Plagiarization of a Dissertation on Tibetan Verbal Prefixes

Turcologist Herbert Wilhelm Duda,
who may be in some sense partly to blame

Dear reader! I recommend you read this astonishing story about more and slightly less imperfect academics first, and afterwards I’ll supply a list of the perpetrators. It is drawn from a book of memoirs, Nicholas Poppe’s Reminiscences, ed. by Henry G. Schwarz, Studies on East Asia series vol. 16, Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University (Bellingham 1983), pp. 230-231.

“In 1952 I received a letter from a young Austrian scholar, the Turcologist and Mongolist Udo Posch, who taught at the University of Graz. He asked me whether he could obtain a Fulbright Fellowship to work at the University of Washington. I talked this over with Professor Taylor, and arrangements were made for Posch’s coming. He arrived in the fall of 1953. From the very beginning he appeared a strange person. He often was, or pretended to be, ill and missed many classes. One could often see on the blackboard of his class the notice "No Turkish today." Finally this notice became permanent, and a note to the janitor was added which told him not to erase it. 

“Posch was irascible and unfriendly to his students. His unpublished doctoral dissertation was on Tibetan verbal prefixes, and he often showed it to his students as if wanting to say that they would never be able to produce a scholarly work like this. Once a student who was not studying under him asked him for help in translating an obscure passage in a Tibetan text. Posch flew into a rage and declared that he did not know and did not want to know “all those monkey languages,” and ordered the student out of his office. The student went to the student lounge and while he was sadly reflecting on his clash with Posch, another student entered and asked what the matter was. He related his experience with Posch and his listener said that he was utterly puzzled because Posch had always boasted about his dissertation on Tibetan verbal prefixes. The two students then decided to solve this puzzle, and one day when they found Posch’s office open and empty, they took Posch’s dissertation which lay on his desk and microfilmed it. They then went to the university library and discovered in the catalog the title of a book on Tibetan verbal prefixes by von Koerber, published in Los Angeles in 1939. After obtaining a copy of that book, the students quickly discovered that Posch’s dissertation was a verbatim translation of that book. Armed with this evidence, they marched to Professor Taylor and showed it to him. Posch was immediately fired, Vienna University was notified, and it declared Posch’s doctoral degree null and void. 

“When I asked Posch why he had done it, he answered that he had been Professor Duda’s doctoral candidate in Turkish but that he had a quarrel with him and changed over to become a graduate student of Professor Robert Bleichsteiner, the Tibetanist and Mongolist. Bleichsteiner allegedly suggested that he write his dissertation on Tibetan. I suspect that Bleichsteiner knew perfectly well that Posch’s dissertation was simply a translation of von Koerber’s book because Bleichsteiner was too good a scholar not to be acquainted with that book. Being a kind person, he obviously wanted to help Posch who was in a difficult position after his clash with Duda.

“Professor Taylor suggested to Posch that he get a valid doctoral degree, but Posch had become addicted to drugs in the meantime and died in the 1960s. Posch’s case was unique. I had never before encountered a plagiarist quite like him, and I was surprised to learn that a plagiarist could be as naive as to show his manuscript to everybody and to brag about it. At the very least, he should have destroyed the manuscript after having obtained his degree.”

-  -  -

Dramatis personae

Robert Bleichsteiner (1891-1954) is memorable mainly for his book Die Gelbe Kirche, published in Vienna in 1937, translated into French as L'Eglise jaune, about the Gelugpa school. It is rarely even mentioned in recent times. I don’t think there was ever an English translation of it. His specialty was in the languages of the Caucasus, primarily Georgian.

“Duda” means Herbert W. Duda (1900-1975). There is a fairly substantial Wiki entry about him in German. Here we see that he was one of the many German academics who signed a statement welcoming Adolf Hitler’s rise to the chancellorship.

The book that was plagiarized was this one: Hans Nordiwen von Koerber (1896-1979), Morphology of the Tibetan Language: A Contribution to Comparative Indosinology, Suttonhouse (Los Angeles 1935). For a PDF, just search in Internet Archive (https://archive.org/) and download it in a format of your choice.  In this book he also announced a book in preparation: Dictionary of Tibetan Roots and Their Development. His works have seldom been found worthy of mention. The author was one of the many Germans kept prisoner in India during the war, but other than that I can find out little more about him apart from a brief sketch here. This does tell us that this book is an English rendering of his 1921 dissertation in German. There are two slight inaccuracies in the Reminiscences: [1] The English version of his dissertation was published in 1935, not 1939, and [2] Tibetan only makes use of verbal prefixes when making calques from Sanskrit (examples: rjes-su, rab-tu, rnam-par), otherwise verbal inflections are mainly done with suffixes.

One of the two UW students responsible for uncovering Posch’s plagiarism was John Krueger (1927-2018) who would later teach Mongolian Studies at Indiana University’s Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, meanwhile moonlighting as a pimp for welfare mothers under his moniker Paul Toll (he was tried and found guilty, but let off lightly). I have a clipping of this on file: Dan Kadlec, “Professor Charged in Prostitution Ring,” The Herald-Telephone [Bloomington, Indiana], vol. 107, no. 69 (Tuesday, August 2, 1983). Other news items can be found on the internet if you look for them, like this one on his sentencing. I was in town at the time, and distinctly remember joking speculations about why he may have given himself the name “Paul Toll,” suggesting it was a ‘hidden’ version of *Tall Pole or the like. But now with a little hindsight and Schmoogling I can see how ad hoc that explanation really was. Paul Toll (1882-1946) was business partner with another wealthy Swede who finally committed suicide in Paris in 1932 named Ivar Krueger. In 1908 the two of them jointly formed a company called “Krueger & Toll.” If we were to look further, it may well be that the two Kruegers were twigs in the same family tree. A movie, The Match King, was based on the life of Ivar Krueger. It portrays him as an early modern global entrepeneuer and victim of his own Ponzi scheme. You can see a trailer here. It seems in the movie the name of Paul Toll turns into Paul Kroll which is then used as the name of Ivar Krueger, his role played by the actor Warren William, or do I have things mixed up here?

Have a look at this letter to The Crimson by Richard N. Frye.  Note that Frye, Harvard professor and former OSS member, was active in recruiting Poppe for the American academy. Given his personal role in bringing Nicholas Poppe to North American and finding him a position, we might be wary of slanted testimony. For more on how Poppe’s Americanization was one example of a broader post-war policy of recruiting ‘brains’ for the academic world while turning a half-blind eye when it came to just whose interests those brains had been working for during the war, see Martin Oppenheimer, “Social Scientists and War Criminals.” 

The dates of Udo Posch are 1922-1965. I really cannot add anything of interest about him except to say that he contributed a few entries about ethnic groups in Northwest China for the Human Relations Area Files in 1956. A list of his works was published after his death in the Central Asiatic Journal, but I can’t get access to it at the moment. (I did get access with a little help from J.S.) 

“Professor Taylor” means the Sinologist George Edward Taylor (1905-2000), another professor at the University of Washington.

§  §  §

I don’t know that plagiarism of complete dissertations has been all that common in any field of study. I have the feeling that nowadays it would be much more difficult to get away with as there are a number of easy-to-use digital methods for detection. But there is one case I know of. A well-known contemporary Indologist and Tibetologist teaching in the Netherlands woke up one day to find that his dissertation on Tibetan grammar had been plagiarized by an Indian “author.” But let our good friend, Leiden professor Peter Verhagen tell you about it himself, in this Oral History of Tibetan Studies interview.

Mystery Histories - 6½ Including the 5 Chan

I wouldn’t expect you to remember a set of old Tibeto-logic blogs about the Nine Chan, Tibetan royal heirlooms of the imperial era that may have continued being passed down long after the fall of the empire in 842.* Today’s blog is a somewhat technical one about the distinct yet conceptually related set of Five Chan, a subset of the slightly larger set of 6½ early historical sources made use of in historical works of the late-12th-13th (and perhaps also 14th) centuries. After that we could say that they basically disappeared, for most part leaving behind hardly anything but traces. 

(*If you want to go back to look at the nine, start with the nine-year-old Regalia Untranslatable, Part One, and go on from there. If you want to schmoogle the newly published translation of the Long Deyu, the full title is A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet: An Expanded Version of the Dharma’s Origins Made by the Learned Scholar Deyu. You may want to look there to find relevant discussions and bibliographical references. For the classic original study on the Five Chan with discussion of their titles, see Samten G. Karmay's 1988 essay, “The Etiological Problem of the Yarlung Dynasty.”)

Why were the sets of nine and five objects associated with royalty all given names with the word Chan (ཅན་)? The names of each of the 14 objects share nearly identical syntax, typically five syllables in length, ending in that syllable chan that means ‘having.’ This means it possesses the mark or characteristic indicated in the (typically) two syllables that precede it. Another reason for the chan term has occurred to me — it turns out some parts of these objects are explicitly associated with the reign of Relpachan (རལ་པ་ཅན་) in the early 9th century so it may be they were called so as a homage to his name, which is actually a nickname meaning ‘Having Curls.’ Or perhaps I’ve gotten things backward. Did he received his nickname as a conscious homage to the objects?

The lists of five and nine have, besides their identical formal syntax, their own wildly differing spellings. Every main source is almost entirely unique in its ways of spelling them. This makes them more than likely to be misread and misinterpreted by us today, especially if we haven't done some preliminary homework. The spelling variants mostly result, I believe, from scribal hypercorrections (in which the scribe thinks she perceives a problem and imagines she knows what’s best), but they also result from misreading certain letters of the Tibetan cursive (dbu-med) script[s]. To non-Tibetanist readers that means the explanations are likely to prove opaque, and all I can do in response to their complaints is say how sorry I am.

Quite a number of works are explicitly referenced as source works in the Long Deyu, including histories and documents both available and unavailable to us today. Here, by way of introduction, I will briefly mention a few of them.

• One less mysterious history that is referred to directly by name is the Bka'-chems. The Bka'-chems Ka-khol-ma is used as a source, cited as Bka'-chems in the Long Deyu, p. 277, and summarized in its following pages.  

• Also, an early version of the biography of Vairocana, the Great Mask or 'Dra-'bag Chen-mo, although its title is not given, was the source for the account of Vairocana (Long Deyu, pp. 304-316). The Great Mask is well known and even exists in a fine English translation of one version, The Great Image.

• One of the most intriguingly mysterious of the cited works is completely unavailable to the best of my knowledge. It is frequently quoted, mostly using the title Heap of Jewels or Rin-chen Spungs-pa, and the passages taken from it all concern royalty.

I just mention these examples of histories cited in the Deyu histories as a prelude to our main subject, since they are not included in the category of the 6½.

So now we’ll try to find our way through those 6½ titles with their variant spellings. You will have to agree to do some of the work of sorting and figuring things out. One shockingly old source for their names only came to my attention a few days ago, but I’ll put off talking about that one for a few minutes.

That the Five Chan date to the time of Emperor Relpachan seems proven in a passage in the quite early text entitled Chos-'byung-gi Yi-ge Zhib-mo, contained in: Rba-bzhed Phyogs-bsgrigs (2009), p. 222 (and notice also p. 65 of the same publication):  [1] Zangs-ma Mjug-ral-can.  [2] Rje'i Bka'-rtsigs-can.  [3] Yongs-dga' Lha-dgyes-can.  [4] Ltab-ma Dgu-rtsegs-can.  [5] Zings-po Sna-tshogs-can.  [6] Gsang-ba Phyag-rgya-can.  [7] Spun-po-can.  Although there are clearly seven titles, it says there are five*. These are listed among the accomplishments of Relpachan whose name is (I think it may not be an accident) also ending with can.  This passage corresponds to the Stein ed. of the Sba-bzhed, at p. 75:  zhang blon rnams la yo ga lha dges ban dang / ltab ma dgu tsag can dang / zings po sna tshogs can dang / gsang ba phyag rgya can dang / spun po can lnga gnang nas... 

(*Or maybe it is saying that of those listed five of them are 'long' (yun po) or supply coverage of the full length of the dynasty[? more on this odd term later]... anyway, 7 or rather 6½ is the usual number.)

