Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp Department of Indology Hamburg University

A volume on the eighth-century dertaking for any Tibetanist.

disputes among the Indian, unwork on this and

Tibetan, and Chinese Buddhists in Tibet is.an ambitious The present

subject by G.W. Houston, to which I shall devote a few remarks, was originally was submitted as a Ph.D. dissertation, completed in Kokomo, Indiana, U. S .. A., in October of 1 The two main Western sources on these disputes, by 1978. the late P. Demieville and G. Tucci in particular, known, and Houston places his with these: adds the "The three works proviso form a triad". (p.l). are wellBut he monograph on an equal footing (p. 1). perhaps more limited in Since Houston's passages from is only natural that he

that his "work is

nature than these other two works". sources are Tucci. exclusively Tibetan, it derives his interpretations

of several difficult

The latter has principally

analyzed the Tibetan dossier pre-

on the rather opaque course of events that led to the disputes and their aftermath. Chinese perspective"~ work is entitled 1. Houston suggests that: "Demieville the Bsam-yasdebate (p. 1). This is not precise. sents evidence and texts concerning La Conci.l:ede Lhasa from the Demieville'

(Paris, 1952), meaning that,

See G.W. Houston, Sources for a History of the bSam-yas Debabe, Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung I, Band 2, Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980. Only one brief review of Houston's book has come to my attention; R. Thurman (1981: 107-109) which, while noting some "flaws", concludes with the statement that it is a "welcome addition to Bsam-yas debate studies".

150/Kailash at least at the time of his writing, Demieville was of the opinion that the disputes 32 ff.). by Imaeda Kimura took place in Lhasa and not Bsam-yas. (1958: This position was, however, rendered untenable by Tucci

Among other recent sources on/to the Bsam-yas debate(1975), whose findings were partly Despite these corrections, corrected by

again, in Western languages -- there is the important article (1991). Imaeda's thesis the

still stands unscathed, have never taken traditio~.2 regrettably a historical curred". available later Tibetan historians

namely, that the Bsam-yas debate may were unwitting victims of a corrupt Imaeda's paper in passing, and findings. He is "It is all the issue with its

place at all and that, by implication,

Houston mentions fails to take event".

convinced that: " ...there was a debate of some sort that was (p. 9), the reason being that: recorded in too many native sources not to have actually oc(p. 9).
/ '

A careful sifting and analysis of

~ources -- and not only

the Tibetan ones -- must

surely be a prerequisite he has done so. It may

for the type of conclusion Houston very well be that his deduction was

has arrived at. The present volume does not bear witness that shaped by his view of Tibetan historiography. ries of the particular Tibetan historians". ly analysed his the account sources" he would point out their obvious interdependence. in the PT" for instance, is from different versions 2. Houston suggests (p. 1). Had he on-

namely that the Bsam-yas debate was: " ... recorded in the memohave been able to quickly Some four-fifth's of based on quotations

of the sba-bzhed, possibly the Dqonqe-pa

It should also be pointed out that Bsod-namsrtse-mo's (1142-1182) choe-la 'jug-pa'i-sgo" SSBBZ" p. 343/1/2-3/2, which deals with the early, pre-Glang-dar-ma history of Buddhism in Tibet, is silent on this debate. Vostrikov (1970: 140) has perceptively noted that this passage as well as the passages on pp. 342/3/1-343/1/2 and pp. 343/3/2-344/2/6 may be considered as forerunners of the later histories of BUddhism.

Misce Ll.anea to a Recent Cpntribution/151 rab-qeal., and Bu-ston.

The Sba-bzhed

is undoubtedly

one of the

oldest sources for this period of Tibetan history; unfortunately, it has been considerably difficult, originally probably tampered with over time, making it quite if not impossible, to determine what it may have looked like.4 The Dgongs-pa rob-qeal: and Bu-ston are indebted to this work for their

in large measure

accounts of the disputes. In any event, the most fundamental not objective facts. tools for anyone who However, these are

wants to do history are written documents.

They have their own history, meaning that to their subsequent users. To

they were written for a specific purpose which, more often than not, is far from transparent


The structure of the PT is as follows: (a) (b) (c) (~) (e) A programmatic preamble and summary in verse and prose: fols. l13a/4-ll4a/2. Quotation Quotation from the Rba-bzhed: fols. l14a/2-ll9b/5. from Bu-ston: fol. 119/5 = Bu-ston


Brief discussion l19b/5-l20a/5.

on the nature of Buddhism: fols.

Different versions of the Rba-bzhed cited and put into the ~ontext of b.; these include passages that are also found in the Dqonqe-pa rab-qeal: (see Appendix): fol. l20a/5-l20b/7. Discussion as to which position is ultimately correct': fols. l20b/7-l22b/l. Quotation from the Rba-bzhed debate: fol. l22b/1-7. on the aftermath of the

(f) (g)

A study of especially sections d-f should include a comparison

with the observations made by his teacher, the eighth Rgyaldbang Karma-pa Mi-bskyod rdo-rje (1507-1554) in his no-chana dang 'dres-pa'i don- 'jug-gtsugs-su bstan-pa contained in the RnaZ'byor rgyud-kyi imam-behad eoqe, Vol 3, Thimphu, 197~, pp.4l'9-436. See Appendix.


5. they wrote. 6. and the of. written sources. 3. a great deal of textual criticism. 1-13).152/Kailash determine this purpose. (pp. pp. of a private nature. covering of implicit cross-references. 99-100 Deb-ther dmar-po gsar~ma 101-103 Bod-kyi deb-ther dpyid-kyi rgyal-mo'i glu-dbyangs 104-109 Rgyal-rabs gsal-ba'i me-long it contains a list of bibliographical and indices abbreviations In addition. -. however. as Houston would have one believe. to be sure. modicum of their own sensibility to what.on's volume can be divided into two main sections. .all of these may render it possible to corne closer to the historical event in question. in Tibet. and annotations second consists of editions and translations to. or deletions readings when compared with cognate documents. probably some oral traditions. and requires. one cannot discount the high of certain oral traditions as sources for historical And this makes everything hopelessly complicated. or at least to make an attempt at this. one must question why no. It is thus. and added a Houst. The first of these is a brief introduction (pp. passages from the following Tibetan texts: 1. (1290-1364) or since these are. 2. ix-x) and a bibliography (pp. 14-56 Mkhas-pa'i dga'-ston (hereafter PT) 57-87 Sba-bzhed (hereafter BZ) 88-98 Bu-ston ehos-'byung (hereafter Bu-ston) . hardly conceivable what had transpired that Bu-ston Rin-chep-grub Dpal-bo gtsug-lag rin-chen phreng-ba (1504-1566) remembered They used in Tibet during the second half of the eighth century. among a host The unwholly identical or is by no means an easy undertaking of other things. 6 was included in this volume. Given the extremely high costs for printing anything these days. 4. wholly different obvious interpolations Particularly probability statements. 110-122).

been analysed by Tucci analyses. this is not the in one single volume. 1 was to bring all the sources together in one volume. 3). ler is not without its problems. Houston Presumably~ the reason for its inclusion is a "source book" (pp. over the 'corrected' version of Houston. as for the corpus of literature devoted to the Bs~myas debate that Houston has made use of -. However. and some Those listed under nos. 1).edited and properly case. would be the following: transcribed. 1 and 2 have to some extent in respect to philological (1958: 8 ff. particularly it is useful to have their Tibetan texts As shall be shown.. but Houston: some corrections".and throughout I shall proceed under the supposition that something of a debate or a series of debates did in fact take place -. Nos.). are quite insignificant than a footnote or two. and which have been around for a fairly long time.Miscellanea to a Recent Contioibution/153 since Houston had already published an article on the relevant passage from this book (see his "Tne Bsam-yas Debate: Accordme-l. provided that these are correctly. decided to render it anew with Although the translation of Obermilit still is by far preferable (p. 4 and 5 that he has only utilized the of these are barely relevant. with clarifying NOw. once again. in themselves and deserve little more No.it is clear most obvious sources. Some of the sources which Houston might have used. since implies that his monograph and 10) in that it: "presents all the major texts that treat a particular problem in (sic !) critical edition and translation notes". the relevant passage could very easily have been treated in the form of some brief footnotes. 209-216).. but a great deal more work needs to be done. Obermiller.onq". (p. CentraZ Asiatic Journal 14 ing to the RgyaZ-rabs gsal-ba'i (1974). . however. 3 has already been translated by ".

