·-II...L ·f i , ~ 'L ~ ' ......

a~ Vf / J
-/~'
.,:' J

C o m m e n ta r ie s o n th e W r itin g s o f S a - s k y a P a n d ita :

D a v id P . J a c k s o n

A Bibliographical Sketch

One good indication of the importance of an early Tibetan author is the

number of times his works were commented upon or quoted by subsequent
scholars, By this reckoning Sa-sky a Pa:Q4ita (1182-1251/2) was clearly one of
the most influential writers in the history of Tibetan scholarship, Among
the Sa-skya-pa, almost all the greatest savants (and especially those who
flourished during the heyday of scholarship in the 15th century) wrote a
commentary on at least one of Sa-paTJ.'s works. Sa-pal}.'s treatises also
inspired-or provoked-a number of works by leading luminaries of other
traditions. The present study is a brief survey of the commentaries and
other literary offshoots that the writings of Sa-pal}. gave rise to within the
Sa-skya-pa tradition itself. The interplay between the writings of Sa-pal}.
and the scholars of other traditions is more complex and will require a sepa-
rate study.
At present as many as eight of Sa-paQ.'s works are known to have been
commented upon by later Sa-skya-pa writers. In the order of their arrange-
ment in the Derge printed edition of Sa-skya Pal}.9ita'S collected writings,
those eight works were:

I. Thub pa'i dgongs pa rab tu gsal ba (no. 1 in Taya Bunko reprint

index)
II. Legs par bshad pa rin po che'i gter (TB no. 2)
III. Rol mo'i bstan beos (TB No.4)
N. Mkhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo (TB no. 6)
. V. Tshig gi gter (TB no. 14)
VI. Sdeb sbyor sna tshogs me tog gi chun po (TB no. 15)
VII-A. Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter (TB no. 19)
..A~t;Js. 792- VII-B. Ts/utd ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel (TB 'no. 20)
vm . Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba (TB no. 24)
U N IV E R S IT A T HAMBURG
lo.',titul lu r l( l..!tlir u n d GfJ3(l~1~Gh:,l Imlil#lii v n d nwts
r 1 . ', : " H · '! ': l, - , r \ I ~ : i, :.!O'IlU'~ Hilmburg !n the following pages I shall treat these eight works one at a time, listing
1 tJ [[ ( '.J 8 u e
In an approximately chronological order the lrnown commentaries and

8' 11'
secondary literature for each. Where possible I shall also give a few
additional details about the commentators and abollt the known :printe4
~ditions.
(I) Thub pa'i dgongs pa rab to gsal ba ("Elucidating the Sage's Thought")
This treatise is Sa-paJ}'s classic' exposition of the theory and practice of
the Bodhisattva path, here following the topical order of two key verses in
the Mah~YiillasLltrt'il~kt'ira (ch. 19, vs. 61-62). This was one of Sa-pal}'S
fi.n~l.major works; ~twas .th? fruit of a whole lifetime of scholarship and
rehglOus contemplation. WJthm the Sa-skya-pa tradition the work functioned
as a basic introduction to the Mahayana, occupying a place similar to the
Thar pa rin po che'i rgY(Jl1 of Sgam-po-pa in the Dwags-po bka'-brgyud,
or the Lam rim chen mo of Tsong-kha-pa in the Dge-lugs-pa . ."
Commentaries'
The only known commentaries on the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal were written
by. GIo-bo mkhan-chen Bsod-nams-lhun-grub (1456-1532). Few commen-
tanos would have been expected since the content and style of the work
are relatively easy. In a dkar chag to the collected works of Glo-bo mkhan-
chen that was presumably copied from the Gelung manuscript of the bka'
'bum and that now is in the possession of Yen. Chogay Trichen Rinpoche,
three works on the TJlllh pa'; dgollgs gsal can be identified:
1. Thub pa'; dgongs gsal gyi 'chad tllabS lam hzang sllaIlg ba
2. Rgyal sras lam bzang gi skahs k)'i gtam brgyud llyer mkho
3. Tlwb pa'; dgongs pa gsal ha zhes bya ba'; gzhung gi bshad tlrab:. rgyal
sras lrun bzallg gi mdzes rgY(Jl1 , ston commentary). But because this commentary abounded in errors and
In that. manuscript those works appeared consecutively as the first three
works m volume four (nga). In another index to Glo-bo mkhan-chen's
complete works, found in MS. no. 44 at the Taya Bunko, Tokyo (5 if, inser-
ted between ff. 94 and 95 of vol. ka), three commentarial works are also
listed. In this manuscript (here divided into eight instead of four volumes)
the first work in volume six echa) is: Thub pa'i dgongs pa gsal ba'; bstan
bcos kyi mdo rnam par hshad pa rbt.po che'i gteI'. Two more commentaries
that served as teaching aids ('chad thabs) appear as the last two works in
volume seven Ua):
Thub par';] dgongs gsal gyi 'chad thahs lam bZ(Jl1g snang ba, and;~{
Thuh pa'i dgongs pa gsal ba zhes bya ba'i gzhung gi bshad thabs rgyal .;~;
sra:. lam bzang gi mdzes rgyan. :S~
It seems unlikely that the second title fisted ,above from the first index is)f!
identical with the Rnam par bshad pa rin po che'i gteI' of the second index,j~
but this will only be definitely settled when a complete set of GIo-bo mkhan- 'ilK
chen'.s writings becomes available. The only other source that could help
at ,~his sta~e d~ not clarify .~ings. This is the Dkar chag chos mdzod bye.,"
ba l Ide m lg , a lIst· of the wrltmgs of the greatest previous scholars of the, '
Sa-skya-pa tradition compiled by Khenpo Appey and other Sa-skya-pa;
scholars in the 1960s (hereafter this book will be cited simply as Sa skya
pat; dkar chag). The work contains a somewhat abbreviated list of the collected
writings of GIo-bo mkhan-chen, originally copied by Khenpo Appey from
a list of Sa-skya-pa writings in 'Jam-dbyangs~mkhyen-brtse'i-dbang-po's
own handwriting that was formerly in the possession of the Mkhyen-brtse
mchod-dpon. In the Sa skya pat; ,dkar chag the following is listed as the
first work(s) in volume four of Glo-bo mkhan-chen's writings: Theg pa chen
po'; lam gyi rim pa mtha' dag nyung ngu'i Ilgag gis ston pa rgyal srus lrun
bzang 'chad tlrabs Ie tshan [illegible] mam par bshad pa rin po che'i gter.
(II) Legs par bshad pa rin po che'i gter t'Jewel-Mine of Aphoristic Sayings")
This work, which is known among aU Tibetans as the Sa skya legs bslwd
("Elegant Sayings of Sa-skya [PaI}.9ita]"), is one of the most popular works
in Tibetan literature. The book consists of a collection of maxims or aphor-
isms separated into nine groups. Sa-pal}.composed it at Sa-skya, but like
nearly all of his works it cannot be precisely dated.
Commentaries
Not aU ofSa-paI}'s aphorisms are easy to understand. Hence even during
Sa-paJfs life at least two commentaries were written. The first was the work
of a certain 'Bring-mtshams-kyi-btsun-pa Rin-chen-dpal, who composed
his text in Skyid-shod-lung (as is mentioned in the colophon of the Dmar-
omissions, one of Sa-pal}.tsclose disciples wrote another. This student was
Dmar-ston Chos-rgyal of Dbus, and he composed a book entitled Legs par
bshad pa rin po cJze'i gter zhes hya ba'; 'grel pa while working under the
supervision of Sa-pa\l.
Two modem reprints of this commentary are known to me. One was
published in Delhi by Tenzin Chhagdor, Ladakh Intitute of Higher Studies
(n. d.). The second was by the Tibetan Cultural Printina Press Dhararnsala
in 1982. ~, ,
A new commentary on the Legs bshad has also been written by mkhan-po
Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'diin (b. 1904), woo is now the greatest living scholar from
Sa-skya itself. His work is entitled Legs par bshad pa rin po che'; gter gyi
don 'gre! blo gsal hung ba'; bsti gnus. This commentary, which was partly
based on Dmar-ston's work, was published in Darjeeling'in 1972.
Finally I should mention a work by A-kya yongs-'dzin Dbyangs-can-
~J dga'-ba'i-blo-gros that explains a number of difficult terms found in the
Sa sk.1'a legs bshad. The work is entitled Sa skya legs bshad sogs kyi brda
dOll 'ga' zhig dgrol ba, and it appears in volume 2, pp. 374-382, of A-kya
yongs-'dzin's Collected Works (New Delhi: Lama Guru Deva, 1971).
.i-" (1 m Rol mo'i bstan bcos ("Treatise on Music")
Sa-pa~ composed this treatise on music at Sa-skya dgon-pa in his early
twenics, before he took full monastic ordination. The only known commen-
tary is that of 'Jam-mgon A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'-bsod-nams
(b. 1597), which is entitled Rig pa'i gnas Inga las bzo rig pa'i bye brag dpal
sa skya pa1JtJila';gSllngrol mo'i bstan beos kyi mam par bshad pa 'join dbyangs
bla ma dgyes pa'i snyan pa'i sgra dbyangs blo gsal yid 'phrog 'phrin las
y O llg s khyab. This was printed at Derge together with the other works of
A-mes-zhabs (see Kolmas, no. 2200). A recent New Delhi reprint of the work
exists, but the Library of Congress only acquired one copy, which is now
in Washington, D.C. Its acquisition number was I-Tib 542, 75-905334.
The work was also published by the Tibetan Cultural Printing Press at
Dharamsala in 1980.
(IV) Mkhas pa rnaIns 'jug pa'i sgo ("Primer for Scholars")
In this work Sa-pal} gave a concise explanation of the three basic activities
of a traditional Buddhist scholar: composition, teaching and disputation.
Within that framework Sa-pal} actually dealt with many different topics,
including grammar, semantics, poetics, methods of textual exegesis, logic,
and comparative doctrine and philosophy (grub mtha').
Commentaries
The only complete commentary on the Mkhas 'jug is that of GIo-bo
mkhan-chen Bsod-nams-lhun-grub, which was entitled Mkhas pa mams
'jug pdi sgo'i mam par bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed. The work, recently pub-
lished in India (New Delhi: Ngawang Topgay, 1980), was originally com-
posed in 1527 when Glo-bo mkhan-chen was at the ripe age of 71. Before
this only a few minor or incomplete works had been addressed to the Mkhas ;'"
'jug, most of which Glo-bo mkhan-chen mentioned in the colophon to ~s.,
work. Chos-rgyal 'Phags-pa (1235-1280), for instance, had jotted down a,
few notes on the text based on the explanations of his uncle Sa-pal}. Ano- ..
ther of Sa-pal}'s great disciples, Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-dpal, had
elucidated within his Dag Idon grub mtha' j gsal byed a passage from the third
chapter of the Mkhas 'jug dealing with Buddhist and non-Buddhist philoso-
phical tenets .•
The first attempt to write a full commentary on the Mkhas 'jug was
apparently made by Gser-mdog paI}.-chen Shakya-mchog-ldan (I428-1507),
a one-time teacher of Glo-bo mkhan-chen. But Shakya-mchog-Idan never
completed this work. Only a fragment, which consists of a very detailed intro-.
duction, is preserved in vol. 24, pp. 67-102, of his collected works. In additi~n, ,
Shakya-mchog-ldan authored a number of replies (dris lan) to quenes
on the Mkhas 'jug put to him by Glo-bo mkhan-chen. These replies probably
date from between the years 1474 and c. 1479, when relations between th~
two remained cordial. They too are preserved in the collected works of
Shakya-mchog-Idan (vol. 24, pp. 113-149).
Interestingly, in his own commentary Glo-bo mkhan-chen made no
reference whatsoever to the above queries and answers. He did, however~
mention that he incorporated into his text some replies by Zhwa-lu lo-tsa-
Chos-skyong-bzang-po (b. 1441) to questions that he had sent that translator
on difficult points of Sanskrit grammar. On the subject of poetics (snyan
n g a g ) Glo-bo mkhan-chen also extracted a few passages from the writings
of mkhan-po Kha-che Pal}-chen, Dpang-lo Blo-gros-brtan-pa, Snar-thang
lo-tsa-ba SaI!lghasd, and Sa-bzang lo-tsa-ba. On other topics GIo-bo mkhan-
chen quoted liberally from the writings of Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-
dpal.
The only other commentary on the Mkhas 'jug presently known is a text
from the pen of Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (1592-1641). In the Sa skya pa';
dkar chag, p. 153, the following work is listed among Ngag-dbang-chos-
grags's writings: Mkhas pa 'jug sgo'i dgongs pa spyi'i ngag gis bstan pa legs
bshad nor bl/'j phrellg mdzes. I have not been able to learn anything more
about this text.
(V) Tshig gi gter ("Mine of Words")
This was the major lexicographical work of Sa-skya Pal}gita, and it
was the first adaptation and introduction of a Sanskrit-style lexicon into
Tibet. The only known commentary on it was written by Blo-gros-brtan-pa
of Snye-thang (fl. mid-15th century), who was also known as Blo-brtan-
bzhi-pa. He was a teacher of Shiikya-mchog-ldan and an influential scholar
in the fields of Sanskrit grammar and poetics. His commentary on the
Tshig gter was known to some of the great scholars from the 17th and 18th
centuries. We find it mentioned for example in the autobiography of Zhu-chen
Tshul-khrims-rin-chen (I697-1769) (Delhi: 1971), p. 362.3, and in the "Col-
lected W9rks'" (actually the expanded gsan yig) of Dzaya Pal}Q.ita Blo-
bzang-phrin-las (New Delhi: 1981), vol. 1, p. 135.L
Fortunately at least two manuscript copies of this commentary have
survived. The one that was preserved in the library of Barmiok Athing has
been published (Gangtok: Gonpo Tseten. 1977). The title appearing on this
manuscript is: Mngon brjod kyi bJtan beos tshig gi gter zhes bya ba'i 'grel
pa rgya cher don gsal ba. From the English preface to this edition we learn
that the other known manuscript is no. Lhasa L2 at the India Office Library,
London. The title found on it is different: Tshig gter gyi rgya cher 'grel
pa me tog gi ehun p o .
(VI) Sdeb sbyor sna tshogs m e tog gi chun po ("Flower Bouquet of Various
Metres")
This work on prosody was another pioneering effort by Sa-pal}. Prior
to this no treatise on Sanskrit metre had been translated into Tibetan, nor
had any scholar otherwise adapted and explained the subject. 'The single
known commentary on this treatise of Sa-pal} is a brief and incomplete
work by Gser-mdog pal}-chen Shakya-mchog-Idan (1428-1507). The title
of the work is: Sdeb sbyor sna tshogs me tog gi ehun po zhes bya ba'i bstan
beos f a 'jug pa'j rab tu byedpa, and it is found in his collected works, vol. 24,
Pp. 102-113. Shakya-mchog-ldan conceived of the work as having three
main parts:
1_ exposition of the basis of prosody (p. 103.3) -
2. explanation and identification of different metres (p. 105.5)
3_ illustrative examples in Tibetan and Sanskrit of his own devising
But he was only able to finish parts one and two.
(VII-A) Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, and
(VII-B) Tsbild ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel
The Tshad ma rigs gter of Sa-skya Pal}~lita was an important milestone
in the development of the study of logic-epistemology (pramii~la) in Tibet,
and it was one of Sa-paI).'s most influential works. The Rigs gter (RT) actually
consists of two separate but intimately related works: a l1 1 ! ila composed in
mnemonic verse (VII-A), and the author's own prose commentary (Vil-B).
Sa-pal}.wrote the work at Sa-skya, and according to tradition he was thirty-
seven at the time. Thus he probably wrote it in circa 1219.
Sa-pal}. in his Rigs gter (-'Mine of Reasoning") attempted to establish
the true tradition of Dignaga and Dharmakirti's logic and epistemology in
Tibet, correcting a number of mistakes and misinterpretations by previous
Tibetan scholars. Since logic was one of the core disciplines of Tibetan
Buddhist scholarship, it is not surprising that the RT attracted the interest
of many later commentators.
Commentaries
(1) G.yag-ston Sangs-rgyas-dpal (b. 1348). Thy earliest known commen-
tator on the RT, and one who exerted a strong influence on the later study of
the text was G.yag-ston, a disciple of Brtson-'grus-dpal in the Rigs-gter
lineage. In the Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam of Ngag-dbang-chog-grags
(PChD), p. 73.6, the title of this commentary is given as follows: Tshad ma
rigs gter g)'i tika rigs pa'i 'od stong 'phro ba, and the same is mentioned in
the Sa skya dkar chag, p. 61. This commentary is also listed by A-khu
rin-po-che Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho ( M H T L no. 11832). A single cursive-script
manuscript of this work is known to survive. One hopes it will soon be
published and saved for posterity.
(2) Rang-stall Shes-bya-kun-rig (1367-1449). Rong-ston, the main
disciple of G.yag-ston, was another important early commentator on the
RT. His commentary, one of forty-plus exegetical works that he penned,
is listed by A-khu (MHTL no. 11827) and on p. 62 of the Sa skya pa'; dkar
chug.
(3) Bsod-nams-skyabs. This scholar is said in the Sa skyapa'i dkar chag,
p 65, to have been a disciple of G.yag-ston, and his only recorded work was
a Tshad ma rigs gter [ik.
(4) Mkhas-pa Tslzogs- (=Phyogs?) glang-gsar-ma. This scholar, about
whom little is known, would seem to have been another early commentator.
on the Rigs gteI'. The Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 64, lists the title of his work
as follows: Tshad ma rigs gteI' gyi 'grel pa legs bshad 'ba' zhig pa
(5) Rgyal-tslutb Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432). Rgyal-tshab-rje composed
a RT commentary which A-khu cited as "Rigs gter dar {ik legs bshad snying
po grub mtha' chell mol' lung drangs " (MHTL no. 11853). The work was not
included in the available gsung 'bum of Rgyal-tshab. But according to the
Sa-skya-pa scholar mkhan-po Rin-chen this work circulated among the
learned Dge-lugs-pas of Amdo down to the present century.
(6) Bo-dong pal,1-cheil Phyogs-Ias-rnam-rgyal (1375-1451). According
to A-khu (MHTL no. 11844), Bo-dong pal}.-chen composed a work entitled
Tshad ma rigs gter gyi !ikka. Such a work, however, does not survive among
the incomplete De nyid 'dus pa and writings of Bo-dong kept at the Tibet
House in New Delhi. Moreover, according to Ngag-dbang-chos-grags
(peIlD, p. 78.6) Bo-dong paI).-chen in his Tshad ma rigs pa'; silang ba
departed radically from the interpretations of Sa-pa9- on the subject of
pramtil}a_
(7) Chos-lLmgbka' -bell-pa. This scholar, a disciple of Rong~ston, com-
posed a commentary listed by A-khu (MHTL no. 11828) as follows: Rigs
gter gyi tikka rigs pa'i mgul rgyall.
(8) 'Jam-dbyangs-slles-rab-rgya-mtsllo (1396-1474). This scholar was a
student of Ngor-chen and others, and he was the third mkhan-po of NgOF.
According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 84, he authored the following
commentary on the RT: Dgongs 'grel chen po tshad ma rigs gter gyi Ilk.
(9) Stag-tsllang lo-tsii-ba Shes-rab-rin-chen (b. 1 4 0 5 ) . Stag-Io was one
of the greatest and most versatile scholars ever to appear within the Sa-
skya-pa tradition. Sometimes he is included together with Go-rams-pa
and Shakya-mchog-ldan as one of the three most learned scholars in both
8iitra and Tantra studies. According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag he was
a disciple of Sa-skya-pa Grags-pa-blo-gros (1367-1446?), and his collected
writings numbered twelve volumes. Tragically, almost none of his many
works have yet been recovered. One of his forty-three conunentaries listed
in the Sa skya pa'i dktlr chag, p. 109, is a Tshad ma rigs gter gyi !ik chen.
(1 0 ) Go-bo rab-'byams-pa Bsod-nams-seng-ge (142~-1489). The writings
of Go-rams-pa are the central pillar of modern Sa-skya-pa scholarship.
Go-rams pa himself mainly studied with Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa-Sangs-
rgyas-'phel (b. 1412), one of Rong-ston's most learned students. Go-rams-pa
wrote two main commentaries on the R T . Their titles and locations in the
new reprint of his collected works are:
I) Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gy; dka' ba'; gnas mam par bshad pa sde
bdun rab. gsal (vol. 3. pp. 1-667).
2) Sde bdun mdo dang bcas pa'i dgongs pa plzyin ci ma log par 'grel
pa ts/utd ma rigs pa'; gteI' gyi dOllgsal bar byed pa (voL 2, 'pp. 385-672).
These commentaries were mentioned by Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (PCIlD,

p. 85) as follows:
1) Rigs gter gyi dgongs pa thull mong ma yill pa'i spyi dOll che ba sde
bdlm rab gsal
2) ... chung ba rigs gter gsal byed.
The first of these was also listed by A-khu (MHTL no. 11892) merely as:
Rigs gter 'grel pa sde bdun rab gsal.
(11) Pan-che~l '!3um-phmg-gsum-pa (1433-1504). Like Go-rams-pa, the
present scholar was one of the illustrious students of Byams-chen rab-
'byams-pa Sangs-rgyas-'phel. According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag,
note added to p. 108, Pal}.-chen 'Bum-phrag-gsum-pa wrote both a spyi dOll
and {ikka to the RT.
(12) Lcags-thang rah-'byams-pa. According to the source just cited,
this scholar, also a student of Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa, composed a
Rigs gter likka ..
(13) Pa1)-chen Gzhung-brgya-pa Byams-pa-dngos-grub-dpal-'bar. Al-
though PalJ.-chen Gzhung-brgya-pa was one of the outstanding Sa-skya-pa
scholars of the 15th century, very few of his works have survived. Ngag-
dbang-chos-grags (peIlD, p. 103.5) mentions that he composed a {ikka
on the RT. According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar dzag, p. 117, he was a disciple
of Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa.
(14) Gser-mdog pal)-chen Shakya-mchog-ldan (1428-1507). Shakya-
mchog-Idan was, to begin with, a disciple of Rong-ston. From the age of ten
until he was twenty-three Shakya-mchog-Idan studied under that great
master, and when he was only thirteen he gave a public exposition of the
Rigs gter as well as of the Abhidllarma. Later as a mature scholar Shiikya-
mchog-Idan composed two major texts on the RT. A-khu Rin-po-che
(MHTL no. 11830) listed only one commentary by him on the RT, referring
perhaps to the work Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi mom par bshad pa sde bdun
ngag gi ,.01 mtsho which is found in vol. 19, pp. 447-749, of the new edition
of his collected works. Shakya~mchog-Idan composed this work at Gser-
mdog-can in the dg(e)-byed year (water-tiger: 1482). An early Tibetan
..•~
, (18) . Mang-thos
printed edition existed, which was the basis for the Bhutanese MS recently
published.
The other work composed by Shakya-mchog-ldan in connection with
the RT is the text Tslzad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi dgongs rgyan lung dang rigs
pa'i 'khor 10s lugs ngan pham byed, also called the Rtog ge'i 'klzrul 'joms
chen mo. It is preserved in his collected works, vols. 9, pp. 1-717, and 10,
pp. 1-587. Shiikya-mchog-ldan composed this extensive work in Glo-bo
in the year 1474, under the patronage of the Olo-bo king Bkra-shis-mgon.
At both the beginning and end of the work he indicates his indebtedness
to both G.yag-ston and Rong-ston.
Finally, Shakya-mchog-ldan apparently also wrote a few questions
identifying points of doubt in the RT (cf. his extensive questioning of the
if
Sdom gSll111rab db)'e). These are mentioned by T.G. Dhongthog, A History
of the Complete Works of Gse,.-mdog Pal)-chen Siikya-mchog-ldan (Thimphu:
Kunzang Tobgey, 1976), p. 17.
(15) Mus mb-'byams-pa TlllIgs-rje-dpal. Mus rab-'byarns-pa was a
major disciple of Go-rams-pa. Ngag-dbang-chos-grags ( P C I z D , p. 107.4)
mentions two of his writings on the RT:
1) Rigs gter gyi tikka rigs lam gsal ba'i nyi ma
2) Rnam ['grel dang] rigs [gter] gnyis ka'i spyi don rdo rje thog 'bebs
The first of these would seem to be the commentary referred. to by A-khu
as Rigs gter mam bslzad (MHTL no. 11833). Both commentaries were in-
cluded in the second volume of the addenda (kha skong) to the Derge edition
of Go-rams-pa's works. Unfortunately they have yet to be republished.
(I 6) Kong-ston Dbang-phyug-grub. Kong-ston was another great disciple
of Go-rams-pa, and he followed the latter as the second mkhan-po of Rta-nag
Thub-bstan-mam-rgyal. He wrote a Tshad ma rigs gter gyi 'grel pa,
which was one of a number of his works that formed the first volume of
the addenda to Go-rams-pa's bka' 'bum in the Derge edition.
(17) G/o-bo mkhan-(;hen Bsod-nams-lIl1lll-grub (1456-1532). In the two
detailed indexes to Gto-bo mkhan-chen's writings (see above, T/zub pa'i
dgongs gsal commentaries) a pair of commentaries on the RT are listed:
1) Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi 'grel [pa'i mam par] bshad
[pal rigs pa ma Ius pa la 'jug pa'i sgo
2) Rigs gter la nye bar mklto ba mtlza' gn>:is gsal ba
The first of these was composed by Olo-bo mkhan-chen in the year 1482
when he was only twenty-six years of age. It was listed by A-khu Rin-po-che
as a rarity (MHTLno. 11834). This commentary has already been published
in India on the basis of a cursive manuscript from Glo-bo (Gangtok: S.T.
K.azi, 1970).
Klu-sgTllb-rgya-mtsho (1523-1596). Klu-sgrub-rgya-
mtsho was one of the two greatest disciples of Tshar-chen BIo-gsal-rgya-
mtsho {I502-1566). According to the list of his writings found in the S a
skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 139ff., he wrote a commentary that explicated difficult
points in the RT: Tshad. ma rigs gter dka' 'grel.
(19) Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (1572-1641). Ngag-dbang-chos-grags was
one of the last great pag~itas of the Sa-skya-pa tradition. In recent times his
commentaries were the textbooks for the main subjects taught at the phi-
losophical college (bshad grwa) of Sa-skya. Ngag-dbang-cos-grags's com-
mentary on the RT is listed by A-khu Rin-po-che (MHTL no. 11836) as:
Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi dgongs don gsal bar byed pa'i legs bshad ngag
gi dpal ster. In the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 152, the work is listed: Tshad
ma rigs gter gyi {lk legs bshad ngag gi dpal ster. One hopes that this

work is among those texts of Ngag-chos currently in the process of being
republished.
(20) 'J u Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho (1846-1912). 'Jam-mgon Mi-pham-rgya-
mtsllO was a brilliant and versatile Rnying-ma-pa scholar from Khams whose
collected works numbered a total of thirty-two volumes. As an outgrowth
of his interest in pramiil}a, he wrote a commentary on the RT, though in fact
he had never studied the text with a Sa-skya-pa master. Nevertheless, before
writing the commentary, he received the lung (text-reading) transmission from
Blo-gter-dbang-po.
In the xylographic edition of his collected works this commentary was
found in volume 2 (kha). Its title is Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi mchan gyis
'grel pa phyags las rnan~ par rgyaI ha'i ru mtshon, and it indicates that the
commentary was added to the basic text by means of explanatory glosses
or annotations (mc/zan bu). It has been reprinted in the Collected Writings
of 'Jam-mgon 'Ill Mi-pham-rgya~mtsho (Gangtok: Sonam Topgay Kazi,
1976), vol. 10, pp. 549-725. Xylographic blocks of this work also exist at
Junbesi in Nepal.
(2 1 ) Blo-gter-dbang-po (1847-1914?). This great disciple of' Jam-dbyangs-
mkhyen-brtse'i-dbang-po wrote a nwnber of mchan~'grel commentaries of
which one entitled Ts/zad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi mchan 'grel sde hdun gsal ba'i
sgroI! me was on the RT. The explanatory glosses represent in Pilrt the
continuation of the scholarly lineage of Rta-nag Thub-bstan-rnam-rgyal,
but were also influenced by the teachings of Mi-pham-rgya-mtsho on
pramo1)a. The work was carved onto printing blocks at Derge, and this
xylograph edition has been reprinted in India (Delhi: Trayang & Jamyang
Samten, 1975). Another set of xylographic blocks exists at Simtokha near
Thimphu in Bhutan ..
(2 1 ) Mkhan-po Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan. This scholar, who was commonly
known as Brag-g.yab Blo-gros, was the fourth "abbot" (mkhan po) of
Rdzong-gsar Khams-bye. The Sa skya pa'i dkar chag mentions among his
commentarial writings a Tshad mo rigs gter gyi Ifka. This work, which was
actually a mchan-'greI commentary, is not known to survive.
(23) Gong-dmar Rin-cheil. This Rnying-ma-pa scholar was a disciple
of Brag-g.yab Blo-gros, and he was the sixth mkhan-po of Rdzong-gsar
Khams-bye. He wrote a commentary on the quotations found in the Rigs
gter rang 'grel, but it is presumed to have perished.
(24) Blo-gros-hzang-po, KilO-ri-tsho mkhan-po (1924-). This modern
Sa-skya-pa scholar has penned the most recent commentary on the RT.
It is entitled Tshad ma rigs pa'i gteI' gyl legs bshad bzang po gsum Idan, and it
was published from Gangtok in circa 1 9 6 7 .
(VIll) Sdom pa gsum. gyi rab tu dbye ba ("Differentiation of the Three Vows")
(fB no. 24)
None of Sa-paI}'s works inspired so many commentaries and provoked
so much controversy as the Sdom gsum rab dbye (abbreviated; DS). The
_. . _ • • . . • . . • • • & ~ . L. • U . J i J,;)
work was a classic statement of the need to subject religion to rigorous
examination for the sake of removing anything spurious and establishing
that which is auihentic. The work sets out to treat ten major topics, among
which the central subjects are the three systems of religious vows (i.e., the
pratimok$a, bodhisattl'a, and guhyamall1ra) and their interrelations.
The D S was a product of Sa-paI}'s mature scholarship; it is said to have
been composed when he was about fifty (1232), at a time when his reputation
was well established. Even before he had completed it, however, critical
gossip regarding the work began to circulate in some quarters. Sa-palfs
younger brother (who looked after the secular interests of the house of
Sa-skya) heard some of that negative gossip and urged Sa-pal}.for the good of
the family's worldly position not to complete the book. Sa-pal} himself
wavered on the issue at first, but in the end was convinced by certain
dreams that however men might react, it was his higher religious duty to
complete it.
Commentaries .
Quite a variety of books grew out of the D S and the controversies that
came to surround it, including many writings both for and against it. In
addition to the straightforward commentaries by later Sa-skya-pa teachers
and the critical retorts of outsiders, there were also questions (drl ba) posed
for the sake of critically examining difficult points in the text, answers to
those questions (dris Ian), and even an addendum (klza skong) meant to
complete the work.
'0.0;',
Some Sa-skya-pa scholars maintain that the earliest commentarial
literature on the D S were some brief notes by Sa-pa:Q himself ( r a llg lI lC h C lU ) .
Ngag-dbang-chos-grags in his celebrated Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam,
p. 256, states that these notes were held to be authentic by Gung-ru-ba
Shes~rab-bzang-po, who was maintaining the opinion of Ngor-chen Kun-
dga' -bzang-po. But Ngag-dbang-chos-grags also points out that these
notes were not mentioned by the four main early commentators, nor by
either Go-rams-pa or Shakya-mchog-Idan. The most recent commentator
on the D S , Mkhan-po Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin, does accept these notes
as genuine, and he used them as one of his main sources when compiling
his own mchan-'grel commentary.
Some of Sa-pal)'s own comments and explanations on the DS can also
be found in his Chag lo'i zhus Ian (TB no. 94). The latter :was written in
response to the questions of Chag lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje-dpal (Chag lo'i zhu ba,
TB no. 93). Sa-pal) also dealt with some of the same themes in other· of his
major and minor writings.
(1) Dpa/-steng-pa' DuI-ba-seng-ge. Judging from the number of com-
mentaries that were written, exegetical interest in
the D S began to pick up
in the 14th century and reached a peak in the 15th century. We know of
only two works from the mid 14th century, both of which unfortunately
may no longer be extant. As ment~oned in PChD, p. 257, one of these was a
 brief work by Dpal-steng-pa 'Dul-ba-seng-ge devoted to identifying the
opponent's views or objections (phyogs snga-piirvapak~a) in the DS. This
·work later became the object of Go-rams-pa's critical investigations.
(2) Bla-ma-dam-pa Bsod-nams-rgyal-mts/um (1312-1375). The second
early exegetical work was by the great reviver and transmitter of Sa-skya-pa
scholarship in the 14th century, Bla-ma-dam-pa Bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan.
As mentioned in the above passage of the P C h D , this scholar wrote an exten-
sive topical outline of the DS: Rab dbye'i sa bead rgyas pa.
The first extensive commentaries were written in the late 14th to early
15th century. This period saw the appearance of what Shiikya-mchog-ldan
described as the "four authoritative great commentaries" (tshad thub 'grel
chen bzhi; PChD, p. 258.3):
1) Lha-btsun Bsam-yas-pa, Tikka chen po
2) Spos-khang-pa Rin-chen-rgyal-mtshan, '[ikka chen po
3) Dga'-gdong-pa Chos-rgyal-dpal-bzang, '[ikka rgyas 'bring
bsdus gSllm; Dka' 'grel rgyas 'bring bsdus gsum
4) Las-chen Gzhon-nu-seng-ge, Rab dbye'i gz/wng 1 1 0 1 ' spar
ma nyid la 'bm bsnan pa'i tikka
Elsewhere Shiikya-mchog-ldan lists three "famous commentators", omitting
Las-chen Gzhon-nu-seng-ge lists (Works, vol. 6, p. 448.4).
(3) Lha-btsun Bsam-yas-pa. The work of Lha-btsun Bsam-yas-pa was
probably the earliest of the just-mentioned detailed commentaries. Its author
was a disciple of Bla-ma-dam-pa Bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan, and he no doubt
flourished in the late 14th and possibly early 15th centuries. The text was
used by students of the DS in the first half of the 15th century. Shakya-
mchog-Idan, for instance, smdied this commentary in 1447 (see Shakya-
rin-chen, Works, vol. 4, p. 62.1) ..
(4) Spos-khang-pa Rin-ehen-rgyal-mtshan. This second great com-
mentator was also a disciple of BIa-ma dam-pa Bsod nams-rgyal-mtshan,
and he was a teacher of Mus-chen sems-dpa'-chen-po Dkon-mchog-rgyal-
mtshan (1388-1469). Spos-khang-pa composed his commentary in 1427
when at an advanced age. This work is also recorded to have been used by
scholars in the mid 15th century, such as by Don-yod-dpal, the teacher of
Shakya-mchog-Idan. (See Shakya-rin-chen, loco cit.)
The full title ofSpos-khang-pa's work is: Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye..
ba'i gzhung lugs legspar bshad pa (see also MHTL no. 11762). Fortunately a
manuscript copy of this important work has survived. In spite of certain
problems such as abbreviations (bsdus yig) and faded spots, the manuscript
was reproduced by direct photo-offset process (Delhi: Trayang and Jamyang
Samten, ]977). Then the whole work was newly written out, and published
in. three volumes by" K. Tobgyel and Mani Dorje (Thimbu: 1979).
(5) Dga'-gdong-pa Chos-rgyal-dpal-bzang. This third great commentator
on the D S was a student of Spos-khang-pa. As listed above, he actually
wrote six works on the DS: extensive, medium and brief (ikka and dka'-
'grel commentaries. These were utilized by Shakya-mchog-Idan when his
studies were already advanced (see Shakya-rin-chen, Works, vol. 4, p. 92.2).
(6) Las-chen Gzhon-nu-seng-ge. The author of the last great early com-
mentary was apparently a high official at the great monastic seat of
Sa-skya. In the biography of Shakya-mchog-Idan the author is described
as being "the younger brother of Vajradhara" (rdo rje 'chang gi gcung), thus
he was related to one of the great Vajrayana acaryas. of the day (see Shakya-
rin-chen, Works, vol. 4, p. 218.4). This commentary was considered autho-
ritative in certain circles, for it was the one that Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-
bzang-po in C. 1447 recommended to be used in the Rnam-rgyal-chos-sde
of Glo-bo, as recorded in his bca' yig for that monastery.
According to its description in F C h D , p. 258, the commentary consisted
of explanatory glosses added to the text of the Mongolian xylograph edition
of the DS (hor spar ma). The printed edition itself probably dated to the
first half of the 14th century, and we know that a similar Mono-olian edition
. b
of the Tshad ma rigs gter also existed (see Go-rams-pa, Works, vol. 3,
p. 651.6).
(7) Gung-rll Shes-rab-bzang-po. Gung-ru-ba was a student of Ngor-chen
Kun-dga'-bzang-po, and he was one of the greatest scholars and contro-
versialists of his day. According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 86, he
authored a Sdom gSUnl rab dbye'i spyi don.
(8) Stag-tshang lo-tsli-ba Shes-rab-rin-chen (b. 1405). From A-khu
Rin-po-che's list ( M H T L no. 11761) we know that Stag-Io composed a
commentary on the D S . It would appear to be identical with the commentary
ascribed by Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (PChD, p. 258.4) to one "Sgra-pa
Shes-rin-pa." The list of Stag-Io's works in the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag (p. 108),
admittedly incomplete, does not mention this work.
(9) Go-bo rab-'byams-pa Bsod-nams-se"ng-ge (1429-1489). Go-rams-pa
was one of the most influential writers on the DS in the mid to late 15th
century. During his lifetime he had a strong Sa-skya-pa rival in Shakya-
mchog-Idan, but in the subsequent centuries it was his and not his rival's
views that were accepted as definitive.
Two of Go-rams-pa's commentaries on the D S were included in the
rare~book list of A-khu (MHTL nos. 11741, 11742): the Tikka gsungs rab
dgongs rgyan and a Sdom gsum spyi don. By the present century, however,
t~ese and others of his related works had become widely accessible. Six of
his works on the DS were printed at Derge, and at least five were printed at
Rta-nag Thub-bstan-rnam-rgyaI. In his collected works, Derge edition,
vol. 9, the following texts are found:
I) Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i mam bshad rgyal ba'i gSllllg rab
kyi dgongs pa gsal ba. pp. 1-323. Composed in the year 1463 at
'Bras-yul Rdzong-dkar Skyed-mo-tshaL
2) S e lO In gsum rab dbye'i spyi dOllyid h z /u n nor bu. pp. 325~488. Com-
 posed at 'Bras-yul Rdzong-dkar in 146l.
3) Sdoln pa gsum gyi bstan bcos la dris shing rtsod pa'i Ian sdom gSllm
'klzrul spong. pp. 489-619. Composed at Rta-nag in 1476.
4) Mdo rgyud klln gyi don bsdus pa snying po yid kyi mun pa rab tll
gsal ba (Sdom gsum rab dbye'i bsdus don). pp. 621~644. ~.p., n. d.
5) Sdoln pa gsuin gyi rab i l l dbye ba'i kha .skong gzhl lam bras ~sum
gsal bar byedpa'i legs bshad 'od kyi sndng ba. pp. 645-705. Wntten
at Rta-nag in 1478.
6) Sdom gsum kha skong gi bsdus don. pp. 707-721. Rta-nag, n.d.
A list of printeries published in the volume Three dkar chags ~~ntions
that at Rta-nag Thub-bstan-rnam-rgyal, among some other WrItings of
Go-rams-pa, the following works on the D S were printed:
1) Sdoln gsuln spyi don. if. 88 (Above, no. 2)
2) Sdoln gsum 'khrul spong. fT . 47. (Above, no. 3) .'
3) Sdom gSlIm rtsod spong gnad kyi gsal byed. ff. 50. (not IdentIfiable
among the above) ..
4) Sdom gsum kha skong. if. 26. (Above, no. 5)
5) Sdoln gSli/n tfkka chen mo. if. 24(?). (Above, no. 1).
Among these works, the first two (following t~e ~rder of the' Derge
edition) were standard texts in the Sa-skya-pa semlllanes of Khams: ,!,he
fifth text' the Sdom gsum kha slcong, was written to complete the orlglll~1
Sdofn gs~m rab dbye, adding the promised .but missing section ~n the baSIS
(gzhi), path (lam) and fruit ('bras bu). Thts book later gave rIse to oth~r
related works by Go-rams-pa: a summary (bsdus don, no. 6 above), a~d hIS
Dris fan pad /nO bzhad pa. The kha skong also inspired commentarIes by
later scholars such as Mang-thos Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho, Ngag-dbang-chos-
grags, Chos-rnam-rgyal and even the modern scholar mkhan-po Sangs-
rgyas-bstan-'dzin ...
The remaining writings of Go-rams-pa on the D S had a l?ole.mtc slant.
they were answers written in reply to questions about or ?bJections to the
contents of the D S (see the third text in each of the abo:e. lists). The ?lace
of the Dris Ian sdom gsum 'khrul spong in particular wlthm the DS litera-
ture will become clearer from the following discussion of the famous one-
hundred and eight questions of Shakya-mchog-Idan.
(10) Gser-mdog pQ{l-chen Shiikya~mchog~/~an. One o~ the most con-
troversial figures in the D S commentanal tradltlOn was Shakya-mchog-Idan.
According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 10~, Shi'i.~a-mchog-ldan c~m-
posed three works that took the D S as their bastS or pomt of departure.
1) Sdom gsum rab dbye'i kha skong
2) Sdom gsum.rab dbye'i bsdus don
3) De'i spyi don
These works cannot be immediately identified in the published collected
works. However, one can locate there three of his writings that bear on
the general topic of the three vows:
1) Sdom pa gsum gyi mam par bzhag pa rgya cher bshad pa fast so
sor thar pa'i rim pa dang po main par bshadpa (Collected Works,
vol. 6, pp. 285-342). He wrote this work in 1457 at Bya-yul Thub-
chen-mngon-par-dga' -ba' -chos-grwa.
2) Sdom pa gsum gyi main par bzhag p'a brgal ·Ian gyi sgo' nas glan fa
phab pa (Collected Works, vol. 6,pp. 417-437).
3) Theg pa gsum gyi 'duf ba rnam par bzhag pa fas nyan thos kyi 'dul ba
(with' completing sections on the byang chub sems dpa'i sdom pa
and rig pa 'dzin pa'i sOOmpa). The first section was printed in Tibet
in thesa-pho-rta (earth-male-horse) year (1498~) according to the
printer's colophon that was preserved in the Bhutanese manuscript.
The main surviving works of Shiikya~mchog-Idan that directly deal
with Sa-palfs D S were a collection of questions that he posed to point out
difficulties in the book, and a work consisting of his own answers to those
questions. The questions, numbering one-hundred and eight in all, were
set down in his work entitled Sdom gsum rab dbye la dri ba legs pa.(Collected
Works, vol. 17, pp. 448-462). He composed these questions sometime during
the years 1472~1474while visiting Lo Mustang. With the questions, he issued
a challenge to other Sa-skya-pa scholars to try to answer them. If they
could nat answer, they were to ask him for his own replies. The first l'lchalar
to whom he sent the questions is said to have been Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa
Sangs-rgyas-'phel, the old and venerable teacher of a whole generation of
Sa-skya-pa scholars.
Although Byams-chen rab-'byams-pa himself is not known to have
written any answer, some eleven other scholars did, including Byams-chen-
pa's great student Ga-rams-pa (number 8 below). In the autobiography af
Io-nang Kun-dga'-grol-mchog nine of the respondents are listed (p. 39b):
1) Rje Rwa-ston
2) Ka-bcu-pa Dpal-chen-po
3) Nyi-phug-paSeng-ge-bzaI1g-po
4) Chos-zom-pa Shes-rab-seng~ge
5) Ri-ti-kyag Chos-dpal-bzang-po··
6) Mi-nyag Chos-grags-dpal-bzang
7) Snar-thang ka-bzhi-pa Shes-rab-tshul-khrims
8) Kun-mkhyen Bsod-nams-seng-ge .
9) Slob-dpon Yon-tan-'by1i.tlg-gnas
In addition, Olo-bo rilkhan-chen is known to have written a reply called the
Dris f a n lung tshad; which-Kun-dga'-grol.;nichogcunously failed to mention

in the above list. Glo-bo mkhan-chen was, after all, one of his teachers,
and Kun-dga'-grol-mchog was completely familiar with his writings, as is
evidenced in his biography of Glo-bo mkhan-chen. Perhaps Glo-bo mkhan-
chen's role in the controversy was still a delicate subject even in the mid
16th century.
Shakya-mchog-Idan was not satisfied by any of the above answers.
Therefore, at the urging of a certain Mlchan-chen Nyi-ma and others, in
1483 he took up his pen again and composed his famous Sdompa gsum gyi
rab tu dbye ba'i bstan beos kyi 'bel gtam mam par nges pa legs bshad gser thur
(Works, vol. 6, pp. 439-647). In A-khu the work is called Zi lung shiik mehog
gi sdom gsum rab dbye'i 'grel pa legs bshad gser thur (MHTL no. 1145).
Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (PChD, p. 259.2) calls it simply Gser thur chen mo.
Shakya-mchog-ldan's answers too did not sit well with many of the
other learned Sa-skya-pas of those days, and at least four scholars are said
to have written further rejoinders (yang Ian) to the Gser thur (see Dhongthog,
p. 17). Perhaps one of these four was Phya-pa chos-rje Skal-bzang, who
composed a reply entitled Dogs gcod spring yig legs bshad sgo dbye as men-
tioned by A-khu (MHTL no. 11746), to which Shakya-mchog-Idan replied
with a text entitled Nges don gsal ba (MHTL no. 1147). Neither text is other-
wise known to me. Also according to A-khu (MHTL no. 11748), a disciple
of Go-rams-pa, named Drung-gnas Rwa-dbon-pa wrote a refutation of the
Gser thur entitled Sdom gsum rab dbye sgrub pa'i bstan bcos legs bshad me 'od
(though this could be one of the replies to SMkya-mchog-ldan's original
questions by the person mentioned in the above list as Rje Rwa-dbon).
In addition to his Gser thur, Shakya-mchog-Idan composed another
work in answer to his questions, this one singling out three of them for de·
tailed treatment. The work was: Sdom pa gsum gyi rab dbye dd ba brgya
dang brgyadpa las kun las grags che ba'i dri ba gsum gyi Ian gdab pa (Works,
vol. 17, pp. 381-401).
The controversial questions and answers of Shak-mchog-pa continued
to provoke discussion even centuries later. The great 17th-century savant
Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, for instance, devoted a long passage of his P C h D
(p. 272ft:) to the four main questions that Go-rams-pa had considered
genuinely worthy of investigation.
Finally, I should also mention yet another work on the DS by Shakya-
mchog-ldan himself. This was a brief work composed in reply to certain
questions concerning the D S put to him by one Karma-dbang-phyug-dpal:
Phyag rgya chenpo'i shan byed (Works, vol. 17, pp. 355-379).
(11) Glo-bo mkhan-chen Bsod-nams-Ihun-grub (1456-1532). Glo-bo
mkhan-chen was born a prince of the Glo-bo ruling house, but by virtue of
his monastic education and his own talents and efforts he established a
place for himself in the history of Sa-skya-pa scholarship. He was first and
foremost a loyal successor to the traditions coming down from the early
Sa-skya founders through such great scholars as Ngor-chen and Rong-ston
(his main teachers had been students of these two). On more than one
•••••.•••••.••
..,1·'111\••.•1:;) UN ~A-t'AN S WRITINGS 19
occasion he took up his pen to expose and denounce what he took to be
misinterpretations and misrepresentations of these traditions.
Of the five works that Glo-bo mkhan-chen is known to have written on
the DS, one was a commentary on difficult points entitled Sdom pa gSlIm
gyi rab tll dbye ba'i dka' ba'i gnas mam par bshad pa zhib mo mam 'thag.
This work was well received by the Sa-skya and Ngot-pa traditions for it
was later carved onto blocks at Ngor and disseminated from there (see
Three Karchags, p. 217.4) . Another of his works addressed the topic of the
tathiigatagarbha within the context of the DS. The title of this work was:
Sdom pa gsum gyi skabs kyi bde gshegs snying po'i gsal byed.
Of his last three works touching on the D S at least two were offshoots of
the great controversy aroused by the questions of Shakya-mchog-Idan.
Glo-bo mkhan-chen's older brother, the Glo-bo ruler Bkra-shis-mgon (d.
1489), was one of Shiikya-mchog-Idan's greatest patrons. During the pro-
longed visit of Shakya-mchog-Idan to Glo-bo in 1472-1474 the youthful
Glo-bo mkhan-chen for a time studied under Shak-mchog-pa But doctri-
nally the two were worlds apart. Thus while the controversy of Shakya-
mchog-Idan's questions raged, Glo-bo mkhan-chen was one of those who
wrote a reply (much to the annoyance of some of his relatives). Glo-bo
mkhan-chen's reply was entitled Sdom pa gSlim gyi rab tu dbye ba'i dris Ian
lung gi tshad ma, and it was later mentioned conspicuously by Ngag-dbang-
chos-grags in his PChD, p. 259. (See also Sa skya pa'i dkar ehag, p. 1 1 1 ;
E.G. Smith, Introduction to the Rigs gter Commentary by Glo-bo mkhan·
chen, Appendix, vol. I, no. 9.)
A work that he composed later during this controversy was a short text
entitled Skal Idon snying gi mun sel Iha dbang rdo rje. He wrote it after
Shiikya-mchog-ldan had already issued his own answers; perhaps it should
be placed among the above-mentioned four rejoinders (yang Ian).
The fifth and last work, his Tshig don mun sel, probably also belonged to
this same debate, but this will not be verified until the text itself becomes
available. In the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 115, it is listed as Sdom gsum
brgallan tshig don mun sel, and according to the Three dkar chags, p. 217.4,
this book was also printed at Ngor.
(1 2 ) BZO.1lg-ldan-paDkon-mchog-grags. This author, who presumably
flourished in the 15th century, wrote a commentary on the D S . The work is
mentioned by Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, PChD, p. 258.4. That source also
listed the following scholars as authors of {ikii commentaries on the DS:
(1 3 ) PaIJ.-chenGzhung-brgya-pa Byams-pa-dngos-grub-dpal- 'bar.
(1 4 ) Lcags-thang rab-'byams-pa.
(15) Gser-mdog palJ-chen Don-yod-grub-pa.
In addition, Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (Ibid., p. 260) mentioned the following
three scholars as authors of highly regarded spyi-don commentaries:
(1 6 ) POiJ-ehen 'Bum-phrag-gsum-pa (1433-1504). A disciple of Byams-
chen rab-'byams-pa, he composed a spyi don on the first three skabs or
chapters of the D S . He is probably to be identified with the Bya-gshong-pa
1.V Tti.t.UHt.l J U U K N J \L
whose text mkhan-po Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin used in composing his recent
DS mchan 'grel..
(1 7 ) Skyed-tshal-ba' Jam-dbyangs-kun-dga'-chos-bzang (1433-1503). ThIS
scholar wrote a spyi-don commentary based on the DS spyi don by Go-rams-
pa. The beginning of the work also included a Sa skya pa 'i gdung rabs (genea-
logy of the Sa-skya 'Khon lineage). A commentary by Skyed-tshal-ba, ,pr~-
bably this one, was also referred to by mkhan-po Sangs-rgyas-bstan- dZlD
when composing his DS mchan 'grel.
(18) pal)-chen 'Bum-phrag-Inga-pa Byams-pa-Iung-rigs-rgya-mtsho. Ac-
cording to the pehD he actually wrote four separate spyi don: one on the
so sor thar pa'i sdom pa (pratimok~a vows), one on the byang chub sems
dpa'i sdom pa (bodhisattva vows), and two on the rigs 'dzin sngags kyi sdom
p a (vows of the Mantrayana).· .....
(19) Dkon-mchog-Ihun-grub (1497-1557). This abbot of Ngor and hIghly
influential scholar of the Sa-skya-pa and Ngor-pa traditions is said in one
source to have authored a commentary on the DS entitled Sdom gsum mam
bshad. The source of this assertion is a catalogue of Tibetan printeries
(Three dkar c1u:Jgs,p. 217.5). Although this catalogue lists it ~~ong the
books printed at Ngor, such a commentary is unknown to the hVIng Ngor-
pa tradition, and it is not listed in the index to his works found in the Sa
skya pa'; dkar chag, p. 118tf. (Perhaps this is a mistake for no. 25, below.)
(20) Mang-thos Kill-sgrub-rgya-mtsho (1523-1596). Klu-sgrub-rgya-
mtsho is known to have wdtten several works in connection with the D S .
The Sa skya pa'; dkar chag, p. 142f., lists the following three commentaries:
1) Sdom gsum rab dbye'i skabs dang po'i 'grel pa zhib mo mtha' dpyod
bcas
2) Skabs gSllm par snyan brgyud dka' 'grel du grags pa 'bru [g]non
mtha' dpyod bcas . little-known commentary entitled Chos dang chos ma yin pa mam par 'byed
3) Rab dbye'i sngags sdom skabs kyi zur bkol (This was probably· a
supplement, and not a commentary per se.)
We also find that a work of his entitled Sdom gSlim rab dbye'i dka' 'grel sbas
dOltgnad kyi snying po gsal byed nyi ma'i 'od zer (perhaps. the second in t~e
above list) was printed from blocks at 'Dar Grang-mo-che, the monas.no
seat of Tshar-chen (Three dkar chags, p. 234). In that 'edition it was 43 fobos
long. This work was also listed by A-khu Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho ( ~ H T L nO.
11750)..... ' .....
A second group of texts related to the · D S were· written by Klu-sgrub-
rgya-mtsho in connection with criticisms of the DS found in the Phyag
chen bshad [?] sbyar rgyal ba'j gan· mdzod of 'Brug-chen Padma-dkar-po
(see MHTL, nos. 11233, 11234). The Sa skya pa'i dkar chag lists these works
as follows:
1) Phyag chen rtsod spong
2) Phyag chen rang lugs
: ·3) . Phyag ·chenrtsod spong·gi yang· Ian
The third of these would seem to be the work entitled Yang Ian mkhas pa'i
mig thur that was also printed at 'Dar Grang-mo-che (see Three dkar
chags, p. 234) ..
Finally, according to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 142, Mang-thos
Klu-sgrub-rgya-mtsho also composed a commentary on the Sdom gSlim
kha skong of Go-rams-pa.
(21) Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (1572-1641). Ngag-dbang-chos-grags wrote
two commentaries on the D S itself. The titles, as they appear on the recently
reprinted works themselves, are: Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i mam
bshad legs par bshad pa zla 'od nor bu and Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i
spyi donklln gsal nor bu'i 'phreng ba (New Delhi: T: G. Dhongthog, 1978);
See also MHTL, nos. 11756, 11757. The above-mentioned reprints were
based on prints from Ku-se Gser-Ijongs blocks that had subsequently been
moved to Sa-skya.
Ngag-dbang-chos-grags also wrote a commentary on the Sdom gsum
kha skong of Go-rams-pa. This work too was recently reprinted (New
Delhi: T.G. Dhongthog, 1978). Its full title is: Sdom gSlim kha skong gi
mam par bshad pa legs bshad rgyan gyi me tog (pp. 95-245 in the Sdomgsum
rab dhye'j kha skong rtsa 'grel). See also MHTL no. 11758.
Finally, as mentioned above Ngag-dbang-chos-grags also discussed at
some length four of the questions of Shakya-mchog-ldau, the same fOUf
questions that Go-rams-pa thought to merit serious consideration. Ngag-
chos discussed them in his Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam, the formal title
of which is: Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtha'i shan 'byed mtha'
dpyod dang bcas pa'i 'bel ba'i gtam skye,s dpyod loon mkhas pa'i Ius rgyan
rin chen mdzes pa'j phra tshom bkod pa. See p. 272ff. in the 1979 Thimphu
edition ..
(22) . KU1J.~dga'-b~ra-shis(fl, late 16th century?). This author wrote a
pa'i bstan bcos chen po sdom pa gsum gy; rab tll dhye ba'i spy; don legs bshad
kun bsdus las slabs gsum pa'i mam bshad. A mediocre dbu-med manuscript of
thi~ text is preserved in the, Bihar Research Society, Patna (library pro-
visional catalogue no. 1040). The manuscript is twenty-seven pages long, with
nine lines of text perpage. In the ~olophon the author states that he wrote the
work at Sa-skya following the request of the Sa-skya bla-ma Ngag-dbang-
bsod-nams-dbang:-po-grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan-dpal-bzang-po, .who can pro-
visionally be identified as the one by that name who lived from 1559 to 1621.
The work was completed in the fire-mouse year, which was probably 1576.
(23) Thub-bstan gdan-s(J-pq chqs-rj(! Chos-grags-rgya-mtsho. This scho-
lar, as the above epithet indicates; was one of the abbots of the Rta-nag
Thub-bstan-rnam-rgyal monastery that Go-rams-pa founded. According
}.~ 1 to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 102, he: composed a Sdom gsum rab dbye'i
[ik ii .
(24) Chos-rnam-rgyal. Chos-rnam-rgyal was another later abbot of the
same monastery of Rta-nag Thub-bstan. According to the Sa .skya pa'i
 dkar chag, p. 160, he wrote a spyi-don commentary on the DS, and also
a sub-commentary ({ikii) on the Sdom gsum klla skong of Go-rams-pa.
(25) Dpon-slob Ngag-dbang-Iegs-grub (b. 1811). Ngag-dbang-Iegs-grub
was one of the greatest scholars and saints to appear within the Ngor-
I pa tradition during the 19th century. It was a tragic injustice of the later
bla-brang system of Ngor that however eminently qualified he. was, he
could never occupy the abbatial seat of Ngor-chen. He did, however, rise
to the high position of dpon-s/ob.
According to the Sa skya pa'i dkar chag, p. 223, Ngag-dbang-legs-grub's
collected works comprised five volumes, and of these, two volumes were
devoted to the D S . The two volumes, marked e and warn, were the basic text
of his Sdom gsum 'jam dbyangs bla ma'i dgongs rgyan and his autocommentary
on it. The basic text, entitled Yongs rdzogs bstan pa'i nyams len sdom pa
gsum gtan la 'bebs pa 'jam dbyangs b/a ma'i dgongs rgyan, was recently re-
printed from a xylograph (New Delhi: T. G. Dhongthog Rinpoche, 1979),
and from it one learns that the work was composed in 1855 at Derge. The
patron of the block carving was the Thar-rtse zhabs-drung Bstan-pa'i-nyi-ma.
According to the English title page the original was a "xylographic print from
Khams." In this edition the marginal notations were dhib (recto) and sdom
gsum rtsa ba (verso).
(26) Ngag-dbang-bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan. This master, whose full name
was Ngag-dbang-bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan-blo-gros-mi-zad-pa'i-sgra-dbyangs,
apparently belonged to the Ngor Khang-gsar-bla-brang and thus probably
was the 55th abbot of Ngor. He is definitely known to have been the dis-
ciple of both 'Jam-dbyangs-mkhyen-brtse'i-dbang-po and Ngag-dbang-Iegs-
grub. He wrote a commentary on the' Jam dbyangs bla ma'i dgongs rgyan
of Ngag-dbang-Iegs-grub entitled Sdom pa gSlim gyi nyams len gtan la 'bebs
pa 'jam dbyangs bla ma'i dgongs rgyan gyi mam 'grel skal bzang mig 'byed
kyi gser thur.
From a copy of the work preserved in the Library of Tibetan Works
and Archives, DhararnsaIa (nga, 4, 3, 10017), one learns that the commentary
was composed in the wood-pig year (1876) and was printed in the water-
dragon year (1892) under the patronage of the Sa-skya SgroI-ma Pho-brang.
In this edition the text was 209 folios long, and the marginal notation was the
syllable hrib.
(27) Li-thang Sde-gzhung 'Jam-dbyangs-kun-dga-'rnam-rgyal. This 20th-
century scholar from Khams, who was also known as Sde-gzhung Chos-
'phel, devoted two works to explicating the DS. According to the Sa skya
pa'i dkar chag, p. 231, these were 'grel-pa and spyi-don commentaries.
(28) Mkhan-po Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin. This outstanding living scholar
now resides at Ghoom near Darjeeling, and he is the latest of the more than
six centuries of commentators on the D S . His own composition is a com-
mentary on the DS that makes use of explanatory notes or glosses (mclum
bu), and one of the main sources that he used when writing it was the Rang
mchan ("Own-notes") attributed to Sa-skya Pa:Q.fjitahimself. The title of the
new work is Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dhye ba'i mcllan 'grel, and it was
published a few years back by T. G. Dhongthog (New Delhi: 1979)..
Mkhan-po Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin also composed a mchan-'grel com-
mentary on the Sdom gsum kha skong by Go-rams-pa. The title of this is
Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i kha skong gzhung don rab gsal. It was
apparently published in Darjeeling in 1969.
Abbreviations
Dhongthog: T.G. Dhongthog, A History of the Complete Works of Gser-
mdog Pll{l-chen Siikya-mchog-Idan. Thimphu: Kunzang Tobgey, 1976.
Kolmas: Josef Kolmas (ed.), Prague Collection of Tibetan Prints from. Derge,
. Asiatische Forschungen, Band 36, Part 1. Weisbaden: 1971.
M HTL: Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature. All of the numbers I
have referred to are actually drawn from A-khu Shes-rab-rgya-mtsho,
Dpe rgyun dkon pa 'ga' zhig gi tho yig, MHTL part 3. Sata-Pitaka Series,
vol. 30. ,
PChD: Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub
mtha'i shan 'byed mtha' dpyod dang bcas pa'i 'bel ba'i gtam skyes dpyod
Idan mkhas pa'i Ius rgyan rin chen mdzes pa'i phra tslwm bkod pa.( = Pod
chen drug gi 'bel gtam). Thimphu: K. Topgyel and Mani Dorje, 1979.
Sa skya pa'i dkar chag: Dkar chag chos mdzod bye ba'i Ide mig. Compiled by
Khenpo Appey and others. MS. I am indebted to Mr. E. Gene Smith
for showing me this important work.
TB: Saskyabka' 'bum, Tayo Bunko reprint (Tokyo: 1968). TheTB numbers
are taken from the index to the Sa-paQ. volume (volume 5) as arranged
by Rev. Bsod-nams-rgya-mtsho ..
Three dkar chags: Ngawang Gelek Demo (ed.), Three Karchacks. New Delhi:
1970. The citations are all from the third work:
Gangs can gyi ljongs su
bka'dang bstan beos sogs kyi glegs bam spar gzhi ji ltar yod pa rooms
oos dkar chag spar thor phyogs Isam du bkod pa phan bde'i pad tshal
'byed pa'i nyin byed. The work dates from the 1940s.
 Two G r u b m th a ' T r e a tis e s o f S a -s k y a P a n d ita - O n e Lost and

Read and Subscribe O n e F o rg e d

to D a v id P . J a c k s o n

g S o - R ig
(Tibetan Medicine)

The major work by Sa-skya PaJ,).~ita (1182-1251/2) on philosophical

tenets (grub mtha'; Skt. sidd/ztinta) was a treatise entitled Grub mtha' mam
a pU~lication for the study of the theory and
'byed or Grub mtlta'i dbye ba. This remained'his most detailed and definitive
practice of Tibetan medicine;
. edited and pub- statement on the subject. He refers to it as such in major writings that span
his mature scholarly 'career-his T5had ma rigs pa'j gter gyi rang 'greI,
lished by the Library o f T'b
1 etan Works & Mkhll3 pa mams 'jug pa'i sgo, and Tlwb pa'i dgongs gsal-and also in the
closest thing we have to an autobiography, his Nga brgyad ma'i 'grel pal,
Archives; each issue contains lectures , l'ntervlews,
'
But somehow this crucial work on tenets disappeared. Probably it was
research papers; reviews and translations from already lost by the mid-13th century, for not a single later scholar either
2
cites it as a source or quotes from it.
c~ssical texts by stude~ts, scholars and physi- In the Derge printed edition of Sa-skya Pa1;lI;tita'scollected works one
finds not the Grub mtha' mam 'byed, but instead another systematic analysis
Clans df the Tibetan medical system, 3
of philosophical tenets entitled Gzhung lugs legs par bslIad pa. Though in
the arrangement of the Derge edition the latter work has been given a promi-
nent position, it is not to be confused with the Grub mtha' mam 'byed. In fact,
the Gzhung lugs legs par bshad pa is not by Sa-skya Pal}.~ita at all. It is a
forgery.4
One may be sure that the Gzhung lugs legs bshad (Zit!) and the Grub
mtlIa' rnam 'byed (GThNB) are different works. As pointed out by the 17th-
century Sa-skya-pa scholar Ngag-dbang-chos-grags who also studied this
question, the place of composition of the Z I1 1 is stated in the colophon to 4

be the vihara of the palace at Ling-chu-rtse, i.e. in Mbngol-occupied Liang

chou.s Thus if it were genuine, it would have been composed near the end of
Sa-pal}.'slife after he had left Tibet for the Mongol camp. But the GThNB
was referred to by Sa-pa{l already in his Tshad ma rigs pa'.igter gyi rang 'gre/,
one of his earlier major works, and thus it must have been composed many
years before he left for the Mongol camp.
But could not Sa-pa~ have written the Zhl in Mongol territory as a
second treatment of the same subject? This is very unlikely. In the :firstplace,
the Z it I contradicts what Sa-pal}. said several times in: his major and indis-
putably genuine w.orks. As Ngag_dbang-cbos-grags noted, there is a very
significant difference regarding the classification of the non..,Buddhist schools
and their tenets.6 In the ZhL one finds the following:
 SA-SKYA PANDITA 5
4 THE TlBBT JOURNAL

the doctrinal systems of the major scriptures, have blundered by

smra ba) (p. 62.1.5)
A. Those who support eternalism (rtag par Ita ba'i phyogs la brten pa) arranging dialecticians of a single school separately on the basis of the
1. Saql.khya (grangs can pa) (62.1.6) mutual refutations [between the subdivisions of the school], and by
2. Biirhaspatya (phur bu pa; ngo bo nyid rgyur smra ba; Iha yi arranging intoa single school of dialecticians [those of different schools]
bia ma) (63.2.1)
based on the reason of mere agreement of tenets. For example, the
3. Vaise~ika (bye brag pa) (63.2.3) Sravaka and Mahayana, and also the Vaibhasika . , Sautrantika ,
4. Nyiiya (rigs pa can) (63.4.1) Cittamiitra, and Madhyamaka, even though they refute each other, .
5. Jaina (gcer bu pa) (63.4.2) are to be included within the single grouping "Buddhist," without
B. Those who support annihilationism (chad par lta ba'i phyogs being separated. But [some Tibetan scholars] have divided up the
la brten pa) (64.1.2)
schools of dialecticians [for instance] according to agreement between
1. Carviika (tshu rol mdzes pa ba) (64.1.3) a few tenets of mentalistic schools, [i.e., between] some Vediintins and
2. Mimaql.saka, who deny Nirviiv.a (spyod pa ba; =dpyod pa ba) the Jaina and Cittamatra schools; or according to [the fact that] some,
(64.2.2)
[such as] the MimaqJ.saka, Lokiiyata, and Priisaogika-Madhyamaka,
negate existent entities; or according to similar nomenclature that
II. Those who hold [subject and object] to be non-dual (gnyis su me'd nevertheless signifies different senses, such as "inference recognized
par smra ba) (65.1.1)
by others" (gzhan la grogs pa'i rjes dpag) and "emptiness" (stang pa
nyid; Simyata).9
A. Vedanta (rig byed kyi mtha' gsang bar smra ba) (65.1.1)
B. Tirthikas who follow a Madhyamaka---like procedure (dbu ma';
tshul du smra ba) (65.1.5)
Some of these criticisms in the Mkhas 'jug also apply to the Z M . Surely
Sa-pav. himself would not have divided the Carvaka and Biirhaspatya into
Sa-pao's often repeated opinion regarding the non-Buddhist dialecticians, separate schools on the basis of one particular tenet, for eleswhere he classified
however, was that there were five main schools (rtog ge sde Inga).7 As he them as a single school. Moreover, in formal enumerations of the schools
said in his classic exposition of scholary methods, the Mkhas pa rnoms he counted the Nyaya and the Vaise~ika as one and the same basic schoollO•
'jug pai :,go, these five are: He did not separate the Mimiiql.sa from the Vedanta, and he never classified
the Mima~sii as annihilationist. J I
(1) *Vaidika (Mimaql.saka) (rig byed pa) The arrangement of schools given in the Mkhas 'jug is also found in the
f!ga brgyad ma~i 'grel pa, another of his mature works. There Sa-pal) briefly
(2) SiiJ1lkhya(grangs can pa)
(3) Aulukya (Vaise~ika) ('ug phrug pa) lIsts the five groups of Tirthika dialecticians (mil stegs rtog ge sde inga): 12
(4) K~apal}aka (Jaina) (zad byed pa) (1) SaJ1lkhya (grangs can po)
(5) Carvaka (tshu rol mdzes pa ba)8 (2) Nyaya (rig[s] pa can)
(3) *Vaidika (Mima~saka) (rig byed pa)
The first four are called "propounders of eternal ism" (rtag par smra ba),
(4) Ka~paoaka (Jaina) (zad byed pa)
and they maintain the truth of moral causation. The last school denies
(5) Carviika (tshu rol mdzes pa ba)
moral causation and thus is a "propounder of annihilation" (chad par smra
b a ) . The first three adhere to the Vedas, while the last two deny them. All ,:-inally. in his extensive exposition of the Bodhisattva's path, the Thub
of them agree on the existence of the self (iitman). The etemalists maintain po l dgongs gsal, Sa-pao also gave the same fivefold classification: 13
that the self is permanent, while the annihilationists hold that the existing
self is destroyed at death. 1. Eternalists (rtag par smra ba)
Then, in the next basic verse of the work, Sa-pal} states emphatically 1. *Vaidika (MimiiqJ.saka) (rig byed po)
that there are many Tibetan dialecticians wh() have mixed up the foregoing 2. SiiIp.khya (grangs can po)
arrangement, and that therefore one should not accept as true the treatises 3. Vais~ika (bye brag po)
they have promulgated. He explains: 4. ~apal}aka (Jaina) (zad byed pa)

There indeed exist many tenets that have been formulated by some II. Annihilationists (chad par smra ba)
Tibetan religious scholars. But those fscholars), not havine: studied L Ciirvaka (tshu rol mdzes pa ba)
 6 THE TIBBT JOURNAL
Then he concludes with a statement that echoes the Mkhas 'jug: "Regarding
these, many analyses made by Tibetan religious scholars are in evidence.
But I see these to be erroneous."14 Thus, once again, he is emphatic and
unequivocal.
If we may trust a widespread tradition (and a brief note appended to
the work itself), Sa-pa~ gave the Thub pa'i dgongs gsal his final seal of appro-
val near the end of his life, after he had left Tibet for the Mongol camp. IS He
sent it back to Tibet for the use of his disciples and their students. The work
is thus thought of as a sort of spiritual legacy, and his description of the
Ti"rthika tenets in it probably represents his final opinion on the subject. 16
The above disagreements raise serious doubts about the authenticity of
the Z M . But those are not the only dubious points in the work. It contains
other statements that are utterly uncharacteristic of the great scholar. For
example, would the mature Sa· skya PaQ9ita, thoroughly steeped in Sanskrit
learning as he was, have given the following etymology of Madhyamaka
(Tib.: d b u m a ) ?
It is called d b ll ma because there is nothing above it, just as the head
(d bI I ) is so called because on the body or limbs there is nothing higher
than the head ( m g o .) 1 7
Throughout his career, Sa-pal}. consistently criticized the use of Tibetan
folk etymologies for Buddhist technical terms, for he was well aware that
the terms were translations of Sanskrit words and that any etymologies
should be of the Sanskrit. 18
Another feature that strikes one as being out of place is the lengthy
treatment of the Mantrayana in the Z M . In the Z h L the description of
Mahayana tenets has two main sections: the "Cause-Defining Mark"
(rgyu tntshan nyid;=ParamiUjyana) and the "ResuIt--Mantra" ('bras bu
sngags:=Vajrayiina). Doctrinally, this is a standard classification. But here
in a work devoted to philosophical tenets, one would not expect Sa-pa\l to
launch into a discussion of the theory of Tantra, though this is what the
author of the ZhL does (pp. 75.1.1-77.1.3). In his major works on Piira-
mitayiina doctrines, Sa-pa~ avoids as much as possible the discussion of
Tantra. He preferred to discuss the latter separately, in its own special
context. 19 . and eventually it was included as one of Sa-pa:t;l's genuine writings in the
Another point against the authenticity of the ZhL is that it was not
mentioned by any of Sa-pa:t;l's disciple-biographers in their lists of his
writings. It is also not included among the workS.Df Sa-paJ;l for which there
exists a lung transmission, as recorded in the ea'rIy"records of teachings
received" (thob yig or gsan yig). It is absent, for example, from the g5an yig
of Ngor-chen Kun-dga '-~zang-po (1382-1456)20. Indeed, the earliest known
source that SUpports the contention that the ZhL was a genuine work of
Sa-paV is the kavya biography of Sa pal} composed by the famed poet and
r 1 1 1 p r R in_~nnnocr;:_n~ Nn!:lfT_rlh~T'HT_';inC'_"""H~rt_lT'r~1'T1E'" __•..•
SA-SKYA PANDlTA 7
hare year (1579).2t
Finally, it is worth repeating that one of the greatest scholars of the
Sa-skya-pa tradition, Mkhan-chen Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (1572-1641),
rejected the ZhL as a forgery. As mentioned above, he noted that the mention
of Ling-chu-rtse in the colophon of the ZhL made it impossible for it to be
the same work as the GThNB. In his Pod chen drug gi 'bel gtam, he also
argued that the ZhL was spurious, basing himself on its different description
of the Tirthika schools. He speculated that the real author was a later student
of the Sa-skya-pa tradition (rang lugs kyi slob rgYlid zhig).22
It is therefore curious that Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen (1697.1774)
would have included the ZhL in the Derge printed edition of Sa-skya
PaQ~ita's collected works. Though Zhu-chen admittedly was relatively
inexperienced when he redacted the Sa skya bka 'bum, he still should have
known that the earlier great Sa-skya-pa scholar Ngag-dbang-chos-grags had
rejected the work as spurious. Perhaps Zhu-chen was influenced by the
inclusion of the ZhL among the list of Sa-pa\l's works in the biography by
Rin-spungs-pa or in the Sa skya dgung rabs chen mo of A-mes-zhabs. Zhu-
chen was a great student of kavya and probably had studied the writings of
Rin-spungs-pa closely. But he was also aware that a few of the works attri-
buted to Sa-paQ were of dubious authenticity, and that the possibility of
outright forgeries existed.:!3 .
We will probably never know why the ZhL was included in the Derge
printed edition of the Sa skya bka' 'bum. But this much is clear: The Zhl
was a conscious forgery that dates to the 16th century or before. It was
either forged from start to finish or else someone took an early, unknown
grub mtha' treatise and added at least the colophon and two internal refer-
ences to works by Sa-pa:t;l.Early in the work (p. 61.1.4) there is this advice:
"If you want to be learned in the traditions of the world, you should refer
to such works as the Legs par bshad pa rin po che'i gter that I have written."
Later the Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter too is referred to as being "of my com-
position" (kilo bos byas pa). (The other citations of the Rigs gter, however,
lack such attributions.?~
Whatever the forger's doctrinal motivation may have been (it remains
for future research to unCOver these), he succeeded in fooling many people
of subsequent generations. The work was accepted by some authorities,
standard Derge printed edition of his collected works. More recently, the
work was reprinted at 'Phan-yul Nalendra, and it was also included in the
curriculum of studies at the scholastic seminary (bshad grwa) there.2S The
forgery was thus extremely successful. But it did not deceive Ngag-dbang-
chos-grags, one of the most learned scholars within the tradition. And
now it behooves all modem students of Sa-pal}.'s thought-Western and
Tibetan alike-not to be misled into accepting the Gzhung lugs legs par
bshad pa as representing the philosophical opinions of Sa-skya PaJ;ujita.
.;.., •.1-.4. l"
A •.••..••.•• f'OTnIl31p_
 8 THE TIBET JOURNAL
NOTES
1. See the Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel, p. 172.2.1; Mkhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo
p. 107.2.2; Thub pa'l (/gongs pa rab tu gsal ba, p. 24.4.2; and Nga brgyad ma'j 'grel pa,
p. 149.2.5. All pagination of Sa-skya PaQ«Jita's works is based on the Taya Bunko
reprint of the Derge edition of the So skya pa'l bka' 'bum, vol. 5 (Tokyo: 1968).
2. The Grub mtha' nwm 'byed was perhaps read by Sa-palJ's disciple Lho-pa kun-mkhyen
Rin-chen-dpal, for the latter gives a brief description of the work when listing Sa-paQ's
writings in his biography of Sa-palJ, which he wrote while Sa-palJ was stilI alive (prob-
ably in the 1230s or early 124Os). See Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-dpal, DpallJan
sa skya por.u!ita'i mam tlu1r kun mkhyen rin chen dpal gyis mdzad pa, Lam 'bras slob
bshad (Derge ed). vol. 1 (ka), p. 56a: yang phyl rol byed dang ehos 'di pa so so'i mam
gzhag danglrang gi sde pa grub mtha' so so'i ngo bo nges par byed po grub mtha'i rnam
'byed ces bya ba mdzad dol. But this reference too may be based on hearsay. On Lho-pa
see also below, note 16.
. The Grub mtha' rnam' byed was diligently sought in Tibet by Rdzong-gsar Mkhyen-
brtse 'Jam-dbyangs-chos-kyi-blo-gros. He offered a large reward to the person who
could locate it for him, and he personally searched the libraries in Sa-skya looking
for it. At the time he said that he would win the name of a great treasure-finder (gter
ston chen po) if he fOWld it. The living scholars mkhan-po Rin-chen and dge-bshes
Bkra-shis-rnam-rgyaI remember helping in Sa-skya during this unsuccessful search.
Dge-bshes Shes-rab·'od-zer of 'Phan-yuI Nalendra, however, told me that one of
his former fellow monks at Nalendra reported having seen a grub mtha' work attributed
to Sa-pal;l in the A-moo monastery Dhi-phu-chos-rje-dgon-pa. This work was said to be
definiJely different from the Gzhung lugs legs bshad.
3. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum, vol. 5, pp. 61.3.1-77.1.6.
4. This conclusion seems also to have been reached by Mr. Le:>nard van der Kuijp. He
expresses his doubts about the authenticity of the Gzhung lugs legs bs/wd in his Contri~
but ions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology from the Eleventh to
the Thirteenth Century, Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien, 26 (Wiesbaden: 1983), p. 304,
note 295. There he refers to a forthcoming article "On the Authorship of the Gzhung
lugs legs par bshod pa Attributed to Sa-skya Pao4ita," listing it in his bibliography
as about to appear in the Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, vol. 7. (1983).
5. Gzhung lugs legs par bshad pa, p. 77.1.6: ling ehu rtse'i khab kyj gtsug lag khang du
sbyar ba. See Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi dag gi grub mtho'j
shan 'byed mtha' dpyod dang bcas pa'i 'bel ba'j gtam skyes dpyod Idan mkhas pa'i Ius
rgyan rin chen mdzes pa'j phra tshom bklJd po (Thimbu: 1979), pp. 54f. See also the
Derge ll.ylograph in the library of l'"f:cole Fran~ise d'Extreme-Orient, pp. 15b-I6a:
grub mtha' rnam 'byed yin par 'dad kyangl de ni min pa 'wa stel grub mtha' mam 'byed
ni mkhas 'jug dang rig[s] gter rang 'grel gyi gong du brtsams tshar basI rgya nag la mo
phebs gong 'di phyags su mdzad pa yin lal cig shos ni ling chu rtse'i khab tll sbyar zer ba
yod cingl rig[s] gler rang nas lung drangs pa'ang 'ga' re yodl dbu ma'i rjes su rgyud sde
bzhiei mam gzhag kyang cha tsam bstan 'dugl gang Itar yangl phyi rol rlog ge sde
bdun du bshad pa de ni mkhas 'jug dang @gos su 'gal zllingl rig[s] gter dang yang 'gal tef
thub pa (mchall: grangs can pal ser skya rkang mig pa (mchan: rig byed pa) dangl 'ug
pa'i bu (mchan: bye brag pa) mkha' gos can dangl tshu rol mdzes pa'i gzhung 'dzin
pa (mchan: rgyang 'phen pa)1 zhes phyi rol pa /nga smos naslthos sgrags pa dang gangs
rf'i khrod gnas smra mams Icyil rtog ge ngan 'jams bstan beos chen po 'di byas so/l
zhes pas ph).i rol pa Inga po de'i steng du nyan thos pa dang bod rgan po mams kyj
lugs tel de dog gi smra ba ngan po 'joms byed du bstan beos 'dl byas so zhes bstan to/l
des no gzlumg lugs legs par bshad pa 'di rang lugs kyi slob rgyun zhig gis sa pa(l la
I kha 'phangs po 'dra mo zhig 'dug pas 'J j la'ang mkhas pa dag gis dpyad bdar (/gos
SA-SKYA PANDITA 9
6. Ibid. In the same passage Ngag-dbang-chos-gmgs also mentions the fact that the ZhL
quotes the Rigs gter several times (see for example pp. 64.3.2; 64.4.4; 67.4.2; 67.4.6;
and 68.1.4). He was implying that the ZhL therefore must be later than the Rigs gter.
But it sometimes does happen that two works of Sa-paQ each refer to the other. See
for instance the Mkhas pa mams'jllg pa'i sgo, p. 89.3.2. and the Sdeb sbyor .sna tS/lOgs
me tog gi chun po, p. 132.2.5.
7. In this, Sa-pat! agreed with a widespread Tibetan tradition. According to Shiikya-
mchog-ldan, the earlier scholars Phywa-pa Chos-kyi-seng-ge (1109-1169) and Rje-
btsWl Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan (1147-1216) followed this system, as did many later
scholars such as Bla-ma-dam-pa Bsod-narm-rgyal mtshan (1312-1375) (and even
Shiikya-mchog-ldan himself). This is stated in a reply by Shakya-mchog-Idan to a
question frcm Glo-bo mkhan-chen, in the former's Collected Works (Thimphu: 1975),
vol. 24, p. 129.
Phywa-pa is said to have classified the five schools as follows:
(1) Grangs-can-pa (Siif!lkya)
(2) Dbang-phyug-pa (followers of Isvara, i.e. the Vaise~ika)
(3) Khyab-'jug-pa (Vai~1)ava, i.e. Mimaf!lsaka)
(4) Gcer-bu-pa (Jaina)
(5) Rgyang-'phan-pa (Loka:yata)
The passage in Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan's writings referred to by Shikya-mchog-
ldan is evidently the Rtags po gnyis pa'i rnam par bshad pa ma dag po mams 'joms par
byedpa'j mam 'grel dog ldan, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum «(Tokyo: 1968), vol. 3, pp. 133.2.4-
133.3.4. Here the Hevajra Tal/tra I, x,12 (See D. Snellgrove 1959, vol. 2, p. 36) is inter-
preted as indicating a classification of the non-Buddhist schools. (Cf, Snellgrove 1959
vol 2, p. 132). This same passage is quoted by Glo-bo mkhan-chen in his Mkhas pa
'jug pa'l sgo'i TIlam par bshad pa rig gllas gsal byed (New Delhi: 1979), pp. 531ff.:
des na de nyid 'khrullla mil stegs kyj gmb mtha' dllmar 'gyur tel skyes bu zhes bya
ba ni bdag gi shes rig gi skyes bu'am grangs cal/llom sum ell pa'amlser skya zhes bya
ba ming gi rnam grangs soIl
SngOIlrabs ba IIi dang po nas yod pa stel sngcn rabs pa dangl rnyillg pa ba dallgl rig byed
pa stel de la dbye no [dbang phyug ees bya ba] fha chen po dangl spyod pa ba dangl
gsang bar smra ba'oll dallg po'ane fha gcig pa yill pal gSllm po yin pa brgyad pa yin
pal de dag gcig tu 'du ba'oll de lrar de dag rab [i.e. rig?] byed pa zhes bya bar 'du'oll
bdag ces bya IIi bem po baag pa dallgl tshig gi don drug pa dangl 'ug pa ba dallg!
rg)'al dpogs pa dangl gzegs zan po ni mtng gi mam grangs sol
gso ba dollg senrs can nil gso ba dangl sems can pa dallgl srog gi sde tshall pa dallgl
tshig gi don dgupa dangl gcer bupa dangl phyogs kyi gos canpa dangi (532) lIam mkha'i
gos can pa ming gi rnam grangs soIl
chad [par] Ita ba dangl phur bll pa dallgl tshu rol mdzes pa ba dang! rgyang
'phen pa dangllha'j bfa ma [pal mams ni ming gi rnam grangs soIl [dus zhes bya ba nil
dus rgyur smra ba stel chad pa ba dang phyogs mtshungs soIl
Note that he wrongly includes the Rgyal-dpog-pa (Mimaf!1asaka) with the Gzegs~
zan-pa (KiilJada).
According to Bla-ma dam-pa Bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan the five schools were
(Shlikya-mchog-ldan, Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 129):
(I) Tshangs·pa-ba (followers of Brahma., i.e. Mima,!,saka)
(2) Dbang-phyug-pa (followers of ISvara, i.e. VaiSajika)
(3)
(4)
Gcer-bu-pa (Jaina)
Rltvanl!-'nhan-M { f .nlriiva fa \
 SA-SKYA PANDITA 11
10 THE TIBET JOURNAL
I."

r
The same is found in the writings of another 14th-century scholar Dbus-pa, 12. Ngabrgyadma'i'grelpa, p. 149.1.4.
Blo-gsal.See the lattcrs' Gmb pa'i mtha' mam par bshadpa'i mdzod, p. 6a, in K. Mimaki, 13. Thub pa'i dgongs pa rob tu gsal ba, p. 24.3.4.
14. Ibid.: 'dl dag la bod kyi dge ba'i bshes gnyen dag gis mam dbye byas pa mang po soong
Blo gsal grub mtha' (Kyoto: 1982):
ste de dag 'khrul par mthollg ngoll
15. Thub pa'i dgongs, p. 50.1.6: tshogs chos 'Ji dbus gtsallg khams gsum du ngas thams
(1) Lha-yi-bla-ma (Lokiyata)
cad la bshad pa y/n pasl nga'i slob 1 1 1 0 thorns cad kyis lung thob pa 1'ill pas yi ge 'dl [a
(2) Ser-skya-pa (Kapila, i.e. Sarpkhya)
(3) Drag-po (followers of Rudra, i.e. Vaise~ika) Itos 10 shodll 'd j bzhin n1'arns su IOllg I I
Sa-pal) is not known to have visited Khams until he passed through it in c. 1244
(4) Khyab-'jug (Vaisl)ava, i.e. Mimarpsaka)
(5) Rgyal-ba-pa (Jaina) on the way to the camp of the Mongol prince Koden.
16. Two students of Sa-pal) also utilizlld the same fivefold classification. Zhang Rgyal-ba-
dpal, for example, enumerated the following Tirthika schools in his biography of
On the classifications adopted by two of Sa-paQ's students, see below, note 16.
Sa-palJ, Dpalldan so skya p{llJtfita chell po'i mam par thar pa, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum
8. lvIkhas pa TIIarns 'jug pa'; sgo, p. 106.3.2: mu stfgS byed 10 rtog ge lng-all rig byed
grangs can 'ug phrug pall zad byed tshu rol mdzes pa'oll (Tokyo: 1968), vol. 5, p. 434.3.1:
9. Mkhaspa mams, p. 107.1.3: bod kyl rtog ge ba moms nil I'di yi rnam gzhag 'khrugs
pa mangll de phyir de dag gls spel ba'ill bstan bcos bden par gzung m; byall bod kyj (1) Rig-byed-pa (*Vaidika, i.e. the Mimiif!lsaka) l

dge hshes 'ga' zhig gis sbyar ba'; grub nltho' mang po snang modI de dag gzhung lugs (2) ~-skya-pa (KapiIa, i.e. the Siirp.khya)
chen po'i mom gzhag ma gzigs par phon tshw~ SUIIphyung ba Ia brten nas rtog ge tha (3) Gzegs-zan [-pal ([followers of] KaT).ada, i.e. the Vai~~ika)
dad du bzhag laf grub mtlla' mthun pa tsam gyi rKYu mtshan Ia brtell nas rtog ge sde gcig (4) Rgyal-ba-dam-pa [-ba] (the Jaina)
tu bzhag pa n; mam par 'kh)'arns pa yin tel dper no nyall thos dang theg chen dangl (5) Phur-bu [-pal (Barhaspatya, i.e. the Carvaka)
bye brag tu smra ba dangl mdo sde pa dangl sems tsom pa dangf dbu ma pa phan
tshll1l sun 'byin yang tha dad du mi 'jog par sangs rg)'as pa zhes gcig tu sdud Ial rig Another student and biographer of Sa-paT)., Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-dpal,
b)'ed kyi mtlla' po 'ga' dang zad byed pa dang serns tsam pa dag kyang serns su byed described this fivefold system in his commentary on the Bodhisr.ttvacaryiillatara. This
pa'l grub mtha' 'ga' zhig mthun pa dangl spyod pa ba dallgl rgyang 'phell pa dangl work, called the Spyod 'jug 'grel pa gSUllg sgros ma, is said to have recorded Sa-p31)'S
dbll11la thai 'gYlIr la 'ga' zhig yod pa sun 'byiJl pa dangl gzhanlas grags par rjes own sayings and ways cf explanation. It was printed in Khams, but so far no copy of
dpag dang stong pa lIyid la sags pa mi mthUJIyallg don ml 'dra bas rtog ge sde tho dad it has turned up outside Tibet. Quotations from this commentary are preserved in the
du 'jog pa bzhin 1 1 0 1 1 Mkhas pa rnams 'jllg pa'i sgo'i rnam par bshad ba rig gnas gsal byed by Olo-be mkhan-
10. But see the closing lines of Sa-pal)'s Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel (p. 264.1.6), chen Bsod-nams-lhun-grub (1456-1532). In the latter (pp. 5~7ff.) one finds the following
where the Mi~rp.saka are omitted, and the Nyaya and V~ika are listed separately. five schools, enumerated in what was considered to be their approximate chrcnolo-
There he mentions "those who follow the scriptures" of the following: gical sequence of origination:

(1) Thub-pa Ser-skya ([followers of] Kapila, i.e. the Siirp.khya) (1) Ser-skya[-pa](Ka:pila, i.e. Sarp.khya)
(2) Rkang-mig-pa ({followers of] Aksapiida, i.e. the Nyiiya) (2) Rig-byed-pa (*Vaidika, i.e. Mimiirpsaka)
(3) 'Ug-pa'i-bu ([followers of] Ulilka, Le. the Va.iSqika) (3) Gzegs-zan[-pal (KaT).ada, i.e., Vaise!ika)
(4) Mkha'-gos-can (Digambara, i.e. the Jaina) (4) Rgyal-ba-dam-pa [-ba] (Jaina)
(5) Mtshu-rol-mdzes-pa (the Carviika) (5) Phur-bu [-pal (Ba:rhaspatya, i.e. Ciirvlika)

Shiikya-mchog-Idan in his untitled reply to the questions of Glo-bo mkhan-chen Lho-pa was one of Sa-pat)'s older disciples. He is said by Shiikya-mchog-ldan,
(Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 129.5) noticed this slight difference between the Mkhas Rngog 10 tstslla ba chen pas bstan pa j i Itar bskyangs pa'i tshlll mdo Isam du bya ba
'jug and Rigs gter. But the later Ngag-dbang-chos-grags identified the Rkang-mig-pa I/go mtshar gtam gyi rol mo, Collected Works (Thimbu: 1975), vol. 16, p. 451.1, to
(followers of AIqiipada) mentioned in the Rigs gter with the Rig-byed-pa (*Vaidika, have been the same person as Lho-pa sgog-gzan, a major disciple of Phywa-pa
i.e. Mimiirp.saka). See the note (mchan bu) to this effect in the passage quoted above Chos-kyi-seng-ge (1109-1169). This means he was probably Sa-pal)'s senior by some
in note S. "
thirty years at least.
Elsewhere in the Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel (p. 169.3.1), one finds a
17. Gzhung lugs legs par bshadpa, p. 71.3.6: 'di'j goug no Hzhan medpas dbll ma zhes bya stel
shorter list of schools:
Ius sam yan lag r1U<msIla mgo bas mtho ba med pas dbu zhes zer ba bzhin nolI
18. See for example the Mkhas pa rnoms, p. 100.1.5, and the Sdom pa gSIlJn gyi rab tll
(1) Ngo-bo-nyid-rgyur-smra-ba (Lokiiyata)
(2) Dbang-phyug-pa (followers of Isvara, here the Nyaya?) dbye ba, p. 318.2.3.
19. Ngag-dbang-chos-gmgs simply remarks in this connection that a final section on
(3) Grangs-can (Siirpkhya)
Tantra has been included in the Z h L : "After the Madhyamaka, there is also taught
(4) Gzegs-i:an (followers of KaQiida, i.e. the Vais~ika)
just a part of the doctrinal system of the four [classes of] Tantras" (dbu ma'i rjes su
11. According to G1o-bo mkhan-chen in one of his questions to Shltkya-mchog-Idan . rgyud sde bzhi'i rnam gzhag kyang cha tsam bstan 'dug) See above, note 5. The impli-
(~he latter's Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 132.6), some Tibetan doxographers of his" cation of this observation is that an exposition of Tantra is out of place here.
time or earlier classified Mima~sakas as annihilationists: bod kha cig dpyod pa po Cqmpare Sa-pal)'s comments in his Sdom gsum rab dbye after an extensive discus-
••.•• ~.- .••1.. .•.•"" '''' •.• 1.. •.• _ I..· •• A,J _~ •••.•.•.•...•.•.•.•.••
1 .: _ • • 1
 12 TIm TIBET JOURNAL SA-SKYA PANDITA 13

chugs pasll rgyud sde rnams dang grub thob kyill ;]gongs pa rTlt11TlSdang 'gal ba'i gnadll gros leyis sol spar 't iJ shri nalendra'i mthong smon grwa tshartg la bzhugs.
dpag /lied yod mod gsang sngags lIyidll yill phy;r kho bos gzhan du bslladll And on
p. 320.4.5: bye brag tu gsang slzgags kyi gnad gtan la dbab pa gsang chen yin pas kilo BIBUOGRAPHY
bos logs su bshad par blta'oll Similarly in his Thub pa'idgongs gsal, p. 30.1.5, he states:
'dn gllad zab mogsang sngags kyi skabs su'gyur bas 'dir mi bsllad doll Sa-plU}.makes A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'-bsod-nams. 'Dzam gling byang phyogs kyi thub pa'i
an exception in certain polemical contexts, where he is trying to correct the serious rgyal tshab chen po dpalldan sa skya pa'i gdulIg rabs rin po che jl Itar byon pa'i tshu/
doctrinal errors of others. As he explains in his Thub pa'i ;]gongs gsal, p. 30.2.1: 'dir gy; rnampar thar pa ngo mtshar rin po che'i bang mdzod ;]gas 'dad kun 'byung. Tashi
rgyud sde'i rim pa de tsam zhig ma bshad nill mu stegsl nyan thos! sems tsaml dbu ma pa Dorje: Dolanji, H.P., 1975.
gsang S/lgags kyi sgom gyi khyad par mams m; shes pas munsprul du nyams su blangs Bod ky; chos rgyal che" po srong btsan sgam po'i blon chen drung gi phyi rabs kyi gang zag
nas gsang sngags kyi phyag rgya chen po mil stegs kyi sgom dang 'dra ba bag re mthollg rnanlS la phon phy;r lugs gnyis la dgams pa'l bslab bya bstan beDs nyi ma'j 'ad zero
bas bshad pa yin nolI rgyas par bla ma'i zhallas shes par bya'oll MS. Taya Bunko, Tokyo. No. 307-2483.
20. Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-bzang-po, Thob yig rgya mtsho, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum (Tokyo: Chos rje so skya par;ujitas mdzad pa'i chos 'byung chen mo. MS. Bihar Research Society,
Taya Bunko, 1968), vol. 9, p. 62. 1.1ff. Ngag-dbang-chos-grags wrote his Bod Patna. Provisional catalogue no. 1477.
ky; mkhas at A-mes-zhabs's request in the second half of 1629 (the 7th to 9th lunar Dbus-pa Blo-gsal. Grub pa'l mtha' -mam par bshad pa'i mdzod. Facsimile reproduction in
months of the earth-snake year). This was the same year that A-mes-zhabs composed Katsumi Mimaki (ed. and transl.), BID gsal gmb mtha'. Kyoto: Zinbun Kagaku
his Sa skya gdu/Ig rabs chen mo. Kenkyusyo, University of Kyoto, 1982.
21. Rin-spungs-pa Ngag-dbang-'jigs-med-grags-pa, 'Jam dbyangs mi'i srid pa 'dzin pa sa GIo-bo mkhan-chen Bsod-nams-Ihun-grub. Mkhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo'i mam par bshad
skya pa/Jt}ita kun dga' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rtogs pa brjod pa bskal pa bzang pa rig gnas gsal byed. New Delhi:1979.
po'i legs lam, Lam' bras slob b~had (nerge ed)., vol. ka, p. lI2a.I. Strangely enough, Gzhung lugs legs par bsluJd pa. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Tokyo: Tayo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 5,
Ngag-dbang-chos-grag'S disciple 'Jam-mgon A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'-bsod- PP. 61.3.1-77.1.6. See also the print from Nalendra blocks, Library of Tibetan Works
nams in his history of the Sa-skya-pa 'Kohn family (composed in 1629) also included and Archives, Dharamsala, no. kha, 7, 9, 2954.
the Gzhung Jugs legs bshad in a list of Sa-pao's works, calling it the Gzhung lugs legs Legs bshad 'phrul gyi dra ba. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968. Vol. S,
dpyad. The same list also contains the Grub mtha'i mam 'byed. See A-mes-zhabs, 'Dzam pp. 431.2.1-433.1.6.
gling byallg pllyogs kyi thub pa'i rgyal tshab chen po dpalldan sa s/qa pa'i gdung Lho-pa kun-mkhyen Rin-chen-spal. Dpal sa skya palJt}ita'i mam thar kun mkhyen rin
rabs rin po che ji Itar byon pa'i tshul gyi mam par thar pa ngo mts/laY rin po che'; bang chen dpal gyis mdzad pa, Lam 'bras slob bshad (nerge ed.) Vol. 1 (ka), pp. 38b-57a.
mdzog dgos 'dad kun 'byung (Dolanji: 1975), p. 120,lines 2 and 4. A-mes-zha,bs copied Ngag-dbang-chos-grags. Bod kyi mkhas pa snga phyi clag gi grub mtha'l shan 'byed mtha'
most of his- biography of Sa-pan from the Mk/ras 'jug rnam bshad of Glo-bo mkhan- dpyod dang beas pa'; 'bel ba'; gtam skyes dpyod ldan mkhas pa'i Ius rgyan rin chen
chen. But this list of Sa-pan.'s writings is his own addition. mdzes pa'; phra tshom bkod pa. Thimbu: 1979.
22. Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (Thimbu: 1979), p. 55.6. See above, Dote.5 Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-bzang-po. Thob yig rgya mtsllO, Sa skya pa'j" bka' 'bum. Tokyo:
Tayo Bunko, 1969. Vol. 9, pp. 44.4.1-108.2.6.
23. See for instance the Legs bshGd 'phrul gy; dra ba included in the Derge edition (Toyo
Rin-spungs-pa Ngag-dbang-'jigs-grags. 'Jam dbyangs mi'; sdd bzang po'l rfogs pa brjod
Bunko reprint), pp. 431.2.1-433.1.6, which Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen marked
f·:'
.•. ~. as "doubtful" (the tshom call) in his index to the Sa skya bka' 'bum: Dpal sa skya'i
pa bskal pa bzang po'i legs lam, Lam 'bras slob bshad (Derge ed.). Vol. 1 (ka), pp .
67b.I-145a.6.
rje btsun gOllg ma l/lga'i gsung rab rin po chei' par gyi sgo 'phar 'byed pa'i dkar chag
Sa-skya Paoc!ita Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan. Mkhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo, Sa skya pa'i bka'
'phruJ gyi lde'u mig, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum (Tokyo-: 1968), vol. 7, p. 330.3.2. See also
'bum. Tokyo: Tayo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 5, pp. 81.11-111.3.6.
the index compiled by BSod-nams-rgya-mtsho, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum, vol. 5, p. xviii,
· Nga brgyad ma'; 'grelpa, Sa skya pa'i s bka' 'bum. Vol. 5, pp.148.3.4-154.4.6.
no. 110. As I was informed by Mr. Tashi Tsering, the Legs bshad 'phrul gyi dra ba
is more or less the same as the work entitled Bod kyi chos rgyal chen po srong btsan ----. Sdom pa gsum gy; rab tu t1bye ba, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Vol. S, pp. 297.1.1-
sgam po'; bl011dlen drung gi phyi rabs kyi gang zag rnams la phan phyir lugs gnyis la 320.4.5.
gdams pa'i bslab bya bston bcos nyi ma'i 'ad zer, Toyo Bunko,no. 307-2483. · Thub pa'i dgOllgs pa rab tu gsal ba, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bhum. Vol. 5,
See also Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen,[Dpalldan bla ma dam pa rnams las dam pp. 1.1.1-50.1.6.
pa'i chos thos pa'i yi ge don g/IYer gdellgs can rol pa'" chu gter (Debra Dun: 1970), · TsluJd ma rigs pa'i gter gyi rang 'grel, Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Vol. S, pp.
vol. 2, p. 432.4, on another doubtful work entitled Legs bshad gzhon nu'i mgul rgyan. 167.2.1-264.2.6.
Rin-spWlgs-pa cOl19idered this too as authentic, though others rejected it. Shakya-mchog-ldan, Gser-mdog paQ-chen. &gog /0 tstsha ba chen pas bstan pa ji ltar
bskyangs pa'i tshul mdo tsam du bya ba 1Ig0mtshar gtam gyi rol/1/O, Collected Work2.
Anothe-r interesting probable forgery is the work Cllos rje sa skya pa~"J(jltasmdzad
Thimbu: 1975. Vol. 16, pp. 443-456.
pa'; ckos'bYllng chen mo, provisional catalog no. 1477, the Bihar Research Society,
----. [Untitled answer to questions from Glo-bo mkhan-chen on the Mkhas 'jug
Patna. This manuscript once coru;isted of forty folios. Unfortunately, ten folios
of Sa-paQ.] Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 113-149.
(If. 8-14, 37-39) are now missing. The work includes a biography of the Buddha
Zhang Rgyal-ba-dpal. Dpalldan so skya paf)ifita chen po'i rnam par thar pa, Sa skya pa'i
Sakyamuni, a.nd also a section on the correct way to study the Buddhadharma.
bka' 'bum. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 5, pp. 433.2.1-438.4.6
24. Gzhung lugs legs, pp. 64.4.4; 67.4.2; 67.4.4; 68.1.4.
Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen [ascribed to Bkra-shis-Ihun-grub.] Dpal Idan sa skva'i
25. A print of the Gzhung lugs legs bshad from Nalendra blocks is found in the Library
rje btsun gang ma Inga'i gsung rab rin po che'i par gyi sgo 'phar 'byed pa'i dkar ~hag
of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, no. kha, 7, 9, 2954. The blocks seem to
'" .11 r_ - _u - ••••••••• ~ __ ••••• _-:_ •• h . , t 6 I;.!hnri •...
...n l" 'n h n n was a n o e n d .e d
'phrul gyi Ide'u mig. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968. Vol. 7. DO.
' 1 ( \ " " . • . . . . • " " _ J '