One can compare this to the Nyang-ral history (1988 ed.), p. 393:  gzhan bka'i yig rtsis che chung / bka'i thang yig che chung / bka'i gtsigs kyi yi ge mang du yod do // gzhan yang rgyal rabs rkyang pa dang / khug pa / zings po can dang / yun po la sogs mang po yod do.  On p. 426, some of these histories are directly credited to the time of Relpachan (more evidence for them coming from his time, and the first listed is on prostrations and polite enquiries, not itself numbered among the 6½ but quoted at considerable length in the Long Deyu):  zhang blon rnams la phyag dang / snyung rmed btab ma dgu rtseg can dang / zings po sna tshogs can la sogs rigs mi 'dra ba sna tshogs gnang (the first shad punctuation is misplaced, and should come after the syllable rmed).  And, at the very end, at p. 501, in telling the sources he used for composing his Dharma History:  rgyal rabs gsang ba chos lugs dang / sgrags pa bon lugs / rkyang pa / khug pa / sbags [sbas] pa gsum / rgyal blon gab pa / yun po gser skas dgu pa / zings po sna tshogs can / de rnams kyi don dang ston pa'i gsung rab las byung ba dang / bla ma dam pa rnams kyi bka' lung dang / rgyal po'i bka' chems / so so skye bo'i bden pa'i ngag smra ba rnams...  (This bit is translated in Hirschberg's book Remembering the Lotus-born, p. 168.)

• At this point I ask you to download a Word file containing a chart covering most of the main sources on the 6½ histories.  Just click once or twice on these words — “Mystery History 6½” — and you will be taken to a Dropbox site where you ought to download the doc file with ease (if you have trouble, try tapping on the three vertical dots to find the download button). You will see that there are four columns arranged chronologically according to the datings given to the historical writings. The idea is to place things side-by-side for easy comparison, and this is impossible to do within blog parameters.

Now I want to look at still further mysterious histories outside the category of the 6½, seeing that there is some overlapping. This also shows that still more mysterious histories remain out of our reach today.

In the Grub-mtha' by Rog Bande, p. 47 (in José Cabezón’s English translation, p. 92):

de rnams ni lha dang mi'i yul du ji ltar grags pa'i tshul lo /  lo rgyus de dag ni /  khams pa seng ge yis /  mdo khams smad kyi chos 'byung dang smri ti dznyā na kīr ti la dri ba'i the tshom bcad pa'i lo rgyus chen mo dag las ji ltar 'byung ba'i tshul brjod pa'o //

The pair of histories, mentioned as sources, include a Dharma History of Amdo by Khams-pa Seng-ge. This would likely be an account of the monastic revival that had its source in Amdo, but who knows... Who could believe that such an old history of Amdo could exist so long before it was even called by that name? The other one mentioned is a Great History (Lo-rgyus Chen-mo) that was meant to cut off doubts related to questions asked of Smṛtijñānakīrti. I doubt this last has anything to do with Khu-ston's Great History, although it may further fuel our perplexities. It appears that Smṛti’s text has been, at least in part, incorporated into the preceding pages of Rog Bande’s text — it retains the question and answer format — so not all is lost.

The Bka'-chems Ka-khol-ma (my 1989 edition), p. 235, says that for more detailed information on the supine demoness suppressing temples, see “the Bka'-chems Zla-ba 'Dod-'jo composed by the sixteen ministers and the Bka'-chems Dar-dkar Gsal-ba composed by the queens.” (And these two titles are distinct from the Rgyal-po'i Bka'-chems, which is the Ka-khol-ma itself.)  This same set of three is named by Nyang-ral (as noted in Tibetan Histories [1st ed.], no. 4).  One might wonder if these might be the actual rediscovered sources on which the Bka'-thang Sde Lnga was based, as three of its five books are likewise associated with kings, queens and ministers...

It seems to me there are a lot of interesting questions that haven’t even been asked yet, so forget about final conclusions, we just aren’t ready for them.

Too late for the book

To my chagrin, just yesterday I found, when looking for something else online, a fascinating essay, dated over a year ago, about an early history that was identified only recently. The translation of the Long Deyu history has already come out in July of 2022, which is anyway fortunate. I spent twelve years making this book and it simply had to walk off my desk at some point. How was I to know a small history book would emerge which, when it will in a future unknown date be made available, is going to be very important for several reasons, not least of all the 6½ histories.  For one thing, it has its own odd spellings for their titles, and having at hand even more odd spellings might really help us come to well weighed decisions about their actual or original or intended meanings. The source of all my information on this newly noticed old manuscript is this essay, and this essay alone:

Rmog-ru Gnam-lha-tshe-ring, “Gsar du rnyed pa'i bod kyi dpe rnying phyag bris ma Chos 'byung gsal byed mig thur gyi 'grel pa la thog mar dpyad pa,” Krung go'i bod rig pa [published online] (January 27, 2021), in around 14 or 20 or so pages.

The title that appears on its title page is Chos-'byung Gsal-byed Mig-thur-gyi 'Grel-pa, ending with the usual zhes bya-ba bzhugs-so.  I will from now on call it the Mig-thur, a poetic title standing for the slightly longer Mig-gi Thur-ma, and that means a surgical instrument (thur-ma) used in the treatment of cataracts, making the blind or semi-blind to see clearly (metaphorically speaking: making plain as day the emergence of the Dharma, to interpret the Chos-’byung Gsal-byed part of the title).

The outline internal to this small text is not filled out completely, and the end is missing, so there is no way to know its author without locating a different complete copy somewhere (authorship statements for Tibetan books of earlier centuries were always found at the end, in a colophon). No form of its title seems to be available anywhere in the literature with one highly significant exception, the Small Deyu history. Since the Small Deyu, dating to around 1220 CE, apparently knew of this history, it would surely date from before that time.  It is only 17 or 18 folios (shog-ngos) in cursive script written seven lines to the page.

Like both Deyu histories, this is a commentary on a root text that is actually called "The Text" (gzhung) when it is quoted. This raises a very interesting question I’m afraid I can’t answer without looking at the manuscript itself, but we must wonder if The Text in all three texts might be the very same verse text by Deyu written in around 1180 CE. The essay writer Rmog-ru does supply one example of a single 9-syllable line the anonymously composed Long Deyu and the likewise anonymous Mig-thur both agree in attributing to The Text, but we cannot base a conclusion on that single suggestive example after all. The 9-syllable line is this one: “de nas snya khri btsan po byon pa la.”* 

(*There is a single spelling difference I won’t bother to point out since it really doesn’t matter. But okay, because you insist, gnya' in place of snya.)

The Mig-thur shows some similarities as well as differences in its overall outline. It promises to cover the following seven topics: [1] an accounting for the dynastic succession. [2] teaching the manner in which the texts of the Holy Dharma spread. [3] the manner in which the embers of the monastic community revived. [4] the way the old translations were preserved and taught. [5] the way the new translations were initiated. [6-7] how the teachings flourished and declined.

Here’s the passage from the Small Deyu that mentions the Mig-thur. It's on p. 90:  dam pa chos kyi 'brel rnam par bzhag pa chen po'i 'grel pa / gsal byed mig gi thur ma las / rgya gar du chos byon lugs yan chad bstan zin to //  Or to give it in Tibetan script: དམ་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་འབྲེལ་རྣམ་པར་བཞག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་འགྲེལ་པ། གསལ་བྱེད་མིག་གི་ཐུར་མ་ལས།  རྒྱ་གར་དུ་ཆོས་བྱོན་ལུགས་ཡན་ཆད་བསྟན་ཟིན་ཏོ། །

This was noticed in Cabezon's appendix to his translation of Rog Bande’s Grub-mtha'. See his footnote 3 on p. 268:

“Lde'u bsdus pa [i.e. Small Deyu], 90, ends the section on Indian Buddhism with the words, dam pa chos kyi 'brel (sic) rnam par bzhag pa chen mo'i 'grel pa/ gsal byed mig gi thur ma las/ rgya gar du chos byon lugs yan chad bstan zin to/, implying that it is itself a commentary on another work, which, if we ignore the problematic 'brel, would be rendered The Great Exposition of the Holy Dharma.”  

I don’t believe this is exactly on the mark. I think that this is just a colophon for the Indian Buddhism section (or the part of the text up to and including the Indian Buddhism section) of the Small Deyu itself (although the Small Deyu’s final colophon is lacking, and the front title added on by someone besides the author, here its original title of the work as a whole is seemingly betrayed), referring to itself as a commentary on the Gsal-byed Mig-gi Thur-ma. Gsal-byed Mig-thur could (with emphasis on the could) then be the poetic title for the root text in verse composed by Deyu in ca. 1180. It has to seem like clutching at straws, but even so I’ve never before imagined it would ever be possible to find out the title of the original verse work!

Now to get to our main point, here is Rmog-ru's report on the Mig-thur’s spellings of the titles of the 6½ histories that include the Five Chan (I am quoting a quotation, as I have no access to the manuscript, but this quotation ends with skad so it is by its own admission a quotation!):  can lnga ni yo ga lha gyes can / stab ma dgung rtsegs can / zis po 'go sngon can dang / gsang pa phyag rgya can dang / zags ma bzhugs rabs can dang / de ltar can lnga lo rgyus chen po dang drug ste / gsang ba yang chung bang so'i rabs yin pas de la phyed du 'jog pa lags so skad.

And Rmog-ru supplies yet another listing of the 6½ titles from the Mig-thur that includes names of authors:  pha ba bon pos brtsams pa yo ga lha gyes can / kyis b[r]tsams pa zang ma bzhugs rabs can / kyi nam gyis brtsams pa bzings pa 'go sngon can / zhang blon gyis brtsams pa stab ma dgu rtsegs can / rje nyid kyis mdzad pa gsang ba phyag rgya can dang lnga / de dge' bshes khu ston brtson 'grus kyis brtsams pa lol [!] non chen po 'am / lo rgyus chen po zer / gsang ba yang chu[ng] phyed du bzhag.

The most closely corresponding passage in the text of the Small Deyu (pp. 98-99) I supply for convenient comparison:  spa sa bon pos brtsams pa yo ga lha dgyes can / yab tshan 'bangs kyis brtsams pa thang ma jug dral can skye nam gyis brtsams pa zings po sna tshogs can / [99] zhang blon gyis rtsams pa ltab ma dgu brtsegs can / rje nyid kyis brtsams pa gsang pa phyag rgya can dang lnga / khu ston brtson grus kyis brtsams pa log non chen po dang drug / grongs nas bang so btab pa ni gsang pa yang chung dang phyed du bzhag go / / or, in Tibetan script: སྤ་ས་བོན་པོས་བརྩམས་པ་ཡོ་ག་ལྷ་དགྱེས་ཅན།  ཡབ་ཚན་འབངས་ཀྱིས་བརྩམས་པ་ཐང་མ་[99]འཇུག་དྲལ་ཅན་སྐྱེ་ནམ་གྱིས་བརྩམས་པ་ཟིངས་པོ་སྣ་ཚོགས་ཅན།  ཞང་བློན་གྱིས་བརྩམས་པ་ལྟབ་མ་དགུ་བརྩེགས་ཅན།  རྗེ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་བརྩམས་པ་གསང་བ་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་ཅན་དང་ལྔ།  ཁུ་སྟོན་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་ཀྱིས་བརྩམས་པ་ལོག་ནོན་ཆེན་པོ་དང་དྲུག གྲོངས་ནས་བང་སོ་བཏབ་པ་ནི་གསང་པ་ཡང་ཆུང་དང་ཕྱེད་དུ་བཞག་གོ ། (A kind of translation of this very passage appears in the Appendix B as part of the notes on Sha-bo’s essay.)

So to bring this confection, over-sweetened as it is by complications, to its bittersweet end, all I can say is we will have to wait until a full facsimile of the Mig-thur appears before we can be very sure about a lot that is pertinent to the Deyu histories. It’s possible we may have to expand the corpus of Deyu histories to encompass the Mig-thur. We may want to welcome it into the family. The possibility looms over us that Mig-thur is the original title for the root verses of ca. 1180. Some of the conclusions put forward in the introduction to the translation of the Long Deyu might require a little revision. We will see... with its help.

Appendix A - on a passage in the Dynastic History of Ladakh:

La dwags rgyal rabs (A.H. Francke, Antiquities of Indian Tibet, vol. 2, p. 28, with English translation on p. 76) has a very obscure reference: rigs brgyud kyi rgyal po ni spu rgyal bod kyi rgyal po yin te / 'di bshad lugs mang du ma mchis te / rgyal rabs spun po gsum khug blon po'i rgyal mtshan / gsang ba 'am 'bru bdus la sogs pa mang du yod kyang / bsdus na / gnyis legs skad / bsgrags pa / lha rabs bon lugs dang / gsang ba / mi rabs chos lugs so.* [Note: the spun-po here is clearly the same as the yun-po found elsewhere... more on this below.]  

(*E. Haarh's Yar-lun Dynasty book, at p. 170, supplies the same passage, and an English translation is ventured there on p. 170 as well as on p. 198, and see also the inconclusive discussion in note 6 on p. 445.)

The close parallel to the just-given quote from the History of Ladakh is in the mid-18th-century history by Tshe-dbang-nor-bu contained in Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus Deb-ther Khag Lnga, at p. 171 (he appears to be directly drawing from the History of Ladakh passage, but there is a significant difference or two):  

da ni pur rgyal bod kyi rgyal po ji ltar byung ba'i tshul ni / 'di bshad pa lugs mang du mchis te / rgyal rabs yun po gsum zhug blon po'i rgyal mtshan / gsang ba 'am 'bru btus la sogs pa mang du yod kyang bsdus na gnyis lags skad / sgrags pa lha rabs bon lugs dang / gsang ba mi rabs chos lugs so.

Appendix B - containing notes to a modern essay  by Sha-bo Mkha’-byams:

Source:  Sha-bo Mkha’-byams, “Rgyal rabs Gsang ba yang chung dang de’i rin thang skor gyi thog ma’i dpyad gleng,” Qinghai University for Nationalities Journal, issue no. 2 of the year 2014. My notes from it follow in blue letters (if the text is in grey these my own comments):

p. 1 (there are no page numbers on the pages):

The Rgyal-rabs Gsang-ba Yang-chung is first mentioned in the Nyi-ma'i Rigs-kyi Rgyal-rabs by Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan. My note: But this history dates to mid-15th century, so I wouldn’t call it the first.

In the Sba-bzhed Zhabs-btags-ma (2010 ed.), p 240, we find the first appearance of the titles of the Five Chan:  “yo ga lha dges ban dang / lta ma dgu tsag can dang / zings po sna tshogs can dang / gsang ba phyag rgya can dang / spun po can [~yun po can?] lnga.”

In the Small Deyu which I date to ca. 1220 CE (in the 1987 edition, pp. 98-99), we find the expression of the six and a half histories: 

1. Spa-sa Bon-po’s composition Yo-ga Lha-dgyes-can. 

2. Yab-tshan-’bangs's composition Thang-ma 'Jug-dral-can.

3. Skye-nam’s composition Zings-po Sna-tshogs-can. 

4. Zhang-blon’s composition Ltab-ma Dgu-brtsegs-can. 

5. The ruler’s own composition Gsang-ba Phyag-rgya-can. 

6. Khu-ston Brtson-’grus’s composition Log-non Chen-po. 

& ½.  The foundings of burial mounds after the rulers’ deaths, Gsang-ba Yang-chung.  

But then he notices that the Gsang-ba Yang-chung is not included in the listing in Nyang-ral’s history that he dates to 12th century (2010 ed.), pp. 459, 463:

1. Bon-po’i Yi-ge Lha-dge-can.

2. Gnam nas babs zhes bsgrags pa’i lugs / rje nyid gsung ba Phyag-rgya-can /

3. Rgya gar rgyal phran rgyud par ’dod / de nas gleng ba’i zhib gtsang gsum / rkyang ba gcig rgyud brtsi ba yin / de min Za-gzhug Rgan-rabs-can /

4. Khug pa yum sgam smros pa la / Dab-ma Dgu-rtseg-can zhes bya /

5. Yun po rgyas bshad yin pa la / Zing-po Sna-tshogs-can du grags ces dang /

My note: But it is only to be expected that the Gsang-ba Yang-chung would not be in this list of the Five Chan. It belongs to the larger class of 6½.

p. 2:

He reports on how Samten Karmay said that this is the earliest, most extensive and authentic text on the subject of Tibetan royal tombs.  (However, the author Sha-bo himself believes, after comparing two other accounts of the tombs, that it was either edited down by the Long Deyu author, or that it is incomplete, or just that there are various editions [par gzhi]. Note to myself: I should look into this more.)

p. 3:

In the Sba-bzhed Zhabs-btags-ma it says that the Five Chan belong to the time of Relpachan...

Sha-bo quotes from Bla-dwags Rgyal-rabs 'Chi-med Gter of Joseb Gergan (1976 ed., pp. 62-63).  It says the history is called Spun-po because it contains a list of Father, Mother, Son, Minister, years in power, age at death, place of tomb.  (My note: some say spun-pa is bstun-pa, something like a correlation, and of course, there is also the reading yun-po...)  Actually, in Gergan's history there are two discussions of these sources, the first on p. 50 (I follow the original publication rather than the quotation):  

spu rgyal bod kyi rgyal po yin / 'di bshad pa la mang du mchis te / rgyal rabs spun po / gsum khug blon pos brgyan / gsang ba'am 'bru btus la sogs pa mang du yod kyang / bsdu na gnyis lags skad / bsgrags pa lha rabs bon lugs dang / bsang ba [~gsang ba] mi rabs chos lugs so.

and then at p. 60:  

glo bur bod kyi rgyal po'i lo rgyus la gsum ste / grags pa lha rabs bstod rar gleng ba dang gcig / smad pa tsha zhang skyon brjod zhang blon gyi lugs su gleng ba dang gnyis / gsang ba mi rabs chos lugs ma bstod ma smad par drang por gleng ba dang gsum mo //  

de la sgrags pa'i dbang du bgyis na / dang po 'dre mgo nag la rje med / gug ron rngogs chags la rkyen bu med / lha ri gyang ta'i kha na / [p. 51] phywa'i rgan mo cig gis lha byon lan gsum bnas pas / lha'i nal phrug cig 'ong pa la / ... 

My note: That amazing word gug-ron you see just above (and again in Gergan’s book, p. 63) I dare you to find in any dictionary. It has to be explained as an Old Tibetan word for 'steed' gu-rub, spelled a number of different ways: gu-ru, gu-rug, gu-rum, go-ru, mgo-ro, gong-ru, gu-rug.  I know how crazy I must sound right now. For the parallel expressions in the Long Deyu, see its English translation at footnote no. 1565, with an explanation of the term rkyen-bu, still another term not in the dictionaries. You can see it spelled skyen-pu in Gergan’s book, p. 53.

and at Gergan’s pp. 62-63: 

rgyal rabs ltar rnam pa bzhi ste / rgyal rabs spun po shwa ba khyis 'ded pa ltar gleng ba dang / rgyal gcig blon gcig gser mig g.yu yis spras pa ltar gleng ba dang / khug pa spyang mo bu stor ba ltar gleng ba dang / rgyal rabs rkyang pa 'gron po lam du zhugs pa ltar gleng ba dang bzhi lags skad //  

de la spun po zhes pa ni / yab dang yum dang sras dang blon po dang chab srid lo tsam bzung ba dang / tha gang du grongs pa dang / bang so gang du btab pa ste / de rnams la spun po zhes bya'o //  

khug pa bya ba ni yab yum sras dang gsum mo / 

rgyal gcig blon gcig gser mig g.yus spras pa'o // 

rgyal rabs rkyang pa ni / che longs tsam zhig / sku tshe gang tsam dang / yab la sras gang 'khrungs ces pa'o // 'di ni mgo zlum das chad bzhin no //  

My note: In the last line, this apparent text title (maybe name of an informant?) Mgo-zlum Das-chad is cited again on pp. 52 and 73. I’m mystified by it, but perhaps it is an account of how the bald-pated ones or rather dome-headed ones, probably meaning the monks, went out of existence..., but no, that doesn't seem to work... There may be help in an especially unclear passage in Nyang-ral’s history, 1988 ed., p. 459, where it tells us one of the disasters that happened when Tibet went to pieces after 842: ཡོངས་གྲགས་※མགོ་རེག་※ཟེར་ར་ཆོད་〈རས་གཅོད་〉བྱེད།  I could use some help here.*

(*I just went to look more at Gergan’s history and found on its page 9 an explanation of Mgo-zlum as a word for ‘human’ (evidently because “round head” is a poetic epithet for humans in general, not just monks), while Das-chad means Lo-rgyus or 'history.' But in what language does Das-chad mean “history’? Definitely not Tibetan... perhaps Urdu? I understand it was just a year ago that Ladakh dropped the Urdu requirement for placement in civil service jobs, but it’s widely known in the region in any case. Certainly Gergan knew Urdu, too. If das-chad is Tibetan 'das-[m]chad, I suppose it could refer to funerary rites.)

In Gergan’s understanding there are four different styles of relaying information, of speaking about, the Tibetan dynastic history: [1] the spun-po style gives the most details about family members, length of reign and burial site. This is likened to the dog leading the deer.  [2] the 'one king one minister' type in which one king and one minister [are named], likened to a turquoise in a gold setting. [3] the khug-pa style just names father, mother and child. It is likened to a wolf mother whose child is missing. [4] the rkyang-pa style only supplies the most general information, like only the length of reign, or only what children were born to one father. It is likened to a traveler setting out on the road.

I will have to rethink and go over all of this again to be sure of drawing the right meanings from it. I just have to say that the word spun-po, that often appears as yun-po* is one of the important keys to knowing how imperial and post-imperial Tibetans used to talk about their history. Oral literature styles of transmission could very well have a lot to do with it, which does make matters so much more difficult and interesting. But oh well, isn’t it true that there is a certain satisfaction to be gained by seeing part way into an area that had previously been almost entirely shrouded in mountain mists?**

(*That problem of scribes misreading cursive letters is so much in evidence here; and we might note that khug-pa sometimes appears, for example in the Tshe-dbang-nor-bu passage quoted above, as zhug[-pa]. The very frequency of misspellings can tell us that the concepts became less and less familiar as time went by... I haven't ventured to translate these key terms yet for reasons such as these.)  

(**We ought to pause to consider for a moment how it could be that this 20th-century Ladakhi Moravian Christian intellectual came across all his amazingly extensive material about kingship and clan history. The well-known Tibetan scholar T.T.J. told me a few decades ago what an outstanding resource the Joseph Gergan (ཡོ་སེབ་དགེ་རྒན་) history is, and I agree, we simply must find ways to compensate for the neglect it has so far suffered in our work.) 

§   §   §

PS (October 24, 2022): I nearly forgot, but I did want to say how I finally ended up translating the titles of the 6½. You can find out in this paragraph from the published translation of the Long Deyu, at p. 436:

“The Five Can plus the Great Quelling of Revolts, with the Extra Small Secret being half,” it says. There are six-and-one-half writings that discuss Tibet’s incidental kings. These histories are: Splitting Off from the Gods of the Firmament, The Original One with the Seating Order, Accordion-Style Document with Stack of Nine, Miscellany with the Blue Head-Page, Confidential Sealed Document, Great Account, also known as Great Quelling of Revolts, composed by Dge-bshes Khu and Rgya Lha-po, and last of these is Extra Small Secret, which, being about the generations of tomb building for the deceased emperors, is left for a half. These cover the early divine generations, the intervening period of expanding royal dominion, and finally the way the divided dominion or the fragmentation came about.”

°

PS (May 22, 2023): In case you haven’t had enough, I at long last succeeded in uploading visual images of my ordered notes, in tables format, in a website posting at Tiblical entitled “Mystery Histories, the 6½.” It covers the main early textual evidence about their titles, authors and so forth. Go ahead and have a look at it.

https://sites.google.com/site/tiblical/mystery-histories-the-6

The Padampa Cave’s Stone-Carved Guidebook

The two chortens inside the cave, photo by Katia Buffetrille, 2018

A guidebook to a Padampa Cave — a cave in Yunnan we’ve blogged about before — has shown up in print, in a publication that may be a little difficult to find. The original guidebook is carved in stone. We would assume it was on the wall of the cave, although people who have been there (B.B., T.D., and K.B.) assure me no such inscription is in evidence. So maybe it was carved on a moveable slab of rock. I’ll let you know.

I had noticed photos of this stone inscription more than once in published books, but in a size so small it was impossible to read more than one syllable here and another there with the help of a strong magnifying glass. I tried scanning it and blowing it up on the computer screen, but at 400% magnification it just turned into a pixelated blur. If it is possible to read at all it is only because it was transcribed in an article by Saerje listed below.

It was not all that easy to recognize the name of the author of the stone guidebook, but I think I could succeed in that. At least the historical section that it contains was by someone called in the colophon Dbang-chen Bzhad-pa-rdo-rje-bskal-bzang, and I’m now convinced this has to be the Fourth Incarnation of ’Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa (1856-1916), so important to the history of Labrang, one of the biggest and most important monasteries in Amdo still today. You can see a sketch of his life in Paul Nietupski’s book, and an entry about him by Sonam Dorje may be found at Treasury of Lives website. I couldn’t right away locate his guidebook in the five volumes of his collected works (TBRC no. W22203), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Small things like this might be buried inside a work with a completely different title.

Dam-pa Sangs-rgyas-kyi Gdung-rten, “Reliquary of Dampa Sangyé.”
The Chinese contains the name 达摩, or Da-mo, name
for Bodhidharma of Zen fame, so you can see the
interesting cultural translation process at work

Phadampa with his Cutting School iconography;
The image has the look of one just taken off the rack in Chengdu.
Photo by Katia Buffetrille, 2018

Well, the stone inscription is much too long, and often poetic in a difficult kind of way, so I am not going to translate it for you right now. If you are ready to read the Tibetan you can read it in both Tibetan letters and Wylie transcription in Saerji’s essay linked below. We’ll say goodbye for now.

§   §   §

All photos in this blog were taken on site by Katia Buffetrille in 2018, and used here with permission. The earlier Tibeto-logic blog, Padampa Site Sighted in Yunnan, is here.

Paul K. Nietupski, Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709-1958, Lexington Books (Lanham 2011). The biography of the Jamyang Zhepa IV is on pp. 140-145.

Saerji (Gsar-brje), “Buddhapāla → Dam pa sangs rgyas ← Bodhidharma” [in Chinese], contained in: Wang Bangwei, Chen Jinhua and Chen Ming, eds., Studies on Buddhist Myths: Texts, Pictures, Traditions and History, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cross-cultural Researches on Buddhist Mythology, Zhongxi Book Company (Shanghai 2013), pp. 165–176.

_____, “The Studies on the Narrative Inscriptions of Master Dharma Cave in Yunnan Province” [in Chinese with some Tibetan], contained in Wang Song, ed., Engaged Buddhism: The History and Reality of Asia, Proceedings of the 2015 Chong Sheng International Forum, Religious Culture Publishing House (Beijing 2016), pp. 97–127. See if this link takes you to it.

To tell you a secret that anyway shouldn’t be one, I made out a few syllables in a published photograph* and dropped those syllables in the Schmooglebox — that’s the only reason I could come up with Saerje’s Chinese article, since the internet bots had already indexed the Wylie Tibetan transcription of the inscription... So we have to thank the combination of author, stone carver, photographer, transcriber, publisher, scanner, OCRer and indexer, not to forget the search engine’s maker! And they say interdependent origination isn’t a thing? Well, right, it's not, it’s a whole spectrum of things, each of them not amounting to all that much in itself. 

(*In case you are curious, this published photograph may be seen in a physical book I keep in my home library: Dkon-mchog-bstan-’dzin, et al., Bod-kyi Lag-shes Kun-'dus Chen-mo, Krung-go'i Bod Rig-pa Dpe-skrun-khang (Beijing 2010), in 2 vols. at vol. 1, p. 68, a small figure in the lower left-hand quarter of the page, bearing the inscription: Yun-nan Lis-su Yul-gyi Pha Rgya-gar Dam-pa'i Sgrub-pa Phug-tu Bod-yig-gi Rdo-brkos Gnas-bshad [Guide to the Holy Place Carved in Stone in Tibetan Letters in the Practice Cave of Father India Holyman in Lisu Country of Yunnan]. The two-volume set as a whole covers a wide range of Tibetan cultural arts with plenty of illustratons, and the Padampa inscription appears there as just another example of Tibetan stonecarving skills.)

-----

As I have no idea who its maker is, even if he is the only person in it, the inclusion of this video should not be regarded as any sort of endorsement. I’m just saying that the scenery you see at the beginning is germane to the content of this blog. You might want to overlook the channelling and phallicism. Make of it what you will, just leave me out of it please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWC6C2M3BIs&ab

Christian Letter Puzzler

 

Imagine receiving a written message like this. It looks like a page hastily torn from the end of a book or notebook, then folded down the middle. In some sense, it could be an example of early Buddhist-Christian dialogue even if we are hearing just one side of the story.  It was written by one named Ras-bir, a Lama of Ro-bag, and addressed to a Great Lama of the Jesus (Ye-shu) tradition. The blank space at the top indicates respect for the recipient. It isn’t well spelled, and I’m likely to miss something. On the other hand it’s expressed in a direct language, so much so I get the impression that Tibetan was not the native language of one or both of the persons involved. But the abruptness of language might have to do with the circumstances of its writing.  

The letter says that one of the Lama’s students had been hit by a large stone that wounded both of his legs. He demands that the one responsible would come to him on that very day. Meanwhile, until he appeared in person, Ras-bir would not be dressing (‘cleansing’) the wounds.  It is signed “I, Ras-bir,” and dated Water Mouse year, 5th month, 7th day.

Who is Ras-bir, where is Ro-bag, and which Water Mouse was it?

Part of my problem is that although I thought this letter was interesting enough to save on my laptop, I did not take the trouble of noting down how I got it.* All I know is that it is labeled “FieldMuseum700_2166.” That must mean it is in the possession of the Chicago Field Museum, a public institution I once worked for, back in the early ’80’s, indirectly, as underling in a Tibetan text cataloging project. Is this something Berthold Laufer picked up during a museum expedition in China and the Tibetan borderlands of Sichuan? Or could it be something that Shelton or some other retired Christian missionary donated to the museum?

