Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan&#39;s Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I): The History of its Foundation

Volker Caumanns

Red mda’ ba gZhon nu blo gros (1348-1412) played a pivotal role in the history of Tibetan Buddhists' engagement with Indian Madhyamaka, especially with regard to Candrakirti's interpretation of Nagarjuna. The lasting impact of this historical figure on the shape of Buddhist philosophy in Tibet - and particularly that of Madhyamaka - has been highly underestimated to date. Red mda' ba was an important teacher of scholastic Buddhist philosophy to the three main founders of Tibetan dGe lugs tradition. On the basis of this biography, Red mda’ ba’s contribution to the spiritual culture of Buddhism at his time can now be analyzed. It elucidates his influence in upgrading philosophical studies and dialectics, and expanding scholastic education in the monasteries, as well as his contribution to Tsong kha pa’s foundation of the dGe lugs pa school, the lineage to which the Dalai Lamas belong. This work therefore aims to present the first detailed exposition of this crucial figure of Tibetan culture. The thesis presents a critical edition and English translation of the biography of Red mda’ ba.

This history of Tibetan Studies derived from the text I wrote for the lectures I gave twice during my time of teaching in Hamburg, the second time in 2001. I decided to make the text available to interested colleagues as a “draft” on Academia.edu. D. Jackson, So it needs a lot to be brought up to date. The contents include: A. Main Sources for a History of Tibetan Studies B. A Historical Sketch Part 1: Early Missionary Activities (1624 to mid-19th Century) Part 2: Pioneers of Tibetology: Csoma de Körös and His 19th-Century Successors (from the 1830s until about 1904) Part 3 (3) Early Tibetology in Countries Outside the UK: 1. Early Tibetology in Russia 1. B. Early French Tibetology 1.C. Early German Tibetology 1. D. Early Tibetology of British India—the Pundit-Explorers 1. E. Early Japanese Tibetology 1. F. Early American Tibetology Part 4: The Period of More Direct British (and Government of India) Involvement (1904‒1959): Beginning with the Younghusband Expedition (1904) 1. Central Asian Discoveries: the Dunhuang Documents 2. Tibetology in India 3. Later Tibetology in the Soviet Union and Russia 4. Tibetology in Italy 5. Tibetology in France 6. Tibetology in Great Britain 7. Tibetology in Germany 8. Tibetology in Austria 9. Tibetology in Holland 10. Tibetology in Poland 11. Tibetology in Czechoslovakia 12. Tibetology in Hungary 13. Tibetology in Scandinavia 14. Tibetology in North America 15. Tibetology in Japan 16. Tibetology in China 17. Tibetology in Modern Tibet

Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer (Hrsg.) NEPALICA-TIBETICA FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS BAND 1 2013 IITBS International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer (Hrsg.) NEPALICA-TIBETICA FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS BAND 1 BEITRÄGE ZUR ZENTRALASIENFORSCHUNG begründet von R. O. Meisezahl † und Dieter Schuh herausgegeben von Peter Schwieger Band 28, 1 NEPALICA-TIBETICA FESTGABE FOR CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS BAND 1 Herausgegeben von Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer 2013 IITBS International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH Abbildung Umschlag Band 1: Rolf A. Kluenter © ALI-Ranjana, 1998 Blackened, handmade Nepalese paper Pigment, binder 120x120 cm Verso dated and signed by the artist ISBN 978-3-03809-119-6 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus fotomechanisch oder auf andere Weise zu vervielfältigen. © (IITBS) International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast Courtesy of Cristina Scherrer-Schaub PREFACE A person’s 65th birthday is often considered as the occasion to reflect on his or her life and achievements and to express one’s thanks. This opportunity has arisen this year in the case of our friend and travelling companion Christoph Cüppers, who has dedicated his life to Tibetan and Nepalese Studies and assisted and supported many academic projects and careers in these fields. Christoph was born into a family of lawyers from the Rhineland. His academic background is unusual as he began by studying art from 1970 to 1975 at the “Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsseldorf”. He trained under artists such as Joseph Beuys and Gotthard Graubner. It was during that time that he first travelled to Asia and, on reaching Southern India, encountered Tibetan culture and its exile communities. On his return to Germany the decision was made: he changed to Oriental Studies and started to learn Tibetan, Sanskrit, Pali and Chinese at the University of Hamburg. At an Institute where the study of Tibet and its Buddhist traditions had attracted a small band of fellow students, his teachers were, to name a few, dGe-bshes dGe-’dun blo-gros, Lambert Schmithausen and Albrecht Wezler. Fascinated by Asia he returned frequently to Southern India and Himachal Pradesh. A scholarship of the “Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes” enabled him to continue his practice on the spot: at Sera Monastery in Bylakuppe he studied Tibetan language and philosophy. With the death in 1979 of his teacher dGe-bshes dGe-’dun blo-gros, who had been a formative influence on his students, it was planned to fill the recently established chair in Tibetan Studies at the University of Hamburg with a native scholar. It was Christoph who facilitated the stay of dGe-bshes Tshul-khrims phun-tshogs at the Institute, helped in practical matters and acted as translator. Soon afterwards, in 1983, Christoph finished his dissertation, a textual study of the ninth chapter of the Samādhirājasūtra. Immediately after taking his degree he was offered by Albrecht Wezler the position of Deputy Director of the Nepal-German Manuscript Project (NGMPP) and Nepal Research Centre (NRC) in Kathmandu. On his first arrival he fell in love with the country, and his feelings towards Nepal have remained constant for the last thirty years. During his time at the NGMPP and NRC, of which he later became Director, he worked in close cooperation with the National Archives and the Department of Archaeology, collecting Tibetan manuscripts and block prints in the Kathmandu valley, and conducting expeditions to photograph manuscripts in regions of the Nepalese Himalayas such as Helambu, Southern Mustang, Jumla and Solu Khumbu. Besides his duties as Director, he supported many individual scholars in their research and assisted larger projects sponsored by the German Research Council such as the Nepal Research Programme under Bernhard Kölver. These activities continued even after his term had finished and after the establishment under Willibald Haffner and Dieter Schuh of a new programme of the German Research Council called Tibet Himalaya. In 1989 Christoph returned together with his wife Savitri and their son Bikas to his hometown of Düsseldorf in order to work on a project at the University of Bonn. His interests had changed to politics and history: the new project was concerned with state formation in 17th-century Tibet and was based on a critical edition and annotated translation of the “Guidelines for Government officials” written by the regent Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho. During this time he also worked on the edition and translation of a manuscript containing a Tibetan-Newari Lexicon and on a compilation of Tibetan proverbs and sayings. He also undertook a longer field trip in 1992 to Dharmsala, where he studied and collected Tibetan documents, and in 1994 he assisted the Austrian-Italian research team in Tabo in the region of Spiti. viii Preface In 1995, with the establishment by the Reiyukai of the Lumbini International Research Institute (LIRI) at Buddha’s birthplace, Christoph and Savitri returned to Nepal. Their home in Sano Thimi has served since then—like the LIRI—as a centre for scholarly exchange and personal encounters between foreign researchers and native scholars. As Director, Christoph has initiated several series of publications with a growing number of titles; they are for the most part results of research projects in the fields of Buddhist, Tibetan and Nepalese Studies, supported by the LIRI and conducted on the spot. Successful seminars have also been held in Lumbini, the first of these in the year 2000 on the subject of the “Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet.” Although the administrative duties are heavy, Christoph continues to travel and to cooperate with researchers, working, for example, with the International Tibetan Archives Preservation Trust (ITAPT) and the Tibetan Autonomous Regional Archives (TARA) in Lhasa, and finds the time to continue his research work. It is therefore a great pleasure to present to Christoph this Festgabe with contributions from friends and colleagues covering the fields of his interest and documenting his influence and inspiration. We would like to thank Dieter Schuh und Nikolai Solmsdorf, who were of great help in producing this volume and bringing the individual articles into a coherent format. Special thanks go to all the authors for delivering their articles in time and making this collection a true offering. Munich, September 2013 Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer TABULA GRATULATORIA JOHN ARDUSSI JÖRG HEIMBEL ALEXANDER VON ROSPATT EBERHARD BERG AMY HELLER ROLAND BIELMEIER NATHAN HILL CRISTINA SCHERRERSCHAUB HORST BRINKHAUS TONI HUBER LAMBERT SCHMITHAUSEN KATIA BUFFETRILLE ROLF A. KLUENTER DIETER SCHUH GUDRUN BÜHNEMANN ANDREAS KRETSCHMAR MARTA SERNESI VOLKER CAUMANNS DAVID P. JACKSON PETER SCHWIEGER MICHELA CLEMENTE MATHEW KAPSTEIN DAVID SEYFORT RUEGG OLAF CZAJA LEONARD VAN DER KUIJP WEIRONG SHEN HUBERT DECLEER CHRISTIAN LUCZANITZ PETER SKILLING HILDEGARD DIEMBERGER KAMAL PRAKASH MALLA PER K. SØRENSEN BRANDON DOTSON DAN MARTIN ERNST STEINKELLNER FRANZ-KARL EHRHARD KLAUS-DIETER MATHES KIMIAKI TANAKA HELMUT EIMER PETRA MAURER TASHI Y. TASHIGANGPA FELIX ERB ADELHEID METTE MANFRED TREU FRANZ XAVER ERHARD AXEL MICHAELS HELGA UEBACH MARTIN GAENSZLE MICHAEL PAHLKE ROBERTO VITALI REINHARD GREVE ULRICH PAGEL MICHAEL WALTER NIELS GUTSCHOW FRANCOISE POMMARET ALBRECHT WEZLER MICHAEL HAHN KARIN PREISENDANZ MICHAEL WITZEL PAUL HARRISON BURKHARD QUESSEL ALEXANDER WUNDER JENS-UWE HARTMANN CHARLES RAMBLE KODO YOTSUYA CONTENTS Volume One Publication List of Christoph Cüppers EBERHARD BERG On the Current Revitalization of the rNying ma Tradition among the Sherpas of Nepal xiii 1 ROLAND BIELMEIER Das Land Marutse in den Biographien des Padmasambhava 27 KATIA BUFFETRILLE The rTsib ri Pilgrimage: Merit as Collective Duty? 37 VOLKER CAUMANNS Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I): The History of its Foundation 65 OLAF CZAJA Tibetan Medicinal Plants and Their Healing Potentials 89 HILDEGARD DIEMBERGER & MICHELA CLEMENTE Royal Kinship, Patronage and the Introduction of Printing in Gung thang: From Chos kyi sgron ma to lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal 119 FRANZ-KARL EHRHARD The Royal Print of the Maṇi bka' 'bum: Its Catalogue and Colophon 143 KARL-HEINZ EVERDING Introduction to a Research Project on Documents Issued During the Period of the Great Mongolian Empire to Tibetan Recipients 173 JÖRG HEIMBEL The Jo gdan tshogs sde bzhi: An Investigation into the History of the Four Monastic Communities in Śākyaśrībhadra’s Vinaya Tradition 187 AMY HELLER A Sculpture of Avalokiteśvara Donated by the Ruler of Ya tse (Ya rtse mnga’ bdag) 243 NATHAN W. HILL The Emergence of the Pluralis majestatis and the Relative Chronology of Old Tibetan Texts 249 TONI HUBER The Iconography of gShen Priests in the Ethnographic Context of the Extended Eastern Himalayas, and Reflections on the Development of Bon Religion 263 DAVID P. JACKSON Several Episodes in the Recent History of Lumbini 295 xii Contents MATTHEW T. KAPSTEIN A Fragment from a Previously Unknown Edition of the Pramāṇavārttika Commentary of Rgyal-tshab-rje Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432) 315 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415-86) on the Nyi ma'i rabs (*Sūryavaṃśa) and the Tibetan Royal Families 325 PUBLICATION LIST OF CHRISTOPH CÜPPERS Monographs 1. The IXth Chapter of the Samādhirājasūtra: A Text-critical Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras (= Altund Neu-Indische Studien, 41). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. 2. (together with K. Tamot und P. Pierce) A Tibetan-Newari Lexicon Cum Phrase Book (= Nepalica, 10). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1996. 3. (together with P.K. Sørensen) Collection of Tibetan Proverbs and Sayings: Gems of Tibetan Wisdom and Wit (= Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies, 7). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998. 4. Die Verordnungen für das Abrechnungswesen tibetischer Amtsstellen der dGa’ ldan pho brang-Regierung. Faksimile-Edition und Transliteration der Hs. Cod. Tibet 24 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica).Andrast: International Instiute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press a). 5. Staatsdienst in Tibet: Die Richtlinien für die Beamten der dGa’ ldan pho brang-Regierung nach dem Text Blang dor gsal bar ston pa’i drang thig dvangs shel gyi me long nyer gcig pa des Regenten Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press b). 6. Materialien zur Erforschung des traditionellen tibetischen Rechts. Faksimile und Transliteration der HS. Bell 50.31.113 b: The Tibetan Codes of Law (= Monumenta Tibetica Historica). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (in press c). Articles 1. “On the Manufacture of Ink.” Ancient Nepal. Journal of the Department of Archaeology, 113, 1989, pp. 1-7. 2. “Some Remarks on a Tibetan-Newari Lexicon cum Phrase-Book.” In S. Ihara & Z. Yamaguchi (eds.), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Narita 1989, Vol. 1 (= Monograph Series of Narita Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, 1). Narita: Narita Shinshoji, 1992, pp. 413-419. 3. “Zhabs-dkar bla-ma tshogs-drug rang-grol’s visits to Nepal and his Contribution to the Decoration of the Bodhnāth Stūpa.” In G. Toffin (ed.), Nepal. Past and Present: Proceedings of the Franco-German Conference, Arc-et-Senans, June 1990. Paris: CNRS / Dehli: Sterling, 1993, pp. 151-158. 4. “Short Remarks on the Caves of Tabo in Spiti.” Ancient Nepal. Journal of the Department of Archaeology, 138, 1995, pp. 131-134. 5. “A Ban on Animal Slaughter at Buddhist Shrines in Nepal.” In S. Karmay and P. Sagant (eds.), Les Habitants du toit du Monde. Études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald (= Recherches sur la Haute-Asie, 12). Nanterre: Société d’Ethnologie, 1997, pp. 677-687. xiv Publication List of Christoph Cüppers 6. “Some Aspects of Tibetan Administration under the dGa’-ldan pho-brang Government.” H. Krasser, M.T. Much, E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (eds.), Tibetan Studies I: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Asociatin for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, Vol. 1 (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse Denkschriften 256 / Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 21). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997, pp. 189-193. 7. “The ’Phags-pa Script.” In A. Kretschmar (ed.), The Fifth Seal: Calligraphic Icons / Kalligraphikons. Paintings by Rolf A. Kluenther. Kathmandu 1998, pp. 49-50. 8. “Eine Merkliste mit den Aufgaben der Distriktbeauftragten (rdzong dpon) aus dem 17. Jahrhundert.” In H. Eimer, M. Hahn, M. Schetelich & P. Wyzlic (eds.), Studia Tibetica et Mongolica: Festschrift für Manfred Taube (= Indica et Tibetica, 34). Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 1999, pp. 51-70. 9. “A Letter Written by the Fifth Dalai Lama to the King of Bhaktapur.” Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, 12, 2001, pp. 39-42. 10. “Some Remarks on the Tibetan Language used in Former Government Decrees.” In Srong btsan spyi’i tshogs ’dus thengs dang po / bod kyi brda sprod skad yig gi skor. Dehradun: Songtsen Library, 2003, pp. 222-229. 11. “Ein Glossar zur Terminologie der tibetischen Urkundensprache.” Zentralasiatische Studien, 33, 2004, pp. 25-98. 12. “Newar Craftsmen Employed by the Early dGa’-ldan pho-brang Rulers.” In C. Jest, T.R. Kansakar and M. Turin (eds.), Kesar Lall: a Homage on the Occasion of his Buraa Kanko. Kathmandu: Marina Paper, 2004, pp. 30-33. 13. “Brag-dkar-ba Chos-kyi dbang-phyug’s reminder notes for the duties of a dkon-gnyer.” In S. Hino and T. Wada (eds.), Three Mountains and Seven Rivers: Prof. Musashi Tachikawa’s felicitation volume. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004, pp. 601-606. 14. “The classification of people: romanized text edition and English translation of the sKyes bu rnam ’byed bshad pa gzhon nu’i mgul rgyan attributed to Sa-skya Paṇḍita Kun-dga’ rgyal-mtshan.” Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 7, 2004, pp. 107-160. 15. (together with Dieter Schuh, Roland Bielmeier und Burghart Schmidt) “Forschungsbericht über die Exploration der Höhlen des Muktinath-Tales (1986-1987).” Zentralasiatische Studien, 35, 2006, pp. 107-172. 16. “bsTan ’dzin Chos rgyal’s Bhutan Legal Code of 1729 in Comparison with sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho’s Guidelines for Government Officials.” In J.A. Ardussi and F. Pommaret (eds.), Bhutan: Tradition and Changes (= Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, 10/5). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007, 45-52. 17. “Registers and Account Books of the dGa’-ldan pho-brang Government.” In R. Prats (ed.), The Pandita and the Siddha: Tibetan Studies in Honour of E. Gene Smith. Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 2007, pp. 12-15. 