The Collected Works of gSer mdog Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan: The Formation and Early Transmission of a 15th-Century Literary Corpus

Volker Caumanns

In Volker Caumanns and Marta Sernesi (eds.). Fifteenth Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest. LIRI Seminar Proceedings Series 8. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2017, 115-160

Fifteenth Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest . LIRI Seminar Proceedings Series Edited by LUMBINI INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Volume 8 Fifteenth Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest Proceedings of a Conference Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2015 Edited by Volker Caumanns and Marta Sernesi Lumbini International Research Institute Lumbini 2017 Lumbini International Research Institute P.O. Box 39 Bhairahawa, Dist. Rupandehi NEPAL E-mail: liri.lumbini2016@gmail.com © Lumbini International Research Institute Cover illustration: Gyantse fortress. Photograph by Jörg Heimbel. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photocopy, microfilm, scanner or any other means without prior written permission. Enquiries should be made to the publisher. ISBN 978-9937-0-3042-7 First published in 2017 Printed in Nepal by Dongol Printers, Kathmandu Participants in the Conference, 9—14 March, 2015, Lumbini CONTENTS Preface Introduction ix xi Political and Institutional History FRANZ-KARL EHRHARD Chos dpal bzang po (1371–1439): The “Great Teacher” (bla chen) of rDzong dkar and His Biography 1 KARL-HEINZ EVERDING Gyantse: Rise, Prime and Decline of a Tibetan Principality in the 14th–16th Centuries 33 MATHIAS FERMER Putting Yar rgyab on the Map 63 FEDERICA VENTURI Before and After: A Perspective on the Fifteenth Century in Tibet 97 Cultural History VOLKER CAUMANNS The Collected Works of gSer mdog Pa chen Shākya mchog ldan: The Formation and Early Transmission of a 15th-Century Literary Corpus 115 EDWARD HENNING Vanaratna and the Origins of grub rtsis 161 DAVID JACKSON The sMin grol gling Lamdre Sculptures Reconsidered 173 MARTA SERNESI Towards a History of Early Tibetan Printing: New Evidence and Uncharted Territories 195 viii Polemics YAEL BENTOR Did mKhas grub rje Challenge the Authenticity of the Sa skya Lam ’bras Tradition? 227 JÖRG HEIMBEL The Dispute Between mKhas grub rJe and Ngor chen: Its Representation and Role in Tibetan Life-Writing 249 KLAUS-DIETER MATHES Did ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392–1481) Espouse a gZhan stong View? 291 PREFACE The present volume constitutes the proceedings of the conference Towards a History of 15th Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming, Religious Fervour and Political Unrest, held at the Lumbini International Research Institute from March 9–14, 2015, and organised in collaboration with Christoph Cüppers. We wish to thank him, as well as everyone working at the LIRI center, for the smooth organisation and wonderful hospitality. We also wish to thank the Reiyūkai for the generous financial support. Finally, we wish to thank Basanta Bidari, for acting as our knowledgeable and amiable guide during our day trips. The seminars held at the LIRI were inaugurated in March 2000, and entail a week of talks, excursions, and plenty of occasions for exchange and discussion. We wish to thank all the participants to the conference for the very constructive and informed conversations, and all the knowledge shared. Moreover, shortly before the conference, Kathmandu International Airport was closed due to a minor plane accident, causing disruption to the travel of many of the attendants. We wish to thank everyone for travelling nonetheless, and for participating in our small gathering. Besides the speakers represented in the present volume, we were joined in Lumbini by Dan Martin, Tibor Porcio, and Eva Kamilla Mojzes. Sadly, two of our colleagues and friends that spent the week in Lumbini with us are no longer in this world. They are Edward Henning and Elliot Sperling, whom we wish hereby to remember, and to whom we dedicate the present volume. Edward was a generous, warm-hearted and extroverted character, and he will be greatly missed. He sent us his paper before the illness broke out, and hence it is included, after some minor editing, in the present volume. We wish to thank his wife Ayse for the permission to publish. We wish to take this opportunity to remember the pleasure of sharing a good meal conversing with Edward, listening to the stories and experiences from his remarkable life. Knowing his hospitality and friendliness, we are sure that many share such fond memories of him. Elliot’s recent and unforeseen passing has left a great void. In remembering the brilliant, kind, and witty man, we cannot but feel that the discipline has lost one of its most gifted scholars. His contribution to the LIRI seminar concerned the economic and demographic growth of Eastern Tibet during the 15h century. Last December he felt that the paper was not yet finalised for publication, and hence, unfortunately, we are not able to include it in the present volume. A great number of homages and memories of Elliot have been shared after his demise, and we partake in the grief at his loss, as well as expressing our gratitude to have been able to share the week in Lumbini with him. Marta and Volker xi INTRODUCTION We shall begin this journey by stating that, of course, there never was any such thing as a Tibetan 15th century. On the plateau, time was not counted anno domini, nor measured in centuries or millenniums. The calendar was articulated in sexagenary cycles (rab ’byung) starting in 1027, so that the period under consideration fell under the 7th and 8th cycles (1387–1506). However, to talk about the 15th century in relation to Tibet is more than a handy shortcut, a conventional means of immediately pointing to the timeframe we wish to consider. In fact, it is a means of placing the discourse about Tibet within the wider frame of global history. Positioned in the heart of the Asian continent, at the crossroad between South Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia, was not Tibet part of the 15th century world? Can we study the history of Tibet in isolation from the wider developments in Asian history, and world history at large? Periodization is, of course, one of the chief means by which historians construct narratives, interpret data to construct coherent accounts, and individuate discontinuities. Bryan Cuevas (2006: 44) has noted how “there has not been much sustained reflection on the critical question of periodization in the historical study of Tibet,” and indeed, scholars have not yet agreed on an overarching scheme for treating Tibetan history. Any such division is not only artificial and provisional, but also has a wide range of political and ideological implications that the choice of terms such as “Renaissance,” “Middle-Age,” or “Modern Era,” for example, would immediately convey. Hence, the historian faces a difficult alternative: does (s)he wish to treat Tibet within the global context, allowing a fuller understanding of its role in it, as well as investigating the circumstances that influenced the turn of events on the plateau? In this case, one would need to look beyond the Tibetan historical narrative, and employ “borrowed” terms and notions in order for Tibet to be understood in a wider historical discourse. Alternatively, the historian of Tibet might prefer to employ emic categories and understandings of the periodization of Tibetan history. But in this case the risk is that the focus will become too narrow, and that one will end up thinking of Tibet’s history in isolation. The “long century” that we are looking at in this volume begins in the middle of the 14th century. Usually, in order to construct periodization schemes, “threshold” dates are established (e.g. 1492, 1789) that symbolically mark major discontinuities, although even events such as revolutions are now understood as processes lasting in time. We suggest that one such significant date, for Central and East Asia, including Tibet, can be identified to be 1368, since that is the conventional date that marks the end of the Yuan dynasty. In fact, the Yuan dynasty kept China and Tibet closely connected to the Mongol Khanates: it promoted cultural exchanges, and the xii transmission of knowledge and technologies throughout Eurasia (see e.g. Allsen 2009; Biran 2015). The court had a distinct plural and cosmopolitan character, and Tibet, which was integrated into the Mongol Empire, participated in these exchanges. The advent of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) marked a major shift in the power relations in East Asia and Central Asia, and Tibet witnessed dramatic political and cultural changes as well. This is usually indicated, in studies on domestic history, as being the transition from the Yuan–Sa skya Hegemony to that of the Phag mo gru, and it is dated variably to 1349, 1350, 1354, 1358, or 1361. The following period saw political unrest and ongoing civil wars. As the overall administrative centralized system collapsed, the Tibetan territory formerly controlled by the Yuan dynasty was fragmented into a number of smaller policies. Individuals and families were able to rise to a new prominence, or considerably strengthen their position, to become key political players during the 15th century. Even though the Phag mo gru succeeded, at least for a while, in reorganising many of the local powers around their rule, they were not capable of controlling the fringes of the plateau, so that Western and Eastern Tibet were effectively autonomous. In central Tibet (dBus gTsang) there were frequent conflicts, shifting alliances, and maneuvers to gain political influence, while the fortunes of the ruling Phag mo gru nobles were on the decline (1432) and the Rin spungs pas made a bid for power. A profound transformation of the religious and political configuration of Tibet, which came to full maturation during the following century, was initiated at this time. In fact, many of the contributions in this volume look at the 16th century as well, and it may be argued that the next main moment of discontinuity should be identified as being in 1642, with the coming to power of the 5th Dalai Lama. The policy of the early Ming in relation to Tibet is a politically charged topic, and as such it has been variously interpreted and debated (see e.g. Sperling 2004: 11–12, 26–27). Elliot Sperling, in his dissertation (1983), analyses the scholarly proposition, which was widely repeated at the time, that the early Ming emperors adopted a “divide and rule” policy in Tibet, and concludes that this thesis is not supported by documentary evidence. Shen (2007) also considers this definition inapt, and argues that the policy was characterized by a much more passive attitude of “accommodating barbarians from afar.” Both scholars underline the importance of commerce in the diplomatic relationships between Ming China and Tibet: it was sought to keep the routes open, and the old Yuan relay stations, between the capital and the plateau, and the “tribute missions” to the court were sanctioned occasions for commerce, which involved the exchange of paper money, textiles, clothing, and tea for Inner Asian goods (Rossabi 1975: 60–83). In particular, the horse-tea trade became of high strategic importance for the Chinese. In fact, the Ming military depended on Tibet for the supply of the highly coveted inner Asia horses, ideally suited for warfare against the Mongols. The development of this trade influenced the overall Ming policy towards Tibet, and it became so important that it influenced population movements (Sperling 1988). xiii Elliot Sperling, in the talk that he delivered at the conference in Lumbini, returned on this important issue, underlining the importance of furthering the study of Tibetan economic history. He suggested that the tea–horse trade (which, despite its name, to a lesser extent also involved other items, such as silk) induced a stark economic and demographic growth in Eastern Tibet (Khams), mirrored by the foundation of new monastic establishments. According to his reconstruction, which is unfortunately missing from these proceedings, during the 15th century Sichuan was the richest region of China, commerce was flourishing, and smuggling over the border was rampant. More research in this area is very much needed, as it would help clarify the role of Tibet in global and long-term economic trends, such as the circulation of silver (see e.g. Flynn 2015; von Glahn 2013; Kuroda 2009). Indeed, it may be posited that, with the growth of the horse trade, silver flowed into Tibet, and that during the 15th century the plateau witnessed an exceptional period of prosperity. For example, Rossabi (1975: 77) maintains that, “[i]n the latter half of the fifteenth century, as the Chinese need for Inner Asian horses became critical, the court wooed the Mongols and Central Asians with presents of silver, expanding vast amounts in this effort.” As the foreign trade missions demanded silver in lieu of paper money, emperors were forced to limit this practice “in order to prevent a disastrous outflow of the metal” (ibid.). Such a scenario would explain the incredible cultural efflorescence that characterizes the period in Tibet, which could have been made possible only by the availability of a significant economic surplus that, at the moment, is difficult to account for. Indeed, between the second half of the 14th century and the early 16th century, we witness a period of cultural splendour, which found expression in a wide range of literature, in scholastic philosophy, in the figurative arts, and in technical innovation. Several of the greatest Tibetan scholars and spiritual adepts lived in this period, some acting as agents of religious reform, often styled as a return to the tradition’s origins. Religious monuments that still mark the Tibetan landscape were erected, and we observe the birth of truly Tibetan artistic styles. Monumental many-doors stūpas, in rGyal rtse, Jo nang, and gCung Ri bo che, testify to the grandeur of the achievements in architecture, sculpture, painting, and carpentry, while the iron bridges of Thang stong rgyal po are probably the best-known engineering accomplishments of the time. Xylographic book printing spread in central Tibet in the 15th c., and it was rapidly adopted throughout the plateau. Overall, notwithstanding the political turmoil, this was an extremely fertile period in Tibetan cultural history. We also witness several political developments that come to maturation during this period, and that eventually come to shape Tibetan society. The Mongol policy of tax exemption of the monastic establishments favoured the concentration of wealth in those institutions, and this paved the way to their later political prominence. However, during the Yuan–Sa skya period the relationship between the religious institutions and the local noble families was very close. The myriarchies (khri skor) had a monastery at their heart, which was the centre of power and of the administration, but xiv often the ecclesiastic centres were governed by a clan through the uncle-nephew (khu dbon) system. In any case, the temporal affairs were not directly in the hands of the clergy, but in the hands of a lay administrator stemming from the local noble families (e.g. the Sa skya dpon chen, the ’Bri gung sgom pa etc.), charged with managing the administrative and financial matters. However, under the Phag mo gru, Buddhist institutions and hierarchs gradually separated from clan politics, to become autonomous political players, in competition, that managed the relationship with the noble houses. The religious market became more fluid, the allegiances between religious and political actors started shifting, and new schools emerged, most prominently the dGa’ ldan pa / dGe lugs pa. The religious landscape changed dramatically, with many new monasteries flourishing, while old ones declined or were attracted within the orbit of the new schools and lineages. Monastic centres prospered, and some became long-lasting players in the religiopolitical scenery. It may be argued that the increase in recognition of new incarnations series (sprul sku lines) during this period is also linked to this shift in the relationship between religious institutions and clan politics. Indeed, it has been observed how from the 1460s to the 1630s there were at least 85 new incarnation lineages recognized, 43 of which were in Central Tibet, and more than a third (32) were within the dGa’ ldan pa/ dGe lugs pa (Tuttle 2017: 40–42). The growing autonomy of the monastic institutions from the political trajectory of specific families called for new means of mediating between the religious and secular powers that would allow constant renegotiations, greater economic independence, and room for political maneuvers to forge alliances at the expenses of the rival schools. Arguably, when compared to the khu dbon system, the sprul sku form of succession to the religious office guaranteed much more flexibility in all these domains (see also Schwieger 2015, Sørensen 2005). While this volume is not a systematic investigation of all these developments, the contributions gathered here help to construct a composite and complex picture of this fascinating period. Indeed, the aim of our conference, and of this volume, is to bring together different perspectives and approaches in the study of Tibetan history. Historians of Tibetan politics, economy, society, religion, literature, material culture, art, or philosophy, seldom have the opportunity to share their insights and collaborate to reconstruct a fuller picture of Tibet’s past. Collaborative volumes and conference proceedings usually focus on themes, rather than time periods, with very few exceptions (e.g. Cuevas ed. 2006; Pommaret ed. 1997). However, to thoroughly understand the Zeitgeist of the 15th century in Tibet we must draw from a wide field of knowledge. Only by bringing together our studies of the main political and cultural shifts of this era can we gain a more comprehensive historical understanding of the period. We hope that this effort will show the benefit to be gained from such a multidisciplinary approach, and it will encourage further collaborative enquiries into distinct phases of Tibet’s history. In the present volume, we have grouped the contributions into three main sections, but it will become evident how they all respond to each other and enrich one another. xv The ﬁrst main section focuses on issues pertaining to the political and institutional history of 15th-century Tibet, and comprises four articles. While the first three articles (contributed by Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Karl-Heinz Everding, and Mathias Fermer) are case studies that, from different angles, deal with the political and religious activities of local Tibetan ruling houses, the fourth article (contributed by Federica Venturi) provides a general assessment of historical developments and structures that may be singled out as representative features of the “long 15th century” in Tibet. Ehrhardʼs article, which opens this section, explores the religious career of the “great teacher” (bla chen) of rDzong dkar, Chos dpal bzang po (1371–1439), who acted as “court chaplain” (sku rim pa) of the ruling family of Mang yul Gung thang in the first half of the 15th century. While following the course of Chos dpal bzang poʼs life as it is presented in a biography (rnam thar) by the latterʼs disciple Mañjuśrījñāna (alias Chos ʼkhor Lo tsā ba), Ehrhard touches upon a number of important aspects of the political and cultural life of Mang yul Gung thang. The article thus provides insights into the interactions between the clerical and political elites of western central Tibet, the marriage-based politics of the Mang yul Gung thang nobles (i.e., a branch of the Yar lung dynasty), and the political and military conflicts in which the ruling house was involved. At the same time, Ehrhard sheds light on the activities and duties of a 15th-century Buddhist chaplain, who was expected to perform court rituals, to give religious instructions to members of the ruling family, to oversee the production of holy objects (such as statues, thangkas, books, etc.), and to engage in war magic at the behest of his donors. Everdingʼs article investigates the rise, peak, and decline of rGyal rtse, a principality of western central Tibet that was ruled by a branch of the Shar ka ba clan. The article, which makes extensive use of the introductory chapter of the biography of the rGyal rtse ruler Rab brtan Kun bzang ʼphags (1389–1442; r. 1413–1442), takes a large time span into account (i.e., from the 11th to the 16th centuries), and thus individual narrative episodes recede into the background in favour of longer-term lines of development. This enables Everding to highlight the main historical events and the prevailing political structures, and to analyse the crucial conditions that had a bearing on the history of the principality of rGyal rtse. In this regard, Everding touches on the unstable political situation in central Tibet after the demise of the Sa skya–Yuan alliance, rGyal rtseʼs ties to other Tibetan regional powers (in particular to Sa skya and Zha lu), as well as the economic advantages and geopolitical disadvantages of the rGyal rtse region. Still another Tibetan noble house is dealt with in Fermerʼs article. Here, the focus is on the ruling family of Yar rgyab and the role that it played as patron of Buddhist masters and religious communities in dBus. Like Ehrhard and Everding, Fermer makes extensive use of the biographical literature, but also draws on fieldwork in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). In doing so, Fermer employs a different approach from the two former contributions: he organizes his findings according to xvi the spatial layout of the Yar rgyab familyʼs territory which, in the 15th century, encompassed the two principalities of Yar rgyab and Gong dkar. Fermer discusses a large number of toponyms that are mentioned in the sources and, due to his fieldwork, he is able “to put Yar rgyab on the map.” In connecting these toponyms to the sites of the projects sponsored by the ruling house, Fermer illustrates how the Yar rgyab family―whose members considered themselves to be descendants of the imperial minister Thon mi Sam bho ṭa (6th/7th cent.)