(*I already tried doing a Google image search, but that didn’t lead anywhere.)

I don’t have enough of a sense of the letter’s date to translate the Water Mouse into a Gregorian calendar year (1852? 1912? 1972?). If Laufer was involved in it the more recent date would be very unlikely. Given other considerations, 1912 seems to be the one.

So if you have an answer to any of these questions let’s “crowd source” as much information as we can. I’ll be here scratching my head waiting for it to fall like the spring rain through the holes in the web. Oh well, I know it isn’t spring yet, but we’ve got time, all the time in the world.

§   §   §

On Tibetan epistolary culture, see “Letter Writing Manuals.”

§   §   §

PS (September 29, 2022):

It occurred to me that Ras-bir could be a Tibetanized spelling of an Indic name. As Tibetan, it makes no sense at all. Rasbir in modern Hindi, occasionally encountered as a man’s name, can be the same as classical Sanskrit Rasavīra, or Nutrition Man (also the name of a mercurial medicine, I see).  Switch the two Sanskrit words around and you get vīra-rasa, the name for the 'heroic mood' in Indian poetic sciences. If this makes sense as the name of the Lama then it would make us change our minds about where the letter comes from. We would have to move to the north parts of India into one or another of the Tibetan-knowing areas of the borderlands.

Oh my, here is what just happened. Since I all of a sudden had the name Rasbir to play with, I went to drop it in the search box at Googlebooks, and just look at this passage that popped up!

“In village Ropa lived a lama, a religious mendicant, Rasbir by name, who eloped with the wife of one Jwalam of Breli. The scandal has been rendered into verse as below: [that is all Googlebooks allows me to see, unfortunately*].”

(*Don’t you simply abhor snippet views? The printed book, out of my reach, has the title Kanauras of Kinnaur: A Scheduled Tribe in Himachal Pradesh. The author is V. Verma, the publisher B.R. Publishing. It looks like copies are available, so I should just order it, then I can tell you what the verse says. But maybe you have it in your personal library and could send it to me.)

Aha!  So Ro-bag in the letter is the village of Ropa (Ropak is likely the local pronunciation) in Kinnaur, and the lama Ras-bir who therein complained about the stoning of his student also, in a surely unrelated incident, ran off with another man’s wife. This is one juicy detail we hadn’t known before...

Oh, and at this moment I’m thinking Theodor Schreve could be the missionary in question, him or some other Moravian, as Moravians were the missionaries active in those parts in earlier days. I will need to look into this more closely. I’ve been planning to blog on those Moravians (here is a sketch of their history) for the longest time. I see he was working as a missionary together with his wife Mary in the Himalayas between the years 1887-1897. Oh, no, that doesn’t work with any Water Mouse year, so I suppose I will just have to keep on looking. I hope you will do the same. If you could, drop us a note in the comments and tell us what you find out.

Biblio:

John Bray, “Christian Missionaries on the Tibetan Border: The Moravian Church in Poo (Kinnaur), 1865-1924,” contained in: S. Ihara & Z. Yamaguchi, eds., Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita 1992), pp. 369-375. Succinct and insightful essay on the rise and fall of the very small Moravian missionary enterprise in Kinnaur.

John Bray, “Debt, Dependency and the Moravian Mission in Kinnaur, 1865-1924,” Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 57 (January 2021), pp. 33-65. Available online.

John Bray, “Early Protestant Missionary Engagement with the Himalayan Region and Tibet,” contained in: J. Bray, ed., Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives, Brill (Leiden 2005), pp. 249-270.  

Laxman S. Thakur, “Tibetan Historical Inscriptions from Kinnaur and Lahaul-Spiti: A Survey of Recent Discoveries,” contained in:H. Krasser, et al., eds., Tibetan Studies, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna 1997), vol. 2, pp. 967-979.  On p. 968, you can spot a Tibetan spelling for Ropa in the form of Ro-dpag, a spelling I’ve noticed a few times in other places. It’s off the main road, so even though I was once, back in 1996, on a very long bus trip passing through nearby Poo, or Pooh, I never saw the place. I often wish I had spent a longer time in Kinnaur. If you had seen what I did see you would surely wish the same. You could see a rough map of a few features of the village on Googlemaps if you were to look here.

° ° °

PS: The comments that follow were sent by John Bray as part of an email of September 30, 2022 (the articles he mentions have been added to the bibliography just above):

Here are a couple of immediate thoughts:

• I enclose another paper on Pooh to add to your bibliography. It doesn’t solve the problem but perhaps adds a little more ‘texture’

• In 1912 there were still Moravians in Pooh, and they had a dispensary. The founder missionary – Eduard Pagell, who died in 1883 – had a particular reputation as a great doctor. His successors were not quite so famous but perhaps still worthy recipients of honorifics.

• Laufer had some papers from the Moravians: they came from the estate of Karl Marx (no relation) who died in Ladakh in 1891.

• Does the paper tell you anything? The shape looks ‘Western’ to me. And what about the script? Dbu-can because addressed to someone who wouldn’t have been so good at reading cursive?

There might possibly be another missionary candidate. Prochnow – German missionary working for the (Anglican) Church Missionary Society in Kotgarh – travelled to Kinnaur in the 1850s (see the other attachment) but this would have been a relatively fleeting visit, not enough to build a reputation as a great lama. I think 1912 sounds more plausible than 1852

You seem to have found a plausible place name but otherwise one might look in Lahul as well.

Postscript (June 10, 2024)

I believe the writer of the letter may well have been the uncle of Kunu Lama, a remarkable Buddhist teacher highly regarded by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.  Khunu Lama went to stay with his uncle between age seven (1901) and 14, and that uncle's name was "Lama Rasbâr Dâs," in the village known as Ropa.  Since both the name and place of residence correspond, and because there is no chronological problem, I believe this identity can be established.  See Lamchen Gyalpo Rinpoche, Sunlight Blessings That Cure the Longing of Remembrance: A Biography of the Omniscient Khunu Mahâsattva, Tenzin Gyeltsen, translated by Erick Tsiknopoulos and Mike Dickman (2011), pp. 9-10.  This pamphlet-sized book was made available online at tibetologist.com.  If this identification proves correct, it would seem to favor the 1912 dating of the letter.