309/2/5-3/5 pp. The passage in question occurs in the context of Sa-skya Pandi ta' s explication of discriminative awareness (ehee-rab. the Introduction to the text-gives 772 as his year of birth on the basis of the notice given in Bdud+ 'joms Rin-po-che' s History of the Rnying-ma-pa School. the sixth paramita. it is 'unlikely that Sa-skya Pandi ta had simply made this up. the Dgongs-pa »ab-qeal: is cited in the PT. or one has borrowed from the other.'Bat=bzhed. This conclusion is difficult to maintain in the light of two facts. note 93) is inclined to place his floruit around the turn of the tenth century. in its own words (p. occurring on p. 24/4/5-25/4/2 5. Gnubs Sangs-rgyas Sgom-gyi-gnad Smanrtsis 2. takes the MahZiyana-sutral(J)'[l'kara as its foundation.154/Kailash 1. gsal-bar ye-shes phye-ba (772-?) bsam-gtan mig-sgron. 25/4/2 of the text. b. The same holds also for Jackson's assertion on p.and~ on the basis of the observations made in the Appendix to thi~ paper. prGjnaJ. Either both derive their information from a common source. 74. The dates for Gnubs are problematic. which can only mean one of two things. . In the first place. Rather. 65-186. Firstly. Furthermore.some of his statements in the commentary need to be somewhat corrected. 94 that " •••it is safest to assume that the speech attributed to Kamalasila by Sa-skya Pandita reflects more closely what a Buddhist logician (like·Sa-skya Panditai LvdK) would like the acarya to have said than what·ne actually said". In view of the relative brevity of the passages in the Bka '<thanq ede-Lnqa.5 (1182-1251) Sa-skya Pa~9ita Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan a. 1/4/2-4). is not "possibly the oldest Tibetan history of Buddhism" (p. I would be tentatively inclined to hold that the latter is based on Gnubs' text. it is a work on Buddhist Mahayana theory and practice which. Jackson concludes on p.see Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan (19~0: 72-75) -. pp. This passage has been translated with a commentary by Jackson (1982: 89~99). 98 that. the speech is also found in the recently published manuscript of the Sba-behed -. Karmay (1980: 24. Although the translation is on the whole satisfactory -. while Houston failed to mention this. Sdom-qeum »ab-tiu dbye-ba Dgongs-pa rab-qeal: 6 p. Leh: Shesrig Spendzod. 93). Vol. The passages of the Bka/=thanq ede-Lnqa cited in Tucci (1958: 68-81) have their parallels in this text. has been overlooked -. and explicates the stages on the Bodhisattva path (p. This cannot be conclusively' proven or dis- 6. the Dqonqe-pa rab-qeal. 50/1/5).

The following notes are designed principally to call attention to this fascinating work. 1971. 171/2/1-l73/4/6 Go-rams-pa Rig-'dzin Tshe-dbang nor-bu Rgya-nag hva-shang-gi 'byung-tshuZ Ldan-ma Blo-bzang rdo-rje 8 (1698-1755) (20th cent. 414/3/5-6 3. Secondly. I. p. 158 in The Col-lected Works 8.MisceZZanea to a Recent Contribution/155 c. and make no pretense to an exhaustive study of it. that he was unable to locate the expression dkan-po cig (var. ~amalasIla was indeed one of the finest postDharmakirti Buddhist logicians as is evinced by his panjika to Santirak~i ta 's Tat tvaeamqraha and his Madhyamak?1Zoka. it can be found mentioned in the chapter on commi tment (dam-tehiq. note 10'.leeted Works of Sqam-po-pa Bsod-name trin-chen. . Tshe-dbang nor -bu I s little text is found as no. 769/7. 273/3-316/4. p . d.) Skyabs-rje pha-bong-kha-pa chab-mdor bzhugs-skabs snyansgron-du gsoZ-zer-ba'i yig-rdzus-kyi dpyad-don mchan-bus bkroZ-ba dpyod-Zdan bzhin-'dzum dgos-pa'i tha-skad rnga-chen bskuZ-ba'i dbyu-gu~ in Three Texts RefZe~ting the Views of Pha-bong-kha-pa Bde-chen snying-po proven. although Jackson suggests on p.. The Rgya-nag hva-shang-gi byung-tshuZ~ the full title' of which is Rgya-nag hva-shang-gi byung-tshuZ grub-mtha'i phyogs-snga-bcas should be of considerable interest to the historian of Tibetan Buddhism. 331/4/6-332/1/5 p. I owe this reference to Gene Smith. 5. sa-bon-tsam smos-pa yid-kyi dri-ma dag-byed dge-ba'i chu-rgyun~ . 472/3.see the col. can be found in Sgam-po-pa Bsod-nams rin-chen' s (1079-1153) Rje phaq-mo-qrutb i-pa+i. Vol. which is also used to refer to a medicinal herb. samayaJ of his provocative Phyag-rgya chen-po'i Lam-mchoq mthar--tihuq. 98. written by Spos-khang-pa Rin-chen rgyal-mtshan who had been a disciple of Bla-ma dam-pa Bsod~nams rgyal-mtshan (1312-1375).: g'Cig) tihub-pa in the collected works of Zhang G. 1975. V. Moreover. but there is strong evidence that the citations of the PT and the Spoe-khanq-pa p.4. Delhi. Delhi. as well as to those involved in the study of the Tibetan perceptions of the possible connections between Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism. 295/1-3 are based on manuscript traditions of the sba-bshed that have not yet come to light. yu-brag-pa Brtson-'grus grags-pa (1123-1193). Vol. The same expression. Go-rams-pa Bsod-nams seng-ge (1429-1489) 7 pp. The passage in question is a longish commentary to the above mentioned Sdom-qeum rab-tu dbye-ba reference. contained in the Gdame-nqaq-mdzod. Much of it is based on the Spos-khang-pa pp. Skyes-kJu dam-pa clo-bo pp. dx-i e-Lan -. 7.

Moreover. he then embarks on a theoretical evaluation of the Chinese Buddhist doctrines that left their mark in Tibet.156/KaiZash (qeunq. I. The manuscript is unfortunately incomplete. 431/3 according to the Sanskrit equivalent of his name "N~thasar ana'". 1977.. 443-444) is missing. pp. The motive that underlies the composition of the Rgya-nag hva-shang-gi byung-tshuZ is transparent from the text itself. Having.Tucci (1958: 68-69) plus the three lines immediately preceding Tucci's text -. Tshe-dbang nor-bu sent a letter to Mgon-poskyabs in China with questions relating to this work -see Rgya-nag-tu gung mgon-po-skyabs-Za dri-ba mdzad-pa. laid the historical foundations. 1744 (ston-gyi zl.'dz in Tehe-dbanq non-bu.'dzin ehen-po Tehe-dbanq non-bu. Darjeeling. Vol. For much of .'bum) of Kah-tihoq rig. Tshe-dbang nor-bu apparently relied on the history of Buddhism in China.a-ba+i: dkar-phyogs-kyi rgyaZ-ba qeum-pa of the wood -. Thus. the information about Chinese Buddhism. 420-450. V. folio 13 (pp. The latter had sent this important work to Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas (1699/1700-1774) and Tshe-dbang nor-bu for their comments and suggestions. in The SeZected Works of Ka"(t-thog rig. And the latter cites him on p. he calmly assesses the merits of Chinese Buddhism by pointing out that its principal traditions can be traced back to the historical Buddha himself. His work is entitled the Rgya-nag-gi yuZ-du dam-pa+i-ohoe dar-tshuZ gtso-bor bshad-pa bZo-gsaZ kun-tu dge-ba'i rna-rgyan~ and was edited and published by the late Namgyal Dorji Dalarnaps The Penetration and Spread of Buddhism in china. and shows to what extent these are different from. byung-tshuZ cites two passages from the Bka '-thang ede-Lnqa -. to the effect of these having been contaminated by the early Chinese Buddhists in Tibet. pp..po-skyabs belonged to the highest of Mongol nobility.and refers twice to Gnubs Sangs-rgyas ye-shes' Beam-qtian mig-gi beam-qtan.'greZ (pp~ 434/3 and 445/5). 1969 .see. Three years after the completion of the Rgya-nag hva-shang-gi biamq-Eehul-. 723-732. and similar to. It was written or completed by 'I'she-dbang nor-bu on the twenty-second of June.male-mouse year) -. Vol. pre-fixed by Ching-gir-gung~ indicative that Mgon. that had been written some eight years before in 1736 (?) by Mgon-po-skyabs in China. Cone:eived as a rejoinder to statements made by those Tibetans who had levelled accusations against certain forms of Rnying-ma~pa and Bka'-brgyud-pa doctrines. the Rgya-nag hua-eharup-qi. Instead. Dalhousie. which is probably identical with our first additional source on/to the Bsam-yas debate that figures above (see also note 5). he isolates three . some of the Rnying-ma-pa and Bka'-brgyud-pa teachings. Berkeley. Tshe-dbang nor-bu tries not to disprove those claims.in the Ljon-pa valley of Kong-po.as calculated for the new phug-pa calendar according to the tables found in Schuh (1973) -. 1973.

