify.121 Undoubtedly, he studied with acknowledged Ris-med luminaries including mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and dPal-sprul. Yet, his own philosophical writings are overwhelmingly concerned with rNying-ma doctrine.122 As Phuntsho notes:

117 mDo sngags skor gyi dris lan sna tshogs phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa vol. 6: 37a 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid.: phyis su sde dge’i bla ma ’jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan zhes pas ma dpe rtsol bas bsdus te spar du brkos| 120 Ibid.: lung rgyun med bzhin du lung byas| khrid rgyun med bzhin du khrid byas| 121 The first to connect Mi-pham with the movement was Gene Smith (2001, 272). He called Mi-pham “the greatest name in the nonsectarian movement at the turn of the [twentieth] century.” Dreyfus (2003b, 317) said that Mi-pham was “influenced by the eclectic or ecumenical (Ris-med) movement in which his work takes place.” There are many other examples. 122 There are several notable exceptions, such as his commentary on lCang-skya Rol-pa’i rdo-rje’s song lTa ba’i gsung mgur zab mo (MPp vol. 4: 826.6–866.3).39

Notwithstanding the common assumption that he was an advocate of the ecumenical movement (Ris med pa) which his teachers initiated, Mipham was a staunch proponent of rNying ma doctrine, and repeatedly refuted other schools igniting new doctrinal controversies. It still remains a perplexing question whether Mipham was a Ris med pa in the same way as Kong sprul and dPal sprul.123 Perhaps the question here hinges on how ris-med is defined. For mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po and Kong-sprul, ris-med embraced the principle that all valid means to enlightenment should be preserved. They (but especially mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po) might, therefore, have viewed the creation—or recreation, as Mi-pham presented it124—of an exoteric scholastic tradition within the rNying-ma school as just such a work of preservation. As already noted above, it was mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po who initially encouraged Mi-pham to compose his famous treatises. Pettit writes:

The ostensible reason underlying much of Mipham’s writing on both sūtra and tantra was the command of his teacher ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po to write “textbooks for our tradition” (rang lugs kyi yig cha)—the distinctive feature of which is the Great Perfection system.125 The fact that it was mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po who asked Mi-pham to compose his commentaries is also made clear in the colophons to some of the texts themselves.126 Evidence also exists in a letter Mi-pham wrote to mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po’s treasurer (phyag mdzod), Tshe-ring bkra-shis, when dBu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad was printed.127 Possibly, mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po believed that

123 Phuntsho 2007: 193. 124 With typical conservativism, Mi-pham would present this not so much as an innovation, but as the recovery of an earlier tradition. Yet while he did indeed rely on the work of earlier scholars such as Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po (1012–1088) and Klong-chen rab-’byams, and even borrowed from Go-rams-pa, Mi-pham was unquestionably innovative too. 125 Pettit 1999: 99. The phrase “rang lugs kyi yig cha” is taken from a statement by Mi-pham himself that is included in the biography by Kun-bzang dpal-ldan (ibid, 26). 126 E.g. for the dBu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad, MPc vol. 13: 739.6–740.1 and gSang ’grel phyogs bcu’i mun sel gyi spyi don ’od gsal snying po, MPc vol. 23: 318.5–319.2. The former says that mKhyen-brtse’i dbang-po provided the “textbooks of the Indian and Tibetan commentaries” (rgya bod kyi ’grel pa’i yig cha rnams) on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra and asked Mi-pham to “study them precisely” (zhib tu ltos) and compose a commentary of his own. This request was followed by another appeal from someone named Padma, belonging to the “great tradition of the Early Translations (snga ’gyur). 127 i.e., dBu ma rgyan ’grel ’bru bcos skabs ’jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i phyag mdzod tshe ring bkra shis la springs pa’i yi ge. MPc vol. 2: 687–688. This letter does not specify that the text was written at rNying-ma monasteries were too reliant on other traditions, especially the dGe-lugs, at least for their exoteric studies. Some monasteries—rDo-grub among them—used dGe-lugs textbooks for their own non-tantric curriculum. Perhaps not coincidentally, rDo-grub’s resident teachers were among the first to criticize Mi-pham’s

commentaries.

The controversy surrounding Mi-pham’s literary output makes it difficult to reconcile his role with non-sectarianism—at least insofar as the term is commonly understood. Phuntsho says he finds it “bewildering” that mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po “encouraged and often instigated Mipham to write treatises that provoked his opponents into composing refutations.”128 Of course, it is possible that neither mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po nor Mi-pham anticipated the level of controversy that the treatises would incite.

