 |
| Dromtönpa ©Israel Museum, photographed by Eli Posner |
It is not from want of desire that I have reneged on my duty to post once a month as I too boldly promised twenty years ago. Lately I have been feeling the strain and am doing all I can to make my work space more “ergonomic,” I believe this has helped reduce the deep pain in my shoulder a little, so here we go. This is only a test.*
(*Today’s blog is offered in honor of Helmut Eimer, master of academic research on Atisha, always critical and always helpful to me with research questions, and for this I believe calling him a friend is fully justified. Thanks are owed to José Cabezón for useful information used here.)
If most peoples’ interests could only be made to align nicely with those of us who try our best to read Tibetan literature in the original language, many recent manuscript finds would be making headlines in the mainline news sites of the worldwide web. We tried to survey some of the most interesting ca. 1200 CE textual caches a few years ago. Limiting ourselves to the Matho cache alone, we can find more than enough amazing material to keep us busy and entertained right up until the grim reaper makes his move or until the turn of the coming century, whichever comes first.
That the pre-1200 Matho cache might contain the beginning page of a history of the Kadampa teachers of the Stages of the Path is news so exciting that enthusiasm swells my chest and tries to pop open my skull. After all, it is generally believed that no such history was ever written during the entire era of Kadampa flourishing (late 11th to early in the 15th centuries). The first Kadam histories were written in the 15th century when the Gelug School was on the rise. It is as if they were written in retrospect on behalf a monastic tradition that couldn't be bothered to write histories of itself.*
(*Of course much turns around the question of what constitutes a Tibetan historical genre, but I follow what has been said about this in the introduction to Tibetan Histories, its 2020 [2nd] edition available here.)
Yet so far as I know nobody on our planet has written about the fragment in question, v349. One likely reason it has been avoided so far is the script. Most Matho fragments are in early styles of cursive script, some more difficult than the others. The small percentage of non-Tibetan students who have mastered cursive script will still struggle with these specific ways of writing it. In fact, everyone will have problems here and there making out the readings, they often require double-checking and rethinking.
This script situation helps justify providing the transcription—you will see it soon enough—that was made through the pairing of two pairs of eyes. One pair belongs to a talented young scholar from Tsang Arig by the name of Pentsok W. Rtsang, while the other belongs to myself. The idea is that four eyes can better read through the difficulties than two can. Even while we decided to preserve some of its peculiar spelling practices, we have striven to put forward a text that can be (relatively speaking) readily understood. [I have inserted now and then my square-bracketed ways of reading terms and names that may otherwise remain too opaque.] Since the photographs are instantly available on the internet (just tap here and find volume 349), you may consult it with ease in cases of doubt. We see no reason to go into piddling discussions about ambiguous readings, missing ligatures and what not.
Much of what is in this early source is unique to it, or in cases of parallel accounts appears to supply significantly different information. This is just the kind of tinder that kindles the fire of historical investigation. But hey, I didn't start the fire, and don't intend to do so now. I will just note that the story of the expulsion of a monk for having alcoholic beverages is quite different here. It usually happens in Bodhgaya, and not as you find here. The Five Questions presented to Atisha by the ruler of western Tibet is a matter of particular interest, and José Cabezón will soon publish an essay on that very topic that I haven't read but do look forward to. The fragment ends soon after the first meeting of Atisha with Dromtön (in 1044?), but it presumably would have continued with a few 12th-century teachers of the Stages of the Path. I will not give everything away and spoil its surprises, and in fact I decided not to give any Englished version today, so for now my work is done.
Matho fragment v349
[Recto of an isolated folio labelled "1" (scan image 1)]
Note on transcription: I sometimes insert in square brackets my own emended readings in cases when I believe it might be helpful. However, easily recognized and systemic "misspellings" are left as is. The paragraphing is my own. There is no title supplied (in early times titles were rare, and title pages practically nonexistent), although there is a statement about the subject to be covered, immediately after the homage statement, 'We bow to the Lamas.' As it promises, 'We shall relate a mere corner of the history of the Stages of the Path teachings that are held in common.'
For the original transcription by Pentsok, look here assuming the link will take you there.
࿓ // ! // bla ma rnams la phyag 'tshal lo //
thun mong lam gyi rim pa'i // lo rgyus zur tsam brjod par bya //
de la slob dpon thogs myed kyis 'gon po byams pa la sgrubs pas // lo bcu gnyis nas zhal [m]thong nas byis pa'i rdzu 'phrul gyi stobs gyis dgas ldan [~dga' ldan] du phyin nas // 'gon po byams pa la lha'i drod skad cig byams pa'i chos lnga gsan mngon par rtogs pa rgyan gyi snyan rgyud kyi gdams ngag 'di yang mnyan nas // de nas mi yul du byon tsam na mi lo bcu gnyis song ngo //
slob dpon thogs myed kyis // slob dpon dbyig gnyen la bshad //
des slob dpon glog ros stan pa la / des 'phags pa grol ba'i sde [Ārya Vimuktisena] de la / des so so rnam grol sde [Pudgala Vimuktisena] la / des mchog gi sde [Prasena] la / des [']dul ba'i sde [Vinītasena] la / des rnams par snang mdzad bzang po [Vairocanabhadra] la / des gseng ge bzang po [Haribhadra] la / des rin cen bzang po [~rin chen bzang po, Ratnabhadra] la / des bzang po'i mdo la / des gser gling pa [Suvarṇadvīpin] la bshad / de yan cod [~yan chod] sa la gnas pa 'phags pa'i gang zag yin [/] des jo bo rje la bshad / jo bo sbyor lam pa yin gsung[s] /
Note: I couldn't identify Glog-ros-stan-pa, but José Cabezón suggested it would likely be Blo-gros-brtan-pa (Sthiramati), and this appears to be the correct solution. Of interest here is its statement that, while all the members of the lineage leading up to Jowo Jé were saints with direct vision of the truth, the Jowo himself was a person belonging to the prior and preliminary Stage of Application.
jos 'bi kra ma la shi lar phal rtsen pa'i sde bar [~phal chen pa'i sde par] rab tu byung nas yod pa la / jo bo la pan byi ta (paˆ∂ita) mtshan gsum par ming thogs skad / rab tu byung nas nyes byas phra zhing phra bas kyang ma gos pas gnas [b]rtan 'dul ba 'dzin pa bya bar ming thogs / phyi rig pa dang nang rig pa dang gso ba rig pa dang bzo rig dang / rig pa'i gnas lnga la [m]khas pas pan byi ta chen por yang ming thogs so // gsang sngags kyi rgyud sde bzhi shes yi dam lha'i zhal [m]thong pas rnal 'byor pa chen por yang ming thogs so //
gnas de na jo bo'i bla ma rta dbyangs chung ngun bya ba gcig yod pas / khong la gangs sngags [~gsang sngags] kyi rdzas cig la chang dgos nas chang gcig khyer nas yong bas / btsun pa kun gyis tshor nas / dge 'dun gros byas pas rta dbyangs chung ngun skrod par byas nas 'gan de chol pa [g]sungs [~srungs? ~rungs?] pas / bla ma na re ra kri ta 'gan de sung ba ci yin gsung [/]
jo bos drang por bshad pa khong na re [/] bla mas chang kher [~khyer] nas song zer nas de skrod pa'i 'gan de sungs pa [~rungs pa?] yin byas pas / bla ma na re 'o ra kri ta nga la dge 'dun gyis chad pa'i las byar mi rung [/] dge 'dun thugs tsham [~tshal?] na nga rgya sgo la 'gror mi rung bas / lcag ri [~lcags ri] la skras tshugs gcig gsung nas skras [r]tsugs [~gtsug] nas gshegs so //
jo bos kyang sting nas 'brengs nas phyin / bla mas chu bo 'gang ga la 'ding pa bting nas de'i khar bzhugs nas spyi bo nas rta skad rtser re re bzhud do //
jo bos grub thob tu [m]khyen nas chu la [b]rgal nas bla ma'i zhal nas 'o ra kri ta de nas tshur ma 'ong gsung ngo //
jo bos bla ma la zhus pa bla ma lags ngan bu la 'gro sa ni ngan song gsum las med na ci tsug dgyi zhus pas / bla ma'i zhal nas khyod khyod rang gyis [~gi] yul mtha' 'khob du spyugs la sems can gyi don gyis gsung ngo //
jo bos / log nas thang khob [~mtha' 'khob] bod yul du 'gro ba la bod la phan thogs sam mi thogs / jo mo sgron ma la gsol pa btab pas / jo mo sgron ma'i zhal nas khyod kyis thogs gsung ngo //
da bod yul du 'gro dgos rno nas yod pa la mnga' ris nas lha bla ma byang chung 'od bya bas / lo tsa ba nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba dang / rgya rtsen seng [~brtson seng?] [g]nyis la [g]ser mang po [b]skur nas / khyed [g]nyis kyis pan byi ta [m]khas pa gcig spyan drong la shog gsung bas // khong [g]nyis kyis gsan nas rgya gar du phyin nas da lta pan byi ta su che dris pas / jo bo che zer nas jo bo la khong [g]nyis kyis gser mang po phul nas bod yul du gshegs par zhu ba phul lo gnang ngo [//] jo bos dpe ca [~dpe cha] yang cha cas [~cha chas] su byas nas rgya rtson seng [~rgya brtson seng] sngun la btang bas lam bar du gshi' 'o [~shi'o] //
°
Verso of an isolated folio labelled "1" (scan image 2)
nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba dang jo bo gnyis kyis 'ongs nas me pa la'i yul gyi mang dang gi gnas [b]rtan 'on ba la spyod pa [b]sdus pa'i sgron ma bshad do //
de nas tho li[ng] du phyin nas bla ma byang chub 'od dang phrad pa dang / lha bla ma byang chub 'od kyis jo bo la dri ba lnga dris pa ni [/] jo bo lags / nged bod la la na re / theg pa che chung nya [~gnyis? ~gsum?] dang po nas yod zer la / la la na re / de ma nges [/] theg pa chung ngu la yang [~mang?] chen po'i blo skye zer / de gang bden pa lags zhus pas [/]
jo bo'i zhal nas 'o bod kyi pan bi tas chos bsams nas 'dug gyis ngas de la lan gcig phyi [~phyin?] nas bya'is gsung zhing des 'gre yang dri ba de nged bod la la na re / bsgom dgos la / la la na re / sgom mi dgos rtogs pas chog zer [/] de gang bden zhus /
mang [~yang] nged bod la la na re / thabs shes rab zung du 'brel dgos zer / la la na re / mi dgos ma [~ya?] res chog zer de gang bden /
bo de sa ta'i bsdom pa'i rten du so sor thar pa'i sdom pa dgos zer la mi dgos zer [/] de gang bden /
yang nged bod la tshangs par spyod gsang ba shes rab kyi dbang skur gnang zer / la la na re / ma gnang zer [/] de gang bden / de'i lan du byang chung lam gyi sgrol ma [~sgron ma] gsungs so //
de yang dang po theg pa gcig pa'i lan ni / chung ngu 'bring dang mchog 'gyur ba'i skyes bu gsum du shes par bya zhes gsungs so //
sgom dgos pa'i lan ni / de ltar de nyid goms byas nas / rims kyi drod sogs thob 'gyurd te / rab dga' la sogs thob gyur nas / sangs rgyas byang chung yun mi ring zhes gsungs so //
thabs shes rab zung du 'brel dgos pa'i lan ni / thabs dang bral ba'i shes rab dang / shes rab bral ba'i thabs dag kyang / gang tshe chi ba [~'chi ba, mchi ba?] zhes gsungs pa / des na nyi ba [~gnyis ga] byang mi [~chi? ~ci?] bya zhes gsungs so //
bo de sa ta'i sdom pa'i rten du so sor thard pa'i sdom pa dgos pa'i lan ni / so so thard pa ris bdun gyi thog tu sdom pa dang ldan la / bo de sa ta'i sdom pa'i skal ba yod kyis gzhan du myin zhes gsungs so //
tshangs par spyod pa la gsang ba shes rab kyi dbang gnang pa'i lan ni / gsang ba shes rab dbang skur ni tshangs par spyod par blang mi blang [~bya?] zhes gsungs so //
dus de tsam na dge bshes ston pa khams na yo ga stod 'grel gsung gyin yod pa la / khams pa'i tshong pa kun na re / stod mnga' ris na jo bo ti pang ka ra bya ba'i pan byi ta chen po gcig byon nas 'dug go zer / dge bshes ston pa dad pa dung skyes nas dpe cha kun mi la byin nas byang lam nas mar byin no //
de'i dus su jo bo'i zhal nas nga'i ku su li pa gla ba [~zla ba] gsum nas yong gnyis nas yong gcig nas yong tha ma sang yang yong gsung ngo //
phyis de 'ongs nas phrad ma thag tu gcig la gcig zings kyis 'jus [~'dzus?] so //
dge bshes ston pas jo bo dang phrad nas ma grongs yan chad du rtsi mar gyi mar me la bzhugs su gcug pa myin pa mun pa la bzhugs su ma gcug go /
de nas dge bshes ston pas dbus su [g]shegs par zhu phul nas gnang nas mar byon no // mar byon pa'i lam ka'i gnas 'gon thams cad la sngun la bang chen [b]tang nas / sang khyed kyi gnas su pan byi ta chen po gcig 'ong bas khyed sna len [~sne len?] byed dgos byas so // gnas 'gon thams cad kyis sna len byas so // de'i dus su zhabs thog byas tsad la yon tan sna re ma byung pa med gsung ngo //
dge bshes ston pa dang jo bo gnyis lam bar du nyal tsa na bar du yol bas bcad nas nyal ba la 'or gcig jo bo'i zhal nas ku su li pa gsung nas 'bod pa la / ci dgyi zhus pas nga la da lta rgya gar na slob ma gcig dril bu sil zhing gsol ba 'debs kyi 'dug gsung ngo / des jo bo la mngon par shes pa gsum yod par shes pa yin gsung ngo /
(Note: The three superknowledges Atisha is credited with are famously found in the Thirty Verses of Praise by Dromtön, verses 17-19; English in Chattopadhyaya's book, p. 374.)
de nas myang stod du yon ston chos kyi dbang phyug la chos bshad pas /
(The passage below the final line appears to define the three clairvoyances mentioned directly above it, even in the absence of a connecting line:
gzhan gyi sems dang / lha'i rna ba dang / rdzu 'phrul yul dang.)
[continuation missing]
Bibliographical notes
Tshe-mchog-gling Yongs-’dzin Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan (1713-1793), Byang-chub Lam-gyi Rim-pa’i Bla-ma Brgyud-pa’i Rnam-par Thar-pa Rgyal-bstan Mdzes-pa’i Rgyan Mchog Phul-byung Nor-bu’i Phreng-ba (1787).
The frontispiece
is a detail of the central figure of a thangka in the permanent collection of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, no. B68.0239. The name label (not seen here) reads: ’brom rje dge bsnyen chos ’phel la na [mo], or, འབྲོམ་རྗེ་དགེ་བསྙེན་ཆོས་འཕེལ་ལ་ན་མོ། This indicates that he was a Buddhist layman with the given name Chömpel. This is not his usual name, but a scriptural passage in the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra that contains the name Layman Chömpel is believed to prophesy his future existence. While very early texts often call Dromtön by the epithet Geshé Tönpa (Dge-bshes Ston-pa), his usual given name is Gyelwai Jungné (Rgyal-ba'i-'byung-gnas).
A note on founderhood
It is more or less the norm to regard the first Tibetan member in an Indic lineage to be the one who founded that lineage. It seems unfair when Indians are not regarded as founders even when they were residing in Tibet. But I am not sure if identifying someone as a founder is such an interesting issue. After all, founders of these lineages had no idea they were founding anything. They were just teaching Buddhist Dharma. Dromtön was not the only disciple of Atisha, but he stood out because of his large role in founding Reting Monastery in 1056. It was only by the year 1075 or so Tibetans became conscious that there was such a school as the Kadam that had a founder (see the English of the Blue Annals, p. 269). Padampa, when in Tingri during the last two decades of the 11th century, was well aware of the Kadam as something that existed in Central Tibet (this confirms the statement in the Blue Annals). He had critical words for them, but more on that another time. Of interest is a relevant passage from the Golden Rosary of Lives of Narthang that basically says all the monastics and laypeople who came to take refuge at Nyetang [while Atisha still lived] were called Refuge Takers (Skyabs-'gro-ba), and only later on came to be known as Kadampa (Bka'-gdams-pa).
སྤྱིར་བན་སྐྱ་ཐམས་ཅད་སྐྱབས་འགྲོ་ལ་གཉེ་ཐང་དུ་སྐྱབས་འགྲོ་བ་ཞེས་གྲགས་བཀའ་གདམས་པར་ཕྱི་ནས་གྲགས་པ་ཡིན་གསུང་།
A note on some names of Atisha
On another matter, here I have used "Atisha" as the name by which he is best known to an international audience. There has been a decades-long discussion about how Atisha should be properly spelled and interpreted, initiated by Helmut Eimer who concluded "Atiśa" (with no length mark on the "i") is correct. After long years of hesitation, the international scholarly community began to follow his lead in leaving off the length mark. Recently there has been a move that I basically agree with (even while I make no demands) to start spelling his name in the form it likely was originally, which is something like Adhesha (some early Tibetan texts spell it A-dhe-sha or the like). I have been keeping some notes about this in Tibskrit. I will just copy it here, with the intent to provoke further thinking, not to settle the issue:
Kano Kazuo* has a discussion of what might possibly be the more original form of his name, Adhīśa, actually attested in Tibetan script form as A-dhe-sha, or [just possibly] A-rhe-sha). Jo-bo A-dhe-sha is attested in NTSP,** section NGA, fol. 76r.6 (and it's used in an Indian episode to refer to Atiśa). I later noticed more occurrences in the Snar thang gser phreng (digitally typed version) at fol. 132v: ston pas a dhe sha khu ston gyis mi gtong bas thabs legs kyis bgyi 'tshal (other instances on fol. 135r, 147v, 149r, 156v). But I have wondered if this is possibly not meant as a proper name at all, but just the Sanskrit ādeśa, like upadeśa a word for deeply spiritual instructions. On the other hand Adhīśa, 'Supreme Lord,' is still today a possible boy's name in India that often appears in the form of Adheesh. I was also thinking that Adhīśa could be the very thing that was calqued in the Tibetan form Jo-bo Rje. Well, yes, that would make the combination "Jo-bo Rje A-ti-sha" oddly redundant, wouldn't it?
(*Kano Kazuo, "The Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet: The Case of a Manuscript Collection in the Possession of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (980-1054)," contained in: Carmen Meinert, ed., Transfer of Buddhism Across Central Asian Networks (7th to 13th Centuries), Brill (Leiden 2016), pp. 82-117, at p. 83. **Mchims Nam-mkha'-grags (1210-1285), Snar thang gser 'phreng [a descriptive rather than an actual title], a manuscript supplied at TBRC no. W2CZ7888.)
Posts
