Uuuuuu

Chos lugs, or Buddhist Dharma lineages, that have maintained a distinct identity in Tibet

to the present were systematizers as well as nascent institution builders during period of the Later Spread. These so-called “New Schools”—the Sakyapa, Kagyüpa, and the Kadampa as assimilated into the Gelukpa—developed tenet systems and doxographies, often organized around particular classical commentators such as Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti and transmitted through orthodox figures such as Atīśa, Rin chen bzang po, Rṅog Lo tsā ba and Pa tshab lo tsā ba. While these schools would become key political players in the cultural development of the Tibetan plateau, Dan Martin emphasizes that these three traditions were “arguably the three largest and most successful ‘lay initiated movements’ of the times,” given that their key founders difference is that Kun dga’ snying po interprets “’dod pa” as “desire” rather than “tenets” as Karma Pakshi later does (Kapstein 2000, 244 n. 75).

or transmitters were laypersons, as were their followers (1996a, 23-24). The Nyingmapa lineage was also developing—as well as being given—a particular identity during the Later Spread. In order to assert the authority of the teachings and texts that the Nyingmapa considered foremost in importance, practitioners who maintained their commitment to and belief in early transmissions of Buddhism to Tibet also became more organized. However, given that Nyingmapa identity was constituted through reaction to the institutional and doxological activities of the New Schools, the forms of organization undertaken by the Nyingmapa would continue to reflect these differences. For example, many learned and experienced Nyingmapa practitioners remained lay people and/or itinerant yogins, in contrast with the emphasis on celibate monasticism in the organization of the New Schools. Due to the emphasis on such activities as transmission, exegesis and systematization by these indigenous traditions of Tibet, Ruegg has characterized this period as one of “full assimilation” of the Buddhadharma (1979, 288). Yet it must be remembered that this was a dynamic time in the transmission and articulation of the Buddhadharma by the Tibetans and their foreign colleagues. The identities of “schools” and “lineages” were still very fluid in Tibet, and individuals would study a variety of texts and practices with a variety of teachers from a variety of backgrounds. Machik Labdrön received her early teachings from the Abhidharma scholar, Drapa Ngonshé, who eventually encouraged her to study with the accomplished Vajrayāna master, Kyotön Sonam Lama. Karma Pakshi (1204-1283) was raised in a family of yoga practitioners before receiving Buddhist ordination and being recognized as the second Karmapa; he then continued his training in a diverse array of teachings with a variety of teachers. Kapstein makes a similar point about the fluid relationships between schools and doctrinal approaches in his discussion of self-representation in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. He qualifies this point

by stressing that the individuality of significant Tibetan thinkers must not be forgotten: “regardless of significant areas of overlap, there remain striking differences of approach and content among them” (2000, 119). Martin remarks on the “strong sense of freshness and vibrancy, and often an urgency, in their discussions of religious issues” that characterizes the works of great teachers from these lineages from the mid-12th to mid-13th centuries (1996, 47). Martin also points out that “the sectarian identities that have since become so familiar to us were not yet foregone conclusions,” and thus the popularity of “lay movements” and “accomplishment transmissions” must be fully considered in order to understand the complex Buddhist landscape during the era of the Later Spread (Martin 1996, 47). Moreover, sectarian identities did not prevent symbiotic relationships. Perhaps the most abiding symbiotic thread was between the Kagyü and Nyingma teachings, features of which are still referred to as “Ka-Nying.” These traditions have an affinity in their emphasis on experiential practice over scholastic doxographies.

CHÖD IN THE PERIOD OF THE LATER SPREAD

The Buddhist Chöd tradition transmitted by Machik Labdrön is consonant with conservative movements in the period, in that it is grounded in orthodox Buddhist teachings, particularly an explicit dependence on the Prajñāpāramitā corpus. Chöd was also heterodox in its organization, with a non-partisan orientation toward the significance of the lived experience of the practitioner. Chöd is often connected with the Zhijé teachings of the South Asian teacher, Padampa Sangyé, probably due to the fact that some historical materials suggest that Machik Labdrön received teachings—although not necessarily Chöd—from Padampa Sangyé. By the time it became popular to refer to the Eight Great Chariots of the Practice Lineages (sgrub brgyud shing rta chen po brgyad), Zhijé and Chöd were considered linked. These “chariots” are the following lineages: 1) Snga ‘gyur Nyingma; 2) Kadam; 3) Kagyü; 4) Zhangs pa Kagyü; 5) Sakya; 6) Zhijé and Chöd; 7) Dus ‘khor or Sbyor drug (Kālacakra); and 8) Orgyan bsnyen sgrub. Unfortunately, the origins of this classificatory schema are somewhat obscure. The taxonomy is popularly considered to be a means for identifying the various lineages of teachings that were transmitted from India to Tibet; however, this transmission aspect seems to be a somewhat later development. The arrangement is often identified with Jamgön Kongtrül’s editing schema as featured first in the Treasury of Knowledge (Shes bya kun khyab)33 and also used as an organizing principle for the Treasury of Instructions. In the Treasury of Knowledge, Jamgön Kongtrül credits the Nyingma treasure revealer, Phreng bo gter ston Shes rab ‘od zer (aka. Prajñāraśmi, 1517-1584), for the initial classification of schools.34 Unlike several of these lineages, most notably the schools of Nyingma, Kagyü, Sakya and Kadam, Chöd did not retain

its independent status. It is often claimed that Chöd is found in all four of the dominant schools-- Kadam (both alone and in relation to Geluk), Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyü. However, there is scant evidence for a “Sakya Chöd,” unless one wants to draw parallels between Sakya Ku sā li’i tshogs bsags practice and the Chöd offering of the aggregates.35 Even if one were to do this, it 33 Vide Harding’s translation of Kongtrul’s Treasury of Knowledge. It is interesting to note that Padampa Sangyé, as the source for Zhijé and Chöd, is the only Indian in this lineage (2007, 27).

34 In email correspondence, Matthew Kapstein noted that his student Marc-Henri Deroche is working on Phreng bo gter ston’s root text, together with Mkhyen brtse dbang po’s commentary. Kapstein says that Deroche has not yet found an earlier classification, but agreed with me that, given the work of ‘Gos lo tsa ba ad Dpa’ bo gtsug lag, similar classifications were circulating. 19th century work has been done on this topic by scholars such as Zhe chen rgyal tshab, in his text Pad ma dkar po.

35 For example, Sarah Harding claims that “Chöd is practiced widely in one form or another in all sects of Tibetan Buddhism as well as in the Bön tradition” (2003, 47). Similar statements are made by others, including Gyatso (1985, 337), Savvas (1990, 41; 145; 165), and Edou (1996, 53). E. de Rossi-Filibeck, although remarking that “[t]he doctrine of gCod was received, even if with adequate adaptations, by the other schools of Buddhism,” has a more nuanced perspective which does not substantiate the existence of Chöd in Sakya: “[t]he gCod teaching (man ṅags [sic] precepts and ñams len practice) was accepted by the bKa’ brgyud pa, by the Karma pa, a branch of the same school, by the Jo naṅ pa, by the Śaṅs pa and by some rÑyiṅ ma pa traditions not only, standing by the authority of

appears that this practice of the Kusali offering probably began with Lce Bstan ‘dzin phrin las, who was born in the 18th century and composed the text, Nā ro mkha' spyod ma'i ku sā li'i tshogs bsags dang 'brel bar gnyis 'dzin 'khrul ba gcod pa'i man ngag.36 The Sa skya Ngor chos ‘byung does mention Chöd, but its dates are difficult to determine since it was composed between the 16th and early 18th centuries (it was published in 1705).37

While forms of Chöd praxis have been assimilated into a number of different Tibetan schools, Machik often explicitly characterizes her teachings and herself as outside of contemporaneous institutions and doxological debates. David Jackson (1994, 35-37) cites a discussion between Sgam po pa and the Dge bshes Brgya yon bdag on the inferiority of five other contemporaneous Tibetan Buddhist traditions—Dzokchen, Mtshan nyid, Pha rol tu phyin pa, Sngags pa and Kadam. All these traditions are superseded by Sgam po pa’s Mahāmudrā tradition, which is “outside the standard textually expounded Buddhist doctrines” (35). Machik employs similar rhetoric when she dismisses a range of traditions in The Great Speech Chapter: The nihilist has knowledge of the non-existent object; the absolutist has knowledge of the changeless object; the śrāvaka has knowledge of the perceiver and perceived object; the pratyekabuddha has knowledge of the emptiness of dependent relations; the Mind Only student has knowledge of his mind’s own knowledge; the Madhyamaka student has knowledge that is freed from elaborations; the Father Tantra student has knowledge of bliss, clarity and winds; the Mother Tantra student has knowledge of bliss, emptiness, and extensive offerings; students of skillful means and wisdom have knowledge of nonduality; students of Mahāmudrā have knowledge of transcending the mind; students of Dzogchen have knowledge of the great primordiality.38 the source, by the same dGe lugs pa” (1983, 48).

36 The Ku sa li’i tshogs bsags versions I have located are as follows: ku sA li'i tshogs gsog by Phag mo gru pa rdo rje rgyal po (1110-1170, Phag mo Bka’ rgyud); nA ro mkha' spyod ma'i ku sA li'i tshogs bsags dang 'brel bar gnyis 'dzin 'khrul ba gcod pa'i man ngag by Lce Bstan 'dzin phrin las (b.18th c., Sakya); Ku sa li’i tshogs bsags by Dpa’ sprul O rgyan ‘jigs med chos kyi dbang po (1808-1887, Nyingma); and Ku sa li’i tshogs bsags by Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho (1846-1912, Nyingma). 37 For more about this work, see the section on chos ‘byung in relation to Chöd included in this present study. 38 “chad pas cang med yul du rig / / rtag pas ‘gyur med yul du rig / / nyan thos gzung ‘dzin yul du rig / / rang rgyal rten ‘brel stong par rig / / sems tsam rang rig sems su rig / / dbu ma spros bral yin par rig / / pha rgyud bde gsal

However, in this context, Machik does not claim that Mahāmudrā is superior—as does Gampopa (Sgam po pa)—nor does she claim that Chöd supersedes all other Buddhist teachings. Rather, she refers to the Great Mother—Prajñāpāramitā—as the ground of all, and she posits that “as for all knowledge, it is knowledge of the knowledge of objects. Subjects are without identity (de nyid min). Lacking an object, the mind is without knowledge; one is fettered by knowledge of whatever is known.”39 Through the objectification of classes of teachings, the mind is restricted. Rangjung Dorjé, who wrote the earliest extant commentary on this text by Machik (which I have translated in an appendix to this study and address further in a later chapter), chooses to interpret Machik’s observation from his own doctrinal standpoint. Although Rangjung Dorjé agrees with Machik in cautioning against the myopia that can arise from adherence to tenet systems, he augments his gloss of this passage with a reference to Tilopa in order to privilege the Mahāmudrā perspective. Tilopa maintains that although vehicles including Mantra, Pāramitā, Vinaya, Sūtra, and Abhidharma have their own textual traditions and tenet systems, they all embody the luminosity of the Mahāmudrā; however, adherents of the various systems are blinded by their own prejudices and are unable to see the luminous Mahāmudrā.40 By reading

rlung du rig / / ma rgyud bde stong rgyas ‘debs rig / / thabs dang shes rab gnyis med rig / / phyag chen blo las ‘das par rig / / rdzogs chen ye yin chen por rig” {14/463}. 39 “de ltar rig pa thams cad ni / / yul du rig pa’i rig pa yin / / yul can rnams ni de nyid min / / yul med sems la rig pa med / / gang rig pa yi rig pas bcings” {14/463}. 40 “de skad du yang / te lo pas / sngags su smra dang pha rol phyin pa dang / / ‘dul ba mdo sde mngon pa la sogs pa / / rang rang gzhung dang grub pa’i mtha’ yis ni / ‘od gsal phyag rgya chen po mthong mi ‘gyur / zhe ‘dod byung bas ‘od gsal ma mthong bsgrubs / / zhes bshad pa ltar” {74/522}.

“Moreover, as is said by Tilopa, ‘Mantra expressions, pāramitā, vinaya, Sūtra, abhi[[[dharma]]] ([[[chos]]] mngon pa), and the like, as each has its own textual tradition and tenet system, the luminous Mahāmudrā will not be seen; one is not able to see the luminosity because of one’s own wishes.’ In that way it is explained.” Rangjung Dorjé continues:

“yul / yul can du rig pa’i don de ma yin la / yul / yul can bden med du gyur pas / rig bya rig byed gnyis med du gyur pa ni / chos nyid de bzhin nyid yin no zhes pa’o” {74/522}.

“It is said that, ‘objects and subjects are not the aim of enlightened knowing (rig pa’i don). There is no duality of knowable objects and knowing subjects because objects and subjects are without true existence; things themselves (chos nyid; dharmatā) are exactly like that/thatness (de bzhin nyid; tathāta).’”

Machik through Tilopa, Rangjung Dorjé incorporates Chöd into Mahāmudrā, a move which acts as a precursor to the institutionalization of Chöd into the Kagyü tradition. In another teaching attributed to Machik, the tenth chapter of The Great Explanation, which takes the form of a lung bstan or prophetic text, the author takes a stronger iconoclastic position. In her replies to questions posed by one of her spiritual daughters, Machik claims that her system simultaneously is consistent with all dharma teachings as well as independent of both Sūtra and Tantra teachings and commentaries. She first states that “the meaning of my Dharma system is not especially dissimilar from other [systems], either Sūtra or Tantra, that have arisen from the instructions of the buddhas. . . . There is nothing in the meaning of any such outer or inner Dharma teachings, moreover, that is discordant with me.”41 Here she emphasizes that her teachings are essentially buddhavacana and thus not to be distinguished from the authoritative teachings of the buddhas. However, as I will discuss further in the next chapter, her strategy for establishing the authority of her teachings requires her to situate herself within the authoritative lineage of the buddhas and simultaneously to acknowledge her innovative contributions. In the same section of The Great Explanation, Machik notes that her teachings are distinctive because they do not rely on direct quotations from scholarly commentary, but rather reflect the meaning of the dharma without secondary interpolation. This is an example of how Machik legitimates her teachings through a strategy that verges on iconoclasm. In doing so, her discourse uses the dialectical relationship between ahistoricity and historicity: she acknowledges her reliance on and inheritance of the Buddhist teachings while foregrounding her unique position to interpret and transmit these teachings according to her particular historical situation. This tactic of negotiating ahistorical and historical components is a powerful factor in the survival of cultural 41 “Nga’i chos lugs ‘di don la gzhan dang mi ‘dra ba’i khyad par med sangs rgyas kyi bka’ las byung ba’i mdo rgyud gnyis dang. . . . nga dang mi mthun pa yang chos phyi nang gang gi don la med do”{Rnam bshad chen mo 404}.

ideologies.42

Martin has characterized lay movements of the eleventh and twelfth centuries such as Chöd as “an ‘alternative second spread,’ in which lay spiritual leadership and potential were provided for.” Martin acknowledges that these movements often did not have a sustained lifespan: “for the most part they eventually either faded away or were absorbed into or directly opposed and defeated by the emerging monastic institutions” (1996a, 24). He further argues that lay religious movements of the eleventh and twelfth centuries must be considered “in the light of different religious points of view about the ideal sources of authoritative guidance and blessing”: perspectives which emphasize individual personal experience along with proximity to or identity with enlightened beings often do not have the same authority as perspectives which are legitimated through a more formalized lineage of teaching transmissions (1996a, 47). Martin cautions against a common scholarly myopia: “Too often we assume that everyone in Tibetan culture did, or had to, share a single vision on these sorts of issues” (1996a, 47). Yet, given the difficulty of locating or dating source material, it is understandable that this area of study is less developed than that of the scholastic and monastic traditions.

In contrast to Martin, Davidson has a more ambivalent assessment of traditions such as Padampa Sangyé’s Zhijé and their assimilation into the Tibetan environment of the eleventh century. Davidson notes that Padampa Sangyé’s extant texts demonstrate an originality that bespeaks the influence of “Tibetan social realities and images” on them (2005, 246-9). But Davidson also writes of Zhijé as a “curious rubric” which includes a “highly differentiated 42 My thinking here has been influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s observations as presented in Peter Preuss’ 1980 translation of On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Although Nietzsche does not explicitly theorize a dialectical relationship between ahistoricity and historicity, he does give material to think about the relationship between the “historical,” “unhistorical” and “superhistorical,” with the latter two as “antidotes” to the

former in the project of existence. As Nietzsche writes, “By the word ‘the unhistorical’ I denote the art and the strength of being able to forget and enclose oneself in a limited horizon: ‘superhistorical’ I call the powers which

guide the eye away from becoming and toward that which gives existence an eternal and stable character, toward art and religion” (1980, 62).

ideology and practice” with greater “inconsistency and discontinuity” than he has seen in his study of Tantra traditions.43 According to Davidson, the “sense of insubstantiality” was not limited to the teachings alone, but “extended to Padampa’s Tibetan disciples as well, for the holders of the several Zhiché traditions imitated Padampa himself and tended to wander hither, thither and yon all over Tibet, collecting odd scraps of teachings and practicing in disparate environments” and “were not motivated to construct long-lived centers” (op. cit. 249).44 The somewhat disparaging language used by Davidson is evidence of the critical attitude that remains prevalent in discussions of iconoclastic yogic traditions of Buddhism, even those that were popular and important. Conservative scholastic traditions have been more successful at defining orthodoxy and orthopraxy, even among contemporary scholars.

Of course, those positioned—voluntarily or not—outside of traditional lineages had reason to exercise skepticism regarding orthodoxy. Unfortunately, we do not know how explicitly competitive Machik was in such a melée; however, the continued transmission and spread of Chöd up to the present day speaks to her success as a charismatic figure. Machik was obviously adept at transmitting and interpreting traditional teachings in a sanctionable yet distinctive manner. In his discussion of authority and ambition during this period, Kapstein observes that “a distinctive vision that at once established both the personal virtuosity of the author and his (or in rare cases, her) mastery of what was sanctioned by tradition became a 43 Although Davidson undergirds his observations by pointing out that he has “spent several decades reading tantric

texts,” and his contributions to the Indic and Tibetan studies are vast, it is worth noting that he perpetuates the

problematic claim that Machik was Padampa’s “most important female disciple” (2005, 290), with Chöd developing out of “ritual conversation” between the two. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this study, this claim cannot be adequately substantiated by sources.

Davidson states that “the highly differentiated ideology and practice included with Zhiché pushes the envelope [of inconsistency and discontinuity] further than I can recall having previously seen. . . . Although Zhiché became a featured item in many teachers’ repertoires, it did not maintain a strong stable environment, a common occurrence among yogic traditions in late-eleventh-century Tibet. This was in great part because those attracted to such eccentric personalities tended to emulate their behavior and were not motivated to construct long-lived centers” (2005, 249).

fundamental means of self-representation” (2000, 120). Here Kapstein subtly points to the issue of gender exclusivity in lineage construction, and in a footnote to the above statement he explains that he means “her” to refer to Machik as “the best example” of the “rare case” of a female presence (2000, 249 n. 171). Yet, others, including Martin and Davidson, have posited that this environment was relatively hospitable to women practitioners of esoteric traditions. Davidson observes that, especially in contrast with India, women practitioners were important and “gained greater expressive power” from the eleventh to early twelfth century in Tibetan regions, “especially in Tsang Province where all these women either studied or lived” (2005, 293). Martin elaborates that “[c]onsidering their rarity in later times, women religious leaders and lineage holders were relatively much more common in the late 11th through early 13th centuries. This is particularly true of the early Zhi-byed-pa and Chöd schools, but one finds it also in a 13th-century Mahāmudrā lineage coming from Mitrayogin . . . and in some of the early Lam-‘bras transmissions” (Martin 1996a, 35 n. 29). Erberto Lo Bue suggests that the Nyingma tradition’s lack of power allowed it to support women as active participants; he further observes that “[t]he emphasis placed by Tibetan authors on the fact that, thanks to Ma-gcig Labssgron, Buddhist teachings were taken for the first and only time from Tibet to India seems to reflect a certain amount of national pride and a spirit of independence from canonical orthodoxy which are characteristic of the rNying-ma-pa and Bon-po traditions and differentiate themselves from other Buddhist schools in Tibet” (1994, 486).45 With the increasing dominance of conservative factions and male-dominated monastic institutions, female practitioners—as well as heterodox male practitioners—would become less influential and leave few historical traces. Davidson notes that as the political and cultural identity of Central Tibet developed into “a 45 Of course, whether or not it is a “fact” that Chöd teachings literally went from Tibet to India is not easy to establish.

paragon of Buddhist practice—eclipsing even India,” women tended to be suppressed and silenced rather than supported and empowered.46 Although Chöd traditions have managed to survive to the present, the heterodox environment in which they originally flourished was gradually replaced by a culture of maledominated orthodox institutions that have been effective in limiting women’s participation. At the same time, it must be appreciated that male commentators and practitioners have been central to the projects of transmission and innovation in Chöd traditions through their history. Because Chöd has been profoundly transformed from its origins in the teachings of Machik, it is vital to return to a close and critical reading of the sources available. Much work also remains to be done in understanding how Chöd was preserved and transmitted. Traditions such as Chöd developed their own identities through an innovative elaboration of philosophical interpretations and ritual methodologies. They also incorporated elements that could be transmitted through popular culture, including hagiographical narratives, songs, and musical compositions (especially important to the continuing popularity of Chöd). The popularity of such elements among monastic and lay communities was directly connected to the success and longevity of the tradition. The transmissions of Chöd were disseminated through lay lineages and also were appropriated by monastic lineages: the profusion of its forms contributed to its cultural survival. 46 “But when Central Tibet became increasingly the focus of international interest and was held up as a paragon of Buddhist practice—eclipsing even India—then Tibetans began to assume some of the unfortunate standards of behavior that called for the suppression of women in India” (Davidson 2005, 293).

CHAPTER TWO: CHÖD TRANSMISSIONS AND LINEAGES

In this chapter, I will be examining various textual sources that provide indications of the lineages of Buddhist Chöd teachings. There are contradictory and diverse transmission lineages presented in the various emic sources that we have on the Chöd tradition, suggesting conflicting ideas about the development of the tradition and authority.47 Understanding transmissions of Chöd teachings is particularly difficult because they represent two different means of authenticating the tradition. Transmission lineages record the actual passing on of teachings, thus representing the renewal of the tradition, but they also retrospectively associate Chöd teachings with precursor figures, thus legitimating Chöd through its association with existing traditions. As with Machik Labdrön’s development of teachings that were both innovative and traditional, the lineage histories of Chöd both reinterpret and affirm the existing tradition. As a corrective to the prevailing image of Chöd as an ahistorical and uniform system, the critical comparison of transmission sources can help to build a complex picture of this development and legitimation of Chöd traditions.

Chöd lineages have been examined by other scholars, most extensively by Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (1993; 227ff).48 As is made evident by Kollmar-Paulenz’s schematics diagramming the transmissions of Chöd according to the various source texts she surveys, there are a variety of opinions about the transmission history of this tradition.49 While several lineages 47 “The classification of all of the transmissions and teachings of Machik’s Chöd is extremely confusing and conflicting, and it is not the subject of this introduction. See Edou (1996), Kollmar-Paulenz (1993) and (1998), Gyatso (1985), and Orofino (1987)” (Harding 2003, 292, n. 59). 48 One source that Kollmar-Paulenz did not consider is the Man ngag zab mo bdud kyi gcod yul stan thog gcig ma’i gzhung by Rje smon lam Mtha’ yas rgya mtsho, a Gelukpa scholar who was born in 1863. This text is in the Gcod tshogs: The Collected Gcod Teachings of the Dge-lugs-pa Tradition (Dharamsala: LTWA, 1986, 291-43). I have completed a translation of this text and will be presenting it in a future study. 49 Others have presented similar lists, although none as comprehensively as Kollmar-Paulenz 1993. For comparison, see Gyatso (1985), Orofino (1987). Edou (1996), Machik Labdrön and Harding (2003), Zong Rinpoche and Molk

of Chöd have been traced, these lineages have not been considered in terms of their historical contexts, with attention to the tradition(s) of the author(s) and the period of composition. In order to understand both how Chöd legitimated itself as a tradition and how it was regenerated, these lineages must be analyzed in terms of dates of transmissions (if they can be gleaned), identities of recipients, and doxological considerations.

Although much more work needs to be done to complete a comprehensive analysis of Chöd sources, this chapter will outline some of the important historical developments and different tangents in the lineage transmissions of Chöd. In general, although there is agreement that Chöd has been adopted by various Tibetan schools, many scholars represent Chöd as a unitary and unified tradition, without concern for how, when and to whom Chöd was transmitted, nor for the temporal and practical differences between the transmissions. The role of interpretation in the transmission of Chöd has thereby been obscured.50 In this chapter, I consider a range of presentations of transmission lineages in terms of chronology and institutional affiliations. These documents help us to identify key figures and to trace lineages and traditions in the development and transmission of Buddhism in Tibet. This survey will help to undergird further analyses of the “movement” of Chöd and the stakes for legitimation of the tradition. Ultimately, this study will pave the way for future analysis of shifts in doxa and praxis depending on the author and his institutional affiliations during the period of composition. I begin here with a brief overview of precursor texts and Chöd transmission lineages. Next, I survey a number of chos ‘byung (Dharma histories) and rnam thar (spiritual biographies) (2006), and Lodö Rinpoche (2007).

50 In a later section of this study, I will consider a particular case of interpretation involving the Bka’ tshoms chen mo, attributed to Machik Labdrön, and the earliest extant commentary on this teaching by the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorjé, approximately two hundred years later.

to outline key issues in legitimating and renewing the tradition.51 I then examine three texts central to considering Chöd lineages: The Great Explanation rnam thar, which appears to be the earliest extant text (ca. 14th century with possible inclusion of earlier elements) discussing transmission lineages of Chöd; The Blue Annals, a highly-regarded 15th-century chos ‘byung text discussing a wide range of figures and teachings, including Machik Labdrön and Chöd transmissions; and the lineage list contained in another 15th-century text, the Ring brgyud gsol ‘debs, which is important to my project since it explicitly contextualizes the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorjé within a Chöd transmission lineage. These texts chart key developments in the transmission of Chöd teachings. The chapter concludes with my own provisional genealogy of key figures in the development of Chöd up to Rangjung Dorjé.

CHÖD PRECURSORS

While in the next chapter I will be considering how elements of Buddhist philosophy were incorporated into Chöd teachings, here I will evaluate how a range of texts associated the development of Chöd with extant Buddhist traditions. For Machik and later Buddhist Chöd teachers, it was crucial to situate Chöd in relation to established Buddhist teachings. Tibetan authors have identified a variety of different teachings as precursors to the Chöd teachings of Machik. In his The Blue Annals, Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel cites Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa (V.34)52 as a fifth century Indic source for Chöd: “Mental afflictions are generated from holding on to tendencies (phra rgyas), from the presence of external objects, and from inappropriate 51 Another genre that is often useful is gsan yig, or records of spiritual teachings received by individuals, for example, in Mkhas grub’s gsung ‘bum, Mkhas grub thams cad mkhyen pa dge legs dpal bzang po’i gsan yig bzhugs so (ka 56-61).

52 The Deb ther sngon po quotes: “phra rgyas spangs pa ma yin dang / yul ni nye bar gnas pa dang / tshul bzhin ma yin yid byed las / nyon mongs skye ste” (1140-1141).

mental activities.” (2003, 1139-62; 1976, 980-99). Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel’s commentary then links the Abhidharmakośa to the system of Chöd: “What should be cut are emotional reactions. If these emotional reactions are generated from tendencies, and objects, and mental fabrications of inappropriate mental activities, when the yogin has contact with an object, karmic propensities (bag chags) are taken on. It is called ‘gcod yul’ because one precisely cuts through the emotional reactions preceded by the mental fabrication of inappropriate mental activities and objects.”53 In The Blue Annals, and in Thu’u bkwan’s grub mtha’, the authors point to the Hevajratantra as influencing Chöd’s concern about place. Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel maintains that Chöd praxis conforms to Tantra because it conforms to the Hevajratantra. He cites three passages from the Hevajratantra which resonate with three fundamental principles of Chöd: “Good meditation is [practiced] at first [near] a solitary tree, in a charnel ground, at the household of the Terrible mothers, at night, and then ultimately at a remote place” (V1.6);54 “having generously given one’s body, after that one can correctly perform the practice” (VI.19),55 and “truly whatever asura is before one, even if it comes like Indra, moving with a lion’s form one is not afraid of it” (VI.25).56 These three themes in the Hevajratantra— appropriate space for practice, the offering of one’s body, and the development of fearlessness— are elemental in Chöd.

53 “gcad [[[gcod]]] par bya ba ni nyon mongs yin la / nyon mongs de dag phra rgyal dang yul dang tshul bzhin ma yin pa’i yid la byed pa las skye bas na / rnal ‘byor pas yul de nyer bcug nas bag chags blang ste / tshul bzhin ma yin pa’i yid la byed pa sngon du ‘gro ba’i nyon mongs rnams yul gyi thog de nyid du gcod par byed pas gcod yul zhes bya’o” (Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel 2003, 1141). 54 “ji ltar rjes su mthun na / brtag pa gnyis pa las / shing gcig dang ni dur khrod dang / ma mo’i khyim dang mtshan mo dang / yang na dben pa’i bas mtha ru / sgom pa bzang bar brjod par bya” (Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel 2003, 1139). One might note that this Hevajratantra quote itself echoes the Samudayasūtra of the Prajñāpāramitā corpus. 55 “lus kyi sbyin pa sbyin byas nas / phyi nas spyod pa yang dag spyad / (Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel 2003, 1139). 56 “nges par sngon du lha min gang / brgya byin lta bu ‘ongs na yang / de la ‘jigs par mi bya ste / seng ge’i gzugs kyis rnam par rgyu” (Gö Lotsawa Zhonnupel 2003, 1139).

Karma chags med, in his 17th century text, Gcod kyi gdengs bshad nyung nyur bsdus pa bzhugs pa’i dbu phyogs,57 identifies four different Indic sources of Chöd, which might be considered lineage, or perhaps proto-lineage, sources. These are Āryadeva the Brāhmin’s The Great Poem; Nāropa’s Ro snyoms; Orgyan’s ‘Khrul Gcod; and Padampa Sangyé’s Zhijé. Jamgön Kongtrül (1813-1899) has a similar list in his Treasury of Knowledge, differing only in the substitution of an unknown lineage or text referred to as the Bka’ brgyud don gcod for Āryadeva’s The Great Poem.58 However, Kongtrül is not consistent in which texts he includes as relevant precursors to the Chöd system. For example, he does not include the Bka’ brgyud don gcod in his collection of Chöd texts in the Treasury of Instructions, but he does include Āryadeva’s The Great Poem. In his Treasury of Instructions, he lists the following texts as Chöd “gzhung rtsa ba,” that is, root texts for the tradition of Chöd: The Great Poem by Āryadeva, translated by Padampa Sangyé and revised by Zhwa ma Lo tswa ba; The Great Speech Chapter by Machik Labdrön; Shes rab kyi pha rol ty phyin pa gcod kyi gzhung dang man ngag mtha’ dag gi yang bcud zab don thugs kyi snying po; Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gcod yul gyi gzhung ‘grel zag med sbrang rtsi, by Drung pa Ru pa; A Commentary on The Great Speech Chapter by Rangjung Dorjé; Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gcod kyi gzhung shes rab skra rtse’i sa gzhung spel ba rin po che’i gter mdzod; and The Supplementary Chapter of oral instructions of the Prajñāpāramitā. In his Zhijé and Chöd History, Dharmasenggé, a near contemporary with Jamgön Kongtrül, mentions teachings by others which bear similarities to Machik’s Chöd teachings: the Khrul gcod gter ma cycles of Orgyan Rinpoche (n.d.); the pure visions received by Thang stong rgyal po (1361-1485);59 a Chöd teaching on offering the 57 In Tshogs las, 229-239. 58 Paro: Lama Ngodup, 1976, Vol. 4, 159-160.

aggregates articulated by Rgod tshang pa mgon po rdo rje (1189-1258);60 and the Ro snyoms teachings by Nāropa (70a).61 In this same passage, Dharmasenggé situates Rangjung Dorjé as an important inheritor of Chöd, explaining that he is responsible for having clarified previous erroneous ideas about Chöd. In subsequent sections of this chapter and in chapter six, I explain why Rangjung Dorjé is a pivotal figure in the development of the Chöd tradition. It appears that there were teachings in circulation explicitly using the trope of “Chöd” as a technical term in practice from at least the time of Padampa Sangyé’s maternal uncle, Āryadeva the Brahmin, and his verse teaching entitled The Great Poem on the Prajñāpāramitā.62 This text is frequently associated with Chöd by later authors, including Karma chags med and Jamgön Kongtrül, as a precursor to Machik’s Chöd teachings, or as a (or even the) “root text” for Chöd. This piece of philosophical prose was transmitted to Tibet by Āryadeva’s nephew, Padampa Sangyé, who traversed the area giving his teachings on Zhijé. The recitation of this text to Machik by Padampa Sangyé may have been the transmission of the teaching that became the basis of the Chöd tradition.63 Padampa Sangyé is famous for his development of the Zhijé 59 I think that Edou must be referring to the gter ma on Chöd recovered by Thang stong rgyal po; he only provides a reference to Cyrus Stearns’ 1980 M.A. thesis in this regard. See, for example, Ma gcig gsang spyod snyan brgud las / dge sdig ‘khrul spong rgyu ‘bras gsal ba’i don ston bzhugs so. In Thang stong chos mdzod, tha, edited by Chos kyi blo gros. 337-358.

60 Tshogs bsog mchod sbyin gyi zhal gdams (Oral Instructions on Completing the Accumulations [of Merit and Wisdom] Through Giving Homage and Offerings), in Gsung ‘bum, Vol. 2, 375-382. This practice is not explicitly referred to as “Chöd”; however, as Edou notes, this text “does mention an offering of the aggregates to the lamas, yidams, and to the demons, for the benefit of beings, after separating one’s body and mind, thereby completing the accumulations of meritorious activity. This technique seems quite close indeed to Machig’s Chöd tradition” (1996, 188 n. 2). Rgod tshang pa mgon po rdo rje is mentioned in Dharmasenggé’s Transmission History, 550. 61 Edou (1996, 79) has a somewhat similar list. 62 I will be discussing this trope further in the next chapter in a section on etymology and Chöd. 63 However, it might be the case that this connection to Āryadeva the Brahmin through his nephew Padampa is an association that is made explicit in later transmissions of the tradition, such as with Dharmasenggé.

teachings, which are sometimes discussed in complement with Chöd,64 whereas Machik is always spoken of as the female teacher of Chöd. Both Zhijé and Chöd teachings are associated with Prajñāpāramitā teachings, with Zhijé emphasizing practices which pacify suffering and negativities, while Chöd emphasizes cutting through the root of mind as a means for eradicating clinging.

An abiding question in the study of Tibetan Buddhist Chöd is the historical connection between Padampa Sangyé and Machik Labdrön. Not all Chöd transmission lineages acknowledge either or both of these figures, although it is commonplace to posit that Machik Labdrön received teachings known as “Chöd” from Padampa Sangyé. Some scholars have contested the historicity of this transmission. For example, Janet Gyatso argues that, although it is “summarily stated that [[[Padampa Sangyé]]] transmitted Gcod to the Tibetan yoginī Ma-gcig Lab-sgron, [. . . ] in fact the histories of Gcod do not really support this.”65 Some sources present Padampa Sangyé as the “founder” of the Chöd teachings, with Machik as the authoritative source of “female Chöd.”66 It is likely that Padampa Sangyé and Machik met, and it would not be surprising if Machik had received Zhijé teachings from Padampa Sangyé, given that these are the teachings for which he is renowned. It is also possible that Kyotön Sonam Lama (ca.

11th c.)

received teachings on Chöd from Padampa Sangyé and that it was he who then directly 64 E. de Rossi-Filibeck (1983, 47), citing Thu’u bkwan’s grub mtha’ (107) and Gene Smith’s “Introduction” to Kongtrul’s Encyclopedia of Indo-Tibetan Culture (ed. Lokesh Chandra, New Delhi, 1970, 66), states that Chöd maintained “a major individuality in respect to the Zi byed, a system with which it had common roots, so much so that often the Gcod was seen as yan lag of the Zi byed.”

65 Gyatso 1985, 328. See also Kollmar-Paulenz 1998 and Machik Labdrön/Harding 2003. 66 Ronald M. Davidson has called Padampa Sangyé “the most influential Indian yogin in late-eleventh- and earlytwelfth- century Tibet,” and an exemplar of “Indian religious fluidity”: Padampa, with his creative transmissions of Buddhist teachings, “contributed an accelerating sense of openness to the religious zeitgeist” (2005, 245; 16; 246). Later in his introduction, Davidson mentions “the temporary efflorescence of women’s practice with Chö” in the early twelfth century. It is not particularly clear why he genders Chöd in this context (2005, 16). Drawing on limited secondary sources, Davidson presents a brief section on Machik and Chöd (2005, 290-291), uncritically perpetuating the traditional belief that Machik received the Chöd system of teachings from Padampa (even though he cites an article by Janet Gyatso in which she strongly suggests otherwise).

transmitted these teachings to Machik. However, it is important to note that Machik does not mention Zhijé teachings in texts that are attributed to her. Although the historical origins of the Chöd teachings are difficult to establish, the traditional perspective remains that there was an early connection between Padampa Sangyé’s Zhijé teachings and the Chöd tradition, and that Machik was a spiritual heir to Padampa Sangyé, as well as a genetrix in her own right. There is no satisfactory evidence that there was a Buddhist Chöd lineage of transmissions identified as such until Machik started to describe and categorize her own teachings.67 According to Dharmasenggé’s chos ‘byung text, Padampa Sangyé and Machik met in Dingri.68 Though in this text Padampa Sangyé does not transmit any teaching to Machik, following her meeting with him, she studies the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā and liberates her mind through cutting.69 Once she has achieved this accomplishment, Machik 67 It is important to note that the titles of many of the extant texts associated with Machik signify that they are

intended as commentarial teachings on the Prajñāpāramitā corpus, e.g. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo gcod kyi man ngag gi gzhung bka’ tshoms chen mo bzhugs so (The Great Speech Chapter, the textual tradition of the oral instructions of the profound Chöd of Prajñāpāramitā). 68 Dingri, La Stod, was a site where Padampa Sangyé often spent time meditating in a cave and where people gathered to hear his teachings.

ma cig gi sras la'ang ming srid lnga ru 'dod pa dang / bzhi dang gsum du 'dod pa yod kyang / yongs su grags pa rgyal ba don grub dang / thod smyon bsam grub / lcam mo la 'dus [27b3] gsum nges par snang / mtshan gyi rnam grangs tsam du zad / de nas jo mos dbus gtsang gi rgyal khams phyogs med 'grim zhing / la stodding rir dam pa rgya gar mjal du byon pas / dam pa rgya [27b4] gar gyi mngon shes kyis gzigs nas / ye shes kyi mkha' 'gro ma lab gyi sgron ma sang nang par byon par gda' / khyed ding ri ba rnams bsu ba la chas shig gsungs / de bzhin du bgyis te ding [27b5] rir byon nas zhag gsum bzhi bzhugs / dam pa dang nyams bsdur mdzad pas / dam pa thugs mnyes te jo mo khyod kyi bstan pa ni yun ring 'byung gsung / de nas zangs ri mkhar dmar du byon [27b6] te yon bdag mo chos mtsho bya ba zhig lus ni btsun mar 'dug chos ni mi shes par snang / gnya' na ri dmar po zangs ri 'khyil pa 'dra ba 'dug pas / gzhi bdag de'i [28a1] ming du zangs ri 'khyil bar btags / yon bdag mo'i rtsar bzhugs shing yod tsa na / nam srod la yon bdag mo de byung nas / jo mo khyod kyi mtshan ma cig lab sgron du snang / steng ya gir dur [28a2] khrod yod pas de la dgon pa thob la bzhugs / ngas kyang yon bdag byed pa yin zer / de nas mi dmar rta dmar can zhig byung nas nga zangs ri'i gzhi bdag yin / mkhar 'di la zangs ri mkhar dmar [28a3] zer / jo mo btsun ma 'di'i yon bdag byed pas / ri pha gi la nga 'dug pa yin / 'di gnyis kyi bar la bzhugs dang zer skad / jo mo'i dgongs pa la thod pa bha dra nged gnyis kyi lung bstan dang en [28a4] tsam mi 'dra bas / 'khor ba'i sdug bsngal 'ba' zhig dran pa dang / khrom der tshogs pa rnams kyis kyang 'phya bar 'ongs dgongs par mdzad do / / 69 de nas phyi nyin nyi ma rtse shar la a ma jo mo g-yo ru gra thang gi sgo mo che la byon tsa na / dam pa rgya gar yang rdzu 'phrul gyis byon nas / rgyal [23a6] gyi lha khang gra'i rdo 'phrang la byon 'ongs ba dang thug gis mjal / phan tshun phyag dang dbu thug mdzad / a ma jo mos dam pa sangs rgyas bod yul du byon pa ngo mtshar che gsungs bas / dam pa'i zhal nas / [23b1] khyod ye shes kyi mkha' 'gro ma yin te lab tu sku 'khrungs nas / bod yul du

teaches her doctrine of the “five that destroy partiality” (phyogs ris ‘jig pa lnga)—a method for destroying partiality toward certain foods, certain attire, certain domains, certain companions and one’s homeland.70 It is noted that her teachings were considered in accordance with the Buddha’s words.71 In contrast, the Rnam thar within the Rnams bshad chen mo and the Byin rlabs gter mtsho (discussed further below) not only state that Machik and Padampa Sangyé met, but also list teachings that Machik received from Padampa Sangyé. Indeed, the Rnam thar texts emphasize that Chöd is a Tibetan teaching originating with Machik. They also claim that Chöd is notable in its authenticity as a Buddhist teaching and authority as the only teaching that originated in Tibet and was transmitted to India.72 Several scholars have noted that this connection between Padampa Sangyé and Machik functions to legitimate Chöd through both an Indian and a male lineage;73 as I noted in the previous chapter, there were many limitations on 'gro ba sems can gyi don mdzad pa ngo mtshar che / khyod kyi chos brgyud dus kyi mtha' la nam mkhar nyi ma shar ba bzhin 'ong ba yin [23b2] gsungs / de nas dam pa ni 'gro don phyogs med byon / a mo jo mo yang nang du byon nas nyi khri klog par mdzad / mdo la gzigs rtogs mang du mdzad pas blo cig chod du grol te / rtogs pa khyad par [23b3] can rgyud la skyes /

70 dang po zas la phyogs ris med pa'i rtags su / sngar rgod zas dkar [23b4] gsum mngar gsum min pa mi za ba las / phyis mdze zas dang sprang zas bza' bar byung / gnyis pa gos la phyogs ris med pa'i rtags su / sngar dar gos min pa

mi gyon palas / phyis mdze gos [23b5] dang sprang gos gyon par byung / gsum pa gnas kyi phyogs ris zhig pa'i rtags su / sngar gnas gzhi dang sde gdon min par mi bzhugs pa las / phyis mdze sprang gi gseb dang lam srang du gzims par [23b6] byung / bzhi pa grogs kyi phyogs ris med pa'i rtags su / sngar mkhan slob dang btsun ma'i sde dang 'grogs pa las / phyis nas mdze sprang gi grogs dang 'grogs par byung / lnga pa yul [24a1] gyi phyogs ris zhig

pa'i rtags su / sngar mi chos kyi yul e'i lab dang / lha chos kyi yul g-yo ru gra thang du bzhugs pa las / phyis nas rgyal khams phyogs med du gshegs par byung

71 gzhan yang bka' thog nas grol ba'i lugs dang / bka' dang mi 'gal ba'i grol lugs 'ga' zhig byung ste / [23b4] 72 As Todd Gibson (1997) has argued, India has not been the sole source for all Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna teachings; he discusses other contributions, including from China and especially Central Asia. 73 Kollmar-Paulenz (1998) addresses the issues of authority and legitimation with regard to Chöd, suggesting that this is the reason for the traditional efforts to draw a direct connection between Machik and Padampa. According to her, the position that the Chöd teachings originated with the male Indian figure “automatically legitimated this doctrine as being both Indian and Buddhist. These tactics were probably often employed with the aim of integrating an originally indigenous, non-buddhist [sic] Tibetan teaching into the teaching system of Tibetan Buddhism. . . . Nevertheless with regard to the gCod school of Tibetan Buddhism, it is quite interesting to notice that these tactics of legitimization of a controversial doctrine did not function generally. We can safely assume from the existent source material that gCod, irrespective of whether it was founded by Ma gcig lab sgron ma or not, must have been a genuine Tibetan teaching. gCod originated in Tibet and not in India” (23).⁠ See also Gyatso 1985, 328-329; Edou

women teachers in Tibet. Sarah Harding notes that while Machik represents an “exception” to social limitations on women, her story also depicts the restrictions she faced within a Buddhist culture. Harding reads what she refers to as Machik’s “‘demonstration’ of renunciation” as a “reflection of the prevailing attitude that one must renounce home life and children (and women themselves) as the cause of bondage” (2003, 32). In Harding’s view, the legacies of Machik and Chöd have persisted because “this very system, the amazing Chöd, and its undeniable uniqueness and efficacy” joins “the ultimate feminine principle with the life of an actual woman” (2003, 33). Though this explanation is attractive as a feminist interpretation of the tradition, it takes little account of the historical transmission of Chöd. While Harding previously acknowledges that texts such as The Great Explanation have been “retold and revised over centuries by the many men in her lineage” (2003, 33), she perpetuates the opinion that Chöd is an ahistoric and uniform phenomenon. In contrast, I believe that attention to the ways in which the history of Chöd has been constructed, retold and revised, and perhaps even appropriated, will contribute to a deeper and more complex appreciation of this system of Buddhist praxis.

TRANSMISSION LINEAGES

Broadly speaking, in discussions of the transmission and reception of Buddhist Chöd and its lineages, several categories reappear.74 Perhaps the most common form of classification is the 1996, 37; Orofino 1987, 408; Hermann-Pfandt 2000; and Chaoul 2009. In a slightly different context, the impulse to establish authenticity through association with Indic elements is discussed by Todd Gibson in his paper on Central Asian influences on Buddhism. Gibson remarks “that even though the biographical material available shows that Śrī Siṃha was an Inner Asian born in T’ang China, the later Tibetan tradition at least occasionally refers to him as ‘the Indian Paṇḍit Śrī Siṃha.’ This may well be because his name is not Chinese, but it may also be due in part to the desire to establish authenticity for the Dzokchen lineage during the time of the later translations in Tibet, when scriptural authenticity was deemed identical with Indian provenance” (1997, 47).

74 According to Edou, The Concise Life Story has an explicit description of the eight pairs and sixteen branches of Mahāmudrā Chöd, although only seven pairs and fourteen brances are mentioned (1996, 80).