18. “Die Reise- und Zeltlagerordnung des Fünften Dalai Lama.” In B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, W.T. Much and H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇkīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Part 1 (= Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie Publication List of Christoph Cüppers xv und Buddhismuskunde, 70.1). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien der Universität Wien, 2007, pp. 37-51. 19. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard) “Die Kupferplatten der Könige Ādityamalla und Puṇyamalla von Ya-tshe.” In P. Maurer und P. Schwieger (eds.), Tibetstudien: Festschrift für Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag. Bonn: Bier’sche Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 37-42. 20. “Some Remarks on the Entries and Quotations Taken from the rtsis gzhi phyogs bsgrigs (Rtsii) in S.C. Das’ Tibetan-English Dictionary.” In B. Huber, M. Volkart and P. Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Vol. 1: Chomolangma(= Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung, 12.1). Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2008, pp. 15-28. 21. “Some Remarks on Bka’ ’gyur Production in 17th-Century Tibet.” In A. Chayet, C. Scherrer-Schaub, F. Robin & J.-L. Achard (eds.), Edition, éditions: l’écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir (= Collectanea Himalayica, 3). München: Indus Verlag, 2010, pp. 115128. 22. “Ein Erlaß des Königs Gushri Khan aus dem Jahr 1643.” Zentralasiatische Studien, 40, 2011, pp. 165-177. 23. “Gtsang khrims yig chen mo — A Tibetan legal code kept in the National Archives of Nepal.” Abhilekh, 30, V.S. 2069 (2013), pp. 87-106. Edited Volumes 1. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Philip Pierce) Views of the Bodhnath Stupa (= Bauddha Books, 1). Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 1991. 2. (together with Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Ulrike Roesler) Ulrike & Hans-Ulrich Roesler: Kadampa Sites of Phenpo: A Guide to some early Buddhist Monasteries in Central Tibet (= Bauddha Books, 2). Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 2004. 3. The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibe: Proceedings of a Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000 (= LIRI Seminar Proceedings Series, 1). Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004. 4. (together with Max Deeg and Hubert Durt) The Birth of the Buddha: Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, October 2004 (= LIRI Seminar Proceeding Series, 3). Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2010. 5. (together with Leonard van der Kuijp, Ulrich Pagel. With a Chinese Introduction by Dobis Tsering Gyal) Handbook of Tibetan Iconometry. A Guide to the Arts of the 17th Century (= Tibetan Studies Library, 16:4). Leiden / Boston, 2012. Reviews 1. Tachikawa, Musashi & Yasuhiko Nagano: A Catalogue of te United Staes Library of Congress Collection of Tibetan Literature on Microfiche. Part II (= Bibliographica Buddhica, Series Maior, 3 b). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1988. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 142, 1992, pp. 208-210. xvi Publication List of Christoph Cüppers 2. Ehrhard, Franz-Karl: “Flügelschläge des Garuḍa.” Literar- und ideengeschichtliche Bemerkungen zu einer Liedersammlung des rDzogs-chen (= Tibetan- and Indo-Tibetan Studies, 3). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 450-452. 3. Eimer, Helmut: Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu-ston im Vergleich mit der Abteilung Tantra des tibetischen Kanjur (= Indica et Tibetica, 17). Bonn: Indica et Tibetica, 1989. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 201-202. 4. Harrison, Paul: The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present (= Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, 9). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 145, 1995, pp. 199-201. Lexicographical Contributions 1. “Religionen des Himalaya.” In Bertelsmann Handbuch Religionen der Welt: Grundlagen, Entwicklung und Bedeutung in der Gegenwart. Gütersloh / München: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag GmbH, 1992, pp. 419-421. 2. http://www.tibet-encyclopaedia.de/kompensationsrecht.html 3. http://www.tibet-encyclopedia.de/gesetzbuecher.html 4. http://www.tibet-encyclopedia.de/regierungsverordnung.html CONTENTS Volume Two CHRISTIAN LUCZANITS The Buddha Beyond: Figuration in Gandharan Cult Imagery 1 DAN MARTIN Pavements Like the Sea and the Name of the Jokhang: King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba in Lhasa? 23 KLAUS-DIETER MATHES Clouds of Offerings to Lady g.Yang ri—A Protector Practice by the First Yol mo sprul sku Shākya bzang po (15th/16th Cent.) 37 PETRA MAURER Pferderennen und ihre Bedeutung in Tibet 57 CHARLES RAMBLE Both Fish and Fowl? Preliminary Reflections on Some Representations of a Tibetan Mirror-World 75 ALEXANDER VON ROSPATT Altering the Immutable: Textual Evidence in Support of an Architectural History of the Svayambhū Caitya of Kathmandu 91 CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB A Frontier Tale: Fragmented Historical Notes on Spiti Monasteries Documents Kept in the Museum of Lahore. Part I. 117 DIETER SCHUH Tibetischen Inschriften ins Maul geschaut: Beobachtungen zu Stein- und Felsinschriften sowie den Schriften des 7. bis 9. Jahrhunderts in Tibet 143 PETER SCHWIEGER A Forbidden Nepalese-Tibetan Love Affair 185 MARTA SERNESI Rare Prints of bKa’ brgyud Texts: A Preliminary Report 191 WEIRONG SHEN Revitalizing Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Studies: Some Old and New Thoughts 211 PETER SKILLING The Samādhirāja-Sūtra and its Mahāsāṃghika Connections 227 PER K. SØRENSEN & FRANZ XAVER ERHARD Tibetan Proverbial Literature: Semantics and Metaphoricity in Context 237 MANFRED G. TREU Lakṣmīprasāda Devakoṭās Essay "Auf der Sitzmatte" 253 vi Contents HELGA UEBACH The lHo-brag Cliff Inscription: An Attempt to Read it with the Help of Katia Buffetrille’s Photographs of 1988 261 ROBERTO VITALI From Sum ru to the Great Central Asian “Sea of Sand”: Hints on the Role of the mThong khyab in the State Organisation of Dynastic Tibet 269 MICHAEL WALTER ‘All that Glitters Is Gold’: The Place of the Yellow Metal in the Brahmanic, Scythian, and Early Buddhist Traditions 283 ZUHIŌ YAMAGUCHI The Connection Between Tu-fan (吐蕃) in the First Half of the Seventh Century and Nepal 299 KODO YOTSUYA dGe lugs pa Interpretation of Bhāvaviveka’s Critique of Buddhapālita’s Argumentation of Non-Origination from Self 323 PAṆ CHEN SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN’S MONASTIC SEAT THUB BSTAN GSER MDOG CAN (PART I): THE HISTORY OF ITS FOUNDATION1 Volker Caumanns Modern research has acknowledged that Shākya mchog ldan (1428-1507) was one of the most significant and in some ways unique scholars of the Sa skya order of Tibetan Buddhism. Accordingly, since the rediscovery and the publication of his Collected Writings almost forty years ago, Tibetologists have paid most attention to his scholastic activities, especially in the fields of Madhyamaka and Pramāṇa.2 This dominant approach, which was usually based on the history of ideas, has informed us quite well about a number of important aspects of Shākya mchog ldan’s “philosophical project” and its place within the evolution of Buddhist scholasticism in 15th-century Tibet. Moreover, given that even Shākya mchog ldan himself emphasized the fundamental importance of the proper study of Pramāṇa and Prajñāpāramitā,3 it is not surprising that both his contemporaries and following generations of Tibetan masters perceived him mainly as a scholastic thinker.4 Against this background, it is telling to note that the traditional Buddhist biographies or hagiographies (rnam thar) that convey the story of Shākya mchog ldan’s life, while in no way denying his great scholastic achievements, paint a somewhat different picture by adding further shades to his personality. For example, how, if not as an ironic twist, are we supposed to interpret a recurrent phrase in the narrative of the biography written by Jo nang rJe btsun Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507-1566), in which Shākya mchog ldan styled himself on various occasions as a “dry scholastic” (mtshan nyid pa skam po) without any spiritual realization?5 Reading Kun dga’ grol 1 This is the first of two articles on gSer mdog can and its history; see also CAUMANNS (in preparation). I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to Christoph Cüppers who, quite unknowingly, contributed to the genesis of the present article in many ways. Without his exceptional knowledge of rare Tibetan vocabulary my reading of the sources and in particular of the dkar chags employed here would have gone totally astray at times. I am also deeply indebted to him for his generous support during my several ‘working retreats’ at the Lumbini International Research Institute (LIRI) which have always proven to be most fruitful. This small contribution is a modest attempt to repay parts of my karmic debts to him. Moreover, I would like to thank Franz-Karl Ehrhard for kindly reading several versions of this paper and for offering corrections and valuable suggestions. I am indebted to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for supporting my research on the life of Shākya mchog ldan at the University of Munich from 2010 to 2012 (ref. no. EH 102/4-1), which partly resulted in this paper. Last but not least, I am grateful to Ralf Kramer for improving my English and to David Jackson for giving a final polish to the language. 2 Recent studies dealing with Shākya mchog ldan’s Madhyamaka exegesis are TURENNE (2010) and KOMAROVSKI (2011). No attempt has been made so far to explore in a systematic way Shākya mchog ldan’s contributions in the field of Pramāṇa. See, however, VAN DER KUIJP (1983), JACKSON (1987) and DREYFUS (1997) as examples for monographs which used Shākya mchog ldan’s epistemological writings to a significant extent. For a survey of the reception of Shākya mchog ldan’s works by Western scholars, see CAUMANNS (2012), pp. 12-22. 3 See, for instance, SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Thub bstan gser mdog can, pp. 307.1-309.3, and rJe btsun byams pa, pp. 254.5-256.5, as translated in CAUMANNS (in preparation). 4 Note that the inclusion of Shākya mchog ldan as an expert in both sūtra and tantra in a traditional list of six Sa skya luminaries known as the “Six Ornaments that adorn the Land of Snows” (gangs can mdzes pa’i rgyan drug) seems to reflect a more recent development that is to be connected with his appreciation by the 19th-century ris med movement. For the evolution of this list which in its present form apparently goes back to ’Jam dbyangs mKhyen brtse’i dbang po (1820-1892), see HEIMBEL (2011), p. 47, n. 3. Although the ris med movement’s reevaluation of (at that time) marginalized figures such as Shākya mchog ldan is a matter that deserves more research, it seems that even a ris med master like ’Jam dbyangs Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813-1899) was primarily interested in Shākya mchog ldan’s scholastic Madhyamaka exegesis. 5 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 39a.7, 84a.2 and 92b.3. 66 Volker Caumanns mchog’s rendering of the biography as a whole, one cannot help thinking that one of his overall aims was to establish a counter image to the prevalent perception of Shākya mchog ldan as someone exclusively concerned with scholastic doctrinal or philosophical analysis. The narrative rather seems to imply that Shākya mchog ldan conforms to the Tibetan ideal of a mkhas grub, that is, a “scholar adept” equally proficient in scholastic exegesis and Tantric practice. Furthermore, as Kun dga’ grol mchog emphasizes, Shākya mchog ldan should be perceived as an eminent Vinaya master who strictly adhered to the code of monastic discipline.6 Although this portrayal of Shākya mchog ldan reveals in part the hagiographic strategies of Kun dga’ grol mchog, it does not depart far from how Shākya mchog ldan presents himself in several of his own writings.7 Taking this broader picture as a basis, the present paper will attempt to explore a number of aspects of Shākya mchog ldan’s career that have been insufficiently studied until now. Little attention has been paid in this respect to the monastic framework into which Shākya mchog ldan’s activities have to be placed. As is the case with many Tibetan masters, a recurring fact of Shākya mchog ldan’s life is simply that he was a teacher in the monastic seminaries of his time. Already at an early stage he acted as head of some of these schools, thus taking responsibility for the education of the monks but also for the continuity of the institutions as a whole.8 In view of his activities of that kind there, Shākya mchog ldan’s monastery Thub bstan gSer mdog can serves this paper as its focal point. While (re)constructing the history of this monastery, some of the different roles Shākya mchog ldan had to assume as its abbot (such as scholar, teacher, connoisseur and patron of religious art) will be considered. Since the Tibetan sources at hand— mainly the respective biographies composed by Shākya rgyal mtshan (15th/16th century) and Kun dga’ grol mchog, but also writings from the pen of Shākya mchog ldan himself—cover such topics only haphazardly and do not paint a balanced picture, they leave a number of issues including the economic foundations and the organizational structure of the monastery in the dark. I nonetheless hope that the present paper may contribute to a broader understanding of Shākya mchog ldan’s manifold activities in their respective frameworks, in particular, and to the historical study of Tibetan monastic institutions, in general. I have divided this paper into two main parts, of which the first outlines the history of gSer mdog can, focusing on the establishment of its different buildings and holy objects. As far as possible I will discuss the role of donors in erecting the monastic complex as well as the involvement of Tibetan and Newar artisans. The second main part of the paper will briefly survey Shākya mchog ldan’s activities as a teacher in gSer mdog can. Although in particular the biography written by Kun dga’ grol mchog dwells on episodes in which Shākya mchog ldan is portrayed as a skillful teacher of Sūtra, Tantra and Vinaya, I will only focus on those passages in the sources that give a general overview of Shākya mchog ldan’s teaching activity in gSer mdog can, leaving the more anecdotal material aside. Establishing the Monastic Seat: A Short History of gSer mdog can As Alfonsa Ferrari noted more than 50 years ago, Shākya mchog ldan’s monastic seat, Thub bstan gSer mdog can, originated from an earlier institution that had been founded by his revered 6 See the biographical episodes in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 9a.2, 52a.4-5, 58a.5-6, 59b.2-6 and 101b.1-4. 7 Shākya mchog ldan’s acquaintance with the “śrāvaka-vinaya” (nyan thos kyi ’dul ba) as well as the theory and practice of the Tantrayāna is attested by a large number of writings found in CW. 8 Shākya mchog ldan’s career as teacher and monastic official began at the age of 18 when in 1445 he became the assistant instructor (zur ’chad) of the gNas sgo college of gSang phu [s]Ne’u thog. Already one year later, he was appointed head teacher (slob dpon) of the college. In 1465, he was installed as chen po (that is, a high position in the monastic administration) of gSang phu. After coming to Zi lung (later renamed gSer mdog can) in 1471, he acted as abbot of this monastic institution until his death in 1507; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 16b.4-7, 18b.1-2, 47a.7-b.1 and 51b.5-7. Note that in the present paper, age specifications will be given in accordance with the traditional Tibetan system. To simplify matters, birth-and-death dates are quoted in line with the Tibetan calendar (converted into the corresponding Western year) regardless of the fact that the Tibetan year generally starts later than the Western one. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 67 teacher Don yod dpal (1398-1483) to the east of gZhis ka rtse, not far from the southern banks of the gTsang po River.9 Further eastwards, on the opposite side of the gTsang po and at the mouth of the Shangs River, the Shangs Valley opens up. When talking of the site where the monastery is located, Shākya mchog ldan consistently refers in the respective colophons of his Collected Writings to the toponym Pan Khyung tshang, the “Garuḍa nest [in] Pan.”10 In line with this, ’Jam dbyangs mKhyen brtse’i dbang po (1820-1892) tells us in his “description of pilgrimage places” (gnas yig) that the surrounding area of gSer mdog can is called sPan thag ma which, according to a later pilgrimage account by Kaḥ thog Si tu Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1880-1923), seems to be the name of a valley.11 Shākya mchog ldan’s biographers Shākya rgyal mtshan and Kun dga’ grol mchog record that the patch of land where Don yod dpal had founded gSer mdog can’s predecessor institution bore the name Zi lung and so, in the early days, did the monastic school itself.12 As is evident from some of our sources translated below, Zi lung, and later on gSer mdog can, fell within the powers of the so-called “nang pa [of] rGya gan” (rgya gan nang pa), i.e. the local ruler, with rGya gan being the name of a district of unknown geographical extent. In a number of his writings, Shākya mchog ldan focuses on the circumstances that led to the founding of Zi lung. As stated in the monastic constitution (bca’ yig) of gSer mdog can, Don yod dpal established the monastic school after Nor bu bzang po (1403-1466), who was then head of the powerful noble family of Rin spungs, had invited him to bSam grub rtse in the male watermonkey year (1452).13 A similar but somewhat more detailed account is given by a text composed in connection with a teaching festival hosted in gSer mdog can in 1495. According to it, Don yod dpal initiated a “scriptural seminary” (bshad grwa)—which Shākya mchog ldan characterises as one of the “offshoots” or “outgrowths” (’phros) of Nālendra, i.e. the monastic seat established by Rong ston (1367-1449)—in Paṇ Khyung tshang in the above-mentioned monkey year. It is noted that the “necessary arrangements or funds” (’thun [=mthun] rkyen) for the “initial founding” (thog mar ’dzug pa) and for the “further persisting” (bar du chags pa) were provided by Nor bu bzang po and his son(s).14 Yet in the “register-cum-history” (dkar chag lo rgyus dang bcas pa) of the 9 FERRARI (1958), pp. 70 and 162, n. 626. Don yod dpal was together with Rong ston Shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449), Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1382-1456) and sPyang lung pa gZhon nu blo gros (13721475) one of Shākya mchog ldan’s main teachers. The principal Tibetan source dealing with Don yod dpal’s life is SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun dam pa. For a biographical sketch in a Western language, see CAUMANNS (2012), pp. 411-415. 10 See, for instance, CW, vol. 8, p. 320.2, and vol. 15, p. 692.6: pan khyung tshang gser mdog can and pan khyung tshang shar thub bstan gser mdog can respectively. Note that the spellings pan, paṇ as well as span alternate in the Tibetan sources. 11 MKHYEN BRTSE’I DBANG PO, dBus gtsang, p. 180.1-2. In CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, dBus gtsang, p. 350, we come across the toponym pan gyi thag gi lung phu, “the upper Thag valley of Pan.” 12 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 52a.1. Note, however, that in SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 35a.5, 41a.3 and 41b.3, two times out of three the toponym is written as Ze lung which might be a scribal error. 13 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Thub bstan gser mdog can, p. 307.1-2. For a short biographical sketch of Nor bu bzang po, see CZAJA (forthcoming), pp. 483-484, according to which Nor bu bzang po “brought his aristocratic family into the centre of the political scene of Tibet by outmaneuvering his own overlords, the Phag mo gru pa.” Apart from Don yod dpal’s monastic school, Nor bu bzang po acted as patron for the establishment of large monasteries such as Byams chen chos sde and sKyed mo tshal in rDzong dkar. Cf. SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Chos kyi ’khor lo, p. 471.4-6, where it is stated that Nor bu bzang po and his son(s) provided the financial means for the founding of three “scriptural seminaries” (bshad grwa) located in ’Bras yul, Paṇ Khyung tshang and rTa nag gSer gling respectively. 14 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Chos kyi ’khor lo, p. 471.2-6. Nor bu bzang po was the father of mTsho skyes rdo rje (1450-1510/13) and Hor Shākya rgyal mtshan (1456-1488) of which the latter acted as one of the Rin spungs patrons of Shākya mchog ldan in later times. Since both sons as well as their half-brothers Upasika (b. 1444), Kun tu bzang po (b. 1445) and Don grub rdo rje (b. 1447) were quite young at the time of Zi lung’s establishment, the expression sa skyong nor bu bzang po yab sras in Chos kyi ’khor lo, p. 471.6, seems to be a stock phrase. For the noble house of Rin spungs and its family members, see CZAJA (forthcoming), pp. 481-493. 68 Volker Caumanns Maitreya statue and in the biography of Don yod dpal, Shākya mchog ldan tells a more complex and slightly diverging story: Initially, possessing a few scholastic traditions of learning from gSang phu [s]Ne’u thog, rJe Amogha was staying in the monastery of [Ngor] E waṃ chos ldan. At that time, Byams chen Chos rje15 and the ruler Nor bu bzang po, preceptor and patron, discussed with each other and in the male water-monkey year (1452) [they] invited [rJe Amogha] to assume the rank of teacher of the monastery of Brag dmar.16 When [rJe Amogha] went to Khyung tshang in Paṇ between teaching terms, the local people revered him. In particular, the nang pa of rGya gan offered [him] the site [called] Zi lung as well as financial support. [rJe Amogha] took up residence [there] and thus gradually established a scriptural seminary.17 Largely following that account, Shākya mchog ldan specifies the exact year in which his teacher was called to Zi lung in his biography of Don yod dpal, stating that “in the tiger year (1458), [after] seven years had passed [since rJe Amogha’s appointment as teacher in Brag dmar], the nang pa of rGya gan invited [him] to Zi lung [and] offered [him] a cave and arable land until [his] good health returned.”18 By the late 1460s, approximately ten years after the monastery’s initial founding, Don yod dpal was about age 70 and apparently considered appointing his chief disciple, Shākya mchog ldan, as his successor in Zi lung.19 Kun dga’ grol mchog reports that around that time, Shākya mchog ldan—after having acted as “main teacher” (slob dpon) of the gNas sgo college of gSang phu [s]Ne’u thog for more than 20 years—had turned his back on gSang phu since he had become increasingly disenchanted with how the scholastic traditions were practiced there.20 When the Zi lung monks urged Shākya mchog ldan to comply with Don yod dpal’s request to take over the “college” (grwa tshang) in gTsang, he accepted “temporarily” (re zhig) and thought of coming to Zi lung “for (or: in?) several years” (lo shas cig).21 By then, Chu mig bDag chen Blo gros dbang phyug (1402-1481), the last male scion of the gZhi thog Bla brang of Sa skya, had also insisted that his student Shākya mchog ldan should head the monastic school of Don yod dpal which he characterizes as a “scriptural seminary preserving the extraordinary oral tradition of g.Yag [phrug (1350-1414) and] Rong [ston].” To lend weight to his call, the bDag chen made Shākya mchog ldan his adoptive son and promised to “add this 15 This is Byams chen Rab ’byams pa Sangs rgyas ’phel (1412-1485) who had founded the monastery ’Bras yul sKyed tshal some years before with the support of Nor bu bzang po. According to SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun dam pa, p. 59.5-6, and KUN DGA’ CHOS BZANG, Kun mkhyen, pp. 88.6-89.2, Sangs rgyas ’phel was an early disciple of Don yod dpal. 16 It is interesting to note that some years before, in 1447, dGe ’dun grub (1391-1474) had founded his monastic seat bKra shis lhun po at the site of the above mentioned Brag dmar chos sde. The Rin spungs ruler Nor bu bzang po did not obstruct the building of the new monastery, but obviously he was not a supporter of dGe ’dun grub’s project; see SHEN WEIRONG (2002), p. 213, n. 305. 17 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 253.4-7: thog mar rje a mo gha nyid gsang phu ne’u thog gi ’chad nyan gyi rgyun nyung shas dag dang bcas te| e waṃ chos ldan gyi dgon par bzhugs pa’i tshe| byams chen chos kyi rje dang| sa skyong nor bu bzang po yon mchod kyi [=kyis] bka’ bgro bas| chu pho spre’u’i lo la brag dmar gyi chos sder ’chad nyan pa’i go sar spyan drangs| paṇ gyi khyung tshang du chos bar la phebs pa na| yul pa rnams kyi [=kyis] dad mos dang| khyad par rgya gan nang pas zi lung gi gnas dang mthun rkyen phul| star chags su gdan chags pa la brten nas bshad pa’i grwa tshugs pa yin no. Note that out of reverence, Shākya mchog ldan refers to his teacher Don yod dpal bzang po with the Sanskritized name Amogha or, in full, Amoghaśrībhadra. 18 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun dam pa, p. 56.6: lo bdun lon pa stag gi lo la| rgya gan nang pas zi lung du spyan drangs| sa phug dang sa zhing sku khams nam bzang gi bar du phul. 19 This is evident from SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 33a.3-5 and 35a.4-5, as well as KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 40a.5. Note that in DBANG PHYUG GRUB, Kun mkhyen, p. 27, it is claimed that already in a pig year (i.e. 1467) Don yod dpal had asked Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429-1489) to become the “owner” (bdag po) of Zi lung, however to no avail. 20 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 48a.5-b.1. Cf. SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 32b.3-5. 21 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 33a.3-b.3, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 50a.7-b.1. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 69 estate [of] Chu mig to the monastic estates [of Zi lung].” Shākya mchog ldan, who through all of this evidently hesitated taking over responsibility for the institution, had to give in since this was, as he is reported to have said, “an order hard to refuse.”22 Finally, after Don yod dpal and the nang pa of rGya gan had reminded him of his earlier promise, Shākya mchog ldan arrived in Zi lung in the first month of the female iron-hare year (1471) and became its abbot.23 Although Shākya mchog ldan states in the historical account of the Maitreya statue that after his coming to Zi lung he put on “the armour of teaching activity” (nyan bshad kyi go cha),24 it is uncertain how much time he actually spent there until he left for a three-year sojourn in Glo bo in the summer of 1472. Remarkably, none of the colophons that can be dated to this period specifies the place of composition as Pan Khyung tshang or any other toponym pointing to Don yod dpal’s former college. In fact, he completed most of these works, including a 200-page commentary on the Ekottarakarmaśataka, in localities like Shangs bDe ba can or bDe chen, as well as Nyug rGyal khang.25 Since Shākya mchog ldan was apparently a popular teacher at that time—he was, for example, accompanied by an entourage of 300 monks on his trip to Glo bo—it is conceivable that conditions in Zi lung were cramped and other locations had to be found.26 In any case, the actual reestablishment of Don yod dpal’s monastic school as Thub bstan gSer mdog can took place in the fire-monkey year (1476). One year before, the expansion of the institution had begun when in the fourth month of the female wood-sheep year (1475)—at that time, Shākya mchog ldan was still on the way back from Glo bo—the nang pa of rGya gan erected a six-pillar meditation hall (spong khang).27 Shortly after returning to Zi lung, Shākya mchog ldan already entertained the idea of travelling to dBus, but influential figures like Chu mig bDag chen Blo gros dbang phyug, the fourth Ngor abbot Kun dga’ dbang phyug (1424-1478, tenure: 1465-1478), dPon drung g.Yung pa Tshe dbang rgyal po (d. ca. 1485) and the Rin spungs nobles expressed their disapproval and urged him to stay in gTsang.28 The Chu mig bDag chen, fulfilling his earlier promise, was recorded to have said at that time: 22 The corresponding Tibetan passage in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 50b.6-7, reads: bka’ las slob dpon don yod dpal ba’i grwa tshang ’di g.yag rong gi ngag sgros thun mong ma yin pa skyong ba’i bshad grwa yin pas ’di’i mgo ’don bstan pa’i rgyun la dgongs nas khyed kyis mdzod| rang re’i bu tshab kyang khyed la ’chol| chu mig gzhis ka ’di yang chos gzhis la sbyor sogs bka’ lung zlog dka’ ba rang gnang bas khas len ’bul dgos byung gsung (...). 23 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 35a.4-5. See also KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 51b.5-7, in which the erroneous assertion of the rNam thar rdor rgyal ma is refuted that Shākya mchog ldan “founded gSer mdog can in the earth-ox year (1469).” Note that the latter date is also the founding year given in KLU SGRUB RGYA MTSHO, bsTan rtsis, p. 228, and DKON MCHOG LHUN GRUB, Dam pa’i chos, p. 354.7, whose account is dependent on the former biographical sketch of Shākya mchog ldan by Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-1596). This incorrect dating found its way into some modern publications, viz. VITALI (2004), p. 70, n. 1, and MARTIN (1997), p. 226. 24 See SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 253.7, where, moreover, the year 1471 as the correct date of Shākya mchog ldan’s arrival in Zi lung is confirmed. 25 See, in chronological order, CW, vol. 16, p. 494.5; vol. 7, pp. 300.2 and 284.4; vol. 17, p. 28.2; vol. 24, p. 320.5-6; vol. 16, p. 500.3 and vol. 22, p. 525.4. One should nevertheless bear in mind that quite a number of the texts contained in CW are not dated and without any specifications on the place of composition. 26 A case in point is the summer retreat of the year 1471 which, according to KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 52a.4-5, was observed in Shākya mchog ldan’s new monastic seat. Notwithstanding that Kun dga’ grol mchog anachronistically calls the monastery here by its later name gSer mdog can, the short narrative related in this context refers to an event that (according to a later re-telling of that episode in fol. 101b.1-3) occurred in the “old assembly hall” (’du khang rnying pa) which was built only in the year 1476. 27 See SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 254.1, where it is also said that prior to that time, “there was nothing else but a site resting on a cave”: gnas sa phug pa la brten pa las gzhan med (...). 28 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 41a.3-b.2, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 58b.159a.2. Shākya mchog ldan’s donor g.Yung pa Tshe dbang rgyal po (who patronized Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge as well) served as a general for the Rin spungs nobles. During a military campaign in 1485, he was captured by the rGyal rtse ruler and apparently died in custody; see TUCCI (1971), p. 226 (=fol. 89), and DBANG PHYUG GRUB, Kun mkhyen, pp. 25 and 41-42. 70 Volker Caumanns To begin with, this year [I] will give [you] these monastic estates [of mine], and until my death or after I am dead, make use of everything [I] own! Employ this chiliarchy [of] Chu mig as support for your teaching activity and for gSer mdog can. Before I die, I will draw up a document with [my] seal, so you don’t [have to] worry.29 Shākya mchog ldan had no choice but to give in to the pressure of his donors and thus, the monastic seat was established in 1476 when, according to the monastic constitution, the Rin spungs ruler Don grub rdo rje (b. 1447) along with his ministers raised the “initial funds” (gzhi rkyen gyi thog ma) for the monastery. The same year, the nang pa of rGya gan and his subordinates—that is, the local community of Pan—completed the “monastic building” (kun dga’ ra ba), i.e. the so-called “old assembly hall” which comprised more than 30 pillars.30 The first “holy object” (rten) that was erected in the inner shrine room (gtsang khang) of the assembly hall was a life-size portrait statue of Don yod dpal.31 g.Yung pa Tshe dbang rgyal po, with the backing of the Rin spungs nobles, pointed out to Shākya mchog ldan that now he had to remain in gTsang and unfold his activities there. Then dPon drung g.Yung pa urged Shākya mchog ldan to give a new name to the monastery, so he named it Thub bstan gSer mdog can. During these years, Shākya mchog ldan’s main patrons are said to have been that same dPon drung g.Yung pa and the nang pa of rGya gan.32 Since the Rin spungs rulers seemed to be the driving force behind the reestablishment of the monastery, undoubtedly we should add them to the list.33 In 1477, one year after the reestablishment of the institution, Shākya mchog ldan finally set out on his first journey to dBus, where he stayed for one year.34 But it was only after a second trip 29 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 58b.6-7: da lo thog mar chos gzhis ’di dag ’bul zhing| nged shi mtshams shi rjes gang yod mdzod la| chu mig stong skor ’di rnams khyed kyis ’chad nyan dang| gser mdog can gyi thes mdzod| khyed thugs mi dog par nged rang ma shi gong nas yi ge thel ’byar byed gsung ba’i bka’ lung nan chen gnang (...). The bDag chen’s donation of the monastic estates of Chu mig are also attested in SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 42a.2. A historical account of the myriarchy of Chu mig is given by EVERDING (2005) who, however, does not mention the endowment of land described in the biographies of Shākya mchog ldan. 30 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Thub bstan gser mdog can, p. 307.2-3. See also SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 254.2, according to which a 34-pillar monastic building with attached kitchen was built at that time. Slightly differing from this, it is said in SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 41b.4, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 59a.4, that the building comprised 36 pillars. Note that VAN DER KUIJP (1983), p. 9, and KOMAROVSKI (2011), p. 41, understand the corresponding Tibetan term kun dga’ ra ba as “monastic garden.” And indeed, as its Sanskrit equivalent ārāma, the Tibetan term kun dga’ ra ba actually refers to a “place of pleasure” or a “pleasure garden.” However, the word ārāma (as well as its quasisynonym vihāra) was also used from early on to designate Buddhist monasteries; see Schopen (2006). In line with the latter use, Shākya rin chen (1710-1759) less ambiguously speaks in the parallel section of his biography of Shākya mchog ldan of a “vihāra in which the saṅgha assembles” (dge ’dun ’du ba’i gtsug lag khang); see Gangs can, p. 246.5. As it becomes evident from a later passage in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 59b.3, this kun dga’ ra ba is nothing but the “old assembly hall” (’du khang rnying pa) as opposed to the “new assembly hall” (’du khang gsar pa) which, according to KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 81a.6, was built in 1491. 31 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 59a.5-7. 32 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 41b.5-42a.2 and 41b.3-4. 33 In another context, the Rin spungs rulers are mentioned in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 59b.2, along with the nobles from ’Brong sgang as giving support for Shākya mchog ldan’s teaching activities in the spring term of the year 1477. It should be further noted that none of the biographies introduce the Glo bo ruler bKra shis mgon (ca. 1440-1489) as a patron of gSer mdog can. It is however likely that his lavish donations given to Shākya mchog ldan at the latter’s departure from Glo bo in 1475 became the property of the monastery. Those gifts, which included an Indian tent that later was transformed into a large-sized silken image (gos sku), are described in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 56b.5-57a.2, 57a.4-6 and 57b.1. 34 As to the dating of the first journey to dBus, I follow SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 42b.2-5, according to which Shākya mchog ldan set out in the month smin drug (Skr. kārttika) in 1477. Passing criticism on Shākya rgyal mtshan’s chronology, Kun dga’ grol mchog prefers in Paṇḍi ta, fol. 61a.5-6, the month smin drug of the following year 1478. But, as it was already pointed out by KOMAROVSKI (2011), p. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 71 to dBus, from which he returned in the winter of 1484, that he substantially expanded the monastery. Apparently, one of the reasons for both this trip and those expansions was the death of Shākya mchog ldan’s teacher Don yod dpal in 1483. At the “communal tea [hosted to] reveal the secret [of Don yod dpal’s passing]” (sang brtol gyi mang ja), Shākya mchog ldan is reported to have announced: “Wouldn’t [the establishment of] the lama’s monastic seat be the best way to fulfil [his] last wishes?”35 Hence, while travelling dBus—and this is what the biographies suggest—Shākya mchog ldan hoped to collect some of the financial resources needed to “fulfil the last wishes” (dgongs rdzogs) of his deceased teacher, that is, to “erect holy objects of body, speech and mind” in gSer mdog can.36 At the same time (and despite Shākya mchog ldan’s characterization of himself as a “scholastic being poor in income” in those days),37 it is likely that most of the expenses for the planned construction project were paid by the Rin spungs nobles of gTsang, purely on the grounds that Don yod dpal had been the “preceptor” (ti shrī) of several members of this powerful family since the 1460s, and Shākya mchog ldan, too, had occupied this rank since 1482.38 Although Kaḥ thog Si tu refers in his pilgrimage record to a “reliquary stūpa” (sku gdung) he claims to have seen in gSer mdog can in the “bla brang of Shangs pa Don yod dpal,” the early Tibetan sources are silent about such an object.39 Instead, they focus on the construction of a great Maitreya statue and the corresponding temple (lha khang) during the years 1485 to 1487. A particular feature of this statue was its posture, because the bodhisattva was not executed, as usual, as a seated figure with his two feet placed on the ground, but with legs crossed and forming the teaching mudrā with his hands.40 In the corresponding historical narrative (dkar chag), Shākya mchog ldan gives the following account of the circumstances that lead to the erection of the image: 325, n. 150, Kun dga’ grol mchog’s dating is faulty since it is evident from one of the colophons in CW (see vol. 8, p. 403.2) that Shākya mchog ldan was already settled in dBus before that date, i.e. in the month gro bzhin (Skr. śrāvaṇa) of the year 1478. 35 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 69a.3: dgongs rdzogs gtso bor bla ma’i gdan sa yin pas gsung (...). 36 See SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 47b.2-3, in conjunction with fols. 48b.5-49a.2. This is only seemingly in contradiction to SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 288.1, according to which Shākya mchog ldan travelled to dBus in order to meet sTag lung pa Ngag dbang grags pa (1418-1496). We thus learn from KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 71a.4-5, that one of the reasons for this meeting was Shākya mchog ldan’s wish to receive a special “ritual permission” (rjes gnang) of Vaiśrāvaṇa. The siddhis ensuing from the corresponding practice were intended to help to get the financial support for fulfilling Don yod dpal’s “last wishes.” 37 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 71a.5: nged rang mtshan nyid pa ni sgo dbul bas (...). 38 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 50b.2, and SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun dam pa, pp. 60.5-7, according to which Don yod dpal served as teacher for Nor bu bzang po’s sons mTsho skyes rdo rje, Hor Shākya rgyal mtshan and Don grub rdo rje as well as for his grandsons Khri thog pa and sGar chen pa (i.e. Don yod rdo rje, 1463-1512). In the light of this impressive list of names, it can be assumed with some certainty that Don yod dpal played an instrumental role in introducing Shākya mchog ldan to the Rin spungs nobles. Concerning Shākya mchog ldan’s contacts to members of the Rin spungs family, it is stated in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 65b.7-66a.1, that he was honoured by sde pa gTsang chen pa (i.e. Don grub rdo rje?) and Hor Shākya ba as their spiritual teacher (bla ma). It is interesting to see in this regard that in 1499, Shākya mchog ldan apparently tried to install his disciple rJe Brag dmar ba Kun dga’ tshe ’phel (b. 15th cent.) as lama of the Rin spungs lord Don yod rdo rje; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 92a.1-4. 39 CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, dBus gtsang, p. 359. 40 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, pp. 251.4 and 251.6-252.1. Concerning the statue’s posture (bzhugs tshul), Maitreya appears similar to the Buddha Śākyamuni setting the dharma-wheel in motion for the first time. One might link this Buddha-like depiction of Maitreya with a statement made by Shākya mchog ldan some folios later in the same source (p. 259.2) designating the Maitreya Treatises as quasibuddhavacana: rje btsun ma pham pa’i chos lngar grags pa ’di ni| sangs rgyas kyi bka’ dngos yin kyang| bstan bcos kyi tshul du mdzad pas sgra ji bzhin pa nyid du khas blangs pas chog. For illustrations of small statues of Maitreya with legs crossed and hands displaying the dharmacakra mudrā (but without a stūpa on the head), see KERIN (2009), p. 31, as well as ESSEN & THINGO (1989), p. 81. 72 Volker Caumanns In order to fulfil [rJe Amogha’s] profound wishes, [...] and to cause parts of the Precious Doctrine to become entirely full in this monastery and remain for a long time, [I] ardently wished to erect, to the best of my abilities, holy objects of body, speech and mind of the Tathāgatas. Thus, at first, in the female wood-snake year (1485), at an auspicious conjunction [during] the waxing moon of the month [commemorating the Buddha’s] display of miracles (i.e. the first month), four Nepalese artisans arrived who were blessed by all the deeds [of] the gods of the desire realm. After [they] had begun [the work], this wonderful statue of the venerable lord [Maitreya and] the temple which was adorned by a precious top-ornament was completed in the female fire-sheep year (1487) [during] the first half of the month gro bzhin (Skr. śrāvaṇa), [that is] the sixth hor month, at the propitious astrological conjunction [of the lunar mansion] rgyal (Skr. puṣya) with [the day] phur [bu] (i.e. Thursday). Concerning the artisans [hailing from] the city of Ya ga la (i.e. Pāṭan), the name of the chief master was Jayakīrtipāla, that is, rGyal ba grags pa skyong [in Tibetan]; the name of the coppersmith was Narasiṅgha, that is, Mi’i seng ge; the name of the goldsmith was Jitasiṅgha, that is rGyal ba’i seng ge; and the name of the worker blowing the bellows was Kīrtisiṅgha, that is, Grags pa seng ge, altogether four [persons].41 Kun dga’ grol mchog informs us that initially, Shākya mchog ldan considered the chief master of the four Newar artisans to be identical with the person that had constructed the great Maitreya statue of Ngam rings since both were called (Jaya-)Kīrtipāla. Therefore, Shākya mchog ldan had intended the statue to be very large. But when he found out that this Jayakīrtipāla was a different person who did not possess the skills of the builder of the Ngam rings image, he had to change his plans.42 Considering this report given by Kun dga’ grol mchog, it is somewhat confusing when Shākya mchog ldan himself states in the corresponding historical account of the image that the artisans erected a statue that was slightly bigger than he had originally planned and that, accordingly, the height of twelve cubits (khru) based on the length of Shākya mchog ldan’s own ell for the body of Maitreya had been increased by one full cubit. The head ornament (dbu rgyan) measured a little bit more than one cubit and one span (mtho), which was more or less the size of the head protuberance, atop which a stūpa was placed. Moreover, the height of the lotus pedestal was about two cubits and one span, and the throne of the statue, which was made of clay, was a little bit taller than five cubits.43 Shākya mchog ldan lists also the various materials needed for 41 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 249.6-250.4 (with the part skipped in my translation in square brackets): de’i dgongs pa zab mo bskang ba’i phyir dang| [sku tshe gzhan la rje btsun byams pa’i chos kyis ’gro ba mang po la phan pa rgya chen po ’byung ba sogs| rgyal ba’i sras kyi spyod pa rlabs po che yongs su rdzogs par bya ba’i phyir dang|] chos kyi grwa ’di nyid du bstan pa rin po che’i cha shas yongs su rdzogs par gang ba dang| yun ring du gnas par bya ba’i phyir| de bzhin gshegs pa’i sku gsung thugs kyi rten ci nus su bgyi bar ’dun zhing mos pa las| thog mar shing mo sbrul gyi lo cho ’phrul can yar tshes kyi ’grub sbyor bzang po la| ne pā la’i bzo rigs pa ’dod pa’i lha las thams cad pas byin gyis brlabs pa rnam pa bzhi dag (note: ne pā la| ya ga la’i grong khyer gyi bzo bo| dpon mo che’i ming dza ya kirti pā la zhes pa rgyal ba grags pa skyong zhes pa dang| zangs mgar ba’i ming na ra singha zhes pa mi’i seng ge dang| phra bzo ba’i ming dzi ta singha zhes pa rgyal ba seng ge dang| ’phul ba’i ming kirti singha grags pa seng ge dang bzhi’o||) byon nas dbu brtsams te| me mo lug gi lo hor zla drug pa gro bzhin can gyi phyogs dang po| rgyal phur ’dzom pa’i ’grub sbyor la| rje btsun gyi sku ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba| gtsug lag khang rin po che’i tog gis spras pa ’di yongs su grub pa’o. Detailed accounts of the construction of the statue are given in SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 49a.1-b.3, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 73a.6-b.7. For a general survey on the activities of Newar artisans in Tibet, see LO BUE (1985/86) and (2012). 42 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 73b.1-2. Cf. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Byang bdag, pp. 62-70, where the erection and consecration of the Maitreya statue of Byang Ngam rings is touched upon although without mentioning the names of the Newar artisans. 43 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 251.3-6. Cf. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 73b.1: byams sku’i zhabs rdo rje skyil krungs nas brtsams dbu’i gtsug tor mchod rten dang bcas pa la paṇ chen rin po che’i phyag khru bcu bzhi lhag tsam| padma la phyag khru phyed dang gsum dang bcas pa’i tshad du gnang (...)|, “from the feet of the Maitreya statue crossed in the vajra position to the head protuberance equipped with a stūpa Paṇ chen Rin po che (i.e. Shākya mchog ldan) assessed about 14 cubits [based on his own arm] as measure and for the lotus [pedestal] two and a half cubits.” Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 73 constructing the statue that were supplied by the “earth-ruling king(s)” (sa skyong ba’i rgyal po), the wealthy householders and the devout disciples, viz. 250 khal of copper (measured according to the lha sa’i nyag), 440 ’gur [=mgur] chen gyi zho of gold wire, 3,600 zho of mercury as well as white and blue lead, iron, borax, jewels, modelling mass (’ber?) needed for producing the wax figure and charcoal.44 As to the expenses, the measure of 100 khal (of barley?) was provided every month as the “immediate supplies” (’phral gyi yo byad) of the four artisans. The “final payment” (phugs kyi yon) amounted to 440 zho of gold, coins (?) weighing 440 zho, garments, food, feasts and gifts, all together 200 zho.45 At the same time, the local people of Pan built the dGa’ ldan chos kyi lha khang, which was supposed to house the Maitreya statue.46 This structure was supported by four main pillars (ka chen) and encompassed an area of 16 pillars. At the top of the temple were Shākya mchog ldan’s private quarters, i.e. the bla brang (or: gzims khang) named bKra shis brtsegs pa (“stacked up auspiciousness”). Monks’ quarters (grwa khang) were also built during that time.47 As Shākya mchog ldan informs us in the respective history, “fully qualified vajra masters performed the consecration ceremony in accordance with the ritual as expounded in the Rab tu gnas pa don gsal ba.” The event took place “in the first half of the month khrums (Skr. bhādrapada), at the conjunction [of the lunar mansion] rgyal with [the day] phur [bu].”48 Kun dga’ grol mchog, while listing the donations of the patrons, describes the ceremony: For the consecration, the Hevajra maṇḍala [made of] coloured powders was laid out well. Together with a crowd of attendants [consisting of] fully ordained monks [in the rank of] vajra masters, [Paṇ chen Rin po che] granted the truly excellent good deed of the ritual performance [running from] the [beginning] bkra shis mnga’ gsol to the brtan bzhugs zhal bsro. Prior to 44 MICHAELS (1988) provides a survey of the cire perdue or lost-wax technique which most probably was applied for making the Maitreya statue of gSer mdog can. For the term ’ber which seems to denote the plasticine for manufacturing the wax model, see Jaeschke’s dictionary: “a sort of plastic mass used by smiths.” See SCHUH (1970), p. 704, and SCHUH (2012), vol. 4, p. 1643, for introductory information on the weight units khal and nyag as well as the units zho and mgur zho. According to Christoph Cüppers, one ’gur (=mgur) chen gyi zho presumably has a weight of gold of 24 se ba (personal communication, Lumbini, December 2012). But a definitive assessment of the specifications given in Shākya mchog ldan’s dkar chag remains a thorny issue since we lack reliable information on weights and other units for the time before the installation of the dGa’ ldan pho brang government in 1642. 45 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, pp. 250.5-251.2: bzo rigs rnam pa bzhi’i ’phral gyi yo byad| zla ba re la khal brgya’i tshad du bzhag pa dang| phugs kyi yon gser zho bzhi brgya dang bzhi bcu| zong zho bzhi brgya dang bzhi bcu| skon dang| skyon dang| ston rgyab dang| gtang rag rnams sdoms pa la zho nyis brgya. My translation of zong zho bzhi brgya dang bzhi bcu as “coins weighing 440 zho” is tentative. KarlHeinz Everding kindly pointed out to me that in this context zong zho might refer to a local coin weight (email, February 5, 2013). Cf. EVERDING (2000), p. 169, n. 340, for a related discussion of the term zong. 46 This temple is called dGa’ ldan chos kyi lha khang in SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 254.3, SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 49b.3, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 73b.7. In his colophons, Shākya mchog ldan speaks of the dGa’ ldan byams pa’i gtsug lag khang (see CW, vol. 2, p. 618.7, and vol. 18, p. 690.6-7), whereas in Thub bstan gser mdog can, p. 307.4, he calls the building dGa’ ldan gser gyi lha khang. 47 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 49b.3-4, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 73b.774a.1. Shākya mchog ldan’s private quarters included a “six-pillar room,” the so-called Ka drug ma, which housed the thangkas of the 42 maṇḍalas of the Vajrāvalī cycle once given to him by the Chu mig bDag chen; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 65a.7-b.1 and 92b.6. 48 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, pp. 252.2-3: rab tu gnas pa ni| rdo rje slob dpon mtshan nyid tshang ba dag gis| rab tu gnas pa don gsal ba las ji skad gsungs pa’i phyag len dang mthun pa khrums kyis nya ba’i phyogs dang po rgyal phur ’dzom pa’i ’grub sbyor la grub (...). Most probably, the abovementioned ritual manual was rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s (1147-1216) Arga’i cho ga dang rab tu gnas pa don gsal ba. Cf. the later passage in rJe btsun byams pa, pp. 271.7-272.1, listing the ritual texts used for the consecration: rje btsun gyi rab gnas don gsal dang| dpang lo chen pos mdzad pa dang| ngor pa rdo rje ’chang gis gser sku rdo rje ’chang du sgrub pa zhes bya ba’i mtshan du gsol ba’i phyag len mdzad pa rnam gzhir bzhag (...). 74 Volker Caumanns this, sDe pa gTsang chen drung, Hor Shākya pa and other [members of the Rin spungs family] had offered Chu dbar Chos rdzong as an initiation gift, bDag chen Rin po che Chu mig pa Blo gros dbang phyug had given [his] monastic estates, and moreover, from the district Nyang stod, [localities] such as dBang ldan Chos ’khor were newly assigned as monastic estates [to gSer mdog can, comprising] both arable land and pasture areas; all [these estates] served as a [financial] basis [for the monastery].49 In 1491, sometime after Shākya mchog ldan’s return from his third sojourn in dBus in 1490, he commissioned further holy objects, namely images of Mañjughoṣa and Avalokiteśvara that, after their completion, were installed to the right and left sides of the great Maitreya statue in the dGa’ ldan lha khang. According to the biographies written by Shākya rgyal mtshan and Kun dga’ grol mchog, both images including their respective lotus pedestals were six cubits tall, those cubits having been based on Shākya mchog ldan’s own actual cubit measure (rje’i phyag khru). Compared with this, the untitled dkar chags records of these images give their height in different units of measurement, specifying that they were 18 “back spans” (rgyab mtho) high.50 In these two records, Shākya mchog ldan provides further information about the images. Erected by the bla brang of gSer mdog can, the material used for their manufacturing amounted to 45 khal measures of copper and 120 mgur chen gyi zho of gold wire each. It took the four artisans—one of them was called Candra—six months to complete the construction work. Every month, they received as “provisions” (rgyags) 27 khal units of barley, ten slaughtered animals, six nyag measures of tea and, each of them, three khal of butter, three feasts, three times per day tea from the monastery kitchen and a ceremonial scarf. As “payment” (yon) they were assigned 40 mgur chen of gold, 70 gshags ’dom yak tails,51 three complete sets of costumes and, each of them, as garment a long-sleeved brocade jacket, as well as a horse as a mount.52 Referring to the Avalokiteśvara statue, it is specified that apart from the “communal tea” (gsol ja), during those six months all provisions were supplied by a certain Don grub rab brtan in order to purify the spiritual obscurations (sgrib pa) in the mind stream of dPon drung g.Yung pa Tshe dbang rgyal po—Shākya mchog ldan’s patron who had passed away in 1485— and to fulfill his “profound last wishes” (dgongs pa zab mo).53 The biographies briefly state that around the same time, the “great monastic building” (kun ra chen mo), that is the so-called “new assembly hall” (’du khang 49 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 74a.5-7: rab gnas dges pa rdo rje’i rdul tshon gyi dkyil ’khor legs par bzhengs nas| dge slong rdo rje ’dzin pa’i zhabs ’bring ba’i tshogs dang bcas pas bkra shis mnga’ gsol| brtan bzhugs zhal bsro’i bar gyi cho ga’i legs byas yang dag phun tshogs stsal| de’i snga sor sde pa gtsang chen drung dang| hor shākya pa sogs kyis dbang yon du phul ba’i chu dbar chos rdzong| bdag chen rin po che chu mig pa blo gros dbang phyug pas bstsal ba’i chos gzhis| slar yang dbang ldan chos ’khor sogs nyang stod skor nas kyang bod ’brog gi chos gzhis gsar du byung ba kun la gzhi gnang. 50 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 51b.2-3, KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 81a.5-6, and SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, [untitled 1], p. 273.1. A unit of measurement called rgyab mtho is not listed in the dictionaries. 51 A measuring unit called gshags ’dom is unknown to me. 52 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, [untitled 1], p. 273.1-4, and [untitled 2], p. 274.2-3. The list of provisions and payment reads as follows: rgyags kyi tshad| (...) nas khal nyi shu rtsa bdun pa dang| sha khog bcu phrag pa dang| ja nyag drug pa dang| mar khal gsum re dang| dus bzang ston mo gsum re dang| thab ja sbyor gsum re dang| lha mchod pa’i dar kha re rnams zla ba re re bzhin du bsgrubs| yon la gser ngo bo mgur chen bzhi bcu| rnga dkar gshags mdom [=’dom] bdun cu| gos phyi nang tshang ma gsum| bskon la gos chen phu dung ma re| bskyon la rta re. Concerning the provisions of artisans, cf., for instance, SCHUH (1988), p. 10, where it is exemplified that during the regency of sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653-1705), a Nepalese stone chiseller (rdo brkos pa) received 16 khal, 17 bre and 3 phul of grain for an employment of one month and ten days. CÜPPERS (2010), p. 125, records the salaries of various workers involved in the production of a bKa’ ’gyur set in ’Ol dga’ in the year 1683. According to him, “[t]he senior foreman (do dam rgan pa),” being at the top of the income pyramid, “received a monthly salary of 50 khal of fine flour, one carcass of a sheep (lug khog), a quarter and something of yak meat, and 2 nyag of salt. During each working day, tea was served three times to all workers.” 53 SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, [untitled 2], p. 274.3-4. Additionally, Don grub rab brtan budgeted expenditures (?) of forty zho of gold: yon stengs su phan par gser zho bzhi bcu’i rtsis ’gro mdzad pa yin. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 75 gsar pa), was completed in the male water-mouse year (1492). The hall was supported by 24 main pillars and encompassed an area of 36 pillars.54 The two statues were eventually consecrated in the late winter (1491/92), and the “new assembly hall,” in the autumn of 1492.55 Beside these Newar craftspeople, Tibetan artisans of the sMan thang family were active in gSer mdog can as well.56 Since the early 1490s at the latest, Shākya mchog ldan employed their services for different projects in the years to come and even shortly after his death, a certain sPrul sku sMan thang pa is reported to have painted a couple of thangkas.57 Because these artisans are usually just called “Nang pa sMan thang pa” or “sPrul sku sMan thang pa” (sometimes with yab sras or yab sras mched added), we are often kept guessing on their exact identity.58 Two actual names, however, are mentioned by Kun dga’ grol mchog. Hence, we know that sMan thang Nang pa Don grub was present when Shākya mchog ldan was preparing a Kālacakra empowerment in gSer mdog can in the year 1494 and sMan thang pa Nang pa lHun grub was responsible for painting the murals in the protectors’ chapel (mgon khang) in 1495.59 Shākya mchog ldan’s close relationship to some of the members of this family is indicated by the fact that in 1498 one sPrul sku sMan thang pa received, as one of a few laymen, the initiation into the Vajrāvalī maṇḍalas from him.60 The first major project we know of which was executed by the sMan thang artisans at the behest of Shākya mchog ldan was the production of a large-sized silken image (gos sku) around 1491 depicting the Buddha in the company of the Sixteen Arhats or Sthaviras. While the name of the renowned father of the sMan ris style, sMan bla don grub, is not explicitly quoted in this respect, he might have been in charge (though he must have been about age 70 at that time). This is because in one section of the respective narrative, “sPrul sku sMan thang pa, the father,” is said to be “Mañjuśrī in human form” which is an epithet of sMan bla don grub that is also known from another source.61 It is a little bit odd that Shākya rgyal mtshan passes over in silence this undertaking in his biography of Shākya mchog ldan, since this thangka seemed to be one of the “main attractions” of gSer mdog can. Thus, Kaḥ thog Si tu reports that he had seen “the wonderful depiction [of] the great Muni with the supreme pair [of disciples] (i.e. Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana) which amounts to almost two storeys [in its height]” when he was visiting 54 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 51b.3-4, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 81a.6. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 81a.5, and 82a.4-5. 56 Head of this family of artisans was sMan thang pa sMan bla don grub (b. 1420s?), the celebrated founder of the sMan ris painting style. This style (which began to flourish around the middle of the 15th century) is considered to be one of the first indigenous Tibetan art traditions. sMan bla don grub’s involvement in the projects described in the following paragraphs is difficult to assess. Although he was obviously still active in his old days, it is—as JACKSON (1996), p. 119, puts it—“hard to imagine him actually painting much himself after the 1480s, though he may have closely directed the work of others.” For a survey of sMan bla don grub’s activities and his tradition, see JACKSON (1996), pp. 103-137. 57 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 104b.7-105a.1 58 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 57b.1, 80b.2, 81a.2, 81a.4-5, 81b.5, 90b.1 and 99b.1-2 (the last passage is left out in the recension of the rnam thar as found in CW). As JACKSON (1996), p. 89, notes, the title sprul sku in this context is merely a respectful term for “a highly accomplished artist” and does not refer to a “reincarnate lama.” 59 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 64a.7, 83b.6 and 89a.4. It remains unclear whether the name sMan thang pa Don grub refers to the tradition’s founding father sMan thang pa sMan bla don grub or to a later artist from that family. For sMan thang pa Nang pa lHun grub, see JACKSON (1996), p. 121. 60 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 90b.1-2. 61 Cf. the translation of the consecration ceremony below. For the identification of sMan bla don grub as being an emanation of Mañjuśrī, see JACKSON (1996), p. 114. As JACKSON (1996), pp. 117-118, notes, already in 1468, sMan bla don grub together with his disciples had executed a huge silken image of the Buddha in bKra shis lhun po. Since the first Dalai Lama dGe ’dun grub was one of the main patrons of sMan bla don grub, the latter was very active in this monastery in the 1450s and 1460s. For the genesis of the gos sku of gSer mdog can which was made of an Indian cotton tent handed over by the Glo bo ruler bKra shis mgon to Shākya mchog ldan back in 1475, see VITALI (2004). A general overview of the history of appliqué thangkas in Tibet as well as a short description of their making is provided in TANAKA (1994). 55 76 Volker Caumanns Shākya mchog ldan’s former monastery.62 Some details of its production are provided by Kun dga’ grol mchog: On the day sPrul sku sMan thang pa, the father, [and his] son(s)63 were drawing the sketch [of the thangka], a soft rain of flowers was falling. At that time, [Paṇ chen Rin po che] sent messengers to every ruler in gTsang like those from Rin spungs [and] Seng ge rtse as well as to all those in dBus [who] had a connection [to him] in order to search for mi sha kha (i.e. skin-coloured) brocade. However, it was somewhat difficult to obtain. [But] then [a piece of] mi sha kha brocade turned up with [a depiction of] a pepper plant on it [which was done] during the Mongolian era (i.e. the Yüan dynasty), and so [Paṇ chen Rin po che] distributed [it] for the skin of the two main disciples of [our] teacher, [the Buddha], i.e. Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, [as well as for the other] śrāvakas that were āryas.64 Kun dga’ grol mchog goes on to relate that, because of the brocade’s pattern, the skin of the Sthaviras as displayed on the thangka was not entirely plain. Slob dpon Nyang ram pa, one of the disciples of Shākya mchog ldan, regarded this to be an “omen” (rten ’brel) auguring that in the future, monks with spotted faces would assemble in gSer mdog can. At that time, everybody was laughing at this remark. Kun dga’ grol mchog, however, explains that this omen later materialized in the monastery as an outbreak of smallpox.65 The consecration ceremony of the thangka was hosted by the ruler of Shangs ’Brong sgang, and the bla brang of gSer mdog can contributed presents to the artisans as well as wheat to the local community of sPan.66 According to Kun dga’ grol mchog, one detail in the depiction of the Buddha led to a strange report about the object to spread among the people: On that day the mda’ dpon of rGya bar was among the packed crowd (?) of the common people and explained at that time: “Look! Does the illustrious one called Śākyamuni really exist like this? In general, Paṇ chen Rin po che being the Jina Maitreya in person gave the instructions [for the design of the thangka] and sPrul sku sMan thang pa, the father, [together with his] son(s)—[the former] is Mañjuśrī in human form—carried out the work. Yet, when [I] look closely now [at the thangka], the begging bowl which Śākyamuni [should] hold in [his] hands is missing. Well, my people of sPan, do [you] take delight [in such a depiction]?” Hence, some had superstitious doubts about it, and after that talk had gradually come to Paṇ chen Rin po che’s ears, [he] said: “Alas! What authority does a fool’s prattle have? Well, is there really a begging bowl in the hands of the Buddha [when he] is dwelling in samādhi? They gave a begging bowl into the hands of the precious Jo bo in lHa sa, and because of the [corresponding] inauspicious omen it came about that all learning, contemplation and cultivation [of the Doctrine] vanished, [only] that we [had something to] eat!”67 62 CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, dBus gtsang, p. 350: bris thub chen mchog zur [=zung] bcas thog gnyis ma sleb tsam pa mtshar (...). 63 JACKSON (1996), p. 121, renders the phrase sprul sku sman thang pa yab sras mched bcas as “the master sMan-thang-pa and his [chief] son, together with his brother(s).” 64 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 80b.2-4: sprul sku sman thang pa yab sras mched bcas kyis skya ris btab pa’i nyin me tog gi char sim pa zhig babs shing| ’di skabs gos chen mi sha kha zhig tshol ba la rin spungs seng ge rtse sogs gtsang gi sde dpon mtha’ dag dang| dbus kyi yang thugs ’brel yod pa kun tu bang chen gnang yang rnyed dka’ ba tsam byung rjes| gos chen mi sha kha hor dus rang la pho ba ris yod pa cig byung nas ston pa’i mchog zung ste| shā ri’i bu dang mau gal| ’phags pa’i nyan thos rnams kyi sku sha la ’bul ba gnang (...). Cf. the differing translation of this passage in VITALI (2004), p. 73, n. 16. For clarification of some of the ambiguous wordings, see SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 333.2-4. 65 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 80b.4-6. This is obviously an allusion to the smallpox epidemic Kun dga’ grol mchog experienced himself in gSer mdog can during which his elder brother died; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Zhen pa rang grol, pp. 317.5-319.2. 66 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 80b.6-81a.1, and SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 335.5-6. 67 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 81a.1-4: de’i nyin rgya bar mda’ dpon ma [=pa] mi dmangs byin gyi khrom gnon la yod dus khong gis brda’ sbyor byas nas| shākya thub pa zer ba’i grags tshod can de ’di Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 77 A second consecration ceremony was held in the year 1500 when sDe pa sGar pa, i.e. the Rin spungs ruler Don yod rdo rje, urged the somewhat reluctant Shākya mchog ldan to invite the fourth Zhwa dmar pa hierarch Chos grags ye shes (1453-1524) to gSer mdog can. Kun dga’ grol mchog renders this memorable but unfortunate event in the account of rDo rings pa Kun bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1449-1524), who was receiving teachings from Shākya mchog ldan around that time. Accordingly, at the moment when Zhwa dmar pa Chos grags ye shes was scattering the flowers during the ceremony, “[ill omens] such as a fierce wind were able to move [the image] and the previous splendour of the brocade thangka completely disappeared. Also the flow of the [previous highly auspicious] shower of flowers stopped.” rDo rings pa understood this to be the “outer and inner interconnections” portending that Shākya mchog ldan was “highly biased [against] the sPrul sku Zhwa dmar ba and [in favour of] the sPrul sku Zhwa nag pa,”68 and of the fact that “the Holder of the Red Crown had a little grudge against sPrul sku Zhwa nag pa” at that time.69 As mentioned above, that great silken image was not the only project of the sMan thang artisans in gSer mdog can. Shortly after the first consecration of the thangka, in the male watermouse year (1492), “sMan thang pa and his son(s)” (sman thang pa yab sras) also executed the murals of buildings like the gtsug lag khang—a designation which most probably refers to the dGa’ ldan lha khang—and the assembly hall(s). But stating “whatever will come about later is uncertain!” Shākya mchog ldan did not allow subjects like spiritual teachers to be painted, a caveat which apparently points to the precarious future prospects of Shākya mchog ldan’s monastic tradition. In this vein, he commissioned the sMan thang artists only to carry out depictions of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as those of the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra, moreover the Thirty-five Buddhas of Confession and the Tathāgata in the form of the Bhaiṣajyaguru with his retinue.70 The last structure which, according to Kun dga’ grol mchog, was built in gSer mdog can during Shākya mchog ldan’s lifetime was the protectors’ chapel (mgon khang). Erected in the ’dra zhig yod snang bas gzigs shig| lar paṇ chen rin po che rgyal ba byams pa dngos ’dis bka’ bkod gnang| sprul sku sman thang pa yab sras ’jam dbyangs dngos byon rnam pas phyag bzo gnang ba la| da lta brtags dus shākya thub pa’i lto snod phyag tu yod pa de chad ’dug pas| rang re’i span pa’i mi dmangs rnams la e dga’ ’am byas pas| rnam rtog zos pa ’ga’ re byung ba’i gtam rim gyis paṇ chen rin po che’i snyan du dgongs nas| ga re blun po gang lab khungs ci yod| lar rang sangs rgyas ting nge ’dzin la bzhugs pa’i phyag tu bzhes snod ci yod| lha sa’i jo bo rin po che’i phyag tu lhung bzed phul ba’i rten ’brel las| rang re yo zas phyir thos bsam sgom gsum yo rang shor ba ’di byung ba yin no|| gsung (...). The last remark attributed to Shākya mchog ldan is a sideswipe at the renovation of the Jo khang in lHa sa that was initiated by Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419) in 1408. 68 The biographical tradition as recorded in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 3a.1-4, emphasizes Shākya mchog ldan’s close link to the seventh Karma pa hierarch Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454-1506) claiming them to be of “one mind stream” (sems gcig pa). The same is stated about Shākya mchog ldan’s purported pre-existence Bag ston (or: dPag ston / dPag zhar) Shākya ’od zer and the fourth Karma pa Rol pa’i rdo rje (1340-1383), the former being an “emanation” (rnam ’phrul) of the latter. 69 For the whole passage, see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 92a.6-b.1: paṇ chen rin po che srid zhi mnyam pa nyid kyi thugs can de nyid kyang rang re’i gzhan snang du sprul sku zhwa dmar nag gi phyogs ’dzin che ba rang gis [=gi] tshul ston pa gnang ’dug pas de’i rten ’brel yin pa ’dra| lcags pho spre’u’i lo sprul sku zhwa dmar bas gser mdog can gyi gos sku la rab gnas kyi me tog sde pa sgar pas nan gyis zhu ba gnang nas mdzad phyin| sngar gyi gos sku’i gzi byin de gtan nas med pa’i rlung tshub sogs kyis bskyod thub la me tog gi char chen po ’bab pa’i rgyun yang med des kun slong brjod min par byung ba yang rje zhwa dmar cod paṇ ’dzin pa| sprul sku zhwa nag pa dang thugs ’gras en tsam gyi phyi nang gi rten ’brel yin nges gsung. The Rin spungs ruler’s strong urging is once more given expression in 92b.1-2: zhwa dmar pa sde pa'i drung gis nan bskyed gnang gser mdog can tshor spyan ’dren zhu dgos byung (...). 