Douglas Duckworth characterises Mi-pham’s non-sectarianism as “complex”. He claims that Mi-pham’s critical engagement with dGe-lugs doctrine provides the key to his particular brand of Ris-med.129 Specifically, Duckworth contrasts Mi-pham’s approach with what he identifies as four alternative responses to dGe-lugs dominance: 1) a hostile attitude, which is characteristic of Go-rams-pa; 2) a more submissive attitude to dGe-lugs authority especially on exoteric matters, which Duckworth considers to be a feature of the tradition at rDo-grub monastery; 3) a more dismissive attitude of focusing exclusively on one’s own tradition, as it is found, for example, in the writings of Padma badzra (c.1807–1884);130 and 4) willed

mKhyen-brtse’-dbang-po’s behest but does attribute the success of the project to “the guru’s kindness alone” (bla ma’i bka’ drin kho na). Of course, the mere fact that Mi-pham wrote such a letter to Tshe-ring bkra-shis is a clue to mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po’s involvement. 128 Phuntsho 2007: 193. 129 Duckworth 2008: xxii. 130 On the life of mKhan-po Padma badzra see Pearcey 2012b. Confusion over the dates of this important figure, specifically the use of the erroneous dates 1867–1934 (as in Duckworth 2008: 197 n. 54) would appear to stem from conflation with the similarly named sPrul-sku Padma rdo-rje, who was ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s half-brother.

or forced conversion.131 I discuss the second of these four responses in detail below.

Duckworth argues that Mi-pham engaged with dGe-lugs doctrine in a unique way by challenging its tenets yet avoiding outright hostility. Markus Viehbeck sees evidence of Mi-pham’s non-sectarianism in a short satirical work playfully addressing the supposed faults of each of the four main Tibetan Buddhist schools.132 It is true that Grogs dang gtam gleng ba’i rkyen las mtshar gtam133 expresses what Viehbeck calls a “general tolerance and equanimity towards the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism.” It includes, for example, an account of what the schools have in common, such as their shared views and tenets.

Mi-pham wrote another short text on the same subject, dated to the fire-monkey year (1896).134 This second work displays a similar attitude of tolerance, acknowledging, as it does, the ultimate validity of all four schools. In its final verse, Mi-pham calls on the followers of all schools to avoid mutual hostility: So, like children of the same father and same mother, Cultivate mutual accord, devotion, and pure perception, And, while focusing on your own tradition, avoid berating others.

If you act in this way you will also be of service to the teachings.135 This advice might well represent Mi-pham’s own approach to non-sectarianism (especially as Duckworth defines it): immersed in his own tradition, he is unafraid to criticise others (within the established bounds of scholarly debate) while avoiding outright hostility. We must bear in mind, however, that he wrote

131 Duckworth 2008: xxvii–xxviii. 132 Viehbeck 2012: 50. 133 MPc vol. 7: 229.1–233.2. For a translation see Pearcey 2018. Kapstein 2013 offers a slightly abridged translation. 134 Bod yul chos lugs rnam pa bzhi. MPc. vol. 32: 410.1–410.6. This text is also translated in Pearcey 2018. 135 MPc. vol. 32, 410.5f.: pha gcig ma gcig bu tsha ji bzhin du| phan tshun thugs mthun mos gus dag snang sgoms| rang lugs gtsor bzung gzhan la gshe ba spong| de ltar mdzad na bstan zhabs ’dir yang legs| (The third line is ambiguous and could also be read as: Avoid regarding your own tradition as the foremost and berating others.)42

these words after he had already been involved in several high-profile disputes, one of which involved ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho (1824–1902). 3.4 ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags and the Opposition to Mi-pham ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho is undoubtedly a figure of some importance in the history of nineteenth-century eastern Tibet. Unfortunately, we know little about his life and work.136 He was a follower of both Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol (1781-1851)137 and rDza dPal-sprul. Kun-bzang dpal-ldan records, in his biography of Mi-pham, that ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags criticised Mi-pham’s Nor bu ke ta ka commentary on the ninth chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatāra.138 This led to a debate,139 overseen by the pair’s shared teacher, dPal-sprul. It was a contest which, by all accounts, Mi-pham won. In Kun-bzang dpal-ldan’s words: On one occasion, ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags, a great scholar of the New Traditions,140 expressed the opinion that there were some invalid arguments in Mi-pham’s commentary on the prajñā chapter [i.e., ninth] of the Bodhicaryāvatāra. The foremost of learned, disciplined and accomplished masters, dPal-sprul Rin-po-che, was engaged to judge, and the debate continued for several days. Most spectators 136 He is also known as A-lags mDo-sngags or ’Ja’-pa A-lags. A brief sketch of his life is found in Thub dbang 1991: 142–143. This account, which gives his dates as 1824–1902, was the principal source for the biography I wrote for the Treasury of Lives website (Pearcey 2014a).