―deeply shaped the religious landscape of their domain. Venturiʼs article opens up the perspective to an overall assessment of the Tibetan political world in the 15th century, a period that she proposes to date from 1361 (i.e., the end of the Sa skya–Yuan alliance) to 1517 (i.e., the year in which the Rin spungs nobles lost control of dBus). The article touches upon issues of historical continuity and change as well as the problem of periodization, and thus mirrors some of the questions that have been discussed at the outset of this introduction. Venturi pursues her goal chiefly by employing two complementary approaches: a prospective approach “to pinpoint how events of the 14th century paved the way for the 15th century,” and a retrospective approach pursuing “how the historical roots of the 16th century can be traced to events of the 15th century.” In this respect, Venturi discusses a number of dynamics that were introduced by the Mongols (i.e., tax exemption of the clergy, foreign patronage, and the conferral of honorific titles), as well as the ongoing favouritism at the administrative level, and the phenomenon of “imperial revivalism.” In doing so, she emphasizes in particular the historical continuities, which link the long 15th century with its preceding and succeeding periods. The second main section comprises four articles that contribute to our knowledge of the cultural history of 15th-century Tibet. The articles in this section focus on diverse topics such as book culture (Volker Caumanns, Marta Sernesi), calendar calculation (Edward Henning), and art (David Jackson), and provide a glimpse into some of the cultural developments and shifts that were taking place in this period. The section opens with Caumannsʼ article on the formation and early transmission history of the writings of the Sa skya master gSer mdog Pa chen Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507), who was one of the towering polymaths of 15th-century Tibet. By tracing the genesis of two early editions of this masterʼs Collected Works (which are now considered lost), Caumanns sheds light on a number of aspects pertaining to the production of these two editions, their contents and structure, and the institutional contexts in which they came into being. Caumanns particularly examines the prominent role that members of the noble family of gTing skyes (i.e., a branch of the Shar ka ba clan) took on as patrons, but also as religious masters in Shākya mchog ldanʼs monastery of gSer mdog can in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Moreover, Caumanns presents a tentative list of works by Shākya mchog ldan that were contained in these early editions, but which did not find their way into the later, mid-18thcentury “Bhutanese” edition (which is the only extant edition today). xvii A very different topic―i.e., Tibetan calendar calculation―is dealt with in Henningʼs article. Henning critically examines the origins of the grub rtsis system, i.e., the “correct” system of calendar calculation, which is allegedly based on the original Kālacakra Mūlatantra (and not on the extant Laghutantra). Among the various grub rtsis systems (such as the Phug pa and mTshur phu schools), the article focuses on the specific system that was set forth by ʼGos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392–1481), and which was heavily influenced by late Indian traditions. These Indian influences (including a “mistaken theory underlying the algorithms used to create the calendar”) apparently harken back to ʼGos Lo tsā baʼs teacher Vanaratna (1384–1468), a Buddhist master from Chittagong (in present-day Bangladesh). Henning assumes that the inaccuracies that are inherent in ʼGos Lo tsā baʼs grub rtsis system may mirror later corruptions in the Indian Kālacakra calendar. As Henning points out, given the destruction of the great monastic centres of learning in Northern India in the wake of the Turkic-Muslim conquest, these corruptions may not come as a surprise. From calendar calculation we move on to Tibetan art. Jacksonʼs article focuses on a famous set of statues that portrays the lineage masters of the “Path with the Result” system (lam ʼbras) in Theg chen Chos rjeʼs transmission (i.e., the theg chen lugs). This set of twenty statues, which is nowadays preserved in sMin grol gling Monastery, originated at the monastery of Gr(w)a thang (situated in lHo kha). Previous scholarship dated the statues to the late 15th or early 16th century. Jackson, however, attributes the set to the workmanship of the great Tibetan artist mKhyen brtse chen mo, and thus assumes that it was produced in the 1470s or 1480s. As Jackson shows, there are good reasons to believe that the set was commissioned by a wealthy sponsor from the ruling house of Yar rgyab (see also Fermerʼs contribution in this volume). It seems that its production took place during an extensive renovation of Gr(w)a thang Monastery, which was initiated in 1481 by Khrims khang Lo tsā ba bSod nams rgya mtsho (1424–1482), who had been an influential teacher of the Yar rgyab nobles. The article concludes with a careful reconsideration of a number of statues that were left unidentified by earlier scholars or required a new discussion. With Sernesiʼs article we return to the book culture of 15th-century Tibet, and specifically to the issue of the introduction of xylographic book printing in the plateau. This contribution surveys recent findings in Tibetan book history, showing how they prompt a revision of the commonly held opinion that the spread of the technology in central Tibet was directly linked to the production of the Yongle bKa’ ’gyur. Indeed, the available data shows that book printing was also adopted before the completion of the canon, was diffused across a very wide area, and was engendered by a broad range of agents and actors. It is suggested that wood block printing gradually became part of a pool of available means of textual production and merit making activities, adopted by the local noble houses as part of a complex relationship of patronage between donor and recipient (yon mchod). This occurred in the context of the shifting re-negotiations of power between the religious and political authority, xviii and of the great institutional development of the Buddhist schools, with the spread of mass monasticism and the institution of study curricula. The third main section of our volume consists of three articles (contributed by Yael Bentor, Jörg Heimbel, and Klaus-Dieter Mathes) that explore, from various perspectives, the roles that scholarly disputes and polemical exchanges played in the religious and intellectual life of 15th-century Tibet. David Seyfort Ruegg―in his well-known periodization of the history of Madhyamaka in Tibet―labels the phase from the 14th to 16th centuries―which roughly corresponds to what is considered in this volume to be the “long 15th century”―as the “classical-systematic period,” and characterizes it as “the high point of Tibetan textual exegesis, philosophical penetration and systematic hermeneutics.” He goes on to remark that “[i]n this period there took place the definitive constitution as philosophical schools of the principal Tibetan orders (chos lugs),” that is: the rNying ma, Sa skya, dGaʼ ldan (or: dGe lugs), bKaʼ brgyud, and Jo nang schools (Seyfort Ruegg 2000: 5–6). This characterization of the “classical-systematic period,” as proposed by Seyfort Ruegg, points to two conspicuous features that informed the religious and intellectual life of 15th-century Tibet in general, namely: high scholasticism and the formation of full-fledged Buddhist schools. As the three contributions in this section of our volume strikingly illustrate, scholarly disputes and polemical exchanges on sūtric and tantric topics (as types of intellectual practice) constituted a decisive driving force, which shaped and, at the same time, were shaped by these two features. The articles of Bentor and Heimbel take a fresh look at the “Hevajra body maṇḍala dispute,” a controversy that already has attracted some scholarly attention by Tibetologists. Bentorʼs contribution is a careful delineation of the evolution and the contents of this dispute, which was ultimately rooted in Tsong kha paʼs and Ngor chen Kun dgaʼ bzang poʼs attempts to formulate a coherent system of Buddhist thought and practice, an undertaking that led to different doctrinal and hermeneutical choices. As Bentor shows, the controversy passed through several intensifying stages and escalated into a severe crisis between adherents of the nascent dGaʼ ldan school and upholders of the old Sa skya school. The dispute―in which Ngor chen and Tsong kha paʼs disciple mKhas grub rJe dGe legs dpal bzang (1385–1438) figured prominently―revolved around a number of issues, including the practice of deity yoga, points of interpretation concerning the body maṇḍala in the Cakrasa vara and Hevajra systems, and the “correct” exegesis of authoritative statements of great masters of the past. The second article on this topic reminds us that textual sources do not constitute transparent media that reproduce the past “how it actually happened.” Focusing on narrative representations of the “Hevajra body maṇḍala dispute” in biographical literature, Heimbel shows how Tibetan authors often took an active part in conflicts like this and thus pursued their own agendas. In his article, Heimbel makes recourse to literary portrayals of Ngor chen (one of the main protagonists of the dispute) that were sketched by later dGe lugs authors such as Se ra rJe btsun pa Chos kyi rgyal xix mtshan (1469–1544), Pa chen bSod nams grags pa (1478–1554), and Thuʼu bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1732–1802). As Heimbel shows, these authors projected the intersectarian gap of their own time (which separated two distinct schools) to the emerging intrasectarian divides between diverging factions within the Sa skya school in the early decades of the 15th century. Far from producing objective accounts, these dGe lugs authors endeavoured to establish the superiority of mKhas grub rJe (who is styled as Tsong kha paʼs faithful apostle) over Ngor chen. Their narrative strategy led to a consolidation and reaffirmation of a distinctive dGe lugs identity, which began to emerge around the 1440s. With Mathesʼ article―the last one in our volume―we move on to a “hot issue” of 15th-century scholastic philosophy, namely the contested view of “emptiness-ofother” (gzhan stong). The article investigates ʼGos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpalʼs analysis of Buddha nature and pursues the question of whether this master advocated a gzhan stong view. Mathes faces a difficult situation regarding sources, since no philosophical work by ʼGos Lo tsā ba has come down to us apart from a commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga (in which the term gzhan stong is not mentioned). Therefore, Mathes makes use of “secondary sources” such as the Eighth Karma paʼs polemical review of ʼGos Lo tsā baʼs lost Kālacakra commentary and a biography composed by the Fourth Zhwa dmar pa. As Mathes is able to show, ʼGos Lo tsā baʼs position on Buddha nature differs sharply from the position held by the Eighth Karma pa, who (like the Third and Seventh Karma pas) supported a type of gzhan stong view. It is, moreover, obvious that ʼGos Lo tsā ba was influenced, to a certain extent, by Tsong kha paʼs scholastic exegesis and thus attempted to harmonize the latterʼs view of emptiness with the mahāmudrā approach of the bKaʼ brgyud pas. In the end, Mathes comes to the conclusion that it is problematic to describe ʼGos Lo tsā baʼs position as gzhan stong, although the Eighth Karma pa (ironically) terms it as “great gzhan stong.” As this brief overview may have shown, the articles in our volume cover a wide range of topics and approaches, bringing together specialised expertise on Tibetan history, art history, philosophy, etc. Each of the contributions provides an insight into 15th century Tibet from its privileged point of view, enriching our historical understanding of the period. Some of the contributions are intimately linked, looking at the same phenomenon through different sources, or providing supplementary data to each other’s investigations. Others present different manifestations of parallel processes, or proceed to map out yet another adjacent field of historical knowledge. Hence, we believe that read altogether these contributions are more than just the sum of their parts, but show instead how only this multiplicity of approaches can enlighten the deep and complex historical dynamics at play. We hope that this initial attempt at an inter-disciplinary historical approach to a key turn in Tibetan history will encourage further research. Marta Sernesi and Volker Caumanns xx Bibliography Allsen, Thomas T. 2009. “Mongols as vectors for cultural transmission.” In Nicola di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank and Peter B. Golden (eds.). The Cambridge History of Inner Asia. The Chinggisid Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135– 154. Biran, Michal. 2015. “The Mongols and the Inter-Civilizational Exchange.” In Benjamin Z. Kedar and Merry Wiesner-Hanks (eds.). The Cambridge World History: Volume 5. Expanding Webs of Exchange and Conflict, 500 CE–1500 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 534–558. Cuevas, Bryan J. 2006. “Some Reflections on the Periodization of Tibetan History.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 10: 44–55. Cuevas, Bryan J. (ed.) 2006. Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Leiden: Brill. Flynn, Dennis O. 2015. “Silver in a global context, 1400–1800.” In Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks (eds.). The Cambridge World History: Volume 6. The Construction of a Global World, 1400–1800 CE. Part 2. Patterns of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 190–212. von Glahn, Richard. 2013. “Cycles of silver in Chinese monetary history.” In Billy K.L. So (ed.). The Economy of the Lower Yangzi Delta in Late Imperial China. Connecting Money, Markets, and Institutions. London and New York: Routledge, 17–71. Kuroda, Akinobu. 2009. “The Eurasian silver century, 1276–1359: commensurability and multiplicity.” Journal of Global History 4: 245–269. Pommaret, Françoise. ed. 1997. Lhasa lieu du divin. La capitale des Dalai-Lama au 17e siècle. Genève: Olizane. Rossabi, Morris. 1975. China and Inner Asia. From 1368 to the Present Day. London: Thames and Hudson. Schwieger, Peter. 2015. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China. A Political History of the Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation. New York: Columbia University Press. Seyfort-Ruegg, David. 2000. Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy: Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought, Part 1. Wien: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Shen, Weirong. 2007. “‘Accomodating Barbarians from Afar’: Political and Cultural Interactions Between Ming China and Tibet.” Ming Studies 56: 37–93. Sørensen, Per. 2005 “The Dalai Lama Institution: Its Origin and Genealogical Succession.” Orientations (September): 53–60 Sperling, Elliot. 1983. Early Ming Policy Towards Tibet: An Examination of the Proposition that the Early Ming Emperors adopted a “Divide and Rule” Policy towards Tibet. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University. xxi ___ 1988. “The Szechwan–Tibet Frontier in the Fifteenth Century.” Ming Studies 26: 37–55. ___ 2004. The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. Washington: East-West Center Washington. Tuttle, Gray. 2017. “Pattern Recognition: Tracking the Spread of the Incarnation Institution through Time and across History.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 38: 29–64. 115 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF GSER MDOG PA CHEN SHĀKYA MCHOG LDAN: THE FORMATION AND EARLY TRANSMISSION OF A 15th-CENTURY LITERARY CORPUS* VOLKER CAUMANNS (University of Bern) The extensive and multifaceted œuvre of the Sa skya master Shākya mchog ldan Dris med legs paʼi blo gros (1428–1507) bears witness to the “widespread scholastic activity and intellectual efflorescence” that characterized the religious life of 15thcentury Tibet.1 Providing a window into a range of key issues that were high on the intellectual agenda at that time, Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works constitute an important repository of textual sources for the investigation of the cultural and religious history of this period. In this respect, Tibetologists have long recognized the prominent place that Shākya mchog ldan occupied as a 15th-century scholastic, but have also begun to take an interest in the roles that he played as a tantric master, a head of monastic institutions, and a preceptor of noble donors. Thus, Shākya mchog ldanʼs contributions in the fields of Pramā a, Madhyamaka, and, to a lesser extent, Three-Vow Theory are comparably well-investigated, while other areas like his Vinaya exegesis and his explications of doctrines and practices of the Mantrayāna still await substantial research.2 In this paper, however, I will not be concerned with Shākya mchog ldan in his role as one of the towering polymaths of 15th-century Tibet. Rather I shall be focussing on his Collected Works, and how this corpus of textual sources began its long and winding journey into the modern world. As is well-known, Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works are nowadays available as a 24-volume manuscript set that was commissioned in the 18th century in Bhutan by the Ninth ʼBrug rJe mKhan po Shākya rin chen (1710–1759), who was considered to be a rebirth of Shākya mchog ldan. Although a number of details are still uninvestigated, we have started to get a general picture of the genesis of this “Bhutanese edition.”3 However, the early compilation history of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings prior to Shākya rin chenʼs edition continues * 1 2 3 I am indebted to September Cowley for carefully proofreading my English. The quote is taken from Jackson 1989: 1. For a summary of the current state of research, see Caumanns 2015: 6–19. For the role Shākya rin chen played in compiling the “Bhutanese edition,” see Burchardi 2008: 25–33, and Caumanns 2010: 222–227. For a Tibetan account, which however is not accurate in all respects, see the Tshangs paʼi bzhad sgra. 116 to be obscure. Neglected by previous research, there are a number of sources available to us which provide some information on pre-18th century compilations of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings. According to these sources, there were at least two different Tibetan editions of Collected Works in the 16th and 17th centuries, though, so it seems, these compilations have to be considered lost. The aim of this paper is to outline the formation and early transmission history of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works by tracing the genesis of these two Tibetan gsung ʼbum compilations. In doing so, I will touch upon aspects of their production, their contents and structure, and, to a lesser extent, to the institutional contexts in which they must be located. Moreover, I will present a tentative list of works by Shākya mchog ldan that were contained in these early Tibetan compilations, but which did not find their way into Shākya rin chenʼs “Buthanese edition.” The “gTing skyes Edition” of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works The Genesis of the “gTing skyes Edition” In two of the extant biographies of Shākya mchog ldan,4 there are short narrative accounts that shed some light on the genesis of the first Tibetan edition of this masterʼs Collected Works. According to these sources―i.e., rJe dBon Shākya rgyal mtshanʼs Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba and Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed―this early edition was prepared at the beginning of the 16th century, a few years after Shākya mchog ldanʼs passing at his monastic seat Thub bstan gSer mdog 4 For a survey of the Tibetan sources on the life of Shākya mchog ldan, see Caumanns 2010 and Caumanns 2015: 21–36. Briefly speaking, the full-fledged biographies of Shākya mchog ldan can be allocated to three separate layers: The first layer consists of three early biographies composed by direct disciples of Shākya mchog ldan that are commonly known by their conventional titles rNam thar rdor rgyal ma, rNam thar ma ti ma and rNam thar rje dbon ma. Among these, only the rNam thar rje dbon ma―i.e., rJe dBon Shākya rgyal mtshanʼs Paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa padma dkar poʼi phreng ba (=Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba)―is currently available. The rNam thar rdor rgyal ma―written by rDo rje rgyal po (or: rgyal mtshan) (the full title of the work is unknown)―seems to be lost. A copy of the rNam thar ma ti ma―i.e., the dPal ldan shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam thar ngo mtshar yid kyi shing rta composed by dGe slong Blo gros bzang po―is preserved in the library of ʼBras spungs Monastery, but the text is currently not accessible; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, p. 1525, no. 017193. The second layer of biographies is made up of Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs Paṇḍi ta chen po shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mo rnam par ʼbyed pa (=Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed), a very detailed biographical account, which is based on the aforementioned three earlier rnam thars, but also on a great number of further (written and oral) sources. The third layer comprises the Gangs can gyi shing rta chen po dpal shākya mchog ldan dri med legs paʼi blo gros kyi rnam thar thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed (=Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed), which was compiled by the 9th rJe mKhan po of Bhutan, Shākya rin chen (1709/10–1759). This is the most extensive biography of Shākya mchog ldan, which is, however, almost completely based on Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed. 117 can in 1507. In the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba (i.e., the earliest biography available to us), Shākya rgyal mtshan refers to this enterprise at the end of a report about the elaborate funerary rites that were conducted in gSer mdog can for Shākya mchog ldanʼs bodily remains in the years 1507 and 1509. As told in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, three days after Shākya mchog ldan “had departed to the realm of Tu ita” (dgaʼ ldan gyi gnas su bde bar gshegs), the monks gave homage to his remains with fragrant substances and fine brocade, and “invited” the corpse into a casket (za ma tog) that was to serve as its temporary dwelling place. During the fourty-nine-day period of funerary observances (dgung zhag), vajra masters performed the sgrub mchod ritual of Hevajra, and rulers (such as the Rin spungs nobles), representatives from gSer mdog can and other sponsors hosted a hundred communal tea servings (mang ja) to a saṅgha of about one thousand monks.5 Shākya rgyal mtshan goes on to report that, within two years, Shākya mchog ldanʼs reliquary, a silver bKra shis sgo mang stūpa, was completed as an “inner sacred object” (nang rten)6 whereupon the final funerary rites took place: In the year dkar po (1509), on the first day of the first half of the month nag pa (i.e., the third hor month), [the noble lamaʼs] corpse―this supreme wishfulfilling gem, the king of might―was invited to the dGaʼ ldan Byams paʼi gTsug lag khang (i.e., the Maitreya Temple of gSer mdog can). On the ninth day of the first half of the same month, at the propitious astrological conjunction [of the lunar mansion] rgyal with [the day] phur [bu], the consecration of the precious silver reliquary [was celebrated]. At that time, all the disciples of [this masterʼs] dominion headed by the cakravartin Don yod rdo rje [together with his] brother7 unanimously beseeched rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po—who, at present, is the chief of the doctrine—and invited [him] to the lion throne, the seat of this noble lama. Thereupon, all living beings including the gods conjointly scattered auspicious flowers. dkar poʼi loʼi nag pa zla baʼi yar ngoʼi dgaʼ ba dang po la| sku gdung yid bzhin gyi nor bu dbang gi rgyal po ʼdi nyid| dgaʼ ldan byams paʼi gtsug lag khang du spyan drangs shing| zla ba de nyid kyi yar ngoʼi stong gnyis paʼi rgyal phur ʼdzom paʼi ʼgrub sbyor| dngul gdung rin po cheʼi rab ston dus| rje btsun kun 5 6 7 See the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fols. 67a.3–68a.3. See the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fol. 68a.3–4. This is the Rin spungs ruler Don yod rdo rje (1463–1512)―Czaja 2013: 252 labels him “the most powerful man of his time”―and his brother rDo rje tshe brtan dpal bzang po (b. 1462); see Czaja 2013: 239, n. 117, 486–488. Note, however, that according to the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 106a.3-4, the ceremony was attended by a crowd of people that was headed by Don yod rdo rje and his nephew (i.e., Ngag dbang rnam rgyal) (sa skyong chen po miʼi dbang po khu dbon blon ʼbangs dang bcas pa). The Rin spungs nobles were important patrons of Shākya mchog ldan from the 1470s onwards. For a short genealogical account of the “noble house of Rin spungs pa,” see Czaja 2013: 481–493. 118 dgaʼ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po| deng dus kyi bstan paʼi gtso bo| bla ma dam pa ʼdiʼi gdan seng geʼi khri la| dpal ldan stobs kyi ʼkhor los bsgyur ba don yod rdo rje sku mched gnyis gtso bor phyags phebs shing| rang srid kyi gdul ja [=bya] thams cad kyi [=kyis] mgrin gcig tu gsol ba btab cing| spyan drangs te| lha dang bcas paʼi skye dgu mthaʼ dag gis bkra shis paʼi me tog phyogs gcig tu mngon par gtor to||.8 After this, the following is stated: The venerable rJe btsun [Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan] prepared an extensive compilation of the words of the supreme noble lama9 and thus opened the limitless gate of [the latterʼs] enlightened activities. rje btsun de nyid kyis mchog gis [=gi] bla ma dam paʼi bkaʼi bsdu ba rgya chen po mdzad nas phrin las kyi sgo mthaʼ yas phye bar mdzad do||.10 As can be gleaned from Shākya rgyal mtshanʼs narrative, after the disruption that was Shākya mchog ldanʼs passing, a number of ritualized acts took place which―besides their actual religious significance―were instrumental in guiding the monastic community of gSer mdog can through this period of transition.11 One of Shākya mchog ldanʼs main achievements had been to transform a small scriptural seminary (bshad grwa), founded by his teacher Don yod dpal (1398–1483/84) in the 1450s, into a highly institutionalized religious community with a well-structured organizational apparatus: At the beginning of the 16th century, gSer mdog can was made up of a “lama palace” (bla brang), up to four colleges (grwa tshang), a number of residential units (khang tshan) and perhaps a few branch monasteries (dgon lag). A ritual calender and a full-fledged scholastic curriculum had been established, and four head teachers were passing on the specific exegetical traditions of the monastery to succeeding generations of monk scholars.12 Last but not least, biographies such as the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba and the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed illustrate that there was See the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fol. 68a.4–b.3. Alternatively, the corresponding Tibetan phrase might be translated as: “The venerable rJe btsun [Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan] gathered on a large scale the words of the supreme noble lama [...].” 10 See the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fol. 68b.3–4. 11 The “social function” that rituals may fulfil for the cohesion of a given group has long been a topic of discussion in the field of ritual studies, although the approaches and perspectives of research have changed over time; see Bell 1997: 3–89. For a recent view on “ritual in society,” see Rao 2006, who highlights the dynamic interplay between the different actors that are involved in a ritual performance. 12 For an overview of the early history of gSer mdog can, see Caumanns 2013, Caumanns 2015: 177–181, 204–8. See also the gSer mdog can gyi gnas yig, pp. 64–68, 70–71, which provides an extensive list of the colleges, residential units, branch monasteries and monastic estates (chos gzhis) of gSer mdog can. Note that this list may partly render later developments in the organizational structure of the monastery. 8 9 119 a nascent body of narratives explaining (and thus legitimizing) the institutional order of the gSer mdog can community.13 Shākya mchog ldan had been the living embodiment of this institutional order, and―as the passage from the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba quoted above shows―after his death the religious community of gSer mdog can created powerful icons that apparently had the function of (re)affirming and stabilizing this order. Thus, while the metamorphosis of Shākya mchog ldanʼs dead body into a potent relic in the course of the elaborate funerary rites obviously served to perpetuate the masterʼs bodily presence in gSer mdog can,14 the “compilation of the words of the supreme noble lama” contributed to the transformation of Shākya mchog ldanʼs transient utterances into a (more permanent, and well-ordered) “support of sacred speech” (gsung rten). Tellingly, the installation of Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan as the monasteryʼs new abbot was performed along with the consecration ceremony of the reliquary stūpa (into which Shākya mchog ldanʼs bodily relics were invited to stay), thus setting the legitimizing ritual framework for transferring the authority from the deceased predecessor to the chosen successor. In this regard, at a symbolic level, the compilation of the Collected Works can be understood as an act of appropriation of Shākya mchog ldanʼs “sacred speech” on the part of the new abbot Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan through which the latter revealed himself as the legitimate inheritor of the “gSer mdog can tradition.”15 The compilation (and production) of this edition of Collected Works finds mention also in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs detailed biography of Shākya mchog ldan. Just like Shākya rgyal mtshan in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, Kun dgaʼ grol mchog locates the project among the events that took place after Shākya mchog ldanʼs death; fittingly, the respective chapter of the biography is titled “the continuous [turning of] the wheel of [this lamaʼs] enlightened activities.”16 However, in Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs narrative, the institutional frame in which Kun dgaʼ rgyal 13 Former students of Shākya mchog ldan told many of these stories to Kun dgaʼ grol mchog, who incorporated them into the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed. For a partial translation of the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, see Caumanns 2015: 37–339. For the legitimating function that meaningful narratives (“Eigengeschichten”) may have for an institutional order, see Rehberg 2014: 167–168. See also the discussion on foundational stories in Assmann 1999: 75–83. 14 This transformation finds its expression also on the level of the dead bodyʼs changing appearance; see the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fol. 67a.3–5: sku gdung rin po che ni| skuʼi gzi mdangs je ches gsal ba dang| snga sor sku nas stabs kyis sku gnyer ma dang| sku sha cung zad zhum pa rnams kyang| ye mi bltar mi sngon [=mngon] zhing| lha buʼi gzhon nuʼi lus ltar shin tu mdzes par gyur cing| phyag zhabs dag kyang ras bal gyi ʼdab ma bzhin du gnyen [=mnyen] pa kho nar gnas [...]|. See also the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 104b.2–3, according to which Shākya mchog ldanʼs corpse was said to have displayed two of the thirty-two marks of a Buddha: sku gdung gi chas ʼbul mi kun gyi spyan lam du gsang baʼi gnas ltar mi mngon pa dang| dbuʼi gtsug tor mchog tu ʼphags pa sogs gsal bar rtogs [...]|. 15 See also n. 30 below. 16 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 107a.4: phrin las kyi ʼkhor lo rgyun mi ʼchad paʼi skabs. 120 mtshanʼs compilation project must be situated remains obscure.17 But instead, Kun dgaʼ grol mchog provides us with further information on this edition of Collected Works (including the basic structure of the collection and the physical appearance of the finished volumes) that is lacking in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba: [There were] twelve books (glegs bam)―[each] having five hundred folios in the length of an arrow (mdaʼ tshad)―connected to the vehicle of the pāramitās; four volumes (pod) in dbus pa gdong ʼdon [size] intertwining sūtric and tantric [topics]; and―concerning the collection of praises and the epistles―two tomes (po ti) in Sa skya size (sa skya dras).18 The three Dharma Lord Brothers from gTing skyes produced each of [these] eighteen volumes (pod) and took possession [of them].19 Regarding [this], it seems that [the three Dharma Lords] took up the burden of the doctrine [to which they showed] incomparable kindness. Sparing no effort, I (Kun dgaʼ grol mchog) also correctly obtained the reading authorization of these [Collected Works]. phar phyin theg pa dang rjes ʼbrel shog bu mdaʼ tshad bzhugs lnga brgya maʼi glegs bam bcu gnyis| mdo sngags spel maʼi dbus pa gdong ʼdon pod grangs bzhi| bstod tshogs chab shog la sa skya gras [=dras] kyi po ti gnyis te pod grangs bco brgyad po gting skyes chos rje sku mched rnam pa gsum gyis re re phyag bzhengs gnang zhing bdag gir gnang ba ni bkaʼ drin zla med paʼi bstan paʼi khur bsnams par snang zhing| bdag gis kyang ʼbad nas de dag gi lung legs par thob bo||.20 If we compare the accounts from the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba and the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, it would seem that―when it comes to the initiator(s) of this first edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works―the narratives are at variance with each 17 Although Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs report is in some respects more detailed than Shākya rgyal mtshanʼs narrative, in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 104b.1–106a.4, not much emphasis is put on rendering the exact chronological sequence of the events. Moreover, Kun dgaʼ grol mchog does not make mention of the installation of a new abbot in gSer mdog can. 18 Note that the Tibetan text reads sa skya gras (“[in] Sa skya style [?]”), which I have tentatively corrected to sa skya dras (“Sa skya size”). See also n. 26 below. 19 It is not clear to me what Kun dgaʼ grol mchog meant by saying that the “three Dharma Lords [...] took possession” of the volumes. Does Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs remark indicate that this (single?) set of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works was kept in gTing skyes and not in gSer mdog can? This assumption might be corroborated by an account in one of Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs autobiographies which suggests the availability of a gsung ʼbum set in gTing skyes in the first half of the 16th century. Here, Kun dgaʼ grol mchog relates how he received the reading authorization for a larger portion of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works in rTing skyes mKhar chen after mKhan chen Rin po che (alias Sangs rgyas ʼod zer) had arrived from the monastery of Brag dkar (which is also located in g/rTing skyes); see the mDzes rgyan, pp. 541.1–543.4. 20 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 105b.5–6. 121 other. This is, however, not the case: As we learn from an earlier passage in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, the “three Dharma Lord Brothers from gTing skyes” had come to gSer mdog can in the first half of the 1480s in order to study under Shākya mchog ldanʼs guidance.21 Though Kun dgaʼ grol mchog never conveys the three brothersʼ individual names when mentioning this triad, it can be gleaned from a list of Shākya mchog ldanʼs disciples―which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog presents at the end of the biography―that Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan was one of them.22 Hence, Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs assertion in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed that the “three Dharma Lords from gTing skyes” produced a compilation of Shākya mchog ldan’s works is not contradictory to Shākya rgyal mtshan’s claim in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba that Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan oversaw the project. Of particular interest are Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs remarks on the basic structure and the physical appearance of this edition of Collected Works. We also find these remarks, with minor variations in the phrasing, in the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas (i.e., Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs Record of Teachings Received).23 Taking both versions into account, we arrive at the following picture. According to Kun dgaʼ grol mchog, the editors of the Collected Works decided to allocate Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings to three broad thematic groups, which they furthermore differentiated through distinct book formats:  The first twelve volumes contained writings on the pāramitāyāna or, as it is said in the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, “sūtric teachings” (mdo phyogs). These volumes were of the mdaʼ tshad (“length of an arrow”) size―which is about 60 cm in length―and each of them comprised 500 folios at nine lines on average.24  The next four volumes “intertwined sūtric and tantric [topics]”―or, as specified in the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, contained writings on “Mantra and the fields of knowledge” (sngags dang rig gnas skor)―and had a size called dbus pa gdong ʼdon or gdong dras, a term which is unknown to me.25 21 The arrival of the gTing skyes brothers in gSer mdog can is reported in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 68a.3–b.1. 22 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 106a.5: kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan chos kyi khri la bzhugs, to which the interlinear annotation (mchan bu) gting skyes pa is added. For the identification of Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshanʼs brothers, see below. 23 See the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, fol. 220a.1–4 (A); fol. 88b.3–4 (B): mdor na mdo phyogs la mdaʼ tshad bras [B: dras] dgu phreng shog grangs lnga brgya la glegs bam rer byas paʼi po ti bcu gnyis| sngags dang rig gnas skor rnams la gdong bras [B: dras] pod bzhi| bstod tshogs dang springs yig skor la sa bras [B: dras] pod chung gnyis te| kun dril po ti bcwo [B: bco] brgyad bzhugs paʼi| spyi don chen mo bzhi dang| sa skya pa rje btsun gong ma lngaʼi bkaʼ ʼbum yongs rdzogs| bzhugs mnyam [B: snyam] yin [...]|. 24 On the term mdaʼ tshad (“length of an arrow”), see Cüppers 2010: 118, n. 7. 25 For a further mention of this term (in a slightly different spelling), see the Ma bcos lhug paʼi rtogs brjod, vol. 1, p. 225: snga chos la lung shog bu gdong thon brgya bud re bklags|. 122  The last two volumes―the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas refers to them as “small volumes” (pod chung)―contained miscellaneous writings such as praises and epistles. These volumes were of the so-called Sa (skya) size, with perhaps seven lines per page.26 Interestingly, when Kun dga’ grol mchog refers to these volumes of distinct size or format, he employs different Tibetan words for what is termed in English “book,” namely glegs ’bam, pod and po ti (or, alternatively, pod chung). It is not clear to me whether Kun dga’ grol mchog in this respect intended to imply a difference in meaning, or if he used these varying expressions only for stylistic reasons.27 Moreover, we are left in the dark as to whether Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan and his brothers prepared a xylograph or manuscript edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. The respective Tibetan phrases that are used in the sources are ambiguous in this regard: Thus, Shākya rgyal mtshan simply states in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba that the gSer mdog can abbot Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan “prepared an extensive compilation of the words of the supreme noble lama” (mchog gi bla ma dam paʼi bkaʼi bsdu ba rgya chen po mdzad). And in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, Kun dga’ grol mchog tells us in a very honorific way that the gTing skyes brothers “produced” (phyag bzhengs gnang) the eighteen volumes of which the edition reportedly consisted.28 It should furthermore be noted that the wording Shākya rgyal mtshan employs in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba to refer to this compilation project is obviously a 26 The term sa dras was already noticed by Ehrhard 2016: 223, n. 14, who very generally but aptly pointed out that it refers to the size or format of paper. As a comparison of the aforementioned passages from the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed and the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas shows, this term is to be understood as an abbreviation of sa skya dras. We find this “Sa (skya) size” also mentioned in a passage of a polemical work by Mus srad pa alias gTsang Byams pa rDo rje rgyal mtshan (1424–1498): bla ma mngaʼ ris paʼi tshig ʼgrel ni| [...] gzhung tshig gi tshad ni| sa skya gras [=dras] phreng bdun ma brgya phrag gcig dang sum cu rtsa lnga tsam mo|| bla ma mngaʼ ris paʼi saṃ bhu ṭaʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel ni| [...] gzhung gi tshad grwas [sic] phreng snga ma dang ʼdra baʼi brgyad cu rtsa bzhi tsam mo||; see the Chu rgyun gnyis pa, pp. 664.5–665.4. As mentioned above (see n. 18), the term might also be understood as the homophone sa (skya) gras, that is: “Sa skya style (?).” 27 For a discussion of a number of equivalents for the English word “book” (which is, however, not transferable to our context), see van der Kuijp 2006: 5–6 where we find the following statement by Chos dpal dar dpyang (b. 13th cent.) in his biography of Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal (1197–1264): “[He] said [that the term for »book«] is in the religious [classical] language [Sanskrit], pustaka; in the vernacular language [?Prakrit, ?Apabhra śa, ?...], po ti [< ?poṭhi]; in Tibetan glegs bam. Though written in [regular] ink, [the books] not being [written with] gold [ink], they [still] were glegs bam.” 28 However, Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs assertion that the three brothers “took possession” of the volumes might be interpreted as indicating that only one (or a few) set(s)―and that should be (a) manuscript set(s)―was (or were) produced. 123 deliberate allusion to the (first) “recitation-council” (Skr. saṃgīti; corresponds to Tib. bkaʼ bsdu) which―according to traditional understanding―was held by the early Buddhist saṅgha at Rājagṛha during the first rainy season retreat after the Buddhaʼs passing. In other words, Shākya rgyal mtshan draws a comparison between the production of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works on the one hand and the compilation and redaction of the Buddhaʼs discourses on the other.29 In so doing, Shākya rgyal mtshan emphasizes the significance of the project.30 Neither Shākya rgyal mtshan nor Kun dgaʼ grol mchog reveal anything about the editorial practices that were followed in preparing this edition of Collected Works. What is safe to say, however, is that the gTing skyes brothers executed this project most probably under favourable circumstances. There are a number of indications in the sources that lead us to conclude that (master) copies of (almost) all works of Shākya mchog ldan were available in gSer mdog can at the beginning of the 16th century, and that the gTing skyes brothers had access to these texts while preparing this first edition of Collected Works. Thus, the availability of these texts is ascertained by an account in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed according to which the 73-year-old Shākya mchog ldan granted the reading authorization (lung) of his (more or less) complete works “on the basis of written copies.”31 These copies had obviously been written out by the three main scribes that successively worked for Shākya mchog ldan from the 1470s onwards: As told in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, Kong ston mGon po rgyal mtshan acted as Shākya mchog ldanʼs scribe during the latterʼs stay in Glo bo (i.e., 1472–1475); Drung nas Lo tsā ba Chos kyi rgyal mtshan fulfilled this function until Shākya mchog ldanʼs 76th year of age;32 and A zhang bSod lhun pa (i.e., bSod nams ye shes lhun grub) acted as scribe 29 On the Buddhist “recitation-councils” see, for instance, Skilling 2009: 55–60. In this context, I am grateful to Jim Rheingans for kindly drawing my attention to a passage from the Fifth Zhwa dmar paʼs biography in the Karma kaṃ tshang gi brgyud pa rin po cheʼi rnam thar, vol. 2, p. 83.4–6, which (while employing a very similar wording) gives an account of the production of the Eighth Karmapaʼs bkaʼ ʼbum after the latterʼs death: gsung gi rten du [...] rje de nyid kyis [...] mdzad paʼi bstan bcos ji snyed pa rnams| [...] dkar chag tu btab pas bkaʼ bsdu mdzad pa bzhin| nor can sku rab chos mdzad mas rgyu rkyen gyi nyer len kyang bgyis te gser rkyang gis bkaʼ ʼbum pusti sum cu| [...] bzhengs su gsol bar mdzad [...]|; see also Rheingans forthcoming 2017, chapter 3. Thus, in the strict sense of the word, the Tibetan phrase bkaʼ(i) bsdu ba might not refer to the production of the actual volumes of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works, but to the preceding process of compiling the relevant texts (which possibly included giving the reading authorization?). 30 We can draw the comparison to the first “recitation-council” further: Just as the Buddhaʼs beloved disciple Ānanda is said to have recited the sutta-piṭaka at Rājagṛha, Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan―as Shākya mchog ldanʼs trusted student―had the authority to gather his masterʼs teachings and make them orthodox. 31 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 93b.5–6: dgung lo don bzhir phebs pa lcags mo bya loʼi dpyid chos [1501] yan la| mdo phyogs kyi dbu tshad chos ʼbyung tsam ma gtogs paʼi gsung rtsom phal cher grub cing| yi ge rang gi stengs nas lung bshad rdzogs par stsal|. 32 A biographical sketch of Drung nas Lo tsā ba Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, which places special 124 during the last four years of Shākya mchog ldanʼs life.33 Moreover, we find the names of these scribes in a great number of scribal colophons that have been preserved in the “Bhutanese edition” of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works.34 There is almost no information available on how this first edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works was put to use after its production. A couple of passages in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed reveal that at least Kun dgaʼ grol mchog consulted and (partly?) studied this edition.35 Furthermore, Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs remark quoted above―namely, that he “spared no efforts and [thus] correctly obtained the reading authorization of these [Collected Works]”―suggests that this “gTing skyes edition” was most probably employed to transmit Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings to later adherents of the tradition. Kun dgaʼ grol mchog singles out in his Record of Teachings Received four of Shākya mchog ldanʼs major disciples who are said to have held the full transmission of their masterʼs writings, namely Chos kyi rje Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, rJe dBon Shākya rgyal mtshan, Pa chen Don yod pa (i.e., Don yod grub pa) and mKhas pa Sangs ʼod pa (i.e., Sangs rgyas ʼod zer).36 Among them, however, it was only Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan, Shākya mchog ldanʼs successor to the abbatial throne of gSer mdog can, who was in possession of the “complete stream of the reading 33 34 35 36 emphasis on the latterʼs “linguistic” training, is included in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 60a.6–b.3. This sketch is followed by a short paragraph in which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog points to some of Chos kyi rgyal mtshanʼs mistakes that can be found in the Collected Works; see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 60b.3–5. For a report (including an enthusiastic evaluation of Chos kyi rgyal mtshanʼs scribal skills by his spiritual comrade Drung btsun Shes rab dpal ʼbyor) in which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog sheds some light on how Shākya mchog ldan composed his major works, see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 62b.5–63a.3. See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 60a.4–6: sngar mngaʼ ris su dgung lo zhe gcig [=1468!] dus| gnas gsum gsal byed| kun mkhyen rong poʼi rnam thar| sdom gsum gyi dri ba sogs kyi yig mkhan kong ston mgon po rgyal mtshan yin zhing| phyis dgung lo don bdun bar gyi rtsom yig drung nas lo tsā ba chos rgyal mtshan pas gnang| khong rgya gar la gshegs phyin| bde mchog rnam bshad| byams chos lam rim sogs sku tshe mthar phyin gyi gsung rtsom dag gi yi ge pa ni da ltaʼi a zhang bsod lhun pa nyid yin [...]|. Obviously, these colophons (at least the ones that go back to Lo tsā ba Chos kyi rgyal mtshan) could already be found in the “gTing skyes edition” of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works, as might be inferred from the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 60b.2–3: rtsom yig gi mthil ma gnang baʼi bkaʼ ʼbum phal cher du| yi ge pa ni blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan no zhes ʼbyung [...]|. See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 54b.7, 60b.2–3, 64b.6–7. As we learn from the list of disciples of rDo ring pa Kun bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1449–1524) in the Ngo mtshar dad paʼi spu long g.yo ba, p. 231.2–4, besides Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan, Shākya rgyal mtshan and Don yod grub pa also officiated as abbots of gSer mdog can: thub bstan gser mdog can gyi klog pa ba rnams kyi gtsug rgyan mdzad de| da lta sangs rgyas snang ba mthaʼ yas kyi rnam ʼphrul glang ri thang pa chen poʼi chos kyi khri la bzhugs pa mkhyen brtseʼi mngaʼ bdag spyan snga rin po che shākya rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po| sde snod rgya mtshoʼi don smra ba rab ʼbyams pa don yod grub pa| rig paʼi rdo rjes log smraʼi brag ri gzhom paʼi nga rgyal can lcang ra rab ʼbyams pa blo gros bzang po ste gser mdog can gyi mkhan po rim pa gsum [...]|. 125 authorization united in a single transmission,”37 which was conferred directly from Shākya mchog ldan. The other three disciples―Shākya rgyal mtshan (i.e., the author of the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba), Don yod grub pa and Sangs rgyas ʼod zer― received the full transmission only through Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan, although they held a certain number of reading authorizations that had been imparted to them by Shākya mchog ldan personally. Kun dgaʼ grol mchog in turn beseeched these “three doors”―with this expression he refers to Shākya rgyal mtshan, Don yod grub pa and Sangs rgyas ʼod zer―to transmit different parts of the bkaʼ ʼbum to him (possibly those parts the “three doors” had received directly from Shākya mchog ldan), to the effect that, ultimately, he was also in possession of the complete reading authorization “without a single folio missing.”38 Excursus: The gTing skyes Nobles as Patrons of Shākya mchog ldan In the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, the initiators of the first edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works are referred to, among other designations, as the “three princely sons of the gting skyes pas.”39 This designation indicates that Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan and his two brothers belonged to the ruling family of gTing skyes, which was a branch of the Shar kha ba clan.40 And indeed, in a genealogical account of this family, 37 Tib.: lung rgyun ma lus pa babs gcig tu dril ba. In case this wording does not express a retrospective projection on the part of Kun dgaʼ grol mchog, it is indicative of the fact that there was kept a “proto-gsung ʼbum” in gSer mdog can already during Shākya mchog ldanʼs lifetime. 38 See the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, fol. 220a.4–b.3 (A); fol. 88b.4–7 (B): bdag gis [B: gi] lung sgo gsum nas thob paʼi re res kyang| paṇ chen rang la rnam grangs ʼgaʼ re dngos su bsan [B: gsan] pa ʼdug kyang| lung rgyun ma lus pa babs gcig tu dril baʼi brgyud pa ni| paṇ chen rin po che| chos kyi rje kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po| de la rnam pa gsum gyi [B: gyis] bsan [B: gsan] paʼi| rje dbon shākya rgyal mtshan nas thob pa rnams la| maṃ yig gi rtags| paṇ chen don yod pa nas thob pa rnams la ga yig gi rtags| gnyis ka nas ma rdzogs paʼi lhag| mkhas pa sangs ʼod pa nas thob pa rnams la laṃ gyi rtags [B: laṃ yig gis brtags] te| shog bu gcig ma chad par yongs su rdzogs par nos so||. 39 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 68a.5–6: gting skyes paʼi zhal ngo rnam pa gsum. The meaning “noble son, prince” for zhal ngo is already attested by Jaeschke 1881: 473 who, in turn, refers to J. Schmidtʼs Tibetisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. The region of gTing skyes is located to the south of Sa skya. Note that the spelling of the toponym varies depending on the sources: gTing skyes, g/rTing khebs and sTengs khebs. Thus, in another textual witness of the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed (manuscript from Dolpo, NGMPP, L547/6), fol. 161b.6, the phrase just mentioned reads: rting khebs paʼi zhal ngo sku mched rnam pa gsum. For an etymological explication of the toponym gTing skyes, see the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 8a.2–b.1: co ro ʼbring ʼtshams gung gi char rgyab ri mtho la rgyud bzang ba g.yas ri g.yon ri gnyis kyi ri lag pa rkyang nas spang du bu ʼtsho ba lta bu saʼi mthil pheb pas ʼbyung bzhiʼi bcud thams cad nang du ʼbab pa lta buʼi lto ba gting du zug pa lta buʼi dbus na sra zhing ʼthas paʼi brag gting nas skyes pa ʼdra ba ʼbur du dod pa ʼdug pa la| pho brang gi gzhi gcig bting [...]|. 40 According to the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fols. 1b.4, 2b.1, the Shar kha ba clanʼs original area of settlement was northeastern mDo khams, in particular lDong, ʼDan ma and sGa. Approximately in the late 13th or early 14th century, (parts of) the clan migrated to gTsang. As we learn from the 126 the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, we come across Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshanʼs name in a list which registers the eight sons of the gTing skyes ruler Chos rgyal bSod nams lha mo (b. 1440?).41 What is more, if we compare this list from the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba with Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs enumeration of Shākya mchog ldanʼs disciples in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, we can identify Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshanʼs two brothers as Brag dkar ba bSod nams rgyal mtshan and gSer gling pa Kun dgaʼ bkra shis.42 Fittingly, the epithets Brag dkar ba and gSer gling pa―as found in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed― refer to two important religious sites in gTing skyes, namely the monasteries of Brag dkar and gSer gling.43 brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 6a.2, the clan later “furcated into three doors” (shar dgaʼ sgo gsum du gyes)―that is, three branches―when three of its leading members (variously termed the three ʼPhags pa, Sangs rgyas or Ma sangs brothers) established themselves in different fortresses around the middle of the 14th century: ʼPhags pa dPal bzang po (1318–1370) in rGyal rtse, ʼPhags pa Rin chen (alias dPal ldan rin chen, 1320–1376) in Seng ge rtse and ʼPhags pa Dar po (alias Ma sang sTag Dar po, b. 1326) in rGyal grong. Later on, the son of ʼPhags pa Dar po, A chen bZang po dpal, settled in gTing skyes in the region of Co(g) ro ʼBring ʼtshams. Thus, the gTing skyes branch of the Shar kha ba clan originated with ʼPhags pa Dar po, the youngest of the three ʼPhags pa (alias Sangs rgyas alias Ma sangs) brothers; see the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fols. 5a.5–6, 6a.2, 6b.6–8b.1. For an overview of the history of the rGyal rtse branch of the Shar kha ba clan which came into being with ʼPhags pa dPal bzang po, see Everding (in this volume). On the links between the gTing skyes branch and the Ngor sub-school of the Sa skya tradition, see Heimbel 2014: 432–437. In the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 2b.4–5, we come across an inventive explanation of the name of this clan, Shar kha ba (also: Shar ka / sga / dgaʼ ba), which is said to be derived from a toponym connected to the clanʼs original area of settlement in northeastern mDo khams: We are told that one of the clanʼs ancestors did three steps at sunrise (nyi ma shar ba) immediately after his birth. Since this happened in sGa, he―and later on his descendants― were known by the appellation Shar sga ba. For an alternative explanation of the clan name, see Tucci 1949: 663 and Everding (in this volume). 41 See the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fols. 12b.6–13a.6. I am grateful to Jörg Heimbel for kindly drawing my attention to this list. bSod nams lha moʼs date of birth is extrapolated from the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 11a.4–b.4, according to which he reached his seventeenth year of age (dgung lo bco brgyad) in an ox year (1457?) before the male fire dog year (me pho khyi lo; 1466). 42 This identification was already proposed in Heimbel 2014: 436, n. 519. Note that in Caumanns 2015: 233–234, I did not reckon Brag dkar ba bSod nams rgyal mtshan but a certain sDe bdun Rab ʼbyams pa dBang phyug rgyal mtshan among the “three Dharma Lords from gTing skyes.” The reason for my misidentification will become clear in what follows. 43 Brag dkar and gSer gling belong to a group of three monasteries in gTing skyes to which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog occasionally makes reference in his autobiographical writings; see the Yang rgyan, p. 592.1: rting skyes kyi dgon pa dgaʼ ldan rtse| brag dkar| gser gling rnams [...]. See also the mTshar rgyan, p. 314. As is evident from the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 14a.1–2, the monastery of dGaʼ ldan rtse was apparently an important center for Shākya mchog ldanʼs exegetical tradition in the first half of the 16th century. On its foundation, see Heimbel 2014: 432–437. 127 In the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, the three brothers are furnished with an impressive spiritual pedigree: Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan is declared to have been the rebirth of a certain bShes gnyen dam pa Sangs rgyas chos skyong and, in particular, an emanation (rnam par ʼphrul pa) of his namesake Sa skya Pa ḍita Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan (1182– 1251). bSod nams rgyal mtshan is labelled an emanation (sprul pa) of Yang dgon pa rGyal mtshan dpal (1213–1258) and to be “of one mind-stream” (thugs rgyud gcig pa) with Grub chen Nag po spyod pa (Kṛ ācārya / Kā ha). And Kun dgaʼ bkra shis, so we are told, was an emanation (rnam sprul) of Śāntideva.44 Moreover, the high standing that Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan and his two brothers obviously enjoyed among Shākya mchog ldanʼs monastic community is illustrated by the fact that they officiated, at least for a certain time, as three of the four head teachers of gSer mdog can.45 But the presence of the three brothers in gSer mdog can is only one facet of the gTing skyes noblesʼ connection to Shākya mchog ldan and his tradition. Thus, in the Bhutanese gsung ʼbum edition, we come across several printing colophons that show that the commissioning of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works by the “three Dharma Lords” after their masterʼs passing was preceded by several similar, although less elaborate enterprises. These colophons reveal that such gTing skyes nobles as Thugs rje rgyal mtshan (i.e., the uncle of Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan and his brothers)46 and Mi dbang bSod nams lhun grub dpal (another uncle?) partly sponsored at least the following four major works of Shākya mchog ldan: [1] Tshad maʼi mdo dang gzhung lugs sde bdun gyi de kho na nyid bsdus pa rtog geʼi snying po (XVIII, 1):47 This summary of the essentials of Dignāgaʼs Pramāṇasamuccaya and Dharmakīrtiʼs seven epistemological treatises was printed in Shākya mchog ldanʼs monastery gSer mdog can in the year 1496 (me pho ʼbrug) in the month chu stod (i.e., the sixth hor month) at the holy day commemorating the Buddhaʼs Turning of the Dharma Wheel. Glo bo mKhan chenʼs nephew rJe btsun Blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po sponsored the 44 See the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 13a.1–4. 45 In the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 80a.5, 87a.6, 88b.1, 90a.3, 90b.1, 92b.1, these four head teachers of gSer mdog can are variously termed drung nas (slob dpon pa) rnam pa bzhi or chos rje rnam pa bzhi. From the Chos ʼkhor rnam gzhag, p. 480.3–6, it appears that―at least in 1495―this group of four teachers consisted of Glo bo Chos rje (i.e. Glo bo mKhan chenʼs nephew Blo gros rgyal mtshan), Chos rje Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan, Chos rje Brag dkar ba (alias bSod nams rgyal mtshan) and Chos rje Kun dgaʼ bkra shis. However, we can conclude from the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 90a.3–4, 90b.3–4, that two years later, in 1497, Drung nas lHa btsun pa (alias Grags pa byang chub) must be included among the four head teachers of gSer mdog can. 46 Thugs rje rgyal mtshan is mentioned as a younger brother (cung) of bSod nams lha mo in the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fols. 10a.1, 12a.3. 47 For the sake of convenience I reproduce the work titles as rendered on the relevant title page in the Shāk mchog gi gsung ʼbum. Roman and arabic numbers in brackets refer to the volume where the relevant work can be found and its first page number. 128 printing. The scribe who wrote out the text was the “master artist” (mkhas pa) Kun dgaʼ chos ʼbyor. The wood blocks were carved by Pa rnam pa sPrul sku Chos kyi dpal ldan and his brother Don grub dpal ldan.48 The wood for the printing blocks was provided by Mi dbang bSod nams lhun grub dpal from rTing khebs.49 (XVIII, 185.5–186.2: [...] rtog geʼi mtsho nas brda chad kyi| |snying po bsdus paʼi dpag bsam ʼdi| |gang gi rnam dpyod skyed tshal du| |dge bar gshin zhing zhis gyur pa| |rje btsun blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal| |bzang poʼi bkaʼ dang de nyid kyi| |ʼbyor paʼi bang mdzod nas byon paʼi| |gang la ci mkhoʼi yo byad ni| |ma tshang med pa de dag gis| |bskrun paʼi par gyi yid bzhin mtsho| |blo gsal ngang paʼi tshogs rnams kyi| |ʼdod paʼi ʼjo baʼi khyu mchog mo| |me pho ʼbrug gi chu stod kyi| |chos kyi ʼkhor loʼi dus chen la| |sde snod klog paʼi chos kyi grwa| |gser mdog can du bde bar grub| |mkhas pa kun dgaʼ chos ʼbyor gyis| |bris par bzhin du pa rnam pa| |sprul sku chos kyi dpal ldan dang| |don grub dpal ldan mched kyis brkos| |par gyi ljon pa rting khebs nas| |mi dbang bsod nams lhun grub dpal| |yon sbyor ba dang bzo gnas pa| |kun kyang ma rnams srid mtsho las| |sgrol mdzad rdzogs paʼi sangs rgyas dang| |bzhed paʼi don kun myur ʼgrub shog| |sad dharmma pra su bhū ti bha wa ti||) [2] dPal gsang ba ʼdus paʼi rnam bshad rin po cheʼi gter mdzod bdun pa50 (VII, 405): The main sponsor for the printing of this exegetical work on the Guhyasamājatantra was bsTan ʼdzin bKra shis rgyal mo. The wood for the printing blocks was provided by a certain gTing khebs rDzong chen pa. The craftsmen who prepared the printing blocks were the scribe bSrungs ma dpal, Chos dpal ldan, Don kun grub and Gu ru skyabs. The place and date of printing are not specified in the colophon. The terminus post quem, however, is the 48 A certain Chos (kyi) dpal ldan is also mentioned in the printing colophon of Shākya mchog ldanʼs commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra (see no. 2 below). Moreover, this artisan is listed (together with his four brothers) as a carver in the printing colophon of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma (for further information, see n. 54 below) and―again as a carver (together with his “brother[s] and disciple[s]”)―in the printing colophon of the Theg pa gsum gyi ʼdul ba rnam par bzhag pa las nyan thos kyi ʼdul ba, a Vinaya text of Shākya mchog ldan. According to the printing colophon (see Shāk mchog gi gsung ʼbum, vol. 6, pp. 228.7–229.3), the latter text was printed in 1498. No information regarding either the sponsor(s) and editor(s) or the place of printing is given in the colophon. 49 Xylograph copies of this work (possibly of the aforementioned print) have been preserved at ʼBras spungs Monastery; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016432 (67 fols.; 62,5 x 9,5 cm), 016456 (67 fols.; 60,5 x 9,5 cm). 50 A series of alternative titles for this work is provided in the colophon (p. 606.2–3): dpal gsang ba ʼdus paʼi lam rim pa gnyis kyi rnam par bshad pa rin po cheʼi gter mdzod bdun pa zhes kyang bya| rnam par thar paʼi sgo nyi shu rtsa gcig pa zhes kyang bya| rang gzhan grub mthaʼi shan ʼbyed drug cu rtsa gsum pa zhes bya ba ʼdi ni [...]|. 129 year 1504, since this is―as stated in the scribal colophon (p. 606.6–7)―the date of composition of the text.51 (VII, 612.4–7: [...] bstan bcos ʼdi| |par du gang grub bdag poʼi rkyen| |bstan ʼdzin bkra shis rgyal moʼi mtshan| |par shing gting khebs rdzong chen pas| |mdzad do ’dri [=ʼbri] po bsrungs ma dpal| |mkhas paʼi grags thob chos dpal ldan| |don kun grub dang gu ru skyabs| |chos ʼdi par du legs grub pa| |skabs der yon gyi bdag po mchog| |chab srid ʼjam dar rgyas pa dang| |dbu rmog gong nas gong btsan shog| |rgyu tshogs sbyor dang sgo gsum gyi| |rig byed sgrin ʼgrus rnam dag pa| |kun la mchog dang thun mong gi| |grub paʼi dngos kun deng ’dir stsol|| ||) [3] rGyas paʼi bstan bcos tshad ma rnam ʼgrel gyi rnam bshad kun bzang chos kyi rol mtsho52 (XVIII, 189): The printing of this commentary on Dharmakīrtiʼs Pramāṇavārttika was sponsored by the Rin spungs ruler Don grub pa ʼChi med dbang poʼi rdo rje (i.e., Don grub rdo rje?; b. 1447). Thugs rje rgyal mtshan―that is, Chos rgyal bSod nams lha moʼs younger brother―and other individuals from the palace of rTing khebs provided the book labels.53 As craftsmen are listed the scribe sTag tshang pa Tshul khrims ʼphel,54 the editor 51 According to the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 39a.2–4, this Guhyasamājatantra commentary was printed during the lifetime of Shākya mchog ldan. The existence of blockprint copies of this work at ʼBras spungs Monastery is recorded in the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 004184 (98 fols.; 50,1 x 8 cm), 004192 (98 fols.; ?), 004315 (98 fols.; 49 x 8,5 cm), 004518 (98 fols.; 49 x 8 cm). 52 This is the title as given in the scribal colophon (p. 690.3–4). There is no title page in the Bhutanese gsung ʼbum edition for the overall work, but there are separate title pages for each of the four chapters. According to the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 74b.6–75a.2, Shākya mchog ldan used this Pramāṇavārttika commentary, which was also known as the Shāk ṭīk, for teaching Pramā a in gSer mdog can. 53 The Tibetan phrase rting khebs bsod nams yongs ʼduʼi pho brang nas might be a pun on the name(s) of the sponsor(s): “from the palace [which is] the wish-fulfilling tree [of the patron(s) from] rTing khebs [bearing the name(s)] bSod nams” or―if one takes yongs ʼdu as a verb―“from the palace [where the patron(s) from] rTing khebs [bearing the name(s)] bSod nams gathered together.” Note that in this regard the lexeme bsod nams is part of the names of the grandfather (bSod nams rgyal mtshan), grandmother (bSod nams rgyan ma) and father (bSod nams lha mo) of the three Dharma Lords from gTing skyes of whom in turn one―Brag dkar ba bSod nams rgyal mtshan―also has the component bsod nams in his name; see the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba, fol. 10a.1–2. There is, moreover, a certain Mi dbang bSod nams lhun grub dpal (an uncle of the three Dharma Lords?) mentioned in the printing colophon in the first work referred to above. Another uncle might be Sems dpaʼ chen po or Byang sems bSod nams rin chen; see the brGyan gyi ’phreng ba, fols. 11b.3, 13a.2. 54 Note that sTag tshang pa Tshul khrims dpal also acted as scribe (yi ger ʼbri po) in the blockprinting of the Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma, Shākya mchog ldanʼs contested answers to his own questions on Sa skya Pa ḍitaʼs sDom gsum rab dbye. Shākya mchog ldanʼs scribe Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (see above) was also involved (as editor) in this printing project, which was 130 Chos kyi rgyal mtshan55 and the carver dGaʼ bde dpal bzang, who was a native from Shel grong. Again, no date or place of printing is given in the printing colophon. However, we learn from the scribal colophon that Shākya mchog ldan composed the Kun bzang chos kyi rol mtsho in the year 1488 (p. 690.6).56 (XVIII, 692.5–693.4: [...] mi zad par du ʼphos paʼi dpag bsam shing| |gang ʼdir dgos paʼi mthun rkyen ʼkho rguʼi tshogs| |rin chen spungs paʼi sa skyong don grub pa| |ʼchi med dbang poʼi rdo rjes brtsal de yin| |dge des chos kyi rgyal por zhabs brtan shog| |tshig don bzhin ras ma tshang med ʼchar baʼi| |dngul dkar me long bstar ʼdraʼi glegs bu yang| |rting khebs bsod nams yongs ʼduʼi pho brang nas| |mi dang thugs rjeʼi rgyal mtshan gang des brtsal| |yi ger ʼbri po stag tshang pa| |tshul khrims ʼphel yin zhus dag pa| |chos kyi rgyal mtshan brkos byed mkhan| |dgaʼ bde dpal bzang shel grong pa| |de bskrun bgyis paʼi bsod nams kyis| |rgyu sbyor ba dang rig gnas pa| |las byed pa rnams bdud bzhi las| |rnam rgyal go ʼphang de thob shog| |sa skyong blon por bcas pa yang| |pha rol ʼtshe med pa dang| |mngaʼ ʼbangs mtsho bzhin gang ba dang| |dbu rmog gong nas gong brtsan shog|| ||mangga lambha wantu sarba dza ga ta mi ti|| ||) [4] Tshad ma rigs paʼi gter gyi rnam par bshad pa sde bdun ngag gi rol mtsho (XIX, 447): The wood needed for the printing blocks of this commentary on Sa skya Pa ḍitaʼs Tshad ma rigs gter was provided by the rTing khebs palace.57 The scribe was dGe ʼdun dpal bzang from bZang ldan. Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, who was a native of mNgaʼ ris (i.e., Shākya mchog ldanʼs drung yig), was the editor. The carvers were dGaʼ bde dpal and Chos dpal bkra shis. Once more, the date and place of printing are not mentioned in the colophon. However, the executed in gSer mdog can in 1483. Apart from the phrase sa skyong sras dang de yum bcas the printing colophon does not provide any information regarding the sponsor of this project; see the Shāk mchog gi gsung ʼbum, vol. 7, p. 229.1–5. According to the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 66b.3, the Mustang ruler bKra shis mgon (ca. 1440–1489) was responsible for sponsoring three de luxe manuscript copies as well as the printing of the Legs bshad gser gyi thur ma. 55 This is apparently Shākya mchog ldanʼs scribe Drung nas Lo tsā ba Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, who also acted as editor for the printing of the subsequently mentioned Rigs gter commentary (see no. 4). Since Chos kyi rgyal mtshan is said to have left gSer mdog can in about 1504 in order to go on a pilgrimage to Bodhgaya (see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 97a.6–7), this year must be considered as terminus ante quem for the printing of this Pramāṇavārttika commentary. 56 Xylograph copies have been preserved in ʼBras spungs; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016427 (39 fols.; 62,5 x 9,5 cm), 016435 (39 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 016450 (39 fols.; 63 x 10 cm) for prints of the first chapter; nos. 016429 (41 fols.; 63 x 9,5 cm), 016436 (41 fols.; 60 x 9 cm) for prints of the second chapter; nos. 016430 (38 fols.; 63,5 x 10 cm), 016437 (72 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 016448 (72 fols.; 63,5 x 10 cm) for copies of the third chapter; no. 016438 (37 fols.; 60 x 9 cm) for a blockprint copy of the fourth chapter. 57 Again, this might be a play on words on the names of a number of gTing skyes nobles: rting khebs kyi| |bsod nams dpag bsam pho brang nas|. 131 terminus post quem is the year 1482, which is the date when Shākya mchog ldan composed the sDe bdun ngag gi rol mtsho.58 (XIX, 749.5–7: [...] par ʼdiʼi ljon shing rting khebs kyi| |bsod nams dpag bsam pho brang nas| |yi ger ʼdri [=ʼbri] po bzang ldan pa| |dge ʼdun dpal bzang zhus dag mkhan| |chos kyi rgyal mtshan mngaʼ ris pa| |rkos kyi bzo sbyangs dgaʼ bde dpal| |chos dpal bkra shis dag dang bcas| |mthun rkyen yo byad phyogs bcu yi| |bsod nams sprin chen las ʼkhrungs| |de yis thub bstan mtsho chen po| |gting zab rgya chen gang ba dang| |phrin las chu bo bgrang yas kyis| |lus can mngon par mtho ba dang| |nges par legs paʼi dpal thob shog|| ||sarba mangga laṃ|). Apart from the “three Dharma Lords” there was another important student of Shākya mchog ldan who originated from the gTing skyes noble family, even though his name is not mentioned among the eight sons of Chos rgyal bSod nams lha mo in the brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba. This student―his religious name was dBang phyug rgyal mtshan―is referred to in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed with the titles sDe bdun Rab ʼbyams pa or, revealingly, gTing skyes Rab ʼbyams pa,59 and, according to a short biographical note in the mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston, he was a princely son (zhal ngo) from gTing skyes.60 Interestingly, the mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston emphasizes dBang phyug rgyal mtshanʼs role as a project leader in connection with a number of further printing projects of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings.61 And indeed, another four printing colophons found in the Bhutanese gsung ʼbum edition show that sDe bdun Rab ʼbyams pa dBang phyug rgyal mtshan was prominently involved in these printing enterprises: 58 On this work Kong ston Byang chub grub pa―one of the foremost students of Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429–1489)―is reported to have said: “If [you] teach the Tshad ma rigs gter, this sDe bdun ngag rol, which the Drung Chen po ba (i.e., Shākya mchog ldan) has composed, will be necessary;” see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 65b.5–6: zhal nas| tshad ma rigs gter ʼchad na drung chen po bas mdzad paʼi sde bdun ngag rol ʼdi dgos par ʼdug| ces yang yang gsung ba [...]|. Blockprint copies of this work have been preserved at ʼBras spungs Monastery; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016426 (127 fols.; 63 x 9,5 cm), 016434 (226 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 016453 (127 fols.; 62 x 10 cm). Cf. TBRC, W27922. 59 See, for instance, the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fols. 38a.3, 94a.1. 60 See the mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston, vol. 2, p. 330.3: sde bdun rab ʼbyams pa dbang phyug rgyal mtshan ni gtsang rting khebs paʼi zhal ngo yin|. As should be evident from his scholastic title sDe bdun Rab ʼbyams pa, dBang phyug rgyal mtshan was particularly erudite in the seven Pramā a treatises of Dharmakīrti. According to his short biography in the mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston (p. 330.3–5), dBang phyug rgyal mtshan was a disciple of the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho (1454–1506). Moreover, he is said to have acted as head teacher (ʼchad nyan slob dpon) of the Karma Grwa tshang. Later he was the abbot and scholastic teacher of g.Yam (=g.Yaʼ) bzang. 61 See the mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston, vol. 2, p. 330.3–4: paṇ chen gyi thugs rtsom gyi spar sgrub pa rnams kyi do dam mdzad pas zhabs tog shin du [=tu] che [...]|. 132 [5] dBu ma rnam par nges paʼi chos kyi bang mdzod lung dang rigs paʼi rgya mtsho62 (XIV, 341 & XV, 1): As revealed through a pun in the colophon, the sponsor of the printing of this Madhyamaka treatise was bKra shis dar rgyas, the ruler of Bya yul. The project was executed at a place below the Chos rgyal lhun po Palace in the year 1495 (shing mo yos) on the holy day commemorating the Buddhaʼs Turning of the Dharma Wheel. There was a group of four scribes, among them Blo bzang dkar po, who wrote out the text. The carvers were Phur pa tshe bdag, lHa dbang lha dar, Dar po skyes pa dar, Chos dpal bsam grub, Phyag rdor bsam grub, bSam grub dpal ldan and dPal ldan bkra shis.63 The editor was the “proponent of [Dharmakīrtiʼs] Seven Treatises” dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (i.e., the zhal ngo from gTing skyes).64 62 Note that a number of alternative titles are quoted in the colophon (p. 692.3–3): theg pa chen po dbu ma rnam par nges paʼi bang mdzod ces kyang bya| theg chen chos kyi rgyan phreng zhes kyang bya| lung chos spyiʼi ʼkhrul ʼjoms lung dang rigs paʼi rgya mtsho zhes kyang bya baʼi bstan bcos ʼdi ni [...]|. This work is often referred to by its “popular” title dBu maʼi stong thun chen mo; see Caumanns 2015: 166, n. 144. Komarovski 2011: 41 characterizes this “monumental” treatise as follows: “a work that marked the beginning of an open articulation, crystallization, and polishing of his [i.e., Shākya mchog ldanʼs] views on Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. In that text, not only did Shakya Chokden differentiate between his own and othersʼ systems on the level of Niḥsvabhāvavāda, as he did earlier, but he also started formulating his novel interpretation of the systems of Alīkākāravāda and Niḥsvabhāvavāda as two forms of Madhyamaka.” 63 Note that Phur pa tshe bdag and (Dar po) sKyes pa dar were also involved as carvers in the printing of the sTong nyid bdud rtsiʼi lam po che, which, according to Komarovski 2011: 88, was one of Shākya mchog ldanʼs “main texts on the nature and relationship of Yogācāra and Niḥsvabhāvavāda.” As told in the printing colophon (see Shāk mchog gi gsung ʼbum, vol. 4, p. 207.3–6), this printing project took place in Bya yul Chos rgyal lhun po in 1496. It is, however, not known whether sDe bdun Rab ʼbyams pa dBang phyug rgyal mtshan oversaw the project as editor. 64 Copies (of the aforementioned print?) have been preserved at the ʼBras spungs Monastery, as we come to know from the catalogue of the monasteryʼs library holdings; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 015487 (28 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015559 (28 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015620 (28 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm), 015657 (28 fols.; 50 x 9 cm) for copies of the first chapter; nos. 015488 (54 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015561 (54 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015621 (54 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for copies of the second chapter; nos. 015489 (30 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015562 (30 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015622 (30 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm), for prints of the third chapter; nos. 015490 (27 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015563 (17 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015623 (29 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for copies of the fourth chapter; nos. 015491 (? fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015564 (26 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015624 (26 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for blockprints of the fifth chapter; nos. 015492 (33 fols.; 60 x 9 cm), 015565 (33 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015625 (33 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for copies of the sixth chapter; no. 015626 (34 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for a copy of the seventh chapter; nos. 015566 (28 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015627 (38 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for blockprint copies of the eighth chapter; nos. 015567 (45 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015628 (45 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for copies of the ninth chapter; nos. 015568 (34 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015629 (42 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for prints of the tenth chapter; nos. 015569 (30 fols.; 60 x 9,5 cm), 015630 (35 fols.; 62,5 x 10 cm) for prints of the eleventh and twelfth chapters; no. 000720 [ʼBras spungs kun dgaʼ rwa baʼi dpe mdzod dkar chag] (568 fols.; 66 x 10 cm) for a blockprint copy of the complete work. 133 (XV, 693.7–695.4: [...] srid mthaʼi bar| |mi zad ches cher ʼphel baʼi par ʼdi ni| |sa yi dbang phyug rnam dpyod nyi ma yis| |rmongs dang chags khroʼi mun pa ʼjoms mkhas shing| |bsod nams stobs kyis srid paʼi dpal thob nas| |g.yo med phyag rgya chen poʼi rnam rol gyis| |mkhas par longs spyod brtse bas sbyin spro ba| |ʼjig rten bkra shis dam chos dar rgyas su| | byed po gang des chos lhun poʼi spor| |rgyal rnga lan brgyar brdungs paʼi skabs shig tu| |chos ʼdiʼi rnam dkar mkhyen paʼi bkaʼ stsal gyis| |bzo rig mang poʼi lag tu dpal thob cing| |gsung dbyangs rol mo rna bar sim pa na| |yi ger ʼdri [=ʼbri] po gzhan las grags thob pa| |blo bzang dkar po la sogs bzhi phrag dang| |lha yi bzo bo las kun pa de yis| |nges par byin rlabs phur pa tshe bdag dang| |lha dbang lha dar dar po skyes pa dar| |chos dpal bsam grub phyag rdor bsam grub dang| |bsam grub dpal ldan dpal ldan bkra shis kyis| |legs par brkos nas zhus shing dag byed pa| |sde bdun smra ba dbang phyug rgyal mtshan no| [...] |ces bya baʼi bstan bcos chen poʼi glegs bam gyi phyi mo ʼdi ni| yul dbus kyi lho phyogs saʼi thig le| pho brang chos rgyal lhun poʼi zhol ʼdab| ʼbyor zhing rgyas paʼi yul ljongs| ma rmongs skye boʼi ʼbyung gnas su| shing mo yos kyi lo| chos kyi ʼkhor lo bskor baʼi dus khyad par can gyi ʼgrub sbyor bzang po la yongs su rdzogs par grub paʼo|| ||mangga lambha wantu|| ||) [6] Shing rta chen poʼi srol gnyis kyi rnam par dbye ba bshad nas nges don gcig tu bsgrub paʼi bstan bcos kyi rgyas ʼgrel65 (II, 471): This auto-commentary together with its basic text on the differentiation of the scholastic traditions of Asa ga and Nāgārjuna was printed in the great palace Chos rgyal lhun po and then sent to the monastery of Thub bstan gSer mdog can. The printing was sponsored by the ruler of Bya yul, Chos rgyal bKra shis dar rgyas. The text was written out by the scribe Rig byed Nam mkhaʼ rdo rje. bSam ʼbrug [!] dpal ldan together with nine pupils carved the blocks. The editor who acted as supervisor and proofreader was sDe bdun dBang phyug rgyal mtshan. The final editor was Karma phrin las pa (1456–1539).66 There is no date provided in the colophon for the printing project. However, because we know that the sponsor Chos rgyal bKra shis dar rgyas died in the year 1499, this is the terminus ante quem.67 (II, 617.4–618.4: [...] de phyir legs par bshad ʼdi spel bzhed pas| |glegs bam ʼbum sde mang po bskyed paʼi yum| |mi zad par gyi mig ʼphrul du bkod pa| 65 Note that in the colophon, the title reads (p. 616.4–5): Nges don rgya mtshoʼi sprin gyi ʼbrug sgra zhes bya baʼi bstan ʼchos kyi rgyas ʼgrel bdud rtsiʼi char ʼbebs. According to Komarovski 2011: 44 it is in this work in which Shākya mchog ldan “most clearly articulated his unique approach to the systems of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka.” 66 Karma phrin las pa had also been responsible for overseeing the printing project of ʼGos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpalʼs Blue Annals in the early 1480s; see van der Kuijp 2006: 24. 67 Blockprint copies are listed in the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 015526 (51 fols.; 63 x 10,5 cm), 015539 (51 fols.; 62 x 10 cm), 015773 (51 fols.; 62 x 9 cm), 015529 (37 fols.; 61,5 x 10,5 cm). 134 |skal bzang chos kun mkhyen paʼi bkaʼ lung gis| |yang yang bskul baʼi thugs rjeʼi shugs las byung| |bsod nams brgya yi byed po yis| |yangs paʼi sa chen skyong mkhas pa| |chos rgyal bkra shis dar rgyas zhes| |snyan grags tshangs paʼi ʼjig rten dang| |ʼkhor yug ri boʼi bar du yang| |lha yi rnga bzhin grags pa des| |mngaʼ thang chen poʼi dpal ʼbyor las| |ʼthun rkyen ma tshang med par bsgrubs| |rig byed nam mkhaʼ rdo rje yis| |ma nyams gsal bar bris pa gang| |bsam ʼbrug dpal ldan slob bur bcas| |bcu phrag gcig gis legs par rkos| |gang ʼdiʼi do dam dang ni dag byed pa| |rab ʼbyams gzhung la byang paʼi thos bsam pa| |sde bdun dbang phyug rgyal mtshan zhes bya des| |lhod med brtson ʼgrus ldan pas legs par bgyis| |gnas lngaʼi mkhaʼ la mkhyen paʼi nyi ʼod can| |karma phrin las pa zhes yongs grags pas| |ma dag mun paʼi dri ma rgyang srings shing| |ʼkhos su phebs paʼi bkod legs bkaʼ drin mdzad| |de las byung baʼi rab dkar dge baʼi ʼod| |nam mkhaʼi pha mthar ʼchar ba yod snyam ste| |des ni ʼgro kun rmongs paʼi mun bsal nas| |ye shes snang ba lham mer ʼbar gyur cig| |ces pa pho brang chen po chos rgyal lhun por par du bsgrubs nas| thub bstan gser mdog can zhes bya baʼi chos grwar phul ba dge legs ʼphel baʼi rgyur gyur cig|| ||mangga laṃ|| bha wantu| [...]) [7] Dam paʼi chos mngon pa kun las btus paʼi rnam par bshad pa rnal ʼbyor spyod gzhung rgya mtshoʼi rlabs kyi phreng ba (XIV, 1): Shākya mchog ldanʼs commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya was realised as a print in bKra shis chos ʼkhor lhun po by sDe bdun dBang phyug rgyal mtshan from gTing khebs. After the printing was completed, the text was sent to Thub bstan gSer mdog can. The date of this printing project remains unknown. The terminus post quem however is 1479 for this is―according to the colophon (p. 339.1)―the year in which Shākya mchog ldan composed this work.68 (XIV, 339.5–6: ʼdi yang bkra shis chos ʼkhor lhun por gting khebs pa sde bdun dbang phyug rgyal mtshan gyis par du bsgrubs nas thub bstan gser mdog can du phul baʼi dge bas sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa dar zhing rgyas la yun ring du gnas pa dang| sems can gyi don du tshogs gnyis rlabs po che myur du rdzogs par gyur cig|| ||shu bhaṃ|) [8] gZhi gsum gyi tshig gsal bar byed pa bdud rtsiʼi rol mtsho (XXII, 268.1): This exegetical text on the three vastus of the Vinaya was realised as a print in bKra shis chos ʼkhor lhun po in Bya yul by sDe bdun dBang phyug rgyal mtshan from gTing khebs in order to fulfil the last wishes of the “great Dharma king.” No date for the printing is given. If, however, the “Dharma king” referred to in the printing colophon is to be identified as Chos rgyal bKra shis dar rgyas, the terminus post quem will be the latterʼs year of death, 1499.69 68 A blockprint copy is preserved in ʼBras spungs Monastery; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, no. 016119 (120 fols.; 63 x 9,5 cm). 69 See the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016200 (15 fols.; 48 x 8 cm), 016261 (15 fols.; 45 x 8 cm), 135 (XXII, 302.3–4: ʼdi yang| bya yul gyi saʼi thig le bkra shis chos ʼkhor lhun por| chos kyi rgyal po chen poʼi dgongs pa rdzogs paʼi ched du| gting khebs pa sde bdun dbang phyug rgyal mtshan gyis| par du bsgrubs te| thub bstan gser mdog can [du] phul baʼi dge bas| phan bdeʼi ʼbyung gnas| thub bstan dar zhing rgyas la yun ring du gnas par gyur cig| bkra shis so|| ||) Altogether, the overall impression is that the time frame for the first four printing projects mentioned above covers the first half of the 1480s, at the earliest, until the first decade of the 16th century. Thus, the inception of the “rTing khebs Palaceʼs” cosponsoring of these prints may have corresponded with the arrival of the three gTing skyes brothers in gSer mdog can. The time frame for the second group of printing projects―which must be differentiated from the first group because of its connection to Bya yul―might have started a little bit earlier and seems to have ended in the early 1500s, possibly because of Chos rgyal bKra shis dar rgyasʼ death.70 What is particularly interesting to note is the choice of texts the printing of which the gTing skyes nobles co-sponsored: The strong emphasis on curricular subjects such as Pramā a and, to a lesser extent, Madhyamaka, Abhidharma and Vinaya suggests that they were supposed to be used in the scholastic or general monastic education of the gSer mdog can monks. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that, according to the corresponding printing colophons, at least one of these eight texts was printed in gSer mdog can (no. 1) and the prints of another three were sent to Shākya mchog ldanʼs monastery (nos. 6, 7 and 8).71 Structure and Contents of the “gTing skyes Edition” The aforementioned two biographies of Shākya mchog ldan (i.e., the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba and the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed) and also Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs Record 018980 (185 fols.; 51 x 8 cm) for a list of blockprint copies. 70 For a short genealogical account of the “noble house of Bya pa,” see Czaja 2013: 473–481. On Chos rgyal bKra shis dar rgyasʼ activities as a great donor, see Sernesi 2013: 202–203. 71 This assumption matches the observation of Sernesi (in this volume) that during the 15th century “[b]ook production was part of the noble familiesʼ institutional policies in support of the local religious traditions, enacted particularly in connection with the establishment of new monasteries and schools of philosophy, the growth of mass monasticism, and the development of monastic curricula.” Note that Shākya mchog ldan took an early interest in the blockprinting technology. Thus, during his stay in Glo bo sMon thang in 1472–1475, he initiated the printing of a number of core texts pertaining to the monastic curriculum, an undertaking that was funded by the Glo bo ruler bKra shis mgon; see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 54b.6–7. Mention should be made of a passage from a bcaʼ yig of gSer mdog can according to which Shākya mchog ldan resorted to blockprinted texts in the education of the monks in his monastery; see the bCaʼ yig tshan pa gnyis, p. 308.2: rnam bshad rje gong ma gnyis* kyi gsung sgros par du grub pa de dag ʼchad pa pos lag tu blangs nas ʼdzin du ʼjug [...]|. *The designation rje gong ma gnyis refers to rNgog Lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab and Sa skya Pa ḍita Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan. 136 of Teachings Received (i.e., the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas) contain title lists that are apparently connected to the gTing skyes brothersʼ edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. Among them, the list in the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas is straightforwardly introduced as the “record of Pa chen Rin po cheʼs Collected Works” (paṇ chen rin po cheʼi bkaʼ ʼbum gyi tho). This “record” is almost identical to the list that Shākya rgyal mtshan reproduces in the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, even though the latter does not explicitely link his list to the compilation reportedly prepared by the new gSer mdog can abbot Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan.72 As becomes evident from these two lists, the bkaʼ ʼbum was very well structured and the individual titles that make up the collection can be assigned to eight clearly defined sections: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Prajñāpāramitā (pha rol tu phyin pa’i sde) Pramā a (rigs pa rtog ge’i sde) Madhyamaka (zab mo lta ba’i rgya mtsho nges don dbu ma’i sde) Vinaya (including Three-Vow Theory) (rgya chen spyod pa’i rgya mtsho ’dul ba’i sde) Abhidharma (chos mngon pa’i sde) Mantrayāna (zab mo sngags kyi theg pa’i sde) Explanations of “small books,” and “question and answer” texts (pod phran gyi rnam bshad dang dris lan gyi sde) Miscellaneous writings (sna tshogs ’dus pa’i sde, or: thor bu ba sna tshogs pa’i sde) In what follows, I shall reproduce the title list as given in Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, since it is this list that is explicitely labelled as referring to Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. According to it, the first bkaʼ ʼbum consisted of the following works: paṇ chen rin po cheʼi bkaʼ ʼbum gyi tho la| 1.01 laṃ|73 mngon par rtogs paʼi rgyan ʼgrel pa dang bcas paʼi bkaʼ [= dkaʼ] ʼgrel bzhed tshul rgya mtshoʼi rlabs kyi phreng ba| 1.02 laṃ| lus dang yan lag rgyas par bshad pa lung don rgya mtsho| 1.03 laṃ| sbyor ṭig gnad kyi sgron me| 1.04 laṃ| rgyan gyi ʼgrel 72 Shākya rgyal mtshan has inserted this title list (see the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fols. 56a.3– 59a.4) in between the narratives of Shākya mchog ldanʼs fourth and fifth journey to dBus in 1497 (fol. 53a.4–b.3) and 1501 (fols. 59b.2–60b.3). The list is appended to a paragraph in the rnam thar which gives an account of the extension of gSer mdog can Monastery and Shākya mchog ldanʼs tantric teaching activities until the latterʼs year of death (fols. 53b.3–56a.2). 73 As Kun dgaʼ grol mchog explains in his Record of Teachings Received (see n. 38 above), the syllables laṃ, ga and maṃ refer to the individuals from whom he obtained the reading authorization (lung) of the respective works of Shākya mchog ldan, namely mKhas pa Sangs rgyas ʼod zer alias mKhan chen Rin po che (laṃ), Pa chen Don yod grub pa (ga) and rJe dBon Shākya rgyal mtshan (maṃ). 137 bshad mjug [B:ʼjug] sgo gsum pa| 1.05 laṃ| lung rigs rol mtsho| 1.06 lung gi snying po| 1.07 laṃ| mtshon byed dpeʼi dge ʼdun gyi zur ʼdebs ngag gi dbang poʼi mdzes rgyan|74 1.08 laṃ| bsam gzugs kyi zur ʼdebs ngag gi dbang poʼi do shal| 1.09 laṃ| rten ʼbrel gyi zur ʼdebs srid zhiʼi gnas tshul ʼchar byed| 1.10 laṃ| byams chos lngaʼi nges don rab gsal| 1.11 laṃ| byams chos kyi lam rim| 1.12 laṃ| skabs lnga pa yan gyi thal phreng| dbang po rdo rje rnams te pha rol tu phyin paʼi sde| 2.01 laṃ| tshad maʼi chos ʼbyung dpyod ldan dgaʼ byed| 2.02 laṃ| bkaʼ [B: dkaʼ] ʼgrel rigs paʼi snang ba| 2.03 laṃ| kun bzang chos nyid kyi rol mtsho| 2.04 laṃ| rtog geʼi ʼkhrul ʼjoms chen mo| 2.05 laṃ| rtog ge [B: geʼi] snying po| 2.06 laṃ| rtog geʼi de nyid bsdus pa| 2.07 laṃ| sde bdun bang mdzod kyi lde mig| 2.08 laṃ| dmigs rtags kyi ṭig sems tsam gsal baʼi me long rnams te rigs pa rtog geʼi sde| 3.01 laṃ| dbu maʼi byung tshul yid bzhin gyi lhun po| 3.02 laṃ| rtsa sheʼi ṭi ka [B: ṭī kka] skal bzangs kyi [B: bzang gi] ʼjug ngogs| 3.03 laṃ| ʼjug paʼi ṭi ka [B: ṭīkka]| nges don gnad kyi gzer bu| 3.04 laṃ| dbu ma rnam nges lung dang rigs paʼi rgya mtsho| 3.05 laṃ| stong thun chung ba dbang poʼi rdo rje| 3.06 laṃ| lta khrid chen mo tshangs paʼi rnga sgra| 3.07–08 laṃ| byang chub sems ʼgrel dang chos dbyings bstod pa gnyis kyi ṭī ka [=ṭīkka]| 3.09 laṃ| gzhan lugs kyi dbu ma nor pa brgya dang brgyad bgrangs pa nges don snyim paʼi me tog| 3.10 laṃ| nges don bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa| 3.11 laṃ [B: om.]| stong nyid rab gsal| 3.12–13 laṃ| lugs gnyis rnam ʼbyed rtsa ʼgrel rnams te zab mo lta baʼi rgya mtsho nges don dbu maʼi sde| 4.01 ga| ʼdul baʼi bkaʼ [B: dkaʼ] ʼgrel nyi maʼi shing rta| 4.02 ga| las chog gi bkaʼ [B: dkaʼ] ʼgrel zla baʼi shing rta| 4.03 ga| gzhi gsum gyi cho ga bdud rtsiʼi rol mtsho| 4.04 ga| theg pa gsum gyi ʼdul baʼi bslab bya| 4.05 ga| bslab bya bsdus pa las dang po paʼi gnas| 4.06 ga| ʼdul baʼi ʼbel gtam rnam nges| 4.07 laṃ| sdom gsum rab dbyeʼi kha skong| 4.08 ga| bsdus don [B: om.]| 4.09 ga| spyi don| 4.10 ga| thal ʼphreng [B: phreng] rnams ste [B: te] rgya chen spyod paʼi rgya mtsho ʼdul baʼi sde| 5.01 laṃ| mngon pa kun las btus kyi rnam bshad rnal ʼbyor spyod gzhung rgya mtshoʼi rlabs kyi phreng ba| 5.02 ga| deʼi grub mthaʼ bsdus pa| 5.03 laṃ| mngon pa mdzod kyi mthaʼ chod [B: gcod] bye brag tu bshad paʼi mtsho chen mo rnams te chos mngon paʼi sde| 74 It might be the case that the descriptive title (i.e., mTshon byed dpeʼi dge ʼdun gyi zur ʼdebs) and the ornamental title (i.e., Ngag gi dbang poʼi mdzes rgyan) of no. 1.07 refer to two different works. See my “Remarks on the Structure and Contents of the Title Lists” below. 138 6.01–02 ga| bde gsang gi rnam bshad| 6.03 maṃ| rdo rje sems dpaʼi skyed [B: bskyed] chog gi ʼdor len la rtsod spong ʼbel gtam dbyangs kyi rol mo| 6.04 maṃ| mngon rtogs yan lag drug paʼi dpung gnyen gyi lung rigs bdun pa| 6.05 maṃ| sbyong byed lam gyi ʼbel gtam rma bya dug ʼjom [B: ʼjoms]| 6.06 maṃ| brtag gnyis kyi bsdus don| 6.07 maṃ| kyai rdo rjeʼi rnal ʼbyor skad [B: ska] cig dran rdzogs bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa| 6.08 maṃ| ljon shing gi dris lan nges don rin po cheʼi ʼjug ngogs| 6.09 maṃ| lam bskor [B: skor] brgyad kyi gsal byed bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa| 6.10 ga| ʼkhrul spong gi rgal lan dam tshig rab gsal| 6.11–18 maṃ| mi g.yo ba| maṃ| ʼjam dbyangs dkar po| maṃ| rdo rje rnon po| maṃ| seng ldeng nags kyi sgrol ma| maṃ| sgrol dkar yid bzhin ʼkhor lo| maṃ| gzungs grwa lngaʼi lha mo lnga| maṃ| phyag rdor| [B add. maṃ|] rnam sras dkar po rnams kyi mngon rtogs| 6.19–20 maṃ| sangs rgyas klu dbang gi rgyal po| maṃ| ma gcig grub paʼi rgyal mo gnyis kyi sgom [B: bsgom] bzlas| 6.21 maṃ| snying po don gsum gyi khrid yig| 6.22(1–14) maṃ| shes phyin gyi mtshan brgya| maṃ| rnam rgyal gyi gzungs sogs gzungs rnying bcu bzhi tsam gyi bod ʼgyur| 6.23 ga| chos phran brgya rtsa| 6.24 chos phran sum bcu [B: cu] pa sogs zab mo sngags kyi theg paʼi sde| 7.01–10 ga| mtshan brjod| ga| shes snying| ga| bzang spyod| ga| byams smon| ga| smon lam bdun bcu [B: cu]| ga| tshig rkang brgyad ma| maṃ| me long| maṃ| smra sgo mtshon cha| maṃ| mkhas pa ʼjug paʼi sgo| maṃ| sdeb sbyor me tog gi chun po rnams kyi rnam bshad re| 7.11 maṃ| chos la ʼjug paʼi sgo| 7.12 maṃ| brdaʼ gsar rnying gi shan ʼbyed| 7.13 maṃ| springs yig tshan pa lnga tsam| 7.14 ga| legs bshad gser gyi thur ma| 7.15 ga| sdom gsum gyi dri ba grags che ba gsum gyi dris lan| 7.16 laṃ| rigs paʼi gter gyi dri ba dang| dam bcaʼ grub mthaʼ bsdus pa| 7.17 laṃ| bdag chen rnam rgyal grags paʼi bde gshegs snying po dang| sman dpyad bskor [B: skor] gyi dris lan| 7.18 laṃ| sman blaʼi dri ba me tog gi mdaʼ ʼjoms| 7.19 laṃ| sman blaʼi mdo chog gi rnam bshad ʼchi med rnga sgra| 7.20 laṃ| mus pa slob dpon paʼi dris lan mthong ba don ldan tshan pa gnyis| 7.21 laṃ| gsang ʼdus rim lngaʼi ʼod gsal la brten paʼi dri ba| 7.22 laṃ| phyi nang gi lus la rten ʼbrel sgrig [B: bsgrig] tshul gyi dri [B: dris] lan| 7.23 laṃ| dri [B: dris] lan man ngag gi dgongs rgyan| 7.24 laṃ| ga zi bsam grub gling paʼi dris lan ya mtshan can bcu bdun pa| 7.25 laṃ| sprul sku zhwa dmar baʼi dris lan| 7.26 laṃ| sde pa hor shāk paʼi dus ʼkhor sogs kyi dri [B: dris] lan| 7.27 laṃ| sde pa sgar paʼi dri [B: dris] lan legs bshad gser gyi rnga dbyangs sogs kha yar| 7.28 laṃ| brang mo che paʼi rgal lan| rnam thar sgo brgya pa| 7.29 laṃ| lhag bsam rab dkar gyi dri [B: dris] lan| 7.30 laṃ| pu rangs [B: hrangs] chos dpon paʼi dri [B: dris] lan tshan gnyis| 7.31 laṃ| bla ma blo [B: slob] paʼi dris lan la sogs pa pod phran gyi rnam bshad dang dris lan gyi sde| 8.01 laṃ| stug po bkod paʼi zhing khams kyi rnam nges dad paʼi rgya mtsho| 8.02 maṃ| dam pa tog dkar poʼi rtogs brjod ngo mtshar lhaʼi rnga dbyangs| 139 8.03 maṃ| bde ba can gyi zhing bkod padma dkar poʼi phreng ba| 8.04(1–10) maṃ| thub paʼi bstod pa tshan pa bzhi sogs sangs rgyas byang sems kyi bstod pa bcu tsam| 8.05 maṃ| rgyan drug gi rtogs brjod| 8.06 maṃ| rje btsun gong ma lngaʼi rtogs brjod| 8.07 maṃ| sa ra ha| maṃ| lo nag dril gsum| maṃ| zla ba grags pa sogs du maʼi rtogs brjod rnams dang| 8.08 maṃ| spring [B: springs] yig bkaʼ ʼbum 8.09 mol gtam| 8.10 chos ʼkhor deb gter| 8.11 maṃ| byams skuʼi dkar chag sogs sna tshogs ʼdus paʼi sdeʼo||.75 As mentioned above, the title lists as provided in Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs bsTan paʼi nor rdzas and Shākya rgyal mtshanʼs Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba are almost identical. There are, however, variances in the last section of the list recording Shākya mchog ldanʼs miscellaneous writings. Here, the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba renders a more complete picture: 8.01 stug po bkod paʼi zhing khams kyi rnam nges dad paʼi rgya mtsho| 8.02 dam pa rtog dkar poʼi rtogs brjod ngo mtshar lhaʼi rnga dbyangs| 8.03 bde ba can gyi zhing bkod padma dkar poʼi phreng ba| 8.04(1–10) thub paʼi bstod pa tshan pa bzhi sogs| sangs rgyas byang sems kyi bstod pa bcu tsam| 8.05 rgyan drug gi rtogs brjod| 8.06 rje btsun gong ma lngaʼi rtogs brjod| 8.07 sa ra ha| lo nag dril gsum| zla ba grags pa sogs grub chen du maʼi rtogs brjod| 8.08 ne gu| gshed dmar sogs brgyud rims kha yar gyi bstod pa| 8.09 lo chen rin chen bzang po sogs bod kyi mkhas grub sum bcu tsam gyi bstod pa| 8.10–11 rngog lo sras dang bcas paʼi rnam thar mdor bsdus pa gnyis| 8.12 jo bo rjeʼi rnam thar mdor bsdus pa| 8.13 rong chen thams cad mkhyen pa| 8.14 kun mkhyen don yod dpal| 8.15 mkhas grub spyang lung pa| 8.16–17 spyan snga sku mched rnams kyi rnam thar re| 8.18 par dang bkaʼ ʼgyur gyi dkar chag du ma| 8.19 chos kyi grwa ʼdi nyid kyi byams chen gyi phyi nang gi dkar chag| 8.20 chos ʼkhor deb gter| 8.21 bcaʼ yig tshan pa gnyis| 8.22 mol gtam rgyas bsdus tshan pa bzhi| 8.23 bkaʼ shog shin tu mang ba dang bcas pa rnams ste thor bu ba sna tshogs paʼi sdeʼo|.76 Remarkably, the title list as included in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed differs substantially from the two (almost identical) lists from the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba and the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas. In the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, the title list precedes the brief narrative on the genesis of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works (which I have quoted above), creating the impression that it corresponds to the contents of this edition. Kun dgaʼ grol mchog introduces his list by exhorting the addressees of the biography that―after “the bodily appearance of the second Jina (i.e., Shākya mchog ldan) had vanished”―the “volumes [containing this masterʼs] words” should be 75 See the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas, fols. 216b.1–220a.1 (A); fols. 87a.3–88b.3 (B). 76 For this section of the title list, see the Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba, fols. 58b.3–59a.5. 140 regarded as a “model of trusting faith and devotion” (in lieu of Shākya mchog ldan himself).77 Kun dgaʼ grol mchog urges: “Insistently study and master completely the entire nectar of the speech of [this] Omniscient One! Beyond that, there is no domain of striving!”78 Therefore, as Kun dgaʼ grol mchog goes on to explain, he has written, “arranged in a few words,” a list of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings, which “allusively conveys the titles [of Pa chen Rin po cheʼs works].”79 Since this list is rendered in ornate poetry, the individual titles are occasionally difficult to determine. Thus my segmentation in some cases remains tentative: 1.01 blo gsal smra baʼi ngag gi dpal ster rig gnas phra moʼi legs bshad tshogs|| 2.01 sngon rabs shes byed bla maʼi yon tan rgyan phreng spel baʼi rnam thar dang|| 2.02 de de ji bzhin bshes gnyen dam paʼi yon tan brjod paʼi bstod paʼi tshig|| 2.03 rang gi mdzad paʼi ngo mtshar ston paʼi deb gter bstod paʼi rab byed bzhi|| 2.04 rgyal dang de sras mchog la bsngags paʼi snyan ngag mkhas paʼi yid ʼphrog dang|| 3.01 gzhan gyis brtsad cing dris paʼi brgal lan 3.02 springs yig sna tshogs spel baʼi sde|| 4.01 sngags gzhung zab dguʼi bcud bsdus sdebs legs rang gzhan ʼbyed paʼi brda gsang gang|| 4.02 lhag paʼi lha mchog brnyes paʼi sgrub thabs sngags ʼbru shes byed sgo du ma|| 5.01 tshad maʼi chos ʼbyung dpyod ldan dgaʼ byed| 5.02 dkaʼ ʼgrel rigs paʼi snang ba ʼphro|| 5.03 rtog geʼi ʼkhrul pa yongs su ʼjoms byed 5.04 rtog geʼi snying po bsdus paʼi bcud|| 5.05 sde bdun rigs paʼi gter gyi rol mtsho 5.06 sde bdun bang mdzod lde mig can|| 5.07 sems tsam gsal baʼi me long gang der shes byaʼi gzugs brnyan ma lus shar|| 6.01 bzhed tshul rgya mtshoʼi rlabs kyi phreng bar rgya bod mkhas paʼi ʼgrel tshul bstan|| 6.02 lus dang yan lag rgyas par ʼchad byed lung don rgya mtsho 77 This is how I understand the Tibetan phrase dad mos kyi mig rkyen. For the term mig rkyen, see Jaeschke 1881: 414: “Mil. [= Milaraspa’s hundred thousand Songs], is said to be the same as mig-ltos,” i.e., “2. C. [=Central Tibet] W. [=Western Tibet] learning by observation and close ocular attention.” See also Goldstein 2001: 807, 808 who equates the term mig ltos with mig dpe: “example, model.” 78 For the full passage, see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 105a.1–3: der rgyal ba gnyis paʼi skuʼi snang ba nub nas| slar dad mos kyi mig rkyen ni sngar dgung loʼi thad so soʼi rtsom paʼi phreng ba spel ba ltar bkaʼi glegs bam ʼdi dag nyid yin paʼi phyir| bdag nyid chen po sangs rgyas dngos byon gang gi rjes su ʼbrang baʼi yi dam mchis na thams cad mkhyen pa gang gi gsung gi bdud rtsi ʼdi rnams la nan tan gyis lta zhing kun chub par bya ba nyid las ʼbad paʼi gnas med do| |zhes nges par bya baʼi phyir [...]|. 79 These two phrases frame the title list: nyung nguʼi tshig tu bsdebs nas brjod pa ʼdi ltar| [...] zhes zur gyis mtshan smos pa’i [...]|; see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 105a.3, 105b.5. 141 gting mthaʼ yas|| 6.03 gzhung tshig re rer sbyor baʼi ṭī ka gnad kyi sgron mes gsal bar byas|| 6.04 rang gzhung sgrub paʼi lung rigs rgya mtsho legs bshad rba klong g.yo ba can|| 6.05–08 zur ʼdebs chu chen rnam pa bzhi de lung gi rgya mtsho chen por ʼbab|| 6.09 ʼjug sgo gsum gyi mthar rgyas ʼchad byed 6.10 lung gi chos kun snying poʼi mdzod|| 6.11 log rtog tshig ʼbru phye mar ʼthag byed thal ngag dbang poʼi rdo rje ʼbar|| 6.12 byams paʼi chos lngaʼi nges don rab gsal 6.13 byams chos lam gyi bang rim las|| nye bar ʼdzegs nas brgyud paʼi bsti gnas dgaʼ ldan bgrod paʼi lam sgo phye|| 7.01 dbu maʼi byung tshul yid bzhin lhun po 7.02–03 rtsa ʼjug ṭī ka 7.04–05 lta khrid gnyis|| 7.06 lugs gnyis rnam ʼbyed 7.07–08 dbu maʼi nges gsang gsal bar ʼchar byed stong mthun [=thun] gnyis|| 7.09 gzhan gzhung nor ba grangs su bgrang byas dngos gnas gsal ba sgo brgya pa|| 7.10 nges don bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa mchog de 7.11 tshangs dbyangs ʼkhor lo phyogs bcur sgrog|| 8.01–02 nyi zlaʼi shing rtas 8.03–04 legs par drangs paʼi bslab gnas ʼchad byed rgyas bsdus dag|| 8.05 gzhi gsum phyag bzhes bdud rtsiʼi gsos kyis ʼdul baʼi bstan paʼi srog nas bzung|| 9.01 rnal ʼbyor spyod gzhung rgya mtshoʼi rlabs phreng 9.02 bye brag bshad paʼi rgya mtshor ʼkhyil|| 10.01 sdom gsum nges gnas gsal byed sgron mes dpyod ldan mig gi dgaʼ ston spel||.80 Thus, it seems that in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, Kun dgaʼ grol mchog incorporated a list that is not in line with his own subsequent description of the structure of the first compilation of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. As set forth above, this first bkaʼ ʼbum consisted of eight sections (which were arranged into three different groups of “books”): (A) writings connected to the vehicle of the pāramitās (1. Prajñāpāramitā, 2. Pramā a, 3. Madhyamaka, 4. Vinaya, 5. Abhidharma); (B) works on both sūtric and tantric topics (6. texts on Mantrayāna, 7. explanations of smaller works and dris lan writings); and (C) praises, letters and other miscellaneous writings (8. thor bu ba sna tshogs). In contrast, Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs list from the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed suggests the following structure: 1. Explanations to the fields of knowledge 2. Biographies and praises 3. “Question and answer” texts and epistles 4. Tantra 5. Pramā a 6. Prajñāpāramitā 80 See the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 105a.3–105b.5. 142 7. Madhyamaka 8. Vinaya 9. Abhidharma 10. Three-Vow Theory It remains unclear to which specific collection of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs title list in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed refers. One can speculate that this list might mirror a collection of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings that was preserved in a monastic library in the mid-16th century and to which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog composed a register (dkar chag). But it is also possible that his list was never meant to reflect an actual, physically available set of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. The “gSer mdog can Edition” of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works The Genesis of the “gSer mdog can Edition” Besides the edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works that was commissioned at the beginning of the 16th century by the gSer mdog can abbot Kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan (most likely together with his two brothers bSod nams rgyal mtshan and Kun dgaʼ bkra shis), we have notice of another collection of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Complete Works. This second collection is referred to in the so-called Paṇ chen chos kyi rgyal poʼi gsung ʼbum dkar chag, a register that is included at the beginning of the first volume of the 18th-century Bhutanese gsung ʼbum edition. This register, however, does not mirror the contents of the “Bhutanese edition.” Rather it is a short dkar chag of an earlier Tibetan gsung ʼbum of Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings, though different from the one described above. According to the colophon of the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, this second gsung ʼbum was also produced in gSer mdog can Monastery: [Residing] in this bKra shis brtsegs pa Lama Palace (i.e., the abbatial quarters) of the great monastery of Thub bstan gSer mdog can, [...]81 the glorious Shākya bstan ʼdzin, the master [together with his] disciples, produced [this gsung ʼbum] with a benevolent and devout frame of mind. In this passage, the “glorious Shākya bstan ʼdzin” is characterized as follows: [He originates] from the lineage of Khri dpon dPal ʼbyor bzang po [who is known to have been] the Chinese Emperorʼs officiant (lit.: “object of worship”) and the nephew (or: grandchild?)82 of the supreme ban dhe, the Sky81 To keep the translation plain and readable, the somewhat lengthy attributive phrase omitted here is rendered separately below. 82 Tib.: dbon po. For a discussion of the different meanings of the kinship term dbon, see Uebach 1980. 143 Worshipper,83 [and who] was appointed to his office [as khri dpon] by the preceptor and the patron. [dPal ʼbyor bzang poʼs descendant Shākya bstan ʼdzin]―being endowed with the eye of discernment and having received the pravrajyā and upasaṃpadā―[is a person] who is erudite in the many scriptural systems of Sūtra and Tantra.84 thub bstan gser mdog can gyi chos grwa cheʼi| |bla brang bkra shis brtsegs pa ʼdi nyid nas| |rgya nag mi dbang chen poʼi mchod paʼi gnas| |gnam mchod ban dhe mchog gi dbon po ni| |mchod yon gnyis kas bstsal baʼi las ka can| |khri dpon dpal ʼbyor bzang poʼi rigs brgyud las| |rab tu byung zhing bsnyen par rdzogs gyur nas| |mdo rgyud gzhung mang thos paʼi blo mig can| |dpal ldan shākya bstan ʼdzin dpon slob kyis| |lhag bsam rnam dag gus paʼi yid kyis bzhengs|.85 Further information on the production of this gsung ʼbum edition is added: Headed by the scribe called Kar rgyal, [a native from] sNye mo Chu shul― who, by learned people, is to be reckoned as matching Viśvamitra―, thirteen skilled men such as mKhas pa Nor tshing (?), sMyug thogs rgyal po [and] dBu mdzad Tshe ʼphel86 properly completed [the enterprise] in five and a half months. Many piṭakadharas acted as proof-readers. When [one] adds together 83 Tib.: gnam mchod. As is pointed out in Sørensen and Hazod 2007: 150, n. 387, the worship of heaven or the sky as the highest deity “was a key worship or sacrificial practice and later part of the state cult among Mongols. [...] For the term gnam mchod pa (Mong. tengri-yi albari-, as it is repeatedly written in Mongol ʼPhags-pa inscriptions), lit. ‘pray to or worship tengri’ in use during the Yüan period refers to a practitioner of religion irrespective of persuation and creed. [...] it embraced Buddhists, Christian [sic], Daoists or Muslims.” 84 I tend to identify the aforementioned Khri dpon dPal ʼbyor bzang po, who is introduced in the colophon as Shākya bstan ʼdzinʼs ancestor, as the khri dpon or secular ruler of Tshal, namely Tre hos dPal ʼbyor bzang po (1361–1390), who ruled for twenty years from 1370 onwards. If this assumption is correct, the “supreme ban dhe, the Sky-Worshipper,” referred to in the colophon will be dPal ʼbyor bzang poʼs illustrious grandfather Kun dgaʼ rdo rje (1309-1364)— known to us mainly as the author of the Deb ther dmar po—who, ca. in the 1325/26, went to the Yüan court to reconfirm his appointment as Tshal ruler from the emperor (i.e. Yesün Temür, r. 1323–1328?). Thus―given Kun dgaʼ rdo rjeʼs contact with the Mongolian ruler and, in general, the close dealings of the Tshal pas with the Yüan court―the reference to the “great Chinese emperor” as found in the colophon would make sense. On Tre hos dPal ʼbyor bzang po and Kun dgaʼ rdo rje, see Sørensen and Hazod 2007: 200–202, 205. It should be noted, however, that there are at least two other individuals bearing the name dPal ʼbyor bzang po who might be identified with the aforementioned khri dpon. Thus, Mathes 2008: 142 refers to a certain sKu rab Khri dpon dPal ʼbyor bzang po who is said to have invited ʼGos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal in 1438 “to teach at Kurab (Sku rab), the administrative center of Dagpo.” Furthermore, there is a third dPal ʼbyor bzang po (14th–15th cent.), a member of the noble house of ʼPhyong rgyas, who acted as rdzong dpon (but not as khri dpon!) of bSam grub rtse; see Czaja 2013: 494. 85 See the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, p. 5.5–7. 86 Alternatively, this phrase can be translated as “the dbu mdzad Tshe ʼphel who is a pen-holding (smyug thogs) king (rgyal po).” 144 the amount of materials, [that is], provisions and payment, [then it comes to] 3,413 khal of barley from [which the project] was accomplished. yi ger ʼbri po snye mo chu shul ba| |kar rgyal zhes bya kun gyi bshes gnyen gyi| |do zlar mkhas paʼi skye bos bgrang bya ba| |de yis gtso byas mkhas pa nor tshing [?] dang| |smyug thogs rgyal po dbu mdzad tshe ʼphel sogs| |mkhas pa bcu phrag gcig dang gsum gyis ni| |ʼjal byed phyed bcas drug la legs par bsgrubs| |zhu dag sde snod ʼdzin pa mang pos bgyis| |rgyu tshogs rgyags yon kun tu dril ba la| |nas khal stong phrag gsum dang rgya phrag bzhi| |gsum bcas bcu las legs par grub [...]|.87 Hereupon, the author of the gSung ʼbum dkar chag dedicates the merit ensuing from the production of this edition of Collected Works to the “fulfilment of the unsullied intentions of Pa chen [Rin po che], [who is] the life-tree of the doctrine, [and of his] spiritual sons as well as [individuals] such as the tutor Karma bzang po.” Moreover, the author prays that “the feet of the Vajradhara ʼJam dbyangs Kun dgaʼ snying po―the All-pervading Lord, the crest ornament of the one hundred families―[may be] firm.”88 Thus, according to the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, a certain Shākya bstan ʼdzin, who was at that time the abbot of gSer mdog can, commissioned the production of this (manuscript?) gsung ʼbum in order to commemorate his late teacher Karma bzang po, who had apparently been his predecessor as abbot of gSer mdog can. The reference to the “fulfilment of [last] intentions” (dgongs pa rdzogs pa) however does not necessarily imply that this edition of Collected Works was produced in the frame of Karma bzang poʼs funerary rites.89 There is no further information available to shed light on the circumstances that lead to the production of the gsung ʼbum. It is, however, conceivable that it might have served similar functions as the “gTing skyes edition.” In this regard, the appeal to the “fulfilment of the unsullied intentions of Pa chen [Rin po che] (=Shākya mchog ldan), [... his] spiritual sons as well as [individuals] such as the tutor Karma bzang po,” can be understood as a rhetorical strategy of claiming that Shākya bstan ʼdzin―as the commissioner of the gsung ʼbum―must be reckoned as the rightful inheritor of Shākya mchog ldanʼs institutionalized teaching tradition. 87 See the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, pp. 5.7–6.2. 88 See the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, p. 6.2–4: dge de rnam dkar kun dang bsdoms paʼi mthu[s?]| |bstan paʼi srog shing paṇ chen yab sras dang| |yongs ʼdzin karma bzang po la sogs paʼi| |zag med thugs kyi dgongs pa rdzogs pa dang| |khyab bdag rigs brgyaʼi gtsug rgyan rdo rje ʼdzin| |ʼjam dbyangs kun dgaʼ snying poʼi zhabs brtan zhing| [...]. 89 In this regard, a good case in point is a famous set of thangkas depicting the maṇḍalas of the Vajrāvalī and the Kriyāsamuccaya that Ngor chen Kun dgaʼ bzang po (1382–1456) commissioned “as a means to fulfil the last intentions” (thugs dgongs rdzogs paʼi thabs su) of his teacher Sa bzang ʼPhags pa gZhon nu blo gros (1346–1412). As Heimbel 2014: 257–264 has shown this thangka set was produced after the 1429 founding of Ngor Monastery, that is, more than one or two decades after Sa bzang ʼPhags paʼs death. See also Jackson 1996: 77–82. 145 Unfortunately, no date is provided in the colophon for the compilation and production of this edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. Yet, due to some information found in historical and biographical works of the Sa skya and Jo nang schools, we are able to narrow down the approximate time frame. To begin with, in the Sa skya gdung rabs chen mo of ʼJam mgon A mes zhabs Ngag dbang Kun dgaʼ bsod nams (1597–1659) we find Karma bzang po, the “abbot of gSer mdog can” (gser mdog can gyi mkhan po), listed as one of the many disciples of the 23rd Sa skya hierarch Kun dgaʼ rin chen (1517–1584).90 Moreover, in a later addendum (kha skong) to the gDung rabs composed by Ngag dbang Kun dgaʼ blo gros (1729–1783), Shākya bstan ʼdzin, the “great abbot of gSer mdog can” (gser mdog can gyi mkhan chen), is recorded as a disciple of Kun dgaʼ bsod nams lhun grub (1571–1642) from the rTse gdong branch of the ʼKhon clan.91 Shākya bstan ʼdzin is also numbered among the students of ʼJam mgon A mes zhabs in one of the biographies of the latter.92 This helps us, in a first step, to date this edition of Collected Works approximately to the 17th century. This preliminary dating is further supported by the fact that in the colophon of the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, its author prays for the long-life of the “Vajradhara ʼJam dbyangs Kun dgaʼ snying po.”93 There is good reason to believe that this Kun dgaʼ snying po has to be identified as the Jo nang master Tāranātha (1575–1634). Tāranāthaʼs close contacts to the monastery of gSer mdog can in general, and to Shākya bstan ʼdzin in particular, are well attested.94 What is of 90 See the Ngo mtshar bang mdzod, p. 549.4. Cf. also the Ngo mtshar rgya mtsho, p. 313.4 (i.e., A 91 92 93 94 mes zhabsʼ extensive biography of the Sa skya hierarch Kun dgaʼ rin chen), where Karma bzang po is characterized as thun mong dang thun mong ma yin paʼi rig gnas mthaʼ dag la sbyangs pa mthar phyin pa gser mdog can gyi mkhan po karma bzang po [...]|. See the Ngo mtshar bang mdzod kyi kha skong, p. 113. See the Yon tan rgya mtsho, p. 692.2. Here Shākya bstan ʼdzin is described as chos grwa chen po gser mdog can gyi mkhan po yongs rdzogs bstan paʼi mngaʼ bdag lcang ʼdam chos rje shākya bstan ʼdzin pa [...]|. If we assume that in the computer input edition of A mes zhabsʼ biography the epithet lcang ʼdam is a misspelling for lcags ʼdam, the gSer mdog can abbot Shākya bstan ʼdzin might be identical with a certain mKhan lCags ʼdam pa, whom the Fifth Dalai Lama met in 1642 in sPan (i.e., the toponym of the area where gSer mdog can is situated). In his autobiography, the Dalai Lama reports (Karmay 2014: 165): “The next day I crossed (the river Tsangpo) in a boat at Rizhing, and below Serdog there was a procession of monks and at Pan abbots and teachers came to meet me. The abbot Adu [Tib.: a ʼdus] talked a lot about how the study of logic flourished in Tibet. The abbot Chagdampa said that his master, Jonang Trulku (Taranatha), was the trulku of Jamyang Choje and that he had a pure perception of Drepung and he himself therefore came to meet me. He was a deceiver, yet he appeared to talk to me in an honest and discreet manner.” For Shākya bstan ʼdzinʼs connection to the Jo nang master Tāranātha, see n. 94 below. See the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, p. 6.3–4. See also p. 6.6: bdag ni skye ba tshe rabs thams cad du| |ʼkhor lo sdom pa kun dgaʼ snying poʼi zhabs| |spyi boʼi rgyan las nam yang mi ʼbral zhing| |myur bdeʼi lam las myur du mchog grub shog|. For instance, we learn from a series of colophons in Tāranāthaʼs Collected Works that―while staying in gSer mdog can in his twenty-ninth year of age (i.e., 1604)―he wrote the sGrol maʼi 146 relevance to us in this regard is that according to Tāranāthaʼs autobiography, Shākya bstan ʼdzin was installed as abbot of gSer mdog can in the year 1616, which is thus the terminus post quem of this edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works.95 Since Tāranātha was still alive when the gSung ʼbum dkar chag was composed (otherwise it would not have made sense to pray for his long-life in its colophon), the terminus ante quem is marked by Tāranāthaʼs death, that is, 1634. Thus, we are able to narrow down the time frame for the production of this edition of Collected Works to a period of less than two decades in the first half of the 17th century. Structure and Contents of the “gSer mdog can Edition” The bulk of the gSung ʼbum dkar chag consists of a title list of the corresponding edition of Collected Works. It becomes evident from this list that the structure of the “gSer mdog can edition” differs from the first edition that was prepared by the gTing skyes brothers at the beginning of the 16th century. The “gSer mdog can edition” is comprised of the following ten sections (with no clear separation between the sections of Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Biograhies and praises dris lan texts and epistles Tantra Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā Pramā a Vinaya Abhidharma Three-Vow Theory Explanations of minor texts The title list is written in metre, and the works included therein―to which the author of the gSung ʼbum dkar chag refers at times only with some sketchy phrases alluding rgyud kyi ʼbyung khungs gsal bar byed paʼi lo rgyus gser gyi phreng ba and several sādhana texts, mostly focussing on Cakrasa vara and Vajravārāhi; for the colophons see the Tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum, vol. 24, p. 38; vol. 45, pp. 356, 364, 373, 381, 385, 395, 399, 404. Moreover, Tāranātha composed an undated dris lan text (i.e., the dGe bshes dpal ldan shākya bstan ʼdzin gyis [=gyi] dri lan gnad kyi gsal byed) in which he answered a number of questions posed to him by the “glorious Shākya bstan ʼdzin, the piṭakadhara from the great monastery of gSer mdog can;” see the Tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum, vol. 36, pp. 404–458. There is furthermore the interesting case of the biography of Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs nephew, the Jo nang abbot Kun dgaʼ dpal bzang (1513–1593), that is included in the Tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum, vol. 38, pp. 150– 216, but which was according to the colophon (p. 216) obviously authored by Shākya bstan ʼdzin in gSer mdog can. 95 See the Ma bcos lhug paʼi rtogs brjod, vol. 2, p. 9: de skabs chos rje shangs pa shākya bstan ʼdzin paʼi drung paṇ chen shākyaʼi mtshan can gyi khri thog tu myur du ʼbyon rgyuʼi thugs dges pa dang spro ba sags sags rang dang bcas|. 147 to the corresponding (ornamental) title―are inweaved into the ornate stanzas. This approach complicates the identification of the individual work titles or work groups and thus it is not always easy to demarcate them: 1.01 bstan bcos mdzad poʼi ngo mtshar ston byed bstod paʼi rab tu byed pa bzhi| |1.02–06 rdo rje ʼchang dngos spyang lung rje dang thams cad mkhyen pa shākyaʼi mtshan| |kun mkhyen chen po don yod dpal ni spyan snga mched dang byas pa yi| |rnam thar rgyas dang 1.07 rngog loʼi rnam thar 1.08 yongs ʼdzin bstod paʼi tshogs mang po| |1.09 rgyal dang de sras rnams la bsngags paʼi snyan tshig bstod paʼi ʼphreng ba dang| |2.01 snga phyiʼi dri ba mang poʼi lan dang 2.02 chab shog sna tshogs spel baʼi sde| |3.01 dus kyi ʼkhor loʼi rin chen bdun gyis zung ʼjug ʼkhor lo sgyur bar bkur| |3.02 bde mchog rnam bshad dang poʼi sangs rgyas rab tu grub dang 3.03 gsang ʼdus kyi| |rnam par thar paʼi sgo brgya phye der rim lnga la sogs nges don bstan| |3.04 dam tshig rab tu gsal baʼi me long gong maʼi dgongs pa rnam par bkra| |3.05 chos mtshan brgya dang brgyad paʼi mdzod nas gang ʼdod chos kyi re ba skong| |3.06 rgyud sde spyi rnams 3.07 lha mchog bsgrub dang 3.08 khri yid [=yig] mthaʼ dpyad sgo du ma| |3.09 mtshan brjod bshad dang 3.10 gzungs sngags mang po bod skad ʼgyur sogs sngags kyi sde| |4.01 dbu maʼi byung tshul yid bzhin lhun po 4.02 ʼjug sgo gsum paʼi lam nas bltas| |4.03 bzhed tshul rgya mtshoʼi rlabs kyi ʼphreng ba 4.04 lus dang yan lag rgyas par bshad| |4.05 sbyor baʼi ṭīkka gnad kyi sgron mes 4.06 byams chos nges don rab tu gsal| |4.07 lung dang rig paʼi rol mtsho che las 4.08–11 zur ʼdebs bzhiʼi chu bo ʼbab| |4.12 log rtog brag ri phye mar ʼthag la thal ngag dbang poʼi rdo rje ʼbar| |4.13 lugs gnyis rnam par phye baʼi nges don 4.14 lung chos rgya mtshoʼi snying por dril| |4.15 sngon med nyi mas gsal bar byas paʼi 4.16 byams chos lam gyi bang rim la| | nye bar ʼdzegs nas dgaʼ ldan gnas su 4.17 zab zhi spros bral bdud rtsi brnyes| |4.18–19 rtsa ʼjug gnyis dang 4.20–21 chos dbyings bstod pa byang chub sems ʼgrel rnam bshad che| |4.22 gzhan gyi nor paʼi rtsa ba bgrangs byas dngos gnas gsal ba brgya dang brgyad| |4.23–24 de ʼjoms byed paʼi lung rigs stong phrag thun du sdebs pa che chung gnyis| |4.25 dbu maʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel kun daʼi dgaʼ ston 4.26 nges don bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa can| |4.27 tshangs paʼi ʼkhor los gzhan gyi 4.28 rten ʼbrel bstod paʼi ʼkhrul pa ma lus dral| |5.01 tshad maʼi chos ʼbyung dpyod ldan dgaʼ byed 5.02 rnam bshad kun bzang rol mtshor ʼkhyil| |5.03 dkaʼ ʼgrel rigs paʼi snang ba ʼbar bas 5.04 rtog geʼi ʼkhrul pa ma lus ’joms| |5.05–06 rtog geʼi snying po che chung gnyis de 5.07 sde bdun bang mdzod lde mig can| |5.08 rig gter grub mthaʼ nor buʼi mdzod 148 de sde bdun ngag gi rol mtsho yin| |5.09 sems tsam gsal baʼi me long dang ni 5.10 khyab ʼjug mdung thung rab tu bkra| |6.01 ʼdul baʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel nyi maʼi shing rta 6.02 ba dang dkar poʼi phreng bas mdzes| |6.03 theg pa gsum gyi ʼdul baʼi bslab bya 6.04 dus tshigs bslab bya mdor bsdus pa| |6.05 ʼbel gtam rnam nges 6.06 bsnyen gnas cho ga 6.07 gzhi gsum bdud rtsiʼi rol mtsho gang| |7.01 rnal ʼbyor spyod gzhung rgya mtshoʼi rlabs phreng 7.02 bye brag bshad paʼi rgya mtshor ʼkhyil| |7.03 ldan rtsis zhugs gnas grub mthaʼ bsdus dang |8.01 rab dbye gsum gyi dgongs pa bkral| |legs bshad gser gyi thur mas phye bas 8.02 pad dkar mig gi dgaʼ ston mthong| |8.03 bsdus don nor buʼi phreng ba spel nas 8.04 kha skong lung rigs rnga dbyangs sgrags| |9.01–07 sher snying mdo dang bzang po spyod pa byams paʼi smon lam sman blaʼi mdo| |smon lam bdun cu sum rtags gnyis dang smra sgo mtshon cha zhib mor phye| |9.08 sdebs sbyor me tog chun po khyer nas 9.09 mkhas pa ʼjug paʼi sgor son te| |9.10 tshig rgyan snyan ngag me long phyis par dbyangs can ngag gi dngos kun gsal| |9.11 spring yig bdud rtsiʼi thigs pa de dang 9.12 blo sbyong brgyad ma rnam par phye| |de ltar rnam par bshad rgya che de bsngo ba yon bshad ʼbras bur smin| |.96 Further Lists of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Writings Apart from the title lists reproduced above, there are further lists that are somehow linked to one of the early Tibetan editions of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works. For instance, in one of the autobiographies of Kun dgaʼ grol mchog there is a list that conveys those titles from Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works for which Kun dgaʼ grol mchog received the reading authorization (lung) “in a single full-day session” (nyin zhag gi gdan gcig gi skabs) from mKhan chen Rin po che (i.e., mKhas pa Sangs rgyas ʼod zer).97 Since this (incomplete) title list is obviously connected to the gsung ʼbum set produced by the gTing skyes brothers (and in effect corresponds to it), there is no need to reproduce it here. Still another list is contained in the so-called Bibliography of Sa-skya-pa Literature (i.e., the Chos mdzod bye baʼi lde mig), a Tibetan-style dkar chag that was published in the 1980s in India. The Bibliography was edited by mKhan po A pad (1927–2010) on the basis of notes and lists of Tibetan scholars such as ʼJam dbyangs mKhyen brtseʼi dbang po (1820–1892) and ʼDar Grang mo che mKhan po (d. 1960s). In the Bibliography, it is stated that there once was a twenty-one-volume set of the Collected 96 See the gSung ʼbum dkar chag, pp. 3.4–5.4. 97 See the mDzes rgyan, pp. 541.1–543.4. 149 Works of Shākya mchog ldan of which copies could be found in gSer mdog can and A mdo. Later, one of these sets―so it is added―“went to India” (and thus might still be extant in the library of one of the Sa skya monasteries in exile). If we take a closer look at the so-called “cursory title list of the treatises” (bstan bcos kyi mtshan tho rags bsdus) that mKhan po A pad incorporated into the Bibliography, we will realize that this is also an incomplete version of the title list of the first edition of Collected Works, which had been commissioned by the gTing skyes brothers.98 However, the statement in the Bibliography that this edition comprised twenty-one volumes does not match with Kun dgaʼ grol mchogʼs statement in the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed and the bsTan paʼi nor rdzas according to which the edition had eighteen volumes.99 Of greater interest is a further title list: This list, which differs from the ones mentioned above, is included in the Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed, that is, the extensive biography of Shākya mchog ldan that was composed by the Ninth rJe mKhan po of Bhutan, Shākya rin chen, around the middle of the 18th century. Shākya rin chen inserted this list after an extensive account of the consecration ceremony of the bKra shis sgo mang reliquary stūpa at gSer mdog can Monastery. The title list is explicitely labelled as the “dkar chag of the precious bkaʼ ʼbum.” However, Shākya rin chen does not indicate to which specific bkaʼ ʼbum edition his list is supposed to refer. The list from the Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed encompasses (more or less explicitly) the following sections: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Biographies and praises (including prayers) Prajñāpāramitā Pramā a Madhyamaka Vinaya Abhidharma Three-Vow Theory Maitreya Dharmas Miscellanea 98 For the “cursory title list” of Shākya mchog ldanʼs works, see the Chos mdzod bye baʼi lde mig, pp. 69–71. According to Jackson 1991: 220–222, the first half of the Bibliography (in which we find our title list) was based on notes that ʼJam dbyangs mKhyen brtseʼi dbang po took during one of his pilgrimages to central Tibet in the mid-19th century. The specifications concerning the extent of the different collections of works by Tibetan authors as well as the information on the places where these were kept, generally go back to ʼDar Grang mo che mKhan po. 99 Since the Bibliography is in fact a compilation of diverse sources, it might be the case that pieces of information which actually pertain to two separate editions of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works were mixed up. Thus, the aforementioned list might refer to a different edition than the specification of the purported number of volumes. 150 According to Shākya rin chen, the “precious bkaʼ ʼbum” consisted of the following works: 1.01 thub bstan rgyal tshab thams cad mkhyen pa rong ston chen poʼi rnam thar| 1.02 chos sdings rin po cheʼi rnam thar| 1.03 rje don yod dpal baʼi rnam thar| 1.04 chos rje kun dgaʼ rdo rjeʼi rnam thar| 1.05 chos rje blo gros rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar| 1.06 rngog lo chen poʼi rnam thar bstod pa dang bcas pa| 1.07 thub dbang gi bstod pa tshan pa lnga| 1.08 rje btsun ma pham paʼi bstod pa| 1.09 sa ra ha dang| rgyan drug| yon tan ʼod| zla ba grags pa dang bcas paʼi rtogs brjod rgyas pa re re| gzhan 1.10 gangs can gyi rgyan drug| 1.11 sa paṇḍi ta| 1.12 chos ʼbrel yod paʼi bshes gnyen bzhi bcu zhe gcig la bstod pa| 1.13 sangs rgyas glang ri thang pa la sogs pa dge baʼi bnyen [=bshes gnyen] bcu phrag gsum lhag tsam la bstod paʼi tshogs dang| 1.14 rje nyid kyi bstod pa tshan pa lnga| 1.15 gsol ʼdebs kyi tshogs lnga| 1.16 rgyal ba tshe dpag med kyi bstod pa sogs bstod paʼi tshogs ji snyed pa rnams dang| sher phyin gyi skor la| 2.01 mngon par rtogs paʼi rgyan ʼgrel pa dang bcas paʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel| 2.02 phar phyin gyi spyi don che ba| 2.03 spyi don chung ba| 2.04 rnam bshad| gzhan yang 2.05 phar phyin gyi yig cha yan lag rgyas bshad| 2.06 sbyor ṭīk| 2.07 mtshon byed dpeʼi dge ʼdun gyi zur ʼdebs| 2.08 bsam gzugs kyi zur ʼdebs| 2.09 rten ʼbrel gyi zur ʼdebs| 2.10 skabs lnga pa yan gyi thal ʼphreng rnams dang| 3.01 tshad maʼi mthaʼ gcod chen mo| 3.02 mthaʼ gcod chung ba| 3.03 rnam ʼgrel gyi dkaʼ ʼgrel| 3.04 rigs gtar [=gter] gyi ṭīk| 3.05 rnam ʼgrel gyi ʼgrel chen| 3.06 tshad maʼi chos ʼbyung| 3.07 rtog geʼi snying po bsdus pa| 3.08 dmigs pa brtag paʼi ṭīk| 3.09 sde bdun gyi lde mig rnams dang| 4.01 dbu maʼi rtsa baʼi ṭīk| 4.02 ʼjug paʼi ṭīk| 4.03 dbu maʼi mthaʼ gcod chen mo| 4.04 mthaʼ gcod chung ba| 4.05 lta khri chen mo| 4.06 byang chub sems ʼgrel gyi ṭī ka| 4.07 chos dbyings la bstod paʼi ṭī ka| 4.08 dbu maʼi byung tshul| 4.09 springs yig tshangs paʼi ʼkhor lo| 4.10 nges don snyim pa| 4.11 nges don bdud rtsiʼi thig pa| 4.12–13 lugs gnyis rnam ʼbyed rtsa ʼgrel dang| ʼdul baʼi skor la| 5.01 ʼdul baʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel| 5.02 las brgya rtsaʼi ʼgrel pa| 5.03 bslab bya bsdus pa| 5.04 ʼdu [=ʼdul] baʼi bslab bya chen mo rnams dang| mngon paʼi skor la| 6.01 mngon pa gong maʼi dkaʼ ʼgrel| 6.02 deʼi grub mthaʼ bsdus pa| 6.03 rab byed gsum gyi ṭī ka| 6.04 mdzod kyi rnam bshad chen mo rnams dang| sdom gsum skor la| 7.01 legs bshad gser thur| 7.02 sdom gsum bsdus don| 7.03 sdom gsum bskong| 7.04 don| 7.05 thal ʼphreng rnams dang| gzhan yang| 7.06 theg pa gsum gyi ʼdul ba rnam par nges pa las byang sems dang| gsang sngags kyi ʼdu [=ʼdul] baʼi leʼu gnyis| 151 8.01 byams chos kyi go rim| 9.01 dus gsum rgyal baʼi me lang [=long]| 9.02 go laʼi rnam gzhag nor buʼi them skas| 9.03 bde gshegs snying poʼi gsal byed| 9.04 mdo sngags kyi tshul gnyis rnam ʼbyed| 9.05 mtshan brjod kyi ṭī ka| 9.06 ye shes sems dpaʼ drug gi bstod pa| 9.07 ʼjam dkar gyi sgrub thabs bstod pa dang bcas pa| 9.08 a ra pa tsa naʼi sgrub thabs bstod pa dang bcas pa| 9.09 gtum po dkar poʼi sgrub thabs bstod pa dang bcas pa| 9.10 seng ldan nags sgrol gyi mngon rtogs bstod pa dang bcas pa| 9.11 sman blaʼi rnam bshad| 9.12 bzang spyod ʼgrel pa| 9.13 byams smon ʼgrel pa| 9.14 sher snying rnam bshad| 9.15 blo sbyong tshig rkang brgyad ma dang| 9.16 springs yig bdud rtsiʼi thig pa gnyis kyi rnam bshad re re| 9.17 mkhas pa ʼjug paʼi sgoʼi ṭī ka| 9.18 snyan ngag me long gi don ʼgrel| 9.19 sdebs sbyor me tog gi chun poʼi don ʼgrel| 9.20 chos la ʼjug paʼi sgo| 9.21 ʼog min gyi ngos ʼdzin| 9.22 bde ba can gyi smon lam zhing bkod dang bcas pa| 9.23 byang chub sems dpaʼ dgaʼ ldan nas ʼpho baʼi bkod pa| 9.24 rnam rgyal la sogs paʼi gzungs phran du ma bod skad du bsgyur ba| 9.25 rtsa ltung ʼkhrul spong gi brgal lan| 9.26 legs bshad sgo ʼbyed la sogs paʼi ʼbel gtam tshan pa gnyis| 9.27 smon lam bdud [=bdun] bcu paʼi ṭī ka| 9.28 smra sgo mtshon chaʼi ṭī ka| 9.29 kyai rdo rjeʼi rnam bshad tshan pa bzhi| 9.30 gsang ʼdus rnam bshad| 9.31 bde mchos [=mchog] rnam bshad| 9.32 byams chos lngaʼi lam rim chen mo| 9.33 rje btsun byams paʼi dkar chag| 9.34 chos ʼkhor gyi deb ther| 9.35 chos tshan brgya rtsa brgyad pa la sogs pa bkaʼ ʼbum rin po cheʼi dkar chag tu gsal ba ltar ro||.100 Preliminary Remarks on the Structure and Contents of the Title Lists A detailed survey and assessment of the different title lists presented above is beyond the scope of this contribution. However, there are at least two points that I wish to adress: firstly, the general structure of the lists, and secondly, their contents. Firstly, it should have become clear that there was no single compulsory way to organize Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings, be it into a dkar chag or into a proper gsung ʼbum edition.101 This heterogenity is illustrated by the chart below showing the 100 See the Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed, pp. 454.3–457.5. 101 For an assessment and rough survey of the general structure of Tibetan gsung ʼbum collections, see Cabezón and Jackson 1996: 23–25, who observed that “[i]n almost all cases, the organization is by subject matter.” See also Roesler 2015: 38, according to whom “the underlying structure of [...] a considerable number of collected writings (gsung ʼbum) of Tibetan Buddhist scholars” is shaped by “the arrangement of the canonical scriptures”―that is, the “three baskets” (tripiṭaka; sde snod gsum)―“together with the ‘five fields of knowledge’.” As Roesler 2015: 40 goes on to explain, “lists, collections and catalogues of literary works such as gsan yig, gsung ʼbum, and dkar chag seem to mirror indigenous ways of classifying or structuring larger amounts of literature, although [...] the purpose here seems rather to organize knowledge systems, not to classify literature in terms of genre or literary qualities.” 152 arrangement of the basic sections that make up those lists:102 (A) Pad dkar phreng ba Prajñāpāramitā Pramā a Madhyamaka Vinaya and ThreeVow Theory Abhidharma Mantrayāna Explanations of “small books” and dris lan texts Miscellanea (B) Zhib mo rnam ’byed Explanations to the fields of knowledge Biographies and praises dris lan texts and epistles Mantrayāna Pramā a Prajñāpāramitā Madhyamaka Vinaya Abhidharma (C) gSung ’bum dkar chag Biographies and praises dris lan texts and epistles Mantrayāna Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā Pramā a (D) Thub bstan nyin byed Biographies and praises Prajñāpāramitā Vinaya Pramā a Madhyamaka Vinaya Abhidharma Abhidharma Three-Vow Theory Three-Vow Theory Three-Vow Theory Maitreya dharmas Explanations of minor texts Miscellanea etc. Nonetheless, we are able to identify an underlying organizational scheme, which, in parts, had a bearing on the structuring of these lists and editions of Collected Works. It is apparent that―when it comes to Shākya mchog ldanʼs writings on the pāramitāyāna―the editors of the Collected Works (and the authors of the dkar chags) organized the material according to the scholastic curriculum that monastic institutions like gSer mdog can had implemented (and which was ultimately shaped by the model of gSang phu Neʼu thog).103 Thus, the order of the basic sections to which the pāramitāyāna writings were allocated―i.e., Prajñāpāramitā, Pramā a, Madhyamaka, Vinaya and Abhidharma―clearly mirrors the sequence in which monk scholars in gSer mdog can and elsewhere studied these scholastic subjects.104 102 It should be mentioned, at least in passing, that within these basic sections, the lists also organize the individual titles differently. 103 For the impact of gSang phu scholasticism on the curriculum of gSer mdog can Monastery, see the Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed, fol. 74b.1, and the Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed, p. 307.4–5. 104 This sequence is evident from Shākya mchog ldanʼs own biography, according to which his 153 Tellingly, when the “gTing skyes brothers” compiled and produced the first Tibetan edition of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works, they distinguished this group of curricular subjects by using a book format that was different from the formats which they employed for the other two thematic groups (i.e., writings on sūtric and tantric topics, and miscellanea). Secondly, regarding the contents, it has to be mentioned that the lists presented above provide us with a number of titles of works by Shākya mchog ldan that are otherwise unknown and that did not find their way into the “Bhutanese edition.” We can tentatively single out the following works that are currently not available: a commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra entitled sByor ṭīk gnad kyi sgron ma (or: me) [A: 1.03; B: 6.03; C: 4.05; D: 2.06]105 a Pramā a treatise called dMigs brtags kyi ṭī ka sems tsam gsal baʼi me long [A: 2.08; B: 5.07; C: 5.10; D: 3.08] two minor works connected to Sa skya Pa ḍitaʼs Tshad ma rigs gter, i.e. the Rigs paʼi gter gyi dri ba dang dam bcaʼ106 and a Grub mthaʼ bsdus pa (that is, a summary of tenets) [A: 7.16] four minor works connected to Sa skya Pa ḍitaʼs sDom gsum rab dbye, namely a supplement (kha skong), a synopsis of the main points (bsdus don), a presentation of the general meaning (spyi don) and a chain of prasaṅga proofs (thal phreng) [A: 4.07–10; C: 8.03–04; D: 7.02–05]107 curricular study program at the gNas sgo College of gSang phu monastery was divided into two main phases: In the first phase, the young Shākya mchog ldan took classes in Prajñāpāramitā and Pramā a (see Caumanns 2015: 56–67). In the second phase, after having obtained the dge tshul vows, he studied Vinaya and Abhidharma (see Caumanns 2015: 67–85). The curricular status of Madhyamaka in this program is left somewhat vague in the biographical narrative, but it seems that Madhyamaka studies already began in the first phase. After Shākya mchog ldan had completed this regular study programm, he applied himself to the so-called minor fields of knowledge, and started to seriously study and practice Tantra (see Caumanns 2015: 87–127). See also Dreyfus 2003: 113–114, who also distinguishes two main phases in the “central exoteric studies” of “debating institutions” (which have their roots in the gSang phu scholasticism). Accordingly, the first phase encompasses the study of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (i.e., Prajñāpāramitā), the Pramāṇavārttika (i.e., Pramā a) and the Madhyamakāvatāra (i.e., Madhyamaka). In the second phase, the monks train in the Abhidharmakoṣa (i.e., Abhidharma) and the Vinayasūtra (i.e., Vinaya). 105 A copy of this work has been preserved in the library of ʼBras spungs Monastery; see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, no. 013253: dPal shākya mchog ldan gyis mdzad paʼi phar phyin gyi sbyor ṭik (manuscript; 22 fols; size unkown). 106 Jackson 1983: 10–11 already mentioned that “Shākya-mchog-ldan apparently also wrote a few questions identifying points of doubt in the RT [=Rigs gter].” 107 Some of these minor writings on the sDom gsum rab dbye have been preserved in the monastic library of ʼBras spung, namely the sDom pa gsum gyi spyi don padma dkar poʼi ʼphreng ba (manuscript; 20 fols.; 30 x 7 cm) and the sDom pa gsum gyi rnam par bzhag pa padma dkar poʼi phreng ba (two manuscript: 9 fols.; 61.7 x 9.6 cm; and 23 fols.; 32 x 6 cm); see the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, nos. 010764 (p. 1088), 011000 (p. 1109), 011599 (p. 1158). 154 two works on mantra recitation, i.e. the Sangs rgyas klu dbang gi rgyal poʼi bsgom bzlas and the Ma gcig grub paʼi rgyal moʼi bsgom bzlas [A: 6.19–20] a number of old dhāraṇīs (gzungs rnying) which were translated (by Shākya mchog ldan?) from Sanskrit into Tibetan [A: 6.22; C: 3.10; D: 9.24] a collection of thirty small instructions called the Chos phran sum cu po [A: 6.24] Moreover, there are a number of ambiguous cases that are difficult to determine solely on the basis of title lists: There are three [A: 1.07–09; D: 2.07–09] or four [B: 6.05–08; C29–32] addenda (zur ʼdebs) listed in the Prajñāpāramitā section of the Tibetan editions of the Collected Works. These are, according to [A], the mTshon byed dpeʼi dge ʼdun gyi zur ʼdebs ngag gi dbang poʼi mdzes rgyan, the bSam gzugs kyi zur ʼdebs ngag gi dbang poʼi do shal and the rTen ʼbrel gyi zur ʼdebs srid zhiʼi gnas tshul ʼchar byed.108 It seems that two of them are extant in the “Bhutanese edition,” but it is not clear how these relate to the titles given in the old title lists. In the “Bhutanese edition,” we come across the following works (titles as found in the incipit): dGe ʼdun nyi shuʼi mthaʼ rnam par dpyad paʼi thal ʼgyur gyi phreng ba ngag gi dbang poʼi mdzes rgyan (XIII, 2) and mTshon byed dpeʼi dge ʼdun gyi zur ʼdebs mngon pa ʼog ma dang mthun par bshad pa rig paʼi dbyangs kyi nga ro (XIII, 69.4).109 In the title lists, we come across two versions of the rTog ge(ʼi) snying po [A: 2.05–06; B: 5.03?–04], also referred to as rTog geʼi snying po che chung gnyis [C: 5.05–06]. Only one of these works seems to have come down to us in the “Bhutanese edition,” that is, the Tshad maʼi mdo dang gzhung lugs bde bdun gyi de kho na nyid bsdus pa rtog geʼi snying po (XVIII, 1). The old lists mention a summary of tenets, the Grub mthaʼ bsdus pa [A: 5.02; D: 6.02], related to the Abhidharmasamuccaya. This title might correspond to the lDan rtsis zhugs gnas grub mthaʼ bsdus [C: 7.03], which, in turn, is perhaps (partially) identical with the rTogs dkaʼ ba ldan paʼi rnam par bzhag pa dang| zhugs gnas kyi rnam gzhag dang| phung khams skye mched kyi rnam gzhag rnams in the “Bhutanese edition” (IV, 1).110 108 The list of the “gSer mdog edition” [C] and the list from the Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed [D] do not provide the individual titles of these addenda. 109 See the ʼBras spungs dkar chag, no. 016013: dGe ʼdun gnyis shu paʼi zur ʼdebs ngag gi dbang poʼi mdzes rgyan (manuscript; 17 fols.; 49 x 8 cm). 110 See the ʼBras spungs dkar chag that lists a Grub paʼi mthaʼ bsdus pa (no. 015862) by Shākya mchog ldan (manuscript; 31 fols.; 55.3 x 9.2 cm). This text is, however, assigned to the category sher phyin. 155 There is a Rab byed gsum gyi ṭī ka [D: 6.03] which might correspond to a certain gZhung gsum rab tu ʼbyed pa.111 Conclusion The aim of this paper was to shed some light on the formation and early transmission history of Shākya mchog ldanʼs Collected Works by tracing the genesis of two Tibetan gsung ʼbum compilations. Although both editions, which were produced prior to the mid-18th-century “Bhutanese edition,” must be considered to be lost, a number of aspects pertaining to their production, contents, structure and, to a lesser extent, their usages could be reconstructed. Thus, based on old title lists that are available to us, we were able to get a fairly accurate idea of the contents of these editions and how they organized their textual material. Other aspects, however, remain obscure, and―apart from some fragmentary data―we know next to nothing about the editorial processes, the material aspects of the production and the institutional frames in which these collections (and their production) must be located. Moreover, the sources do not tell us much about the way(s) in which these gsung ʼbums were put to use. As a last point, I would like to mention that in the case of Shākya mchog ldan a fair quantity of interesting new textual sources―mainly consisting of manuscript and xylograph copies of individual works―has become available during the last few years,112 and much more material still waits to be discovered and to be made accessible to researchers.113 Thus, it is to be hoped that at least some of the questions and problems that could not be solved satisfactorily in this paper might be clarified in the future. 111 See TBRC, W1CZ1189 (dbu med manuscript, 34 fols.). 112 See, for instance, TBRC, W2PD17533, Paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan gyi gsung phyogs bsdus, a two-volume compilation of works by Shākya mchog ldan which has been made accessible by the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (formerly known as the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center) after the completion of this paper. Note that this compilation, which consists of individual old blockprint and manuscript copies, seems to be a digital copy of the so-called Paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan gyi gsung ʼbum that is part of the collection of Sa skya texts preserved in the Potala in Lhasa; see the Sa skyaʼi gsung rab dkar chag, pp. 119–123. 113 A perusal of the ʼBras spungs dkar chag has shown that there are blockprint copies of about twenty works and manuscript copies of approximately one hundred works by Shākya mchog ldan (some of them in multiple copies) which are preserved in the library of ʼBras spungs Monastery. 156 Bibliography Tibetan Sources Karma kaṃ tshang gi brgyud pa rin po cheʼi rnam thar = Si tu Pa chen Chos kyi ʼbyung gnas (1699/1700–1774) [and Be lo Tshe dbang kun khyab (18th cent.)]. A History of the Karma bKaʼ-brgyud-pa Sect: Being the Text of “sGrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang [bkaʼ] brgyud pa rin po cheʼi rnam par thar pa rab ʼbyams nor bu zla ba chu sel [sic] gyi phreṅ ba”. 2 vols. New Delhi: D. Gyaltsen and Kesang Legshay, 1972. mKhas paʼi dgaʼ ston = dPaʼ bo gTsug lag ʼphreng ba (1504–1566). Chos ʼbyung mkhas paʼi dgaʼ ston: A Detailed History of the Development of Buddhism in India and Tibet. 2 vols. Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun Khang, [1980]. brGyan gyi ʼphreng ba = Anonymous. dPal ldan shar ka paʼi gdung rabs brgyan gyi ʼphreng ba. In sṄon gyi gtam me tog gi phreṅ ba: A 13th Century Source on the History of the Tibetan Kings and Rulers by Neʼu Paṇḍita Grags-pa-smon-lamblo-gros with Other Rare Historical Texts from the Library of Burmiok Athing. Dharamsala: T.D. Densapa, 1985, 51–78. Ngo mtshar rgya mtsho = ʼJam mgon A mes zhabs Ngag dbang Kun dgaʼ bsod nams (1597–1659). Srid pa gsum gyi bla ma dpal Sa-skya-pa chen po Sṅags-ʼchaṅ Ṅag-gi-dbaṅ-po Kun-dgaʼ-rin-chen gyi rnam par thar pa ṅo mtshar rgya mtsho. Ra-dzaspur: T. G. Dhongthog Rinpoche, 1980. Ngo mtshar dad paʼi spu long g.yo ba = Tshar chen Blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502– 1566). dPal ldan bla ma dam pa kun spangs chos kyi rgyal poʼi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar dad paʼi spu long g.yo ba. In Sa-skya Lam ʼBras Literature Series, Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983, vol. 2, 153–247. Ngo mtshar bang mdzod = ʼJam mgon A mes zhabs Ngag dbang Kun dgaʼ bsod nams (1597–1659). ʼDzam gliṅ byaṅ phyogs kyi thub paʼi rgyal tshab chen po dpal ldan sa skya paʼi gduṅ rabs rin po che ji ltar byon paʼi tshul gyi rnam par thar pa ṅo mtshar rin po cheʼi baṅ mdzod dgos ʼdod kun ʼbyuṅ: A History of the ʼKhon Lineage of Prince-abbots of Sa-skya. Delhi: Tashi Dorji, 1975. Ngo mtshar bang mdzod kyi kha skong = Kun dgaʼ blo gros (1729–1783). Sa skyaʼi gdung rabs ngo mtshar bang mdzod kyi kha skong. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1991. bCaʼ yig tshan pa gnyis = gSer mdog Pa chen Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507). [untitled text]. In The Collected Writings of gSer mdog paṇ chen ākya mchog ldan. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975, vol. 17 (tsa), 307.1–309.3. Chu rgyun gnyis pa = gTsang Byams pa rDo rje rgyal mtshan (1424–1498). rNam par bshad paʼi chu rgyun gnyis pa. In sNgon byon paʼi sa skya paʼi mkhas pa rnams kyi sngags skor. [Kathmandu]: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007, vol. 3 (ga), 607–668. 157 Chos ʼkhor rnam gzhag = gSer mdog Pa chen Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507). Chos kyi ʼkhor lo bskor baʼi rnam gzhag ji ltar grub paʼi yi ge gzu bor gnas paʼi mdzangs pa dgaʼ byed. In The Collected Writings of gSer mdog paṇ chen ākya mchog ldan. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975, vol. 16 (ma), 457–482.1. Chos mdzod bye baʼi lde mig = mKhan po A pad (1927–2010). dKar chag mthong bas yid ʼphrog chos mdzod bye baʼi lde mig: A Bibliography of Sa-skya-pa Literature. New Delhi: Ngawang Topgyal, 1987. Tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum = Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum dpe bsdur ma. 45 vols. Beijing: Krung goʼi bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008. bsTan paʼi nor rdzas = rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ grol mchog (1507–1566). Dam paʼi chos kyi thob yig bstan paʼi nor rdzas. A: manuscript (dbu can), TBRC, W1KG18291; B: blockprint, TBRC, W1KG18290. Thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed = ʼBrug rJe mKhan po IX Shākya rin chen (1709/10– 1759). Gangs can gyi shing rta chen po dpal shākya mchog ldan dri med legs paʼi blo gros kyi rnam thar thub bstan gsal baʼi nyin byed. In The Collected Works (gsuṅ ʼbum) of ākya-rin-chen, the Ninth Rje Mkhan-po of Bhutan. Thimphu: Kunzang Topgey, 1976, vol. 4, 1–471. Padma dkar poʼi phreng ba = rJe dbon Shākya rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (fl. 15th/16th cent.). Paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa padma dkar poʼi phreng ba. Manuscript (dbu med). In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs. Ziling: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2011, vol. 57 (shi), 317–494. ʼBras spungs dkar chag = bsTan ʼdzin phun tshogs. ʼBras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol baʼi dpe rnying dkar chag. 2 vols. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004. Ma bcos lhug paʼi rtogs brjod = Jo nang rJe btsun Tā ra nā tha (1575–1634). rGyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod paʼi deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug paʼi rtogs brjod. In Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā thaʼi gsung ʼbum dpe bsdur ma. Beijing: Krung goʼi bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008, vol. 1, 5–366, vol. 2, 1–248. Tshangs paʼi bzhad sgra = T.G. Dhongthog Rinpoche. A History of the Complete Works of gSer mdog Paṇ chen ākya mchog ldan (=Paṇḍi ta chen po shākya mchog ldan dri med legs paʼi blo gros kyi gsung rab rin po che par du bskrun paʼi tshul las brtsams pa’i gleng ba bstan paʼi nyi gzhon yid srubs sprin las grol baʼi dgaʼ ston tshangs paʼi bzhad sgra). Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1976. mTshar rgyan = rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ grol mchog (1507–1566). rNam thar mtshar rgyan. In rJe btsun kun dgaʼ grol mchog gi phyi nang gsang gsum gyi rnam thar. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005, 288–319. mDzes rgyan = rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ grol mchog (1507–1566). rNam thar zur ʼdebs mdzes rgyan rin po cheʼi lung yig. In The Autobiographies of Jo-naṅ Kun-dgaʼgrol-mchog and his Previous Embodiments. Reproduced from prints from the rGyal-rtse blocks from the library of Tibet House. New Delhi: Tibet House, vol. 2, 535–584. 158 Zhib mo rnam ʼbyed = rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ grol mchog (1507–1566). Paṇḍi ta chen po shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mo rnam par ʼbyed pa. Blockprint. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs. Ziling: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2012, vol. 84 (yu), 1–216. Yang rgyan = rJe btsun Kun dgaʼ grol mchog (1507–1566). rNam thar yang rgyan nor buʼi phra bkod. In The Autobiographies of Jo-naṅ Kun-dgaʼ-grol-mchog and his Previous Embodiments. Reproduced from prints from the rGyal-rtse blocks from the library of Tibet House. New Delhi: Tibet House, vol. 2, 585–674. Yon tan rgya mtsho = Byams pa bSam gtan rgya mtsho. dPal sa skya pa sngags ʼchang bla ma thams cad mkhyen pa chen po ngag dbang kun dgaʼ bsod nams grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang poʼi rtogs pa brjod pa ngo mtshar yon tan rin po che ʼdus paʼi rgya mtsho. In dPal sa skya pa chen po sngags ʼchang thams cad mkhyen pa ngag dbang kun dgaʼ bsod nams kyi gsung ʼbum. 29 vols. [Kathmandu]: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2000, vol. 28 (sa), 127–708. Shāk mchog gi gsung ʼbum = The Collected Writings of gSer mdog paṇ chen ākya mchog ldan. 24 vols. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975. Sa skyaʼi gsung rab dkar chag = ʼJad pa dPal ldan tshe ring. Pho brang po ta lar bzhugs su gsol baʼi dpal ldan sa skyaʼi gsung rab rnams kyi dkar chag. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2015. gSung ʼbum dkar chag = Anonymous. Paṇ chen chos kyi rgyal poʼi gsung ʼbum dkar chag. In The Collected Writings of gSer mdog paṇ chen ākya mchog ldan. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975, vol. 1 (ka), 1–7. gSer mdog can gyi gnas yig = Shākya bstan ʼphel. dPal thub bstan gser mdog can dgon gyi gnas yig. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2013. Secondary Literature Assmann, Jan. 1999. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: C.H. Beck. Bell, Catherine. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press. Burchardi, Anne. 2008. “Shākya mchog ldanʼs Literary Heritage in Bhutan.” In John Ardussi and Sonam Tobgay (eds.). Written Treasures of Bhutan: Mirror of the Past and Bridge to the Future. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Rich Scriptural Heritage of Bhutan. Thimphu: The National Library of Bhutan, 25–74. Cabezón, José Ignacio and Roger R. Jackson. 1996. “Editorsʼ Introduction”. In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 11–37. Caumanns, Volker. 2010. “Tibetan Sources on the Life of Serdog Pa chen Shākya Chogden (1428–1507).” In Linda Covill, Ulrike Roesler & Sarah Shaw (eds.). Lives Lived, Lives Imagined: Biography in the Buddhist Traditions. Boston: Wisdom, 205–239. 159 ___ 2013. “Pa chen Shākya mchog ldanʼs Monastic Seat Thub bstan gSer mdog can (Part I): The History of its Foundation.” In Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Petra Maurer (eds.). Nepalica-Tibetica: Festgabe for Christoph Cüppers. 2 vols. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, vol. 1, 65–88. ___ 2015. Shākya-mchog-ldan, Mahāpaṇḍita des Klosters gSer-mdog-can: Leben und Werk nach den tibetischen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Cüppers, Christoph. 2010. “Some Remarks on Bkaʼ ʼgyur Production in 17th-century Tibet.” In Anne Chayet et al. (eds.). Editions, éditions: lʼécrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir. München: Indus Verlag, 115–128. Czaja, Olaf. 2013. 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. 2 vols. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dreyfus, Georges B.F. 2003. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 2016. “Collected Writings as Xylographs: Two Sets from the Bo dong pa School.” In Hildegard Diemberger, Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Peter Kornicki (eds.). Tibetan Printing: Comparisons, Continuities and Change. Leiden: Brill, 212–236. Heimbel, Jörg. “Ngor chen Kun dgaʼ bzang po (1382–1456): An Investigation into the Life and Times of the Founder of the Ngor Subschool of the Sa skya Order.” PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. Jackson, David. 1983. “Commentaries on the Writings of Sa-skya Pa ḍita: A Bibliographical Sketch.” Tibet Journal 8/3: 3–23. ___ 1989. The Early Abbots of ʼPhan-po Na-lendra: The Vicissitudes of a Great Tibetan Monastery in the 15th Century. Wien: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. ___ 1991. Review of mKhan po A pad, dKar chag mthong bas yid ʼphrog chos mdzod bye baʼi lde mig: A Bibliography of Sa-skya-pa Literature. Indo-Iranian Journal 34: 220–229. ___ 1996. A History of Tibetan Painting: The Great Tibetan Painters and Their Traditions. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jaeschke, H.A. 1881. A Tibetan-English Dictionary: With Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects. London: [s.n.]. Karmay, Samten G. (transl.). 2014. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Chicago: Serindia. Komarovski, Yaroslav. 2011. Visions of Unity: The Golden Paṇḍita Shakya Chokdenʼs New Interpretation of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka. Albany: State University of New York Press. van der Kuijp, Leonard. 2006. “On the Composition and Printings of the Deb gter sngon po by ʼGos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481).” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2: 1–46. 160 Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwaʼs Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom. Rao, Ursula. 2006. “Ritual in Society.” In Jens Kreinath, Jan Snoek and Michael Stausberg (eds.). Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts. Leiden: Brill, 143–160. Rehberg, Karl-Siegbert. 2014. “Die stabilisierende ‘Fiktionalität’ von Präsenz und Dauer: Institutionelle Analyse und historische Forschung.” In Hans Vorländer (ed.). Symbolische Ordnungen: Beiträge zu einer soziologischen Theorie der Institutionen. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 147–173. Rheingans, Jim. forthcoming 2017. The Eighth Karmapaʼs Life and his Interpretation of the Great Seal: A Religious Life and Instructional Texts in Historical and Doctrinal Contexts. Bochum / Freiburg: Projektverlag. Roesler, Ulrike. 2015. “Classifying Literature or Organizing Knowledge? Some Considerations on Genre Classifications in Tibetan Literature.” In Jim Rheingans (ed.). Tibetan Literary Genres, Texts, and Text Types: From Genre Classification to Transformation. Leiden: Brill, 31–53. Sernesi, Marta. 2013. “Rare Prints of bKaʼ brgyud Texts: A Preliminary Report.” In Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Petra Maurer (eds.). Nepalica-Tibetica: Festgabe for Christoph Cüppers. 2 vols. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, vol. 2, 191–210. Skilling, Peter. 2009. “Redaction, Recitation, and Writing: Transmission of the Buddhaʼs Teaching in India in the Early Period.” In Stephen C. Berkwitz, Juliane Schober and Claudia Braun (eds.). Buddhist Manuscript Cultures: Knowledge, Ritual, and Art. London: Routledge, 53–75. Sørensen, Per K. and Guntram Hazod. 2007. Rulers on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang. 2 vols. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tucci, Giuseppe. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. 2 vols. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. Uebach, Helga. 1980. “Notes on the Tibetan Kinship Term dbon.” In Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Khyi (eds.). Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Oxford. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 301–309.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Collected Works of gSer mdog Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan: The Formation and Early Transmission of a 15th-Century Literary Corpus

The Collected Works of gSer mdog Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan: The Formation and Early Transmission of a 15th-Century Literary Corpus

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS