BP00000

The Jo nang pas and the Others: Intersectarian
Relations in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth

Century A mdo and Khams
Filippo Brambilla
1 Introduction
This paper* broadly considers the historical context of the nineteenth and early
twentieth century to determine which Jo nang monasteries and lineages were
then thriving in the southeastern periphery of A mdo and how they interacted
with religious figures and institutions of different Buddhist traditions, as actors
of a broader intersectarian network. In doing so, it aims at shedding light on a
phase of renaissance of Jo nang monastic culture and scholasticism that has
its roots in a period of displacement and resettlement some one and a half
century earlier. Following the ban of its literature and the forced conversion
of all its institutions in Gtsang into Dge lugs at the hand of the newborn Cen-
tral Tibetan government during the second half of the seventeenth century, the
Jo nang tradition managed to reflourish thanks to the foothold provided by a
few of its pre-existing minor monasteries in relatively secluded pockets of East-
ern Tibet. Between the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth century, the
holders of the main Jo nang lineage gradually resettled from Gtsang to the val-
ley of 'Dzam thang, where they established a new seat (gdan sa). Around the
same time, more Jo nang monasteries were also established in the areas of Rnga
ba and Mgo log. These and other new institutions continued to grow through-
out the region for the rest of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when
the Jo nang could further develop its sectarian identity against the backdrop of
increasing extrasectarian contacts.
More specifically, this paper explores examples of Jo nang pas who were
keen to study under teachers belonging to different Buddhist traditions or
who, in turn, trained non-Jo nang disciples, and emphasizes the cases of those
Jo nang scholars whose intersectarian experiences translated into doctrinal
* My most sincere thanks are due to Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes, who carefully read and helped
me to improve the present paper, and Mkhan po Dkon mchog bstan 'phel, who kindly helped
me to understand important passages in the relevant Tibetan literature. Research for this
paper was supported by the Austrian Science Fund in the context of the fwf-Project P32016
(“Emptiness of Other in the Early Jo nang Tradition”).
© Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Gabriele Coura, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466364_008

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364
Downloaded from Brill.com 03/15/2024 02:36:51PM
via Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg
118 brambilla
approaches leaning toward reconciliatory forms of pluralism. On the one hand,

the article examines the relationship of mutual respect and exchange that
developed between A mdo-based Jo nang masters such as Ngag dbang chos
'phel rgya mtsho (1788–1865) and prominent non-Dge lugs figures such as Kong
sprul Blo gros mtha' yas (1813–1899). On the other hand, the article considers
possible points of contact between Jo nang pas and Dge lugs pas, giving partic-
ular emphasis to their expansion in southeastern A mdo. Both these contexts,
the non-Dge lugs one and the Dge lugs one, will be first outlined to provide
a framework for better understanding the two fronts with which the Jo nang
pas had to align, compete, or find a balance in order to survive and thrive as a
distinct Buddhist tradition. The later development of the Jo nang tradition in A
mdo will be introduced by drawing attention to the conditions for its expansion
in the region in the first place, and by taking into consideration the complex
phase of transition and resettlement of its main lineage.
The historical writings of the Jo nang scholar Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa
(1920–1975),1 the Jo nang chos 'byung (“Doctrinal History of the Jo nang”) and
the related Lhan thabs (“Supplement”),2 serve as the primary sources for this
study. Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa, most commonly referred to as Mkhan po
1 For a comprehensive biographical work on Mkhan po Blo grags, see Kun dga' shes rab, Blo
gros grags pa'i rnam thar. For a biography in English, see Sheehy 2009b. Kapstein 1993 con-
tains the first brief portrait of this scholar in English, whereas Sheehy 2007 and Sheehy 2019
represent the first extensive studies on this author’s doctrinal position, which is also briefly
taken into consideration in Duckworth 2008: 61–66.
2 The full titles read, respectively, Dpal ldan jo nang ba'i chos 'byung rgyal ba'i chos tshul gsal
byed zla ba'i sgron me and Jo nang chos 'byung gi lhan thabs brgyud rim dpal ldan bla ma gang
dag gi mtshan nyid rab tu gsal ba nyi gzhon 'od snang dad pa'i padmo rnam par bzhad byed.
Both texts are included in the second volume (kha) of the collected works of Ngag dbang blo
gros grags pa, block-printed in the 1990s in 'Dzam thang. Moreover, both texts have been pub-
lished together in Western book format in 1992 by Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang.
The Jo nang chos 'byung was translated into Chinese by Xu Decun 许得存 in 1993 (see Awang
Luozhui Zhaba 1993) and, together with the Lhan thabs, is one of the primary sources of the
historical study published by Pu Wencheng 浦文成 in 1993. Sheehy 2007, 2009a, and 2009d,
Gruschke 2008, Stearns 2010, and Sperling 2009 refer abundantly to the historical works of
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa. It should be mentioned that many of the biographies included
in the works of Mkhan po Blo grags are based on a number of manuscript hagiographies now
kept at Jo nang monasteries such as Gtsang ba dgon. Later Jo nang pas have also jointly com-
posed two works on the history of their own tradition: Jo nang ba'i gdan rabs mdor bsdus
drang srong rgan po'i zhal lung, edited by the Jo nang mdza' mthun lo rgyus phyogs sgrig
tshogs pa in 2005, and Dpal ldan rgyal ba jo nang pa'i dgon sde dag gi lo rgyus phyogs gcig
tu bkod pa, edited by Mkhan Dngos grub dpal in 2014. A preliminary study of these two texts
suggests that they are mostly based on Mkhan po Blo grags’s works and their biographical
sources.

the jo nang pas and the others 119
Blo grags, was born right at the end of the period discussed in this present paper
and was the direct disciple of some of the scholars that it examines. He counted
among his main teachers Kun dga' ngag dbang (1873–1936), Ngag dbang tshogs
gnyis rgya mtsho (1880–1940), and the seventh vajra master (vajrācārya; rdo
rje slob dpon) of Gtsang ba dgon, Ngag dbang rdo rje bzang po (1893–1948).
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa succeeded Ngag dbang dkon mchog bstan pa dar
rgyas (1900–1966) as the ninth vajra master of Gtsang ba dgon and the forty-
fifth holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra.3 He authored a substantial
literature on topics spanning from logic and epistemology to doxography, and
from Kālacakra to history, and trained most of the generation of Jo nang mkhan
pos and bla mas born between the 1930s and the late 1960s.
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa’s Jo nang chos 'byung is structured in three
chapters: the first one discusses the origins of the Jo nang doctrine in India
and its transmission along the sūtra and the mantra lineages, the second one
describes the appearance and development of the Jo nang tradition in Central
and Eastern Tibet, and the third one lists the patrons (sbyin bdag) of some of
the foremost Jo nang figures. The Lhan thabs, which is also constructed along
three main chapters, further elaborates on most of the same topics by enrich-
ing them with ample details. Its first chapter is dedicated to the origins of the Jo
nang doctrine and discusses them in a very succinct way. The second chapter,
which constitutes the main body of the Lhan thabs, provides us with a com-
prehensive history of the lineages of Jo nang monasteries of different areas of
A mdo ('Dzam thang, upper and lower 'Dzi ka, Mgo log, and Rnga ba) in the
form of a series of biographies. The last chapter of the Lhan thabs, an appendix,
contains, among other things, valuable information about an alternative trans-
mission line of the Jo nang doctrine that passed through Rnying ma and Bka'
brgyud scholars, and a series of text-specific transmissions lines.
2 Khams and the Non-Dge lugs Front
If one follows the branches of the intersectarian network of which the Jo nang
pas of the examined period were part, one will soon encounter the nodes rep-
resented by Bka' brgyud and Rnying ma scholars who were actively involved in
the cultural efflorescence that developed across the Sde dge area of the Khams
region in terms of literary production, intellectual changes, and evolution of
religious scholastic institutions and pedagogical systems. All these develop-
3 On the history of the Jo nang mantra lineage, see Sheehy 2009a.

120 brambilla
ments took place within a very particular historical setting. The kingdom of
Sde dge enjoyed substantial independence from the Dga' ldan pho brang since
1725, when the Qing 清 established that Khams would be split in two regions
by the Yangtze river ('Bri chu; Jinsha Jiang 金沙江) and conferred the con-
trol of the sole western half to Lha sa, leaving the eastern half in the hands
of local chieftains nominally controlled by the Manchurian dynasty itself.4 As
the royal family of Sde dge was the official patron of the Sa skya, but also
granted some support to both the Rnying ma and the Bka' brgyud, all three tra-
ditions could thrive and develop in a delicate balance.5 Moreover, the Dge lugs
tradition effectively held political and doctrinal primacy over Central Tibet,
where it famously opposed and censored the Jo nang and Bka' brgyud tradi-
tions during the mid-seventeenth century, but could not count on an equally
strong presence in the area of Sde dge, thereby leaving room for the develop-
ment of the other traditions into a common non-Dge lugs front. This polar-
ization was further exacerbated in the mid-nineteenth century after Mgon po
rnam rgyal’s (1799–1865) conquest of Sde dge led the Central Tibetan govern-
ment to dispatch a contingent of troops, which destroyed the invaders6 and,
at the same time, provided the local Dge lugs institutions with new political
power.7
Much has been written and said about the masters who played crucial roles
as agents of religious and cultural rejuvenation in the Khams of that period
since Gene Smith published his arguably seminal articles on Ngag dbang dpal
bzang (1879–1941), 'Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho (1846–1912), and Kong sprul Blo
gros mtha' yas in 1969 and 1970.8 In addition to introducing Western readers
to works by these very authors, Smith first coined the term “nonsectarian (ris
med) movement” to describe a series of influential Rnying ma, Bka' brgyud, and
Sa skya masters who were born and raised in the broader area of Sde dge dur-
4 See Martin 1990: 6.

5 See Hartley 1997: 38–40; Gardner 2006: 129–130. For a detailed overview on the history of Sde
dge between 1862 and 1910, see Hartley 2013.
6 See Shakabpa 1984: 187.
7 See Smith 2001: 249; Viehbeck 2014b: 66–68.
8 See, respectively: (A) Smith, E.G. 1969a. “Introduction.” In S.T. Kazi, ed., The Autobiographi-
cal Reminiscences of Ngag-dbang-dpal-bzang, Late Abbot of Kahtog Monastery, 1–20. Gangtok.
(B) Smith, E.G. 1969a. “Introduction.” In S.T. Kazi, ed., Gzhan gyis brtsad pa'i lan mdor bsdus
pa rigs lam rab gsal de nyid snang byed: An Answer to Blo-bzang-rab-gsal’s Refutation of the
Author’s Sher le nor bu ke ta ka and its Defense, the Brgal lan nyin byed snang ba., 1–11. Gangtok.
(C) Smith, E.G. 1970. “Introduction.” In L. Chandra, ed., Kongtrul’s Encyclopaedia Of Indo-
Tibetan Culture, 1–78. New Delhi: Śata-Piṭaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures Volume 80. All
three papers have been republished in Smith 2001 and can be found, respectively, at pages 13–
31, 227–233, and 235–272.

ing the nineteenth and early twentieth century, shared what he defined as a
nonsectarian outlook, and engaged in intense religious activities. Most of the
research that followed the publication of Smith’s essays cemented the term
“nonsectarian movement” around the figures of Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas,
'Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse'i dbang po (1820–1870), and Mchog gyur gling pa
(1829–1870), and extended the same label to other teachers such as Rdza Dpal
sprul (1808–1877), 'Ju Mi pham, and Mkhan po Gzhan dga' (Gzhan phan chos
kyi snang ba, 1871–1927).
All these teachers were active in the same historical and geographical set-
ting—nineteenth century Eastern Tibet—and within overlapping social net-
works wherein they were often bound to each other by master-disciple rela-
tionships. As they all belonged to non-Dge lugs traditions, many of their activ-
ities are to be understood as consequential to their struggle for religious iden-
tity and political power in the face of the expansion of the Dge lugs hege-
monic rule of the Dga' ldan pho brang.9 However, although they did certainly
embrace and practice forms of doctrinal exchange and tolerance, these were
no novel ideals but ones historically embedded in Tibetan traditions.10 The
acceptance of the existence of a “nonsectarian movement” raises, in fact, the
issue of establishing distinctive characteristics and chronological boundaries
that could mark an actual discontinuity from past commonly accepted values
and practices. Moreover, the wholesale inclusion of a rather vague and vary-
ing series of teachers under the label “movement” is burdened with ambiguity
insofar as it would imply their existence as a well-defined group of people who
worked together to advance a shared conscious agenda. These issues were first
aired by Alexander Gardner, who deconstructed the idea of a coherent “non-
sectarian movement” that, he submits, is the product of the misconceptions
of Tibetologists and Western Buddhists who lumped together characteristics
and activities that must be rather seen as defining individual masters instead
of a cohesive group.11 “Movement,” used as an uncritical label, flattens out and
blends the subtle and yet crucial distinctions among scholars. Therefore, its use
requires that it be understood as a historically and geographically determined
intersectarian and, as such, intrinsically nonsectarian network of individual
teachers who acted in accordance with their own distinct views and agen-
das.
9 On the political dimension of the “nonsectarian movement,” see the introduction to the
present volume and Schuh 1973 and Schuh 1976 as referred to therein.
10 See Smith 2001: 237.
11 See Gardner 2006: 112–136.

122 brambilla
Among the recent scholarship, the studies on Kong sprul by Gardner,12

Klaus-Dieter Mathes,13 and Martina Draszczyk,14 Markus Viehbeck’s publica-
tions on Rdza Dpal sprul,15 and the research on Mi pham by Georges Dreyfus,16
Dorji Wangchuk,17 Karma Phuntsho,18 Douglas Duckworth,19 and Viehbeck20
all deserve to be mentioned as they provide us with clear examples that serve
as reference points for orienting ourselves through the nodes of this complex
network. The multifaced portraits that emerge from this academic literature
are those of masters who did nominally share a loose ideal of nonsectarian-
ism or impartiality—that the doctrinal positions of all Tibetan Buddhist tradi-
tions offer valuable descriptions of reality and all practice lineages have sote-
riological power—but implemented this principle in a variety of approaches
towards sectarian diversity that swung between the extremes of inclusivism
and pluralism. Here, although some further clarification is necessary, I largely
follow the definitions of the two terms inclusivism and pluralism proposed
by the Christian theologian Alan Race and further developed by John Hick
as parts of a threefold distinction of Christian approaches towards different
religions, with the third possible approach being exclusivism.21 This three-
fold model defines each approach on the basis of truth-claims and salvation-
claims. Inclusivism asserts that, although only one religion can provide the
most accurate understanding of the truth of God (the ultimate truth of a
Christian context) and the most effective path to salvation, other religions can
still convey less accurate, partial descriptions of the ultimate truth and can
still grant some access to salvation. Notably, Paul Hacker proposed another
relevant definition of inclusivism based on his Indological studies. Hacker’s
inclusivism—often fittingly applicable to the Buddhist context—consists of
accepting an opposing doctrinal view as explicitly or implicitly subordinate
or propaedeutic to one’s own.22 I submit that Hacker’s can be understood as
a narrower definition or a particular kind of Race’s and Hick’s inclusivism in
terms of necessarily presupposing a hierarchization of any opposing or com-
12 See Gardner 2006; Gardner 2019.

13 See Mathes 2019: 128–131.
14 See Draszczyk 2019.
15 See Viehbeck 2014a; Viehbeck 2016.
16 See Dreyfus 2003.
17 See Wangchuk 2004.
18 See Phuntsho 2005; Phuntsho 2007.
19 See Duckworth 2008; Duckworth 2011.
20 See Viehbeck 2014b.
21 See Race 1993; Hick 1995: 11–30.
22 See Hacker 1995: 244.

peting view to ensure the predominance of one’s own. As for pluralism, it

accepts that different religions propound alternative and yet equally indepen-
dently valid understandings of an ineffable ultimate truth, and thereby also
workable means for salvation. In this case, another significant, more specific
characterization of what can also be understood as a form of pluralism is the
“reconciliatory” or “harmonizing” approach described by Dorji Wangchuk in
his research on the Rnying ma interpretations of the buddha nature theory.
This is the approach where opposing views are presented as compatible and
equal in order to reconcile them.23 In contrast, exclusivism maintains that only
one religion can provide the correct understanding of the ultimate truth, and
salvation is confined solely to the path it defines. According to exclusivism,
other religions cannot offer but an erroneous view of the ultimate truth, nor
can they provide any method for their followers to reach salvation. In the con-
text of the present paper, the application of the threefold model and its variants
is limited to distinctions that are intersectarian but essentially intrareligious:
all the masters taken into consideration were members of Tibetan Buddhist
traditions, and so were their peers, with the sole exception of the Bon pos
and, at least from the point of view of its most radical opponents, the fol-
lowers of the Jo nang tradition. Accordingly, it must be understood that the
applicability of the labels here chosen to define the approaches of individ-
ual masters is necessarily contextual and dependent on the limited scope of
contact and interaction between them and the representatives of other Bud-
dhist or non-Buddhist traditions. Now, without pretending to add anything
new to what has been already eloquently discussed in the recent scholarship
referred to above, I will briefly outline the key characteristics defining the doc-
trinal outlooks of some of the leading members of the Khams pa intersectar-
ian network, and I will put forward a tentative classification of their distinct
approaches.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, who was first brought up as a follower of
Bon, then ordained as a Rnying ma monk, and eventually re-ordained as a Bka'
brgyud pa, was arguably the most influential scholar of his time. He repeat-
edly expressed a nonsectarian outlook in his autobiography24 and other works
like his biography of the Sa skya master Mkhyen brtse'i dbang po,25 where he
23 See Wangchuk 2004: 191, 199–201.

24 See Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, Nor bu sna tshogs mdog can. The entire autobiogra-
phy was translated into English by Richard Barron in 2003, and Gardner 2019 used it as a
primary source.
25 See Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, Udumbara'i dga' tshal.

124 brambilla
criticizes those who engage in sectarianism by denigrating others’ paths26 and

praises those who appreciate and practice various traditions without falling
into the trap of syncretism.27 This view shaped to a significant degree the
religious activities of Kong sprul, who traveled extensively to collect and pre-
serve scriptures and teachings from all Tibetan traditions, which he included
into his encyclopedic corpus of writings. Notably, Kong sprul matured a strong
interest in lesser-known traditions such as the Shangs pa Bka' brgyud28 and
the Jo nang, whose practice instructions and views are extensively presented
in his works. Moreover, in particular, he adopted Shākya mchog ldan’s (1428–
1507) interpretation of the view of the emptiness of other (gzhan stong) and
adapted it as the cornerstone of his philosophical enterprise. As first elabo-
rated by the Jo nang founder Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361) in
the fourteenth century, the view of the emptiness of other propounds that
while relative phenomena are empty of any real intrinsic essence, buddha-
hood is empty of other in that it is empty of relative defilements but not of
its real intrinsic essence.29 On the contrary, those who oppose the emptiness
26 See Kong sprul/Barron 2003: 53; Gardner 2006: 133–134.

27 See Gardner 2019: 138.
28 The Shangs pa Bka' brgyud was established during the twelfth century by Khyung po Rnal
'byor (978/990–1127), the main disciple of the Indian yogini Niguma, who is said to have
been Nāropā’s sister or wife. Niguma’s teachings to Khyung po are subsumed under the
five golden dharmas (gser chos lnga): the six dharmas of Niguma (ni gu chos drug); the
instructions of the amulet-box of Mahāmudrā (phyag chen ga'u ma); the three aspects to
integrate on the path (lam khyer rnam gsum); the instructions of white and red Khecarī
(mkha' spyod dkar dmar); the instructions of the deathless body and mind (lus sems 'chi
med). The Shangs pa’s institutional independence faded during the fourteenth century,
but its doctrines and practices survived and spread through different transmission lin-
eages within various Tibetan traditions. Notably, the Jo nang masters Kun dga 'grol mchog
(1507–1566) and Tāranātha (1575–1634) played a crucial role in collecting and systematiz-
ing the Shangs pa teachings, and Kong sprul eventually obtained them through this Jo
nang lineage. See Kapstein 1980; Kapstein 1992; Smith 2001: 53–57; Harding 2012.
29 A locus classicus for the definition of the Jo nang position is Dol po pa’s Bden gnyis gsal
ba'i nyi ma. See Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan, Bden gnyis gsal ba'i nyi ma: 110.6–110.10:
“First [point: the actual differentiation of the two truths in terms of their defining char-
acteristics.] Being an object of consciousness and fundamentally empty of a real intrinsic
essence are the defining characteristics of the relative truth. Being an object of the Noble
Ones’ genuine wisdom and fundamentally not empty of its real intrinsic essence are the
defining characteristics of the ultimate truth.”; dang po ni / rnam shes kyi yul gang zhig /
gshis la rang gi ngo bo bden pas stong pa ni / kun rdzob bden pa'i mtshan nyid dang / 'phags
pa'i ye shes dam pa'i yul gang zhig / gshis la rang rang gi ngo bo bden pas mi stong pa ni
/ don dam bden pa'i mtshan nyid de /. See also ibid.: 110.14–110.17, “Since the relative does
not actually exist, it is empty of intrinsic essence and it appears to consciousness, but not
to wisdom. And since the ultimate does actually exist, it is not empty of intrinsic essence

of other would generically fall into the category of rang stong pas, the pro-
ponents of the emptiness of intrinsic essence (rang stong, short for rang gi
ngo bos stong), who maintain that this sole mode of emptiness extends not
only to relative phenomena but also to buddhahood, which is then defined
through a non-affirming negation (med dgag). Moreover, the Jo nang posi-
tion translates into an interpretation of the three-nature theory that collapses
the imagined (kun brtags), dependent (gzhan dbang), and unmistaken perfect
natures (phyin ci ma log pa'i yongs grub) into the level of the relative truth,
which coincides with the negandum (dgag bya). Accordingly, it restricts the
ultimate to the unchangeable perfect nature ('gyur med yongs grub), which
thus coincides with the basis of negation (dgag gzhi). In contrast, Kong sprul
opted for the Yogācāra-based interpretation propounded by Shākya mchog
ldan, who presented the perfect nature as the dependent nature’s emptiness
of the imagined. Therefore, he included both the dependent and the perfect
natures within the basis of negation and established the imagined nature alone
as the negandum.30 Moreover, instead of the buddhahood expressed by the Jo
nang as permanent in the sense of transcending the three times, Kong sprul—
in line with the Third, the Seventh, and the Eighth Karma pas—maintained
that buddhahood is not permanent because it is not beyond momentariness.31
Nevertheless, in a rather political move, Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas dis-
missed these and other differences in the views of the proponents of the
emptiness of other as relatively minor and dependent on circumstances,32 and
hence insufficient to undermine the essential unity of their front. According
to Kong sprul, this was especially true when their various views were com-
pared against the backdrop of the heterogeneous positions of the advocates
of the emptiness of intrinsic essence, whom he identified with the Dge lugs in
full and a series of scholars from all other Tibetan Buddhist traditions except
for the Jo nang. Through this narrative, Kong sprul was both able to portray
the non-Dge lugs front as a semi-homogeneous group of proponents of the
emptiness of other and leave room for the appreciation of some of those schol-
ars who, in contrast, propounded the emptiness of intrinsic essence.33 Kong
[but] empty of other, and it appears to wisdom, but never to consciousness.” kun rdzob ni
/ don la med pas rang stong dang / rnam shes la snang gi ye shes la mi snang ba dang / don
dam ni / don la yod pas rang gis mi stong pa gzhan stong dang / ye shes la snang gis [em.
gi] rnam shes la gtan nas mi snang ba yin te /.
30 See Mathes 2004: 292–294, 311–318; Draszczyk 2019: 251–254.
31 See Mathes 2019: 128–132.
32 See Draszczyk 2019: 249–251.
33 See Gardner 2019: 224–226. Cf. Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, Ris med chos kyi 'byung gnas:
15a.5–15b.6.

126 brambilla
sprul’s adoption of gzhan stong served the purpose of fine-tuning his nonsec-
tarian enterprise, but it did so by turning it into an evident example of Hacker’s
hierarchical inclusivism wherein all other philosophical positions are seen as
subordinate to that of the emptiness of other. In fact, a degree of inclusivism
is essentially embedded in the gzhan stong doctrine in that it does not reject
the rang stong position but implies its understanding as limited to the relative
truth.34 Thus, such a framework’s uncompromised application incorporates
the view of the emptiness of intrinsic essence but demotes it to provisional sta-
tus. Thereby, it inevitably belittles the philosophical stance of the rang stong
pas par excellence, the Dge lugs pas, whose monastic institutions Kong sprul
systematically excluded from the religious map of Khams35 that he conceived
and redrew as a commentary on the one36 that had been previously revealed
by Mchog gyur gling pa.37
Another significant figure in the Khams pa intersectarian network was the
Rnying ma scholar and yogin Rdza Dpal sprul O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang
po. A contemporary of Kong sprul, his essentially pluralist approach consisted
in teaching people who belonged to all Buddhist traditions in accordance with
their own established doctrinal positions, without any attempt at reconcili-
ation or syncretism. This meant that, for example, Rdza Dpal sprul taught a
given text to a Rnying ma audience based on the existing Rnying ma commen-
tarial literature, whereas he presented the same treatise to the Sa skya pas by
following its mainstream Sa skya interpretation.38 Moreover, his teaching style
was characterized by the combination of explanations with practical exercises,
which made the content of his lessons accessible to students of very diverse
philosophical and social backgrounds.39 All these aspects defining Dpal sprul’s
approach come together in the teaching of a text which became his specialty:
Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra.40 He managed to spread teachings on this trea-
tise to a very vast and multisectarian audience by applying an impartial and
relatable style that helped avoid doctrinal conflicts. At the same time, Dpal
34 See Brambilla 2018: 19.

35 See Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, Zin thung nyung ngu. For an English translation of the
text, see Gardner 2006: 205–218.
36 See Mchog gyur gling pa, Bod kyi gnas chen rnams kyi mdo byang dkar chags. For an English
translation of the text, see Gardner 2006: 187–204.
37 See Gardner 2006: 152–156, 164–165; Gardner 2019: 257–261.
38 See Smith 2001: 246.
39 See Viehbeck 2014a; Viehbeck 2016: 22, 24–25.
40 Dpal sprul composed three short works on Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra. See O rgyan 'jigs
med chos kyi dbang po: (1) Spyod 'jug brgyud 'debs; (2) Spyod 'jug sa bcad; (3) Spyod 'jug
sgom rim.

sprul also managed to rejuvenate the sectarian identity of his own tradition
by establishing a solid Rnying ma commentarial tradition for the Bodhicaryā-
vatāra, which, surprisingly, had no precedents.41
Among the several new commentaries on the Bodhicaryāvatāra that arose
in the wake of Dpal sprul’s teaching activity, we find the one that his famous
student 'Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho composed on its ninth chapter.42 Contrary to
one’s expectations, Mi pham did not implement the approach of his guru but a
slightly different one. While Dpal sprul skillfully avoided any conflict, Mi pham
valiantly embraced a polemical style aimed at redefining a clear-cut Rnying ma
view in contrast to the positions of other traditions. Nevertheless, Mi pham did
so without intolerance or disrespect for the other Buddhist traditions, which he
attacked only on specific issues crucial to his formulation of a distinct Rnying
ma view. Thus, in this respect, just like his teacher Dpal sprul, Mi pham cul-
tivated a pluralist attitude of mutual respect among distinct traditions, each
one following its own well-defined path and doctrine.43 In line with this prin-
ciple, he also wrote texts that describe and defend the views of other traditions
such as the Dge lugs, the Sa skya, and the Jo nang by presenting them from
an emic perspective.44 According to Duckworth, in reaction to the hegemony
of the Dge lugs pas, Mi pham developed a selective approach through which,
on the one hand, he appropriated certain aspects of their philosophical view
and, on the other hand, he polemically challenged those Dge lugs positions he
considered most problematic.45 Moreover, according to Wangchuk, in his com-
parison of the opposite Dge lugs and Jo nang positions, Mi pham went a step
further and shifted to a “harmonizing” form of pluralism and, while acknowl-
edging the sharp difference in their respective argumentative styles, attempted
to reconcile the two traditions by elaborating on what he identified as their
point of contact: the interpretation of ultimate truth as “freedom from elabo-
rations” (spros bral).46
The final element that needs to be considered in our overview of the Khams
pa intersectarian network is the evolution of a new model of religious scholas-
tic education as an alternative to the dominant Dge lugs one. The cradle from
where it developed was the commentarial school (bshad grwa) of Śrī Siṃha,
affiliated to Rdzogs chen monastery, which was established by the Rnying ma
41 See Viehbeck 2016: 10.

42 See 'Ju Mi pham rnam rgyal rgya mtsho, Nor bu ke ta ka.
43 See Phuntsho 2007: 193, 200–203; Viehbeck 2014b: 68–73; Viehbeck 2016: 13–14, 28–29.
44 See Phuntsho 2007: 202; Wangchuk 2004: 189–190.
45 See Duckworth 2008: xxii–xxiii.
46 See Wangchuk 2004: 199–201. Cf. Dreyfus 2003: 320–321.

128 brambilla
teacher Gzhan phan mtha' yas (1800–?) in 1848 as a platform for the revitaliza-
tion of Rnying ma monasticism with a focus on the study of the three vows the-
ory and tantra.47 In this way, Gzhan phan mtha' yas created better conditions
for the Rnying ma to compete with the Dge lugs tradition, which could already
count on well-organized monastic institutions that were expanding through
Eastern Tibet. As the Dge lugs could also count on a well-structured and con-
solidated monastic curriculum, the second, crucial step for the Rnying ma was
that of developing its own education model. When Mkhan po Gzhan dga', who
had studied under Rdza Dpal sprul’s famous disciple O rgyan Bstan 'dzin nor
bu (1841–1900),48 started to teach first at Dge mang and later at Śrī Siṃha in the
early 1900s, he shifted the focus of study to exoteric literature and fundamental
Indian texts.49 While the Dge lugs adopted a pedagogical approach that empha-
sized debate, Gzhan dga' stressed the importance of a text-based, exegetical
approach and, to this purpose, wrote gloss commentaries (mchan 'grel) on thir-
teen selected essential Indian treatises.50 After leaving Śrī Siṃha around 1909,
Gzhan dga' continued to teach, moving from one monastery to another, and
thereby spreading his pedagogical model and curriculum to important Bka'
brgyud and Sa skya institutions, such as Dpal spungs and Rdzong gsar.51 This
broad acceptance was possible thanks to Gzhan dga'’s choice of Indian trea-
tises, the authority of which was universally acknowledged by all Tibetan Bud-
dhist traditions, and to the impartial approach that he adopted in his exegetical
works, where he avoided tradition-specific interpretations and controversies.52
Nevertheless, it is worthwhile noting that Gzhan dga'’s selection of texts under-
represents Yogācāra thought.53 Moreover, unlike most of the non-Dge lugs mas-
ters we have mentioned up to this point, Gzhan dga' was openly critical of, if
not opposed to, the gzhan stong doctrine, which became a cause of misunder-
standing and friction more than once in his teaching career.54
47 See Smith 2001: 22–23; Dreyfus 2005: 288–289.

48 See Bayer 2019: 34–47.
49 See Dreyfus 2005: 289–290; Bayer 2019: 68–71.
50 For further remarks on the evolution of Gzhan dga'’s teaching method, see Bayer 2019:
148–149, 176–179. For a detailed overview of the thirteen treatises, Gzhan dga'’s gloss com-
mentaries, and their descriptive catalogue, see Bayer 2019: 183–258. For a discussion of
the Dge lugs pedagogical model and the one that came to be adopted by the non-Dge lugs
commentarial traditions, see Dreyfus 2003; Dreyfus 2005: 276–286; Pearcey 2015.
51 See Bayer 2019: 91–150.
52 See Dreyfus 2005: 289–292; Bayer 2019: 183–185.
53 See Bayer 2019: 183–186.
54 See Dreyfus 2005: 291; Bayer 2019: 97–114, 173.

3 The Dge lugs Front
The Dge lugs tradition, which took shape after the philosophical works of
the late fourteenth century reformist Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–
1419), rose to dominance over much of the Tibetan regions during the mid-
seventeenth century, when it gained the support of Gushri Khan (1582–1655)
and the Qoshot Mongols. Gushri Khan’s army first took control of the Kokonor
area of A mdo in 1637, then vanquished the king of Be ri and subdued the
region of Khams in 1641, and eventually unified the two regions of Dbus and
Gtsang after defeating and executing the then ruler of Gtsang, Karma bstan
skyong dbang po (1605–1642), in 1642. The Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang blo
bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682)55 was then enthroned as the regent of the newly
unified regions, and the Dga' ldan pho brang, his residence, came to be iden-
tified with the Dge lugs-led Central Tibetan government. After the Mongol
campaigns, Bon po monasteries were converted to Dge lugs in Khams, and so
were also many of the Karma Bka' brgyud and all of the Jo nang monaster-
ies in Central Tibet, since their hierarchs had been politically bound to the
former regime of Gtsang, which was inimical to the Dge lugs.56 In contrast,
the Fifth Dalai Lama and his rebirth were sympathetic to the Rnying ma tra-
dition, which, during the late sixteenth century, managed to establish several
important monasteries in Central Tibet and Khams thanks to their complai-
sance.57
The second and third decades of the eighteenth century were stained again
by sectarian violence. In 1717, the Dzungar Mongols descended from the
Kokonor region, defeated the Qoshots, and took control of Lha sa. During their
brief rule, brought to an end in 1720 by the military intervention of the troops of
Khang chen nas (d. 1727) and Pho lha nas (1689–1747) and the army sent by the
Qing emperor Kangxi 康熙 (1654–1722), the Dzungars persecuted the Rnying
ma pas and destroyed two of their main monasteries in Central Tibet: Rdo rje
brag and Smin grol gling.58 Moreover, the Rnying ma tradition had to face a fur-
ther attack in 1726, when Khang chen nas strictly implemented an edict by the
Qing emperor Yongzheng 雍正 (1678–1735) in support of the Dge lugs pa and
against the Rnying ma pas.59
55 For a historical portrait of the Fifth Dalai Lama, see Schaeffer 2013.
56 For detailed accounts of this complex historical period, see Shakabpa 1984: 100–124; Kar-
may 2003.
57 See Smith 2001: 17–20.
58 See Shakabpa 1984: 134–139. On the Rnying ma persecution, see also Smith 2001: 18, 20.
59 See Petech 1950: 78–98; Shakabpa 1984: 141–142.

130 brambilla
As we have already seen at the beginning of the previous section of this

paper, the Dga' ldan pho brang government lost its direct control of the eastern
part of Khams to the Qing in 1725, and the Dge lugs pas could not count on a
substantial presence in the region, particularly around Sde dge, at least until
the second half of the nineteenth century. The situation evolved differently in
the area of Rgyal rong (Jinchuan 金川), at the far eastern periphery of Khams,
where the Qing emperor Qianlong 乾隆 (1711–1799) led two intense wars, the
first from 1747 to 1749 and the second from 1770 to 1776, to eradicate the rebellion
of the local chieftains. As Qianlong cultivated a close patron–priest relation-
ship with the great Dge lugs scholar Lcang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717–1786), who
was his guru and advisor, these campaigns also assumed a significant religious
dimension, which reaches us through the narrative of another famous Dge lugs
author, Thu'u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737–1802), in his biographi-
cal works on the Second Lcang skya.60 In particular, Thu'u bkwan describes the
area of Rgyal rong as a unique intersectarian environment, where the Bon pos
could flourish under the direct patronage of the main local authorities, and
all Buddhist traditions but the Dge lugs were also thriving. Thus, the need for
political stability came to overlap, according to Thu'u bkwan, with the need for
converting those who embraced the wrong views of Bon to the pure Dge lugs
doctrine. After two lengthy and costly military campaigns, the Qing army anni-
hilated the local rebels, the main Bon monastery of Rgyal rong was converted to
Dge lugs, and an imperial decree forbade the practice of Bon.61 Moreover, Thu'u
bkwan’s biography of Lcang skya provides a significant account of the latter’s
outlook toward non-Dge lugs traditions. In fact, from Thu'u bkwan’s narrative of
a doctrinal discussion between the emperor Qianlong and his guru Lcang skya,
there emerge indications of a varied approach. The Bon tradition is dismissed
by assimilating it to Daoism, the Jo nang is not even mentioned, and, while
all other Tibetan Buddhist traditions are generally presented as carriers of the
authentic teachings of the Buddha, a further hierarchical distinction is drawn.
According to Thu'u bkwan, Lcang skya explained that, although the founders of
the other traditions held pure and correct views, these had been often misun-
derstood by their later interpreters, and only Tsong kha pa was eventually able
to produce a flawless synthesis of sūtra and tantra.62 Thus, the approach that
Thu'u bkwan attributes to Lcang skya is exclusivist insofar as the Bon and plau-
sibly the Jo nang traditions are concerned but can be seen as inclusivist to the
extent that it acknowledges some degree of authenticity and value in the other
60 See Smith 2001: 133–146.

61 See Martin 1990: 7–13; Smith 2001: 143.
62 See Martin 1990: 11–13.

Tibetan Buddhist traditions in their original forms. Moreover, Thu'u bkwan

himself follows an analogous approach, which has been alternatively described
by David Jackson as that of an ecumenical triumphalist or a triumphal ecu-
menicist,63 in what is arguably his most renowned work: Grub mtha' shel gyi
me long (“The Crystal Mirror of Tenet Systems”).64 Notably, although in this
text Thu'u bkwan shows some appreciation for the Jo nang pas inasmuch as
they played an important role in the transmission of the teachings and prac-
tices of Kālacakra, he refutes their view of emptiness as completely wrong (i.e.,
non-Buddhist) and based on a flawed understanding of Kālacakra literature
and meditative experiences.65 It is also worth noting that, in the same text,
while confirming that all the Jo nang institutions had been effectively wiped
away from the regions of Dbus and Gtsang along with the ban of their texts,
Thu'u bkwan also shows us that he was fully aware of the existence of a few
Jo nang monasteries that had survived around the area of 'Dzam thang, in the
southern part of A mdo known as Mdo smad.66 At the dawn of the nineteenth
century, when the Dge lugs sphere of influence already extended over vast areas
of A mdo, the valley of 'Dzam thang still lied relatively well protected by its
remoteness, separated from the closest Dge lugs monastery by over one hun-
dred kilometers of mountains and gorges. However, things had already started
to change in the neighboring Rnga ba.
Dge lugs monasteries were established in A mdo, the motherland of the
Dge lugs forefather Tsong kha pa, since the early fifteenth century, when few
of them rose in areas bordering and overlapping with those where Jo nang
monasteries would later appear and develop: Rnga ba and Rgyal rong. One
of these early institutions was Kāla ri khrod, in southern Rnga ba, which was
founded in 141267 by a disciple of Tsong kha pa himself: the First Kīrti Rong
chen Dge 'dun rgyal mtshan (1374–1450).68 Other Dge lugs monasteries were
gradually established all over A mdo. The expansion was first mainly driven
by external influence and support coming from either the Dge lugs authori-
ties of Dbus gtsang, the Ming 明 court, or both, during the sixteenth and the
seventeenth century. During this phase, monasteries such as Sku 'bum grew
and developed into well-structured centers of religious scholastic education
throughout northeastern A mdo. At the beginning of the eighteenth century,
63 See Jackson 2006: 10–15.

64 See Smith 2001: 147–153; Jackson 2006.
65 See Ruegg 1963; Jackson 2006: 6–8.
66 See Ruegg 1963: 82.
67 See Tuttle 2012: 132.
68 See Berounský 2012: 66.

132 brambilla
with the foundation of monasteries such as Bla brang bkra shis dkyil in 170969
by the First 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson 'grus (1648–1721),70 there
was a marked change of agency. Most of the institutions established during
the eighteenth and the nineteenth century were founded in eastern and south-
eastern A mdo by local people who had been trained in the monastic colleges
of Central Tibet. The influence of the Qing dynasty kept growing, whereas the
intensity of the connections with Central Tibet declined.71
Between the late eighteenth and the late nineteenth century, new influential
Dge lugs monasteries were founded in areas tangent to the last strongholds of
the Jo nang pas. This happened in particular on the plateau of Rnga ba, where
the Jo nang monasteries of Se and 'Brog dge had been growing since the sev-
enteenth century. In 1791, the Third Gung thang Dkon mchog bstan pa'i sgron
me (1762–1823), who had been trained at Bla brang and 'Bras spungs, estab-
lished the monastery of Sgo mang in northern Rnga ba.72 Then, in 1870, the
Eighth Kīrti Blo bzang 'phrin las bstan pa rgya mtsho (1850–1904) re-established
Kīrti monastery73 in what is now the northwestern periphery of the town of
Rnga ba, less than three kilometers from the spot where 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya
mtsho (1818–1894) would re-establish the Jo nang Se monastery ten years later,
in 1880.74 Although the first sprul sku of the Kīrti lineage had already founded a
retreat in this area at the beginning of the fifteenth century, his lineage had later
developed elsewhere in the north with the Fifth Kīrti Blo bzang bstan pa'i rgyal
mtshan (1712–1771) and the creation of the monastery of Stag tshang lha mo. It
was only with the Eighth Kīrti, and thanks to the patronage that he managed to
achieve from the Rme royal family of Rnga ba, that Kīrti monastery took its final
form.75 Once again, Dge lugs pas and Jo nang pas found themselves sharing the
same territory.
69 See Tuttle 2012: 137.

70 For a study of the history of Bla brang monastery, see Nietupski 2011: 113–168.
71 For a detailed periodization of the Dge lugs expansion in A mdo, see Tuttle 2012.
72 See Tuttle 2012: 131, 139.
73 See Berounský 2012: 69.
74 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 526.
75 See Berounský 2012: 66–69.

4 From Gtsang to Gtsang ba dgon: Settlement, Resettlement, and

Survival of the Jo nang pas in A mdo
Despite its origins being geographically well-defined to the Central Tibetan val-
ley of Jo mo nang, where Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan is said to have first
realized the gzhan stong view, the Jo nang tradition branched out almost imme-
diately to the far eastern reaches of the broader Tibetan cultural area thanks to
two of its first and second-generation students, Byams pa Kha bo che (14th cen-
tury) and Ratnaśrī (Drung dka' bzhi ba Rin chen dpal; 1350–1435), whose deeds
would have been prophesied by the Jo nang founder himself.76 This prompt
missionary impulse toward the eastern frontier has been explained by Elliot
Sperling as indicative of a general transformation in the economy of the four-
teenth century Tibetan plateau. The flourishing of commerce between Tibet
and China would have led to greater availability of resources along the eastern
trade routes.77
According to the Jo nang historian Mkhan po Blo grags, the expansion in
Eastern Tibet was spearheaded by Byams pa Kha bo che, one of Dol po pa’s dis-
ciples, who established a monastery in the area of Dar rtse mdo.78 Byams pa’s
enterprise seemingly had a short life, since neither the Jo nang chos 'byung nor
its Lhan thabs provide us with any further account of it. On the contrary, the
story of Ratnaśrī’s expedition is one of great success as it laid the essential foun-
dations for the later survival of the Jo nang. Born in Rgyal rong, Ratnaśrī carried
out his monastic studies at Jo mo nang under the supervision of one of Dol po
pa’s foremost students, Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1306–1386). Then, following the
instructions of his teacher, which are said to have been based on Dol po pa’s
own predictions, Ratnaśrī traveled back in the direction of his homeland and
eventually stopped in the valley of 'Dzam thang. There, in 1425, he successfully
converted a pre-existing Bon monastery into Jo nang and called it Bsam 'grub
nor bu'i gling.79 The new monastery became better known as Chos rje, as per
the name of the lineage of the incarnations of one of Ratnaśrī’s main disciple:
Rgyal ba bzang po (1419–1487).80 Only a few years later, still during the first half
of the fifteenth century, another disciple of Ratnaśrī, Ratnakīrti (15th century),
established a further Jo nang monastery in 'Dzam thang: Tshes bcu.81
76 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 103, 107.

77 See Sperling 2009: 159–160.
78 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 103–104.
79 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 104–112.
80 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 112–118.
81 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 161–162.

134 brambilla
While Tshes bcu played only a minor role in the history of the Jo nang in East-
ern Tibet, the monastery of Chos rje rapidly grew and developed a network of
branches. According to the Lhan thabs, the First Chos rje Sprul sku Rgyal ba
bzang po expanded the influence of the monastery into the area of Rgyal rong
through the foundation of five main monasteries: Pā la bzang ldan dgon, Khang
gsar dgon, Dpal ldan Bkra shis sgang, Mtsho bdun lha khang dgon, and 'Bo wa
'bro'i dgon.82 However, according to the Lhan thabs, the influence of Chos rje
dgon would have reached its maximum extent under Rgyal ba bzang po’s suc-
cessor, the Second Chos rje Rgyal ba seng ge (1509–1580), who established and
controlled one hundred and thirteen monasteries.83 The substantial develop-
ment of Chos rje dgon over more than one century was made possible by the
support of local clans (such as that of Wa shul and others from the regions of
Mgo log and Rgyal rong) and by the authority that the Ming dynasty bestowed
upon the regents of the monastery through a series of titles and gifts to secure
a buffer zone along its southwestern frontier.84 Moreover, the Lhan thabs indi-
cates that the Second Chos rje was also sustained by Mongol lords,85 while the
Third and the Fourth Chos rje, Ri shing pa Kun dga' thub bstan rgyal mtshan
seng ge (1588–1615)86 and Lo kha pa Grags pa 'od zer (1618–1670),87 gained the
further support of Phun tshogs rnam rgyal (1586–1632), who was then the main
patron of the Jo nang pas in Gtsang. With the fall of the Ming and the rise of
the Qing dynasty, the patronage of Chos rje monastery was regularly renewed
by the emperors Kangxi, Qianlong, Jiaqing 嘉慶 (1760–1820), and Guangxu 光
緒 (1871–1908).88
Just before its decline in Central Tibet, the Jo nang tradition started to
expand into another area of southeastern A mdo a hundred kilometers north-
east of 'Dzam thang: Rnga ba. This was first made possible by Se dbon Lhun
grub rgyal mtshan (mid-16th–mid-17th century), who belonged to the Se tshang
clan and was a native of Rnga ba. According to the Lhan thabs, Lhun grub rgyal
mtshan traveled to Gtsang and was trained by the Jo nang hierarch Rje btsun

83 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 129–130.
84 The Ming support of Ratnaśrī is not mentioned by the Lhan thabs but proven by Chinese
sources (see Yu and Awang 1991). As for the Ming support to the first two incarnations of
Chos rje, it is confirmed both by passages in the biographies contained in the Lhan thabs
(Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 117–118 and 126–127), and by Chinese sources mit (See Yu and Awang
1990; Yu and Awang 1991; Yang 1993). For a detailed study of the Lhan thabs and the Chinese
sources on this matter, see Sperling 2009: 158–166.
88 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 139, 142, 151. See also Yu and Awang 1991.

Tāranātha (1575–1634) at Rtag brtan phun tshogs gling, where he received the
empowerments for the Sa skya Path and Result (lam 'bras) and the initiations
and instructions for practicing Kālacakra’s sixfold vajrayoga (rdo rje rnal 'byor
yan lag drug pa).89 At some point during the early seventeenth century, Lhun
grub rgyal mtshan left Gtsang and set out for his homeland, where he was deter-
mined to establish a new Jo nang monastery. The Lhan thabs informs us that,
even though he could soon found the monastery of Se thanks to the patronage
of the local Rme'u king Thē hi don grub, Lhun grub rgyal mtshan had to face
king Lcags rge’s hostility, which he could surmount only after having received
further instructions on the Dharma protectors from Tāranātha.90
The founder of Se was among the last to be trained at official Jo nang institu-
tions in Gtsang. After the death of Tāranātha in 1634, the religious activities at
Rtag brtan dam chos phun tshogs gling—the main seat of the Jo nang in Central
Tibet—were carried on regularly under the brief abbotship of Sangs rgyas rgya
mtsho (d. 1635) and that of Kun dga' rin chen rgya mtsho (17th century). How-
ever, once the Qoshot Mongols defeated the ruler of Gtsang and main patron of
the Jo nang, and, thus, unified the region with that of Dbus under the author-
ity of the Fifth Dalai Lama, in 1642, things quickly took a new turn. The son of
the Tüsheet Khan Gombodorj (1594–1655) was soon recognized as the incar-
nation of Tāranātha by the main Dge lugs authorities and became known as
the First Rje btsun dam pa (1635–1723). In 1650, at the insistence of the new
Mongolian sprul sku, the curriculum of the Jo nang seat of Rtag brtan was offi-
cially converted into Dge lugs, but the transformation was effectively brought
to completion only in 1658, when the monastery was renamed Dga' ldan phun
tshogs gling. All the other Jo nang monasteries of Central Tibet gradually faced
the same destiny.91
Blo gros rnam rgyal (1618–1683)92 was the figure who, more than any other,
embodied the difficult transition that occurred during the second half of the
89 The six branches of vajrayoga are, in order, withdrawal (pratyāhāra; so sor sdud pa), med-
itative stabilization (dhyāna; bsam gtan), breath control (prāṇāyāma; srog rtsol), reten-
tion (dhāraṇā, 'dzin pa), recollection (anusmṛti; rjes dran), and meditative concentration
(samādhi; ting nge 'dzin). For detailed accounts of this practice system, see Grönbold 1996;
Orofino 1996; Sferra 2000: 11–37; Henning 2009; Wallace 2012.
90 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 77; Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 516–518.
91 See Sheehy 2009d: 17–21; Stearns 2010: 72–76.
92 On his life, see Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 67–69. See also Sheehy 2009d: 14–17. Sheehy
enriches the life story of Blo gros rnam rgyal with meaningful details drawn from the
manuscript of a biography composed by his student Cha lung ba Ngag dbang kun dga'
'phrin las (1654–1723), entitled Mtshungs med chos rje blo gros rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar
thos grol rab gsal myur du smin byed.

136 brambilla
seventeenth century. He had the opportunity to study shortly with Tāranātha

at Rtag brtan dgon, where he continued his training under Rin chen rgya mtsho.
Moreover, probably during the early 1650s, Blo gros rnam rgyal received teach-
ings from the Fourth Paṇ chen bla ma Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1570–
1662) at Bkra shis lhun po and had a meeting in Lha sa with the Fifth Dalai
Lama Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617–1682), with whom he discussed
the sensitive topics of the emptiness of other and the Kālacakratantra. After
the encounter with the Dge lugs hierarch, Blo gros rnam rgyal understood that
the situation in Gtsang was quickly deteriorating for the Jo nang. His anxiety
kept growing and materialized through visions of Tārā, Dol po pa, and Dharma
protectors, all urging him to set out for a monastery in the eastern regions. In
1657, Blo gros rnam rgyal made up his mind, left Gtsang, and, in the eighth
month of the same year, he finally reached 'Dzam thang. There, he was wel-
comed and accommodated by the fourth lineage holder of Chos rje, Lo kha
pa grags pa 'od zer, who became his disciple. In fact, once in 'Dzam thang, Blo
gros rnam rgyal immediately started to teach and bestow empowerments to the
local Jo nang community, with a particular emphasis on the Kālacakratantra
and the practice of its completion stage, the sixfold vajrayoga. Notably, the
Lhan thabs makes clear that, until that moment, Chos rje monastery did not
follow any structured way for teaching and practicing the sixfold yoga of Kāla-
cakra, which was finally systematized by Blo gros rnam rgyal, who transmitted
all the necessary empowerments and practice instructions.93 The other, essen-
tial contribution of Blo gros rnam rgyal was the foundation of a new monastery
in 'Dzam thang, which came to be named Gtsang ba dgon after his place of ori-
gin. With Gtsang ba dgon providing a new platform for the transmission of the
Jo nang doctrine throughout Mdo smad, Blo gros rnam rgyal spent more than a
decade teaching in 'Dzam thang and traveling through neighboring areas such
as Rgyal rong, where he established a solid connection with the king of Tsha
kho. In the early fourth month of 1668, despite the pleas of the locals who
asked him to remain in 'Dzam thang, Blo gros rnam rgyal departed again for
Gtsang. He reached Lha sa in the eleventh month of the same year and even-
tually settled again in the then officially Dge lugs monastery of Phun tshogs
gling. Notwithstanding the unfavorable conditions of that time, Blo gros rnam
rgyal still managed to teach several students the Jo nang philosophical view and
practice systems from his retreat, until he passed away in 1683.
Surprisingly, the conversion of Jo nang monasteries and the ban of their texts
in Gtsang proved to be essentially ineffective for decades or an even longer
93 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 134–135.

period. During the last years of his life, Blo gros rnam rgyal was able to train
his successor in the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra, Cha lung ba Ngag dbang
'phrin las (1654–1723), and a few other students who played important roles in
the expansion and survival of the Jo nang in the eastern regions. Among these,
there were disciples like Se Snying po rgyal mtshan (17th century) and Se dbon
'Phrin las snying po rgyal mtshan (17th century), who, just like the founder of Se
monastery, were members of the Se tshang clan and native of Rnga ba, where
they continued the religious activities of Se dbon Lhun grub rgyal mtshan.94
Moreover, around the same period, Blo gros rnam rgyal educated also 'Brog dge
Kun dga' dpal bzang (1629–1696), who was again a native of Rnga ba. Before
becoming Blo gros rnam rgyal’s student, Kun dga' dpal bzang had first traveled
to Central Tibet, where he spent some time studying at the Dge lugs college of
'Bras spungs and at the Sa skya monastery of Thub bstan gser mdog can, and
then visited India and Nepal. Once back in Gtsang, Kun dga' dpal bzang reached
Phun tshogs gling and managed to study under Blo gros rnam rgyal and other
masters who had been students of Tāranātha: Kun dga' rin chen rgya mtsho and
Rje btsun ma 'Phrin las dbang mo (1585–1668).95 After receiving teachings on
the Empty of Other Madhyamaka, several tantras, and the three vows, Kun dga'
dpal bzang traveled back to Rnga ba, where, in the late seventeenth century, he
established the Jo nang monastery of 'Brog dge.96
The work of Blo gros rnam rgyal was later carried on by two of his succes-
sors in the 'Bro lineage, Cha lung ba Ngag dbang 'phrin las and Ngag dbang
bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal (1691–1738), who were also his relatives. The first one
had greater importance for the transmission of Jo nang teachings through mul-
tiple traditions in Gtsang, whereas the second one played a crucial role in the
development of the Jo nang in southeastern A mdo.
As already mentioned, Ngag dbang 'phrin las was a student of Blo gros rnam
rgyal himself, who taught him Vinaya, Abhidharma, and Madhyamaka, and
guided him through the practice of Kālacakra from the generation to the com-
pletion stage. Once his guru and uncle passed away, in 1683, Ngag dbang 'phrin
las left Phun tshogs gling and started to travel, spreading the Jo nang doctrine
through Gtsang despite the official absence of any representative institution.
Around 1707, he established a practice group at the retreat of Cha lung rdo
rje brag bstan (hence his byname Cha lung ba), where he gave detailed teach-
94 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 77; Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 518.
95 On 'Phrin las dbang mo, who was also Rje btsun Tāranātha’s secret consort, see Sheehy
2009d: 10–14; Sheehy 2020. Sheehy 2020 is a study of her autobiography entitled Rje btsun
rdo rje rnal 'byor ma'i sprul pa skal ldan 'phrin las dbang mo'i rnam thar gsang ba'i ye shes.
96 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 77–78; Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 521–523.

138 brambilla
ings on the sixfold yoga and practiced himself for some time. After this period
spent in retreat, Ngag dbang 'phrin las abandoned his worldly possessions and
embraced the life of a wandering yogin, moving from one monastery to another,
and studying and teaching without any prejudicial sectarian limitation. In fact,
the Jo nang chos 'byung stresses the fact that Ngag dbang 'phrin las continu-
ously taught to an audience composed of “excellent people of different tradi-
tions” (gzhan ris med kyi skyes bu dam pa).97 During his life, Ngag dbang 'phrin
las received Dge lugs teachings from the Fifth Dalai Lama himself, Bka' brgyud
and Jo nang teachings from a certain Rmog chog Sprul sku, and Dge lugs, Jo
nang, 'Brug pa Bka' brgyud, Karma Bka' brgyud, and Sa skya teachings from a
certain Sangs rgyas bzang po. Ironically, Mkhan po Blo grags informs us that,
while Ngag dbang 'phrin las had to face several obstacles at the former Jo nang
seat of Phun tshogs gling, he was able to establish some Jo nang teachings even
at the Dge lugs colleges of 'Bras spungs and Dga' ldan. Moreover, among the
people who received teachings in Gtsang from Ngag dbang 'phrin las, the name
of Kun bzang dbang po well deserves mention as the Rnying ma master who
would have later enabled the transmission of the Jo nang doctrine through
Rnying ma and Bka' brgyud lineages. Around 1714, Ngag dbang 'phrin las left
Gtsang and traveled to Mongolia accompanied by his student and nephew:
Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal. On their way back to Central Tibet, the
two found themselves stuck in Yu shum, unable to travel further due to the
threat posed by the Dzungar invasion in Central Tibet. At this point, in 1717,
Ngag dbang 'phrin las received an invitation from the Fifth Chos rje Go rgyal
ba Lhun grub grags pa (1674–1736) to visit 'Dzam thang, but he decided not to
go. He traveled again to Mongolia and eventually returned to Gtsang, where he
passed away in 1727.98
The Fifth Chos rje’s call of 1717 was accepted by Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam
rgyal instead, who saw his uncle off and set out for 'Dzam thang. On his way
there, he traveled through Mgo log and stopped in Yar thang, where he was wel-
comed by the chief of the A skyong clan Bstan 'dzin and a local bla ma called
Kun dga' bkra shis. As the bla ma donated him the Rnying ma monastery of Brag
dkar, Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal re-established it in a nearby, more aus-
picious place, and named it Yar thang dgon, making it probably the first Jo nang
institution in Mgo log.99
Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal finally reached 'Dzam thang in the ninth
month of 1717, when he was welcomed with a great ceremony by the Fifth Chos
rje, who took him as his guru and donated him his residence. This became later
97 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 70.

98 For the biography of Ngag dbang 'phrin las, see Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 69–71.
99 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 71–72.

known as Gtsang ba'i gzims khang or Gtsang chen pho brang and has since been
the official residence of all the succeeding hierarchs of Gtsang ba monastery.
In fact, even though this institution had already been officially founded by Blo
gros rnam rgyal in 1657, this account seems to suggest that, as it could not even
offer accommodation for a visiting bla ma, it had only barely developed over
the previous ten years. Once he had settled in his new quarters, Ngag dbang
bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal started to teach in 'Dzam thang and traveled extensively,
spreading the Jo nang doctrine through the neighboring areas. Between 1723
and 1736, he visited Rnga ba, 'Bar khams, and Phun tshogs, where he carried on
his teaching activity and established amicable relations with the local author-
ities. That he had quickly established a certain prestige in the region is also
confirmed by the fact that, in 1738, he was invited to mediate a conflict between
the people of Wa shul and Mgo log. According to the Jo nang chos 'byung, Ngag
dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal acted responsibly as an impartial judge in the
dispute but nevertheless aroused the wrath of the leader of the Wa shul clan,
Rnam rgyal bkra shis, who killed him by poison.100
By the mid-eighteenth century, the Jo nang presence had substantially faded
from its land of origin in Gtsang, leaving only traces of its teachings and prac-
tices in masters who did not even formally identify themselves as Jo nang, like
the Rnying ma adept Kun bzang dbang po. However, at the same time, with its
main lineage holder settling in 'Dzam thang and passing away in Mgo log, the
Jo nang tradition had become fully naturalized in the eastern region of A mdo.
5 The Rise of Gtsang ba dgon
The high status of its founder and the exceptional devotion that the fourth and
the fifth incarnations of Chos rje demonstrated to the visiting lineage holders
naturally placed the new monastery of Gtsang ba in a position of great prestige.
However, this was not enough for it to develop into a sizeable and influential
institution. The essential patronage of the local power base was already secured
in the hands of Chos rje monastery, which was also strengthened by the histori-
cal support of the Ming and Qing dynasties. It was likely for these same reasons
that Tshes bcu, the other pre-existing Jo nang monastery in 'Dzam thang, had
never managed to overgrow Chos rje.
The decline of Chos rje monastery during the second half of the eighteenth
century is probably the single transformation that opened the way for the sub-
100 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 72–73.

140 brambilla
stantial rise of Gtsang ba. According to the Lhan thabs, the responsibility for
this sudden change would have to be attributed to the Sixth Chos rje Nges don
bstan pa dar rgyas (1742–1776). Born in the Mgo log pa clan of A lcag, Nges don
bstan pa dar rgyas was trained intensively in both the sūtra and the mantra
traditions of the Jo nang, corresponding to the meditative lineage of the five
treatises of Maitreya and the 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra, since he was just a child.
Mkhan po Blo grags recounts that the great spiritual achievements of the Sixth
Chos rje soon led him to a series of visionary experiences that culminated when
he entered a temple in Rgyal rong and the statue of a Buddha spoke to him. This
miraculous event opened the way to Nges don bstan pa dar rgyas’s activities as
a prolific treasure revealer (gter ston), a role that is most commonly associated
with Rnying ma adepts. Soon, Nges don bstan pa dar rgyas fully embraced the
life of a tantric lay practitioner. He took a consort and moved his residence
outside of the monastery. Then, as many other monks gradually followed his
example, Chos rje quickly fell apart as a monastic institution. In his account of
the life of the Sixth Chos rje, Mkhan po Blo grags does not hesitate to point out
that he was the cause of this decline and that his behavior did not positively
impact the monastery’s reputation. Nevertheless, Blo gros grags pa celebrates
Nges don bstan pa dar rgyas as a highly realized master, whose clairvoyance was
so remarkable that earned him great fame and even the praise of the Eighth
Dalai Lama 'Jam dpal rgya mtsho (1758–1804).101
Despite the qualities of the Sixth Chos rje, the damage to the monastic insti-
tution was done, and the power vacuum was promptly filled by Gtsang ba
dgon. The initiatives of the next Chos rje 'Jigs med dpal gyi seng ge (1788–1835)
counted for little in this sense, and yet he was a crucial figure in the inter-
sectarian history of the Jo nang. After two eminent non-Jo nang figures, the
Thirteenth Karma pa Bdud 'dul rdo rje (1733–1797) and the Rnying ma gter ston
Bdud 'dul gling pa, confirmed his recognition as an incarnation of Chos rje, 'Jigs
med dpal gyi seng ge began his studies in 'Dzam thang, where he received the
full monastic ordination and intensive teachings on the generation and com-
pletion stages of Kālacakra from Kun dga' rnam rgyal. Then, around 1804, 'Jigs
med dpal gyi seng ge traveled to the area of Sde dge, where he connected with
and studied under some of the leading figures of Dpal spungs monastery. There
he studied under Be lo tsā ba Zur mang Tshe dbang kun khyab (1718–1790) and,
in particular, the Ninth Tā'i Si tu Padma nyin byed dbang po (1774–1853), who
gave him teachings from all traditions: Jo nang, Shangs pa, Karma Bka' brgyud,
Rnying ma, Sa skya, and Dge lugs. During the second half of his life, the Seventh
101 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 141–143.

Chos rje returned to 'Dzam thang where he practiced the sixfold yoga until he
gained full mastery of each branch. Then, he slowly managed to regain some
power for his monastery by re-establishing connections with the local author-
ities and the Qing.102
Now, the question arises spontaneously about how did the Karma Bka'
brgyud pas of Dpal spungs come to hold and retransmit Jo nang teachings. The
answer lies in the connection established between Ngag dbang 'phrin las and
Kun bzang dbang po during the late seventeenth or the early eighteenth cen-
tury. According to the Jo nang chos 'byung, Kun bzang dbang po had expertise
in the four medical tantras and Sanskrit language and was the head of a Rnying
ma monastery in Central Tibet. Nevertheless, Mkhan po Blo grags explains
that, although Kun bzang dbang po kept a Rnying ma affiliation, he genuinely
embraced, nurtured, and spread the Jo nang teachings to many students. Kun
bzang dbang po inherited the Jo nang doctrine from the thirty-first holder of
the 'Bro lineage Ngag dbang 'phrin las and from Chags pa chos 'phel, another
significant scholar who was himself a student of Ngag dbang 'phrin las and a
pupil of Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653–1705), with whom he studied the
medical tantras.103
The next in this alternative lineage was the influential Rnying ma master Kaḥ
thog Rig 'dzin Tshe dbang nor bu (1698–1755), who was first directly exposed
to the Jo nang doctrine during his journeys through Central Tibet and Nepal
in the 1720s. After meeting with the Third Tre hor Sprul sku Blo bzang chos
kyi dbang po (1653–1730), who recognized him as an emanation of the mental
continuum of Tāranātha, Tshe dbang nor bu embarked on a quest for meeting
Kun bzang dbang po, whom he finally managed to encounter in 1728 after a
first unsuccessful attempt in 1726. Kun bzang dbang po identified Tshe dbang
nor bu as the rebirth of Dol po pa’s disciple Sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen, taught
him the Jo nang Madhyamaka view, and gave him the empowerments and the
instructions necessary for the practice of the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra and the
six dharmas of Niguma (ni gu chos drug).104 Moreover, from Kun bzang dbang
102 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 142–143.

103 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 534–535.
104 The six dharmas of Niguma consist of inner heat (gtum mo), illusory body (sgyu lus),
dream (rmi lam), luminosity ('od gsal), transference ('pho ba), and intermediate state (bar
do). This practice system is essentially analogous to that of Nāropā’s six dharmas (nā ro
chos drug) but gives greater emphasis to the practices of the illusory body and dream yoga.
See Kapstein 1992: 200–201; Harding 2012: 32–33, 135–142. It must be noted that the six
dharmas of Niguma and other Shangs pa teachings had been systematically incorporated
into the Jo nang lineage since the time of Kun dga' grol mchog (1507–1566). See note 28;
Kapstein 1980: 141–142; Smith 2001: 55–56; Harding 2012: 25.

142 brambilla
po, Tshe dbang nor bu received the transmission of the Sgrub thabs rin 'byung
(“Source of Precious Sādhanas”)105 and all the other works included in the col-
lected writings of Tāranātha.106 The influence of these teachings on Tshe dbang
nor bu was such that he authored several works in which he elaborates on two
key Jo nang topics: the Kālacakratantra and the doctrine of the emptiness of
other.107 In addition to presenting the Jo nang doctrine through his writings,
Tshe dbang nor bu played an active role in its transmission to some of the fore-
most Bka' brgyud masters of his time. In fact, he gave the reading transmission
of the entire collected works of Tāranātha, along with all the instructions and
the empowerments of the Sgrub thabs rin 'byung, to the Seventh 'Brug chen
'Phrin las shing rta (1718–1766), and gave further Jo nang teachings to the Thir-
teenth Karma pa Bdud 'dul rdo rje (1733–1797) and the Tenth Zhwa dmar pa
Chos grub rgya mtsho (1742–1792).108 However, Tshe dbang nor bu’s most cel-
ebrated disciple and important heir in this alternative line of propagation of
Jo nang teachings and practices was certainly the Eight Tā'i Si tu pa Chos kyi
'byung gnas (1699–1774).
Notably, the Eighth Tā'i Si tu pa had taken quite an interest in the Jo nang
long before studying under Tshe dbang nor bu and, in fact, had already visited
the former Rtag brtan phun tshogs gling on his own in 1723 with the hope of
recovering some texts. However, he was effectively introduced to the doctrine
of the emptiness of other only later, when he visited Nepal with Tshe dbang
nor bu in 1748. As the account of Mkhan po Blo grags goes, at a time when Tshe
dbang nor bu and Chos kyi 'byung gnas were sitting in front of the stūpa of
Bauddhanāth, Tshe dbang nor bu held a copy of the Tārāyoginītantra that con-
tained handwritten annotations of Tāranātha and placed it on the forehead of
the Eight Tā'i Si tu pa. Then, Tshe dbang nor bu exhorted his student to embrace
the view and tenet of the emptiness of other and explained that this would
lead to the flourishing of enlightened activities for the benefit of all beings.
Apart from gzhan stong, Tshe dbang nor bu taught Chos kyi 'byung gnas the
Tārāyoginītantra and the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra according to the Jo nang
tradition, as well as several Rnying ma and Sa skya specialties. Once back in
Khams, the Eight Tā'i Si tu pa could count on an excellent platform from where
to disseminate these or any other teachings: the new seat of Dpal spungs, which
he had established in 1727 with the support of the then king of Sde dge, Bstan
105 See Tāranātha, Sgrub thabs rin 'byung.

106 See Spo ra ba Blo bzang mthu stobs, Dad pa'i sa bon, 161.
107 See Makidono 2011; Makidono 2016.
108 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 535–538. See also Smith 2001: 20–21; Stearns 2010: 77–80.

pa tshe ring (1678–1738).109 In fact, Dpal spungs monastery became then one
of the major non-Jo nang reference points for the study and teaching of gzhan
stong and the sixfold yoga. All the succeeding masters in the transmission lin-
eage outlined by Mkhan po Blo grags in his Lhan thabs were either based at or
gravitating around Dpal spungs: Be lo tsā ba Zur mang Tshe dbang kun khyab,110
Dbon Sprul sku Dbang rgyal rdo rje,111 and Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med,112 who all
lived between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth century.
As we have seen with the case of the Seventh Chos rje, Dpal spungs and
its scholars quickly became a favorite destination also for the Jo nang pas
of that period. Around the same time as the Seventh Chos rje, in 1803, also
the thirty-sixth 'Bro lineage holder and head of Gtsang ba monastery Dkon
mchog 'jigs med rnam rgyal (1790–1837)113 paid a visit to the Ninth Tā'i Si tu
at Dpal spungs and received monastic ordination (rab byung). Before then,
'Jigs med rnam rgyal had already started his studies in 'Dzam thang, where
he had been introduced to the practice of the sixfold yoga by Lhun grub rgya
mtsho. Later, in 1816, 'Jigs med rnam rgyal left 'Dzam thang again and trav-
eled to Central Tibet, followed by a large retinue. Most surprisingly, despite the
historically troubled relations between Jo nang and Dge lugs, the group was
officially welcomed at Bkra shis lhun po by the Seventh Paṇ chen bla ma Bstan
pa'i nyi ma (1782–1853), who presented 'Jigs med rnam rgyal with a series of
remarkable gifts. On the one hand, presents such as Tsong kha pa’s collected
works and the writings of the Fourth Paṇ chen bla ma Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal
mtshan (1570–1662) served as clear statements of the primacy of the Seventh
Paṇ chen’s own Dge lugs tradition. On the other hand, gifts such as a realistic
statue of Tāranātha, his self-portrait carved on a woodblock, and his original
hat were offered as tokens of the Paṇ chen’s great respect for the tradition of
his visitor. The journey of 'Jigs med rnam rgyal continued with a visit to the
former Jo nang seat, Phun tshogs gling, where he met the abbot Spo ra ba
109 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 536–539. See also Smith 2001: 90–95, Stearns 2010: 79–80.
111 Dbon Sprul sku Dbang rgyal rdo rje was also known by the following names: Mchog sprul
Karma nges don bstan 'dzin rab rgyas, Karma rin chen, and Karma ratna. See Lhan thabs
1992 ed.: 539–540.
112 Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med was also known by the name Bla ma dam pa Mgon po tshe dbang.
See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 540–541.
113 After Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal, the next lineage holders—who all resided at
Gtsang ba dgon—were Mang dge Mkhas btsun dar rgyas (18th century), Kun bzang 'phrin
las rnam rgyal (1740–?), and Lhun grub rgya mtsho (18th century). They were, respectively,
the thirty-third, thirty-fourth, and thirty-fifth holders of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kāla-
cakra. For some biographical information, see Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 75–76.

144 brambilla
Blo bzang mthu stobs. The rest of the life of 'Jigs med rnam rgyal was marked by
a distinctively nonsectarian outlook. Apart from playing a fundamental role in
the diffusion of the Jo nang in southern A mdo, he maintained constant rela-
tions with the monasteries of other traditions. In this regard, the Lhan thabs
recounts that 'Jigs med rnam rgyal used his powers to rescue the Rnying ma
monastery of Gser nub, which was haunted by a troublesome rgyal po spirit,
and that he visited the then recently built Dge lugs monastery of Sgo mang, in
Rnga ba. While there, he sponsored the tea offering for the monastic college,
met the Third 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Thub bstan 'jigs med rgya mtsho (1792–
1855), and purchased a copy of the collected works of the Second 'Jam dbyangs
bzhad pa Dkon mchog 'jigs med dbang po (1728–1791).114
'Jigs med rnam rgyal consolidated the dominance of Gtsang ba dgon over
the other two Jo nang monasteries of 'Dzam thang and, just before his death in
1837, designated his leading student Ngag dbang chos 'phel rgya mtsho (1788–
1865) as his successor by giving him the title of vajra master of Gtsang ba.
Since then, the holders of this title have had the responsibility of guiding the
monks of Gtsang ba through the advanced practices of the sixfold yoga of Kāla-
cakra, and have at the same time held the titles of holder of the Jo nang 'Bro
lineage and head of the Jo nang tradition. Thus, it must be noted that this
figure meaningfully embodies the primacy of practice over scholarship. In addi-
tion to mastering the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra, the vajra masters of Gtsang ba
also practiced and taught extensively the six dharmas of Niguma. Even though
their biographies, as recounted by Mkhan po Blo grags, are rich and vivid with
descriptions of the meditative and visionary experiences connected to these
practices, the vajra masters of Gtsang ba were not strangers to higher scholastic
education. They all played an important role in the transmission of the sixfold
yoga of Kālacakra as much as in that of the collected writings of Dol po pa and
Tāranātha within and outside the Jo nang tradition.
6 The Vajra Masters of Gtsang ba dgon and a New Generation of

Jo nang Scholars
One of the most influential Jo nang figures of the nineteenth century was 'Jigs
med rnam rgyal’s designated successor: the first vajra master of Gtsang ba, Ngag
dbang chos 'phel rgya mtsho. The Lhan thabs informs us that Ngag dbang chos
'phel became a student of 'Jigs med rnam rgyal at a very young age after running
114 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 175–180.

away from home driven by the desire to join 'Dzam thang’s monastic commu-
nity. Several years later, after receiving intensive tantric training from 'Jigs med
rnam rgyal and Lhun grub rgya mtsho, he joined his root guru on his journey
to Dbus gtsang. At the former Jo nang seat of Phun tshogs gling, Ngag dbang
chos 'phel received from Spo ra ba the reading transmission of several works
of Tāranātha and further teachings on the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra and the
six dharmas of Niguma. Once back to 'Dzam thang, he continued his stud-
ies and practiced intensively until 'Jigs med rnam rgyal sent him to Yar thang
monastery in Mgo log. Ngag dbang chos 'phel lived there in the capacity of a
representative of Gtsang ba for about three years, starting in 1834. In 1837, upon
the death of 'Jigs med rnam rgyal, Ngag dbang chos 'phel was appointed as the
vajra master of Gtsang ba. Throughout the rest of his life, Ngag dbang chos 'phel
continued to spend long periods practicing in retreat, which he alternated with
his teaching activity directed towards hundreds of local monks.115
In 1846, Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med reached 'Dzam thang at the request of the
Ninth Si tu. He was a holder the Karma Bka' brgyud transmission lineage of
Jo nang teachings, which he had received from Dbon sprul Dbang rgyal rdo rje.
Since Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med did not simply hold the reading transmissions of
the entire collected works of Tāranātha but also that of all the related instruc-
tions and empowerments, his arrival drew the attention of a great audience.
All the leading Jo nang masters of that time, including Ngag dbang chos 'phel,
gathered to receive teachings from Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med. In fact, although
the Jo nang pas of 'Dzam thang already held most of these teachings, their sys-
tematic reading transmission along with the bestowal of empowerments and
practice instructions was unprecedented and was appreciated to the point that
Ngag dbang chos 'phel established it as a new tradition.116
The year 1847 was marked by the visit to 'Dzam thang of an even more
renowned Karma Bka' brgyud master from Dpal spungs: Kong sprul Blo gros
mtha' yas. The activities of Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med clearly demonstrate that
many Jo nang teachings were already available at Dpal spungs. It was in fact
Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med who transmitted the collected works of Tāranātha
to Kong sprul on two occasions, in 1843 and 1854.117 However, as Kong sprul
was passing through the area of 'Dzam thang on his way to Rgyal rong, he did
not waste the chance for collecting further Jo nang teachings straight from the
source. On this occasion, he received from Ngag dbang chos 'phel the prac-
115 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 181–184.

116 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 540–541.
117 See Kong sprul/Barron 2003: 58–59, 95; Gardner 2019: 109–110, 146.

146 brambilla
tice instructions for the sixfold yoga, instructions on the view of the emptiness
of other, the empowerment of Guhyasamāja, and teachings on the practice of
Gcod.118 At the same time, Kong sprul gave some teachings on Madhyamaka to
Ngag dbang chos 'phags (1808–1877), who would succeed Ngag dbang chos 'phel
as the second vajra master of Gtsang ba, and received from him detailed expla-
nations on the physical yogic exercises ('khrul 'khor) connected to the sixfold
yoga of Kālacakra.119 In the Lhan thabs, Mkhan po Blo grags remarks that Kong
sprul was very impressed by Ngag dbang chos 'phel and composed a prayer for
him.120 The prayer, which is contained in Kong sprul’s Rgya chen bka' mdzod
(“Treasury of Extensive Teachings”),121 reads:
Oṃ svasti! I pray to the feet of the glorious guru who enjoys the ocean
of abandonment and realization: the one who has attained unsubsiding
mastery over the speech on reality and for whom the increase of the qual-
ities of the mind of enlightenment is thereby thoroughly complete. By the
power of the three jewels, the three roots, and the oath-bound protectors,
the layers of clouds of hundreds of conflicting shortcomings fade away in
the expanse, and a thousand rays of virtuous and good activities radiate
pervading the space. I take refuge from the bottom of my heart and the
depth of my bones, and I fervently pray with faith and devotion to the
glorious root guru, who is inseparable from the one who has completely
purified the essence, the one who possesses the uṣṇīṣa and protects from
the fear of bad transmigration, the supreme noble being Avalokiteśvara
who empties saṃsāra from its depths, from the Noble Mother Tārā who
dispels all fear, and from Guru Padmasambhava who embodies the three
roots. In all circumstances in this life, the next, and the intermediate state,
think of me with kindness and look at me with the eye of wisdom. Please,
constantly hold me with the iron hook of compassion. Please, protect me
from the fear of bad transmigration in saṃsāra and open the door to the
path of the higher realms and liberation. Please, pacify all the conflicting
hindrances in this life and lead me to Sukhāvatī in the next life. May I, after
the purification of the two obscurations and the thorough completion of
the two accumulations, become fully awakened and bring to completion
the two purposes.

121 I want to thank Gabriele Coura for kindly informing me about the prayer’s inclusion in
this collection.

Composed by Blo gros mtha' yas to be recited by O to ta stsa Tshe ring

phun tshogs, patron of the teachings of the [Jo nang] practice lineage.
May virtue increase!122
The visit of Kong sprul and his relationship with Ngag dbang chos 'phel
strengthened the pre-existing connections between 'Dzam thang and Dpal
spungs, which became a regular destination for the later Jo nang pas who
wanted to expand their scholastic education and receive teachings or practice
instructions from different lineages. Among the most distinguished Jo nang
masters who visited Dpal spungs were Sbyang pa Kun dga' nges don (1834–
1905),123 'Ba' mda' thub bstan dge legs rgya mtsho (1844–1904),124 the Eight Chos
rje Kun dga' mi pham chos kyi byams pa (1859–1883),125 Ngag dbang chos 'byor
rgya mtsho (1846–1910),126 Kun dga' mkhas grub dbang phyug (1862–1914),127
and 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho (1818–1894).128 Notably, the latter played a
major role in strengthening the Jo nang presence in his native area of Rnga ba.
Around 1846, 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho visited A mchog rin po che Dkon
mchog bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan, a renowned local Jo nang master who was con-
sidered an emanation of Tāranātha, and consulted with him. The open-hearted
conversation between 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho and A mchog rin po che,
as recounted in the Lhan thabs, is revealing of the struggle that the Jo nang pas
122 See Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas, Si tu padma nyin byed gsol 'debs sogs: 922.4–923.6, oṃ
swasti / / bden don ngag la 'pho med dbang thob pas / / byang chub chos kyi 'phel ba rab
rdzogs te / / spangs rtogs rgya mtshor longs su spyod pa yi / / dpal ldan bla ma'i zhabs la gsol
ba 'debs / / mchog gsum rtsa gsum dam can srung ma'i mthus / / mi mthun nyes brgya'i sprin
ris dbyings su yal / / dge legs mdzad pa'i 'od stong mkha' khyab brdal / / snyid [em.: snying
po] kun sbyong rnam par snang mdzad dang / / ngan 'gro'i 'jigs skyobs rin chen gtsug tor
can / / 'khor ba dong sprugs 'phags mchog spyan ras gzigs / / 'jigs kun sel mdzad rje btsun
sgrol ma yum / / rtsa gsum kun 'dus gu ru padma 'byung / / dbyer med dpal ldan rtsa ba'i bla
ma la / / deng nas byang chub snying por mchis kyi bar / / snying khung rus pa'i gding nas
skyabs su mchi / / dad mos gdung shugs drag pos gsol ba 'debs / / 'di phyi bar do'i gnas skabs
thams cad du / / brtse bas dgongs la ye shes spyan gyis gzigs / / 'bral med thugs rje'i lcags
kyus bzung du gsol / / 'khor ba ngan song 'jigs las skyob pa dang / / mtho ris thar ba'i lam
sgo 'byed du gsol / / tshe 'dir mi mthun bar chad kun zhi zhing / / phyi ma bde chen zhing du
'dren du gsol / / sgrib gnyis byang zhing tshogs gnyis rab rdzogs te / / don gnyis mthar phyin
rdzogs sangs rgyas gyur cig / ces sgrub brgyud bstan pa'i sbyin bdag 'o to ta stsa tshe ring
phun tshogs zhal 'don rgyu blo gros mtha' yas kyis spel ba dge legs 'phel /.
124 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 413–414.
125 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 150–151.
126 I.e., the fourth vajra master of Gtsang ba. See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 203–204.
127 I.e., the fifth vajra master of Gtsang ba. See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 208–209.

148 brambilla
were facing in Rnga ba during the first half of the nineteenth century. 'Brog dge
Yon tan rgya mtsho portrayed a situation that saw the Jo nang monastic com-
munities of the area shrinking in numbers in the face of the rising power of
their many opponents who, considering the historical and geographical con-
text, could have only been the Dge lugs pas. A mchog rin po che replied with
a well-structured plan for rejuvenating the Jo nang in Rnga ba. Since he knew
about Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med’s presence in 'Dzam thang, A mchog rin po che
undertook to obtain all the empowerments and the reading transmissions of
Tāranātha’s works, and to pass them onto 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho, who
in turn would have had to take on himself the responsibility of spreading the
doctrine through the area of Rnga ba. Even though A mchog rin po che eventu-
ally managed to retrieve those teachings by sending a delegate to 'Dzam thang,
he passed away before honoring his pledge to retransmit them. Accordingly, in
1847, 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho decided to invite to Rnga ba the first vajra
master of Gtsang ba Ngag dbang chos 'phel and all the leading teachers who
had received the transmission of Tāranātha’s works from Karma 'od gsal 'gyur
med in 1846. Finally, Ngag dbang chos 'phel responded to the call and traveled to
'Brog dge monastery, where he bestowed all the reading transmissions, empow-
erments, and instructions included in the collected writings of Tāranātha to
'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho and the local monastic community.129 Afterwards,
the first vajra master of Gtsang ba continued to teach throughout Rnga ba,
where he reached a varied audience of about seven thousand people belonging
to different religious and social groups: Jo nang pas, Sa skya pas, Dge lugs pas,
and even Bon pos, commoners, and local authorities such as the king of Rme'u.
According to the Lhan thabs, Ngag dbang chos 'phel’s religious activities were
so effective that all the people present at his teachings matured great faith in
him and made substantial offerings that he could use to restore and expand
local monasteries.130 This created the conditions for the rejuvenation of the Jo
nang in the area that A mchog rin po che and 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho
had been hoping for, which eventually culminated with the re-foundation of
Se monastery at 'Brog dge Yon tan rgya mtsho’s hands in 1880.131
In 1854 it was the time of the famous Rnying ma scholar and wandering yogin
from Rdza chu ka, Dpal sprul rin po che, to visit the Jo nang monastic commu-
nity of 'Dzam thang. As had happened during Kong sprul’s visit of 1847, the
new visiting master both gave and received teachings. Ngag dbang chos 'phel
129 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 524–526.

131 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 526–527.

requested Dpal sprul to teach Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra and Maitreya’s Ra-

tnagotravibhāga. At the same time, Ngag dbang chos 'phel gave Dpal sprul the
empowerment of Kālacakra and instructions for the practice of its sixfold yoga
and the six dharmas of Niguma, while Ngag dbang chos 'phags taught him phys-
ical yogic exercises and further explanations on the experience and realization
of Kālacakra.132 Dpal sprul’s visit to 'Dzam thang had a great impact on the
Jo nang pas of that time and subsequently led other seminal figures such as
'Ba' mda' thub bstan dge legs rgya mtsho (1844–1904)133 and the fourth134 and
the fifth135 vajra masters of Gtsang ba to set out for Khams and receive teach-
ings from him. Moreover, it should be noted that both the late Jo nang scholars
'Ba' mda' dge legs and Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho (1880–1940) composed com-
mentaries respectively on the ninth136 and the second137 chapters of the Bo-
dhicaryāvatāra, a text which had largely been ignored by the previous Jo nang
literature except for its commentary by Sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen Blo gros rgyal
mtshan (1294–1376).138 Furthermore, Dpal sprul must be credited for inspiring
one of the key masters who came to define the Jo nang scholasticism’s resur-
gence during the late nineteenth century: Blo bzang mchog grub rgya mtsho
(1840s–1914).
The Lhan thabs recounts that, at the time of Dpal sprul’s visit to 'Dzam thang,
Blo bzang mchog grub rgya mtsho was still a child and was known by the name
Mchog dga'. As the story goes, the young Mchog dga' received a copy of the
Bodhicaryāvatāra from Dpal sprul but had to share it with an older monk, who
kept the text for his eyes only. Then, Mchog dga' asked Dpal sprul for another
copy of the text, promising that he would put its content into practice. Pleased
by the child’s intentions, Dpal sprul donated him a further copy of the Bo-
dhicaryāvatāra and an offering bowl. Under such auspicious beginnings, Blo
bzang mchog grub continued his monastic career with great dedication and
later traveled to Dbus gtsang, where he spent several years studying at the Dge
lugs college of 'Bras spungs until he obtained a dge bshes degree. After having
reached the highest education level for his time, he returned to 'Dzam thang
and settled in Khang dmar, where he started to teach the Stages of the Path (lam
rim), Abhidharma, and Collected Topics (bsdus grwa). Not content with his sole
132 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 184, 190.

133 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 413–414.
134 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 203–204.
135 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 208–209.
136 See Thub bstan dge legs rgya mtsho, Spyod 'jug gyi sher leu'i rnam bshad rigs pa'i sgo 'byed.
137 See Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Spyod 'jug las byung ba'i mchod bshags kyi le'u.
138 See Blo gros rgyal mtshan, Spyod 'jug sa 'grel.

150 brambilla
Dge lugs scholastic education, Blo bzang mchog grub looked for a guru who
could introduce him to the practice of the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra and even-
tually became a student of Sbyang pa Kun dga' nges don, who trained him until
he became as experienced as a second vajra master of Khang dmar monastery.
Then, after some years, Blo bzang mchog grub decided to leave the monastery
and moved to Dza 'go, a secluded place in upper Rgyal rong where he could
practice undisturbed. After some time, students started to gather around his
retreat, and he became thus famous as the Dge bshes of Dza 'go. Moreover, Blo
bzang mchog grub established many other small retreats throughout the area
for the practice of the sixfold yoga. Notably, his presence drew the attention
of a high-ranking Dge lugs master, Mchog rtse rgyal sras, who had been a can-
didate for the regency of the monastic college of Dga' ldan. According to the
Lhan thabs, Mchog rtse rgyal sras had traveled all the way from Central Tibet
and, once he reached the Jo nang monastery of Bkra shis sgang, which stands in
the same valley as Dza 'go, he requested from Blo bzang mchog grub the prac-
tice instructions for the sixfold yoga and became one of his heart disciples.139
Blo bzang mchog grub perfectly embodied the two often opposing extremes
of scholar and practitioner: just as the first part of his life was mainly dedicated
to his scholastic education, so its second half was mostly focused on devel-
oping his meditative experience. By drawing upon his extensive studies and
experience, Blo bzang mchog grub authored a substantial corpus of writings
where he skillfully combined his vast knowledge of the Jo nang doctrine with
that of Dge lugs logic. Nevertheless, as shown in Mathes’ valuable contribu-
tion to the present volume,140 he did not attempt any reconciliatory strategy
between the two traditions’ respective gzhan stong and rang stong positions
but, instead, straightforwardly adopted a hierarchical inclusivist approach.141
Even if Blo bzang mchog grub did not embrace the Dge lugs doctrine to any
extent, the Dge lugs influence on the scholastic style of his writings remains
undeniable.
In contrast, if we look at the philosophical works of the other two leading Jo
nang scholars in the latter part of the period considered here, 'Ba' mda' dge legs
and Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, what is striking is not only their appropriation of
some Dge lugs terminology and literary genres such as Collected Topics but also
a more evident appreciation for Dge lugs positions that led them to doctrinal
approaches leaning significantly toward forms of reconciliation or harmoniza-
tion of traditionally antithetical views.
139 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 306–309.

140 See pp. 165–200 of this volume.
141 See, in particular, Blo bzang mchog grub rgya mtsho, Blo gros mig 'byed.

'Ba' mda' dge legs142 received his early Jo nang training at Gtsang ba dgon
and continued his education by visiting Rdza chu kha and Sde dge between
1861 and 1864. He studied with Dge lugs scholars at the monastery of Ser shul,
with Dpal sprul rin po che and Dkon mchog 'od zer (ca. 1837–ca. 1897) at Rdzogs
chen, and with Kong sprul at Dpal spungs.143 'Ba' mda' dge legs spent the rest
of his life in 'Dzam thang’s vicinity studying, practicing, and teaching at Gtsang
ba dgon, the retreats of Bkra shis lha ri and Dge 'phel, the Rnying ma monastery
of Lha rtse, and the Karma Bka' brgyud monastery of G.yu thog.144
The variety of philosophical views and practices mastered by 'Ba' mda' dge
legs reflects in his extensive collected works, which contain texts on the dis-
tinctly Bka' brgyud practice system of the six dharmas of Nāropa (nāro chos
drug) and many treatises where he follows the Dge lugs commentarial tradition
of Bla brang bkra shis dkyil. As suggested by Matthew Kapstein, 'Ba' mda' dge
legs put his tolerant orientation into practice by skillfully and systematically
avoiding the treatment of the gzhan stong doctrine throughout his exoteric
works, where he adopted a rather emic perspective and essentially conformed
to the Dge lugs tradition, and by limiting any positive description of the ulti-
mate to purely esoteric contexts and interpretations.145 Therefore, his approach
is to be seen as essentially inclusivist, even in a hierarchical sense, in that the
profound gzhan stong view must always underly the ordinary rang stong exege-
sis of exoteric sources. However, the length to which 'Ba' mda' dge legs ventured
in order to integrate substantial Dge lugs curricular sources into his own tradi-
tion, and the fact that he did so without explicitly superimposing any Jo nang
reinterpretation on them, demonstrate the extent to which he must have val-
ued Tsong kha pa’s legacy. Thus, in fact, 'Ba' mda' dge legs may have always
understood rang stong as implicitly subordinate to gzhan stong, but, in spirit,
he was closer to the Dge lugs pas than any other Jo nang scholar before him.
Another indication of such a strongly felt connection may be seen in that,
according to his biographer Blo gros grags pa, 'Ba' mda' dge legs had clear rec-
ollections of his former life as 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa (1648–1721/22).146
Among the most renowned of 'Ba' mda' dge legs’s students were the fourth
and the fifth vajra masters of Gtsang ba dgon and, in particular, Ngag dbang
142 For 'Ba' mda' dge legs biography, see Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 412–424. For his English biog-
raphy, see Cabezón 2015. For further biographical information and an analysis of his
works, see Kapstein 1997: 462–467; Sheehy 2009a: 28–29; Sheehy 2017; Brambilla 2018: 8–
12; Sheehy 2019: 353.
143 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 413–414.
144 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 414–422.
145 See Kapstein 1997: 464–467.

152 brambilla
tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho.147 Unlike his teacher 'Ba' mda' dge legs, whose pro-
found familiarity and understanding of other Buddhist traditions must have
depended, at least to some extent, on his travels west, Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s
student career was much more localized to the immediate region of 'Dzam
thang. After studying the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, and
Collected Topics at 'Ba' mda' dge legs’s retreat of Dge 'phel, Tshogs gnyis rgya
mtsho moved to Gtsang ba dgon, where he received further teachings on simi-
lar exoteric subjects from its fourth vajra master,148 Ngag dbang chos 'byor rgya
mtsho. Moreover, before becoming 'Ba' mda' dge legs’s student, Tshogs gnyis
rgya mtsho had already spent six years at another local retreat, Bkra shis lha
ri, where he practiced the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra under the famous Jo nang
Kālacakra master Ngag dbang chos 'dzin (d. 1899).149 During the first half of his
life, Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho had very little direct exposure, if any, to represen-
tatives of other Buddhist traditions. In fact, it was only after he began to teach
at Gtsang ba, around 1909, that he came to establish closer relations with local
Rnying ma masters such as Nyag bla gter chen and Khams sangs gter ston.150
Moreover, his first direct contacts with Dge lugs pas date to even later times,
when Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho had already become an established scholar and
had already composed his main philosophical works.151 Around 1925, on the
rising tide of his local fame, he garnered the praise of A mdo dge bshes 'Jam
dpal rol pa'i blo gros (1888–1936),152 and in 1935 he met the Ninth Paṇ chen Blo
bzang thub bstan chos kyi nyi ma (1883–1937).153
As in his master 'Ba' mda' dge legs’s case, Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s approach
may be first broadly understood as a hierarchical inclusivist one. This applies
insofar as his argumentation is brought forth in hermeneutical and epistemo-
logical terms. Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho maintained that the emptiness explicitly
taught by the Buddha in the discourses of the second turning of the Wheel
of Dharma, which is the non-affirming negation of the absence of intrinsic
essence or absence of true existence propounded by the Dge lugs pas, is seem-
147 For Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s biography, see Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 482–496. For further bio-
graphical information and analyses of Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s philosophical works, see
Sheehy 2009c; Brambilla 2018; Brambilla (forthcoming).
148 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 483–486.
149 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 482–483.
151 In particular, Blo gros grags pa explains that, during the fifteen years spent at Gtsang ba
(ca. 1909–1925), Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho wrote, among other works, the Mthar 'dzin gdung
'phrog and the Rab gsal snang ba. See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 486.

ingly discordant with the emptiness explicitly taught in the discourses of the
third turning, which is a positively established ultimate qua buddha nature, i.e.,
the emptiness endowed with all aspects (rnam pa thams cad pa'i stong pa nyid)
propounded by the Jo nang pas. However, both descriptions refer, in fact, to
the same ultimate reality and only differ in that the former is a representational
ultimate (rnam grangs pa'i don dam), whereas the latter is the actual, nonrepre-
sentational ultimate (rnam grangs ma yin pa'i don dam). Moreover, according
to Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, this characterization reflects the epistemological
distinction between emptiness as understood through analysis by the ordinary
reasoning consciousness (rnam shes) and emptiness as directly experienced by
wisdom ( ye shes) in meditative equipoise.154 It must be noted at this point that,
even though there certainly is a qualitative, hierarchical difference between the
so defined representational and nonrepresentational ultimate, Tshogs gnyis
rgya mtsho moved toward a more open, pluralist approach that harmonizes the
two opposing views. In fact, he accepted that the non-affirming negation of the
absence of true existence is not simply propaedeutic to the understanding of
the ultimate through the definition of the nature of relative phenomena alone
but is also an alternative, contextually appropriate definition of the ultimate
itself. Within the framework of the literary genre of “systems of tenets” (si-
ddhānta; grub mtha'), Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho seems to follow the path laid out
by 'Ba' mda' dge legs, who limited the scope of rang stong interpretations to exo-
teric treatises and gzhan stong to the esoteric context. Accordingly, Tshogs gnyis
rgya mtsho described the proponents of what he called “Essencelessness Ma-
dhyamaka” (dbu ma ngo bo nyid med pa) as those who present ultimate reality
as a mere non-affirming negation from the limited perspective of the emptiness
of true existence and in accordance with the sūtras.155 In contrast, he presented
the “Empty of Other Madhyamaka” (dbu ma gzhan stong) as the philosoph-
ical system that approaches ultimate reality from the perspective of its own
appearance to wisdom and in accordance with both the sūtras and tantras.156
Moreover, Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s reconciliatory intention emerges from his
acceptance of the equal soteriological value of both perspectives, which he also
described respectively as negating the negandum (dgag bya) and establishing
the distinctive qualities (khyad chos) of the ultimate. The former perspective,
he maintained, finds its predominant application in the Pāramitāyāna and the
latter mainly shapes the Mantrayāna approach to realization, but both grant
154 See Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Rab gsal snang ba: 78.2–80.2.
155 See Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Phyogs lhung mun sel: 29.3–38.2.
156 See Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Phyogs lhung mun sel: 38.2–42.7 and 48.5–53.2.

154 brambilla
equal access to liberation.157 Furthermore, Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s apprecia-

tion for the Dge lugs may be seen to transpire also from texts where he evidently
adopts the emic perspective of that tradition, such as two works on the Prajñā-
pāramitāsūtras where he presents the views of Tsong kha pa, Rgyal tshab rje
Dar ma rin chen (1364–1432), and Mkhas grub rje Dge legs dpal bzang (1385–
1438).158
7 Concluding Remarks
On the basis of the detailed biographical information extracted from the his-
torical works of Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa, it has been shown that the
later development of the Jo nang tradition in southern A mdo was strongly
characterized by being part of a broader intersectarian network. Against this
backdrop, the Jo nang came to rejuvenate and redefine itself as a distinct tradi-
tion while mostly embracing and propounding tolerant approaches that leaned
toward reconciliatory forms of pluralism. This becomes evident through the
constant common and mutual exchange of practices and teachings between
Jo nang masters and their peers who belonged to other Tibetan Buddhist tradi-
tions and, occasionally, even the Bon pos. In particular, the figures who stand
out most prominently in this context are Jo nang scholars who showed knowl-
edge of and genuine appreciation for the Dge lugs pas, who had been histori-
cally their most fierce opponents. At the same time, those very Jo nang pas who
ventured into the terrain of Dge lugs scholasticism proudly kept alive their own
tradition by practicing its instructions and giving new life to its teachings.
157 See Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Rab gsal snang ba: 167.5–168.1.
158 For Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’s exposition of Tshong ka pa, Rgyal tshab rje, and Mkhas grub
rje’s views, see Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Rje yab sras rnam gsum la brten nas
phar phyin gyi dgongs don 'ga' zhig bshad pa. For a more specific presentation of Mkhas
grub rje’s position, see Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Blo gsal mgul rgyan.

8 Relevant Lineages
8.1 The Jo nang 'Bro Lineage of Kālacakra at Gtsang ba dgon ('Dzam

thang)
1. Mkhas grub Blo gros rnam rgyal (1618–1683)
– 30th holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
* Cha lung ba Ngag dbang 'phrin las (1654–1723)159
– 31st holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
2. Ngag dbang bstan 'dzin rnam rgyal (1691–1738)
– 32nd holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
3. Mkhas btsun dar rgyas (18th c.)
– 33rd holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
4. Kun bzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal (1740–?)
5. Lhun grub rgya mtsho (18th c.)
6. Dkon mchog 'jigs med rnam rgyal (1790–1837)
7. Ngag dbang chos 'phel rgya mtsho (1788–1865)
– 1st vajra master of Gtsang ba dgon
8. Ngag dbang chos 'phags (1808–1877)
– 2nd vajra master of Gtsang ba dgon
9. Kun dga' bsod nams dpal ldan (1829–1891)
– 3rd vajra master of Gtsang ba dgon
10. Ngag dbang chos 'byor rgya mtsho (1846–1910)
– 4th vajra master of Gtsang ba dgon
11. Kun dga' mkhas grub dbang phyug (1862–1914)
– 41st holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
12. Ngag dbang bstan pa gsal byed (1878–1953)
– 42nd holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
159 It must be noted that, in fact, Ngag dbang 'phrin las never visited 'Dzam thang.

156 brambilla
13. Ngag dbang rdo rje bzang po (1893–1948)

– 43rd holder of the Jo nang 'Bro lineage of Kālacakra
14. Ngag dbang dkon mchog bstan pa dar rgyas (1900–1966)
15. Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa (1920–1975)
16. Ngag dbang yon tan bzang po (1928–2002)
17. 'Jigs med rdo rje (1944)
8.2 The Main Sprul sku Lineage of Chos rje dgon ('Dzam thang)
Founder (1425): Ratnaśrī (Drung dka' bzhi pa'i rin chen dpal; 1350–1435)
1.A. Rgyal ba bzang po (1419–1487)
– 1st Chos rje Sprul sku
2. Rgyal ba seng ge (1509–1580)
– 2nd Chos rje Sprul sku
3. Ri shing pa Kun dga' thub bstan rgyal mtshan seng ge (1588–1615)
– 3nd Chos rje Sprul sku
4. Lo kha pa grags pa 'od zer (1618–1670)
– 4th Chos rje sprul sku
5. Go rgyal ba Lhun grub grags pa (1674–1736)
– 5th Chos rje Sprul sku
6. Nges don bstan pa dar rgyas (1742–1776)
7. 'Jigs med dpal gyi seng ge (1788–1835)
8. Kun dga' mi pham chos kyi byams pa (1859–1883)
9. Mi pham 'jigs med dbang po bstan pa'i nyi ma (1885–1958)
10. Karma bdud 'dul rdo rje (1985)

8.3 Transmission of Jo nang Teachings through an Alternative Rnying

ma and Bka' brgyud Lineage
1. Kun bzang dbang po (late 17th–mid. 18th c.)
– Rnying ma.
2. Kaḥ thog Rig 'dzin Tshe dbang nor bu (1698–1755)
– Rnying ma
3.A. 7th 'Brug chen 'Phrin las shing rta (1718–1766)
– 'Brug pa Bka' brgyud
3.B. 8th Tā'i si tu pa Chos kyi 'byung gnas (1699–1774)
– Karma Bka' brgyud
4. Be lo tsā ba Zur mang Tshe dbang kun khyab (1718–1790)
5. Dbon sprul sku Dbang rgyal rdo rje (Mchog sprul Karma nges don bstan
'dzin rab rgyas; Karma rin chen; Karma ratna)
6. Karma 'od gsal 'gyur med (Bla ma Dam pa mgon po tshe dbang)
7.A. Ngag dbang chos 'phel rgya mtsho (1788–1865); Klu sgrub rgya mtsho; Ye
shes phun tshogs (Grub dbang Bde mchog rdo rje); Ngag dbang nor bzang
– Jo nang
7.B. Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas (1813–1899)
Bibliography
Tibetan Primary Sources

Kun dga' shes rab. Blo gros grags pa'i rnam thar. Full title: Shar 'dzam thang pa ngag
dbang blo gros grags pa'i rnam thar. Jo nang dpe tshogs, vol. 90. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2014. bdrc W8LS19000.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Rgya chen bka' mdzod. 13 vols. New Delhi: Shechen Pub-
lications, 2002. bdrc W23723.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Nor bu sna tshogs mdog can. Full title: Phyogs med ris
med kyi bstan pa la 'dun shing dge sbyong gi gzugs brnyan 'chang ba blo gros mtha'
yas kyi sde'i byung ba brjod pa nor bu sna tshogs mdog can. In Rgya chen bka' mdzod,
10: 237–656.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Zin thung nyung ngu. Full title: Mdo khams gnas chen nyer
lnga yan lag dang bcas pa'i mdo byang gi gsal byed zin thung nyung ngu. In Mchog
gyur gling pa, Mchog gling gter gsar, 24: 125–144. Paro: Lama Pema Tashi, 1982–1986.
bdrc W22642.

158 brambilla
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Ris med chos kyi 'byung gnas. Full title: Ris med chos kyi
'byung gnas mdo tsam smos pa blo gsal mgrin pa'i mdzes rgyan. In Rgya chen bka'
mdzod, 5: 859–890.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Si tu padma nyin byed gsol 'debs sogs. In Rgya chen bka'
mdzod, 1: 915–957.
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas. Udumbara'i dga' tshal. Full title: Rje btsun bla ma thams
cad mkhyen cing gzigs ba 'jam dbyang mkhyen brtse'i dbang po kun dga' bstan pa'i
rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam thar bdor bsdus ba ngo mtshar udumbara'i dga'
tshal. In Rgya chen bka' mdzod, 1: 1–236.
Mkhan Dngos grub dpal, ed. Dpal ldan rgyal ba jo nang pa'i dgon sde dag gi lo rgyus
phyogs gcig tu bkod pa. Khrin tu'u: Si khron mi i rigs dpe skrun khang, 2014.
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa. Jo nang chos 'byung. Full title: Dpal ldan jo nang ba'i chos
'byung rgyal ba'i chos tshul gsal byed zla ba'i sgron me. In: (1) 'Dzam thang ba blo gros
grags pa'i gsung 'bum, 2: 1–192. (2) Jo nang chos 'byung zla ba'i sgron me, 1–88. Pe cin:
Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1992. bdrc W19816.
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa. 'Dzam thang ba blo gros grags pa'i gsung 'bum. 11 vols.
'Dzam thang: 199?. bdrc W19762.
Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa. Lhan thabs. Full title: Jo nang chos 'byung gi lhan thabs
brgyud rim dpal ldan bla ma gang dag gi mtshan nyid rab tu gsal ba nyi gzhon 'od
snang dad pa'i padmo rnam par bzhad byed. In: (1) 'Dzam thang ba blo gros grags
pa'i gsung 'bum, 2: 193–1221. (2) Jo nang chos 'byung zla ba'i sgron me, 89–591. Pe cin:
Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1992. bdrc W19816.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Rje yab sras rnam gsum la brten nas phar phyin
gyi dgongs don 'ga' zhig bshad pa. Full title. Phar phyin gyi 'grel ba legs par bshad pa
gser gyi phreng ba sogs rje yab sras rnam gsum la brten nas phar phyin gyi dgongs don
'ga' zhig bshad pa. In 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i gsung 'bum, 4:
265–290.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Mthar 'dzin gdung 'phrog. Full title: Kun mkhyen
jo nang pa chen po'i dgongs pa gzhan stong dbu ma'i tshul legs par bshad pa mthar
'dzin gdung 'phrog. In 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i gsung 'bum,
5: 161–348.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Spyod 'jug las byung ba'i mchod bshags kyi le'u. Full
title: Byang chub sems pa'i spyod 'jug las byung ba'i mchod bshags kyi le'u. In ’Dzam
thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho’i gsung 'bum, 7: 43–96.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Phyogs lhung mun sel. Full title: Kun mkhyen
chen pos mdzad pa'i grub mtha'i rnam bzhag don gsal gyi 'grel ba phyogs lhung
mun sel. In 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i gsung 'bum, 5: 1–
74.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Blo gsal mgul rgyan. Full title: Mkhas grub thams
cad mkhyen pa'i phar phyin gyi rnam bshad rtogs dka'i snang ba'i dgongs don 'ga' zhig

bshad pa blo gsal mgul rgyan. In 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i
gsung 'bum, 4: 381–474.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i
gsung 'bum. 13 vols. bdrc W1PD96085.
Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho. Rab gsal snang ba. Full title: Kun mkhyen jo nang
pa'i bzhed dgongs dbu tshad kyi gzhung spyi dang gung bsgrigs te dpyod pa'i spyi don
rab gsal snang ba. In 'Dzam thang Mkhan po tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho'i gsung 'bum, 5:
75–160.
Mchog gyur gling pa. Bod kyi gnas chen rnams kyi mdo byang dkar chags. Full title: Bod
kyi gnas chen rnams kyi mdo byang dkar chags o rgyan gyi mkhas pa padma 'byung
gnas kyis bkod pa. In Mchog gling gter gsar, 24: 95–124. Paro: Lama Pema Tashi, 1982–
1986. bdrc W22642.
'Ju Mi pham rnam rgyal rgya mtsho. Nor bu ke ta ka. Full title: Shes rab kyi le'u'i tshig
don go sla bar rnam par bshad pa nor bu ke ta ka. In 'Jam mgon mi pham rgya mtsho
gi gsung 'bum, 14: 1–95. Paro: Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimey, 1984–1993. bdrc
W23468.
Jo nang mdza' mthun lo rgyus phyogs sgrig tshogs pa, ed. Jo nang ba'i gdan rabs mdor
bsdus drang srong rgan po'i zhal lung. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005. bdrc
W30408.
Tāranātha. Sgrub thabs rin 'byung. Full title: Yi dam rgya mtsho'i sgrub thabs rin chen
'byung gnas. 2 vols. New Delhi: Chophel Legdan, 1974–1975. bdrc W12422.
Thub bstan dge legs rgya mtsho. Spyod 'jug gyi sher leu'i rnam bshad rigs pa'i sgo 'byed.
Full title: Rgyal sras byang chub sems dpa'i spyod la 'jug pa'i shes rab leu'i rnam bshad
rigs pa'i sgo 'byed. In 'Ba' mda' dge legs kyi gsung 'bum, 21: 403–473. 'Dzam thang, Rnga
ba rdzong: 199?. bdrc W23899.
Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan. Bden gnyis gsal ba'i nyi ma. In Jo nang kun mkhyen dol
po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan gyi gsung 'bum, 7: 109–141. Pe cin: Krung go'i bod rig pa
dpe skrun khang, 2011. bdrc W1AC374.
Spo ra ba Blo bzang mthu stobs. Dad pa'i sa bon. Full title: Tshe dbang nor bu'i zhabs kyi
rnam thar mdor bsdus dad pa'i sa bon. In Tshe dbang nor bu, Kaḥ thog rig 'dzin tshe
dbang nor bu'i bka' 'bum, 1: 193–198. Pe cin: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2006. bdrc W1GS45274.
Blo gros rgyal mtshan. Spyod 'jug sa 'grel. Full title: Byang chub sems dpa'i spyod pa la
'jug pa'i rnam par bshad pa gzhung don rab gsal snang ba. Jo nang dpe tshogs 12. Pe
cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2008. bdrc W1PD95808.
Blo bzang mchog grub rgya mtsho. Blo gros mig 'byed. Full title: Las dang po pa la nye
bar mkho ba'i skal bzang blo gros mig 'byed. In 'Bras rab 'byams pa blo bzang mchog
grub rgya mtsho'i gsung 'bum, 2: 1–313. Beijing: Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2012.
O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po. Spyod 'jug sgom rim. Full title: Byang chub sems

160 brambilla
dpa'i spyod pa la 'jug pa'i sgom rim rab gsal nyi ma. In O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang
po'i gsung 'bum, 2: 519–538.
O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po. Spyod 'jug brgyud 'debs. Full title: Spyod 'jug brgyud
pa'i gsol 'debs. In O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po'i gsung 'bum, 5: 43–44.
O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po. Spyod 'jug sa bcad. Full title: Byang chub sems dpa'i
spyod pa la 'jug pa'i sa bcad don gsal me long. In O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po'i
gsung 'bum, 5: 11–42.
O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po. O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po'i gsung 'bum.
6 vols. Sde dge: Sde dge par khang, 200? bdrc W1PD45158.
Secondary Sources
Awang Luozhui Zhaba and D. Xu, tr. 1993. Juenangpai Jiaofa Shi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin
Chubanshe.
Bayer, Achim. 2019. The Life and Works of mKhan-po gZhan dga’ (1871–1927): rDzogs-
chen Master and Educational Reformer of Eastern Tibet. Hamburg Buddhist Studies
11. Bochum: Projekt Verlag.
Berounský, Daniel. 2012. “Kīrti Monastery of Ngawa: Its History and Recent Situation.”
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 25: 65–80.
Brambilla, Filippo. 2018. “A Late Proponent of the Jo nang gZhan stong Doctrine: Ngag
dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho (1880–1940).” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 45: 5–50.
Brambilla, Filippo. Forthcoming. “Empty of True Existence, Yet Full of Qualities:
Tsoknyi Gyatso (1880–1940) on Buddha Nature.” In Buddha Nature Across Asia,
edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Casey A. Kemp. Wiener Studien zur Tibetolo-
gie und Buddhismuskunde. Vienna: Arbeitskreis fü r tibetische und buddhistische
Studien.
Cabezón, José Ignacio. 2015. “Bamda Gelek.” The Treasury of Lives. https://treasuryoflive
s.org/biographies/view/Bamda‑Gelek/7272. Accessed June 20, 2020.
Draszczyk, Martina. 2019. “Other-Emptiness Madhyamaka and its Application in Med-
itation in the Eyes of Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas.” Journal of Tibetology, no. 20:
218–241.
Dreyfus, Georges B.J. 2003. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan
Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dreyfus, Georges B.J. 2004. “Would the True Prāsaṅgika Please Stand? The Case and
View of ’Ju Mi Pham.” In The Svātantrika Prāsaṅgika Distinction. What Difference
Does a Difference Make?, edited by Georges B.J. Dreyfus and Sara L. McClintock, 317–
347. Boston: Wisdom.
Dreyfus, Georges B.J. 2005. “Where Do Commentarial Schools Come from? Reflections
on the History of Tibetan Scholasticism.” Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies 28, no. 2: 273–297.
Duckworth, Douglas. 2008. Mipam on Buddha-Nature: The Ground of the Nyingma Tra-
dition. Albany, NY: suny Press.

Duckworth, Douglas. 2011. Jamgön Mipam: His Life and Teachings. Boston: Shambhala.
Gardner, Alexander Patten. 2006. The Twenty-five Great Sites of Khams: Religious Geog-
raphy, Revelation, and Nonsectarianism in Nineteenth-Century Eastern Tibet. Ph.D.
thesis. University of Michigan, umi Number: 3237959.
Gardner, Alexander Patten. 2019. The Life of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. Boulder, CO:
Snow Lion.
Grönbold, Günter. 1996. The Yoga of Six Limbs: An Introduction to the History of ṣaḍaṅ-
gayoga. Santa Fe, NM: Spirit of the Sun.
Gruschke, Andreas. 2008. “A Vital Monastic Centre of the Jonang Tradition: The Grand
Lamasery of Dzamthang.” Zhongguo Zangxue, no. 1: 67–79.
Hacker, Paul. 1995. Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern
Vedanta, edited by Wilhelm Halbfass. Albany, NY: suny Press.
Harding, Sarah. 2012. Niguma, Lady of Illusion. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Hartley, Lauran R. 1997. A Socio-Historical Study of the Kingdom of Sde-dge (Derge,
Kham) in the Late Nineteenth Century: Ris-med Views of Alliance and Authority. m.a.
thesis, Indiana University.
Hartley, Lauran R. 2013. “The Kingdom of Dergé.” In The Tibetan History Reader, edited
by Gray Tuttle and Kurtis R. Schaeffer, 525–548. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Henning, Edward. 2009. “The Six Vajra-Yogas of Kālacakra.” In As Long as Space Endures.
Essays on the Kālacakra Tantra in Honor of H.H. the Dalai Lama, edited by Edward
A. Arnold, 237–258. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Hick, John. 1995. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox.
Jackson, Roger R. 2006. “Triumphalism and Ecumenism in Thu’u bkwan’s Crystal Mir-
ror.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2: 1–23.
Kapstein, Matthew T. 1980. “The Shangs-pa bKa'-brgyud: An Unknown School of
Tibetan Buddhism.” In Tibetan Studies in Honor of Hugh Richardson, edited by
Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi, 138–144. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Kapstein, Matthew T. 1992. “The Illusion of Spiritual Progress.” In Paths to Liberation,
edited by Robert Buswell, 193–224. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kapstein, Matthew. 1993. “Introduction.” In Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa, Selected His-
torical and Doctrinal Writings of 'Dzamthang Mkhan-po Blo-gros-grags-pa, 1: 1–58,
and 2: 1–10. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.
Kapstein, Matthew T. 1997. “From Dol-po-pa to 'Ba'-mda' Dge-legs: Three Jo-nang-pa
Masters on the Interpretation of Prajñāpāramitā.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Sem-
inar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, edited by Ernst Steinkellner
et al., 1: 457–475. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Karmay, Samten G. 2003. “The Fifth Dalai Lama and his Reunification of Tibet.” In Lhasa
in the Seventeenth Century: The Capital of the Dalai-Lamas, edited by Françoise Pom-
maret, 65–80. Leiden: Brill.

162 brambilla
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha' yas and Richard Barron, tr. 2003. The Autobiography of Jam-
gön Kongtrul: A Gem of Many Colors. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
Makidono, Tomoko. 2011. “Kaḥ thog Dge rtse Mahāpaṇḍita’s Doxographical Position:
The Great Madhyamaka of Other-Emptiness (gzhan stong dbu ma chen po).”Indian
International Journal of Buddhist Studies, no. 12: 77–119.
Makidono, Tomoko. 2016. Dge rtse Mahāpaṇḍita’s Great Middle Way of Other-Emptiness.
Bibliotheca Tibetica et Buddhica 2. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhorin.
Martin, Dan. 1990. “Bonpo Canons and Jesuit Cannons: On Sectarian Factors Involved
in the Ch'ien-lung Emperor's Second Goldstream Expedition of 1771–1776 Based Pri-
marily on Some Tibetan Sources.” The Tibet Journal 15, no. 2: 3–28.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2004. “Tāranātha’s ‘Twenty-One Differences with regard to the
Profound Meaning’—Comparing the Views of the Two gŹan stoṅ Masters Dol po
pa and Śākya mchog ldan.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Stud-
ies 27, no. 2: 285–328.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. 2019. “Zhentong Views in the Karma Kagyu Order.” In The Other
Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael
R. Sheehy and Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 115–144. Albany, NY: suny Press.
Nietupski, Paul Kocot. 2011. Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the
Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709–1958. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Orofino, Giacomella. 1996. “On the Ṣaḍaṅgayoga and the Realisation of Ultimate Gnosis
in the Kālacakratantra.” East and West 46, no. 1/2: 127–143. Roma: IsIAO.
Pearcey, Adam S. 2015. “The Curricula of Tibetan Buddhist Commentarial Schools
(bshad grwa): Traditional Models and Some Recent Adaptations.” Contemporary
Buddhism 16, no. 2: 451–461.
Petech, Luciano. 1950. China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century: History of the Establish-
ment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet. Leiden: Brill.
Phuntsho, Karma. 2005. Mipham’s Dialectics and Debates on Emptiness: To Be, Not to Be
or Neither. Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism. London: Routledge Curzon.
Phuntsho, Karma. 2007. “'Ju Mi pham rnam rgyal rgya mtsho. His Position in the Tibetan
Religious Hierarchy and a Synoptic Survey of His Contributions.” In The Pandita and
the Siddha: Tibetan Studies in Honour of E. Gene Smith, edited by Ramon N. Prats, 191–
209. Dharamshala: Amnye Machen Institute.
Pu, Wencheng. 1993. Juenangpai Tonglun. Xining: Qinghai Minzu Chubanshe.
Race, Alan. 1993. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology
of Religion. 2nd ed. London: scm Press.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. 1963. “The Jo naṅ pas: A School of Buddhist Ontologists Accord-
ing to the Grub mtha' śel gyi me long.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83,
no. 1: 73–91.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2013. “The Fifth Dalai Lama.” In The Tibetan History Reader, edited by
Gray Tuttle and Kurtis R. Schaeffer, 348–362. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schuh, Dieter. 1973. Tibetische Handschriften und Blockdrucke. Verzeichnis der oriental-
ischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Band xi, 5.Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Schuh, Dieter. 1976. Tibetische Handschriften und Blockdrucke: Gesammelte Werke des
Koṅ-sprul Blo-gros mtha'-yas. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in
Deutschland, Band xi, 6. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Sferra, Francesco. 2000. The Ṣaḍaṅgayoga by Anupamarakṣita. With Raviśrījñāna's
Guṇabharaṇīnāma-ṣaḍaṅgayogaṭippaṇī. Text and Annotated Translation. sor 85.
Roma: IsIAO.
Shakabpa, Tsepon Wangchuk Deden. 1984. Tibet: A Political History. New York: Potala.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2007. The gZhan stong chen mo: A Study of Emptiness According to
the Modern Tibetan Buddhist Jo nang Scholar 'Dzam thang Mkhan po Ngag dbang blo
gros grags pa (1920–75). Ph.D. thesis. San Francisco: California Institute of Integral
Studies.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2009a. “A lineage History of Vajrayoga and Tantric Zhentong from
the Jonang Kālacakra Practice Tradition.” In As Long as Space Endures. Essays on the
Kālacakra Tantra in Honor of H.H. the Dalai Lama, edited by Edward A. Arnold, 219–
235. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2009b. “Ngawang Lodro Drakpa.” The Treasury of Lives. https://
treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Ngawang‑Lodro‑Drakpa/8752. Accessed June
20, 2020.
Sheehy, Michael. 2009c. “The Zhentong Madhyamaka Writings of Ngawang Tsoknyi
Gyatso (1880–1940).” In Ngag dbang tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho, Ngag dbang tshogs
gnyis rgya mtsho'i dbu ma gzhan stong phyogs bsgrigs, 1–5. Khreng tu'u: Si khron dpe
skrun tshogs pa, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
Sheehy, Michael. 2009d. “The Jonangpa after Tāranātha: Auto/Biographical Writings on
the Transmission of Esoteric Buddhist Knowledge in Seventeenth Century Tibet.”
Bulletin of Tibetology 45, no. 1: 9–24.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2017. “Traversing the Path of Meditation.” In A Gathering of Bril-
liant Moons, edited by Holly Gayley and Joshua Schapiro, 171–190. Somerville: Wis-
dom.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2019. “The Zhentong Lion Roars: Dzamthang Khenpo Lodro Drakpa
and the Jonang Scholastic Renaissance.” In The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the
Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael R. Sheehy and Klaus-Dieter
Mathes, 351–377. Albany, NY: suny Press.
Sheehy, Michael R. 2020. “Materializing Dreams and Omens: The Autobiographical
Subjectivity of the Tibetan Yoginī Kun dga' 'Phrin las dbang mo (1585–1668).” Revue
d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 56: 263–292.
Smith, E. Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of Himalayan Plateau.
Boston: Wisdom.
Sperling, Elliot. 2009. “Tibetan Buddhism, Perceived and Imagined, along the Ming-Era

164 brambilla
Sino-Tibetan Frontier.” In Buddhism Between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew

T. Kapstein, 155–190. Boston: Wisdom.
Stearns, Cyrus. 2010. The Buddha from Dölpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the
Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Tuttle, Gray. 2012. “Building up the Dge lugs pa Base in A mdo: The Role of Lhasa, Beijing
and Local Agency.” Journal of Tibetology, no. 7: 126–140.
Viehbeck, Markus. 2014a. “Performing Text as Practice: Rdza Dpal sprul’s Practice Man-
ual on the Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra.” In Current Issues and Progress in Tibetan Stud-
ies: Proceedings of the Third International Seminar of Young Tibetologists, Kobe 2012,
edited by Tsuguhito Takeuchi et al., 553–571. Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign
Studies.
Viehbeck, Markus. 2014b. Polemics in Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism: A Late 19th-Century
Debate between 'Ju Mi pham and Dpa' ris Rab gsal. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie
und Buddhismuskunde 86. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische
Studien.
Viehbeck, Markus. 2016. “An Indian Classic in 19th-Century Tibet and beyond: Rdza
Dpal sprul and the Dissemination of the Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines, no. 36: 5–44.
Wallace, Vesna A. 2012. “The Six-phased Yoga of the Abbreviated Wheel of Time Tantra
Laghukālacakratantra According to Vajrapani.” In Yoga in Practice, edited by David
Gordon White, 204–222. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wangchuk, Dorji. 2004 [appeared in 2005]. “The rÑiṅ–ma Interpretations of the Tathā-
gatagarbha Theory.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, no. 48: 171–213.
Yang, Boming. 1993. “Juenangpai Zongtan.” In Sichuan Zangxue Yanjiu, edited by D. Yan-
gling and S. He, 216–251. Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue Chubanshe.
Yu, Wanzhi and Awang. 1990. “Dashan Fawang Qu'erji Ershi Huofo Jiewa Sengge.” Xinan
Minzu Xueyuan Xuebao, no. 2, 12–17.
Yu, Wanzhi and Awang. 1991. “Rangtang Qu’erjisi Jianshu.” Zhongguo Zangxue, no. 3,
98–108.


BP00000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP00000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jo nang pas and the Others: Intersectarian

Relations in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth

© Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Gabriele Coura, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466364_008

approaches leaning toward reconciliatory forms of pluralism. On the one hand,

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

2 Khams and the Non-Dge lugs Front

3 On the history of the Jo nang mantra lineage, see Sheehy 2009a.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

4 See Martin 1990: 6.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Among the recent scholarship, the studies on Kong sprul by Gardner,12

12 See Gardner 2006; Gardner 2019.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

peting view to ensure the predominance of one’s own. As for pluralism, it

23 See Wangchuk 2004: 191, 199–201.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

criticizes those who engage in sectarianism by denigrating others’ paths26 and

26 See Kong sprul/Barron 2003: 53; Gardner 2006: 133–134.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

34 See Brambilla 2018: 19.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

41 See Viehbeck 2016: 10.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

47 See Smith 2001: 22–23; Dreyfus 2005: 288–289.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

3 The Dge lugs Front

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

As we have already seen at the beginning of the previous section of this

60 See Smith 2001: 133–146.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Tibetan Buddhist traditions in their original forms. Moreover, Thu'u bkwan

63 See Jackson 2006: 10–15.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

69 See Tuttle 2012: 137.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

4 From Gtsang to Gtsang ba dgon: Settlement, Resettlement, and

76 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 103, 107.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

82 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 116.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

seventeenth century. He had the opportunity to study shortly with Tāranātha

93 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 134–135.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

97 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 70.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

5 The Rise of Gtsang ba dgon

100 See Jo nang chos 'byung 1992 ed.: 72–73.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

101 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 141–143.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

102 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 142–143.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

105 See Tāranātha, Sgrub thabs rin 'byung.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

6 The Vajra Masters of Gtsang ba dgon and a New Generation of

114 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 175–180.

Filippo Brambilla - 9789004466364

115 See Lhan thabs 1992 ed.: 181–184.