On the life of Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol see Ricard 1994. His synthesis of dGe-lugs teachings and rDzogs-chen is sometimes described as Ris-med avant la lettre. In his life and writings, he represents another notable exception to Samuel’s dGe-lugs-pa ‘cleric’/Ris-med ‘shaman’ dichotomy. It was apparently ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho who, sometime around 1851, first told dPal-sprul about Zhabs-dkar. Although dPal-sprul then made plans to go and meet him, he heard on the way that Zhabs-dkar had already died. See Thondup 1996: 203. For a recent assessment of Zhabs-dkar Tshogs-drug rang-grol’s work and non-sectarianism see Pang 2014 and 2015. The fact that mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho was a student of Zhabs-dkar is confirmed in the prayer for swift rebirth (myur byon gsol ’debs) that dPal-sprul wrote shortly after Zhabs-dkar’s death (see PS vol. 8: 82).

MPc vol. 9: 572.2. 139 Although we do not have a date for this debate, it must have taken place between 1878 and 1887— the terminus post quem being the year in which Mi-pham’s commentary to the ninth chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatāra was completed, and the terminus ante quem being the year dPal-sprul died. Schuh (1973: xxxi) dates the debate to between 1878 and 1880. 140 gsar phyogs la mkhas pa. In bDud-’joms Rin-po-che’s rNying ma chos ’byung (705: 3) he is referred to as “gsar phyogs kyi mkhas pa chen po.” The translators include a note from Tulku Thondup specifying that although ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags was learned in gSar-ma doctrine, he was himself a rNying-ma-pa. (Dudjom Rinpoche 1991 vol. 2: 86 n.1215.) In a private interview (7 October 2014), Tulku Thondup explained that ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho’s tribal group, the dBang-mda’, followed the Kaḥ-thog lineage of the rNying-ma school. In his own study and practice,

however, ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags rgya-mtsho was likely an adherent of both dGe-lugs and rNying-ma traditions, thus raising the question of what it means in this context to ‘belong to’ or follow a particular school/tradition. 43

could only say which arguments were in accord with their own opinions; they could not tell who had won and who had lost. When Bla-ma Rig-mchog asked dPal-sprul Rin-po-che which of the pair was the winner, he said, “I don’t know if I can be the one to decide this, or whether I can put an end to it. It is rather like the saying, ‘It is not for a father to praise his son, but for his enemies. It is not for a mother to praise her daughter, but for the community.’ mDo-sngags’s monks told me that early in the debate they clearly saw a ray of light emanate from the heart of Lama Mi-pham’s image of Mañjuśrīghoṣa, the representation of his chosen deity, and connect with the lama’s heart. That really says it all.”141 The precise nature of the Bodhicaryāvatāra disagreement is unknown. None of ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags’s own writings survive.142 Aside from this brief account, we have only the comments in Mi-pham’s gNyug sems skor gsum.143 In the first text of that trilogy, Mi-pham refutes what he claims to be ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags’ position: These days, ’Gya-ba [sic] mDo-sngags clings to others’ claims that the so-called “fundamental mind” (gnyug sems), which occurs at the stage of clear light when cultivating mental isolation (sems dben) from among the five stages of the Guhyasamāja in the dGe-lugs system, is subtle mind (phra yid). He asserts that the pure awareness (rig pa) that is pointed out in the Great Perfection is also subtle mind. As this subtle mind is conditioned, arising from four conditions, there are those who also claim that the Great Perfection must also be conditioned. Such statements are utterly inappropriate.144

