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’ t shoms 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.