70 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 81b.4-6. Concerning a further enterprise of sMan thang artists in gSer mdog can, it should be noted that JACKSON (1996), p. 127, speculates that possibly a member of the sMan thang family was responsible for executing the figures of the block print of Shākya mchog ldan’s Rigs gter commentary sDe bdun ngag gi rol mtsho (CW, vol. 19, pp. 447-749; composed in 1482), since “stylistically one is here clearly already in the aesthetic world of the sMan-ris, with rocks, clouds and flowers forming the essential ingredients of even these simple backgrounds” [i.e. of the main figures]. 78 Volker Caumanns summer of the year 1495, it was supposed to house the images of Pañjaranātha and Caturmukha, together with their entourage. When the consecration ceremony was held in the late summer, dBu legs Grub chen bSod nams rgyal mtshan is reported to have had a vision that induced Shākya mchog ldan to commission depictions of further deities in the chapel: Having arrived from Shangs, the yogin dBu legs Grub chen bSod nams rgyal mtshan told Paṇ chen Rin po che: “Yesterday, when [you] were performing the consecration, I had a vision. In it, the hosts of the guardian deities of the Glorious Sa skya [Monastery] said: ‘[We] will go to gSer mdog can!’ Thereupon, [the goddess] Gaurī being in union with her consort, the demon [king], as well as the two lords of the charnel grounds replied: ‘For us, [they] did not erect holy objects to dwell in and thus, [we] go back!’ Therefore, it is necessary to paint [depictions of] Gaurī [together with] the demon [king] and [of] the lords of the charnel grounds in our protectors’ chapel!” After [Paṇ chen Rin po che] had replied, “Let’s do just that,” sMan thang pa Nang pa lHun grub pa rendered [these deities] as paintings, executing murals of Gaurī [together with her] consort, [i.e.] the demon king wearing a mālā of skulls, and of the heroic lord of the charnel grounds in union with his consort.71 A later version of this account can be found in the biography of Shākya mchog ldan which was compiled by Shākya rin chen (1710-1759). Because it slightly differs from Kun dga’ grol mchog’s description given above, it seems to be derived from the currently unavailable rNam thar ma ti ma or rNam thar rdor rgyal ma. Accordingly, the statues of the chapel were manufactured by five Newar artisans—in contrast, Kun dga’ grol mchog mentioned only one craftsman—of which the chief master (dpon mo che) was called Dzō ti pa (or: Dzo tī pa?). The following deities are listed by Shākya rin chen to have resided in the chapel, namely Vajramahākāla in union with his consort as main figures who were accompanied by a fivefold retinue, consisting of the eight Pañjaranātha deities, the four Ru ’dren, Chu srin mgo can (i.e. Makara), the Glorious Protector Bram gzugs (i.e. Brāhmaṇarūpa Mahākāla) and the four Yum chen sring mo.72 Particularly in the biography written by Kun dga’ grol mchog, various minor projects are mentioned; suffice it here to refer to the statues of the Lam ’bras masters of the Ngor system which were manufactured in the year 1506. It is telling in this regard, that Shākya mchog ldan, out of respect for his teacher sPyang lung pa gZhon nu blo gros (1372-1475), ordered old scroll paintings in Chinese style (bsi [=si] thang)73 to be draped behind these statues on which the lineage holders of the theg chen system (the transmission of which Shākya mchog ldan had received from sPyang lung pa) were depicted, although Shākya mchog ldan almost exclusively transmitted the Lam ’bras according to Ngor chen’s (1382-1456) style of presentation.74 In the same year, the final construction project commissioned by Shākya mchog ldan was initiated, that is, the erection of a silver bkra shis sgo mang stūpa which he intended to be used as the reliquary for his own bodily remains. After Shākya mchog ldan had sent his chief-groom (chibs dpon) Shākya bzang ba to the Kathmandu valley to employ artisans in the latter part of 71 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 89a.2-4: shangs nas rnal ’byor dbu legs grub chen bsod nams rgyal mtshan pa byon te| paṇ chen rin po che’i drung du bdag gi nyams snang la kha sang rab gnas gnang ba’i nyin mo dpa ldan sa skya’i bka’ srung sde tshogs gser mdog can du ’gro zer song ba la| slar dkar bdud lcam dral dang| dur khrod bdag po gnyis nged la sdod rten cig ma bzhengs ’dug pas log yongs zer byung bas| rang re’i mgon khang du dkar bdud dang| dur khrod bdag po zhig kyang ’bri dgos pa ’dug zhus pas| de ka bgyi gsung nas| sman thang pa nang pa lhun grub pas phyag bris su mdzad nas| dkar mo nyi zla bdud rgyal thod phreng can| dpa’ bo dur khrod bdag po yab yum rnams gyeng ris su gnang ngo. 72 SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 370.1-5, in which the deities are recorded as follows: rdo rje nag po chen po lcam dral ’khor lnga ste gur lha brgyad| ru ’dren bzhi| chu srin mgo can| dpal mgon bram gzugs| yum chen sring mo bzhi dang bcas pa ste| chos skyong ’khor bcas kyi rten (...). 73 For the term si thang, see JACKSON (1996), pp. 132f., n. 248. 74 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 98a.7-b.5 and 99a.5-b.2, according to which one of the reasons for the production of these statues was to alleviate the rumour of Shākya mchog ldan not being a genuine Sa skya pa. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 79 autumn, seven craftsmen arrived in gSer mdog can in the spring of 1507. It is reported that on the 17th day of the fourth month, they set up the pole into the stūpa. But Shākya mchog ldan considered the rounded enclosure (bum pa) to be too small. Therefore the stūpa was enlarged, and in the end it measured 30 of his own spans “with some extra” (’phar ba dang bcas) in its height (dpangs).75 The bkra shis sgo mang stūpa was completed only two years after Shākya mchog ldan’s passing in 1507, and thus, on the first calendar day of the first half of the month nag pa (Skr. caitra) in the year dkar po (1509), Shākya mchog ldan’s “reliquary [being] the supreme wish-fulfilling gem, the mighty king” (sku gdung yid bzhin gyi nor bu dbang gi rgyal po) was finally installed in the dGa’ ldan byams pa’i gtsug lag khang. During the ensuing inauguration festivities (rab ston) on the 14th day of the same month, Shākya mchog ldan’s disciple Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po was enthroned as the new abbot of gSer mdog can by the Rin spungs ruler Don yod rdo rje.76 Not much is known about the subsequent history of gSer mdog can in the years and centuries after Shākya mchog ldan’s death. A khu Ching Shes rab rgya mtsho (1803-1875) has included in his list of rare books a “monastic chronicle” (gdan rabs) of gSer mdog can which, unfortunately, seems to be lost.77 As it is evident from the respective (auto)biographical writings, renowned masters like rDo rings pa Kun bzang chos kyi nyi ma, sGo rum pa Kun dga’ legs pa’i blo gros rgyal mtshan (1477-1544), Kun dga’ grol mchog and Tāranātha (1575-1634) visited the site or, at least, maintained contact with prominent representatives of the monastery.78 Moreover, we know that by the late 16th or early 17th century, the bKra shis brtsegs pa Bla brang of gSer mdog can was equipped with enough material resources to produce a block print (?) edition of Shākya mchog ldan’s gsung ’bum.79 According to some remarks in the autobiography of ’Brug rJe mKhan po Shākya rin chen, even in the first half of the 18th century monastic life went on despite the banning of Shākya mchog ldan’s writings by the dGa’ ldan pho brang administration.80 However, when Kaḥ thog Si tu Chos kyi rgya mtsho visited dBus and gTsang in the early 20th century, gSer mdog can lay largely in ruins. His description of the monastery—serving as a summary of the first part of this paper—represents a rare snapshot of the monastic complex as a whole: Although in former times, gSer mdog can in Pan flourished greatly, nowadays it is decayed. In the bla brang of Shangs pa Don yod dpal, there are a reliquary [made of] gilt copper alloy [which is] one fathom [high], different kinds of bronze statues, and a few books of various 75 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 62b.4-63a.3, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 99b.56 and 99b.7-100a.3. Note that according to CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, dBus gtsang, p. 350, Shākya mchog ldan’s bkra shis sgo mang reliquary was produced of a gilt copper alloy despite the fact that Shākya rgyal mtshan as well as Kun dga’ grol mchog describe it as a stūpa made of copper and silver. 76 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 68a.3-68b.3, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 105b.7-106a.4. Shākya mchog ldan’s successor Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan was one of the “three dharma lords [from] gTing skyes who were brothers” (gting skyes chos rje sku mched rnam pa gsum) coming to gSer mdog can in the early 1480s. Suffice to mention that Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan and his brothers were in charge of an early compilation of Shākya mchog ldan’s writings, which was prepared shortly after he passed away; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 68a.3-4 and 105b.5-7; and SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 68b.3-4. 77 CHANDRA (1963), vol. 3, no. 11007, with a note added by A khu Rin po che that the name of the author is not apparent from the colophon (sbyar byang mi gsal ba). See also MARTIN (1997), p. 226, no. 637. 78 See BLO GSAL RGYA MTSHO, dPal ldan bla ma, p. 231.2-5, and MKHYEN BRTSE’I DBANG PHYUG, rJe btsun rdo rje ’chang, pp. 331.2 and 363.1-2. Kun dga’ grol mchog’s ties to the monastery are touched upon in CAUMANNS (2010), pp. 214-215 and 218. Tāranātha’s presence in gSer mdog can in his “30th year of age” is attested in the colophon of his “History of the Tārātantra;” see TĀRANĀTHA, sGrol ma’i rgyud, p. 570.6. In addition, gSer mdog can is mentioned several times in the Sa skya gdung rabs by A myes zhabs (1597-1659/60). 79 ANONYMOUS, Paṇ chen, p. 5.4-6.5. 80 SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, lHag pa’i bsam pa, pp. 389.4-5 and 514.5-515.2. Note that the autobiography was left unfinished by Shākya rin chen and was later completed by his disciples Kun dga’ rgya mtsho (1722-1772) and Yon tan mtha’ yas (1724-1784). 80 Volker Caumanns religious topics. The twelve-pillar assembly hall [of] gSer mdog can was restored, and there are about five man-size statues of teachers such as Paṇ chen Shāk mchog. In the shrine room, there are a clay statue [of] Maitreya and some [books of] various religious topics. In an alcove, there is an excellent gilded copper [statue of] the Muni [which is] a little bit higher than a man. In front [of that], there is an extraordinary statue of [the Buddha “Going to] the City”81 [which is] one cubit [high]. Above, there are clay [statues of] the Sthaviras [placed on] rocky mountains82 and beneficial statues [of] protectors like Pañjaranātha and Caturmukha made by means of [Paṇ chen Shāk mchog’s] own workmanship.83 At the backside, inside the ruined red Maitreya temple, there is the great Maitreya [statue made of] gilt copper alloy [which is] two storeys high, together with the man-size [statues of] Avalokiteśvara and Mañjughoṣa. There are [also] man-size [statues of] Munīndra [Śākyamuni] and [Buddha] Dīpaṃkāra. At the right side, there is the sgo mang [reliquary] of Shāk mchog [made of] gilt copper alloy [and] at the left side, the ossuary of Tāranātha. Facing the clerestory, there are man-size gilded copper [statues] of ’Jam dbyangs Sa paṇ and Shāk mchog, and of Don yod dpal as well. [Also] facing the clerestory, there is the gilded copper reliquary of rTse gdong mKhan chen. At the front side, there is the wonderful depiction [of] the great Muni with the supreme pair [of disciples] (i.e. Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana) which amounts almost to two storeys [in height]. The vestibule and the 35-pillar old assembly hall are ruined. In a [further] Maitreya temple, there is a man-size [statue of] Maitreya [made of] gilt copper alloy. [Moreover], there are about 100 bKa’ gdams stūpas.84 Passing on the Authentic Tradition: Shākya mchog ldan’s Activities as a Teacher The biographies inform us that Shākya mchog ldan, shortly after his coming to Zi lung, began to transform the monastic school of his teacher Don yod dpal into a full-fledged monastery in compliance with Vinaya standards. As reported by Kun dga’ grol mchog, in the summer of 1471, Shākya mchog ldan introduced the tradition to observe the liturgical procedures of the three vastus (gzhi gsum), i.e. the Poṣadha ceremony, the summer retreat and the Pravāraṇā ceremony, since these customs had not been adhered to during the times of Don yod dpal.85 Prior to that, 81 For the artistic term thub dbang grong khyer ma, see JACKSON (2012), p. 286. A number of Buddha images of this type are listed in SØRENSEN & HAZOD (2007), p. 264, n. 764. 82 According to JACKSON (2012), pp. 286-287, the term brag ri ma, i.e. “an image with [figures placed] on a rocky mountain,” is distantly related to the more recent term brag thog ma which he provisionally translates as “an image with its figures seated atop rocks or crags.” See SØRENSEN & HAZOD (2007), p. 264-265, for the description of an arrangement of statues dwelling in “rock-landscapes” (brag ri). 83 For a short explanation of the related term phyag bzo (ma), see JACKSON (2012), p. 289. 84 CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, dBus gtsang, p. 350: pan gyi gser mdog can snga mo dar rgyas shin tu che rung deng sang rgud| shangs pa don yod dpal ba’i bla brang na zangs gser sku gdung ’dom gang pa dang| sku ’dra li ma sna tshogs| chos ’thor pod kha shas bcas| gser mdog can ’du khang ka ba bcu gnyis zhig gsos byas par| paṇ chen shāk mchog sogs bla sku mi tshad lnga tsam| gtsang khang du byams pa ’dam sku| chos ’thor kha shas| sbug tu thub pa zangs gser legs pa mi tshad che tsam| mdun du grong khyer ma’i sku khru gang khyad ’phags| steng du gnas brtan brag ri ma ’jim| gur zhal sogs phyag bzos mgon sku byin can| ltag ngos byams khang dmar po hral nang byams chen thog tshad mtho nges gnyis zangs gser| spyan gzigs| ’jam dbyangs mi tshad bcas| thub dbang| mar me mdzad mi tshad| g.yas su shāk mchog pa’i zangs gser sgo mang| g.yon du tā ra nā tha’i gdung| rgya mthongs khar ’jam dbyangs sa paṇ dang| shāk mchog zangs gser mi tshad| don yod dpal de ’dra| rgya mthongs khar rtse gdong mkhan chen gdung zangs gser| ngos bris thub chen mchog zur [=zung] bcas thog gnyis ma sleb tsam pa mtshar| sgo khang ’du khang rnying pa ka ba so lnga pa hrul| byams khang gcig na byams pa mi tshad zangs gser| bka’ gdams mchod rten brgya tsam yod. 85 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 35a.5-b.2, and KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 52a.4-5. This does not necessarily mean that Don yod dpal was not a diligent follower of the Vinaya. Rather, it might be the case that the number of fully ordained monks residing in Zi lung during Don yod dpal’s time was below the minimum level required for the practice of the three vastus. In this respect, it is telling to note that in his ’Dul ba’i mdo, p. 264.6-7, Shākya mchog ldan explicitly lists Don yod dpal—besides bSod nams tshul khrims (1331?-after 1443) from the ’Ga’ khang college of sKyor mo lung and the Gro sa abbot dMar ston rGya mtsho rin chen (b. 14th cent.)—as one of his influential Vinaya teachers, something that is Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 81 Shākya mchog ldan is said to have “established some regulations [for] religious practices such as aspirational prayers.”86 Nonetheless, the earliest proper “regulation of religious teachings” (chos kyi sgrigs) for the monastery we know of is attributed to the time following Shākya mchog ldan’s first sojourn in dBus from which he returned in 1478. According to Shākya rgyal mtshan, the brief teaching schedule was as follows: As to the regulation of religious teachings (chos kyi sgrigs)87 in this great monastery, the following [applied]: In winter, from the month smal po (Skr. mṛgaśīrṣa) to the month rta (Skr. māgha), [this noble lama] taught in their entirety the Prajñāpāramitā (i.e. the Abhisamayālaṃkāra) and, whichever was suitable88, the complete higher or lower Abhidharma (i.e. the Abhidharmasamuccaya or the Abhidharmakośa). During the spring term in the months dbo (Skr. phālguna) and nag pa (Skr. caitra), [he] taught, each completely, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās and the Madhyamakāvatāra. On the 15th day of the waxing moon in the month snron (Skr. jyaiṣṭha), [he] hold the Poṣadha ceremony and made the preparations for the summer retreat. On the first day of the waning moon, [he proceeded to] undergo the summer retreat [during which he] taught in their entirety Vinaya and Pramāṇa.89 Those things [he] taught to congregations comprised of the general assembly [of monks].90 Shākya rin chen who, like Kun dga’ grol mchog, has included this passage almost verbatim in his biography of Shākya mchog ldan equates Shākya rgyal mtshan’s time specifications with the hor system of months. Thus, according to him, the winter term extended from the eleventh to the first hor month and the spring term from the second to the third hor month. The summer retreat started at the 16th day of the fifth hor month, which means that Shākya mchog ldan followed the tradition of undergoing the “earlier summer retreat” (dbyar gnas snga ma).91 After having rendered the “regulation” cited above, Shākya rgyal mtshan goes on to remark that Shākya mchog ldan—besides giving teachings to the full assembly—trained separate groups of students in two daily sessions in line with their respective intellectual level.92 The instructions imparted on these pupils are specified by Kun dga’ grol mchog in the parallel section of his biography, thus mentioning basics of scholastic education such as the “general commentaries” (spyi ṭīk) on the subjects of Prajñāpāramitā and Pramāṇa, the “extensive explanation of the branches” (yan lag rgyas bshad) and of the “seventy topics” (don bdun cu) of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, the “typology of the logical sign” (rtags rigs) and the “typology of mental states” (blo rigs), the “chain of prasaṅga proofs” (thal phreng), the Thun mong zin thun as well as confirmed through a stanza in praise of these teachers in SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Las brgya rtsa, p. 524.7525.1. 86 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 52a.2-3: smon lam sogs chos sgrigs kyi dbu tshugs tsam gnang (...). 87 For this term, cf. the parallel sections in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 64a.1: chos sgrigs kyi bca’ khrims, and SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 266.1: chos kyi sgrigs gsol rnam par dag pa’i bca’ khrims. 88 Cf. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 64a.1, which reads in the corresponding passage “alternating” (re mos byas) instead of “whichever suitable” (gang yang rung ba). 89 Cf. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 64a.2: ’dul ba dang tshad ma’i mtha’ gcod, and SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 266.4: ’dul ba mdo rtsa dang| tshad ma rnam ’grel mtha’ gcod dang bcas. 90 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 46a.1-4: chos kyi grwa chen po ’di nyid kyi chos kyi sgrigs ni| dgun rmal [=smal] po’i zla ba nas rta zla’i bar| phar phyin dang| mngon pa gong ’og gang yang rung ba tshar re rdzogs par gsungs| dbo dang| nag pa zla ba la dpyid chos kyi rin| dbu ma rtsa ’jug rdzogs pa re gsungs zhing [=shing]| snron gyi zla ba’i yar ngo’i bcwa lnga la gso sbyong dang| dbyar gnas kyi sbyor ba mdzad| mar ngo’i dga’ ba dang po la| dbyar gnas par zhal gyi [=gyis] bzhes nas| ’dul ba dang tshad ma rdzogs par gsung ba yin no|| de dag ni ’dus pa spyi tshogs la gsung (...). 91 SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 266.1-4. Cf. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 63b.7-64a.2. Shākya rin chen’s equation is in accord with the tables in SCHUH (1973), p. 146. Concerning the fixing of the date of the summer retreat, see the corresponding discussion in SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, Theg pa gsum, p. 136.2-7. 92 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 46b.2-3. 82 Volker Caumanns composition and calculation.93 To intelligent students, Shākya mchog ldan explained at length the so-called “Eighteen Scriptures of Great Renown” (grags chen bco brgyad), which were particularly cherished by the Sa skya school.94 As it is further noted by Shākya rgyal mtshan, Shākya mchog ldan looked after individual disciples during the breaks between the teaching sessions in spring and in autumn, privately instructing them according to their needs in subjects such as the Five Treatises of Maitreya, the sDom gsum rab dbye and the Rigs gter of Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182-1251), Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, the Kalāpa grammar and Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa.95 Given Shākya mchog ldan’s specific scholastic background, it comes as no surprise that, according to the biographies written by Kun dga’ grol mchog and Shākya rin chen, the “general presentation of rules” (i.e., the code of conduct) and, in particular, the “regulations concerning the excellent activity of teaching the Dharma” of gSer mdog can were modeled on the “system of gSang phu.”96 Unfortunately, the biographies say nothing about the organizational structure of the monastery. One may speculate, however, that gSer mdog can comprised a number of colleges (grwa tshang) in order to effectively divide up and administrate the several hundreds of monks that are reported to have assembled there.97 In this respect, it is interesting to note that already during Shākya mchog ldan’s lifetime, four masters with the title drung nas slob dpon apparently acted as main teachers responsible for the basic education of the monks.98 93 In Tibetan: thun mong zin thun sbyor ba rtsi ba. My rendering of this phrase is tentative. The term thun mong zin thun might refer to a “syllabus” in terms of a topical overview of a curriculum; see its possibly corresponding use in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 59b.6-60a.3. 94 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 64a.2-4. According to NGAG DBANG KUN DGA’ BSOD NAMS, dPal sa skya, pp. 65.5-66.2, the “Eighteen Scriptures” were put together as a curricular corpus when g.Yag phrug and Red mda’ ba (1349-1412) were active as teachers in Sa skya. It is stated that, in the end, it was g.Yag phrug who drew up a “list of basic texts” (gzhung tho) and set up their “arrangement” (snga ldang?). These 18 texts comprise—while being assigned to the “six great volumes” (pod chen drug) Prajñāpāramitā, Pramāṇa, Vinaya, Abhidharma, Madhyamaka and Trisaṃvara—the Five Treatises of Maitreya and the Bodhicaryāvatāra; the Pramāṇasamuccaya, the Pramāṇavārttika, the Pramāṇaviniścaya and the Rigs gter; the Prātimokṣasūtra and the Vinayasūtra; the Abhidharmakośa and the Abhidharmasamuccaya; the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās, the Madhyamakāvatāra and the Catuḥśataka; as well as the sDom gsum rab dbye. Cf. JACKSON (1987), p. 158, n. 72, who presents this list on the basis of the gsan yig of Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen (1697-1774). 95 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 46b.3-4. 96 SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, Gangs can, p. 307.5-6: ji ltar bca’ yig tu ’khod pa ltar gyi sgrigs rnam gzhag spyi dang| khyad par chos kyi ’chad nyan phun sum tshogs pa’i sgrigs lam mtha’ dag kyang gsang phu’i lugs ji lta ba bzhin mdzad do. Cf. the corresponding passage in KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 74b.2, on which Shākya rin chen’s assertion is based: bca’ yig rnams su ’khod pa ltar sgrigs rnam gzhag spyi dang| chos kyi sgrigs spyi bskyur dang| gling bsres dag kyang gsang phu’i rgyun gyi tha snyad ma chag pa re gnang ngo. Note that in both biographies, this statement is attached to the account of the consecration ceremony of the Maitreya statue and the dGa’ ldan lha khang in 1487. 97 For the number of “roughly 700 [monks]” that, at some point, gathered in gSer mdog can for the summer retreat, see n. 105 below. We know, at least, of the existence of a Shangs pa college in gSer mdog can during the lifetime of sGo rum pa Kun dga’ legs pa’i blo gros (1477-1544); see MKHYEN BRTSE’I DBANG PHYUG, rJe btsun rdo rje ’chang, p. 363.1-2. Concerning the organizational structure of the monastery, see now also the recently published gnas yig of gSer mdog can which came to my attention after this article was completed. According to this source, there were four colleges in gSer mdog can: the above-mentioned Shangs pa Grwa tshang as well as a lCang ra Grwa tshang, a sNgags pa Grwa tshang and a Zur khang Grwa tshang. These institutions are said to have been founded by four disciples of Shākya mchog ldan, namely Bla ma Shangs pa chen po (i.e. Slob dpon Shangs pa Sangs rgyas blo gros), lCang ra (also: mKhar rtse lCang ra ba) Blo gros bzang po, Myang stod brTse ba chen po rDo rje rgyal mtshan (also: Nyang stod rTse chen pa rDo rje rgyal po) and a certain Blo bzang pa respectively; see S HĀKYA BSTAN ’PHEL (2013), dPal thub bstan gser mdog can dgon gyi gnas yig, Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, pp. 64-66. I will return to this topic in more detail in my second article on gSer mdog can which is under preparation. 98 The earliest reference to the four drung nas [slob dpon], consisting of “[disciples] closely related” (drung nas) to Shākya mchog ldan, dates back to 1490; see KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 80a.5. According to KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 101b.5, each of them called a dharma throne (chos Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 83 Although the origins, impact and reception of Tibetan doctrinal writings often remain largely obscure, in the case of a number of Shākya mchog ldan’s writings, we know for certain that they were composed as teaching aids to be used in the scholastic seminaries he was heading. In this regard, Kun dga’ grol mchog explicitly mentions, among other texts, the bZhed tshul rgya mtsho’i rlabs kyi phreng ba and the Lus dang yan lag rgyas par bshad pa lung don rgya mtsho—two early commentaries on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra written already for the monks of the gNas sgo college of gSang phu—as well as the Kun bzang rol mtsho, a commentary on the Pramāṇavārttika which was later known as the Shāk ṭīk.99 Moreover, Shākya mchog ldan himself refers in his monastic constitution (bca’ yig) and the historical record (dkar chag) of the Maitreya statue to some of his writings in the fields of Prajñāpāramitā and Pramāṇa which he had composed for the gSer mdog can monks.100 Besides that, several subjects were taught by Shākya mchog ldan without necessarily putting his explanations into writing. Kun dga’ grol mchog, basing himself on the nowadays lost rNam thar ma ti ma, provides some details. According to him, Shākya mchog ldan imparted the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā with the aid of Haribhadra’s Ālokā and the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā as well as the Vinayakārikās through Rong ston’s ṭīkās. As Kun dga’ grol mchog goes on to explain, Shākya mchog ldan furthermore taught Rong ston’s dBu ma’i stong thun, Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya and Bodhicaryāvatāra, the Jātakas composed by Ārya Śūra, Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha together with the commentaries by the latter author on the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Ratnagotravibhāga and Madhyāntavibhāga, Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā, Jñānagarbha’s Satyadvayavibhaṅgakārikās, the Bodhipathapradīpa of Atiśa (9801054), Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvalī and Suhṛllekha, the Pramāṇa Compendium of Phywa pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109-1169), Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Thub pa dgongs gsal and auto-commentary on the Rigs gter, the dBu ma’i stong thun of rMa bya Byang chub brtson ’grus (d. 1185), and the ’Dul ba’i gleng ’bum of Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364), along with the latter’s History of Religion (chos ’byung).101 In line with the endeavor of the biographical tradition to present Shākya mchog ldan as a realized “scholar-adept” (mkhas grub) who did not exclusively rely on scholastic learning alone, his achievements as an eminent Tantra master are emphasized through a number of episodes in the biographies. Concerning his teaching activity in this field, it is stated that Shākya mchog ldan decided to begin to promote tantric topics in the year 1487 pondering that the time had come to “open the doors of the profound Vajrayāna—headed by the Precious Oral Instructions (i.e. the Lam ’bras)—which were sealed by the lamas and ḍākinīs.”102 Shākya rgyal mtshan provides us with the following overview: [If one] includes [the occasion when], by the time [he] had finished [his] 80th year of age, [this noble lama] had granted completely the [Precious] Oral Instructions to a few [disciples], [he] gave the Oral Instructions about ten times [in total]. That is to say, in the beginning and in the end, [he] imparted [these teachings] to a small group and, in between, to a very large group, namely to roughly 600 or 700 [disciples]. In the same way, [he] granted the Ṣaḍaṅgayoga and taught] the great and small instructions such as [the Six Dharmas of] Niguma, [the Six khri) his own. Unfortunately, it is never explicitly specified by Kun dga’ grol mchog which actual persons belonged to this group, but from Paṇḍi ta, fol. 90a.4, we can conclude that Drung nas lHa btsun pa undoubtedly was one of them. Besides, quite a number of Shākya mchog ldan’s disciples (at least more than four) are styled drung nas (not to mention appellations such as drung, drung chen and drung btsun) in the narrative of the rnam thar. 99 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fols. 34b.1-4 and 74b.6-75a.2. For the texts referred to, see CW, vol. 11, pp. 157-587; vol. 3, pp. 1-161; and vol. 18, pp. 189-693. 100 For a translation of the bca’ yig and the respective section of the dkar chag together with a discussion of the varying titles attributed to these Prajñāpāramitā and Pramāṇa texts, see CAUMANNS (in preparation). 101 KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Paṇḍi ta, fol. 94a.6-b.2. 102 For the corresponding Tibetan wording see SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 50a.2-3: gsung ngag rin po ches gtsos pa’i zab mo rdo rje’i thegs pa’i sgo| bla ma dang mkha’ ’gro’i bka’ rgyas btab pa rnams| dbye ba’i dus la bab par dgongs (...). 84 Volker Caumanns Dharmas of] Nāropa and the Five Stages of the Guhyasamāja [Tantra] (i.e. the Pañcakrama ascribed to Nāgārjuna) whenever it was suitable; in other words, [one] is not able to count [all these occasions]. [Moreover, he] propounded the sGrub thabs brgya rtsa [and the sGrub thabs] rgya mtsho, the Vajrāvalī, the complete Kālacakra [system] starting with the seven empowerments [in which the aspirant] enters [like] a child [up to] the Vajra-master empowerment, the [respective] root tantra (Skr. mūlatantra), the condensed tantra (Skr. laghutantra), the great commentary [called] the Vimalaprabhā, and the reading authorization to the Sa skya bka’ ’bum. Furthermore, [when it came to] single individual teachings103, [he] imparted the sequence of empowerments, reading authorizations and instructions; that is to say, [one] is not able to measure [all this in numbers].104 The biographers furthermore emphasize that Shākya mchog ldan was an assiduous adherent of the monastic discipline. Thus, for instance, Shākya rgyal mtshan notes that Shākya mchog ldan “fostered without the slightest blemish the Vinaya doctrine by [carrying out] the three activities of a scholar which were flanked by the [respective] practical procedures” and that, “apart from that summer [when he] was on [his] way to Glo bo, [he] continuously underwent the summer retreat until [he] reached the limit [of his life span] of 80 years together with an assembly of roughly 700 [monks] who had gathered [in gSer mdog can].”105 To be sure, we have to understand statements like this, at least partly, within their historical context, the advent and rise of the young dGa’ ldan movement which claimed strict monastic discipline as a factor that distinguished it from the other schools. Since we still know little about the Tibetan exegesis of Vinaya procedures and their practical implementation, Shākya mchog ldan’s stance in this regard (as well as its relation to positions of other Tibetan Vinaya masters) is difficult to assess. Later Sa skya scholars like Ngag dbang chos grags (1572-1641) criticize Shākya mchog ldan in this regard on several points, including his imparting full bhikṣuṇī vows on the so-called rGya ma dGe slong ma and issues concerning the ordination procedure of bhikṣus.106 Still, it is hard to know the actual doctrinal position of Shākya mchog ldan on questions like these; he may well have had to bow at times to the pressure of his great donors.107 103 I am indebted to Jörg Heimbel who kindly pointed out to me that in this context, the term zur bka’ (lit.: “side teaching”) may allude to single or individual teachings as opposed to a whole teaching cycle (which would be termed as spyi bka’) consisting of a number of related teachings (email, March 18, 2013). 104 SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN, Paṇ chen, fol. 54a.2-b.1: dgung lo brgyad bcu’i [=cu’i] mthar phebs pa’i tshe| nyung shas dag la gsung ngag rdzogs par gnang ba yan la gsung ngag tshar bcu rtsam [=tsam] gnang zhing| de yang thogs [=thog] mtha’ gnyis tshogs chung la| bar du gsungs pa rnams ni tshogs shin tu che ba drug brgya bdun brgya tsam la gnang ba yin no|| sbyor drug kyang des [=de] ’tshungs [=mtshungs] snang [=gnang] zhing| ne gu| nā ro| gshed dmar rim lnga sogs khrid [che chung] ci rigs pa ni bgrang bas mi nus shing| sgrub thabs rgya [=brgya] rtsa brgya [=rgya] mtsho| rdo rje phreng ba| dus kyi ’khor lo’i byis pa ’jug pa’i dbang bdun nas| bdag po chen po’i dbang dang bcas pa yongs su rdzogs pa| rtsa brgyud [=rgyud]| bsdus brgyud [=rgyud]| ’grel chen dri med ’od| sa skya bka’ ’bum gyi lung sogs dang| gzhan yang zur bka’ dbang lung| man ngag gi rim pa gsungs ni pag [=dpag] par mi nus mod. 105 SHĀKYA RGYAL MSHAN, Paṇ chen, fols. 46b.4-47a.2. The Tibetan passage partially translated above reads:’dul ba’i phyag len phran tshegs kyis mtha’ rten [=brten] pa dus rtag tu ma nyams par mdzad cing| khyad par dbyar gnas par ’dus pa’i tshogs bdun brgya tsam dang bcas nas zhal gyis bzhes pa ni| gtsang du bshad nyan la phebs nas| blo bor pheb [=phebs] pa’i lam la bas [=byas] pa’i dbyar ngo de tsam ma rtogs [=gtogs]| dgung lo brgyad bcu’i [=cu’i] mthar son gyi bar du| ’chag [=chag] med du mdzad cing| lag len gyi [=gyis] mtha’ brten pa’i mkhas pa’i bya bya [bya bya=bya] ba rnam pa gsum gyi [=gyis]| ’dul ba’i bstan pa mchog tu rma med par gsos pa yin no. Note that, according to Kun dga’ grol mchog’s narrative, Shākya mchog ldan missed the summer retreat on his return trip from Glo bo and not, as stated by Shākya rgyal mtshan, when he was on his way to Glo bo. 106 NGAG DBANG CHOS GRAGS, Bod kyi mkhas pa, pp. 144.3 and 126.5ff. 107 This was indicated to me by mKhan po bKra shis rdo rje in the case of the bhikṣuṇī ordination which Shākya mchog ldan might have only performed because of the pressure of his donors from rGya ma (personal communication, Kathmandu, spring 2012). See also the remarks in NGAG DBANG CHOS GRAGS, Bod kyi mkhas pa, p. 126.5-6. Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 85 Concluding Remarks: The Salvific Dimension of Establishing Religious Structures While focusing on the history of Thub bstan gSer mdog can, I tried in this article to illustrate some of the roles Shākya mchog ldan had to assume as abbot of this institution. At the same time, I came to notice a number of motives that lay behind his endeavors: Driven by his deep respect for Don yod dpal, Shākya mchog ldan took over the monastic school in Zi lung despite his initial hesitation to shoulder that burden. This might be seen as a traditional way “to repay the kindness” (bka’ drin gsob) his teacher Don yod dpal had shown to him. After Don yod dpal’s passing, Shākya mchog ldan erected “holy objects of the body, speech and mind of the Tathāgatas” and remained committed to further develop the monastic seat of the lama as a means to “fulfill the last wishes” of his master. Furthermore, while expanding the complex and transforming it into a thriving seminary, Shākya mchog ldan sought to preserve and foster the scholastic heritage of g.Yag phrug and Rong ston (which he considered to be an authentic Sa skya tradition) as well as teachings of rNgog Lo tsā ba’s “gSang phu school” in a time when “the later doctrines [of Tsong kha pa and his disciples] spread like fire among the fools and learned ones in the Land of Snows.”108 Finally, as Shākya mchog ldan refined the religious traditions he had inherited from his teachers and translated them into his own characteristic system, he used the institutional framework of his monastic seat to promote and consolidate his own “gSer mdog can tradition.” Nevertheless, we should not forget that a Tibetan monastery is not solely an institution of scholastic exegesis and study (nor is it a storehouse of religious art). Since it is also an abode for the three kinds of holy objects which are conceived of as the body, speech and mind aspects of the nirmāṇakāya of the Awakened Ones, to establish and maintain a monastery had an important salvific purpose. As Shākya mchog ldan pointed out in the introductory part of his register-cumhistory of the Maitreya statue, due to the presence of “the holy objects of the Three Jewels in general and, in particular, the statues of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which are sacred relics in essence,” excellent results ensue: the Precious Doctrine of the Victorious One becomes disseminated through all the dharma doors and in many regions, and Buddha activities spontaneously flourish; the Doctrine persists for a long time without interruption; and all excellent qualities of worldly traditions naturally increase.109 This salvific aspect, along with the benefits for the donors who supported the erection of a monastic complex, was something that was maintained by Tibetan scholars of all periods, regardless of their sectarian affiliation. I may conclude by quoting Thub bstan legs bshad rgya mtsho (1920-2007), the bCo brgyad Khri pa of Nālendra (the monastery founded by Shākya mchog ldan’s teacher Rong ston) on this topic: One who erects [...] a temple for the meeting of the monastic assembly will accrue limitless benefits. As it is stated in the Saddharmasmrtyupasthana Sutra, “The virtue of correctly erecting a temple and installing in it shrines, and offering a dwelling, bed, and refreshment to the monastic assembly, increase ever more and more, and will not become exhausted even in a thousand million eons.” [...] Accordingly, if a patron should build a religious structure following the dimensions and size prescribed by the basic texts, his mental stream will become endowed with vast merit. This is because founding a temple will contribute in part to the spreading of the jewel of the Buddha’s Teachings, because the monastic assembly will be able to dwell there free from anxiety and thus be able to perform the practices set forth in the three wheels of the Doctrine.110 108 For this quote, see SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 256.1: gangs can du phyis dar ba’i lugs mkhas rmongs kun la me ltar mched (...). 109 For the passage paraphrased above, see SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, rJe btsun byams pa, p. 244.1-3: rgyal ba’i bstan pa rin po che| chos kyi sgo thams cad nas yul phyogs du mar dar zhing| phrin las lhun gyis grub par rgyas pa dang| de nyid rgyun mi chad par yun ring du gnas pa dang| ’jig rten lugs kyi phun sum tshogs pa mtha’ dag rang gi ngang gis ’phel ba ni| spyir dkon mchog gsum gyi rten dang| khyad par sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’i sku gzugs ring bsrel gyi snying po can bzhugs la rag las pa yin (...). 110 THUBTEN LEGSHAY GYATSO (1979), pp. 26-27 (English section). The Tibetan text, which is to be found on p. 26 (Tibetan section), was translated into English by David Jackson. 86 Volker Caumanns BIBLIOGRAPHY CW — Collected Writings of gSer-mdog Paṇ-chen Śākya-mchog-ldan. 24 vols. New Delhi: Ngawang Topgyal, 1988; originally published in Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975. Western Language References CAUMANNS, Volker (2010). “Tibetan Sources on the Life of Serdog Panchen Shakya Chogden (14281507).” In Linda Covill et al. [ed.], Lives Lived, Lives Imagined: Biography in the Buddhist Traditions. Boston: Wisdom Publications, pp. 205-240. ——— (2012). “Der Mahāpaṇḍita des Klosters gSer-mdog-can: Leben und Werk des Sa-skya-Meisters Shākya-mchog-ldan (1428-1507).” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. ——— (in preparation). “Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part II): Vinaya Procedures and Teaching Traditions.” CHANDRA, Lokesh (1963). Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature. 3 vols. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. CÜPPERS, Christoph (2010). “Some Remarks on Bka’ ’gyur Production in 17th-century Tibet.” In Anne Chayet et al. [ed.], Editions, éditions: l’écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir. München: Indus Verlag (=Collectanea Himalayica 3), pp. 115-128. CZAJA, Olaf (forthcoming). Medieval Rule in Tibet: The Rlangs Clan and the Political and Religious History of the Ruling House of Phag mo gru pa. With a Study of the Monastic Art of Gdan sa mthil (title from the unpublished draft of 2012). DREYFUS, Georges (1997). Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations. Albany: State University of New York Press (=SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). ESSEN, Gerd-Wolfgang, & Tsering Tashi THINGO (1989). Die Götter des Himalaya: Buddhistische Kunst Tibets, Tafelband. München: Prestel-Verlag. EVERDING, Karl-Heinz (2000). Das Königreich Mang yul Gung thang: Königtum und Herrschaftsgewalt im Tibet des 13.-17. Jahrhunderts. 2 vols. Bonn: VGH Wissenschafts-Verlag (=Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 1, Scriptores 6). ——— (2005). “Beobachtungen zur Geschichte der Zehntausendschaft Chu mig und ihrer heiligen Stätten.” Zentralasiatische Studien, 34, pp. 99-126. FERRARI, Alfonsa (1958). mK’hyen brtse’s Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet. Roma: Is.M.E.O. (=Serie Orientale Roma, 16). HEIMBEL, Jörg (2011). “Biographical Sources for Researching the Life of Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1382-1456).” Revue d’Études Tibétaines, 22, pp. 47-92. JACKSON, David (1987). The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III): Sa-skya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa and Philosophical Debate. 2 vols. Wien: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien (=Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, 17.1/2). ——— (1996). A History of Tibetan Painting: The Great Tibetan Painters and Their Traditions. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (=Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 15). ——— (2012). “The Language of Art: The Challenge of Translating Art Historical Terms from the Biography of the Tenth Karmapa.” In Karl Debreczeny [ed.], The Black Hat Eccentric: Artistic Visions of the Tenth Karmapa. New York: Rubin Museum of Art, pp. 279-289. KERIN, Melissa R. (2009). Artful Beneficence: Selections from the David R. Nalin Himalayan Art Collections. New York: Rubin Museum of Art. KOMAROVSKI, Yaroslav (2011). Visions of Unity: The Golden Paṇḍita Shakya Chokden’s New Interpretation of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka. Albany: State University of New York Press (=SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). VAN DER KUIJP, Leonard W. J. (1983). Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: From the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag (=Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 26). LO BUE, Erberto (1985/86). “The Newār Artists of the Nepal Valley: An Historical Account of Their Activities in Neighbouring Areas with Particular Reference to Tibet.” Oriental Art, New Series, 31/3 (part one), pp. 262-277; 31/4 (part two), pp. 409-420. ——— (2012). “Newar Artistic Influence in Tibet and China Between the 7th and the 15th Century.” In Elena de Rossi Filibeck [ed.], Tibetan Art Between Past and Present: Studies Dedicated to Luciano Shākya mchog ldan’s Monastic Seat 87 Petech. Proceedings of the Conference held in Rome on the 3rd November 2010. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore (=Supplemento No 1 alla Rivista degli Studi Orientali, Nuova Serie, Volume LXXXIV). MARTIN, Dan (1997). Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works. London: Serindia. MICHAELS, Axel (1988). The Making of a Statue: Lost-Wax Casting in Nepal. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. SCHOPEN, Gregory (2006). “The Buddhist ‘Monastery’ and the Indian Garden: Aesthetics, Assimilations, and the Siting of Monastic Establishments.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 126/4, pp. 487505. SCHUH, Dieter (1970). “Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Astronomie in Tibet, Teil 1, Elementare Arithmetik.” ZAS, 4, pp. 81-181; reprinted in Dieter Schuh (2012), vol. 2, pp. 687-788. ——— (1973). Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag (=Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplementband 16). ——— (1988). Das Archiv des Klosters bKra-šis-bsam-gtan-gliṅ von sKyid-groṅ. 1. Teil: Urkunden zur Klosterordnung, grundlegende Rechtsdokumente und demographisch bedeutsame Dokumente, Findbücher. St. Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag (=Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 3, Band 6). ——— (2012). Contributions to the History of Tibetan Mathematics, Tibetan Astronomy, Tibetan Time Calculation (Calendar) and Sino-Tibetan Divination. 4 vols. Andiast: International Institute of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies. SHEN WEIRONG (2002). Leben und historische Bedeutung des ersten Dalai Lama dGe ’dun grub pa dpal bzang po (1391-1474): Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der dGe lugs pa-Schule und der Institution der Dalai Lamas. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag (=Monumenta Serica Monograph Series, 49). SØRENSEN, Per K., & Guntram HAZOD (2007). Rulers on the Celestial Plane: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (=Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 361). TANAKA, Yuko (1994). “A Note on the History, Materials and Techniques of Tibetan Appliqué Thangkas.” In Per Kvaerne [ed.], Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, vol. 2, pp. 873-876. THUBTEN LEGSHAY GYATSHO (1979/2002). Gateway to the Temple: Manual of Tibetan Monastic Customs, Art, Building and Celebrations. Translated by David Paul Jackson. Kathmandu: Trikal Maitreya Buddha Vihara. TUCCI, Giuseppe [ed.] (1971). Deb t’er dmar po gsar ma: Tibetan Chronicles by bSod nams grags pa. Roma: Is.M.E.O. (=Serie Orientale Roma XXIV). TURENNE, Philippe (2010). “Interpretations of Unity: Hermeneutics in Śākya mchog ldan’s Interpretations of the Five Treatises of Maitreya.” PhD thesis, McGill University Montreal, Faculty of Religious Studies. VITALI, Roberto (2004). “Gur lha khang ma, ‘the Tent which is a Temple’, Donated to Shakya mchog ldan by the Mustang Ruler bKra shis mgon.” The Tibet Journal, 29/3, pp. 66-74. Tibetan References [ANONYMOUS]. Paṇ chen chos kyi rgyal po’i gsung ’bum dkar chag. In CW, vol. 1, pp. 1-7. KUN DGA’ GROL MCHOG, Jo nang rJe btsun (1507-1566). Paṇḍi ta chen po shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mo rnam par ’byed pa. Block print, TBRC, W25586; (illegible sections were copied from CW, vol. 16, pp. 1-233). ——— Byang bdag rnam rgyal grags bzang gi rnam thar. Kan su’u zhing chen grangs nyung mi rigs kyi gna’ dpe dag sgrig gzhung las khang, 1985. ——— Zhen pa rang grol gyi lhug par brjod pa’i gtam skal bzang dad pa’i shing rta ’dren byed. In The Autobiographies of Jo-nang Kun-dga’-grol-mchog and his Previous Embodiments. 2 vols. New Delhi: Tibet House, 1982, vol. 2, pp. 285-533. KUN DGA’ CHOS BZANG, sKyed tshal mkhan po (1433-1503). Kun mkhyen chos kyi rgyal po’i rnam par thar pa dad gus kyi chu ’dzin rnam par rol pa. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs (second set). Zi ling: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011, vol. 56, pp. 73-212. KLU SGRUB RGYA MTSHO, Mang thos (1523-1596). bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar. lHa sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987 (=Gangs can rig mdzod, 4). DKON MCHOG LHUN GRUB, Ngor mKhan chen X (1497-1557). A History of Buddhism, Being the Text of: Dam pa’i chos kyi ’byung tshul legs par bshad pa bstan pa’i rgya mtshor ’jug pa’i gru chen zhes bya ba rtsom ’phro kha skong bcas. New Delhi: Ngawang Tobgey, 1973. MKHYEN BRTSE’I DBANG PO, ’Jam dbyangs (1820-1892). dBus gtsang gi gnas rten rags rim gyi mtshan byang mdor bsdus dad pa’i sa bon. In The Collected Works (gsung ’bum) of the Great ’Jam dbyangs 88 Volker Caumanns mKhyen brtse’i dbang po. 24 vols. Gangtok: rDzong gsar dgon pa’i par khang, 1977-1980, vol. 24, pp. 149-184. MKHYEN BRTSE’I DBANG PHYUG, ’Jam dbyangs (1524-1568). rJe btsun rdo rje ’chang sgo rum pa chen po kun dga’ legs pa’i blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rigs sngags kyi rtogs pa brjod pa’i gtam ngo mtshar yid bzhin gyi chu gter bzhad pa. In Lam ’bras slob bshad (sde dge par ma bskyar par). 21 vols. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983-1985, vol. 2, pp. 249-397. NGAG DBANG KUN DGA’ BSOD NAMS, A myes zhabs (1597-1659). dPal sa skya pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi mkhas pa’i dbang po mkhan chen ngag dbang chos grags la grags chen bco brgyad las brtsams pa’i dri ba dris lan gyi yig chung. In dPal sa skya pa chen po sngags ’chang thams cad mkhyen pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi gsung ’bum. 29 vols. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2000, vol. 27, pp. 62-67. NGAG DBANG CHOS GRAGS (1572-1641). Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtha’ dpyod dang bcas pa’i ’bel ba’i gtam skyes dpyod ldan mkhas pa’i lus rgyan rin chen mdzes pa’i phra tshom bkod pa (=Pod chen drug gi ’bel gtam). Thim phu: Kunsang Topgyel and Mani Dorji, 1979. CHOS KYI RGYA MTSHO, Kaḥ thog Si tu (1880-1923). dBus gtsang gi gnas yig. lHa sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1999 (=Gangs can rig mdzod, 33). TĀRANĀTHA (1575-1634). sGrol ma’i rgyud kyi ’byung khung gsal bar byed pa’i lo rgyus gser gyi phreng ba. In gSung ’bum (’dzam thang par ma). vol. 12, pp. 523-570. BLO GSAL RGYA MTSHO, Tshar chen (1502-1566). dPal ldan bla ma dam pa kun spangs chos kyi rgyal po’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar dad pa’i spu long g.yo ba. In Lam ’bras slob bshad. (sde dge par ma bskyar par). 21 vols. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983-1985, vol. 2, pp. 153-247. DBANG PHYUG GRUB, Kong ston (15th cent.). Kun mkhyen bsod nams seng ge’i rnam thar: The Biography of Go-ram [!] bSod-nams seṅ-ge (a Great Scholar of the Sa-skya-pa Sect) by W. Koṅ-ston (His DiscipleSuccessor) (=rJe bla ma’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rin po che’i phreng ba). Delhi: T.G. Dhongthog, 1973. SHĀKYA RGYAL MTSHAN DPAL BZANG PO (15th/16th cent.). Paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa padma dkar po’i phreng ba. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs (second set). Zi ling: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011, vol. 57, pp. 317-470. SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN, gSer mdog Paṇ chen (1428-1507). Chos kyi ’khor lo bskor ba’i rnam gzhag ji ltar grub pa’i yi ge gzu bor gnas pa’i mdzangs pa dga’ byed. In CW, vol. 16, pp. 457-482. ——— rJe btsun byams pa mgon po’i sku brnyan bzhengs pa’i dkar chag lo rgyus dang bcas pa. In CW, vol. 17, pp. 243-272. ——— rJe btsun dam pa a mo gha shri bha tra’i rnam par thar pa bskal bzang skye rgu’i dang ba ’dren byed. In CW, vol. 17, pp. 43-62. ——— Thub bstan gser mdog can gyi lo rgyus dkar chag. In CW, vol. 17, pp. 307-309. ——— Theg pa gsum gyi ’dul ba rnam par bzhag pa las nyan thos kyi ’dul ba. In CW, vol. 6, pp. 1-229. ——— ’Dul ba’i mdo’i dka’ ba’i gnas rnam par bshad pa mdo’i snang byed nyi ma’i shing rta. In CW, vol. 22, pp. 1-265. ——— Las brgya rtsa gcig gi dka’ gnas so so’i don gsal bar byed pa’i bstan bcos zla ba’i shing rta. In CW, vol. 22, pp. 311-525. ——— [untitled 1]. In CW, vol. 17, pp. 272.6-274.1. ——— [untitled 2]. In CW, vol. 17, p. 274.1-7. SHĀKYA RIN CHEN, rJe mKhan po IX (1709/10-1759). Gangs can gyi shing rta chen po dpal shākya mchog ldan dri med legs pa’i blo gros kyi rnam thar thub bstan gsal ba’i nyin byed. In The Collected Works (gsuṅ ’bum) of Śākya-rin-chen, the Ninth rJe mKhan-po of Bhutan. 8 vols. Thimphu: Kunzang Topgey, 1976, vol. 4, pp. 1-471. ——— lHag pa’i bsam pa bskul zhing byang chub kyi spyod pa la ’jug pa’i gtam dam pa’i chos kyi gaṇḍi’i sgra dbyangs snyan pa’i yan lag rgya mtsho. In rJe Śākya rin chen gyi rnam thar daṅ gsuṅ thor bu: The Autobiography and Selected Writings of Śakya-rin-chen, the Ninth rJe mKhan-po of Bhutan. Delhi: Thamchoe Monlam, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 1-519.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan's Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I): The History of its Foundation

Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan's Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I): The History of its Foundation

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS