THE CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES LECTURES 4 THE KALACAKRA AND THE PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM BY THE MONGOL IMPERIAL FAMILY by LEONARD VAN DER KUIJP Harvard University DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES INDIANA UNIVERSITY 2004 ________ } ) i H:",.$.", ,''''S,,,,,;,,.... ｾＧＬ Ｂ ｜ｩﾥ "'I ｴＭＧｾＬｲ］ e: .1IP;',,2oIi'I"'''''''J'!'l''I''' ｾ THE CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES LECTURES 4 THE KALACAKRA AND THE PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM BY THE MONGOL IMPERIAL FAMILY by LEONARD VAN DER KUIJP Harvard University DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL EURA'3IAN STUDIES INDIANA UNIVERSITY 2004 © Copyright by the Department qfCentral Eurasian Studies. 2004 The Central Eurasian Studies Lectures Editor: Federica Venturi ISSN 1534-2670 Department ofCentral Eurasian Studies Indiana University Goadbody HaU15 7 1011 East 3rd Street Bloomington, Indiana 47405-7005 U.S.A. www.indiana.edu/-eeusl Majorfunding was provided by the I. U. Office ofIntemational Programs. the Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center. and the Russian and East European Institute. THE KALACAKRA AND THE PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM BY THE MONGOL IMPERIAL FAMILY" Our knowledge and understanding of the nature and extent of Tibetan-Mongol relations from the Mongol conquest of Tibet in 1240 and its occupation of this land through the Yuan period (1276-1368) of Chinese history is happily growing at a reasonably steady pace. Much of this has been due to the fact that increasingly more pertinent Tibetan sources are becoming available, sources that were hitherto inaccessible or even unknown. They shed new light not only on how the Tibetans reacted to this new state of affairs and the different roles they played as they moved, at times with a measure of complacency, in the upper regions of the successive imperial courts, but also, albeit on a much more limited scale, on the business of Mongol rule in China. As far as their quality as literary sources on the policies of the imperial court is concerned, they do not quite balance the enduring loss of the Veritable Records of the Yuan Dynasty, the Yuan shilu, Wei Su (1303-72) salvaged long ago, albeit it in vein; the records were destroyed by the Ming. But they do clarify a number of important aspects of their rule in China and Tibet that are all but ignored or very succinctly alluded to in the relatively few surviving Chinese sources of the period. Published now more than thirty years ago, D. Schuh's study of the Tibetan edicts promulgated by the Mongol court in Yuan China on behalf of the Tibetan clergy and a portion of the relevant Tibetan biographical literature did much to clarify certain administrative, political and even lexicographic aspects of the relations that existed between members of the upper echelons of the Tibetan clergy and the Mongol imperial court.! Till • This paper is the second in a series under the general title of "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History." It was first conceived in the early 1990s, and is partially a product of my stay in Beijing in 1992 that was funded by the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, Washington, D.C. [now Committee on Scholarly Communication with China, New York]. I am very much indebted to an anonymous referee of this much earlier draft of the essay, who gcnerously provided me with an opportunity to correct some of my mistakes and to add ｲｾｨｴｵｦ materials that had escaped my attention. Respecting his anonymity, I thank him for the obvious time he took to go through this early version. "C.P.N." refers to the Tibetan section of the China Nationalities Library at the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, Beijing. Only studies mentioned more than twice in this paper are referred to in abbreviated fonn and listed in the bibliography. With some exceptions, all exact dates that follow below are calculated from the Tibetan with the aid of the Tabellen in Schuh (1973). I Schuh (1977). 2 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP now we only had Tibet-related edicts promulgated by the Tibetan ecclesiastic hierarchy in the service of and active at the court, as well as several such documents that were issued by an emperor, empress-dowager, or a prince. The recent publication of two edicts issued by myriarch Smon lam rdo tje (ca. 1284-1347) and his son Kun dga' rdo rje (1309-64) of Tshal pa myriarchy2 that controlled Lhasa and its environs indicate for the first time that the competence of issuing such documents in the name of the emperor was not solely confmed to the upper echelons of the clergy. D. Schuh is not a sinologist. The sinological dimension of his seminal work was fruitfully taken up in a separate paper by H. Franke, who made a number of corrections as well as additions to his work through a careful sifting of especially the Yuan Dynastic History, the Yuanshi, all the while underscoring that not only do Tibetan and Chinese literary sources for the Yuan period complement each other, but Tibetan documents also oftentimes include a good deal of information not found in the latter. 3 Himself not a Tibetanist, Franke has nonetheless greatly contributed to bringing clarity to the Tibetan dimension of what was happening during the Yuan dynasty in several other essays. Three papers by him, two on the East Tibetan Sga A nyan dam pa Kun dga' grags (1230-1303) and one on the Xixia-Tangut monk Sha 10 pa (1259-1314), that is, ?Sher dpal « ?Shes rob dpal),4 have shed a good deal of light on the activities in Yuan China of these two high-ranking clergymen. Sga A nyan dam pa was instrumental in propagating cults that 2 See the Bod Icyi yig tshags phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, ed. Rdo rje !She brtan, el at (Beijing: Icrung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe slcrun khang, 1997), 3-4. For these twO men, see K.-H. Everding, tr., Der Gung thang dkar chag, Monumenlll Tibetica Historica, Abt. I, Bd. 5 (Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000), 123-31. Smon lam rdo rje's biography by his son Kun dga' rdo rje is extant. 3 Franke (1990). 4 See his "Tan pa, A Tibetan Lama at the Court of the Great Khan," Orientalia Venetiana 1 (1984), J57-80 and the first chapter in Franke (1996: 11-65), and "Sha 10 pa (1259-1314), A Tangut Buddhist Monk in YUan China," Religion und Philosophie III Ostasiell: Festschrifi fur Hans Steininger zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. G. Naundorf et al. (Konigshausen: Neumann, t985), 201-22; see also his China under Mangol Rule (Aldershot: Variorum Ashgat(; Publishing, 1994). One still cannot help but still wonder whether "Sha 10 pa" is not derived from Tibetan shar pa, "Easterner," and whether he may have thus been connected with Sa skya monastery's Shar pa Residence. For A nyan [or: gnyan, myel dam pa, see now also Chell Qingying and Zhou Shengwen, "A Study of the Famous TIbetan Monk National Preceptor Dam pa of the Yuan Dynasty [in Chinese]," Zhongguo Zangxue 1 (1990), 58-67, Shell Weirong's paper [not accessible to me] in Yuanshi ji beifang minzushi yan)iu jikall (1989/90), 70-4 , and E. Sperling, "Some Remarks on Sga A gnyan dam pa and the ｾｮｩｧｲｏ of the Hor pa Lineage of the Dkar mdzes Region," Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated 10 Uray Gba on His Sevelltieth Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner, Wiener Studien Z4t Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 26 (Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische unct Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991),455-65. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE Of TIBETAN BUDDHISM I 3 centered on the tantric deity Mahakala at, among other places of the empire, the capital of Dadu, a circumstance that had historical precedence. As was indicated by E. Sperling, much of the Mongols' keen concern with this deity was already prefigured in the Xixia state.s The large catalogue of monasteries in what is now called Dkar mdzes khul in Khams, West Sichuan, edited by 'Jigs med bsam grub and others, records his crucial involvement in the construction of several monasteries in this area. 6 Mention must also be made of Chen Qingying's numerous contributions to our understanding of Tibetan-Mongol relations during the said period. We should recognize here at least his biographical study of Lama 'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-80)7 of Sa skya monastery, from 1264 to 1270 one of the National Preceptors (guoshi) of the court of Qubilai Qaghan (Shizu Emperor, r. May 6, 1260 to February 18, 1294) and later, from 1270 to his passing, the Qaghan's Imperial Preceptor (dishi), and several other books of which he was the translator, co-translator or editor. These include the Chinese translations of G.yas ru Stag tshang pa Dpal 'byor bzang po's Rgya bod yig tshang, a circa 1434 compilation of various documents, a version of Tshal pa Kun dga' rdo Ije's Deb ther dmar po chronicle, Ames zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams' (1597-1659) 1629 genealogical study of his family that controlled Sa skya monastery - he himself was Sa skya's twentyeighth grand-abbot -, and the highly important autobiography of Ta'i si tu « Ch. dasitu) Byang chub rgyal mtshan (1302-64).8 In spite of these contributions and those by L. Petech, Su Bai, Y. Ishihama,9 T. Otosaka and many others, to much remains to be done in terms 5 See his "Rtsa mi Lo tsa ba Sangs rgyas grags pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations," Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Fagernas 1992, ed. P. Kvaerne, vol. 11 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), 801-24; see also Wang Yao, "A Cull of Mahakala in Beijing," Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Fagernas 1992, ed. P. Kvaeme, vol. II (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994),958-9. 6 Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so'i 10 rgyus gsal bar bshad pa nang bstan gsal ba'i me long, vol. I [Neibu] (1999), 153 ff., 177,456. 7 The Yuan Dynasty's Imperial Preceptor 'Phags pa [in Chinese] (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, t992). 8 See, respectively, the Han Zang shiji (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1986), Chen-Zhou (1988), Chen-Gao-Zhou (1989), and Btsan lha. Yu (1989). 9 See, respectively, Petech (1990), The Archeology of Buddhist Monasteries of the Tibetan Tradition [in Chinese] (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996), 222-33, 264-74, 322-87 _ my thanks to G. Tuttle for this reference -, her and Y. Fukuda's very useful A Study of the Grub mtllO' of Tibetan Buddhism, Vol. 4 - On the chapter on the history ofMongolian Buddhism of Tlm'u bkwan's Grub mtha' - [in Japanese], Studia Tibetica No. II (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1986), her "The Image of QubiJai's Kingship as based on 'Phags pa's Buddhist Ideas [in Japanese]," Nihon Chibelto Gakkoi Kaiho 40 (1994), 35-44, and A Historical Sludy of the TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 4 , 1 \1 1,1 5 LEONARD W.J, VAN DERKUIJP and, we can infer, in the Indian subcontinent as well. Indeed, the longest fundamental treatise on its procedures (cho ga, vidhi) was apparently (?­783/788/797) for the benefit of authored by none other than ｡ｴｩｾｫｲｮｓ emperor Khri srong Ide'u btsan (r. ca. 755­ 97), his family and his reign.12 Titled *Saptatathiigatapiirvapra/Jidhiinavise/favistiirasiitrtintopadesa, the tradition surrounding this work is probably correct in assuming that he was the author, for its canonical version as found, for instance, in the Sde dge print of the Tanjur is signed by his common epithet "Bodhisattva."13 The name[s] of the translator[s] is [are] not given in the colophons of any of the available canonical xylographs of this work, but we do learn there that it was written: of increasing our understanding of the extent to which members of the Mongol court were practically involved with Tibetan Buddhism and the particulars of their support of its traditions that in their combination had, beginning in the 1250s, virtually become a state religion. In a Buddhist context, the underlying theoretical basis for concrete expressions of patronage and other forms of support on the part of the Mongol imperial family is of course the conviction that this would channel the accrued karmic merit into a variety of concrete manifestations, from ensuring the stability of the reign and the longevity of the emperor and the imperial family, to guaranteeing the prosperity of the nation as a whole and, lest we forget, one's own well-being, if not in the present, then in the future. Regardless of whether the rituals were performed at the court in Dadu or Shangdu, or in Tibet proper, their financial support by the Mongols did much to create and undergird beneficent karma for both parties. The support took on a variety of shapes, but it did ultimately set into motion an unprecedented transfer of imperial wealth to Tibet proper that had many short and long-term consequences, from the construction of new monasteries and, concomitant with the increase in the monastic population, the institution of new monastic curricula, to an increase in book-production and things artistic, and the rise of a new aristocratic class. It is hardly an accident that among these rituals was one that focused on the so-called De bzhin gshegs pa bdun gyi mdo, that is, the Aryasaptatathiigatapurvapra/Jidhiinavise/favistiiraniimamahiiyiinasutra, a work the Tibetans later variously classified as a sutra and an actiontantra. The Buddha as healer (sman bfa, Bhai/fajyaguru), who stands at the center and the ritual­complex that took its departure from this sutra, was primarily the domain of the Bka' gdams pa school and Ze'u 'Dul 'dzin Grags pa brtson 'gros (1253­1316), from 1299 to 1305 the tenth abbot of Snar thang monastery, participated in and possibly presided over several of its enactments while staying at the courts of Qubilai and his successor Oljeitii Qaghan (Chengzong Emperor, r. May 10, 1294 to February 2, 1307).11 To be sure, the rituals associated with this sutta had a long history in Tibet proper [dbang phyug dam pa'i mnga' bdag dpaffha blsan po fha sras khri srong fde'u btsan gyi] sku Ishe bsring ba dang I dbu rmog btsan pa dang I chab srid mtho ba dang lias sgrib sbyang ba dang I tshogs gnyis spef ba'i ched du I... .. .for the sake of the [emperor's] longevity, the might of [his] helmet [= authority],14 the supremacy of the reign, the purification of [his] stained [= bad] karma, and the development of the two accumulations [of his gnosis and merit]... Of course, not entirely unproblematic is that, in contrast to the sutra, it is not included in the Ldan dkar ma [or: Lhan [d]kar mal catalogue of possibly 824, and the Snar thang scholar Dar rna rgyal mtshan (1227­1305) alias Bcom Idan ral gri also does not register it in hiS catalogue of translated scripture that he probably compiled before 1280 15 ­ Dar rna rgyal mtshan 12 On his date, see now C.A. Scherrer­Schaub, "Enacting Words. A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial Decrees (bkas bead) and their Application in the Sgra byor bam po gnyis pa Tradition," Journal of the International Association ofBuddhist Studies 25 (2002), 282, n. 66,313­4. 13 n vol. 31, no. 3136 [# 3132], 443/1­451/3 [Pu, 246a­75a]. Tibetan Buddhist World [in Japanese] (Tokyo: TOM shoten, 2001), especially pp. 25­44 for an excellent analysis of Lama 'Phags pa's pOSition at Qubilai's court that forms the basis for the later chapters on Tibetan Buddhist ideology among the Mongols and the Manchus. 10 See the long and detailed bibliographical survey by F,W, Mote in The Cambridge History of China. vol. 6. Alien Regimes and border stales, ed. H. Franke and D. Twitchetl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),689­726, and the useful bibliography in Y, Ishihama, "Japanese Research on Tibetan History, 1985­98; Tibetan Studies in Japan," Asian Research Trends: A Hunwnities and Social Sciences Review 9 (1999), 31­2. 11 See his biography, the Dpal Idan ze'u 'dul 'dzin chen po'i fIlam thar gsal byed yid bzhi,/ nor bu, twenty.one folio handwritten dbu med manuscript under C.P.N. catalogue no 002815(6), It was "'Titten in Snar thang at an unspecified date by an unidentified disciple or his. The reference to this ritual is found on fols. 6b ff. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.i_·. Ｎ｟Ｍ Ｌｬ ｔＮｮｬＬ ｾ ＢＧ ｬＧ ｉＦＢＧ 7 I 14 For the term dbu rmog, "helmet," in the sense of "authority," see F.K. Li and W.S. Cobhn, A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Special Publieations No. 91 (Taipei, 1987),434. And for dbu rmog btsan pa in the sense of "best helmet" and "great merit," see Btsan Iha Ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun !<hang, 1997),586. 15 For the sutra, see the entry in M. Lalou, "Les textes bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri srang Ide btsan," Journal Asiatique CCXLI (1953), 323, no. 147. Titled Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi me tog or, alternatively, Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ma'i 'od zer, Dar rna rgyal mtshan's catalogue is now available in two different manuscripts. One is a thirty­eight­folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 005968; the other is a handwritten dbu med manuscript in seventy­eight folios. For this work, see K.R. Schaeffer 7 J I ·"'''A'lfiiiuaa; i '·1 e,& , TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 7 LEONARD W,j. VAN DER KUIJP 6 teachings as one of a number of texts he had studied with him. 18 This is of course none other than the well­known Bhai$ajyaguruvairjilryaprabhiisapiirvapral',lidhiinavise$avistaranamamahayanasiitra. This particular work emerged well before the abovementioned sutra and, indeed, large sections of it are incorporated in the latter. Needless to say, they share common concerns and, arguably, may have have arisen in a similar intellectual and religious environment. 19 The first can possibly be viewed as a mainstream Indian Buddhist response, infonned by further developments, to the second, which may very well have originated in one or the other Buddhist community on the fringes of the subcontinent. Now in his quasi­obituary of Lama 'Phags pa, roughly titled 'Phags pa's Werdegang, the Hanlin scholar Wang Pan (1194­1286) made the following statement, as cited in Nian Chang's (1282­1341) 1333 history of Buddhism: 2o was among the premier masters of Ze'u. Instead, it first fonnally raises its head as a "canonical" treatise in Dbus pa Blo gsal's (ca. 1255·?) catalogue of a I the Snar thang Tanjur. 16 To be sure, we can assume that Ze'u was familiar 17 with his teacher Mchims Nam mkha' grags' (1210­85) study of this cult. Mchims, himself Snar thang's eighth abbot from 1250 to 1285, ?bserves in the preamble of his work that deals with the cult's history, that ｓ｡ｮｴｲｫｾｩ had introduced its practice in Tibet when Buddhism was in the process of becoming a bona fide state religion under Khri srong Ide'u btsan. The introduction of Indian Buddhism in late­imperial Tibet meant that, as a foreign and competing body, it had to be able to hold its O\vn vis­ii­vis the indigenous institutions with their own cultural and religious concepts that, apparently, had already begun actively resisting it when Khri srong Ide'u btsan was still a young man. In other words, the Indian master may very well have felt that were Buddhism to have a fighting chance, this ritual complex, no doubt along with several others, needed to become an integral part of the religious and ritual life of the Tibetan court and the families associated with In the beginning, Tibet had National Preceptor Shandaluoqida... It is not hard to recover ｓ｡ｮｴｲｫｾｩ 's name from Shandaluoqidal Wang Pan begins his text with the full Chinese title in thirty­six characters Lama 'Phags pa received when he was appointed Imperial Preceptor, and then relates briefly where and under what auspicious familial circumstances he was bom. This is followed by the lines cited above that conclude with how he was venerated (zun) by the Tibetan king (guowang). What motivated Wang Pan to vvrite these lines is, of course, open to interpretation. Lama 'Phags pa is not mentioned once in his biography in the Yuanshi, and the particulars of their relationship, or Wang Pan's with Lama 'Phags pa's associates, are not altogether transparent. But what seems rather clear on the surface of things is that he wanted to draw attention to a historical precedent and indicate the evident parallels he saw between the Tibetan lama's activities at Qubilai's court and those of ｓ｡ｮｴ ｲ｡ｫｾｩｴ｡ at the court of Khri srong Ide'u btsan. I am not aware of a reference in the literature that Lama 'Phags pa ever led or participated in these rituals; the cult of the white it. Mchims also figures as a teacher of Lama 'Phags pa and the latter lists the so­called Sangs rgyas sman gyi bla'i mdo in his record of texts and and L.W.J. van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhi'( Literature. The &tan po rgya' po nyi 'ad ofBcom Idan ral gri, forthcoming in the Harvard Oriental Serie>. 16 See his Bstan bcos kyi dkar chag, eighty­one folio handwritten dbu med manuscript, C.P.N. catalogue no. 002376, 30a, where he states that all three vldhi-texts, nos. 3136­8 [see above note 12], were written by the Bodhisattva. Dbus pa Blo gsal placed all three in the eighth chapter of his catalogue in which are listed the practice­ and action­tantras. On the other hand, in the catalogue of translated scripture he appended to his ecclesiastic chronicle of 1322­6, Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290­1364) ascribes all three to Zhi ba 'tsho [= ｝｡ｴｩｾｫ ｲ ｮ｡ｓ and sunnises that they might have to be reclassified under the sutra rubric; see the Rde bar gshegs po'; bstall pa'i gsal byed chos ky! 'byung gnas gsulIg rob rin po che'i md:md, The Collected Works of Bu ston (and Sgra tshad po) [Lhasa print], part 24 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 992 [Ibid., ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988), 267.8]. He classified them once again under the heading of action­tantra in his 1335 catalogue of the Zhwa lu Tanjur, for which see the Rstan 'gyur gyl dkar chag yld bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po'i phreng ba, The Collected Works of Ru ,ton (and Sgra tshad pal [Lhasa print], part 26 (New Delhi: International Academy oflndian Culture, 1971),542. But this was hardly the end of the story of their putative authorship, as Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po (1382­1456) pointed out in his brief undated study of the cognate rituals anent eight Tathagata­s; see his Rde gshegs brgyad kyl mchod pa'l cho go, SSBB vol. 10, no. 146,337/4. There he agrees with some unidentified scholar[s], who had reacted to Mchims' proposal that all three texts had been written by ｡ｴｩｾｫ ｲ ｮ｡ｓ By contrast, he [they] held that the long and short versions were written by some unidentified Bka' gdams pa teachers and not by the Indian master. 17 See the undated thirty­three folio handwritten dbu med manuscript bearing the title De 411 gshegs pa bdun gyi mclzod po ji ltar bsgrub pa'i tshul, which is extant under c.p.N. catalogue no. 004399(7). 18 Lung dang brgyud po SilO tshogs thob po 'I gsanylg, SSBB vol. 7, no. 315,287/3. 19 For a note on these, see P. Williams, Malziiyana Buddhism. The Doctrinal Foundations (London: Routledge, 1989),247­51. 20 See the Fozu lidal tongzai, Taisho shins/tI' daizokyo, ed. Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku, compo Ono Genmyo (Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai, 1924·32), vol. XLIX, no. 2036, 707c13, as cited in Xiao Diyan and Jie LU7.hu, '''Phags pa under the Pens of Yuan and Ming Chinese Historians [in Chinese]," Xizang Yanjiu J (1983), 92. Wang Pan's sketch is also partly reproduced in Dehui's Chi xiu biazhang qinggui. Taisho shinshu daizokyo, ed. Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku, compo Ono Genmyo (Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai, 1924­32), vol. XLVIII, no. 2025, 1117b8 ff. II II·! I i IlIM'*'1 M.t i • i i 7 • 7 ] I ＢＺＧＯｾｦ • .&U ,52 a . x · -.'p, .' i:::::. ［ ｚ Ｚ ｗ Ｂ ｜ ｍ Ｎ ｾ Ｍ ｬ Ｇ 8 TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP discussed elsewhere in some detai1. 24 In this essay, we turn to a similar expression of their patronage, namely the provision of funds to have Tibetan Buddhist books printed, in particular, those belonging to the extremely esoteric Kalacakra (Tib. dus 'khor) cycle. 25 This began perhaps in the l290s and continued right through to the end of the Yuan, and somewhat beyond. Before doing so, we should first briefly mention three other printing projects in which the Mongol imperial family had been engaged. The printer's colophon (par byang) of the earliest known xylograph of a Tibetan text whose printing blocks were financed by the imperial family, namely those for Sa skya Pal)Qita's (1182­1251) autocommentary on the Tshad rna rigs pa'i gter. The completion of the carving of the blocks for this celebrated work on Buddhist logic and epistemology is dated December 16, 1284.26 We also learn from it that these blocks were prepared in Da renwang huguo monastery [founded 1271­4] that is located north of Dadu.27 The project was initiated and financed by none other than empress Chabi, Qubilai's senior wife, and was completed by her daughter­in­law KCikocin shortly after she parasol (gdugs dkar) in which we know he repeatedly participated, is unrelated to it.21 According to Chinese sources, then, in Dadu, the main celebrations took place on the fifteenth day of the second lunar month; in Shangdu dissimilar celebrations were scheduled on the fifteenth day of the sixth lunar month. There are many problems in correlating the Tibetan calendar[s] with the Chinese one, but we can be fairly certain that the first of these commemorates to the day on which the Buddha pacified those who disagreed with him, the tirthika-s. This is also called the day on which the Buddha showed a great miracle (cho 'phrul chen rna). For Lama 'Phags pa [and the Bka' gdams pa school], this took place on the fifteenth day of the final­winter or the horse­month (sta pa; read ria pa), where the horse­month is the first month of the Chinese calendar. 22 It is altogether unclear to me what the occasion might have been celebrated in Shangdu. Lastly, quoted by Nian Chang and translated by Franke, the anonymous Hongjiao ji, contains an interesting reference to Qubilai's interest in the cult of the Bhai§ajyaguru, to the extent that he had perhaps as many as three of its ritual texts translated into Chinese, two of which by Sha 10 pa, sometime between 1291 and 1294.23 This fits well with Ze'u's presence in his court. Yet another key­element in the quid pro quo dialectic of Mongol patronage of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan clergymen was that of the establishment of a Bureau for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs [in 1264] and the institutions of the Imperial Preceptor, who, in contrast to National Preceptors, was always a Tibetan cleric and, it seems, a member of the Sa skya school, and the funding of large­scale construction projects of temples and monasteries in China proper as well as in Tibet and on the Sino­Tibetan marches. Another form of patronage was the provision of funds for the compilation, copying and, in some cases, printing and the subsequent wide distribution of Buddhist texts. The collected writings of Lama 'Phags pa provide a good number of illustrations for the copying out [not printing] of canonical Tibetan texts that was sponsored by members of the Mongol imperial family. These were 24 See the Introduction of the volume by K. Schaeffer and me referred to in n. 15. 25 For the more recent studies on this textual corpus, see J. Newman, "Islam in the Kiilacakratantra," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21 (1998), 311­71, ibid., "The Epoch of the Kiilacakra Tantra," lndo-lranian Journal 41 (1998), 3I949, and V.A. Wallace, The Inner Kiilacakratan/ra. A Buddhist Tantric View ofthe Individual (New York: Oxford University Press, 200 I). See also in this connection my forthcoming "Atisa and the Kiilacakra Corpus." 26 See my "Two Mongol Xylographs (hor par mal of the Tibetan Text of Sa skya PaQQita's Work on Buddhist Logic and Epistemology," The Jounzal ofthe lnlernational Association of Buddhist Studies 16 (1993), 280-3, 291-3. In his translation of Dalai Lama V's chronicle, Tucci (1949: 630) writes that the Tshal pa myriarch Dga' bde dpal built a printery at Tshal. This was repeated in E. Lo Bue, "Iconographic Sources and Iconometric Literature in Tibetan and Himalayan Art," Indo-Tibetan Studies: Papers in Honour and Appreciation ofProfessor David L. Snellgrove's Contrtbution to Indo-Tibetan Studies, ed. T. Skorupski (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 184: "Dga' bde mgon po(sic) set up a printing press." This is based on a misreading. The available texts of Dalai Lama V's work write bar khang, "middle story," and not par khang, "printing house." The reading of "grand har khang" is also met with in the anonymous Rgyal rabs sogs bod kyi yig tshang gsal ba'i me long, Sngon gyi gtam me log gi phreng ba... with other rare historical texts (Dhararnsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1985), ] 13. Indeed, I have so far found no evidence for the printing of Tibetan texts in Central Tibet before the fifteenth century. For Dga' bde dpal, see now also K.-H. Everding, t£., Der Cung thang dkar drag, J 11-9, 157 ff. His longish biography by Tshal pa Kun dga' rdo rje is extant. 21 See F.W. Cleaves, "The "Fifteen 'Palace' Poems" by K'o Chin­ssu," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 20 (1957), 453­5, where the full dossier on the cult is translated from the Yuanshi, and the partial translation of the same in Liu Ts'un­yan and J. Berling, "The Three Teachings in the Mongol­Yuan Period," Yuan Thought. Chinese Thought and Religion under tire Mongols, ed. Hok­Iam Chan and Wm. Th. De Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982),482·3. Cleaves rightly surmises the cult has something to do with Sitatapatra. Lama 'Phags pa wrote a short ritual text on her in 1275; see SSBB vol. 7, no. 147, 76/4­8/1. 27 The story of this powerful personality is brielly told in M. Rossahi, "Khubilai Khan and the Women in His Family," Studia Mongolica: Festschriftfiir Herbert Franke, ed. W. Bauer, MUnchener Oscasiatische Studien, Bd. 25 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner), 1979, 167-70, and especially In F. W. Cleaves, "The Biography of the Empress Cabi in the Yiian-shih," Harvard Ukranian Studies 3-4 (1979-80),138-50. The latter observes, on p.145, n. 45, two different dates for her death, namely 1277 and 1284. Rossabi dates her passing to the year 1281 in his Khubilai Khan. His Life and Times (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1988),206. 22 Sangs rgyas kyi dus chen bzlri'i ngos 'dzin, SSBB vol. 7, no. 294,256/2; see also Schuh (1973: 32); see also below n. 38. 23 Franke (1996: 159) and H. Franke, "Sha 10 pa (1259­1314), A Tangut Buddhist Monk in YUan China," 209. .iliS:! , 'i , •), 9 )" .,4 . ;.*" . E 10 TH E KALACAKR.A. AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM LEONARD W.i. VAN DER KUlJP altogether unlikely that the ethnonyrn hor in the tenn hor par rna refers to the so­called "thirty­nine Mongol tribes" that had settled in the area between Nag chu and Chab mdo, some of whose chieftains had close ties with especially members of the Bka' brgyud pa school. In the pages that follow, I wiIl first examine the available dossie­r on those printing projects of Tibetan texts anent the Kalacakra literature. This is foIlowed by a brief discussion of various notices of Kiilacakra initiations and teachings given by Tibetan hierarchs to members of the Mongol imperial family. I should hasten to point out that the obvious sketchiness of my narrative reflects the paucity and brevity of the relevant notices found in the Tibetan sources that are available to me. In conclusion, I make a few general remarks on the state of Tibetan Buddhism in Yuan China, the influence of Chinese Buddhism in Tibet, and the continued support by the Mongol imperial family of Buddhism in Tibet immediately after the fall of the Yuan. LAMA 'PHAGS PA AND THE KALACAKRA CORPUS. Lama 'Phags pa had been interested in questions dealing with the calendar and chronology ever since he was a boy. Schooled in the SUbject by his uncle Sa skya Pal).Qita, his first precocious foray in the area of the calendrical calculation pertaining to the Kalacakra corpus was apparently written in 1249, when he was a mere lad offourteen. 32 He then studied it once again around the age of twenty­two when he was sojourning on Mount Wutai in Shanxi. On purely scientific grounds and fortunately unbeknownst to most of them, it was not in the Tibetans' best interest that their premier sources for Indic computational astronomy consisted of the incomplete and at times misleading remarks on the subject in especially the first chapter of Yasas' Laghukalacakratantra (Dus kyi 'khor 10 [bsdus pa'i] rgyud) (early 11th c.), allegedly a synopsis of the much longer but no longe­r extant Kiilacakrarniila-tantra, and its premier commentary, PUl)Qarfka's Virnalaprabhii (Dri med 'od) (early 11th c.). Originally from the unlocatable land of Sambhala [Tib. Shambhala], these arcane treatises, as well as most of their cognates that deal primarily with their spiritual practice, were rendered mto Tibetan in the eleventh century, thus not long after they had made their first public appearance in the subcontinent. The diction and contents of these hvo tracts in particular posed such a large number of profound phIlological problems for the Tibetan Sanskritists that they were had passed away. Given the extreme likelihood that the preparation of these printing blocks had not taken more than three years, this circumstance should allow us to dispel the confusion that besets the conflicting notes on the year of her death in the Yuallshi,28 so that we can be pretty certain that she died in 1284. Later Tibetan sources call xylographs deriving from these blocks "Mongol ｸｹｬｾｧｲ｡ｰｨ｛ｳ｝Ｂ (hor par ma); the same appellation is also used for a xylograph of Sa skya Pal)Qita's Sdom gsum rab tu dbye ba, which has not [yet} come down to us.29 The Mongol imperial family evidently took a non­sectarian approach to this kind of patronage. Indeed, the literature makes it abundantly clear that a number of Tibetan Buddhist tantric texts belonging to the Rnying rna pa school were also printed in Yuan China in the first half of the fourteenth century. These, too, are referred to as hoI' par ma.J° Ii ,I. Ii II, Iii! III '.1 1 1 Now just because these xylographs are called hor par ma, this does not mean that such a designation was exclusively confined to those texts whose printing blocks were carved under the auspices of the Mongol imperial family. In this connection, we cannot neglect to mention that, in the first half of the sixteenth century, three xylographs of different Tibetan canonical texts belonging to the Paficaralqfi corpus circulated in Central Tibet. Called hor par ma, neither their exact provenance nor their dates are known, but it is quite unlikely that these have their origin in acts of patronage that went all the way back to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The only source for these three hor par rna known to me is a little undated work by Skyogs ston Lo tsa ba Rin chen bkra shis (ca. J470­154O). There he studied a select number of the readings of what he calls the hor par rna of the Mahapratisariividyfirfijfii, the Mahasfihasrapramardinisiitra and the Mahamfiyiirividyfirfijfii by comparing them with the corresponding passages in several Sanskrit manuscripts to which he had access. 31 It is of course not 28 For this monastery, see Franke (1996: 135). I 29 See D.P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate [01' the Wise (Sectiolllll) Sa skya Pal)ljita on !I/dian II!'II and Tibetan Tradilions of Pram?il}a and Philosophical Debate vol. 1, Wiener Studien ZUI' Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft l7,1 (Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische unci Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1987),73 and 81, n. 25. 30 111ese are revisited in my forthcoming "A Tibetan Magus at the Mongol Court of Ktiltig Qaghan [the Wuzong Emperor]: The Case ofG.yung stan Rdo rje dpal (1287­1365)." 3' See the Sgra'i nyer mkho gal cile ba'i skor 'ga' zhig, four­folio handwritten dbu med manuscript, C.P.N. catalogue no. ?( 17). On the literary genre to which the,e three text, belong, see P. Skilling, "The ｩｾＮｫ｡ｒ Literature of the sriivakaytina," Journal of the Pali ｴｾ･ｔ Society XVI (l992), 109­82. The Ka\acchhubhadanta Ratnamangala of M. Hahn, "Sanskrittexte aus dem tibetischen Tanjur (1): Das Nagiirjuna zugeschriebene ＢＬ｡ｔｬｯｴｳ｡ ｶ ｫ｡ｊ＼ｾ ｄ Berliner !ndologische Studien 3 (/987), 52, i> thus none other than this Skyogs ston Lo tsa ba. / 1 ,i 1 • 1 I II ii I: lill III 11'111 32 This is his Lnga bsdus sgra gean gza' Inga dang beas pa'i rlsis gzhi; for his oeuvre on astronomy, see Schuh (1973: 6­10, 30­2). To be added are his two works on astrology, the La bdag gi rlsis nyi shu rtsa gnyis pa, SSBB vol. 7, no. 291, and the Rten eing 'brei par 'byung ba'i gstug lag gi de !rho na nyid rin po che'i sgron rna, 8888 vol. 7, no. 292, both of which are undated, as well as his 1266 study of the Kalacakra corpus' thugs dkyil in SSBB vol. 6, no. 65. Iii I i, ,il " ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­.. ­.ＧＭｾＢｬ｜｟ＧＭ I • i , , 11 , ;; E TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 12 13 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP translated and retranslated into Tibetan well over a dozen times by some 33 twenty translators, some of whom worked in groups of two. There is in fact nothing comparable in the history of the Tibetan translations of canonical texts. Not only are the various computations found in these texts incomplete, they are also often quite misleading, if not in outright error, where their astronomy "';as concemed. 34 But given the combination of being proficient in the calendrical astronomy of the Kalacakra corpus and a National Preceptor at the court of Qubilai, there is therefore nothing anomalous about the fact that, in March 7, 1268, Lama 'Phags pa would finish a little treatise on the parity that exists between the Chinese calendar, possibly the one in use at the Mongol court, and a [or the] Tibetan one that was based on this corpus.3 5 Towards the end of this tract, then, we have the following stylistically inelegant summation: In the holy land [India], the onset of the [sixty-]year [cycle] is taken from the rab byung (prabhava) [year onward]; the Chinese claim the wood-male-mouse year to be the first [year of their sexagenary cycle po The [synodic] months, however, are headed by the month of rgyal Ｈｰ｡ｵｾＩ in the grove that is the center [of the world, India];37 as for Shambhala['s Kiilacakratantra], the month of nag pa (caitra) is claimed to be the first of the [twelve calendar] months. It is claimed that the ria [monthJ of China, the first spring-month, is called gcig pa [the first month of the calendar year].38 The Tibetans by and large follow that. Thus, having followed Chinese [methods] in the typology of year and month, the method of searching for [and acquiring] real 36 This fact was already noticed by several scholars, for which see P. Pelliot, "Le cycle sexagenaire dans la chronologie tibetaine," Journal Asiat/que I (1913), 647-8. Though presently not available to me, r recall that, in his large 1536-40 study of Karma pa Ill's 1318 Rlsis kyi bslan bcos kun las billS pa, a versified work on computational astronomy and the calendar, Dpa' bo II Gtliug lag phreng ba (1504-66) observes that a Smyal pa [= Gnyal pal Lha mdzes and others had held the view that the KaJacakra corpus' prabhava year [= SinoTibetan fire-female-hare (me rna yos) year] is to be equated with the [Sino-Tibetan] woodmouse year, a notion that must have led to some horrific confusion. This same Gnyal pa Lha mdzes is noted in this context by Smin grol gling Lo tsa ba Chos dpal (1654-1718) alias Dharmasbrj in his Rlsis kyi man Ilgag nyln byed snallg ba'i roam 'grel gser gyi shing rta, Collecled Works, vol. IV (Dehra Dun, 7), 25 [= ed. Bsod nams phun tshogs (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1983),32]. 'phags pa'i yul du rab byung nas II 10 yi mgo 'dzin rgya mams kyis II shing pho byi ba Ihog mar 'dod II [3J zla ba'ang dbus 'gyur tshal du ni II rgyal gyi zla bas thog mar 'dren II [5J shambha la ni nag pa'i zla II zla ba rnams kyi Ihog mar 'dod II [7J rgya yi sta [read: ria] pa dpyid ra ba II gcig pa zhes byar 'dod pa yin II [9] bod rnams phal cher de rjes 'brang II [10J de phyirlo dang zla ba'i tshulll rgya yi rjes su 'brangs /las ni II yang dag nges pa 'tshol ba'i tshul II dus kyi 'khor lo'i /shul bzhin bshad II [14] zla shol 'dor ba'i [read: 'don pa'i] tshul yang ni II dpalldan dus kyi 'khor lo'i lugs II de rje 'brang ba'i gzhung las shes II [17] bod la grags pa'i rgya rtsis pa II 'khrul pa nyid du 'chad par byed II [19]. 37 The same phrase denoting the subcontinent is also met with in Slob dpon Bsod nams rtse mo's (1142-82) circa 1167 Chos la Jug pa'i sgo, SSBB vol. 2, no. 17,345/3. 38 The usual Tibetan ordinal equivalent for "first" is dang pO. The term gcig pa is also found in Snye thang Lo !sa ba Bl0 gros brtan pa's (?-ca. 1460) commentary on Sa skya PW)Qita's Tshlg gi gler, for which see the Mllgoll brjod kyi bslan bcos Ishig gi gler zhes bya ba'i 'grel pa rgya cher don gsal ba (Gangtok, 1977), 154: rgya nag rtsis pa'i lugs kyi dpyid ra rta'i thog tha ste I gcig pa zhes byar bTjod pa yin II zhes 'byung ste I. The quotation of the line of Verse may go back to a reading of a different manuscript of 'Phags pa's work. Note further the assumed and by no means uncontroversial equivalence of the Chinese or Sino-Tibetan horsemonth with the first spring-month (dpyid raj. Some authors may have even mistaken the bonafide Tibetan nomenclature for the months of the year, as in dpyid zla ra ba etc., for the terminology belonging to the KaIacakra corpus. For example, Bsarn gtan bzang po has the following apposition in his undated biography of Dar rna rgyal mtshan: dus 'khor lugs kyi 33 This is the figure given by 'Gos Lo!sa ba in his Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud kyi dka' 'grel sny;llg po'; dOll rab lu gsal ba'; rgyall [one hundred and ninety­nine­folio xylograph, marginal notation Cal, 2b. Not given in the colophon, he completed this work in \467, according to his 1517 biography by Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes (1453­1524), for which See the Dpal Idan bla rna dam pa mkhall chen Ihams cad mkhyen pa dOll gyi slad du mlshan Ilas smos Ie gzhon IlU dpal gyl rnam par Ihar pa yon Ian rill po che mchog tu rgyas pa'i /jon pa, seventy­four­folio hand­written dbu can manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 003259( 11), 67b. Written at the behest of Spyan snga Ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa (143990) of [Phag rna gru] Gdan sa mthil, its printing was also underwritten by the latter and the blocks Were calVed in 1472. 34 D. Pingree, "Ravikas in Indian Astronomy and the Kalacakra," Le Parole e i Marmi. Sludt ill Onore dl Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70" Compleanno, ed. R. Torella, Serie Orientale Roma, XCII,2 (Rome, Istituto Italiano per I'Africa e l'Oriente, 2001), 655-64. 35 See the Rlsis kyi glsug lag dang mlhun par nges pa, SSBB vol. 7, no. 289,251/1; see also Schuh (1973: 32) where "1264" is a typographical error; the correct date is given in Schuh (1973, 6-7). He wrote it in a place called Man gong. His collected writings contain one other work he wrote in Man gong, namely the one on the evocation ofVajrabhairava in SSBB vol. 7, no. 116, which he completed on August 31,1268. Its colophon states that he wrote it for the Prince-Bodhisattva (rgyal bu byang chub sems ､ｰ｡ｾＬ whom I am unable to identify. i 2 sron zla ra ba / khrum[s] gyi zla ba /; see Ihe Beam ldall rig pa'l ral gri'i rnam thar dad pa'i /jail shing, handwritten twenty-six-folio db" med manuscript, 20a-b. The expression stan zla ra ba, "first autumn-month," does not belong to the terminology of the Kalacakra corpus and, what is more, is neither of Indic nor of Chinese origin. Byang bdag quotes Lama 'Phags pa's work in the Ta'i sl tu mam rgyal grags pa dpal po'l (?slc) dris Ian smra ba'i cod pan, 5a, to the effect that in it he "appears to have construed the very first month of a secular [reckoning] as a tiger-month"(j'lg rlen pa'i zla ba dang po nyld la stag[ gJI zla bar mdzad snang). Byang bdag adds that this was confirmed by National Preceptor Bsod nams shes rab (?-7) to whom he had sent a letter requesting information on the calendar current in Ming China while the latter was at the court. ) • ; j . }!!(.. " Q M,I, ..........;;:;;::;::;.""',t\lIiAWiW::;::;::;; ｾＮＬ ..Ri ...ｾ 14 LEONARD W.I. VAN DER KUIJP certainty ｛ｾ the {true} epoch (nges pa, dhrnva/ka)],39 we have explained in the manner of the Dus kyi 'khor 10. Also the way in which an intercalary month is inserted is known from texts that follow that system of the glorious Dus kyi 'khor 10. The rgya rlsis pa40 known ill Tibet explain [this] wrongly. His great­uncle Rje btsun had already said something similar,41 and this quotation from Lama 'Phags pa is, as far as I am aware, the only time in his writing where he broaches the subject of the Chinese calendar as it was known to him. D. Schuh, to whose pathbreaking investigations in the history of the Tibetan calendar we owe so much, comments on this passage to the effect that it: 42 ...noticeably ends with a criticism of those Chinese astronomers who apparently had made efforts that the principles of Chinese calendrical reckoning ought to be used in Tibet. The intention of 'Phags pa is doubtless two­fold: namely, on the one hand, the parity that exists between Tibet and China of the reckoning of years and the beginning of the year ought to be emphasized and declared to be binding; on the other hand, he clearly wants to indicate that furthermore the calendar ought to be constructed in accordance with the non­Chinese Kalacakra­derived system of computation. The latter restriction must doubtless be regarded as politically particularly delicate. 39 My interprelation differs here somewhat from the one given in Schuh (1973: 6, n. 25), who opts to read rgya yi instead of the text's rgya yis. I see no reason to change the original readi ng. The technical tenn dhruvaka is usually rendered by Tibetan nges pa. Kanna 'phrin las pa I (1456­1539) points out that some Tibetans had translated it by brtan pa in order to bring out its meaning more clearly, while others, in his opinion, wrongly, wrote it dhruva; see his Dri[s] Ian gllas lugs gsal bar stan pa'i nyi 'ad. The SOllgs ofEsoteric PracUce (mgur) and Replies 10 Doctrillal Questiolls (dris 1011) ofKarma 'phrillias pa (New Delhi, 1975),221. 40 The tenn mis pa, when used for an individual, is a bit ambiguous, in that it can refer to someone who does astronomical computation and calendrical calculation, as well as to one who casts horoscopes and makes almanacs. J have therefore chosen to leave it untranslated. The term rgya rtsis pa is ethnically ambiguous, for it can refer to such an individual who is Chinese (rgya [mi)), or to a Tibetan who does Chinese (rgya [illig gi)) astrology. In his 1443 Rrsis 10 'khrul ba sri ba, 'Gos Lo tsa ba obviously uses the tenn in the sense of a native Chinese astrologer; see fol. 38b of the 1463 blockprint [marginal notation, Nga]. However, in the Deb gter SlIgOII po there is a passage where the term may indeed refer to a Tibetan or Tibetans, as it has to do with the dates of Sakyasribhadra (1127­/225), see 'GOS, 947 ['GOSI, 1241]; Roerich (1979: 1065) and Guo (1985: 697) misunderstood the text. 41See his Dus tshod bzung ba'i mis yig, SSBB vol. 4, no, 130,299/4­5; this passage is also referred to in Schuh (1973: 7, note 29). 