The Padma bka' thang and gSer phreng
by Lewis J.A. Doney
In order to obtain corroborating evidence of ZL3's relative antiquity to the other recensions, I consulted the later hagiographical tradition. As perhaps the first bKa' thang, ZL was incorporated naturally into later bKa' thangs as both the meta-narrative structure for the story and the source of its reverent tone. Two influential examples of the bKa’ thang genre are the fourteenth-century Padma bka' thang by O rgyan gling pa (b. 1323) and
the bKa' thang gSer phreng by Sangs rgyas gling pa (1340-1396). Both gter stons lived only two centuries after Nyang ral, increasing the likelihood that their hagiographies of Padmasambhava follow ZL rather than another bKa' thang. However, there are three reasons to doubt their reliability for judging the oldest ZL recensions:
1) I have not been able to compare all versions of both bKa' thangs.
2) Those that I have compared do not follow the ZL narrative throughout their texts.
3) It is possible that one of these bKa' thangs influenced the redactor of a later ZL recension rather than vice versa.
The mid fourteenth-century Padma bka' thang contains a similar narrative to ZL, from the tale of King Indrabhuti to the moment when Padmasambhava leaves Tibet. Most of the key elements from ZL are present, but O rgyan gling pa extends them and, of course, narrates them in his own style. He also adds extra episodes from other sources that occasionally conflict with the ZL depiction of events. He almost admits as much at the end of his text, relating that some people objected to the disparities between the two.
The gSer phreng is more readable and well ordered than the Padma bka' thang. Sangs rgyas gling pa follows ZL more closely than O rgyan gling pa does, but the Padma bka' thang also influences the gSer phreng. Sangs rgyas gling pa synthesises the two texts and improves upon O rgyan gling pa's writing. Perhaps he tried in this way to correct the disparity between the Padma bka' thang and ZL.
The two bKa' thangs appear to borrow and quote from different versions of ZL: the Padma bka' thang most often from ZL3 and the gSer phreng almost exclusively from ZL1. Hence, the Padma bka' thang corrobarates the evidence of MTN; but most importantly, the gSer phreng contradicts it. Neither text follows ZL2.
ZL1 in the Padma bka' thang and gSer phreng
The Padma bka' thang includes some episodes that are also found in ZL1 (perhaps coincidentally), but most are absent. The gSer phreng adds many of the episodes that are also included in ZL1. Where it does follow ZL, the Padma bka' thang does not include any of the added episodes in ZL1 chapters
1-13; except, perhaps, for chapter 2's episode in bSil ba'i tshal. Since this episode is only roughly similar, and is, in any case, an explanation of one of Padmasambhava's famous names, on its own this is not enough to justify us affirming a twelfth-century date for all ZL1's additions. The Padma bka' thang's overall agreement with ZL3 against ZL1 thus corroborates MTN's witness against the antiquity of ZL1 chapters 9-22.
It seems most likely that the gSer phreng synthesises the ZL1 narrative with that of the Padma bka' thang. It is unlikely that ZL1 borrowed from the gSer phreng. The evidence of the gSer phreng suggests that the ZL1 recension existed by the late fourteenth century. O rgyan gling pa appears to have based the Padma bka' thang on ZL3, with large changes, and Sangs rgyas gling pa based his gSer phreng more on ZL1, almost quoting from it at
times. The ZL1 recension could thus date from the thirteenth or early fourteenth century. This means that its unique depictions of Khri Srong lde brtsan may reflect twelfth-century oral narratives or could yet be found in earlier sources. Until then, I can only conclude that ZL1 constitutes a relatively old view of the imperial period, but falls outside the timeframe of this thesis. ZL2 in the Padma bka' thang and gSer phreng
The Padma bka’ thang’s lengthy prelude to the birth of Padmasambhava (1-107) does not fit the tale told in ZL2. Most importantly, it does not mention Bya rung kha shor at this stage in the narrative. As I mentioned above, the Padma bka’ thang narrates the episode of Indrabhuti only briefly (112.2¬9), without any of the eight white goddesses, eight gold goddesses etc. (from ZLe 15b4-16b2). The Padma bka’ thang contains only a brief description of the extraneous taming scenes in Nepal (360.14-16); whereas in ZL2 the journey takes up more than four folios. The same is true for the descriptions of Padmasambhava taming chthonic deities in ZL2. It is thus highly unlikely that the ZL which influenced the Padma bka' thang contained any of the episodes described only in ZL2.
The gSer phreng does not include any of these extra elements either. Its opening chapters are set in bDe ba can, rather than in a previous life in India. Later in the narrative (227-28), the gSer phreng mentions some elements of the Bya rung kha shor story that are also included in ZL2's first chapter. However I believe that these inclusions are independent of each other, since the episode was evidently popular and circulated widely in Tibet. In the gSer phreng, Padmasambhava goes straight to Mang yul, a journey that it records more briefly than ZL2 does. Other extended episodes regarding Padmasambhava taming deities from ZL2 are also absent in the gSer phreng.
Therefore neither the Padma bka’ thang nor gSer phreng make use of ZL2. This does not necessarily mean that ZL2 was not in existence in the fourteenth century, since both authors may have chosen to ignore its narrative. However, it would have been easy to include, since the main addition in ZL2 precedes and does not impinge on all the events that follow it. However there is no evidence that it was influential enough to affect either gter stons' depiction of Khri Srong lde brtsan. I have yet to find another history that draws inspiration from ZL2.
Conclusion
ZL3 occupies the preeminent place in the ZL tradition up to the nineteenth century. Nyang ral's own MTN follows that recension, as does O rgyan gling pa's Padma bka’ thang. A precis of ZL in KGT also follows ZL3. ZL1 may have influenced Sangs rgyas gling pa's gSer phreng, but this requires further research. It is unclear why 'Jam mgon Kong sprul chose a version of ZL1 for inclusion in his gter ma collection, the Rin chen gter mdzod. He does not appear to quote from it in his own biography of Padmasambhava. Versions of ZL3, without the additions present in ZL1 or 2, were widely circulated within Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan and influenced later Tibetan historical works, as MTN and the Padma bka' thang attest.
The influence of ZL1 on the gSer phreng is difficult to assess. It is even possible that the latter indirectly influenced the former. Even if the gSer phreng does quote ZL1, on that account it is still only possible to date this redaction to the fourteenth or possibly thirteenth century. ZL1 cannot necessarily be attributed to Nyang ral. Its relation with ZL3 seems similar to that between sBa bzhed 2 and sBa bzhed 1 discussed in the
conclusion to Chapter One. It is now possible to see the large interpolations added to the sBa bzhed narrative over roughly a century of transmission of both textual traditions. ZL3 differs from the dBa’ bzhed because it does not include any episode missing from ZL1, whereas the beginning and end folios of the dBa’ bzhed are not present in sBa bzhed G, P or S. The ZL situation is easier to disentangle, therefore, and here its influence on other historical texts helps us enormously.
ZL2, on the other hand, seems to have had no influence on later authors, and seemingly exists only in Nepal. ZL2 tellingly contains an interpolated chapter on Bya rung kha shor (arguably the chief Buddhist stupa in Nepal), and episodes on taming Nepalese spirits. I suspect that, at some point long after Nyang ral's death, a redactor added these episodes to emphasise Padmasambhava's connection with that country. He evidently used a version of ZL3 as his exemplar.
Strictly speaking, there are more than three recensions of ZL. Very recently, an editor changed the earliest, unadorned recension (ZL3), making many slob dpons into ghu rus etc., to create ZLi. This is technically a new redaction, as is the edited ZLa that constitutes ZLb. However, if anything ZLi could only be called recension ZL3a (and ZLb called ZL1b), since the editor does not add any new episodes to the narrative. There thus appear to be
four independent redactions made to the original recension. Perhaps Nyang ral performed one set in his lifetime (producing ZL1) but different editors definitely made three seperate sets of changes at different points after that. Fortuneately, a recensionally unaffected branch continues to this day, in versions ZLh and ZLj-k; in other words ZL3.
In the rest of this thesis I predominantly quote from ZLh, the most trustworthy and complete version of the ZL3 recension (see the Appendix). I do not completely discount versions ZLa-g where they agree with ZL3. It is always possible that, despite their recensional additions, versions ZLa-g retain the original wording/spelling where ZLh-k have accumulated transmissional errors. However, I discuss only those elements or episodes included
in all versions of the ZL tradition. There is quite enough of this shared content for my analysis of ZL’s depiction of Khri Srong lde brtsan. In the future scholars may perhaps discover an older ZL version, or a quote from one of ZL1 or 2’s unique episodes contained in a text dating from the thirteenth century. The data currently available suggests that the unadorned ZL3 recension, and especially ZLh as the most faithfully transmitted version of that recension, best reflects what probably constituted Nyang ral’s original ZL.