9 It should perhaps be emphasized no means exhaustive. of Chinese Buddhism: {b)rgyud-pa srol-'dzin {b)rgyud pp. 146/4 -.see p . 1977. and that. Ci ting the Bka'thang ede-Lnqa and elaborating on the historicity cf Chinese teachers in Tibet. Tshe-dbang nor-bu holds him to be equivalent to the Dharmottara of the Bka'-thang ede-Lnqa passage-see Tucci (1958: 68).zab-mo l. including the relevant passages from the chapter on the Rnying-ma-pa of the famous Grub-mtha. of course. is identical to Bodhidharma. pp.423-425 pp. 2.Miscellanea on the Questions of Heresies to a Recent Contribution/157 Relations in Tibet. 173/5 -. Gnubs Sangs-rgyas ye-shes. and Intersectarian New Delhi. it is the most sublime (mchoq) and excellent (phul=du gyurpa). lines of transmission Chinese Chinese Chinese madhyamaka -. 432/2-3. 130/1. for obvious reasons. 177/5 and.citing a text (mdo?) of (Hva-shang) Mahayan :.' shel-gyi me-long .an rgya-lung chen-po of (Hva-shang) Mahayan : -. he gives a brief biography of Bodhidharmottara (Byang~chub chos-kyi bla-ma) who. he then commences his theoretical discussion which. here that this listing is by to me. moreover. several Dge-lugs-pa works that have gone unnoticed by Houston. nor interrupted at any time (bar-rna-chad). see his work. pp. and he explicitly states that the line that descended from him was neither impaired (marujamel . I will not try to summarize. only cites him in his discussion of the "Instantanialists". 150/2.ta-ba yogacara chan • rgya-chen nyams-len spyod-pa'i bsgom-pa'i In the latter passage. 3. the founder of chan Buddhism. on p. One further point should be noted. of the other manifestations of Chinese Buddhism. 122/3. 9. on the other hand.this work is cited also on pp. 145/5 -.citing a Beam-qt. 108-128. however. in the context of the occurrence of Hvashariq Mahayana in the Bka '-thang ede-Lnqa.citing the Beqom-Lunq written by Hva-shang Mahayana. This work cites. in addition to the texts included in number 2.425-427 pp. possibly. He also is not adverse to drawing parallels between th~ "seven-fold Indian line of transmission" and the "seven-fold Chinese line of transmission" of teachings that functioned as sources for some of the "oral instruction" (man-nqaq ) of the Rnying-ma-pa -.426-43l in that it represents only those pertinent texts that are directly available principal 1. 179/1. Hva-shang Mahayana is referred to in the section of the "Gradualists" as well as in that of the "Instantanialists". 164/6.

Vol.. he himself His study of texts studies" the "field by comparing different dC?es not quite live up to this in the present volume. to-some extent. evinces little of the kind of analysis and comparison that one can now corne to expect in this field. 10 where Houston we can see accounts.ed his own particular system by degree Boo chro- nicler tells us that the Tibetans learned the Hva-shang's (sic !). 114/3 it mistakenly attributes the section of the Dqonqe-pa rab-qeal: 'to Sa-skya Pa~l(~i s Mkhas-pa-Za 'Jug-pa'i-sgo. I have not been able to find this text in Bu-ston' s co lLec t. bel.158/KaiZash While Houston repeatedly to engage in "comparative admonishes his fellow Tibetanists (pp. ta' and also cites an interesting portiooof a reply of Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub. by inquiry. of thaZ". aside from the summary of the se- (pp. 5-8). Collected Works. have warranted their reproduction. 26.. The statement. 2) " • it is or 1 ff. items reflected in the individual hosto.. to a question of a certain Dge-bshes Nyi-ma.115a/1-2: choe-La bel-abe ste.. is found on p. Indeed. On p.see Thams-cad mkhyen-pa'i bu-ston rin-po-che'i gsung-thor-bu. 8~7. at least stands or kho'i falls with the interpretation occur in the PT fol. in- depth analyses' of the sources used by him would.ians' . the passage of the PT is in tfact found in the first lo~g citation by Thu'u-bkvan Blo-bzang chos-kyi nyi-ma. bod-kyi argument. 1971. . 1 and 10) and to advanc~ texts" (p. the most likely candidate for its occurrence being in the collection of letters and replies to doctrinal questions -.abe as these thaZ-gyis ban-dhe rit-po Al though Houston does not mention this. Apart from some conceptual clear that Houston's problems with this statement. but the other historians tell (sic!) learned it straight away.. BZ section) is that the compiler of the Boobzhed demonatir at. Bu-eion us that the Tibetan quickly (PT l55a. but the only attempt at some sort of a critical quence of events writes: "However.edworks. (see note 12. LvdK)."gyis and . Delhi. initially.this (I am not sure what Houston means One instance that I observed bias. 10).

and the Bpoe-khanq-pa emended to rim-gyis. of the PT. 48 is probably due to an oversight. translation: (the Chinese) method". but rather between two different versions But do these really say different of the former. 7-8). either as 'to learn' or 'to study'. Sba and Rba are". of course. that: studied his doctrine". is not sufficiently the syntactic. for the main problem with Houston's remarks are that they are based on a certain semantic insensitivity towards the Tibetan verb slob-pa. 54/ 172/3/4 should be / The exact same phrase also occurs' in Go-rams-pap. on the one hand. BZ reading of the BZ. Houston's Sba-bzhed on p .riZ~gyis been riZ-po thaZ-gyis. to a Recent Contribution/159 the Rba-bzhed. 92). which can be glossed It is clear that Houston . about the speed teachings spread in Tibet. Tibet(ans)· gra4ually sZob/. and The or. Thus. however. the issue is not between Bu-ston the sba-behed as in BZ. Houston's and learned (bod phal.gyis kho 'L-ohoe-la p. became proficient Tibetans). One could surmize that the reading of the whereby the contracThe reading More- latter had originally tion to riZ-gyis over. do not believe they do. and fails to adequately accomodate 'gerundizing' function of ei:e and the referents of de-La and de'i . Bu-eton . p. have anything was effected by a careless scribe. p . is not identical with that (bod rim". studied its method ete de+i=luqe "Tibet for the most part enjoyed (p. homophonous. 887/2 neither . sources used by Houston have anything to None of the remaining say about this matter. more precisely. and the PT and things? I on the other. does not support such a conjecture.. accurate delighting rather that: "The greater part of Tibet (or: studied his method)". on the other hand.:.-ohe» in that (meditation)... contrary to Houston's analysis.Miscellanea ofa vez s Lon of the Sba-bzhed. hence. sZob/). of Go-rame-pa. 289/6 where. since this is the ortbog~aphy employed in the edition Houston had at his disposal. for it clearly states. with which Hva-shang's asserts anything. of course. nor does it in these. It suggests to say about the rate at which the Tibetans (or: The majority of de-La dga' learned and.

that King Khri-srong "Hva-shang Mahiy~na lde-btsan had the 'Gradualists' win because was not interested (p. pretation. it is hardly likely that between Hva-shang's the for the debates. But these two expressions which to my mind would be more in consonence If we translate bsZabs by 'studied' as an ongoing then the "All the Tibetan learning process. in the some- in or having mastered did so straight away or quickly aqmit of another interwith the (thal-gyis). difficult monstrate Surely. should also from this reinterpretation to Houston's take exception formulation ceptual grounds. 52. (see note remark at face value. Moreover. and that the Tibetans 'learned'. Had Houston analyzed his sources.. (p. it is if we take Houston's to imagine how the author of the Sba-bzhed could dehis particular statement bias vis-a-vis subsequent historians. in particular.abe ingly studied his doctrine". he would not have made such a remark. and it is therefore hardly surprising that the 'Gradualists' should find themselves to be numerically at quite . 9) and that . PT fol. short interval the meditational techniques It surely takes longer than a couple of Thus. context. l15a/1-2 states: in :the relatively bandhe-s unhesi tatarrival Tibetans he had bal. This fact and the fact that the Houston's Carteresque in ethics" appeal 'Gradualists' won out over the other party should really make one ponder as to the why of it all. there would be no conflict two passages. there are no real grounds for assuming text like the Sba-behed has one author. between these of the PT. not many are needed to defeat all (sic !) the is puzzling. again that the system of the Chinese support in Tibet. if.. note 41): "Since the Gradualists The texts stress over and over found widespread appeal and are the good guys. and thaZ-gyis by 'unhesitatingly'.160/Kailash has taken its perfect form of bslabs to signify sense of having attained proficiency thing. that a composite 4). become a Apart eqom-chenl Indeed. one on con- is read in this way. a disadvantage. Houston's Chinese party". in Tibet and the preparations could really have mastered been teaching years to them.