141 ’Ju Mi-pham gyi rnam thar: 22.16f.: de bzhin du gsar phyogs la mkhas pa chen po ’ja’ pa mdo sngags kyis spyod ’jug sher le’i ’grel pa la mi ’thad pa’i cha brjod pa la| gangs khrod mkhas btsun grub pa’i khyu mchog dpal sprul rin po che dpang por bzhag nas zhag du mar bgro gleng gnang ba’i tshe| phal gyis rang rang gi ’dod phyogs dang mthun pa’i gtam smra ba tsam las rgyal pham ma ’byed tshe| bla ma rig mchog nas dpal sprul rin po cher| de gnyis gang rgyal zhus par| ngas ni rjes gcod mi shes| tshar gcod mi shes| ’jig rten gyi kha dper| bu phas mi bstod dgras bstod| bu mos mas mi bstod gnas kyi bstod zer ba’i dpe ltar| mdo sngags kyi grwa pa rnams kyis nga la| rtsod pa snga ma’i dus bla ma mi pham gyi thugs dam rten ’jam dpal dbyangs kyi sku de’i thugs ka nas ’od zer zhig ’byung ste bla ma’i thugs kar ’brel ’dug pa gsal bar mthong zer bas| de’i nang du don ’dus ’dug gsungs| 142 Kun-bzang dpal-ldan refers to a commentary on rDzogs-chen, which is presumably the same text that some claim was burnt at the end of the debate: At that time, too, dPal-sprul Rin-po-che issued the following instruction, “’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags has written a commentary on [the line]: ‘The Great Perfection, which is characterized by a total embodiment (spyi gzugs) of wisdom (ye shes).’ It seems that some consider it to be refutable and others provable. Therefore, discuss it.” (’Ju mi pham gyi rnam thar: skabs der yang dpal sprul rin po ches| mdo sngags kyis rdzogs pa chen po ye shes spyi yi gzugs zhes par ’grel pa bris ’dug pa la| la las dgag pa dang la las sgrub par go bas ’di thad nas kyang bgro gleng re mdzod ces bka’ phebs pa bzhin mdzad pas…) As noted in Karmay 1988: 141, the phrase “rdzogs pa chen po ye shes spyi gzugs can” occurs in the ’Jam dpal zhal lung of Buddhaśrījñānapāda and was cited by ’Gos lo-tsā-ba gZhon-nu dpal in defence of rDzogs-chen against charges that the term rDzogs-chen was unknown in works of gSar-ma origin. On the correct interpretation of the phrase see Wangchuk 2012: 22. 143 E.g. gNyug sems ’od gsal gyi don rgyal ba rig ’dzin brgyud pa'i lung bzhin brjod pa rdo rje snying po (MPc vol. 24: 29). On the trilogy see Mi-pham-gya-tso 2006. These works were not completed during Mi-pham’s lifetime, but compiled by his student, Zhe-chen rgyal-tshab. 144 gNyug sems II: 288 and MPc vol. 24: 29.3f.: deng sang ’gya ba [sic] mdo sngags pas dge phyogs pa’i gsang ’dus rim lnga’i sems dben sgom pa’i ’od gsal gyis skabs su gnyug sems zhes pa phra yid yin zhes gzhan gyi zer sgros la ’jus nas| de las brtsam ste rdzogs chen gyi rig pa ngo sprod rgyu de phra ba’i yid yin| phra ba’i yid de rkyen bzhi las skyes pa’i ’dus byas yin pas rdzogs chen ’dus byas yin no zer ba’i rjes brjod kyang byed mkhan ’dug pa ’di ni shin tu mi ’os pa’i tshig yin ste|

Here, Mi-pham contends that ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags was misled by the dGe-lugs interpretation of the Guhyasamāja Tantra. In his attempt to find parallels between the Guhyasamāja and the Great Perfection, ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags violates one of the fundamental tenets of rDzogs-chen: that pure awareness (rig pa) is unconditioned (’dus ma byas).145 I examine this stance in more detail later in this study. Let it suffice to say here that comparison of rDzogs-chen and Highest Yoga Tantra did not end with ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags. ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags’s influence is better documented than the nature of his assertions. Biographical accounts show, for example, that he was a teacher to the four seminary masters146 of rDo-grub (rdo grub mkhan po rnam bzhi):147 1. mGar-ba mkhan-po Thub-bstan rig-’dzin bzang-po (d.1926)148

145 Mi-pham considered it especially important to refute any suggestion that the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs-chen could be conditioned. He even claimed that this was a concern shared by his teacher, ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po: My lama, ’Jam-dbyangs mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, said, “The single statement ‘rDzogs-chen is conditioned’ violates all the crucial points of rDzogs-chen’s ground, path and fruition.” As this illustrates, such statements are displeasing to the minds of the holy ones, but these days there are those who do not apply even the slightest analysis to determine whether what they say accords with the key points of the rNying-ma teachings or not, and whatever comes out of their mouths is taken to be Dharma. This is a sign of having arrived at the end of the period in which there is a mere reflection of the teachings, and the heart teachings of Samantabhadra will not remain for much longer. (gNyug sems 295: kho bo’i bla ma ’jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po’i zhal snga nas| rdzogs chen ’dus byas zer ba’i tshig gcig po ’dis rdzogs pa chen po gzhi lam ’bras bu’i gnad thams cad dang rgyab ’gal du song ba yin gsungs pas mtshon dam pa rnams kyi thugs la ma babs kyang| deng sang ni rnying ma’i chos kyi gnad dang mthun mi mthun gyi dpyad pa gtong ba tsam yang med par kha nas gang byung zhig brjod shes na chos su brtsi ba ni bstan pa’i gzugs brnyan gyi mtha’ la thug pas kun bzang thugs kyi bstan pa yun ring du mi gnas pa’i brda’|)

146 I borrow this translation of mkhan po from David Jackson (1997: 140) because the common translation of ‘abbot’ does not work in the present context. The four were teachers, not necessarily heads of the monastery. 147 Thub-dbang 1991: 143, Klein 2000: 559. In this context the Tibetan mkhan po (Skt. upādhyāya) does not signify an abbot who is the head of a monastery, but both a preceptor who can preside over an ordination ceremony and a senior teacher or professor, roughly equivalent to the title dge bshes in the dGe-lugs. 148 Tulku Thondup (1996: 249–50) notes that mGar-ba mkhan-po was the closest of the four khenpos to ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma and that he died just a few months before him. Note that there is sometimes confusion in the secondary sources between Thub-bstan rig-’dzin bzang-po and his 45 2. Ser-shul mkhan-po Ngag-dbang kun-dga’ grags-pa149 3. A-myes mkhan-po Dam-chos byams-pa ’od-zer (d.1927?) 4. Klu-shul mkhan-po Blo-bzang kun-khyab, alias dKon-mchog sgron-me,

(1859–1936)150

It is unclear what ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags taught at rDo-grub Monastery. But we know that one of his students, mKhan-po Dam-chos ’od-zer, opposed Mi-pham’s ideas. Dam-chos ’od-zer took issue with Mi-pham’s commentary on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, i.e., ’Jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa’i zhal lung.151 Mi-pham’s response, articulated in his Dam chos dogs sel, survives.152 As Phuntsho notes, this rejoinder is unique among Mi-pham’s polemical writings in that it is addressed to a fellow rNying-ma-pa. Dam-chos ’od-zer apparently requested the text, another feature that makes it atypical. “Strangely,” writes Phuntsho, the author “makes more impolite and sarcastic remarks here than in his two other replies.”153 Mi-pham might have found it particularly irksome to account for his ideas to someone within the rNying-ma school.

Although rDo-grub monastery itself was a rNying-ma institution, this affiliation did not apply to its study college. There, the exoteric curriculum was based on the study of dGe-lugs texts—specifically, the debate manuals (yig cha) of ’Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa (1648–1721/22). Furthermore, at least one of the four seminary masters listed above probably had a dGe-lugs association: the name Ser-

reincarnation, ’Jigs-med ’od-gsal, who was also referred to as mGar-ba mkhan-po. (See, for example, TBRC entry P3JM11). 149 His name suggests that he was originally from the dGe-lugs monastery of Ser-shul (A-lags gZan-dkar, private communication, April 2014). 150 Tulku Thondup, who was identified as the reincarnation of Klu-shul mkhan-po, gives a detailed account of his life in Tulku Thondup 2006: 230–236. 151 For bibliographical details, see note 99 above. 152 rDo grub dam chos zhes pas gzhan gyi zer sgros bsdus nas mkhas su re ba’i khyal ngag de dag mi mkhas mtshang phug du kho rang nas bskul ba bzhin nyams mtshar du bkod pa (MPc vol. 13: 747– 807). See Phuntsho 2010: 217f. 153 Phuntsho 2010: 217.

shul Ngag-dbang kun-dga’ suggests a link with Ser-shul, an important dGe-lugs institution in rDza-chu-kha.154 A-lags gZan-dkar Thub-bstan nyi-ma (who studied at rDo-grub in his youth) reports that rDo-grub Monastery itself was considered a branch monastery (dgon lag) of the dGe-lugs centre of Bla-brang bKra-shis-’khyil.155 ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags too was connected with Bla-brang: his biography identifies him as an unofficial incarnation of Gung-thang dKon-mchog bstan-pa’i sgron-me (1762–1823), the monastery’s twenty-first throne-holder.156 However, ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags was not directly affiliated with any monastery. He appears to have spent the last part of his life in retreat, perhaps following his defeat to Mi- pham.157

Even if ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags’s career ended well before his death in 1902, his legacy likely continued (to some extent) through his students. We also detect signs of influence—or, at least, shared concerns—in the writings of his supposed reincarnation, mDo-sngags Chos-kyi-rgya-mtsho (1903–1957). But now let us turn to the life and work of a figure who was effectively caught in between Mi-pham and ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags: their shared disciple, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. 154 The proper name of the monastery is dGa’-ldan theg-chen dar-rgyas-gling. The likely meaning of Ser-shul in this context was confirmed by A-lags gZan-dkar (Private communication, April 2014).

Paul Nietupski has written extensively on the history and residents of Bla-brang bKra-shis-’khyil, most notably in Nietupski 1999. Although he makes no mention of rDo-grub-chen being an unofficial branch, he does note (on p.96) how “Labrang was not a strictly sectarian institution. In addition to the prominent Central Tibetan Gelukpa systems, Labrang housed specialists in the older Tibetan Nyingma systems…” 155 Private communication, April 2014. A-lags gZan-dkar said that the same was true of Dar-thang, although it is officially a branch of dPal-yul (albeit a branch that is bigger than its ‘mother’). I can find no confirmation of either claim in written sources. 156 It is striking that the same claim was also made about his student, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma, as noted below. Both claims testify to dKon-mchog bstan-pa’i-sgron-me’s enduring influence. 157 Thub-dbang 1991: 142-143 mentions ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags’ retreat after discussing the debate with Mi-pham. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the retreat followed chronologically. Still, this view is supported by the existence of a text by dPal-sprul on retreat, Phyi nang gi dben pa ya ma bral bar bsten tshul sogs ’ja’ ba mdo sngags la gdams pa (PS vol. 8: 269-275), written for ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags to “clear away sadness” (skyo ba sangs pa’i ched du), which might conceivably be tied to loss in the debate. I discuss this in the introduction to my translation of the dPal-sprul text in Pearcey 2018. 47

4. ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s rDzogs-chen writings are the focus of the next two chapters. Here, let us examine his life and literary output more generally.

4.1. His Life

’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s life sheds light on many of the themes of this study, especially scholasticism and its relationship to sectarian identity. He was born in 1865.158 His father was the rNying-ma treasure-revealer (gter ston) bDud-’joms gling-pa, alias lCags-skong gter-ston (1835-1904).159 None of the biographical sources at my disposal lists bDud-’joms gling-pa among ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s teachers, and it would seem that the two had little or no contact in later years.

158 This was at the end of the Nyag-rong troubles (1863–1865), which caused rDo-grub-chen monastery (i.e., Padma-bkod rtsa-gsum mkha’-’gro’i-gling) to relocate from Yar-lung padma-bkod to rTsang-chen in the upper rDo-chu valley. The second rDo-grub incarnation, ’Jigs-med phun-tshogs ’byung-gnas (1824–1863), began the move when mGon-po rnam-rgyal of Nyag-rong threatened to destroy the monastery at Yar-lung in retaliation for its support of the people of the gSer valley. Yet shortly before the new building at rTsang-chen was complete, ’Jigs-med Phun-tshogs ’byung-gnas was forced into exile. A powerful local chieftain objected to his choice of consort. He died in Dar-rtse-mdo (Tachienlu) in 1863 during a smallpox epidemic. Despite the move, both monasteries remained in use for some time. This meant that once ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma had been enthroned at the monastery in Yar-lung Padma-bkod in the Iron Horse year (1870), he then followed a pattern of spending his summers in Yar-lung and his winters at the newer monastery in rTsang-chen. On the Nyag-rong troubles, see Tashi Tsering 1985 and Tsomo 2015. On the life of ’Jigs-med phun-tshogs ’byung-gnas see Thondup 1996, 211–214 (Note, however, that Thondup’s account leaves some confusion surrounding the precise year of his death: although he gives his dates as 1824-1863, he dates the fatal smallpox epidemic in Dar-rtse-mdo to 1864.) 159 On his life see Traktung Dudjom Lingpa 2011. bDud-’joms gling-pa gave his son the name Kun-bzang ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma phrin-las kun-khyab dpal bzang-po, which is usually abbreviated to ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma. ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma was the first of eight sons born to bDud-’joms gling-pa, all of whom were recognized as incarnations. For more information on all eight sons, see Gayley 2010 & 2011. A-lags gZan-dkar recalled an oral tradition correlating the eight sons of bDud-’joms gling-pa to the eight bodhisattvas known to Tibetans as the ‘eight close sons’ (nye ba’i sras brgyad), with ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma being identified as the emanation of Mañjuśrī (personal communication, April 2014). 160 The same was not true of all his brothers. Gayley (op. cit.) notes that sPrul-sku Dri-med ’od-zer (1881–1924), for example, counted both bDud-’joms gling-pa and ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma as his teachers. A recently published work on the life of bDud-’joms gling-pa refers to an oral tradition according to which ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma challenged his father to a debate. The father won and made “a pithy remark about his son’s paltry knowledge compared to the overwhelming vastness of wisdom mind.” See Traktung Dudjom Lingpa 2011: 291. There appears to be an error in the footnotes of the book, and I take the source of this story to be a personal communication from Lama Tharchin Rinpoche (as mentioned on page 303 n.43) rather than the actual source mentioned in n.44 (i.e.,

The Fourth rDzogs-chen hierarch, Mi-’gyur nam-mkha’i-rdo-rje (1793– 1870), recognised ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma as the reincarnation (yang srid) of the Second rDo-grub adept, ’Jigs-med phun-tshogs ’byung-gnas.161 There is no record that this recognition was ever contested, even though some accounts refer to an alternative identification. bDe-legs rab-rgyas, for example, notes that mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po believed ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma to be an incarnation of Gung-thang bstan-pa’i sgron-me162 of Bla-brang bkra-shis-’khyil. A-skong mkhan-chen Blo-bzang rdo-rje (1893–1983) also refers to this identification in his Nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor:

In the past, [’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma] was with ’Jam-mgon Mi-pham Rin-po-che and the two of them, guru and disciple, were in discussion. When they used a mirror to divine his [previous] birth, the mirror showed a lama wearing a yellow cloak with a black fold and a yellow preceptor’s hat. In the sky above his head was the word gung and below his throne was thang. At this, Mi-pham said, “Oh, I thought you were a rebirth of Bla-ma rDo-grub Rin-po-che, but are you an [[[incarnation]]] of Gung-thang?” And he stared into his face. Then Mi-pham said, “Well now, whoever you are, while you are in this physical form you must do as much as you can for the teaching and practice of the Ancient Translation School.”163 The story may well be apocryphal. However, the twofold identification— with both Gung-thang bsTan-pa’i sgron-me (a major dGe-lugs figure from A-mdo), and the second rDo-grub-chen, ’Jigs-med phun-tshogs-’byung-gnas (a rNying-ma-pa)—indicates genuine tension. It foreshadows later dilemmas, because ’Jigs-med

Thondup 1996: 243) as Thondup makes no mention of this story on that page or elsewhere. Even if ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma had limited direct contact with his father later in life, there is still the possibility of literary influence. bDud-’joms gling-pa was, after all, a prolific author and commentator on rDzogs-chen. It would be worthwhile comparing the writings of father and son on topics that they both address. For a translation of several rDzogs-chen commentaries by bDud-’joms gling-pa see Wallace 2015. 161 bDe-legs rab-rgyas 2002: 11. 162 Ibid.: 12. 163 AK vol. 4: 37: sngar ’jam mgon mi pham rin po che dang khong bla slob rnam gnyis zhal ’dzoms su bzhugs nas| khong la skye pra brtags pa na| bla ma gos ber ser po sdud nag dang mkhan zhwa ser po mnab pa zhig gi dbu’i steng mkhar gung dang khri’i ’og tu thang zhes pa’i yi ge ’dug ces pra rten pas zhus pa na| mi pham rin po ches| ’o kho bos khyod bla ma rdo grub rin po che’i skye ba yin chags byas kyang| khyod gung thang gi cig ma yin nam gsungs nas spyan ha re gang zhal la gzigs| yang| da su yin kyang da lta’i rten ’dir snga ’gyur ba’i bstan pa la bshad sgrub kyi bya ba ci tsam byed ces pa la| (Nyi ma’i dkyil ’khor is a lengthy commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra. I am grateful to Tulku Thondup for calling this passage to my attention via email, January 2007.)

bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma was caught between opposing dGe-lugs and rNying-ma teachers in his youth and went on to experience something of a ‘mid-life crisis’ of allegiance. ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma was enthroned at rDo-grub-chen monastery in Yar-lung Padma-bkod in the iron-horse year (1870).164 Shortly after his enthronement, in the water-monkey year (1872), he travelled to rDzogs-chen Monastery,165 where he began his studies with mKhan-po Padma badzra. The biographies report that he initially faced difficulty. According to bSod-nams nyi-ma, he did not understand what Padma badzra taught.166 He soon overcame this. Only a year later, he delivered the annual winter lecture on the Bodhicaryāvatāra at rDza-rgyal.167 At the conclusion of the teaching, dPal-sprul declared that for ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i nyi-ma to have given the lecture at such a young age was proof that the doctrine of transmission (lung gi bstan pa/lung gi chos) was still alive and well.168 In the following years, ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma studied with a number of teachers, including dPal-sprul, the Fourth rDzogs-chen incarnation Mi-’gyur nam-mkha’i-rdo-rje, rGya-rong nam-sprul Kun-bzang theg-mchog rdo-rje,169 mKhyen-brtse’i-dbang-po, Kong-sprul blo-gros mtha’-yas, gTer-ston bSod-rgyal and Mi-pham.170 In addition, he received instruction from ’Ja’-pa mDo-sngags on the ‘five

164 bSod-nams nyi-ma 2002: 70. Thondup 1996: 238 says 1810, clearly a typographical error for 1870. A-bu dkar-lo says that rDo-grub-chen was enthroned in his sixth year. Thereafter, he generally spent his summers in the older monastery at Yar-lung and his winters at the newer monastery in rTsang-chen. 165 bSod-nams nyi-ma 2002: 71. 166 bSod-nams nyi-ma 2002: 71–72. The biography (ibid, 71) specifies that ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma’s difficulties arose when he received instructions on the preliminary text Dran pa nyer bzhag and was tested on his understanding. 167 bSod-nams nyi-ma 2002: 72–73. The text says this was during the subject’s ninth year. rDza-rgyal in rDza-chu-kha was the seat of ’Jigs-med rgyal-ba’i myu-gu (1765–1842), who was dPal-sprul’s teacher, and his successors. 168 bSod-nams nyi-ma 2002: 73 & bDe legs rab rgyas 2002: 13: da dung lung gi bstan pa’i gnas tshad rdzogs ran mi ’dug| In the same statement dPal-sprul refers to the death of Nyag-bla Padma bdud-’dul, who supposedly attained the rainbow body (’ja’ lus) in 1872, as evidence of the persistence of the doctrine of realization (rtogs pa’i bstan pa/rtogs pa’i chos). 169 This figure’s dates are unknown. 170 Ibid. Most biographies (Anon 1976: 10, Nyoshul Khenpo 2005: 325, bsTan ’dzin lung rtogs nyi ma 2004: 625, Tulku Thondup 1996: 239) also mention Zhe-chen dbon-sprul ’Gyur-med mthu-stobs

major scriptures’ (bka’ pod lnga) according to the dGe-lugs tradition and the debate manuals (yig cha) of ’Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa.171 Through this education ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma developed a reputation for great erudition. According to the autobiography of mKhan-po Ngag-dbang dpal-bzang, Mi-pham once praised ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma and gTer-ston bSod-rgyal as the two most learned rNying-ma scholars after sMyo-shul Lung-rtogs (1829– 1901).172 The context suggests that Mi-pham made this statement in or around 1902.

The praise came during a period (lasting approximately from 1900 to 1905) when ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma was contemplating his sectarian allegiance. Earlier, at the age of twenty-two,173 he spent some time with Mi-pham at rDzong-gsar Monastery.174 At the end of the stay, as ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma took his leave, Mi-pham offered him a scroll (shog dril) from his pocket. Later, when ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma read it, he found that it contained thirty-seven verses.175 The rnam-rgyal as one of his teachers, but this does not seem plausible, as the biography of Zhe-chen dbon-sprul states that he died in 1854, more than ten years before ’Jigs-med bstan-pa’i-nyi-ma was born. See Zhe chen dbon sprul ’gyur med mthu stobs rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar: 246. bDe legs rab rgyas 2003 is the only biography I have consulted which does not mention Zhe-chen dbon-sprul as a