42Schuh (1973: 6). TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 15 I am not entirely convinced of one important aspect of this interpretation, namely that Lama 'Phags pa's rgya rlsis pa refers to "chinesischen Astronomen." There are furthermore two assumptions that will need further clarification, the first of which is that Lama 'Phags pa intended to address a wider audience with his work for driving this point home than merely a Tibetan one. To be sure, the fact that he wrote these lines in Man gong « Ch, ?), located, I believe, in China proper, and several months after his departure for the court from 'Dam, to the northeast of Lhasa, can easily lead to the conclusion that his intention with this work might have been more than, as the title would have it, merely to bring about some parity between the two calendars. But then we do not know very much about the reception his writings enjoyed at the court or, in this and many other instances, their intended audience. We have, for example, no evidence that this work was evcr notcd in wider circles; there is furthermore no record that Qubilai was able to read Tibetan. The second assumption IS that the Mongol court privileged those Chinese officials who were responsible for the calendar and astronomical computation. While, as was shown by Ishihama, Lama 'Phags pa had a hand in thc layout of Dadu43 and, lest we forget, he was responsible for the development of the 'Phags pa script for use throughout the empire, there is no room for doubting that the court valued and was dependent on Arabo­Persian and Chinese astronomy for their calendar. The Mongols had appreciated Muslim astronomy since the time of Ogedei Qaghan and during Qubilai's reign, in particular, the names of Usa Tarjaman (?­1308), Jamal ai­Din, and the Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing (1231­1316) loom large. It may very well be that Lama 'Phags pa's wrote his little treatise in reaction to the calendar, backed up by some seven astronomical instruments, Jamal ai­Din had introduced at the court in 1267, while he was still in Tibet. 44 In spite of his influence, the little tract had no success. As was already pointed out by Schuh, the Tibetan edicts and decrees that were issued from the court and the Bureau for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs used the Chinese and not one or the other Tibetan calendar.45 43 See her A Historical Study oflhe Tibetall Buddhist World [in Japanese], 41­2. For Dadu in general, see also M. Rossabi, Khubilai KhalI: His Life alld Times (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 131­5,257, n, 81­4, and the note in Franke (1996: 142). 44 See J. Needham [and Wang Ling], Sciellce alld Civilisalioll ill C."hilla, vol. Ill, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970),48­9,372, M. Rossabi, Khubilai Khall: His Life alld Times, 125-6. 45 Schuh (1977: J 70). There may be a few exceptions to this, however, LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUJJP 16 Now there is a longstanding tradition among Tibetan rtsis pa that the Kalacakra corpus' calendar was well­known not only in the Xixia empire, but also in China proper during the Song dynasty. The presence in these regions of the corpus and the calendar derived from it was put forth by at least one Tibetan astronomer, namely Grwa phug pa Kun dga' dpal (15th c.), the elder brother of the more famous Grwa phug pa Lhun grub rgya mtsho whose 1447 landmark study of the corpus' computational astronomy did so much to influence later developments in the Tibetan calendar. We learn about this in the sixth register (kha byang) of his Dus tshigs 'khor 10 bcu pa. 46 Regrettably, this work has not [?yet] come down to us in toto, but a longish passage from it is cited by both the Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653­1705) and Smin grol gling Lo tsa ba. In this passage, we read the following lines: 47 me mo yos zhes rab byung dang po 'i 10 II 'phags pa'i yul du dus kyi 'khor 10 phebs II de nas ring pOI' ma thogs rgya nag dang II bod khams kun du tslllli 'di dar zhing 'gyur II khyad par rgya nag mi nyag rgyal rabs dus II dpalldan dus kyi 'khor lo'i lugs bzang la II mkhas pa'i palJr!ita zhig rgya nag byon II The Kalacakra went [from Sambhala] to the Holy Land [= India] [In] the fire­female­hare year, the [first] year of the first rab byung (prabhava) [= 1027]. Not long thereafter, this method [of its calendar] spread in China and in all of the Tibetan land. Specifically, during the ?dynastic succession of China [?and] Xixia, 46 The title may be translated as: The Ten Cycles of Time's Vital Points. One of the earliest works on dus tshigs known to me is Mchims Blo bzang grags pa's (1299­1363) still unavailable Dus tsh/gs gsal ba'i me long, which he cites in his undated Abhidharmakosa commentary; see the Mdzod chung [Chos mngon pa gsal byed legs par bshad pa'i rgya mrsho], part 1 (Samath: Sakya Student's Union, (978),279. For the term kha byang, see noW Lab phan 'dum Blo bzang blo gros, "Bod kyi bstan bcos sam rtsom yig gi kha byang skor bshad pa," Krung gO'i bod kyi shes rig 5 (1994), 115­42. 47 See, respectively, the Bai \liirya g.ya sel, vol. I (Dehra Dun, 1976), 139, and the partial quote in the Rlsis Icyi man ngag nyin byed snallg ba'i nwm 'grel gser gyi shing rIa, Collected Works, vol. IV (Dehra Dun, '1), 28 ｾ｛ ed. Bsod nams phun tshogs (Lhasa: Bod liongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1983), 36]. Smin grol gling Lo tsa ba provides the actual title of the sixth kha byang, namely, Ny/ ldog I zlog 'khor lo'i kha byang, rhat is, The Register ofthe Cycle on the Solstice. , ,I ,!, t :!I' ll i ,Ill TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 17 A palJr!ita learned in the good system of the illustrious Kalacakra came to China. There is, to my knowledge, so far no really concrete literary or arthistorical evidence that the Laghukiilacakratantra, the Vimalaprabha or, for that matter, Abhayakaragupta's (11th-12th c.) Kiilacakravatara4 8 (after 1086/87) played a direct role in either the astronomy as practiced in Xixia, its calendar or its Buddhist practice. 49 We find no support whatsoever for the supposition that one or the other treatise was ever translated into Tangut. It is true, as E.!. Kychanov and others have shown, that the MaiijusrTnamasmigTti formed part of the official curriculum of twelfth century Xixia Buddhist monastic education,50 and its weB-known linkage with a segment of passages found in the Kalacakra corpus that deal with Sanskrit phonology should be noted. But this association ought on no account be privileged. One of the remarkable features of the voluminous Indian and Tibetan commentarial literature that grew up around the MaiijusrTnamasangTti shows that its contents are, hermeneutically, rather flexible and fluid to the extent that they allow it to be associated with a variety of other tantric texts and traditions. In fact, its putative connection ",ith the Kalacakra literature has nothing to do with the latter's astronomy, but, rather, is largely founded ritualistically on what can perhaps be described as its gnoseological theory of Sanskrit phonology. Be this as it may, there is one indication, in the person ofRtsa mi Lo tsu ba Sangs rgyas grags pa (12th c.), that should prevent us from not a priori excluding the possibility that the corpus was perhaps not entirely unkno"'l1 to the Xixia. This man, who is most consistently said to be a native of Xixia and even a scion of its imperial family, traveled to the subcontinent, learned Sanskrit, and became a major disciple of Abhayakaragupta himselt) ( An important scholar in his own right, he is credited with having prepared Tibetan renditions of both the Laghukalacakratantra and the Vimalaprabha. He 48 On this work, see J. Newman, "The Epoch of the Kalacakra Tantra," 328-9. 49 See, for example, Wu Tianchi, A DraJi History ofXixia [in Chinese] (Chengdu: Sichuan remin chubanshe, 1980), Shi Jinbo, A Brief History of Xixia Buddhism [in Chinese] (Yinchuan: Ningxia renmin chubanshe, 1988), and also the splendid catalogue of treasures from the State Hermitage Museum, SI. Petersburg, Lost Empire of the Silk Road. Buddhist Art from Khara Khoto (XXJJJth Century), ed. M. Piotrovsky (Electa: Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation, 1993). 50 See E.!. Kychanov, "From the History of the Tangut Translation of the Buddhist Canon," Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Karas, ed. L. Ligeti, vol. I (Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6, 1984),382. 51 On his ties with Abhayakaragupta, see for now E. Sperling, "Rtsa mi Lo tsa ba Sangs rgyas grags pa and (he Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations," 801, 809-11. 18 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP either carned out these translations under the guidance of his master or while he was abbot of Vajrasana in Bodhgaya. Unfortunately, they are now most likely lost, but a few quotations from them are found in the relevant literature such as, for example, in Sgra tshad pa Rin chen mam rgyal's (1318­88) notes on Bu ston's lectures on the Kula­cakra and in the large 1434 Vimalaprabhii commentary by the Dga' Idan pa scholar Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po (1385­1438).52 The connection of the Kalacakra with China proper before its conquest by the Mongols is much more tenuous and I believe, in the final analysis, probably not substantiable. It is true that the Tibetan literary tradition asserts that the Dznyana badzra [= Ji'ianavajra = Ye shes rdo rje] who authored a large and rewarding commentary on the Lailkiivatiirasfttra was a "Chinese abbot" (rgya'i mkhan po). This is what we read in the colophon of the uncredited Tibetan translation that makes its debut in Dbus pa Blo gsal's catalogue. 53 It is also true that this Jfianavajra cites the Vimalaprabhii and even refers to a problem having to do with the corpus' canonicity54 The combination of these factors must have contributed to the judgment we find in an interlinear gloss in Sgra tshad pa's aforementioned notes, namely, that the corpus was present in China prior to its arrival in the Indian subcontinent. 55 The gloss says furthermore that this work was translated "during the era of Bsam yas' king" (bsam yas rgyal po'i dus su) without, unfortunately, specifying this king's identity. References to such figures at Bsam yas are not infrequently found in the pre­sixteenth century literature. But matters doubtless stood in part differently. Ji'ianavajra also refers to 'Bal mi ka [Valmiki] and his Riimiiya(lG, the works on the theory of drama, etc. by Bharata and a Byi sha khi la [= ?], and host of other nonBuddhist Indian treatises, and even summarizes and refers to a hitherto unknown study of KamalasIla's (ca. 780) Madhyamakiiloka. 56 In brief, then, 52 See, respectively, SGRA, 142, 158, and the Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i 'grel chen dri ma med pa'i 'od Icyi rgya cher bshad pa de kho na nyid kyi silang bar byed pa. Collected Works [Lhasa Zhol print], vol. Kha (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981), 161. 53 See, respectively, IT vol. 38,4024 [# 4019],412/3 [Pi, 31 Oal, and the Bstan bcos Icyi dkar chag, 41 b­2a. 54 IT vol. 38, 4024 [# 4019],325/1 [Pi, 4b] and 338/5 [Pi, 52a]. 55 SGRA, 142. 56 TT vol. 38, 4024 [#4019], 328/2, 4, and 335/6 [Pi, 15b,16b, and 42a]. The commentary is titled Dbu ma snang ba'; rnam par bshad pa de Icho na nyid kyi sgron ma, which might have read in Sanskrit: *Madhyamakiilokabhii,lyatattvapradipa. Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge's (110969) undated Madhyamakiiloka exegesis has recently surfaced by way of a eighty­two folio, handwritlen dbu med manuscript. Its title page but has Db" ma'i yig cha / phya pas byas, "Madhyamaka Textbook, written [non­honorific form of the verb!] by Phya pa." The colophon has the quasi­descriptive title: Dbu ma snallg ba'i gzhung go don rigs pa'i tshul TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 19 if he were Chinese, then he must have had an unusually fine knowledge of Indian literature. Needless to say, this is all quite unlikely. There is no doubt that Jfiiinavajra flourished not before cirea 1050, so that it is of course not impossible that he was an Indian monk who had been active in [Song] China. Albeit disadvantaged in the competition for Indian Buddhist expertise with the Tibetans, the later Song period witnessed the appearance of a fairly substantial number of Indian Buddhist masters in China. 57 But this is highly speculative. It is very unlikely that, even if Ji'ianavajra had stayed in China for so long that he had become fully acculturated during his stay there that, if they had known of him in person, the Tibetans would have believed him actually to have been a Chinese scholar. Further, his study of the Lankiivatiirasiitra, as well as its TIbetan rendition, betray not one iota of the possibility of a Chinese environment, cultural or linguistic. Rather, both de.finitely point to an Indic ancestry. Another possible origin for the view that the Kalacakra was known in China may possibly be traced to the 'Bro tradition of the corpus' transmission which, in Tibet, began with 'Bro Shes rab 'bar (lIth c,). But this requires further study. The identity of this Ji'iiinavajra thus remains a mystery. Now the Tanjur contains a large number of short tracts on tantric ritual practice that are all signed by a Jfiiinavajra; one of these was translated by Lo tsi! ba Rin chen bzang po (958­1055). Further, the evidently twelfth century Rngog Lo tsii ba Buddhapala [= Sangs rgyas skyong] is recorded to have collaborated with a Jfiiinavajra on the Tibetan version of this Indian scholar's (rgya gar gyi mkhall po) very own "'Tattvamiirgadarsana in the Lha khang bi ha ra « vihara), after they had made a supplication at the "offering site" (tshogs 'khor sa) in Shing kun. 58 "Shing kun" is here certainly to be understood as an abbreviation of "'Phags pa Shing kun"and thus designates the temple of Svayarhbhiinath in the Kathmandu Valley. Of interest is that, unlike the Lailkiivatarasfttra commentary, the architecture of the *TattvamargadarSana is surprisingly un­Indic and, in fact, quite reminiscent of a scholastic treatise written around the kind of topical outline (sa bead) that is so ubiquitous in Tibetan writing. Therefore, one cannot help but wonder whether the Tibetan translator had at least a hand in its composition. It is at this stage not possible to determine whether these two works were written by one and the same individual. dang my; gal zhing blo chung bas kyang bde blag tu rtogs pa byis pa'i jug ngogs. As far as I can tell, Phya pa did not have access to the *Madhyamakiilokabhii!yatattvapradipa. 57 See, lastly, Tansen Sen, "The Revival and Failure of Buddhist Translations during the Song Dynasty," T'oung Pao LXXXV11I (2002), 27­80, 58 IT vol. 32, no. 3720 [# 3715], 134/1­46/6 [Tsu, J29a­64b]. This work was obviously inspired by the Hevajratantra. 20 LEONARD W.J. VAN DERKUJJP While he did use one or the other earlier renditions of the Laghukiilacakratantra and the Vimalaprabhii, Lama 'Phags pa must have entertained some doubts about the quality of their Tibetan translations. By his time, there were in theory no less than some fifteen different versions in existence. We know that, in the mid­1260s or mid­I 270s, he together with Shakya bzang po, his right­hand man and Grand­governor (dpon chen) of Central Tibet, had Shong ston Lo tsa ba Rdo rje rgyal rntshan carry out a revision or retranslation of their Tibetan versions. Though they appear to have received Lama 'Phags pa's imprimatur, they were apparently by no means greeted with universal acclaim and approbation. For example, Sgra tshad pa points out that Kun spangs pa Thugs Ije brtson 'grus (?­1313) alias Mi bskyod rdo rje did not think much of the effort and, indeed, is said to have even remarked at one time, in an intemperate moment, that Shang ston Lo tsa ba's translations were riddled with errors. 59 Be this as it may, several Mongol courts were keenly interested in these tracts, even to the point of sponsoring several Tibetan xylograph editions. Arguably, the involvement on their part in their dissemination owed less to the technicalities of its astronomy than to the unbridled reverence their Tibetan chaplains displayed for this corpus as well as its putative place of origin, Sambhala, a land located not in the subcontinent, but, and this is important, somewhere "north of the Slta river," that is, to the north of Tibet. The coincidence of the Mongols' origins and the geographical position of their homeland relative to the source of this corpus cannot have been lost on them. In other words, whatever the religious motivation of members of the Mongol ruling class may have been, or whatever the extent in which some of them may have been engaged in the arcane meditative practices the Kalacakra prescribed, as the word of the Buddha, these texts provided an excellent vehicle for their political legitimation among their own people and their Tibetan allies. Their patronage of these xylographs was not without self­interest and, in the larger scheme of things Yuan, was clearly financially of very little consequence. It is to these xylographs that we now turn. PRINTING THE KALACAKRA CORPUS. D.P. Jackson already referred, via a previous indication of E. Gene Smith, to what amounts to the earliest notice ofaxylograph of Shong ston Lo tsa ba's translation of the 59 SGRA, 158: shong 'gyur la skyon mang po yod I. Founder of Jo rna nang hermitage in circa 1300, Kun spangs pa's profound displeasure with Shang stan La tsa ba's efforts must have been in part instrumental in the later revision of the translations of both in Jo rna nang the two mati scholar­translators prepared at the request of Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1291­1362); forth is revision, see C.R. Stearns, The Buddhafrom Dolpo. A Study ofthe Life and Thought oj the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gvaltsen (Albany: State University of New¥orkPress, 1999),24­7. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 21 Laghukiilacakratantra. Preserved in a collection of works attributed to Bo dong PaJ:! chen 'Jigs med grags pa (1375­1451) alias Phyogs las mam rgyal,60 one of the distinctive features of this xylograph is that, like the one of Sa skya PaJ:)<;Iita's text noted above, it has a Tibetan and a Chinese pagination. In all probability, the Chinese pagination was necessitated by the plausible circumstance that the Chinese woodcarvers were employed in the preparation of the printing blocks could only keep track of the order of the blocks by carving Chinese page numbers in the margins. The first portion of the xylograph's colophon reads in part: 6t / dpalldan dus 'khor rgyud kyi rgyal po 'di / / sangs rgyas bstan pa dar cing rgyas pa dang / / mi dang rgyal po 'i thugs dgongs rdzogs pa 'am / / tha 'i hu yum sras chab srid brtan byas nas / / gdul bya sems can kun la phan phyir du / / u rgyan pa zhes grags pas par du bsgrubs / This [text of the] Dpal ldan dus 'khor rgyud kyi rgyaI po was established as a print(ed edition] by one renowned as "U rgyan pa," For the sake of spreading and increasing the Buddha's teaching and, The fulfillment of either the [last] intention of the Lord of Man, the emperor, or [for the sake of] benefiting all sentient beings [whose conflicting emotions] are to be disciplined, After stability had been effected [in] the reign of the Tha'ihu, the Mother, and (Her] Son. In connection with this passage, Jackson suggested that it "...seems to indicate that the printing was completed after the death of" Qubilai by U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal (1230-1309), an important master of the 'Brug pa and Karma sects of the Bka' brgyud pa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Given that mention is made of the "empress mother" (tha'i hu < Ch. taihou), we can be sure that the original print postdates Qubilai who died on February 18, 1294. This means that it was prepared between 1294 and 1309. We can also be sure that the name in religion of this U rgyan pa, as opposed to other thirteenth century masters known by the same epithet, is Rin chen dpal, 60 See his "Notes on Two Early Printed Editions of Sa skya pa Works," The Tibet Journal 8 (1983),22, n. 14. 61 See the Mchog gi dang po'l sangs rgyas las phyung ba rgyud Icyi rgyal po dpal dus Icyi 'kllOr 10, Encyclopedia Tibelica. The Collected Works ojBo dong Patl chell Phyogs las rnam rgyal vol. 116 (New Delhi: The Tibet House, 1970),357. 22 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP since, in the same colophon, he pays respects to his beloved teacher Dgod [read: Rgod] tshang pa [Mgon po rdo rje (1189­1258)]. U rgyan pa had been a guest of Qubilai in 1292 with somewhat turbulent results. And, Judging from the vivid description of the events that transpired during these audiences with the Mongol emperor of his main biography, it appears that his visit had been witnessed by this disciple and biographer Bsod nams 'od zer, or, if not by him, then by the author of one of the sources of U rgyan pa's life to which he had access. 62 The colophon's "Lord of Man, the Emperor" (mi dbang rgyal po) cannot but refer to Qubilai and the empress mother must therefore have been Kokocin, the mother of emperor Oljeitii. Oljeitii himself is mentioned only once in the two available, full­scale biographies of U rgyan pa,63 but neither single out any printing projects he, or others on his behalf, had carried out in the Mongol capital or elsewhere. On the other hand, they do note that he had sent U rgyan pa gifts for the temple of Bodh­gaya. Of some interest is that, in a document dated 1374 that bears witness to the restoration of Bsam yas monastery, Lama dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312­75) of Sa skya's Rin chen sgang Residence says that "beginning with the Oljeitii emperor, the Lord[s] of Man [= the Mongol emperors] had undivided faith in the [Buddhist] Teaching."64 This may very well suggest that there was a tradition current in Tibet that was somewhat skeptical about the extent and depth of the commitment to [Tibetan] Buddhism on the part of his predecessors and this would of course include Qubilai. The wording of the colophon does not mention explicitly that the blocks were carved in China proper, but, given the way in which the individual blocks were "paginated," it is most likely that they were. Bsod nams '00 zer's study of U rgyan pa's life does contain one passage indicating that U rgyan pa had erected (bzhengs) many texts of the Kalacakra corpus,65 albeit without specifying the exact procedures or nature of these reproductions or when he might have done so. It is therefore unlikely that the term bzhengs is used as an oblique reference to printing unless, of course, we take it as an abbreviation of par bzhengs. It is perhaps at first glance somewhat puzzling that U rgyan pa's text is based on the translation made by Shong ston Lo tsa ba's rendition of the 62 See, respectively, his undated biography by Bsod nams 'od zer in BSOD, 168­ 74 [BSODl, 234­42] and its derivative by a Rgyal shrT, in RGYAL, 85b­92b. RGYAL is in large part based on Bsod nams 'od zet's work, for which see the bibliographic remark in RGYAL, 115a. 63 BSOD, 182·3 [BSODJ, 253­4] and RGYAL, 94a. 64 BLA, 48b [= 454b]: olja du rgyal po nas brtsams Ie I mi'i dbang po bstan pa la mi phyed pa'; dad pa can j. 65 BSOD, 202 [BSOD 1,278]; this is absent from RGYAL, I07b. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 23 text. To be sure, from the more than a dozen Tibetan renditions, it was Shong ston Lo tsa ba's that was included in the early TaIljur manuscript canons and achieved widespread use and study, in spite of later revisions, especially the one by scholars active at Jo mo nang monastery.66 U rgyan pa's own transmissions of Kalacakra teachings included the one that passed through and was influenced by the Tibetan translation of this text by Chag Lo tsa ba Chos rje dpal (1197­1264), which he studied, together with other texts and related practices, under his eldest brother Go lung pa Mdo sde dpa1 rgyal mtshan in Go lung monastery. This line of transmission is usually referred to as the Chag tradition (chag lugs) and, indeed, it was among those transmissions that, like U rgyan pa himself, the young Shong ston had also first received from Go lung pa. 67 They were thus dharma­brothers (chos grogs). In the absence ofChag Lo tsa ba's translations, we do not know how different these may have been from Shong ston Lo tsa ba's versions. But there were probably several reasons why printing blocks were carved for the latter. What carried the most weight was no doubt the fact that Shong ston Lo tsa ba's renditions had received the imprimatur of Lama 'Phags pa, whose authority in Mongo] imperial circles was clearly beyond dispute. 68 His biographies nowhere indicate that U rgyan pa gave initiations in, or taught, the Kalacakra while in China, let alone when he was among the Mongols. The same holds for what appears to be a collage of the religious talks he 66 See the rather pertinent remarks by Jo nang Kun dga' grol mchog (1507­ 1566) in his biography of Byang bdag in connection with his studies of the text under Byams gling Pary chen Bsod nams mam rgyal (1400­75) and other scholars from 1444 onward in the Rjgs Idan chos kyi rgyal po rnam rgyal grogs pa bzang po'i rnam par thar pa rab bsngags snyan pa'i 'brng sgra, Ngam ring monastery xylograph, 21 b ff. The colophon of the print states on fol. 34b that it was written by btsun pa Grol mchog in Byang Ngam ring monastery with Blo bde bzang po as his scribe. It was then committed to the printing block with the patronage ofKun dga' rin chen grags pa'i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, at the time ruler of Byang, with the aid of ascribe by the name of ShrTbadzra [= Opal {?Idan} rdo rje]. 67 Shong ston Lo tsa ba is mentioned but once in BSOD, 159 [BSOD1, 221] and RGYAL, 80a­b, in connection with some Kalacakra teachings given to him by U rgyan pa. For the Chag tradition, see now the late Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan's Dpal dus kyi 'khor 10 jj Itar dar tshul brgyud pa'i 10 rgyus dang bcas pa skal bzang rna ba'j dga' slon, Skar nag rtsis kyi 10 rgyus skor, vol. I, ed. Byams pa 'phrin las (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998),250­5. 68 It is not yet clear whether this has any historical truth to it but, writing in 1640, 'Brug pa Sangs rgyas rdo rje (1569­1645) notes a tradition that has it that Lama 'Phags pa had become "displeased" (mi dgyes pal with Shong ston Lo tsa ba after his translations; see the two versions of his Gnas gsum gsal byed nor bu'i me long, a handwritten dbu med text in Responses to Various Polemical Writings. Mkhas dbang Sangs rgyas rdo rye, Indo­Tibetan Buddhist Literature Series, vol. 133 (Rewalsar, 1985),355, and a handwritten dbu can text in his Collected Works, vol. 5 (Kathmandu: Shri Gautam Bud[d]ha Vihara, 1995),450. 24 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUUP gave while at the court. 69 These deal in the main vvith standard exoteric Mahayana subjects and were evidently designed for easy consumption by the laity and, as far as I have been able to determine, the Kalacakra does not figure in this collection. The colophon of the Laghukalacakratantra xylograph states furthermore that the scribe (yi ge'i rnkhan po) was a certain Rtse lnga Rin chen dpa!. Tibetan rtse lnga usually refers to Mount Wutai. We know that U rgyan pa spent some time there while he was returning to Tibet from Qubilai's court, but it is impossible that this Rin chen dpal was U rgyan pa. It must have been his name­sake, for the carving of the printing blocks took place after Qubilai's passing and thus after he had sojourned there. A final word. With some important variations, the biographies ofU rgyan pa by Bsod nams 'od zer and Rgyal shrt contain a very interesting, if somewhat wooden, narrative from which we learn not only that the Kalacakra corpus was still studied in Kashmir in the thirteenth century ­ this is not exactly unexpected news ­, but also that its study was not solely confined to men. Women, too, actively participated in its practice and were in fact able to achieve considerable renown on account of their expertise in it. 70 Returning from U99iyana [Swat] en route to Tibet, U rgyan pa and his modest party traversed the Kashmir Valley and ultimately arrived in Srtnagar in'the late l250s, but before Rgod tshang pa's passing. There, they entered into a conversation with their host at whose house they were staying. For some reason, he wanted to determine whether these strangers were really Buddhists (chos pa), as they professed they were, and this lead him to invite several individuals to test U rgyan pa in particular. The ensuing Tibetan text of either narrative is by no stretch of the imagination great literature and the protagonists only "say" things and do not "ask" questions or "reply" to them; one recension ofBsod nams 'od zer's narrative says the following: par}¢ita 1 bkug nas byung: paIJ4ita de na re : khyod chos pa yin na chos ci shes zer : del' grub thob rin po che pas rnngon pa shes tshad rna yang rnnyan gsungs nas : chos kyi gsung glengs rndzad pas: rnngon pa shes par 'dug: tshad rna yang rnnyan 'dug: gzhan ci shes zer : dpal dus kyi 'khor 10 shes gsungs pas: rdzun zer bar 'dug zer nas ha las te thai rno rdebs cing 'dug: del' rdzun rna yin dpal dus kyi 'khor 69 See the Grub thob chell po a rgyall pa'i gsung sgros tshogs chos rin chen phreng ba, seventy­five folio handmitten dbu med, uncalalogued C.P,N. manuscript. Fol. lb mentions that his "potential" or actual audience included the emperor, vassals[s] (rgyal phran), the prince[s], the imperial envoys (gser yig po), VIPs (mi chen), chiliarch[s] (Slang dpOIl), etc. The text itsel f seems to be a collage of several talks. 70 BSOD, 70­1 [BSODI, 99­100] and RGYAL, 38a. I follow by and large the readings of the first. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 25 10 de nges par shes gsungs pas : dus 'khor shes rni shes brtag pa'i phyir du : dus 'khor gyi pat} chung 1 bkug nas de dang gsung glengs rndzad pas: grub thob rin po che mkhas par byung : yang khong gis rgan rna 1 bkug nas byung ste : rgan rna de'i blo la dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i 'grel chen dri rna rned pa'i 'od byang po yod pa 1 'dug: [? rgan rno de ni khyod ni kha che'i yul khams tsam na dus kyi 'khor 10 la mkhas pa lags skad:] rgan rno de dang dpal dus kyi 'khor lola gsung glengs mdzad pas: rje grub thob rin po che'i thugs (la] dus kyi 'khor lo'i 'grel chen gal che pa dka' pa mams la nan tan cher mdzad pas rna [b]snyel.: gzhan rnams byang po rna byung pas: rgan rna de na re : khyod kyis dus 'khor mnyan 'dug: mkhas po mi shes pa 'dra zer : ngas shes bya rnarns rtsa 4n du dol' nas yun ring po song: u rgyan la sogs pa rgyal khams mang po zhig [b ]skor bas brjed pa yin zhes gsungs pas: de khyed bden : bod kyi par:ujita 'dug zer ba[s] ... A paQ9ita was called and the pal).9ita said "If you are a Buddhist, what Buddhism do you know?" To that, the precious Grandthaumaturge [U rgyan pal said: "I know Buddhist phenomenology (rnngon pa = abhidharrna); I studied logic and epistemology as wei!." Then, because of [their ensuing] discussion of Buddhism, [the pal).9ita ] said: "[You] know Buddhist phenomenology, you studied logic and epistemology as wei!. What else do you know?" [U rgyan pal said: "I know the Kalacakra." Thereupon [the pal).9ita] replied "You are lying." Astonished and clapping his hands, he said to him "It is not a lie, I certainly know the Kalacakra!" Thereupon, a junior pal).9ita [RGYAL has: "two junior PaI).9itas"] in the Kalacakra was called in order to examine whether or not he knew the Kalacakra. Because of his discussion with him, the precious Grand-thaumaturge emerged as a scholar [in the Kalacakra]. Then, he [? the junior pal).l;lita, their host] called for an old lady. That old lady's mind lucidly had the Great Commentary of the KaIacakra, the Virnalaprabha. 71 [..72] By discussing the Kalacakra with the old lady, the precious 71 RGYAL has: "(She] was one skilled in recitlOg the Great Commentary, the Vimalaprabha, by heart." (de'i blo 10 'grel chen dri med 'ad kha bton byang pa 1 'dug). The very same ability is also attributed, for example, to Lo tsa ba Byang chub rtse mo, for which see Stag lung Ngag dbang roam rgya!'s (1571-1626) 1609 Slag lung chos 'byllng, ed. Thar gling Byams pa tshe ring, Gangs can rig mdzod, vol. 22 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod y'g dpe roying dpe skrun khang, 1992), 359. 72 The texts of 8S0D and 8S0D I vary here considerably. BSOD I has: rgan mo de'; yum ni klryer zer kha che'i yul khams Isam la dus 'khor la mkhas po lags skad 1 .... rje grub chen rin po che'i thugs la 1 dus kyi 'khor 10'; dka' dka' dang 1 gal che 10 nan Ian cher mdzad pas mi snyel I. I do not quite understand the first line. RGVAL has: "My husband is [or: was] known 26 TH E KA.LACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM LEONARD WJ. VAN DER KUIJP Grand­thaumaturge had not forgotten the Great Commentary, since he had taken great pains [in understanding] the important difficult parts. [But] since the other [parts] did not come [to him so] lucidly, the old lady said: "You did study the Kalacakra, [but] you seem not to know [this work as] an expert." [U rgyan pal replied: "A long time has passed since I got rid like a root of what should be known. I have forgotten [it] because I roamed through many regions such as Ｌ｡ｮ ｹｩｾｬ［＼ｕ etc." "You are right," [she said], "[you] are a Tibetan Pal).<;lita."... A reference to the pnntmg of the [Kiilacakratantra]uttaratantra[hrdaya]73 with, we can suppose, Mongol imperial support is found in one of Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan's (1552­1624) remarkable studies of criticisms levelled against the Rnying rna pa tradition, which is dated 1605.74 There we lind an interesting interlinear note anent an early fourteenth century Tibetan xylograph of this text. The gloss reads as follows: rO/lg po rdo rje rgyal mtshan pas I rgyud phyi ma spar du bzhe/lgs pari mjug byang du I 'dzam gling byang phyogsl rgya /lag yul chen gyP II rgyal po'i pho bra/lg ta'i ru zhes grags pa'i II mkhar gyi Iho phyogsl /lam si3 zhes pa'i sder II sngon med spar 'di sgrub4 'dod blo skyes nas II... 1. Missing in New Delhi ed. 2. New Delhi ed., gyis. 3. Chengdu ed., ki. 4. Chengdu ed., bsgrub. In the concluding colophon of the Rgyudphyi ma (Uttaratantra) that was prepared as a blockprint by Rong po Rdo rje rgyal mtshan75 it is said: as a scholar in but the Great Commentary [= Vimolaprabhii]" (ngo'i khyo go cheyn [= 'grel chen] tsam na mkhas shes grags). 73 TIvol. 16, no. 363 [# 3631], 37/5­41/7 [Ka, 129a­40a]. 74 See his Gsang sngags snga 'gyur la bod du rtsod pa snga phyir byung ba rnams kyi Ian du brjod pa nges pa don gyi 'brug sgra, Collected Writings, vol. \ (New Delhi, 1975),573 [= ed. Padma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997),312]. 75 For Rong po Rdo rje rgyal mtshan, see 'GOS, 696­8 ['GOSI, 928­9, Roerich 1979: 792·4, Guo 1985: 519­20J, where his dates are given as 1283 to 1325 ­ 'Gos Lo tsa ba says that he died aged forty­three [= forty­two] ., and where it is stated that he went to the Mongol 27 "A desire having been born [in me] to establish this unprecedented print at the monastery called Nam si « Ch. Nansi, 'Southern Monastery'), south of the city famous as Ta'i ru « Ch. Da[i]du)76, the imperial residence of the great land of China [in] the northern region of Jambudvfpa, .." From the dates of Rong po Rdo rje rgyal mtshan and the little infonnation we have about his life, we can assume that this xylograph of the Tibetan translation of the Kalacakroltaratantra must have originated sometime between 1310 and 1325. Not one xylograph from these printing blocks has been sighted so far. A xylograph of what is possibly the Vimalaprabhii is noted in Ngor chen's undated biography of his master Grub chen Buddhashrf (13391420).77 There he writes that BuddhashrTs ?estranged father, National Preceptor Dpal 'byor legs pa, an erstwhile attendant of Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (\310-58) of Sa skya's Lha khang Residence, "had made a xylograph of a conunentary on the Dpal 'dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud in Mongolia." Though the exegesis in question probably refers to Vimalaprabha, we cannot a priori exclude the possibility that it was Lama dam pa's own study of the Vimalaprabhii, the more so since the Tibetan literature most frequently calls the Vimalaprabhii the "Great Commentary" ('grel chen). Though by no means an open and shut case, materials in support of the hypothesis that it was Lama dam pa's Vimalaprabha commentary for imperial court in a dog-year which Roerich identified with the year 1310; 1322 would also be a possibility, 'Gos Lo tsa ba's account is probably based in part on Bu ston's history of the Kalacakra system where Rong po's biography is given in his Rgyud sde'; zab don sgo 'byed r;n chen gces pa'i Ide mig, The Collected Works of Bu ston (and Sgro tshad pal [Lhasa print], part 4 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1965), 72-3. Bu ston writes that he was born in 1283, that he left for the court in a dog-year, and gives the first day of the tenth month of an ox-year as the date on which he passed away, whereas 'Gos Lo tsa ba reads here the "wood-female-ox year." Of course, Rong po was a major teacher of Bu ston for the Kalacakra, among other things, and he figures prominently in his record of teachings received, Bu ston's Kalacakra history was written in 1329, and his biographer Sgra tshad pa indicates that they met in the early 1320s, so that his "ox-year" ean only be the year 1325. For this, see D. Seyfort Ruegg, The Life of Bu s/on Rin po che. With the llbeton Text ofthe Bu ston rnam thar, Serie Orientale Roma XXXIV (Roma: Istituto Italiano per it Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966), 87-9. Hence, the date of his passing, according to au ston, must have been October 17, 1325. 76 For Nonsi, as opposed to Reisi, "Northern Monastery," see vs, 20, 434, in an entry for the year 1301. 77 The following is taken from the Grub chen buddha shrf ba'i mam par thor po, Sa skya Lam 'bras Literature Series, vol. I (Dehra Dun: Sakya Cenlre, 1983),414-5; see also SSBB voL 9, no. 34, 36/4 (hor yul du dpal dus kyi 'khor 10'; rgyud 'grel gyi par mdzad pa po), 37/1. LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP 28 which the printing blocks were carved are collected in the next paragraph. We do not know how often, if at all, Kun dga' rgyal mtshan had been able to return to Tibet. The longest sketch of his life by Ames zhabs, which is still miserably short, has nothing to say about this,n nor do any of the other sources used for this essay. If he had not, then this could mean that either Dpal 'byor legs pa had been in his service before he left for the Mongol court in 1332, or that he joined him while he was in China, or both, namely, that he had been his attendant in Tibet and that he came to China at a later date. Supposing that he did not meet Buddhashrl's mother Sgroi rna 'bum in China, and there is no reason for us to do so, then we must assume that he was at least in Tibet in the year 1338, for Sgroi rna 'bum gave birth to her son in Sgo phu, a monastery in Mdog, located to the northeast of Ngam ring in Byang La stod. Ngor chen mentions his father next in connection with the ordination of his son as a monk in 1361. There we learn that, shortly after his ordination, BuddhashrI organized a large farewell party for his father's impending voyage to China. Lastly, Ngor chen suggests that his father's status as National Preceptor had made him quite wealthy. He relates this in a longer narrative in which he sketches the saintliness of his master, especially in terms of his unbridled generosity. We read there the following: 79 rje nyid kyi yab hoI' yul du byan pas dngos po bsam kyis mi khyab pa yad kyang / de dag la 'dzin pa cung zad kyang mi mnga' ba / phal cher yab yum gnyis kyi dan du rdzogs par mdzad cing / ... Although the lord's father owned inconceivable thing[s] because he had gone to Mongolia, [BuddhashrI] did not take even a little of these [and] for the better part fulfilled the aim[s] of his father and mother:.. We can therefore conclude that, at an unspecified time but probably after the fall of the Yuan, Dpal 'byor legs pa went to Mongolia and it was there that he became involved as the editor of this xylograph. This could indicate that he had relocated to Qara Qorum [= Ch. Helin]. However, the earliest known National Preceptor of Qara Qorum, according to an entry dated 1375, was *Rdo rje dge legs dpal bzang po "of the former Ylian,"80 78 NGAG, 330­1 [Chen­Gao­Zhou 1989: 229­30). 79 Grub chen buddha shrf ba'i mam par thar pa, Sa skya Lam 'bras Literature Series, 421, and SSBB vol. 9, no. 34, 3911. 80 See the Mingshilu zangzu shiliao, ed. Gu Zucheng et al.. vol. J (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe. 1982), 26 If.; for the second character ji. read er, as in Tamura Jitsuz6, ed., Minda; manmoshiryo vol. 10 (Kyoto: Kyoto University, [959), II. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 29 and they ought not to be confused with one another. So far, no xylograph from these printing blocks has been retrieved. Sgroi rna 'bum is of course not an unusual name for a Tibetan woman. Yet, one cannot help but wonder whether she is not the same Sgroi rna 'bum, who later became the mother of Sa bzang Gzhon nu blo gros (1358­1412), another one of Ngor chen's teachers. 81 His father was the monk Gzhon nu dpal and Ngor chen's silence on their possible identity may, perhaps, be interpreted in the sense that this was a delicate and sensitive issue. After all, his father was a monk! These, then, are the extant references to Mongol sponsorship of the printing of Kalacakra texts. Now the miscellaneous writings of the great Sa skya pa scholar Lama dam pa contained in vol. Na [= vol. 12] of an incomplete handwritten dbu can edition of his collected oeuvre housed in the Tibetan library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities adds several significant details to our dossier on the Kalacakra in Yuan China. 82 The volume in question contains three short, undated letters that have to do with it and what appears to be his 0\\'11 commentary on the Vimalaprabhii, titled Nges pa'i don gyi gsal byed. The Tibetan texts of these letters wiII be published elsewhere. The first is primarily addressed to Toghon Temiir Qaghan (Shundi Emperor; r. July 19, 1333, to September 14, 1368; r. in Mongolia to May 23, 1370), but also mentions prince Ayushiridara (133978), the son he had with his Korean wife, who became heir-apparent (hwang tha'i tshe < Ch. huanglaizi) in 1355. 83 It is essentially a letter of introduction and recommendation for a Lama Legs pa ba, an expert in esoteric and exoteric Buddhism, whom Bla rna dam pa proposed to the court as a teacher of Buddhism, expressing the hope that he be treated as well as Lama Kun dga' rgyal po ba [= doubtless Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' rgyal mtshan]. The other two are addressed to Ayushiridara. The first is a letter of recommendation for this same Lama Legs pa ba, albeit this time made quite explicitly in connection with the Kalacakra. Lama dam pa writes that the the Dus kyi 'khor 10 'i rika, "a editorial corrections to 81 See the Bfa rna dam pa sa bZQllg 'phags pa gzhon IlU blo gros Icyi rnam par thar pa, SSBB vol. 9, no. 35, 4214. Though his dates are said to be the earth-male-dog [1358] to water-maledragon [1412] year, we nonetheless read on p. 4412 that [shortly before his passing] he felt somewhat unwell at the age of sixty-seven [= sixty-six]! 82 For an analysis ofa portion of this collection, ,ee van der Kuijp (1993). 83 Lama dam pa also refers to him as the rgyaf tshab dam pa, the "noble representative [of the emperor]," and fgyal sras dam pa, "the noble son of the emperor.'" This prince is mentioned but once in Lo tsft ba Byang chub rtse mo's biography of Bla rna dam pa, in BYANG, 50a, as the Great ｲｯ ･ｾｭｅ (gong ma chen po) A ｹｵｾ [II] rda ra shrf in an entry for the year 1373. For him, see also Dictionary of Ming Biography, voLl, ed. 1. Carrington Goodrich and Chaoyang Fang (New York; Columbia University Press, 1976), 15-7. 30 LEONARDW.J. VAN DERKUIJP [Laghu]klilacakra[tantra] commentary," that had previously not been completed are now finished (zhus dag sngar rna grub pa ding sang legs par grub) and that this Lama Legs pa ba had a full command of the corpus as well as of the pentad of Maitreya texts. It adds furthermore that Duke (gu'i gung < Ch. guogung) Chos kyi rin chen (?_1402)84 was the one at whose behest he had \\Titten it. The exegesis referred to here, in which Ayushiridara apparently had some interest, would thus appear to have been Lama dam pa's very own study of the Vimalaprabha. Only his comments on the Abhisekha and Jfiana-chapters have been located so far, meaning that three­fifths of his large­scale work is still missing. 85 In Lama dam pa's 84 For the titles of guogung and [dai]situ, see Farquhar (1990: 30­1). Called Si tu Chos kyi rin chen in BYANG, 41a, he requested Kalacakra teachings from Lama dam pa towards the end of 1362. The same as Tari] si tu Chos kyi rin chen, he was closely linked to the House of Byang, having maITied into this family after which his daughter Byang sems 'Bum skyong rgyal mo wedded gu'i gung Chos grags dpal bzang po of the same family; see Dpal Idan chos kyi bzang po, Sde pa gyas ru byang pa'; rgyal rabs rin po che bstar ba, Rare Tibetan Historical and Lilerary Texts from the Library of Tsepon WD. Shakabpa (New Delhi, 1974), 175, 183 [Ibid., G.yas ru byang pa'i gdung rabs, twenty­four­folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002833, 4b, 8b]. He was myriarch ofLho. Bo dong PaQ chen's study of the history of the Guhyasarnajatantra, specifically, the biography of his maternal uncle Lo tsa ba Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1352/3­1405) notes him severally; see the Gsang 'dus lung rigs man ngag stan par byed pa'i bla rna tshad rna'! 10 rgyus, Encyclopedia Tibelica. The Collected Works of Eo dong Pun chen Phyogs las mam rgyal, vol. 64 (New Delhi: The Tibet House, 1972),468 If., 480­1, as indicated in D.P. Jackson, The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section JJl). Sa skya ｐ｡ｾｴＯｩ on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramtif}a and Philosophical Debate, 134, 154, n. 46. There we read that he was the founder of Shel dkar monastery, in 1383, albeit together with Grags pa rgyal mtshan after the latter had been appointed "representative / successor" (rgya1 tshab) ofBla rna Mnyam med pa chen po [Grags pa rgya[ mtshan] of Sa skya's Grang mo che Residence; on the latter, see my "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History l: Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan as a Man of Religion," Indo-Iranian Journal 37 (1994), 143­4. Chos kyi rin chen's death is dated the tenth day of dbo month of the chu pho rta year which is the equivalent of March \4, 1402. For Chos kji rin chen, see now also Ngag dbang skal Idan rgya mtsho, Shel dkar chos 'byung. HislOry of the "While Crystal," tr Pasang Wangdu and H. Diemberger (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschallen, 1996), 30 ff., and K.­H. Everding, Das Konigreich Mang yul Gung thang. Konigtum und Herrschaftsgewalt im Tibet des 13.­17. Jahrhundert, Teil 2, Studien zur Geschichte des Reiches, Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abt.: Scriptores, Band 6 (Tei! 2) (Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000), Index, 739. 85 Vol. Ca of his oeuvre [and most likely vol. Cha which is missing from this collection] includes his various exegeses of the Kalacakra literature, of which only the first text entitled 'Gre! chert dri med 'ad kyi bsdus pa'i dOli rnam par gsal ba, a summary of the Vimalaprabhti, is dated July 26, 1363; see van der Kuijp (1993: 139­40). In an entry for the years 1442­3, Byams gling PaQ chen Bsod nams mam rgyal's (1400­75) biography of 1486 by his disciple Rgya ston Lcags ri pa Byang chub mam rgyal mentions that the Phag mo gru ruler gong ma Grags pa 'byung gnas (1414­45) urged to him to write a longer and more derailed work than the very substantial text of Lama dam pa and the incomplete, but nonetheless large, TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 31 biography, Lo tsa ba Byang chub rtse mo writes that he had completed writing it sometime in 1360­1 and that, in an entry for the year 1362, Swi du « Ch. situ) Chos [kyi] rin [chen] had requested him to teach it ­ he was its zhu ba po86 The last and third letter states inter alia that he had met Lama Legs pa ba when the latter had come to Tibet, and that the writing of his subcommentary had not yet been completed. He adds that when the Lama was residing for a while in Shing khun, the original was borrowed and that the copied text would be sent as soon as possible. It is therefore not at all improbable that this Lama Legs pa ba was in fact none other than BuddhashrI's father, but a large margin of uncertainty remains. None of these letters are dated and my discussion of their contents followed the order in which they occur in vol. Na. Lama dam pa's strong letters of recommendation might also be interpreted in the sense that he thought Lama Legs pa ba would be the right man for the job of Imperial Preceptor that had been vacant since 1358. This was not to be. KALACAKRA INITIAnONS. There are several other instances of the obvious interest the Mongol imperial family took in the Kalacakra corpus. For example, we read in Tshal pa's chronicle that sometime towards the end of 1337 Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284­1339), whom U rgyan pa had recognized as the reembodiment of Karma pa II Karma pakshi (1204/683) in circa 1288, gave Kalacakra empowerments to the emperor and his ministers at Dadu. 87 This passage occurs in a longish narrative which, Tshal pa acknowledges, he had summarized from long and short versions of the Karma pa's mlffi autobiographical writings. Tshal pa, our foremost and earliest source for these, also intersperses his summaries with his own personal observations. For example, just prior to his notice of the Karma pa giving what he calls the "Great Kalacakra Empowerment" (dus 'khor dbang mo che), he remarks that from 1333 up to his time of writing [1359], Toghon Temiir's reign had been characterized by happiness and stability, and that this and its duration had everything to do with the blessings imparted to him and his family by the Karma pa. Of course, this paints at a minimum a much too rosy a picture. Sometime in 1337, presumably during the summer, the commentary of Mkhas grub [see n. 51]. The ruler told him not to worry about getting too prolix and that he ought to strive for a truly comprehensive treatment. He did so with a vengeance and therefore did not complete his seven-volume study until the years 1455-6. For this, see the Dpal Idan byams pa gling pa chell po'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar gyi phreng ba, ninety-live-folio handwritten dbu /lied manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002775(1), 30a ff 86 BYANG, 38b, 41a. 87 TSHAL, 104 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 91]. This detail was apparently taken from a large and a summary version of Karma pa III's autobiographical notes (rie de nyid kyis gsung pa'i rnam t!Jar rgyas bsdus rnams las btus!). 32 LEONARD WJ. VAN DER KUIJP Karma pa saw a significant omen in Shangdu indicating to him that all was about to take a turn for the worse. Hoping for some kind of intervention, he thus proceeded to petition Avalokitesvara, Tibet's patron­Bodhisattva, and soon received the [ungenerous] sign that the emperor and those present who were Buddhists would not come to hann. A calamity then struck during the eighth [lunar] month of 1337, when a large earthquake occurred at Mount Jiming (Tib. Gim mi shan) in the vicinity ofDadu. In his paper on the Karma pa's travels to and stay in Yuan China, Chen Qingying draws attention to two notices of an earthquake near Dadu in the Yuanshi, one in 1334 and the other one in 1337. It reports that during the one of 1334 Mount (shall) Jiming had collapsed (beng) and that a lake had been formed. 88 This does not pose a serious problem when we assume that the name of this place had not changed in the three intervening years, or that the word shan indicates here several mountains. The versified study of the Karma pa's life by Zhwa dmar II Mkha' spyod dbang po (1350­1405) is so far the earliest Tibetan source to date this quake to the fourteenth day of that month, which would correspond to September 9 of that year. 89 This is exactly to the date given for the beginning of a series of quakes that lasted through to September 14 in the Yuanshi. Fortunately, this event had been [pre­jintuited (mkhyen) by the Karma pa who had already left his residence and was staying encamped on a plain. But the quake was severe enough for him to report that, because villages had been destroyed, all the Chinese inhabitants (rgya) had fled and that no harm had come to the places where those who had requested the Kanna pa for refuge and other teachers and disciples were staying. We do not know what happened to the unfortunate ones who were not his disciples. [n any case, he gave the KaIacakra empowerments and initiations shortly thereafter. 88 This mountain is identified in Chen Qing)1ng, "A Sketch of Kanna pa Rang byung rdo rJe's Two Trips to the [Yuan] Capital[s] [in Chinese]," Zhongguo Zangxue 3 (1988),97. [ thank Mr. Toh Hongteik for reminding me of this article. See also Franke (1990: 107). 89 See the Chos rje thams cad mkhyen pa rang byung rdo rie'i rnam thar (shigs bead mao Collected Works, vol. II (Gangtok, 1978), 156, and the parallel passage of Si tu VIII Pat) chen Chos kyi 'byung gnas' (1700­74) in sr, 224. The Karma pa's biography in Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal"s massive 1447 chronicle of the Bka' brgyud pa school even suggests that he went to Mount Jiming on the fourteenth day of the said month and year; see the Lho rong chos 'byung, ed. Gling dpon Pad rna skal bzang and Ma grong Mi 'gyur rdo rje, Gangs can rig mdzod 26 (Lhasa: Bod Ijongs bod yig dpe mying dpe skrun khang, 1994), 242 [Ibid., Bka' brgyud rin po che'i 10 rgyus phyogs gclg til bsgrigs pa'i gsol 'debs rgyas pa, four hundred and forty­six­folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002448(6), J36a]. The corresponding passage of Dpa' bo II, in DPA', 941. has him intuiting the pending earthquake while he sojourned on this mountain. TH E KA.LACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OFTIBETAN BUDDHISM 33 Though granted the title of National Preceptor on May 19, 1334 (khyi 10 zla ba Inga pa'i nya la),90 Karma pa ill was never formally appointed Imperial Preceptor and for this reason his name does not appear in any of the more chronologically proximate listings of the individuals who held this office. And, indeed, Tshal pa and the other later biographies of this hierarch rightly make no mention of this. But there is at Icast one more or less contemporaneous Chinese source and one late Tibetan text that do predicate this title of him. In an entry for the year 1337, Quan Heng says in his Gengshen waishi that he was "honored as a dishi," and that this was the rank that [laishil] El Temiir (?­1333) had held previously.91 These men knew each other. According to Tshal pa, they first met on the eighteenth day of the tenth lunar month [November 6] of 1332, that is, the very same day on which the Kanna pa arrived at the imperial palace in Dadu. The entry in the Yuanshi for the jiazi day of the tenth lunar month [November 16] of 1332 says that *EI Tegiis, the second son of Tugh Temiir Qaghan [Wenzong emperor, r. October 16, 1328 ­ 26 February 26, 1329, September 8, 1329 September 2, 1332 took his vows (shoujie) from the Western monk Jia'ermawa (*Karma pa).92 His name in religion may have been something along the lines of *GUJ:ladhara, at least that is how P. Pelliot interpreted the Chinese. The circumstance that hc was not given a Tibetan name in all likelihood means that the Kanna pa did not function as his "abbot" (mkhan po, upadhyiiya) and thus playcd a marginal role in the rituals of his ordination. Now Tshal pa 93 writes in an entry for January 31, 1333 (bya 10 zla ba dang po'i nya), that, donning his black hat and intoning the fIIal}i pad [= 90 TSHAL, 102 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 90). YS, 39, 843, says that: "In that year [1334], the Western-region monk Jialima [Karrna{pa}] came to the imperial city [of Dadu] and was awarded the title "Initiating National Preceptor" (gzwnding guoshi) and given ajade seal [of office]." See also below ad n. 92. We have to be careful with reconstructing these dates according to the Tibetan calendar[s], for there is some evidence, for which see below, that the Karma pa used the Chinese calendar in the entries of his autobiographical writings. This will require further study, especially bearing in mind his own work on the calendar, for which see abovc n. 36. This also means that my equivalents of the dates based on his autobiogmpbical writings are subject to furthet scrutiny. 91 We find this in Schulte-Uffelage (1963: 32) and thence in Franke (1990: 102, note 4). For some reservations, see my "On the Life and Political Career of Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan (1302-?1364)," Tibetall History and La:lguage. Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza On His Sevelltieth Birthday, E. Steinkellner, ed. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heir 26 (Wien: Arbeitskreis flir Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991),306, n 35. 92 YS, 37, 812. See also L. Hambis, Le chapitre eVfl du Yuan che [avec des notes supptementairespar Paul Pe//iot) (Leiden: EJ. Brill. 1945), 141. 93 TSHAL, 102 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 90]. LEONARD W.J. VAN DERKUlJP 34 om malJi padma hum] mantra, the Karma pa was able to open a pathway through the throngs of people [a flash­crowd?] who had come to watch the young Toghon Temiir and his entourage arrive at Dadu. The emperordesignate had traveled from southern China (sman tse'i yul). Neither the Yuanshi nor Quan Heng say when exactly he had left Guilin in Guangxi Province for the north, or when he arrived at his destination, which they leave unspecified. He most probably arrived at the palace in Dadu straight from Liangxiang, some thirty miles to the south of Dadu. 94 In Liangxiang, he was met by El Temiir and other notables, and it was possibly also there that Toghon Temiir and the Karma pa paid their mutual respects. Tshal pa writes in ;95 sbrel dkar chen po'i mdun du rgyal po nyid byon nas bsu zhing zhabs la btugs I mos gus dang dbul ba bsal gyis mi khyab I The emperor himself having come to the front of [his] large sbrel dkar, met [the Karma pal and touched [his] feet; [the emperor gave him] great reverence and inconceivable [number of] gifts." Irrespective of what sbrel or sbral dkar means, we can be sure that for the Chinese who were present this sequence of events was a serious and enormous breach of protocol. It is not what one expects an emperor to be doing. Though so many years junior to the Karma pa, the young Toghon Temiir was still the emperor-designate and, as such, his behavior must have been a cause for concern among the Chinese courtiers. In the privacy of their own thoughts, they may have shrugged it off as the kind of behavior one can expect of non-Chinese barbarians. Nonetheless, it is of some interest that the corresponding passage in Dpa' bo Irs chronicle suggests that it was the Karma pa who came to the seated emperor and showed him proper respect and obeisance. This may reflect a very different sensibility concerning 94 Schulte-Uffelage (1963: 28). 95 TSHAL, 102; TSHALl, 58a, has shral dkar ellen mo. Chcn-Zhou (1988: 89) render shrel dkar by hada, that is, kha btags, the white ceremonial scarf used for official greetings and other purposes. But this is not possible. But the meaning of the expression sbral dkar remains elusive, as I have found no dictionary entries for it; sbrel makes no sense. On the other hand, DPA', 939·40, has rgyal po gur dkar chen po na gser khri la hzhugs pas rgyang ring po nas sngun hsus te..."Since the emperor was seated on a golden throne in a large white tent, [the Karma pal was led before him from afar...." Though also indebted to Dpa' bo II's narrative, SI, 217, has: shre/ dkar gzim gur chen mo'i mdun du / 1IIi dhang rgyal po chen po nyid byon nas /..., here gzim gur means residential tent and shre/ dkar seems to be used attributively with respect to the tent. Schuh (l977: 133) paraphrases the passage of 81, 217, in which the relevant line occurs, but does not deal with this problematic line per se. TH E KA.LACAKRA k'JD PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 35 matters of protocol on Dpa' bo IT's part who, after all, was writing in the heyday of the Ming. Then, upon the request of the still powerful empress dowager Budashiri96 and other dignitaries, including El Temiir, the Karma pa gave them an unidentified tantric empowerment, an event that may very well have taken place in Dadu. To be noted is Toghon Temiir's absence from this brief list of attendees. Shortly thereafter one the Karma pa's attendants by the name of Grags pa brtson 'grus was appointed Secretary (tshen dben < Ch. qianyuan) of the Bureau of Imperial Blessings. 97 We then learn, as is so well-known from Chinese sources, that El Temiir got into serious trouble for his machinations and intrigue. Tshal pa, now narrator rather than the excerpter of the Karma pa's autobiographical sketches writes: 98 mi dpon mang pos mtha'i shri la ngan brtsams nas 'khrugs pa chen po yong bar byung ba I chos rjes zhal ta byon nas bde 'jam la bkodl A great amount of trouble arose after many officials had begun to be nasty to the Taishi [= El Temiir). The Lord of Religion, having come to, established peace and quiet [among them]. 96 A translation of her very short biography in the Yuanshi may be found in F. w. Cleaves, "The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1335 in Memory of Chang Ying-jui," Han'ard Journal ojAsiatic Studies 13 (1950),35-6. 97 For the identification of tha'/ hi dben with dlUiyuall, see Franke (1990: 113); for this bureau, see Farquhar (1990: 139, 162, n. 82·3), who has laixiyuan. The reading dbon [for yuan] is found in TSHAL, but not in TSHALl, 58a, which has the more correct dben. Chen· Zhou (1988: 89) and Chen Qingying, "A Sketch ofK.anna pa Rang byung rdo rje's Two Trips to the [Yuan] Capital[sj" [in Chinese], 96, suggest that the Tibetan reflects Chinese taihuiyuan, but no bureau by this name ever seems to have existed under the Yuan. According to Chinese sources, the taixiyuan was established in 1328, but its name was already changed in 1329 to become the Bureau oflmperiaJ Cults, the taui zongyin yuan. It is thus possible that Tibetan tha'i hi is short for taui zongyin. Though tempting, the equation tlla'i hi dhen < Ch. tai'iyuan, Bureau of Medicine, is probably untenable. For its administration, see P. Ratchnevsky, Ull code des Yuan, Tome second (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972),46 ff. and Farquhar (1990: 34-6). To be sure, why Grags pa brtson 'grus would have been appointed to the last office is not altogether clear, unless, perhaps, he was trained in traditional Tibetan medicine. We know that the Karma pa himself wrote a highly influential materia medica titled Sman ming rgya mlsho. Regardless of this, the only other medical tradition this bureau countenanced beside the Chinese one was the Muslim Arabo-Persian one. It is thus not likely that Tibetan tha'i hi dben reflects Chinese tai1iyuon. 98 TSHAL, 102 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 88-9]. 36 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP This then was the first encounter between the future emperor and the Karma pa. TshaJ pa [or the Karma pa] says that he was enthroned in Shangdu during the sixth lunar month. On the surface, this date appears to contradict the Chinese dossier on his enthronement, which holds that it took place on July 19, a day that occurred in the seventh Tibetan lunar month, July 12 being the last day of the Tibetan sixth lunar month. 99 Again, Zhwa dmar II is our first Tibetan source to be a bit more precise. He states that, when Toghon Temiir was at his residence (gdan sa) on the eighth day of the sixth lunar month of that year, a number of omens appeared that the Karma pa felt were extremely positive in their purport. lOO It so happens that the eighth day of the seventh Tibetan lunar month falls on July 19, and this means that, provided the tables generated by D. Schuh are not unreliable, the sources used by Tshal pa and Zhwa dmar II ­ these were presumably at least indirectly [for the latter] the Karma pa's autobiographical writings ­ utilized the Chinese and not the Tibetan calendar! It hardly requires saying that this is not altogether insignificant, although it is somewhat peculiar that the Karma pa apparently did not make use of his own calendar in these, which were most probably based on his very own diary entries. The study of his Rtsis kyi bstan bcos kun las btus pa becomes all the more an important desideratum. Consequently, from now on, we have to be on our guard when we use Tibetan literary sources that were written when their immediate authors were traveling in China. At the same time, we must also be aware that, when their writings are used in the later literature, the dates found in the "originals" are usually left intact. Lastly, what may be of singular importance is Dpa' bo II's allegation that the Karma pa was not merely present in Shangdu at this time, but that he in fact had empowered Toghon Temtir for his "office of great emperor" (rgyal po chen po'i go sa) and that he had made a speech on his behalf (dbang bskur te shis brjod mdzad).JOI That is to say, he suggests that the Karma pa played an important role during the new emperor's investiture. The question that needs to be asked is where was the Imperial Preceptor during all of this or, at least, who was he'! In spite of the Karma pa's obviously int1uential position at the court, we have to be skeptical of the association of the dishi title with him. Tradition and precedence carried much weight and Sa skya and the Imperial Preceptors that were bom in its families were powerful forces. So far the only Tibetan work I have come across where we learn that he was sometimes styled in this way is Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho's (1523­96) study of Buddhist chronology of 1587. No 99 Schuh (J 973: *89*). 100 Chos rje thams cad mkhyen pa rang byung rdo rje'; rIlam thar Ishigs bead ma, ] 54. 101 DPA',940, TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 37 great admirer of a number of traditions current in the Bka' brgyud pa school, Mang thos was one of the foremost sixteenth century Sa skya pa scholars to take aim and criticize these in no uncertain terms. He notes the allegation (zer) , which I cannot place at the present time, that the Karma pa was an Imperial Preceptor and, unexpectedly, reacts rather benignly by suggesting that he may have functioned as one at the beginning of Toghon Temiir's reign and at the same time (thog mtshungs) as Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, since he was so much the latter's senior. 102 Be this as it may, we cannot lend any credence to this assertion, if only because his contemporaneity with the bona fide Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' rgyal mtshan would present Us with a serious and a virtually unprecedented anomaly. Whereas there were many contemporaneous National Preceptors, no two Imperial Preceptors ever seem to have "reigned" at the same time, with perhaps only one exception during Qubilai's reign. Namely, according to the Yuanshi, I03 when Lama 'Phags pa was given permission to leave for Tibet in 1274, the court appointed his younger half­brother Rin chen rgyal mtshan (1239­79) as the in­house Imperial Preceptor, after which Lama 'Phags pa's still very young nephew Dharmapalarak.<iita (1268­87) was brought to the court as his replacement. Rin chen rgyal mtshan is not recognized as an Imperial Preceptor in any other Chinese or Tibetan source, and it is therefore unlikely that he was actually formally appointed as one. But perhaps Qubilai's reign was a special case. During one of his meetings with U rgyan pa in his palace in Shangdu, he made an fairly unambiguous overture to him by giving him the official jade seal (shel gyi dam kha < Mon. tamgha) that had belonged to Lama 'Phags pa l04 Having no desire to get involved with everything his acceptance of the seal would have implied, which may have included his acquiescence to the Imperial Preceptorship, U rgyan pa declined the gift and, after having stayed for about a month and a half, soon left the court under an ever darkening cloud. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that he 102 Bslan rtsis gsal ba'i nyin byed Ihag bsam rab dkar, ed. Nor brang 0 rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod, vol. 4 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 175: 'dis hor Iho hal! fhi mur gyi Iwi shri mdzad zer bas I spyir tho han thi mur gyis 10 nyer Inga rgyal srid mdzad pa'i stod la Ii shri ktln rgyal gyis twi shri mdzad I bar skabs su bla chen bsod bios mdzad I mjug ttltwi shri med pa 10 brgyad byung zer ba'i tho han gyl sku Ishe'i slod twi hri kun rgyal dang thog mtshtlngs tsam du /Wi shr; mdzad par mngon Ie I rang byung rdo rje twi shri kun rgyallas 10 nyer drug gis bgres pa yin pa 'i phyir ro II. There is obviously a problem with the number of years during which Toghon Temiir is said to have reigned [twenty­five!l, but its discussion will have to be reserved for another time. 103 YS, 8, 154, and YS, 202, 4517, as quoted in Petech (1990: 23, n.73). The date given for this is April 24, 1274, and occurred after Lama 'Phags pa had taken leave. 104 BSOD, 170 [BSODI, 236] and RGYAL, 87b. , I I 38 LEONARD W,J. VAN DER KUlJP departed from Central Tibet in 1292. 105 And if he left in late spring or early summer of that year, then he may very well have arrived in Shangdu in midor late­summer. At the time, Grags pa 'od zer (1246­1303) of Sa skya's Khang gsar Residence had been Imperial Preceptor for about a year and, if my take on these events is not incorrect, then it seems that the aged and ailing Qubilai felt no sense ofloyalty towards him. It seems to have been very important for the actual or acting Imperial Preceptor to reside at the court, an importance that was probably as much administrative as religious. It IS for this reason that I am inclined to hold that Karma pa III's title should be interpreted functionally in the sense that he had given the emperors certain empowerments and teachings, the more so since no Chinese and standard Bka' brgyud pa sources state that he had formally received the dishi title or that he was awarded, let alone used, the seal of this office. This is also how we need to interpret the statement of Nam mkba' bsod nams [or his sources] when he writes in his chronicle of the Gtsang tsha family (brgyutf) of the Rngog branch­clan that one of its scions Ri bo pa Rin chen bzang po (1231­1307) [or 1243­1319]) "became a great Imperial Preceptor" (Ii shr? chen por gyur).106 Chos nyid ye shes (l727­?), who completed his fine history ofa branch of the Gnyags clan in 1775, also says hyperbolically that Mus chen Rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1287­1347) was the Imperial Preceptor of Buyantu Qaghan [Renzong Emperor, r. April 7,1311 to March I, 1320] and, later, of Toghon Temiir l07 Though it is more than likely that he was involved in teaching and ritual activity at the court, the court never formally appointed him to the office of the Imperial Preceptor. Finally, Brag dgon Zhabs drung Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas (180 I­after 1871) notes a Lama Gu rum, otherwise unknown to me, in his large, 1864 history of Buddhism in Amdo, who was an "Imperial Preceptor of the Mongol[s]."I08 Now the Tibetan and Chinese dossiers present us with several problems that have to do with the succession of Imperial Preceptors and TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 39 their respective terms of office. Gtsang Byams pa Rdo rje rgyal mtshan, who considers the Imperial Preceptors in the eighth chapter of his exceptional 1475 study of Sa skya monastery's history, appears to be disinclined to accept the veracity of a written source (yi ge kha cig) he does not identify, which registered an Imperial Preceptor from Mdo smad [Amdo] between Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas [rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po] (1308­'?) and his younger brother Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, both of whom were scions of Sa skya's Lha khang Residence. 109 This Mdo smad pa, who turns out to be the Imperial Preceptor Rin chen grags, is mentioned by Seng ge bzang po in his ?1419 biography of Rig[s] pa'i seng ge (1287­1375), by Yar lung Jo bo Shakya rin chen sde in his 1376 chronicle, and by Gtsang Byams pa himself, albeit in a rather different context. II 0 According to the latter, he succeeded Sangs rgyas dpal (1267­1314) of Sa skya's Khang gsar Residence in 1309110, and stayed in this office until 1313, when he was relieved of his duties by the appointment of Kun dga' blo gros (1299­1327) who, Gtsang Byams pa says, was Imperial Preceptor from 1315 to 1327. However, this does not mesh with what we read elsewhere in his work, namely, that the child Kun dga' blo gros left for the court at the age of ten, in the earthfemale­hen year, and that he was appointed Imperial Preceptor at the age of eleven in the earth­male­rat year. 11 1 No earth­male­rat year occurred in his life­time, so that we have to conjecture that Gtsang Byams pa may have meant to write iron­male­dog year ­ in some East Tibetan dialects, byi is homophonous with khyi, and the "earth"­element must have been an oversight. This year corresponds to 1310\ If the intitulationum of the extant edicts issued by him in the emperor's name are authentic, and there is so far no reason for doubting this, then he was an Imperial Preceptor by at least 1316. 112 Indeed, Tshal pa himself says that he held this post under: 113 I. 2. Buyantu Qaghan Gegen Qaghan [Yingzong, r. April 19, 1320 to September 4, 1323] 105 Both BSOD, [62, and BSOD. 226, have it that he left for the China in the "water­maledragon year, at the age of seventy­three [= seventy­two)" where RGYAL, 82a, has watermale­snake year, at the age of sixty­three [= sixty­two]." The water­male­dragon year and the water­male­snake year roughly correspond to 1292 and 1293. Zhwa dmar lJI, Chos Icy, rje rgyal ba aulyan po chen po'i rnam par thar pa rdzogs Idall bdud rtsi'i dga' stOll. Collected Works, vol. 11 (Gangtok, 1978), 109, as does Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos 'byung, 742 [Bka' brgyud rill po che'i 10 rgyus phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs po 'I gsol 'debs rgyas pa,450a] indicate his departure to have taken place in the water­male­dragon year [1292] when he was sixty­two. 106 Rngag robs gsal ba'; me lang, forty­seven foho handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. catalogue no. 0028 13(2),16a. 107 GNYAGS, 283, 293. 108 BRAG, 680. 109 GTSANG, 63a. 110 Mkhan chen bka' bzhl po chen po rig[s} pa'i sellg ge'; rnam par thor po )'on tan rill po che'i rgya mtsho, Mi Ilyag mkhas dbang Illga'l rnam thor, ed. Thub bstan nyi ma (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe shun khang, 1986),78, and YAR, 168 [YARI, 161, rang 1989: 95], and GTSANG, 62a. III GTSANG, 39a. 112 The bya 10 year of the edict published in the Bod Icyi yig tshags phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1, 1, is there said to be the year 1309. This seems too early, and most likely needs to be pushed forward by one duodenary cycle, thai is, to the year 1321. 113 TSHAL, 49 [Chen­Zhou 1988: 45]. 40 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP 3. Yeslin Temiir Qaghan [Taidingdi Emperor, r. October 4, 1323 to August IS, 1328). On the other hand, G.yas ru Stag tshang pa's compilation states that he was given this office by the court of *Siddhipala (dhyings khyung < Ch. yingzong) [= Gegen Qaghan], which is also reflected in Stag tshang Lo tsa ba Shes rab rin chen's (1405­77) 1467 study of the ruling 'Khon family of Sa skya. 114 But this cannot be correct. Not a member of Sa skya's ruling families, Rin chen grags' appointment could only have been an interim and provisional solution. The dates of Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas who, according to most sources, formally succeeded Kun dga' blo gros on May 17, 1327, though he was officially confirmed on October 17, 1328,115 are a matter of some debate. For example, the chronicles of Tshal pa, Yar lung Jo bo and G.yas ru Stag tshang pa are silent on them, but Yar lung Jo bo does reckon him as the Imperial Preceptor between Kun dga' blo gros and Rin chen grags ­ the mention of the latter may have possibly been the source for Gtsang Byams pa's reference to the aforenoted yi ge kha cig. Stag tshang Lo tsa ba relates that he died in 1330, whereas Gtsang Byams pa, who suggests that he passed away at the age of thirty­three, has [as his dates 1308 to] 1339!1I6 Writing much later, Ames zhabs says that he was invited by the court in 1328 and then cites two different sources for two different year of his passing. The first is Mus srad pa Shes rab rdo rje's (late 14th c.) study of Sa skya's abbatial succession, which observed that he died in Dadu in the hare­year [1339] at the age of thirty­three. According to him, he was born in 1307. The second is Nyi Ide ba Nam mkha' bzang po (ca. 1400) study of the same. Stating that he passed away in the horse­year [1330] at the age of twentytwo, he suggests that he was Imperial Preceptor for three years. ll7 Not one 114 See, respectively, the Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo, ed. Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe shun khang, 1985),336 [Han Zang shyi, 210] and STAG, 25b. 115 Petech (1990: 83). There is a traditIOn in Amdo that Bto gros dpalldan of the family that controlled the great monastery of Rong bo in Qinghai "revered" the Imperial Preceptor as his lama, for which see 'Jigs med theg mchog, Rong bo dgon chen gyi gdan rabs (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 99, 739-40. I do not know whence it originated, but it seems to be apocryphal. 116 STAG, 25b, and GTSANG, 42a-b. I 17 NGAG, 329-30 [Chen-Gao-Zhou 1989: 229]. Neither work has come down to us. Writing at times nyi sde and nyi bde, GTSANG, 67a, is so far the only source to provide a rough genealogy of the Nyi Ide family and its residence in Sa skya: Lama Dkon mchog 'byung gnas [a disciple of Sa skya ｝｡ｴｩｾＩｊｐ - [his maternal cousins (gnag dbon) (sic)] National Preceptor Shes rab dpal and Lama Rin chen 'od - [their maternal cousins] Kun spangs Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, Kun spangs Chos skyong dpal, National Preceptor Nam mkha' seng ge [an interlinear TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 41 edict promulgated by him in the emperor's name has been published so far, so that we have no outside corroborating evidence for the onset or rough duration of his tenure as Imperial Preceptor. Tshal pa and Yar lung pa held that he was Imperial Preceptor under Yesiin Temiir, whereas G.yas ru Stag tshang pa, Stag tshang Lo tsa ba and Gtsang Byams pa maintained that he functioned in this capacity under Tugh Temlir. 118 As stated, his younger brother was Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' rgyal mtshan and here, too, none of the Tibetan sources are clear on the year of his accession to this office. He was certainly not the most obvious candidate for the job, being a layman with the layman's title of Duke (guogung) and the father of two sons, Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1332-59) and Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1332-64), he had with two wives. This means that, in roughly 1331, he was not a monk. The tradition holds that he later, very likely shortly thereafter, became one. So far, the only bit of evidence that he was ordained a monk is Grags pa rdo rje dpal bzang po's (1444-?) study of the four transmissions of SakyasrIbhadra's (1127-1225) vinaya tradition in Tibet. Though he does not provide a date for his ordination, he does indicate that his "abbot" had been Mkhan chen Bsod nams grags pa (1273-1353) of the Chos lung transmission. I 19 The consenus of our sources is that Kun dga' rgyal mtshan was Imperial Preceptor to the following emperors: 1. 'Tugh Temiir 2. Irincenbal [= Rin chen dpal] [Ningzong emperor, r. October 13 to December 14, 1332] 3. Toghon Temlir Reflected by the fortunes of the emperors and the confusion that beset the succession of imperial preceptors, these were turbulent times, note states that he founded the Nyi Ide Residence], National Preceptor Tshul khrims grub, and two laymen (mi skya)· [the sons of the eldest of the two la)wan] Bsod nams seng ge and Ngag dbang bzang po - [? the son of the latter (de'; sras)] Kun dga' dpa\ who is also known as Nyi bde (sic) Rgya'o - [his sons] Initiating National Preceptor (kun ling gug shri < Ch. gualldillg guoshi) Nam mkha' bzang po and Ta'i dbyen ju « Ch. 7) Bsod nams rgyal mtshan [the sons ofNam mkha' bzang poJ Ngag dbang grags pa and Nam mkha' grags pa. 118 See, respectively, TSHAL, 49 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 45], YAR, 161 [YARI, ISS, Tang 1989: 92], Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo, 337 [Han Zang shiji, 210], STAG, 25b, and GTSANG, 62b. The published texts of Yar lung Jo bo's chronicle wrongly cal! him Nam mkha' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, but this is due to a lapsus in the original manuscript, for which see also the Yar lung chos 'byullg, one hundred and sixteen-folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002446(2), 97a-b. Note that *Ariglba (1320-afier 1365), son of Yesun Temur, who spent some time on the throne in October and November of 1328, does not count in this context. 1\9 Mkhan [bJrgyud mam gsum byon Ishul gyi mam thar, twenty-five-folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002775(6), 13b-4a. 42 LEONARD W.!. VAN DER KUIJP indeed. 120 The problems with the reign[s] of Tugh TemUr can prima facie mean one of two things: either Kun dga' rgyal mtshan was appointed Imperial Preceptor in late 1328 or sometime between 1329 and 1332. All the evidence points to the latter. In this connection, there is an important passage in Tshal pa's chronicle which states that the Karma pa met him in the second half of 1331 while both were en route to China,l2l The mention there of his title "Imperial Preceptor" may very well have been informed through hindsight, though it is entirely thinkable that he was traveling as a bona fide Imperial Preceptor, even though he may not have been formally appointed through a ceremony that, according to one single source, was to take place at the court. This squares well with Si tu Pal) chen's narrative when he says that Kun dga' rgyal mtshan invited Karma pa III to the temple of Me tog [Idum] ra ba during Irincenbal's reign. 122 In this passage, he is also styled Imperial Preceptor. Nian Chang writes that his formal appointment as Imperial Preceptor did not take place until July 19, 1333, which coincided with the enthronement of Toghon TemGr. 123 This may have been the official ratification of his new post. Mus chen, who seems to have arrived in Dadu in the end of 1332, received three edicts by him that are dated, respectively, "the monkey­year, fifteenth day of the tenth lunar month," "the hen­year, the fourteenth day of the second lunar month," and "the hen­year, the twentysecond day of the second lunar month."124 Provided that Chos nyid ye shes has reproduced these intact, and there is no reason to assume that he did not, then the one dated towards the end of 1332 begins with the invocatio: om sva sti siddhi (sic!), and has as its intitulatio: "Kun dga' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po," that is, we have his name without the title of Imperial Preceptor or that of Duke (guogong), his earlier, far less illustrious lay-title. It also lacks an authorization such as "by order of the emperor" and the like, but it was written in temple of Me tog ra ba, the Dadu residence of the Imperial Preceptors. This seems to reflect quite nicely the times in which it was issued. There was no emperor on the throne, or even an emperor-designate, when the edict was issued, and, without an emperor, there could be de jure 120 For an overview of these times, see Hsiao Ch'i-ch'ing, "Mid-Yuan Politics," The Cambridge Hislory of China, vol. 6. Alien Regimes and border slatey, ed. H. Franke and D. Twitchett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 527-56. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 43 no Imperial Preceptor. The year in which the second and third were issued was 1333, but both are dated prior to Toghon Temiir's enthronement. It thus appears that the presence of an emperor-designate was a sufficient condition for Kun dga' rgyal mtshan to issue an edict in his name and for him to be designated Imperial Preceptor. Lastly, each of the three recensions of Ta'i si tu's autobiographycum-political testament contain several entries relating to Kun dga' blo gros and Kun dga' rgyal mtshan, that are apt to create chronological confusion, as they shift for the period under consideration from a duodenary to a sexegenary notation for the year. 125 At one point, there is an entry for the hare-year wherein is related that the remains of the erstwhile Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' blo gros had returned to Tibet. This can only refer to the year 1327. The remains were escorted by, among others, Si tu Dar rna rgyal mtshan, who also ended up being entrusted with inviting the Karma pa, Mus chen and probably also Kun dga' rgyal mtshan as the new Imperial Preceptor to the court. Ta'i si tu then speaks of the doings of the Bailan Prince of Sa skya's Dus mhod Residence - he must have been Bsod nams bzang po (1291ca. 1335) - and his daughter for the serpent-year [1329], after which the manuscripts of his work suddenly confront us with a sexagenary, rather than the earlier duodenary, notation of the year. The next entry is one for the thirteenth day of the fourth month of the water-horse year. Btsan Iha Ngag dbang tshul khrims and Yu Wanzhi indicated in their Chinese translation of this difficult work - this was also rendered explicit by Petech, that the years given in this passage and those that follow are wrong l26 The horse-year in question can only be 1330, which was the iron-male-horse year. The next entry is for the beginning of the winter of the wood-female-hen year, which must be 1333, that is, the water-female-hen year. It is between these two entries that we learn of Kun dga' rgyal mtshan's departure for the court. There are three basic Chinese sources for the succession of the Tibetan Imperial Preceptors: the Yuanshi minus chapter 202, the Yuanshi chapter 202, and Nian Chang's Fozu lidai tongzai. The Imperial Preceptors indicated in these were tabulated long ago by G. Tucci,127 who already recognized that a *Dbang phyug rgyal mtshan was an Imperial Preceptor between Kun dga' blo gros and Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas, and that *Rin 121 TSHAL, 101 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 89]. 125 What follows is based on the Lha rigs rlangs kyi rnam thaI' (New Delhi, 1974),331-2 122SI,217. ["Ta si tu byang chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems mlhong ba don ldan, Rlangs po Ii bse 123 See the Taisho shinshii daizokyo, ed. Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku, compo Ono Genmyo (Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai, 1924-32), vol. XLIX, no. 2036, 735b, as quoted in Petech (1990; 86). cd. Chab spel Tshe brtan phun !Shogs and Nor brang 0 rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod, vol. 1 (Lhasa; Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1986), 153-4, Ta si byang chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems, ed. Chos 'dzoms (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1989),54-6]. See also Petech (1990: 86). 124 GNYAGS, 285-6. Dated the ox-year [1337, 1349], one additional previously unpublished edict of Kun dga' rgyal mtshan in the emperor's name is contained in the Bod Icyi yig tshags phyogs bsgrigs, 2. 126 Btsan Iha-Yu (1989: 108 ff.) and Petech (1990: 85). 127 Tucci (1949: 15,252-3). I'll, 44 LEONARD WJ. VAN DER KUIJP chen grags l28 occupied this post between Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas and Kun dga' rgyal mtshan. *Dbang phyug rgyal mtshan was presumably the interim solution during Kun dga' blo gros' three­year absence from the court, but he is otherwise unknown to the Tibetan sources used for this paper, and no edicts by him have been published thusfar. As for the identity ofRin chen grags, things are complicated by the fact that the period knows of several men with this name, so that it is by no means easy to establish his identity with any sense of definitiveness. According to the Yuanshi, he was appointed on December 22, 1329 129, and this would suggest that Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas was, for one reason or another, incapacitated and thus unable to fulfill his functon. The date in question occurred on the first day of the twelfth lunar month of the earth­serpent year of the Tibetan calendar, and Kun dga' legs pa'i 'byung gnas had probably already died at that time, but his death is cloaked in mystery. None of the sources indicate whether his remains were ever transported back to Sa skya. Indeed, it is doubtful that they were. The eighth and last chapter of Gtsang Byams pa's work is dedicated to an inventory of sacred objects of all the main residences and temples of Sa skya, and one looks there in vain for a notice of the presence of his reliquary. To return to Rin chen grags, Petech ventures the view that he may have been the same as the National Preceptor who, in 1325, was responsible for having printing blocks carved for a summary of Sino­Tibetan political history during the Tang in Dpal gyi sde chen monastery in Shing kun [= Lintao, in Gansu] ,130 The text in question was the compilation of documents on the subject by Song Qi (998­1061), which was put into summary form and edited by a Han gsi'u tsha ­ his name appears in various Tibetan guises. A certain Chief­reciter [of scripture] (jiang-zhu) Bao then completed the Tibetan translation in Shing kun on April 16 or May 15, 1285, and Rin chen 128 Wang Furen and Chen Qingying, A Brief History ojRelations between the Mongol and Tibetan Nationalities [in Chinese] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1985),37, reconstructed his name as ORin chen bkra shis and Petech (1990: 83, n. (4) is willing to entertain this possibility as well. In light of the Tibetan dossier of n. 109, this can now be safely discarded. The same holds for ORin chen grags shis, an impossible Tibetan name, that we find in the History of the Yuan Dynasty [in Chinese], ed. Han Rulin, vol. 2 (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1986),256. 129 As ciled in Petech (1990: 83). TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 45 grags had it printed forty years later. 131 Who was this Rin chen grags? This is not easy to answer, since there were a number of individuals with this name during the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. But we do find a possible answer in Brag dgon Zhabs drung's history. Making use of what he calls the Tii dbolllo rgyus, Annals ofthe Grand Yuan [reembodiments, sprul sku] ,132 which has so far not come down to us, he comes to speak of "four great clerics (grwa [paD" from Mdzod dge in Amdo [here northern Sichuan], who were Lama 'Phags pa's disciples. These were: Nyang dbon Mgon po bJo gros, Dpal Shes rab 'bar, Dbang dpon po Bl0 bzang tshul khrirns and 'fa dbon po, that is, the Great Yuan (tii dbon < Ch, dayuan). The latter was none other than Drung Rin chen grags ­ the term-cum-title drung would suggest his closeness to Lama 'Phags pa ­, who founded three monastic sees, including Dpal gyi sde chen monastery ­ the name of this institution is also on occasion [wrongly] written as "Bde chen." Brag dgon Zhabs drung says that he became his teacher's representative when Lama 'Phags pa returned to Tibet [in 1274] and that he was revered by Qubilai on an equal footing with his master. Both Mgon po blo gros and Rin chen grags were active in the conversion of Bon po­s in the Amdo area, apparently at Qubilai's orders. This may have been a reflex of the 1281­2 persecution of Daoism. Rin chen grags' nephew was Drung Mdzes pa'i tog alias Dkon mchog rin chen. He also studied with Lama 'Phags pa, assumed the abbacy of Shing kun and built there, as well as in the central Tibetan monastery of Bde ba can, a seminary for the study of exoteric Buddhism (mtshall nyid). Now the earliest work Lama 'Phags pa wrote while he resided in Shing kun is dated 1271 133 and, as far as I am aware, the name Dpal gyi sde chen does not occur in any of his writings. Chos nyid rdo rje states 134 that, en route to Tibet in the first half of 1333, Mus chen made a stop­over in Shing kun at which time Prince Chos dpal « Mon. Choshbal) invited him to his palace. Headquartered in Hezhou, in Gansu, Chos dpal was the Zhenxi Wuqing prince and thus a descendant of A'urughci, Qubilai's seventh son from a junior wife. 135 At this time, he also "sated with gifts of religion" an unnamed An Annotated Translation of the XlVth Century Tibetan Chronicle. Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 128 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994), 501­3. 131 lowe the suggestion of reading gyang chu and its variants as reflecting Chinesejiangzhu to Mr. Toh Hongteik. The name of the Chinese translator is also written as ba hu, hu, etc. The bo'u reading is found in YAR, 32 [YARI, 34] and, though maybe a leetio Jacilior, might very well reflects Chinese baa, that is, Sanskrit ratna, which as good a Buddhist name as any. "Bao" would be the last pan of his full name [in religion]. 132 What follows is taken from BRAG, 562­3, 584, 589, 592. A Til dbon spml sku Blo bzang seng ge is noted in BRAG, 726. 133 SSBB vol. 7, no. 224, 212/1. 134 GNYAGS, 288. GTSANG, 32b, says that along with Chu mig dpal gyi sde chen and Bsam 'grub in Rtso mdo [in Mdo khams], Opal gyi sde chen was Lama 'Phags pa's intermediate see (gdan sa bar bal· 135 FOT the Zhenxi Wuqing princes in general and this prince in particular, see L. Petech, "Princely Houses of the Yilan Period Connected with Tibet," ed. T. Skorupski, Indo-Tibetan 130 What follows is in pan based On Petech (1990: 84) and references, and also on P.K. S0rensen, Tibetan Buddhist Historography. The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies. 46 LEONARDW.J. VAN DERKUlJP Shing kun abbot. This suggests that "Shing kun" can and was used as an abbreviation of "Dpal gyi sde chen in Shing kun" (shing kun dpal gyi sele chen). One cannot help but wonder whether this abbot might have been Dharmaphala, who Brag dgon Zhabs drung notes, along with a Lama Sarogha as abbots, respectively, in Rtse lnga [Mount Wutai] and of Shing kun Dpal gyi sde chen. I36 If we reckon that this Rin chen grags was at least twenty­five years old when he founded this institution and if he were the same as the National Preceptor, then he must have been roughly eighty years old in 1325. It is improbable that they are one and the same, but it is not impossible. We should recall that the phrase tli dhon [or: ta dben] is often used as an abbreviation for Grand Yuan [National Preceptor] or even Grand Yuan [Imperial Preceptor]. If our Rin chen grags be the same as the Imperial Preceptor, then he was probably in his early eighties in 1329. This is even more improbable. Yet there is a bit of outside evidence that would argue for holding both unlikely scenarios. Situated between the years 1353 and 1358, an entry of Seng ge bzang po's biography of Rigs pa'i seng ge mentions a Mdzes tog from Amdo as well as a Chos ldan seng ge, of whom he is says that he was the nephew of Imperial Preceptor Rin chen grags. I37 Rigs pa'i seng ge's fame had reached Amdo, and both had come to his see for studies. Not a cornmon name in the Tibetan religious onomasticon, this Mdzes tog may very well be the same as the Mdzes pa'i tog who, according to Brag dgon Zhabs drung's source, was also a nephew of our Rin chen grags. Why Seng ge bzang did not mention this about his Mdzes tog is perhaps significant. Though quite thin, then, the circumstantial evidence accumulated so far therefore strongly suggests that Til dbon Rin chen grags, National Preceptor Rin chen grags and Imperial Preceptor Rin chen grags are possibly indeed one and the same individual. In 1337, Kamla pa III stayed in Shing kun, where he built a Bka' brgyud pa monastery, possibly in recognition of Karma pa II Karma Pakshi's (1204/6­83) brief soj ourn there and almost certainly motivated by the fact that it was located on one of the main routes connecting Central Tibet with the Mongol courts. 138 He did this for a good reason. A Bka' brgyud pa enclave in Shing kun would no doubt ensure that Bka' brgyud pa travelers did not have to depend on a monastery with Sa skya pa affiliations. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 47 One of Kun dga' rgyal mtshan's sons, Chos kyi rgyal mtshan traveled to the Mongol court in 1356 and became the private chaplain (dgos kyi bla mchod) of Ayushiridara. Having been granted the National Preceptor title, a seal of office and an official writ (tho shu < Ch. tushu), he died only three years later at the age of twenty­seven. J 39 His death occurred in the vicinity of as was escorting the remains of his father back to Tibet. There is no question that his conflict with Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan that had led to the military occupation of Sa skya's Lha khang chen mo in 1356 had forced him into this exile. At the same time, given the fact that his uncle and father had been Imperial Preceptors, there was probably the expectation that he would ultimately succeed his father. This was not to be. Both fell victim to the uprisings that punctuated the last decade of Toghon TemOr's ineffective reign with increasing frequence. Instead, Kun dga' rgyal mtshan was succeeded by Bla chen Bsod nams blo gros (1332­63) of Sa skya's Dus mchod Residence. 140 He had apparently left Tibet for the court during the seventh lunar month of 1361. The Karma pa, who had left Dadu in late winter, met him in Dung tshang ­ this must be located between Dadu and Mount Liupan in Ningxia. Rebellions flared up left and right, but the unlucky Bsod nams blo gros perservered and finally arrived in Dadu. He did not hold the position of Imperial Preceptor for a very long time. Lo tsa ba Byang chub rtse mo writes that, sometime in the ninth lunar month of 1363, Lama dam pa had heard that he and his entourage had perished. This fulfilled his earlier prediction that Bsod nams blo gros would not live a long life. Now Zhwa dmar II writes in his biography of Karma pa IV Rol pa'j rdo rje (1340­83) that, in 1360, the Karma pa was invited to Shing kun by Dpal ldan mchog, then abbot of Bde (sic) chen in Shing kun. 141 A few weeks after the Karma pa finally arrived at the court in late December of that year, he petitioned the emperor to appoint this same Dpal ldan mchog as National 139 GTSANG, 43b. 140 What follows is taken from BYANG, 39a, 41a, 40b. Studies: Papers in HOlJour and Appreciatian of Professor David L. Snellgrove's Contribution to Indo-Tibetan Studies, Buddhica Britannica. Series Continua II (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 264­7. 136 BRAG, 680. Could this Samgha be the same as the translator (10 tsa ba) Samgha, who was with Lama 'Phags pa in Tibet in the late 1270s1 137 See n. 110. 138 TSHAL, 105,93 [Chen­Zhou 1988: 92, 82]. 141 ZHWA, 270. ZHWA, 319 relates that this biography took its point of departure from a Rnam dog nyi ma'i 'od zer, which seems to have been an autobiography, Karma pa IV's spiritual song[s] (mgur) and his own oral reports that were subsequently written down. In addition, other information was also derived from conversations with Rje btsun Ri khrod pa and Bla rna dam pa PUDyai pra bha wa [= Bsod nams 'od gsal]. The precise chronology was taken from Slob dpon chen po gu'i gung Rin chen dpal, who had been with Karma pa IV from when the latter was four years old until his death. It was written at the behest of Karma pa IV's nephew Blo gros rgyal mtshan in 1388 [or 1400] in the great mountain­hermitage of Lkog 'phreng. 48 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP Preceptor, whereupon the court granted his request. Si tu Pal) chen's biography of the Karma pa is, to date, our only source for this. 142 There is another intriguing, albeit very sparsely documented, case of a descendant of Qubilai taking an interest in the Kalacakra. The Mongol Zhenxi Wuqing prince Prajfia, Chos dpal's son, requested Bu ston for initiations in the Kalacakra [and other esoteric tantras] when he came to Central and Midwest Tibet, in 1353, with an entourage of about a hundred Mongols I43 He did not ask for this solely for religious reasons, for he evidently had an intellectual curiosity for calendrical astronomy. Franke has provided further evidence of the prince's interest in this area by his study of a manuscript of an astronomical treatise in Arabic that was dedicated to him. l44 A so­called zlj, the manuscript even includes some glosses in Tibetan for the names of the month. And we now know that one of Bu ston's minor works, namely a little text on the iconometry of the Dhanyaka\akastlipa, was most likely translated into Chinese around this time as welLI45 The Kalacakra tradition has it that the Buddha proclaimed the 142 S[, 363. An oversight led Schuh (1977: 144) to write Ii-shih instead of guoshi, which makes quite a difference! The bibliographic remarks Si tu ｾ｡ｐ chen appended to his biography of the Karma pa, in 51, 392­5, state that it is primarily based on the work by Karma Dkon mchog gzhon nu, the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century scholar, and contains several quotations from it, including a lengthy one from Duke Rin chen dpal. [n addition to the work by Zhwa dmar n, Si tu Pan chen also lists a biography by a Bta rna Lha steng pa and the biographies by Tshal pa and Dpa' bo II. 143 On him, see L. Petech, "Princely Houses of the Yuan Period Connected with Tibet," 2678. In addition to the literature cited in this paper, we may mention Yar lung Jo bo's history, which seems to have been the source used by G.yas ru Stag tshang pa referred to by Petech; see YAR, 86 [YAR1, 86-7, Tang 1989: 53-4]. [SJrad nya (sic!), that is, Prajiia, is also noted in an entry for the year 1359 in the biogrdphy of Karma pa IV in Tshal pa's chronicle, as well as in that of Dpa' bo fI, which formed the basis for the entry in the eighteenth century source cited by Petech; see TSHAL. 115 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 100] and DPA', 959. Aside from other variants, Petech's source reads dbang hu in the singular, whereas these earlier texts read the plural dbang hu rnams; for dbang hu (Ch. wangfu), see Farquhar (1990: 349). 144 See his "Mittel.Mongolische Glossen in einer arabischen astronomischen Handschrift," Odens 31 (1988), 103, 107-111. On p. 96, he refers to the "forthcoming" study by E.S. Kennedy and 1. Hogendijk, "Two Tables from an Arabic Astronomical Handbook for the Mongol Viceroy of Tibet," A Scielltific Humallist. Studies in MemOfY ojAbraham Sachs, ed. E. Leichty et aI., Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 9 (Philadelphia, The University Museum 1989), 233-42. This paper adds nothing that is of immediate relevance to the present essay, suffice it to mention that it says [on p. 233] that the prince's name was Radna. 145 For this work, see briefly my "·Jambhala. An Imperial Envoy to Tibet During the Late Yuan," Journal oj the Americall Oriental Society 113 (1993),536. n. 38. and for the collection of Chinese translations of Tibetan texts in which this work is found, for instance the Dacheng yaodao miji (Taibei: Ziyu chubanshe, 1986). For the latter. see the valuable studies by Chr. I. Beckwith, "A Hitherto Unnoticed Yuan·Period Collection Attributed to TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 49 Kiilacakramulatantra in this stupa, so that Bu ston's work has nothing directly to do with the calendar or its computation. It does add further testimony to the interest in this literature during roughly the middle of the fourteenth century. Matters are a trifle more complicated with the various accounts of Karma pa IV's activities at the court, which also included instructions in the Kulacakra corpus. Writing in telegraph-style, Tshal pa, our earliest source for this, relates that during his three-day sojourn in Mi nyag 'Ga [Ganzhou] towards the end of October 1360, Na'i ra thu [= ?Nayiratu], the privy councillor (phing chang < Ch. pingchang) of the hong tha'i tshe, crownprince Ayushiridara, arrived bearing cloth as a gift I46 While in Shang yang hu,147 he was met by Tho gon « Mon. Toghon),148 a director (dben shri < Ch. yuanshi) of most likely the Bureau for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs, who escorted him to Dadu. He arrived there on January 23, 1361, where he took residence at the Mchod rten sngon po, the Blue Stiipa, a place that still needs to be located.l 49 On January 30, Mitripala, that is, ?Maitrlpala,150 the 'Phags-pa," L. Ligeti, ed., Tibetan alld Buddhisl Studies, vol. I, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. 1984),9-16, and Chen Qingying, "A Study of Imperial Preceptor Dacheng xuanmi [in Chinese]," Fojiao Ya,yiu 9 (2000), and by the same author "The Dachengyaodao myi and Tibetan Buddhism of the Xixia Dynasty [in Chinese]," Zhongguo Zallgxue 2 (2003) - the published versions are not available to me, hence I cannot give page references. See also the remarks in Shen Wei-rong, "Two Topics of Research on the Karma pa in the Yuan Dynasty [in Chinese]," Zhongguo Zangxue 4 (1989),77-82. A new edition of the Dachellg yaodao miji, together with a lengthy introduction, is being prepared by Wang Yao. For a study of the stupa and its role in Kalacakra lore, see A. Macdonald, "Le Dhanyak$.ka de Man-lungs Guru," Bulletin de I'Ecole Franryaise d'Extnime-Oriellt 57 (1970), 169-213. 146 The following is taken from TSHAL, 118-9 [Chen.Zhou 1988: 103-4], which Was unavailable to Schuh (J 977: 142 fr.), but on which his sources must have relied. Apingchallg is associated with the Central Secretariat, see Farquhar (1990: 170). This envoy did not come entirely unexpected. TSHAL, 115-6 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 101-2J relates that, though the Karma pa had been approached earlier by the court, he was prevented immediately to make good on the invitation because of the numerous revolts that raged in Qinghai, Gansu and Shanxi. 147 Chen-Zhou (1988: 103) equates Tibetan sha yang hu with Xianyang prefec ture (hu < Ch. jul. but this appears to be improbable, since Xianyang was a county (xian). TSHALI, 68b, has shang yang hu, which is possibly the better reading. 148 He may have been one of the "ten friends," for which see Schulte-Utfelage (1963: 68). 149 Franke (1990: I 16) tentatively suggests that this ,tupa may be the one located about 103 Ii from Ganzhou in Gansu Province. Since the Karma pa was at the capital, this stupa must have been its namesake. ISO Tshal pa does not give his name. While the srudy of Karma pa IV's life by Zhwa dmar II fails to give a precise date for his birth, it does have the name of this son of the "grand prince" (rgyal bu chen po); see ZHWA, 274; 'GOS, 437 ['GOSI, 595J has "Maitripala." L. Hambis, Le chapitre eVTl du Yuan che [avec des notes supplementaires par Paul Pelliot]. 142-3, n. 1, gives his name as • Maitreyapala on the strength of a single entry in the Yuallshi, 50 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP son of the hong tha'i tshe [= Ayushiridara] was born and on the next day hQ was formally invited by the crown prince to come to his residence. ThQ invitation was accompanied by various offerings for him and his sizablQ entourage 151 After having been given additional gifts by Toghon Temllr and his son, "the great Qan (gan chen po) and the lesser Qan (gan chung pa),"152 be taught the five treatises of Maitreya[natha] and an unspecified collection of stories of the Buddha's previous lives at the request of the crown­ prince (rgyal bu chen po). During this time, he came to be revered by all monks and prelates who were present, including National Preceptor Lama Rgyal [hal rin TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 51 [chen],153 and was made head over all those "who offered to Heaven," an expression that is of course curiously anachronistic. He was also granted a jade seal (shel gyi dam kha) of a Thu lu shri skya'o Great Yuan National Preceptor. 154 Requesting a large edict ('ja' [sa] < Mon. jasagh) for the pardon of criminals, he dispatched Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan,155 the head (sde dpon) of the Karma Bka' brgyud pa monastic community in Dadu, to proclaim it in Tibet. The Karma pa's relationship with A­yushiridara had one additional consequence. The latter issued a princely edict (ling ji < Ch. lingji) called a special edict for the furtherance of Buddhism, which stipulated that, whereas men of the cloth had previously not been obliged to prostrate themselves before the emperor, this had later been reversed so that they had to do so before members of the imperial family and high officials. Due to the present trying times (dus ma bde ba), the edict reinstated the in YS, 47,986: Mai de Ii ba la; it would seem that one significant syllable "ya" is lacking for this reconstruction, but it is one that can easily go astray. 151 The offered items were a bre of gold, brocade for eight senior monks of his entourage and thirty pieces of silk to many other members of his train. The next item presents a problem of interpretation. The text has sang de hong tha'i tshe ... mi brgya dang bdun Cl/ la rgylig gnang, whereas TSHALl, 68b, has the better sang de hong tha'i tshes ... ml brgya dang bdun Cli la rgyugs gnang. Chen­Zhou (1988: 104) rendered the former in tbe sense that Karma pa IV was given an escort of one hundred and seventy persons. However, rgyugs, meaning "rations, provisions" must be interpreted as the patient of this transitive sentence. 152 The sentence in question reads in TSHAL, 119: gan che ba'i shang len gser bre gnyl' dngul bre gsum / gan chung ba'i gser bre gcig gas phyi nang dgu tshan gcig phull. On the other hand, TSHALl, 68b, has the much better: gan che bas shang len gser bre gnyis / dngul bre gsum / gan chung pas gser bre gcig / gas phyi nang dgu mtshan gcig phl/II. TSHAL'S gan che ba'i and gan chung ba'i needs to be corrected in each case to .. bas ­ ba'i and bas are homophones ­ otherwise the transitive verb phul, "offered," lacks a necessary agent Other alternatives would be either to read shang len du or shang len de'i dus su, which would obviate the suggested corrections, or, with the corrections, we would have to read shang len appositionally with the "rewards." Of course this would be fairly peculiar, since these would then be only associated with the great Qa[gha]n 1 The pair gan che ba and gan chung ba are rather odd and, to my knowledge, unprecedenled. That gan chung ba!pa refers to an individual is indicated by the later line that he stayed at his palace for forty days. This palace would perhaps be the Palace of Clear Peace that was built in 1359. Schulie­Uffelage (J 963: 91) reports that the monks of this palace consisted of Tibetans and Koreans. The expression shang len I shangs len is problematic. L. Petech, "Yuan Official Terms in Tibetan," Tibetan Studies. Proceedings ofthe 5th Sentillar ofthe International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, ed. Sharen Ihara and ZuihO Yamaguchi, vol. 2 (Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992),671, derives it from Mongol shangla-! shanglla. « Ch. shang, "to reward, favor") plus Tibetan len, "to take, receive, accept," and suggests that "[I]t occurs in connection with, and having [read: has, vdK] the same meaning as, festival, official banquet and the like." The translation in Chen­Zhou (1988: 104) simply reads: "The great Qan presented (zeng).. .," but this cannot be squared with the syntax of the sentence. Another occun'ence of this expression is met with in, for instance, Ta'i si tu's autobiography in the Tii si tu byang chub rgyal mtsllOn gyi bka' chems mthong ba don Ida II, Rlangs po ti bse ru, 329: dben pa'i skor la shangs len /Iltshon pa re bsgrubs I The Chinese translation in Btsan Iha­Yu (1989: 226) reads here zeng Ii. 153 Schulte­Uffelage (1963: 68) mentions a lialinzhen in an entry for 1353. It is not possible to reconstruct his name, as he did, by"Kya(ka) rin chen." Rather, I now think we have to consider him to have been none other than this Rgyal ba rin chen. 154 Chen­Zhou (1988: 104) render this tWe as chilu xingjiao dayuan guoshi, "Holding the Vinaya and Interest in the Teaching, the Great Yuan National Preceptor." This is no doubt identical to the title of thung lIng shi slcya'o ta dbell gu shri which Toghon Temur gave to Chos kyi rgyal mtshan of Sa skya's Lha khang chen mo Residence, which we find is in YAR, 167 [Y AR1, 159: thllllg ming shi slya'i ta dben gu shri] and in GTSANG, 43b, and SA, 331: tho[ngJ limg la ho ta dben gug shri. Tang (1989: 94) conjectures the possible Chinese equivalent of tangling shifiao dayuan guoshi, "Uniting and Leading Siikyamuni's Teaching, the Great Yuan National Preceptor." GTSANG, 41a, associates Bla chen Kun dga' rin chen (1339­99) of the Bzhi thog Residence with the same title, if we transpose kya'o and si, namely, with thong ling Icya'o si ta dben gug shri:. The anonymous referee of the much earlier version of my paper (1994) suggested that the Tibetan of this title might stand for Chulu shijiao dayuan guoshi, "Upholding the Vinaya and Sakyamuni's Teaching, the Great Yuan National Preceptor." None of these additional titles for the National Preceptors, or anything remotely resembling them, is found in Farquhar (1990). Lastly, the Bod Icyi 10 rgyus yig (shags dang gzhung yig phyogs bsdus dwangs shel me 101lg, ed. Bkra shis dbang 'dus (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989),204­5, made available a hitherto unkno\Vl1 edict issued by Imperial Preceptor Kun dga' blo gros in 1317. 'What makes this document so remarkable is that it contains a nole oyer and above the actual text of the edict in which is stated: "translated by tsi gya [?chijlao] tshe tsi Grand National Preceptor Bsod nams rin chen dpat bzang po in the great monastery of Dge ba rang rgyal on [for gyi read du] the eighth year, the fifth month, the fifteenth day [of] the ?Tienshun [era] of the Great Ming ['!I 464]" (ta'l mi[?ng] then bshun 10 brgyad pa zla ba Inga pa bco Inga'; nyin gyi (sic) dge ba rang rgyal gyi sde chell du tsi gyo tshe tsi ta'i gra'i silri bsod nams rin chen dpal bzang pos bsgyur If). I cannot locate Dge ba rang rgyal monastery. Presumably, this document was translated from Chinese during the reign of the Yingzong emperor of the Ming. In DP A', 1427, Tienshun is rendered thell ShUll. 155 He may be the same as National Preceptor Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan who issued an edict in Shandong in 1341, for which see E. Chavannes, "Inscriptions et pieces de chancellerie chinoises de I'"poque Mongole (seconde serie)," T'oung Pao 9 (1908),418·21, plates 28­9 [between pp. 598­9], and the study by Wang Yao in Wenwl/ 11 (1981),45­50. 52 LEONARD W.l. VAN DER KUIJP earlier privilege of not being required to prostrate themselves. 156 In addition to this attempt to gain merit, reaffinn the allegiance of institutionalized Buddhism, and thereby influencing positively the downhill course of events that were beginning to shake the very foundations of the empire, Ayushiridara also gave the order to restore the temples and monasteries that had been destroyed during the recent revolts. The Kanna pa left Dadu on May 11, 1361, but returned in the winter for the primary purpose to request of the court that he be pennitted to leave for Tibet. This he did shortly after January 9, 1362, in spite of Ayushiridara's tears. There is no available record concerning what he taught there during this brief interlude. On the other hand, Zhwa dmar II's study of Kanna pa IV's life, our next earliest source and itself based on a miscellany of sources that have yet to be located, states that he left Dung 'ching « Ch.?) postal district (Ja' rno) for Dadu on December 23, 1360. 157 After his arrival, he gave the emperor and his son[s] a Vajrayogin? empowennent and many tantric teachings such as the six doctrines of Naropa. IS8 Singling out the great prince (rgyal bu chen po) ｾ｛ Ayushiridara], he writes that Kanna pa IV taught him the Skyes rabs brgya rtsa, a study of the jiitakas compiled by his precursor Kanna pa III, the Uttaratantra and Mahiiyiinasiitriilmrzkiira plus commentaries, the Laghllkiilacakratantra plus commentary [= Virnalaprabhii] and ancillary Indian texts, as well as an initiation of Rgyal ba rgya mtsho Avalokitesvara. This early source continues by stating that he also gave sennons to a rather varied audience consisting of Chinese, Mongol, Uyghur, Tangut, and Korean (ka'u li)\59 notables and other assorted elements of the capital's population. 156 The entire paraphrased passage reads: bstan po shes bskyed pa'i Ja' sa khyad par du rgyal bu chen po'i ling}i na / bande mams kyis gong fila la phyag 'tshal rni dgos par bkur ba la / phyis rgyal brgyud rni dpon sogs la phyog 'tshal dgos byung 'dug pa'i [TSHAU, 68b. 'dug las /} dus ma bde ba des Ion / da phyis de bzhin rna byed (zer ba.. ]. Cognate passages are found in DPA', 961, and in Si tu PaJ) chen's sr, 359. Chen­Zhou (1988: 104) interpreted this passage quite differently, starting with equating ling}i with the town of Liangzhou which is not acceptable. 157 The following is based on ZHWA, 270­3. 158 In addition to these texts, St, 359, states that he also gave tantric teachings concerning the Lhan cig skyes sbyor, Phyag rgya chen po gang gli ilia, Bsam gtan thun Jog, and the Sku gsum ngo sprod. The latter was written by Karma pa II. 159 ZHWA, 273­4, 276. An identical passage is met with in 'GOS, 437 ('GOS1, 594­ 5, Roerich 1979: 502 and Guo J985: 327­8]. The presence of Korean monks in the capital and elsewhere in China is of course very well attested. Though not always reliable, H.H. Sorensen, "Lamaism in Korea During the Late Koguyo Dynasty," Korea Journal 33 (1993), 67­81, is the only paper to explore the very little that is known about the (almost neglible] influence Tibetan Buddhism had in Korea. That some Tibetans were skeptical about Korean Buddhism seems to be indicated by Sgra tshad pa. In his 1369 De bzhin gshegs pa'i sflying po'i mdzes rgyan gyi rgyan mkhas pa'j yid 'phrog, he lumps them [ka'u Ie] together with nonBuddhists and Sog po, as having wrong views; see the text in The Collected Works ofB" stOll TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 53 The logistics involved when giving such religious talks to a multinational audience are briefly alluded to when Zhwa dmar II deals with his earlier sojourn in Sprul pa'i sde, "the [previous] see ofUncIe (e chen < Mon. echen) K6den, the residence of Sa skya PaQ.Qita," just prior to his voyage to Dadu. In this connection, he writes that, while delivering his sennons, Mongol and Uyghur interpreters sat on the right side of his throne, while the Chinese and Tangut (rni nyag) interpreters flanked him on the left side. It may be important to note here the implication that Tangut was therefore by no means a dead language in the middle of the fourteenth century. Zhwa dmar II's text is also the earliest source for a very brief aside on the economic upturn in the fortunes of the empire that was attributed precisely to his presence at the court. Lastly, we may mention here that, aside from Kanna pa IV's connections with the Mongol imperial family of Yuan China, his biographies record that he had to decline an "urgent" invitation from the "stod hoI' rgyal po Tho lug tbe mur" sometime in the year 1362. This "Western Mongol Qan," whose invitation was accompanied with a seal and many offerings, was no doubt Tughluq Temiir, who reigned in Moghiilistan from 1347 to 1363. 160 SOME CONCLUSIONS. There is very little that can be said about the actual religious use the Mongol imperial family made of these xylographs or other Tibetan Buddhist texts whose production was in one way or another sponsored by them. The same holds for the Mongol Buddhist community at large. Aside from the Chinese renditions of a Tibetan corpus of treatises belonging to the enonnously complex "path and result" (lam 'bras) tantric system of the Sa skya pa and the Mahamudra teachings of the Bka' brgyud pa schools, and some scattered, superficial references in the Yuanshi and elsewhere in Yuan sources to the tantric deity MahakiIla, there is next to nothing transmitted about the extent of the actual practice of tantric Tibetan Buddhism in Yuan China. The said collection of Chinese translations of Tibetan tantric texts does suggest, however, that a number of individuals did fmd the practices associated with these texts of interest, but it is anyone's guess to what extent these were learned and practiced with a sense of responsibility and sincerity. Given that the vast majority of the Mongol Buddhists, regardless of whether they belonged to the imperial (and Sgra tshad pa) (Lhasa print], part 28 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971),282. But this cannot be pressed too far. 160 ZHWA, 280. Virtually the same wording is also found in the corresponding passage of DPA', 964, and sr, 363. For Tughluq Temilr, see for instance the reprint ofN. Elias and E. Denison Ross, eds. and trs., A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia being the Tarikh-iRashidi ofMizra Muhammed Haidar, D"ghlat (New York: Praeger Publishers, \970), 5-23. An examination of the various usages of the term stod hor is found in Zhang Yun, "An Investigation and analysis ofStod hor (in Chinese]," Zhollggua Zangxue 1 (1994),99·105. 54 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUl.JP family or not, did not read Tibetan, imperial support towards the production of manuscripts and xylographs must for now be interpreted, firstly, as a desire to do something that their Tibetan court chaplains could appreciate and, secondly, as an indication of the felt need to create good karma, to get a. grip on the course future events may take. Thus, much of this patronage had to do with merit­making. And this must have also motivated them to patronize the reproduction of Chinese Buddhist texts of which the Yuanshi, too, gives more than ample evidence. Mongol imperial support of having these Kalacakra texts printed on several occasions does suggest that the Kalacakra cycle with its putative origin in the northern land of Sambhala I Shambhala l61 may have found some resonance in the upper echelons of Mongol society in China, if only because of the geographical space occupied by the Mongols. D. Martin demonstrated that the thirteenth century witnessed what can be called a paradigm shift in the Tibetan Buddhists' perception of Tibet's place in the topography of the known world. Whereas, previously and in consonance with Indian Buddhist literature, the Tibetans located themselves to the north of the center, the Indian subcontinent, we now find that the center came to be occupied by Tibet, whereby the Mongols were shifted to the north and the subcontinent to the south. 162 Doubtless, this had much to do with the fact that institutionalized Buddhism in northern India had suffered greatly at the hands of the Turkic invaders of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. The result of its virtual destruction was that the Tibetans suddenly found themselves, at least this was their perception, at the center of the Buddhist world, a notion that was no doubt given greater depth and nuance by the circumstance that only Tibetan clerics were sought out the Xixia and the Mongols to occupy the post of Imperial Preceptor, the highest position in the religious hierarchy of these dynasties. The newly found international role of the Tibetan clergy, the psychological impact of this shift and its consequences for their self­understanding and literary praxis will need to be examined. For example, we may be able to determine that the new social and political realities had a noticable impact on the way in which the Tibetans commented on Indian Buddhist treatises. On the other hand, we must also be quite clear about the fact that, in contradistinction to the Tibetan clerics mentioned above, many Tibetans, 161 "Utopian Thought in Tibetan Buddhism: A Survey of the Sambhala Concept and Its Sources," Studies in Cenlral & East Asian Religions 516 (1992­3), 78­86; see also M. Matsumoto, "Shambhala [in Japanese]," Ronshii 27 (2000), 23­35. 162 See his "Tibet at the Center. A Historical Study of Some Tibetan Geographical Conceptions Based on Two Types of Country­Lists Found in Bon Histories," Tibetan Studies. Proceedi/lgs ofthe 6th Seminar of Ihe fnlef/lalional Association for Tibetan S'udies. Fagernas 1992, ed. P. Kvaeme, vol. I (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, (994),531­2. TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM 55 clerics and laypeople alike, harbored a profound resentment towards the Mongols who, after all, had forcibly occupied their land. This comes to fore in several ways, not least among which in the many anti­Mongol ｰｾｯｨ･ｳｩ that began to circulate in the Tibetan cultural area, prohesies that were as a rule placed in the mouth of the eighth century Padmasambhava. I intend to return to these on a future occasion. Another important task for future research would be to find out whether there are any Chinese sources on Kalacakra­related literature and practise at the Mongol court of Yuan China. I doubt very much that more wiII be found and, as far as I am aware, kOlacakra or its Chinese equivalent shilun do not occur in the Yuanshi. Mongol interest in this cycle with its apocalyptic and universalist visions was obviously a spill­over of the incredibly concerted efforts at its dissemination on the part of the Tibetans. A thoroughgoing concern with this tantra as evidenced by the numerous commentaries and translations is a distinctive feature of late thirteenth and fourteenth century Tibetan intellectual history, One could conjecture that this circumstance may perhaps in part have been a psychological reflex of the new political situation in Tibet, a land that had been conquered and was now occupied and governed by a foreign power. All things considered, it is hardly likely that these xylographs were intended for the consumption of the non­Tibetan clergy. It would not be unfair to say that in terms of sheer learning and command of Buddhist literature, the Tibetan hierarchs far outstripped their Chinese counterparts. It appears that from the very beginning of the infiltration of Tibetan Buddhism in the Mongol court the "church" language was Tibetan and remained Tibetan, and this must have prevented all but the most convinced nonTibetan members of the Buddhist clergy and laity from gaining access to the essentials of Tibetan Buddhism. Time and again we read that interpreters were active when Tibetan prelates gave sermons en route to the capital cities, and also when they were at the court. Whereas from the Yuan onward, Tibetan Buddhism had a considerable impact on China and the Chinese sensibility as a whole, Chinese forms of Buddhism exerted by and large very little influence on Tibet. Generally speaking, only very few Tibetans studied, took an interest in, or had much of an idea of, Chinese Buddhism. It is therefore difficult to assess the remark made about Mchims Nam mkha' grags by Sh.-yo ston Smon lam tshul khrims (1219-99), his successor to Snar thang's abbatial throne. Mchims is not known to have traveled beyond Central Tibet, but Skyo ston nonetheless wrote that "with respect to Buddhism, he did not differentiate between Indian, Chinese or Tibetan 56 LEONARD W.J . VAN DER KUlJP TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TlIlETAN BUDDHISM [Buddhism]."163 Lama 'Phags pa was not so tolerant or ecumenicallY inclined, and his critique of a Chinese interpretation of the instantaneous attainment of Buddhahood allegedly taught in the eleventh chapter of the Saddharmapw;rJarikasiitra is found in his collected writings. 164 At the same time we know that he was also supportive of Chinese forms of Buddhism. A little after 1270, he wrote a eulogy on the occasion of the compilation of a [?part of a] Chinese Buddhist canon in Sichuan by the monk Yi. 165 Given his long stay in China among the Mongols, there is a high probablility that, instead of relying on Uyghur or other intermediaries and interpreters, Lama 'Phags pa had learned a sufficient amount of Chinese to get by, and possibly Mongol and Uyghur as well, but there is so far no airtight evidence that he was able to speak these languages, let alone write anything in them. But we can be more confident with some of his contemporaries. For example, Bsod nams 'od zer writes in his biography of U rgyan pa that the master was not only able to converse in Sanskrit, but also that he spoke some vernaculars of mountain people (ri brag pa), Chinese, Mongol and Uyghur, to the extent that he "did not need to rely on other interpreters (/0 Isa ba gzhan la llos mi 57 of this transmission was the fairly elusive Lo tsa ba Mchog Idan legs pa'i blo gros dpung rgYan mdzes pa'i tog, a Sanskritist and, from 1294 onward, one of the masters of the more famous Dpang Lo tsa ba Blo gros brtan pa (12761342). He received these transmissions from such Chinese monks as Gyang chu « Ch. jiangzhu) and Sam gya ro, names that only exist in Tibetan transcription. The latter had apparently himself received the Avata'!lsakasiilra in forty-five chapters from this very same Gyang chu, and was able to speak Tibetan. Relations between the Tibetans and the Mongol imperial family remained in place after the fall of the Yuan dynasty, though now on a much more superficial level, and titles and other privileges continued to be granted by the Qaghan willie in Qara Qorum. 168 We read about this in Mi dbang 'Phags pats 1479 biography ofRab brtan kun bzang 'phags (1381-1442), the ruler of Rgyal mkhar rtse in Central Tibet. Woven around the history of the Shar ka ba family to which Rab brtan kun bzang 'phags belonged, he writes that, in 1372, a master (dpa' shi < Mon. baghsi) Chos kyi 'od zer \vent on a mission to the imperial court [in Qara Qorum] on behalf of this farnily.169 He returned with a seal (dam rlags) and title of si tu for ills employer 'Phags pa rin chen (1320-76), Rab brtan kun bzang 'phags' grand-uncle. The text is quite explicit that it was the Mongol emperor (hal' rgyal po) who had bestowed these honors and tills means that it was Ayushiridara who had given him this title. Placed between the middle of the third lunar month and the ninth day of the fourth lunar month of 1373, an entry in Lama darn pa's biography informs us that he met the Imperial PreceptoL 170 Who was this Imperial Preceptor? Yar lung Jo bo's list of these men ends with Bsod nams blo gros, and Gtsang Byams pa does the same, but says quite explicitly that there were no Imperial Preceptors during the next two generations of emperors. 17I Gtsang Byams pa seems to countenance here only the emperors of China in that he follows this with the remark that Karma pa V De bzhin gshegs pa dgos par gda' /).166 Further, in spite of the fact that certain Chinese transmissions of Buddhist sutras also entered into Tibet at that time, they had no identifiable impact on its intellectual history.167 The known nexus in each recorded case 163 See the Mchims noms mkha' grogs Icyi rtlam thor, fifty­folio, handwritten dbu med manuscript under C.P.N. catalogue no. 002806(13), 38a: [des no] chos [a rgya gar ma dang/ rgya nag ma dang / bod ma [a sogs po 'i rtlam dbye mi mdzad de !. 164 See his Dam chos pad dkar gyi tshig dOll la gzhan gyi log par rtog pa dgag pa, SSBB So skya pa'i bka' 'bum compo Bsod nams rgya mtsho, voL 7 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), no. 233, 215/2­9/111. Shokutaro [ida first studied this treatise in a 1979 paper, which was reprinted in his Facets ofBuddhism (New DelhI: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991),65­83. 'Phags pa completed this work at the request of his disciple Da sman « Mon. Dashman) not far from Sa skya in Chu mig Dpal gyi sde chen monastery on March 18, 1277. This Da sman may be the same as the official Qubilai had organize mail relay­systems in central Tibet, who was later appointed president of the Bureau for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs; see lastly Pctech (1990: 62) and H. Franke's review of this book in the Central Asiatic Journal 36 (1992), 147. Lama 'Phags pa's chapter eleven is chapter twelve of ｋｵｭ｡ｲｾｪｔｶ｡Ｇｳ translation for which sec L. Hurvitz, trs., Scripture ofthe Lotus Blossom afthe Fine Dharma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 195­201. 168 Inasmuch as there is no record of him having gone to China, it is entirely probable that these men were in Tibet. In fact, they may have formed part of the entourage of Lha btsun Chos kyi rin chen, the deposed Gongdi emperor (1269-1332) of the Southern Song, who lived in the immediate vicinity of Sa skya monastery from the 1280s until his recall and execution in Hexi. But only if this Lha blsun is in fact the deposed Song emperor. For him, see the references in my"·Jambhala. An Imprrial Envoy to Tibet During the Late Yuan," 533, n. 22, and also the long note in Franke (1996: 153-4). 165 See the Yi gyallgjus glegs bam bsgrubs pa [a bsngags po, SSBB vol. 7, no, 256, 237/4· 8/2. A native of Sichuan, Vi may be possibly be identified with Yuanyi, on whom see Franke (1996: 136 ff). For another bit of information on Lama 'Phags pa's support of Chinese Buddhism, see the interesting notes in I. Hamar, A Re[igious Leader in the Tang: Chengguall's Biography, Sludia Philologica Buddhica, Occasional Paper Series XII (Tokyo: The Intemational Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2002), 17­9. 166 B5 0 0 , 201 [BSODI,277]. 169 See the Rab brcan kun bzang 'phags kyi mam thor, ed. Tshe don (Lhasa: Bod Ijongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 17 [Ibid" (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1978), 29]. 170 BYANG,49a. 167 Thus Ngor chen's Thob yig rgya mtsho, SSBB vol. 9, no. 36, 99/4, 10112­3. 171 YAR, [68 [YARI, 161, Tang 1989: 95] and GTSANG, 62b. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Il"!! ｾ ..... ｾＬｉＢＱＢＬＭＭＭＭＢＢＢｬ＾ＬＮＮＮＬＮ ＱＢＧＢＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＢＮＮ -..,>-....,-----..... ＢＮＧ ＧＬＮＧｉＡ ｗｬｾｬＡＧＺＧｲｯ｟ＮｊｾＧ＿ＧＮＧＮＧＺＯｹＧ Ｇ Ｇ Ｂｦｩ｟ＧＬＮ Ｎ ｾＬＮ Ｎ Ｍ Ｍ ...q _ _I!I.!iII __ 4A .. ........... ---- 58 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KUIJP TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM (1384­1415) and Theg chen Chos rje Kun dga' bkra shis (1349­1425) wer" Imperial Preceptors "during tha'i tshun." Doubtless, Tibetan tha'i dZUll reflects Chinese Taizong, that is, the Yongle Emperor. No doubt basing themselves on Ming sources, Wang Furen and Chen Qingying list a *Rnam rgyal dpal bzang po as the last Yuan Imperial Preceptor, but, once again, Tucci had it right long ago when he reconstructed this man's Tibetan name as *Nam mkha' dpal bzang po. In There is also evidence of a tenuous and short­lived connection between the young Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357­1419) and the Mongol imperial family. In an entry for the end 1379 or the beginning of 1380 in his splendid biography by 'Brug Rgyal dbang Chos rje of 1845, we learn that "the son of the supreme Mongol emperor" had sent him a letter and gifts while he was in Bde ba can monastery during the winter session (dgun chos).173 The Mongol prince may be identified as a son of Toghus Temur (1342­88/9), Ayushiridara's younger brother, who reigned from 1378 to 1388, and who himself was the son of the last bona fide emperor Toghon Temur. 174 Carried to the court by a Dge bshes Bsod nams rgyal ba, Tsong kha pa's reply of February 3, 1380 is non­committal and uninformative, rendering it impossible to determine the contents of the prince's letter. The late twelfth century witnessed the beginning of what was to become the leitmotif of Tibetan Buddhist culture, namely the notion of reincarnation. Over time, many incarnation series were proposed that incorporated an ever increasing number of individuals in their narratives of ongoing reincarnation. For a large variety of reasons, some obvious, others much less so, the most disparate men are at times embraced by and included in these series, often for purposes of additional legitimation. In this connection, something interesting happened to Qubilai. The long biography Skal bzang legs bshad wrote of Byams pa mthu stobs kun dga' rgyal mtshan (1835­95) included in his subject's previous reembodiments none other than this Mongol emperor!' 75 59 BffiLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIAnONS BLA Bla rna [= Lama] dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan, Collected Works, vol. Na, one hundred and one­folio [= 408­507] handwritten dbu can manuscript under C.P.N. catalogue no. 003877. BRAG Brag dgon Zhabs drung Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Mdo smad chos 'byung, ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982). BSOD Bsod nams 'od zer, Grub chen a rgyan pa 'i rnam par thar pa byin rlabs kyi chu rgyun (Gangtok, 1976), 1­212. BSODI Ibid., ed. Rta mgrin tshe dbang, Gangs can rig mdzod, voL 32 (Lhasa: Bod Ijongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1997). BYANG Lo tsa ba Byang chub rtse mo, Chos rje bla ma dam pa'i rnam[s] thar thog mtha' bar gsum, seventy­five­folio handwritten dbu can manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002898(6). OPA' Dpa' bo II Gtsug lag phreng ba, Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' stan, Smad cha, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986). GNYAGS Chos nyid ye shes, Gnyags stonpa'i gdung rabs dang gdan rabs, ed. Rta mgrin tshe dbang, Gangs can rig mdzod, voL 31 (Lhasa: Bod Ijongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1997). 'Gos Lo tsa ba Gzhon nu dpal, Deb gter sngon po (New Delhi: International Academy for Indian Culture, 1976). 'GDS April 3, 2004 'GDsl Ibid., Deb Iher sngon po, Smad / Stod cha, ed. Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs skrun khang, 1984). 172 A BriefHistory ofRelations between rhe Mongol and Tibetan Nationalilies [in Chinese], 37, and Tucci (1949: 685). GTSANG Gtsang Byams pa Rdo Ije rgyal mtshan, Sa skya mkhon (sic) gyi gdungs rab (sic) rin po che'i 'phreng ba, fols. 91(?). Incomplete ninetyfoho handwritten dbu can manuscript, Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel L 591/4. 173 See his 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po Isong kha pa chen po'i mam thar, ed. Grogs pa rgya rntsho et aJ. (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984), 147­8. Tsang kha pa's reply is there fully cited. 174 For his biography, see Dictionary ofMing Biography, voJ.2, 1293­4. 175 See his Rje btsun byams pa mrhu stabs lam dga' rgyal IIItshan gyi rnam Ihar (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1994), 184­94. £$ , •i , • S , ; ) , ,.,3 ,.., $=1£ ｾＭ 60 LEONARDW.J. VAN DERKUIJP TH E KALACAKRA AND PATRONAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM NGAG Ames zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga' bsod nams, Sa skya'i gdung rabs ngo mtshar bang mdzod, ed. Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986). ZHWA Zhwa dmar II Mkha' spyod dbang po, Mtshungs med bla ma dam pa'i rnam par thar pa yon tan mi zad pa rab tu gsal ba'i me long, Collected Works, vol. II (Gangtok, 1978),203­319. RGYAL ?Rgyal shrT, Grub chen po u rgyan pa'i mam par thar pa ngo fIltshar rgya mtsho, one hundred and five­folio uncatalogued handwritten dbu med manuscript of the C.P.N. Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims and Yu Wanshi (1989), tr., Lang shijiazu shi, ed. Chen Qingying (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe). SGRA Sgra tshad pa Rin chen mam rgyal, Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i skabs su chos rje 10 tsa ba'i gsung sgros 'byung ba'i zin bris, The Collected Works of Bu ston (and Sgra tshad pa) [Lhasa print], part 27 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 121­380. Chen Qingying, Gao Hefu and Zhou Runnian (1989), tr., Sajia shixi shi (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe); translation ofNGAG. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnien (1988), tr., Hongshi (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe); translation ofTsHAL. Si tu Pal) chen Chos kyi 'byung gnas and 'Be 10 Tshe dbang kun khyab, Sgrub [b]rgyud karma ka« tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i mam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba, vol. I (New Delhi, 1972). Sf Farquhar, D.M. (1990), The Government of China Under Mongol Rule, Miinchener Ostasiatische Studien, Band 53 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum compo Bsod nams rgya mtsho, vols. 15 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968­9) Franke, H. (1990), "Marginalien zu den Besuchen der Karma­pa Hierarchen in China wahrend der spateren Yuanzeit," China. Dimensionen der Geschichte. Festschrift fiir Tilemann Grimm anliifllich seiner Emeritierung, ed. P.M. Kuhfus (Ttibingen: Attempto Verlag), 99­120. SSBB STAG Stag tshang Lo tsa ba Shes rab rin chen, Sa skya pa'i gdung rabs 'dod dgu'i rgya mtsho, thirty­foUT­folio handwritten dbu med manuscript catalogued under C.P.N. no. 002437. (1996), Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der filanzeit, Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexikographie, Band III (Miinchen: Kommission fUr Zentralasiatische Studien / Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften). Tshal pa Kun dga' rdo rje, Deb ther dmar po, ed. Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981). TSHAL TSHALl Ibid., Hulan deb gter dmar po tshal pa kun dga' rdo rjes mdzad pa, eighty­seven­folio handwritten dbu can manuscript (Beijing: Buddhist Research Institute, Huangsi, "Yellow Monastery," no date). Guo Heqing (1985), tr., Qingshi (Lhasa: Xizang minzu chubanshe); translation of 'GaS 1. van der Kujp, L.W.J. (1993), "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History ill: The Oeuvre of Bla rna dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312­1375), Part One," Berliner Indologische Studien 7, 109­47. The Tibetan Tripitaka, The Taipei Edition, ed. A.W. Barber (Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991), vols. 71. IT Yar lung Jo bo Shakya rin chen, Yar lung jo bo'i chos 'byung, ed. Dbyangs can [lha mo] (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 1988). YARI Ibid., ed. Ngag dbang (Lhasa: Bod Ijongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988). Petech, 1. (1990), Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yuan-Sa skya Period of Tibetan Histo/)', Serie Orientale Roma, vol. LXV (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente). YAR PUR , •i i ' • 61 Roerich, G. (1979), tr" The Blue Annals (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass). J } i ｾＢｩ＿Ｇ ＧｾＢＮｉｍ .c., • 62 LEONARD W.J. VAN DER KU1JP Schuh, D. (1973), Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischef! Kalenderrechnung, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplement Band 16 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner). (1977), Erlasse und Sendschreiben MongolischerHerrscher fur tibetische Geistliche, Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abt. II, Bd. I (St. Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag). Schulte­Uffelage, H. (1963), tr., Das Gengshen waishi (Berlin: AkademieVerlag). Tang Chi'an, (1989), tr., Yalong zunzhe jiaofa shi (Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe); translation of YAR. Tucci, G. (1949), Tibetan Painted Scrolls, vol. I and II (Rome: La Libreria dello Stato). YS Yuanshi, Song Lian et aI., vols. 15 (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuqu,1976). , • i i I • j} • ＢＭﾷｱｐＧＺ［ｴ＿｣＼ｉＨＮＬｾｬｲｵ 4", • W4iI\if9'i\iiI