of the Tibetan ly smooth.121b/l~3 .Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution/161 9}. 45}: Concerning Nagarjuna.ea bar/rgyal par 'byin par gsungs//ces sman lta bur gsungs cing/rgyan ba xmame kyi stong pa nyid/ /Lta kun nges ba'i rnyigs rna sel ba'i bkru pa nyid stug po bkod pa'i mdo las kyang/lus can stong nyid nilba rnams la yod pa yi//lta ba rnam par spang ba'i phyir//stong kyi tshul bstan to/Ices bshad doll Houston renders it as follows "The abbot lVagarjuna. of all living . {the Buddha} nounce the doctrine which is in the possession Thus. into a straight jacket of ungrammatical.ka-kax-ika {sic}: doctrines. Houston's originals a first editions and transcriptions of his sources are only against the Unfortunately reliable to a point. the originals are transposed prose that is often inelegant and occasionally my point. is rather unconvincing.mkhan po bo dhi sa tva ni 'phags pa klu sgrub kyi lugs 'dzin pa yin La des ni dbu ma x-t. Santraksita {p. it is preached". I. Frequently. "In order to completely has shown the method of re- removes degeneration From the Ghanavyuhasutra: beings sunyata". but not all. following three passages have been taken at random to illustrate PT foZ. {sar?rin}.. {sic !} held to the method of arya it is said in the MUlamadhya{=Buddhas} have pronounced that with respect to all mi. Tibetan grammatical the same must be said of his translations.. sunyata . is conducive to deliverance Sunyata is said to be a cleansing medicine which {sic} of the doctrine". hence they need to be rechecked every time one wishes to make use of them. which bear the marks of relations are is stylisticalThe ignored and while most.. "All jinas . "he wanted to raise the ethical standards of his country"(p. draft.

10. (suggests) sunyata to be like a cleansing medicine has stated: "The mode of sunyata holy Nagarjuna. however. T. Houston has also misunderstood the syntactic function of La in the quotation from the Ghanavyuhasutra. Ghanairfiihaeictra that removes the degeneratiQn taught in view of ~thoroughly removing the view of existence (that is present) in embodied beings".hearanam jinaihl. this. See de Jong (1977: 18) and'the references to Indian texts in which the entire verse is cited in Ehrhard (1982: 85). kyis.his me an s that rgyaZ-ba imame-kijie to conform with in India with no xmame-. oI . bodhisattva of the position of the (Santirak~ita) was a follower he has said that with all and also the has been I have. should be read in conjunction with (cing!) the foregoing.lO to jinai~. moreover. Hence.a to gsungs rgyaZ-ba sarvadf?tIn"GJ. a more apt translation would read something like this: '·While the abbot.l prokta should be corrected the plural instrumental which Houston evidently translated.162 Kailash While Houston did not verify this. the PT is quoting the MUlamadhyamakakarika rnams-kyi XIII: 8a-b for which the Sanskrit reads: sunyata ni. 161b/l) rgyaZ-ba If he had checked the Sanskrit text of Nagarjuna greater familiarity with Tibetan would also be sufficient Houston would have realised that the passage from des should be put in indirect discours~ and MuZamadhyamakakarika XIII: 8a-b. not been able " (the sta ternen t) in the MUZamadhyamaka (kar-ika) : "Sunyata has been Ones for dispensing of opinion(s). . reads (f The version of the PT available to me. published date or place of publication. stated by the ~ictorious opinions". involves a comment allegedly made by "'Santirak~ita recognized that it on the "'to locate such a passage in Santirak~ita's oeuvre to which Dpa'bo gtsug-lag seems to refer.

121b13_611 'phaqe pa klu'i rjes eu 'branq ba rgyal Bras zhi ba'i Lhae kyang rmongspa sdug sngal can don du II . . who have become perfected while remaining sCl1!lsara~ this is the result - in There- ('bras-bu).kho» bar qnae pa 'grub ' gyur ba II 'dini stong nyid 'bras bu yin II de bas stong pa nyid phyogs la II sun 'byin pa ni 'thad ma yin II des na the tshom mi za bar II stongpa nyid ni bsgom par bya II nyon mongs shes bya'i sgrib pa yi mun pa'i gnyen po stong pa nyidll myur du thams cad mkhyen 'dod pas de ni ji ltar sgom mi byed II dngos de la stong de la (53a) (53c) (53d) (54a) (54b) (54c) (54d) I II II II (55a) (55b) (55c) (55d) (56a) (56b) (56c) (56d) gang sdug bsngal skyed byed pa skrag pa skye 'gyur mod II nyid sdug sngal zhi byed pa II 'jigs pa ji Ztar skye II ces bzhed pa yin la slob dpon ka ma la sh~ la'i sgom rim gsum dang dbu ma snang bar stong pa nyid lta ba'i rnyigs ma yin no zhes bris pa 'dug gam ltos cig I Houston (p. fote. PT tol. those who defame the adherents of the sunyata (doctrine) are not acceptable. 45) translates: "The follower of the exalted Nagarjuna~ the prince Santideva~ (says:) "For the sake of (all) who are obscured and afflicted. Thus. of voidness. one should meditate Although there is obscuration 11. upon sunyata without doubt. The division of the Tibetan is mine.Miscellanea to a Recent Contributionl163 II.

Such obvious scribal errors as eduq-enqal. . (53a. skye-'gyur-mod in addition to which Houston has emotions and He also is a Lastly. rnyigs-ma yin which. Sunyata that?" What occurance . The passage from Santideva's 12 -.hemeaning as Houston's transSgrib-pa-yi which is Moreover. The bilingual edition I used is Bhattacharya (1960). rmongs-pas~ which corresponds (55a) has been wrongly emended by Houston to sgrib-pa-yis not supported by the Sanskrit. (shes-bya) by kl. why do (sic!) Since you desire omniscience (upon sunyata)? you not meditate produces misery? (thought). 56c) have not been properly corrected. finally. Houston has also not noticed that the quoted passage omits line chaqe dang 'jigs of verse 53 would be somewhat unintelligible lation bears out. sunyata is the antidote of quickly. concerning accepted.not identified as such by Houston Bodhicaryavatara IX: 53_56 is particularly for sdug-bsngal 53b: corrupt. failed to identify the basic Buddhist conception of the two types namely~ that of the conflicting skye-'gyur-na that of the knowable. it has been and his Dbu-ma enanq-ba (Madhyamakaloka) (sic!) there is no degenera tion of the doctrine of described. How can there be fear While the (aforementioned) has been in the teacher Kama La s Ila's three Bhdvanakramae sunyata. to be sure. Fear will indeed arise from that calms suffering. 56a. rmongs-pa (53a) is not corrected to to the Sanskrit mohena. of obscurations. look (into his books)!" problems The Tibetan text of the PT has a number of philological which Houston chose to overlook. note 31). Thus. 12. Houston has not corrected (Sanskrit: prajayatam).1641Kailash of knowledge darkness.eeae. mtha' las qrol=ba II without which t. does not involve a negation of sorts. (jinaputra) appears to be unaware of the fact that rgyal-sras common synonym for bodhisattva Houston has misinterpreted (see also p. (56b) to And. 83.

In t. (So) why (should there) arise fear of that (sunyata) has it been written in the three Bhdoanakrama-e Madhyamakaloka 13 of sunyata Look 13. The obscuratio~ Is sunyata. bodhi. of the teacher KamalasIla is a degeneration and the that (the doctrine of (philosophical) opinion ? (into these)!" The authorship of this work is somewhat controversial in Tibet. Hence. Sunyata .heSnga'gyur rnying-ma-la rgol-ngan log-rtog betan-bcoe. Klong-chen Rab'byams-pa Dri-med 'od-zer (1308-1363) opined at least at gne stage of his career. demobilizes suffering.eat. si. who is a follower of the holy Nagarjuna. that it was composed by Santiraksi ta -.Santideva. Thus. p. (you) should ~ndoubtedly Medi tate on sunyata.nc (you) quickly wish for omniscience. has also claimed in samsara. of the conflicting emotions and the knowable.Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution/165 A correct translation of this passage would read: "While the Son of the Victorious that: "To remain and accomplish ~ One (. (The~r liberation from the extremes of desire and fear (53b) This is the result of sunyata. 45/5. For the sake of those who suf~er through being deluded. Gangtok.see his Ngal-gso skor-gsum-gyi spyi-don legsbehad rgya-mtsho. . The antidote to the darkness of. ? 'sunyata_.tvai . to reject the domain of Is not correct. 1977. no date. Whereas most scholars subscribe to the (canonical) view that KamalasIla was its author. Leh. ?"_. e Why do (you) not meditate on sunyata If f~ar arises regarding that entity which Brings forth suffering.

including his trip to China which took place towards the end of 1358.. 110/4. and his activities there. 149/1 ff. but the Klonq-chen Rab. however. As far as I am aware.3) sZob dpon ka ma Za si Za Za chos thams cad thos bsam gyis bdag med par gtan Za phob pa'i chos de ji Ztar Zags pa cig yi ger bkod pa zhus pas/ sgom rim dang po brtsams nas btsan po Za gnang / btsan pos (po) gzigs (bzigs) pas don dgongs nas dges te / de'i don gtan gcig gi thog tu bsgom ji Ztar sgom zhus pas / sgom rim bar pa brtsams (brtsoms) nas gnang / attributed to Klong-chen-pa. this work provides some biographical details surrounding the life of the fourth Rgyal-dbang Karma-pa Rolpa'i rdo-rje (1340-1383). 224/5-6 that it was wtitten by Klong-chen Rab-' byams-pa in dpyid-zZa-ra-ba'i beom-Ldan-Jdae-kipie tiehe-Jphrul: chen-poe mu-eteqe-pa-rname pham-par mdzad-pa'i dus-kyi zla-ba'i dkar-phyogs-kyi tshes-bcu'i nyin-pa. is rendered problematic by its citation of several names. The attribution of this defense of Rnyingma-pa teachingsto Klong-chen-pa. BZ p. The numerous other fourteenth century Tibetans who this text refers to. 161/5. Rol-pa'i rdo-rje returned to Tibet in 1362. the MadhyamakaZoka is u~equivocally stated to have been written by Kamalasila see p. bzang Ma-ti PaI}-chen Gzhon-nu blo-gros whose dates are 1358-1424.. I do not know which date is being referred to by this expression.'buame-pa could very well indicate a subsequent 'embodiment' of Dri-med 'od-zer. there is oniy one Tibetan scholar who has been referred to by this name. III.. In addition. renders it in my opinion very unlikely that Klong-chen-pa was the author of the text as it stands. The Tibetan in brackets transcription repro- of the BZthat are 63/5-8 (more or less equivalent to PT 119b/2:. This is the famous Sa . it also mentions the name Ma~ti Pan-chen on p. The colophon states on p.. . duces those words in Houston's not found in this text..166/KaiZash The next passage that I shall briefly consider occurs in the BZ and has a parallel in the first lengthy citation of a version of this text in the PT. On pp.

27. 173/3/2 and the meaning a cushion or pillow. the problems with Houston's translation are demonstrative fundamentals led by that he is not sufficiently Moreover.. 173/3/2 and the Spoe-khanq-pa p. the latter is. »ame-pa p. (this first book). and Again. of this passage of Tibetan grammar. "What is the doctrine? he asked that.Miscellanea Houston translates (p. 299/3. (Because and (and meditating Establish (The emperor asked: composed the First Bhiiuaniikrama. l19b/2) . are numerous. l19b/3. I believe. for this passage To adopt this reading. He has also followed of stan which has its phonetic equivalent in the PT fol. note 65).la) gave it to the emperor. PT fol. 75): to a Recent Contribution/167 "(The emperor) requested Kamalas1. but (perform this) meditation?" Bhiioaniikrama. 299/5. which is a Lect-io faci"lior.. is no doubt contextually preferable to gtanwhich is quite meaningless lation would therefore be: "Since A more adequate trans- (the King) asked the teacher KamalsIla clarified to lay down which in writing what (the essence) of that doctrine (chos). Spos-khang-pa The reading of stan. wrongly corrected by him to gtan (p."la to reduce all religious books to the anatma system reflecting tbeami . that is. something to sit on while is attested to in the co-rame-pa p . meditating. he asked: how The emperor was very happy after h~ "If I am to should I the systematic meaning. had examined meditate Middle upon a unique (which includes) learning sgom) ~ it in writing!" (thos). Tucci in reading gtan. p . both of which support the reading of the BZ. l19b/2: thos beam sgom qeum. familiar with the (1958: 41). (Then Kama"las1. Houston has been misin Tucci the paraphrases Houston evidently decided to include sgom in the first Tibetan sentence On the basis of the only major variant found in the PT fol. Kamalabl."la) composed and gave it (to the emperor)". has been analytically (I read phab. is problematic in the light of the Go. Stan here..

Gangtok. these are rather poor. Gter~bdag gling-pa Moreover. Chandra -. 1405.. The precedent for this is the wrong titling of this text of a manuscript published by L. only a For one. An improve~ent over the text published by the Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. (1478-1554) Annals.by the Red In terms of its contents. contains a number of wrong or misleading for Bu-ston in 1322.11 of course. gave (he) asked (chos) as non-ontological (it) to the King. this work is essentially update of Tshal-pa Kun+dqa ' rdo-rje' s (1309-1364) Deb=the» dmar-po the Red Annals15 -.. This. the latter's religious 14. 2). and. is not the case. . which includes extensive annotations (mchan-Lqx-el ) by Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. duction impressions made by Houston's work. relying on dated secondary sources. Again.whereby. i~ the recently published edition of the People's Publishing House. Houston also suggests is given as 1347 (p.) having composed the First BhaThe King reading (but) since happy after he had thought about the intent. 14 Padma-gling-pa's The disciple and teacher of the fifth Dalai Lama was (1634/46-1714). vandkrama. (pp. 3). through study and (it) was is. The date sources Houston has used. will be noted On the whole. dates are 1346 to fifth Dalai Lama was "probably . 1961.168/Kailash all phenomena reflection. whereas it was in fact written that one of the tea6hers of the (p. 1-5) brings absolutely nothing new to bear on the statements. (it to the King) ". (KamalsIla) how to meditate on top of a cushion. and A few last words are in order concerning the Tibetological Buddhological here. however. 1981.Pad ma gling pa •••.see Houston p. the intro- few instances that immediately drew my attention. 115. (KamalsIla.. gave (when) meditating (on) its meaning (the latter) having composed the Second Bhduanakrama.the New Red Annals-. he prefers to denote Pa~-chen Bsod-nams grags-pa's an Deb-the» dmar-po qear--ma -. Beijing. 15.

of course... Karmay 1-2. to a Reaent Contribution/169 Tibetan Buddhist schools is virtually Instead.. among others. making his work the first fulledged political But.this has Pal}<.. 887/5-7 and the PT fol. "are not known to present Tibetan scholarship". can be found in Sa-skya It appears that Houston que Bu-ston attribue au of these -. (p.•la liste d'ouvrages been completely misunderstood p.the (1617-1682). 34) -. Bu-ston p. Bu-ston's in speaking of " . note 6). which appears in Houston's bibliography have attributed to Hva-shang Mahayana. '93 (see also The relevant pas- quite closely to that given by Sa-skya Pal}<. and suggests a borrowing of sorts.lita.lita's Skyes-bu dam-pa p. Bsod-nams grags-pa concentrates on the polhistory in Tibetan literature. contrary to Tucci Houston (pp. sage of the Skyes-bu dam-pa states: rgya nag mkhan po . l16a/ And this (1975: (1982: 98. has been repeated in Jackson 153).corresponds (1981: 185) has also persisted description by Houston on p. 332/1/1-2. who is cited by itical fortunes of Central Tibet's ruling classes. was unaware of this. etc) -. and Kimura maitre chinois". (1971: xiii).MisaeUanea history of the different ignored. Houston Mahayana (p. 4. that the list of books which Bu-ston. 180. 5) states that the books attributed to Hva-shang by..Tucci (1971: 174. for instance. New Red Annal-e hardly deals with the main Bsod~nams grags-pa makes it quite clear events of Central Tibetan history up to the time of the fifth Dalai Lama on several occasions. has pointed out.5) .bsam gtan nyaZ ba'i 'khor Zo / de'i grwd ston pa bsam gtan gyi Zon / de'i gegs seZ ba bsam gtan gyi yang Zon / de'i gdams ngag rigs pas sgrub pa Za Zta ba'i rgyab sha / de Zung gis sfJPUbpa Za mdo sde brgyad au khungs zhes bya ba bstan baos Znga byas / . 112).that is. some eighty years prior to the birth of the Great Fifth. that his work was written in 1538 -..

