In recent times an old polemic text has surfaced. Actually, it has surfaced twice, not that I’ve heard of anyone remarking on it. I haven’t. Because of obscurity in the front title, and because cataloging hasn’t been done yet, it isn’t really possible to locate with a local or www search. That’s one reason why, if it sounds like something you might be interested in, you may need help I can offer you.
It’s a defense of the Nyingma school by none other than Khedrubjé (མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེ་, 1385-1438), Tsongkhapa’s famously cantankerous yet immensely intelligent student. Although Gandenpa (དགའ་ལྡན་པ་) was the term likely used in his time, he has to be regarded as a very important founding member of the Gelugpa, and one with at best tenuous connections to any of his contemporary Nyingmapas as far as we know. His sharp arguments tended to be aimed toward his Sakyapa contemporaries more than anyone else, remembering that he was originally a Sakyapa himself. ‘Could it really be by him?’ you are likely asking. Wasn’t he known for attacking rather than defending other ways of thinking besides his own?
If you are curious about the title, the front title page is so abraded it is difficult to read, especially the 2nd line, but some help could be gained from hints in the colophon, so I fill in the blanks like this:
sngags rnying ma'i log par rtogs pa'i brtsod spangs (?) gzhan phan nor bu'i phreng ba zhes bya ba bzhugs so //
rje tsong kha pa'i thugs sras mchog gnyis kyi ya gyal mkhas grub dge legs dpal bzang gi mdzad pa.
Clearing Away Wrongly Made Arguments with Respect to the Old Mantra School: A Necklace of Beneficial Gems.
The Work of Khedrub Geleg Pelzang, One of the Two Supreme Heart Sons of Lord Tsongkhapa.*
(*The paper appears old and weathered, a little frayed around the edges, with a huge thumbprint on the title page to the left of the title box. The thumbprint was surely deliberate. Perhaps it was placed there by a Rinpoche as a blessing? Both title pages share the same thumbprint, so obviously the very same document was photographed twice. It is as if we have fingerprint evidence.)
The author is given in the colophon as Geleg Pelzangpo (དགེ་ལེགས་དཔལ་བཟང་པོ་), and this is quite a normal name for Khedrubjé to sign with. I don’t see anything there about the place of composition or a date, but that kind of information is not always to be expected. The final verse, a printing colophon, tells us the woodblock prints were kept at Dzogchen Monastery.
Well, the truth is that, contrary to normal philological wisdom, things do indeed emerge from time to time to overthrow our past assumptions (rather than fitting nicely into them as they ought to do), and most of us know life is full of surprises. So we cannot reject his authorship out of hand. Yes, authorship ascriptions for polemical texts are often doubted, doubted on the grounds that the real author might have good reasons to hide her own identity — one possibility: wanting to create maximum impact for her work she might sign the name of a highly respected authority, someone people ought to believe, rather than her own less significant name that would carry less force.* But such rationalizations as these don’t work ahead of time, before doing the necessary hard work of finding out if it’s the case in each case. Otherwise, it’s too much lazy thinking to count as science.
(*Another, very different rationalizing line could be suggested: Names may be added to works that had been transmitted without authorship statements, adding an author that is suggested by the content or style of the work. I also wonder if text ascriptions, disregarding the question of their truth value, may work along the same lines as quote ascriptions in modern-day speechmaking. This phenomenon is sometimes called “Churchillian Drift.”)
This work is not included in the many volumes of his Collected Works. But inclusion or non-inclusion is not by itself necessarily a reliable criteria for authorship. Compilers of such collections had more than just verifiable authorship in mind when they did their work.
Perhaps a small and, given the dates of the authors, not all that persuasive argument for Khedrubjé's authorship: a search of BDRC reveals that it is cited as his work, “composed by Khedrubjé,” in a writing by Zhabkar Natsokrangdrol (ཞབས་དཀར་སྣ་ཚོགས་རང་གྲོལ་, 1781-1851):
Vol. 10, page 556 of tshogs drug rang grol; gsung 'bum/_tshogs drug rang grol; W1PD45150. mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, zi ling, 2002.... ་བོད་མཁས་གྲུབ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་དགོངས་པ་བཙལ་ཤེས་ན་ལྟ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་མི་་་་་་མཐུན་པ་མེད་དེ། མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེས་མཛད་པའི་ལེགས་བཤད་གཞན་ཕན་ནོར་བུའི་ཕྲེང་བ་ལས། སྔ་འགྱུར་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་ལྟ་བ་དང་། །འཇིག་རྟེན་གྲགས་སྡེ་སྤྱོད་པའི་དབུ་མ་ཡི། །ལྟ་བ་548
And again in the works of Chökyiwangchuk (1775-1837):
Vol. 12, page 749 of chos kyi dbang phyug; gsung 'bum/_chos kyi dbang phyug; W1KG14557. khenpo shedup tenzin, swayambhunath, kathmandu, 2011.... ་མ་ཟད་རྙིང་མའི་བསྟན་པ་ལ་དྲང་གཏམ་གྱི་བྱ་བ་ཆེར་མཛད་པའི་བསྟན་པའི་སྙིང་པོ་གསང་སྔགས་སྔ་འགྱུར་ལ་རྩོད་སྤོང་ལེགས་བཤད་གཞན་ཕན་ནོར་བུའི་ཕྲེང་བ་ཞེས་པ་ངོ་མ་བསླད་མེད་བཞུགས་པའི་ནང་དུ་རྒྱས་པར་གསལ་བ། ཕྱིས་
In content, this apologetic work appears to have a lot of its content in common (not that I've noticed exact wording) with the response by Sogdogpa (སོག་བཟློག་པ་) to the anti-Nyingma polemic by Pendzin (དཔལ་འཛིན་). Pendzin’s work seems to have surfaced right around 1400 CE more or less, and that would have been just in time for it to get the attention of Khedrubjé. So could it be Pendzin’s work in particular that both Sogdogpa and our [pseudo-?] Khedrubjé were responding to? Could that explain the similarity of content?
What do you think? Is it by Khedrubjé or not?
Hoped-for readings
If you are a Tibetan reader and would like to read for yourself, pop “W8LS20153” into BDRC's searchbox. Once you get there, it’s located at pp. 128-143 (in the page numbering of the scan itself).
The second copy can be found at BDRC as part of the 76-volume collection given the title “khams khul nas ’tshol bsdu zhus pa’i dpe rnying dpe dkon” (W3PD982), at vol. 34, pp. 13-28 (in the page numbering of the scan).
I just went to have a look at this text: 'Bri gung dpal 'dzin gyi rtsod zlog. It was located and photographed in Bhutan by Karma Phuntso’s project with the overall title “Drametse thorbu no. 202.” You can view the cursive manuscript here: https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP105-1-3-204. But now I see it’s in 7-syllable verse, and the author signs his name as Lha-rje Blo-gros, so it is surely the work by Sokdokpa. On Sokdokpa, you will need to read the dissertation of James Gentry: Substance and Sense: Objects of Power in the Life, Writings, and Legacy of the Tibetan Ritual Master Sog bzlog pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan.
Roger R. Jackson, “Tsongkhapa as Dzokchenpa: Nyingma Discourses and Geluk Sources,” The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, vol. 21, article 6 (2021), pp. 115-150. This remarkable essay has a lot to say about Tsongkhapa’s Nyingma connections, but not much about Khedrubjé. Tsongkhapa had a well-known disciple relationship with the Nyingma visionary Lhodrak Drubchen (ལྷོ་བྲག་གྲུབ་ཆེན་), although whether or not he received from him or anyone else Nyingma teachings, per se, is another question. It seems as if he never seriously entertained ideas related to Dzogchen. See the most complete and amazing biography of Tsongkhapa ever to appear in English: Thupten Jinpa, Tsongkhapa: A Buddha in the Land of Snows, Shambhala (Boulder 2019), especially pp. 140-151, 346. In a presentation by Michael Ium of Santa Barbara given at the International Association of Buddhist Studies in Seoul earlier this month, some more interesting information was given about Tsongkhapa’s Nyingma teacher and the role that he played in the politics of the time. But I’ll let him have his say about this. It had the title “Tsongkhapa as a Mahāsiddha: A Reevaluation of the Patronage of the Gelukpa in Tibet.”
Oh yes, if you are not yet ready to tackle James Gentry’s full-lengthed dissertation, a quicker option could be to read this very recent article of his entitled “Tracing the Life of a Buddhist Literary Apologia: Steps in Preparation for the Study and Translation of Sokdokpa’s Thunder of Definitive Meaning.”
Finally, if you would like a swift review of the main points of Khedrubjé’s life, try José I. Cabezón, “A Short Biography of mKhas grub dGe Legs dpal bzang,” contained in the same author’s A Dose of Emptiness, Sri Satguru Publications (Delhi 1992), pp. 13-19. There is also a much briefer sketch by Namdrol Miranda Adams at Treasury of Lives website.
Posts