25/3/2.16 16. 25/3/4. 24/1/5 25/3/6 25/3/6 GZ 0. The following references to Chinese Buddhism can be found in Sa-skya PaI}9itaI s.a~seems (1981: 185-186)·. establish (a) Bsam-gtan showing its essence. objections regarding to establish its oral khunqe to ins tructions by reasoning.but his reasons for this are not clear. 414/3/5 Sdom-gsum »ab-dbue p. 85.. Chinese monk Dgongs-pa »ab-qeal: p.writings: a.. 25/2/1. 25/3/5.Wolun in Stein chinois l4~4 -.Kimura Texts band e (1981: (1975: 153) has pointed out that P~lliot chanshi -. (rgya-nag mkhan-po) 25/4/1 (rgya-nag mkhan-po) Sdom-gsum »ab-dbue p.. 186-187) has convincingly so-calledZhujing yaochao to pelliot tibetain 117 and 996. Chinese abbot Dgongs-pa »ab-qeal: pp. 309/3/4 (rgya-nag mkhan-po) Skyes-bu dam-pa p.. the absence of names to Chinese Buddhism or Buddhists holds for all the references found in his works. 331/4/6 (rgya-nag-gi dge-sZong) fha-shang) {rgya-nag (na-re)) (rgya-nag ha-shang) (rgya-nag dge-sZong) .whose work is preserved tibetain 811 also refers to this man and his work.l?O/KaiZash "The Chinese abbot . 24/4/5-6). Contrary (1975: 152-153).••composed five treatises: nyaZ-ba'i 'kho» 'Zo~ (b) Beam-qvan-qiji=lon. bo p.309/3/2 b. The first of these. Karmay correspond to be a name of a Chan master -. and (e) Mdo-sde brgyad-cu it through scriptural authority". no. 25/1/4. 2819). Sa-skya Pa~~ita does not provide any In the parallel passage of names for the author of these texts. the Dgongs-pa »ab-qeal . shown that e is closely related to the The explicit attribution to Karmay of these texts to Hva-shang Mahayana starts with Bu-ston. Sa-skya Pa~~ita suggests these to have been composed by a Chinese monk (rgya-nag-gi dqe-elonq) (p. in which these texts are also enumerated. and Kimura (Taisho~ Vol. yang-Zon~ eliminating (d) Lta-ba'i rgyab-sha (c) Bsam-gtan-gyi that (work =a).

309/2/6 17 . pp. and practices contained in these and under The names for the doctrines texts. see the Dgongs-pa »ab-qeal. New Delhi. 309/3/4 -5 Chinese rdzogs-chen Sdom-gswn »ab-dbue p. (rgya-nag lugs-kyi (rgya-nag chos-lugs) »dzoqe-ohen) For parallel passages. a11as Ne u Pand i. Shakabpa. 1974.D. can also be found in Grags-pa smon-lam blo-gros. Sngon-gyi-gtam me-tog phrenq-ba in Rare Tibetan Histor~cal and Literary Texts from the Library of Tsepon W. . make absolutely no mention of either the Rnying-ma-pa wi th their' comments on this passage. difference in the intent". of the or Bon-po in connection The Sdom-gswn »ab-tu dbye-ba except for having changed the names of there is no particular 'descending from above' and 'ascending from below. the subsequent Sa-skya-pa scholar-commentators after all. Sa-skya Pa~9ita continues a little further down by saying that some of the writings of the Chinese were recovered from their place of confinement after the collapse of the Tibetan Kingdom. were then changed to mahamudra (phyag-rgya chen-po) c. has been recently more or less repeated by Jackson While such an interpretation This of what Sa-skya Pandita had said rab-g-sa-.L or Dge~ who. ..t. stood in the tradition of this work. Sa-skya Pa~gita was criticizing »dzoqe-ohen teachings of the Rnying-ma-pa and the Bon+po . Chinese Buddhism Sdom-gswn rab-dbye p.was current especially among the Dge-ldan-pa lugs-pa.17 to 'gradualist' and 'instantanealist'.e s I. 309/2/5-6 states: "As for present-day mahamudra and the rdzoqe-ohen Chinese position. (1982: 95). in this text -. d.that.a . in the pasthe sage of the Sdom-gswn »ab-tu dbye-ba cited above as an early source on/to the Bsam-yas debate. se r i.see also the parallel in the Dgongs-pa passage -.Miscellanea This may also be the appropriate Karmay's suggestion -.Karmay to a Recent Contribution/1?1 on place to brieflycomm~nt (1975: 152) -. 25/2/2 f. 100/4-101/3. A very brief account relating the debate to mahamudra ~enets. p.

This little work. for he translates: "spiritual advices (upadesa) which are called: 'The Great Perfection Garland School'. In his perception. see the Man-:ngag Zta-ba'i phrenq-ba zhes-bya-ba'i 'greZ-pa. 207.) has misread the title as Man-ngag Zta-bu'i phrenq-ba . is contained . was criticizing in stating that these cannot find sanction in the writings of From the context and content of this pasis way off the mark. leaving thereby little doubt as to its age. The PT (fol. And he is emphatic traditions had been contaminated Naropa of Maitripa. and an updated version. see pp.172/KaiZash such guise were propagated majority in Tibet. It would also appear that Dagyay (1979: 29 ff. is cited or referred to by Gnubs Sangs-rgyas ye-shes (see note 5) some four times. 74. it is rather clear that to allege that Sa-skya PaQQita the Rnying-ma-pa. 1974. A few bibliographical remarks concerning this text would thus not: be out place. pp." 18. that. make up the three principal tities of this school. Padmasambhava into the mandala Pronouncements (bka ' -brgyadJ. in terms of its spellings. Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod. she mistranslated as "the line similar to the one of instruction".r-an t i. the of the mahamudri: teachings of the various Bka '-brgyud-pa in this way. 19-124 (the basic text is reproduced on pp. Houston also did not realise that the Man-ngag Zta-ba'i phreng_ba18 is a book.he defeat of the sage. 1-18 of this volume. 29) shows that he did not understand what He is unaware that the bka'-brgyad teachings which. Dealing with the non-Buddhist and Buddhist approaches to spiritual realisation from the mahayoga perspective of the thirteenth chapter of the Guhyagarbhatantra in particular.nq sLa . after t. 196-197. the earliest commentary on it was written by the eleventh century scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi bzang-po. what she misread. initiated the King and his retinue for the spiritual realisation of the Eight and instructed them in the rdzoqe-chen phrenq-ba . and that. 113b/6) mentions Chinese party. 192. Vol. and 238. Houston's rendition refers to teachings of the Man-ngag Zta-ba'i of this passage he was t. attributed to Padmasambhava. together with doctrinal en- a special set of Rnying-ma-pa the 'treasures' (gter-ma-s) vision' and the teachings derived from 'pure (daq-enanq) . (p.

MisceZZanea Another technical Bka-qdame-pa to a Recent Contribution/l?D instance of Houston's lack of basic Tibetological There he says: Dqe-Luqe-pa. pp. by the rather elusive Rog Bande Shes-rab-'od (twelfth cent. and 124 ff. 47/2. No doubt. and it is completely reproduced in the Nges-don 'bruq-eqea.1977. 1979.ye-pa'i »ab-iu byed-pa. BZo-sbyong ql. the Slob-dpon chen-po padma-'byung-gnas-kyis mdzad-pa'i man-ngag Zta-ba'i phreng-ba'i mchan-'greZ non-bu+i bank-mdzod inThe Collected Works of 'Jam-mgon 'Ju Mi-pham rgya-mtsho. Ka. Nemo Leh. 417-463. 94. the Man-ngag Zta-ba'i phreng-bawas contaminated ('dres) with the teachings of Chinese Buddhism -. 53. Vol. It became sverely criticized sometime during the fourteenth century by "Bri-gung Dpal-'dzin. such an accusation should be considered against the background of the problems surrounding the authenticity of the Guhua-qarbhatantira. 'bZo-sbyong' "Bl o-ebijonq is a It is used by TsongThere is a In the first (sic!). pp.8990. 29-84.). 1976.see Gser-mdog Pan-chen p. . 17-27). Vol. 7. Ka.eqe-bam". also suggests a distinctIve indebtedness to Padmasambhava's work on pp. according to Dpal-'dzin. Collected Works. Pp. pp. Gdame nqaq-mdzod. The other comment on the text is the one by Mi-pham rgya-mtsho (1846-1912). The Grub-mtiha ' so-so'i bzhed-tshuZ gzhung gsaZ-bar ston-pa chos-'byung grub-mtha' chen-po bstan-pa'i eqron-ma. which has not yet surfaced. The first of these is Kong-sprul' s Man-ngag lta-ba'i phreng-ba'i tshig-don-gyi 'greZ-zin mdor-bsdus-pa zab-don pad-tshaZ '[. ed. 211/5 and the Nges-don 'brug-sgra fols. skills is his note 50 on p. whose name appears to occur for the first time in the defense of Rnying-ma-pa teachings attributed to Klong-chen Pab-'byams-pa (see note 13). 1979. 23/5 ff. and is enti tIed Choe dang choe ma-yin-pa rnam-par d[. Two other commentaries to the Man-ngag Zta-ba'i phrenq-ba have been published to date. This work was only posthumously edited (and published) by Kun-bzang dpal-ldan in 1919. spiritual and liteiary traditions. is not the prerogative of only the Deg-lugs-pa in Kong-sprul Blo-gros mtha' -yas' (1913-1899).'dzin sdom-pa'i skabs-kyi 'beZ-gtamrnam-par nqee-pa. for example. 1975. Paro.. which showed their face from the eleventh century onward. pp. It is partly cited in Gser-mdog Pa~-chen Sakya-mchog-ldan's (1428-1507) Sdom-pa gsum-gyi rab-tu dbye-ba'i bstan-bcos-kyi 'beZgtam rnam-par nges-pa Zegs-bshad gser-gyi thur-ma . Both of these make it quite clear that. Paro.yed-pa'i nyi-'od. term employed by the (sic!) work entitled kha-pa in the Lam-rim oheri-po place. Vol. and hence counterproductive. Vol. Dpal-'dzin's treatise was directed against what he considered to be spurious. Gdamsnqaq-mdeod. and 52/6 cite an additional commentary by a certain Gtsangstan. Thimphu. 46/7. Gangtok.. 12.Ze'u -gsum-pa rig. 211 ff.

even more expensive contained to get really good One can only feel depressed at the thought of not only what the misinformation will do to the unsuspecting in Houston's volume of reader. one could justifiably query Sba-behed cited by a Karma Bka' -brgyud(gdamsthe Bka'bZo-sbyong teachings were transmitted by These teachings penetrated why it would occur in the to Atisa and form the 'oral instructions' ngag) of the Bka'-gdams-pa. But then. The so. statement comes to mind: arid so. to bring out a philosophical study of Hva-shang Mahayana's . schools via Sgam-po-pa.. bral. and.-ba. published. are either completely (to which a great deal more book is exceedingly the The vast majority of the could be added). called Gser-gling-pa brgyud-pa If it were. which is usually referred to as the BZo-sbyong zhen-bzhi. it more difficult. it seems in this passage is used in the context of any of these possible permutations.. This set of teachings was revealed to the young(1092-1158) by the red-coloured The Jo-nang-pa received (1507-1566). editions and transcriptions unsatisfactory. it is clear that Houston's translations wrong or inaccurate. "hundred at the age of eleven. "Bad publications accepted it as a dissertation. but also at the probability Houston has promised that a really good book dealing with the Tibetan perceptions this debate will be long in forthcoming. moreover. incorporated blo-ebuonq Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po ManjusrI Arapacana both transmissions via 'the great Kun-dga' grol-mchog and became henceforth Instructions' rather unlikely that in the so-called (khrid-brgya) of this school. to be blamed for its appearance 120) perceptive books printed".1?4/KaiZash or the Bka'-gdams-pa. pa monk.. The Sa-skya-pa also have this Mahayana practice. of the Tibetan texts are also rather s~pervisor apparently Nivison's (1980: make One should question ~hy such a book was ever why Houston's for Houston is not the only one in book-form. From the foregoing observations unreliable from most points of view.

to a Recent Contribution/175 Let us hope that by then he will have a suf-in Chinese and Chan Buddhism. as well as a thorough grounding make him equal to the task. 10).Miscellanea position (p. to ficient knowledge of Tibetan and Tibetan intellectual history. .

515/3-6 he was thirty-five). p.here. ferent versions of unequal length existed of the Sbz-bzhed. authentic (dngos) Sba-behed . as well as its my knowledge. Arunchal Pradesh: Tibetan (this work was suggests that (as with the PT. to have been that G. century. Sba-bzhed -. that the Sba-behed dates from the fourteenth This opinion was probably based on the text of by Stein (BZ). . which he had prepared in Lhasa. one reads 'Ba/=bzhed for Bba-bshed (1952: 4. and which was subseIn his introduction to Sba-bzhed to the BZ. published work. on the basis of the Rgyal-bzhed and the 'Banqe-bzhed. and in his to all three are contained Dqonqe-pa »ab-qeal: and p.1?6/Kailash APPENDIX In his posthumously historical cognates.ob-dpon. note 2) suggested. the earliest references -_. like Richardson and Roerich. th~re. Taranatha ferent versions the biography gnas-kyi rnam-par (1575-?) has given a brief analysis of the difof the sba-behed thar-pa gsal-bar in his important inquiry into the Sl. his opinion. written in the twelfth or thirteenth century by a Bka'-gdams-pa Finally. written'when camp 5. Taranatha Nyingmapa Mo~astery. Vostrikov (1970: 24-26) was the first non-Tibetan scholar to have dealt with the text problems that surround the Sba-bzhed. p . Tucci (1958: 7~ note 1) noted that three difBut. 132/1/4 -. he does not give any sources for byed-pa'i also known as the SZob-dpon padma'i in Five Historical \ " tmam-tihar rgya-gar-lugs. dam-pa are mentioned. contained of Padmasambhava. 1974. 25/4/1-2 for indepenthe in Sa-skya Pal}gita' Skyes-bu s Dpa ' -bzhed for Sba-bzhed 'Bangs-bzhed.wa$ an actual. chen-po padma 'byungyi-ge yid-ches gsum-Zdan. To several Tibetan sources in which this text. Works of Tiiraniitha. Roerich considered quently published Stein mentions monk.there. one reads Dbat-sbzhed Richardson dently of Vostrikov.

or to the fact that in cursive raare virtually dbu-med.Taranatha the text known as the Dba '<bzhed suspects. the superscribed which existed indistinguishable) in three versions -. this sa and variant can be either traced back to their phonetic equivalence. Bla-bzhed. one for the ministers.Miscellanea Taranatha's texts also reads Rba-behed to a Recent Contribution/l?? instead of Sba-behed. and the Buddhist were included in the in the RgyaZ-bzhed. however. the ministers.in-rae ston-byed. conclusions Sba Sang-shi. after which extraneous matters This resulted or iginal text. He is identical with the Sba-bzhed. Chinese name of Sang-shi-ta. he was given the clerical name of Ye-shes dbang-po. and one for the Buddhist community which. inquiry into the times gter- 1976. Some Tibetan persons. dkar-po-Lae don-gyi beh. Vol. founded on Taranatha's was written satisfactory (1958: 18 ff. citing a number of pertinent text). 1. p. whereas others regards these to stand for different According to Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan the lay-name of Sba Dpal-dbyangs. The notice of the Sba-bzhedgiven rgya-mtsho (1653-1705) in his Betian-bcoe 'khrul=enanq g. Sde-srid continues by saying that at first three versions were placed in the hands of the King. Sde-srid (a close study of this inquiry may reveal that it is largely states that the Sbz-bzhed and others. Sba-behed . that of Sba-bzhed. ring to Sa-skya Pa~9ita's readings. was sources take these names to refer to one and the same individual.ya'-seZ of King Khri-srong ma-s and that he has not himself seen the so-called 'Ba'-bzhedcould also states that 'Ba '-behed. otherwise (1980: 59). Sba Gsal-snang known under his When he became ordained by Santi- rak~ita. Dehra Dun. community. possibly be a corruption by Sde-srid bcci-dio: Sangs-rgyas dxvi e-Lan.) discusses these names at length without reaching as to their identity. and . 148/1-3 occurs in a chronological lde-btsan. was supplemented school of Tibetan Buddhism.one for the use of the King. Tucci by Sba Gsal-snang.and an enlarged version by an adherent Perhaps referlater onwards. obviously of the Bka'-gdams-pa -.

but published text to produce the BZ.e vt ha t.in which he elaborates on personal intermediate names and other versions of the Sba-bzhedwhich 'bx-inq-po ) Thus.these are marked off he presumably had any future study involving the \ also inserted several interlinear from the text by parentheses at his disposal. the Sba-bzhed with the events up to the proclamation lde-btsan. in available the Sde-dge edition of the latter -. as I have shown elsewhere Oeuvre. the BZ.t. by Stein is the so-called Sba-behed zhabe- that is. (see to Sa-skya Patlljita's Association forthcoming in the Journal taken from the Sba-bzhed.the only edition that is at present -. undoubtedly tradition than the BZ. and a largest version (bzhed The latter clearly LmpLi. BZ p . to the colophon of the text. A dbu-med manuscript of the edict belonging to by King-Khri'srong Tucci was collated with Richardson's existed between these two. 24/4/5-25/3/6. Madison and van der the Sde-dge edition of his collected works is far . my Marginalia Kuijp of the International (1983».does not indicate that this passage was However. 72-75) contains an account of almost exactly to the one given by Now to a tradition" (lugs qeiq-La) . dealing with the main events of Tibetan Buddhism from the Bsamyas debate to the persecution According only dealt all the way up to the invitation of Atisa to Central Tibet. no major differences edition of a Sba-behed text was published (1980». it cannot be considered the Beijing text the debate which corresponds Sa-skya Pand i. 61. length (bzhed rgyas-shos) -. on p. As far as one can tell from Stein's edition.1?8/Kailash The BZ published btaqe-ma. and should therefore be used in Sba-bzhed~ Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan notes -. like (pp. 59.a his Dqonqe-pa »ab-qeal: pp. an excellent in Beijing manuscript dbu-med. Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan's lugs qeiq-La. a version of the Sba-bzhed with a supplement initiated by Glang-dar-ma (841). he mentions a Sba-bzhedof on p . This text. of Buddhist studiee. written in belongs to a different has (Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan in dbu-can. forming a gloss on the basic text's "According text is a composite work and that. a to be the Sba-behed: Following a . In 1980. xii.

contain summaries of the contents of the former which.Zugs)..MisceZZanea from satisfactory. On the other hand. it was completed the fact that these two names may very well refer to two different The scribe of the present version (=Nor-bu don-grub?). I would be inclined to hold that the syntactical used in the Dgongs-pa rabqeal+e do not reflect those customarily employed by Sa-skyaPandita. p . the aftermath of the debate. Although "According to another gzhan-zhigto draw conclusions text of the royal testament . It is also behest of the King. they explicitly to have been taken from another version of. one was sent to Lhasa.Le from Sba Sang-shi~: underscoring known as the Bsam-yas bka '-thang. corroborate khanq-pa of the sba-bzhed But there is more evidence which would account is based on a version Both the Sposstate that the Dgongs-pa rab-qeal: that has not yet been published. became shortlY.of what in fact emended to the effect to be the 'correct one' Others derive the persons. and not with the debate itself. to my mind. 120a/5 ff. (bka this account was taken from an early source is that Sa-skya Pa!l9ita states immediately Zas ••• ). however. however. was a royal edict. does strongly suggest that thereafter. was the Lord of Snyas. 295/1-3 and the Pl'fols. the sba-bshed.. to a Recent Contribution/l?9 What.. Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan above... the contents of the other text of the royal testament only deals with. concluding remained remarks state that three versions were prepared at the These three copies . the Sbabeing the versions of this text that are presently available . carne to be called the Sba-bzhed. I suggested should be made in the BZpassage It does not. /The upshot of all this is that one cannot speak of bzhed. (1980: 76) also confirms the corrections that was analysed The include the zhabe-biaqe-ma. Ldum-bu ma~i arga sedhi in an iron-hare year. one to Khams. and one in his own keeping. .thereafter that the version claimed by Sba Gsal-snang (behed . ti t. is concerned." 'i-cheme-kui: yi-ge it is rather too premature on the basis of stylistic variations constructions as far as Tibetan literature account of the depate.

and before . weeding thus becomes an es'Bba-bzhed' as (PT for any justified use of the rin-chen phreng-ba (ehee After the first lengthy quotation states fol. Philological sential preconditions a reliable historical of a Sba-behed. nor in the Beijing text and vice versa. Zta ba bkod pa ' o /1). can start talking about its author. roo bzhed khungs thub las byung There are numerous passages A great deal more preliminary section that cannot be found in either the BZ. be done before use can be made of the Sba-behed . 119b/5): ba ji source.1 BO/Kailash all quite corrupt. needs to one Dpa' ogtsug-Iag "(The account) is written exactlyth~ by the authoritative Rba-bzhed". way it is stated in this work.

196l. 30. no. Gsang-sngags snga. zhue-Lan. rnams-la spri~g-ba'i yi-ge. no. . 1968. Co Ll .57. Sdom-pa gsum-gyi nab-inc dbye-ba'i dgongs-pa gsal-ba. SSBB 5. 95.s1. 1. Sdom-grum rab-dbye Sa-skya Pandi ta Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan. no. Go-roam-pa Go-ram-pa Bsod-nams seng-ge. 24.A.'gyur-la bod-du rtsod-pa snga-phyir byung-ba-rnams-kyi lan-du brjod-pa nges-pa don-gyi 'bruq-eqra. New Delhi. rnam-bshad rgyal-ba'i gsung-rab-kyi Nges-dan 'brug-sgra Sog-bzlog-pa Blo-gros rgyal-mtshan. SSBB 14. Nkhae-pa+i. edition du texte tibetain et resume francais. »ab-qeal . SSBB 5. Bde-ba» gshegs-pa'i bstan-pa'i gsal-byed ohoe-kui: 'byung-gnas qeunq-rab x-in-po-ohe+i-mdsod. Glo-be La-tied-ba+i: Thub-pa'i dgongs-pa PT Dpa' -bo gstun-lag New Delhi. Une Chronique aneienne de bSam-yas: eba-behed. Kalimpong. Glo-bo Sa-skya PatlQita Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan. 1971. SSBB 5. Paris. Works Vol~ 24. Part 4..." Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution/181 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bu. SRyee-bu dam-pa Sa-skya Pandita Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan. Sdom-pa gsum-gyi Skyes-bu dam-paphreng-ba. »ab-iu dbue-b«. Dgongs-pa rab-gsal Sa-skya Pandita Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan. 6 . dga '<eton. SSBB 5. 1962. BZ Stein. no.on Bu-ston rin-chen-grub. R. no..

1980(?) SSBB Sa-skya bka ' . / . 15 Vols. Sde-dge edition (plus supplementary texts of the Sa-skya-pa tradition). Sdom-pa gsum-gyi »ab-tiu dbye-ba'i gzhung-Zugs l.182/Kailash Spos-khang-pa Spos-··khang-pa Rin-chen rgyal-mtshan. Vol..eqe-par behad-pa. Thimphu. Tokyo: The Tokyo Bunko. 2. 1968-1969.'bum. compo Bsod-nams rgya-mtsho.

y 1975 "A Discussion on the Doctrinal Position of Rdzogschen from the 10th to the 13th Centuries". 1981 van der Kuijp. Journal Asiatique 263: 147-156. University of Hamburg.W. forthcoming in the Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 7• Mgon-po rgyal-mtshan 1980 Sba-behed.n Tibet. J. 1980 Kimura.K. 1983 "Le Dhyaria Chinois 269: 181-192. New Delhi. Bib1iotheca Indica. Imaeda. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 5: 89-99. Master's Dissertation. E. 1975 Jackson. F. The Rise of Esoteric to a Recent Contribution/183 v. L. "An Open Letter by Pho-brang Zhi-ba-'od to the Buddhists in Tibet". ). Beij ing: People's Publishing. au Tibet Ancien" . Journal Asiatique 263: 125-146. The Tibet Journal 5.J. The 1979 Ehrhard. "Documents tibetains de Touen-Houang concernant du Tibet". G. S. de Jong.W.Journal Asiatique "On the Authorship of the Gzhunq-Luqe legs-par behad-pa Attributed to Sa-skya Pandita". 1977 Karma r . Y. Le conci1e R. Nagarjuna MUlamadhyamakakarika7. 3: 3-28.Ca1cutta: Asiatic Society.l (ed . R. .Miscellanea Bhattacharya. Bodhicaryavatara. Madras: The Adyar Library and Res~arch Centre. 1982 "Sa-skya Pandita's Account of the bSam-yas Debate: History as Polemic". 1980 Zur Gnoseologie der Rnying-ma-pa Schule: Mi-pham's Ngesshes x-in-po-ohe+i: eqron-me (Kap: I & V). Buddhism i. 1960 Dargyay.

1981 Tucci. R.E. Gupta). Minor Buddhist '1ex1. Tibetan Chronicles by Bsodname qraqe-pa.terature. 1952 Thurman. Deb-ther dmar-po gsar-ma. 2. London. (trans. H. Mencius". 1970 . G 1958 1971 Bookreview International H. of Houston in the Journal of the Aeeoeiat.C.s~Part 11. Roma: Serie Orientale Roma XXIV. 1: 93-122. Ancient Historical Edicts at Lhaea. Roma: Serie Orientale BhavanCikrama of Roma IX. A. Tibetan Historical Calcutta. Vostrikov.184/Kailash Nivison. D.ion of Buddhist Studies 4: 107~109. Philosophy East and West 1980 "On Translating 30. Li. Richardon.First Kamalabl-l a.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful