Words New and Old: An Unknown Glossary

I ought to warn you, already decades ago I submitted a paper about Tables of Contents as a Tibetan literary genre. It was finally published, but I still get push-back for it from people who think they know me and assume I must be joking. I just have to assert my sincerity and go on telling things as I have learned to see them. 

The spectrum of Tibetan literary genres is distinct from what we know in the modern Anglophone world. Things were divided up differently. There is no one-to-one correspondence to be found. Really, if you think about it, there never was a Tibetan novel, not until quite recently, just as the Anglos never had a namthar. Anyway, what does ‘literary’ mean? Is there such a thing as a minor literary genre? A sub-genre? If we’re going to go on splitting things up and then analyze why it was done... We’ll never finish work for the day if we have to answer all those types of questions.

So here we are delving into a different Tibetan genre we’ll call Old-New Glossaries. The title above already tells you the one we’ll talk about is unknown, but Laufer had heard about it, so others probably did, too, I just haven’t found evidence. Its poetic title is The Shining of Seven Horses. In case the metaphor doesn’t work on you, and we have to accept that possibility, the whole phrase could be reduced down to Sunshine. What? Were you not fully aware that the sun is the object that is drawn along by seven horses in Indian mythology? The title tells us the book will shine a light on obscure matters, something all compositions ought to do, ideally.

The book can very well be called a glossary or a vocabulary, although it doesn’t suit the definition of a dictionary. Its scope is much smaller. Its author intends to explain old and obsolete words to his contemporaries by using understandable contemporary language. 

You might be thinking such a work would tell us what “Old Tibetan” words mean. Well, okay, it can and sometimes does happen that you find help with a puzzling word you encountered in a Dunhuang document of the 8th-11th centuries by consulting this type of glossary. That would be unusual. 

Sparing you the arguments and details, the fact is that what are here meant by old words are items of vocabulary that were used in the pre-Mongol Second Spread era (or roughly 11th into 13th centuries) and later fell out of use. Sometimes in art studies they call this same period the Kadampa period, although I prefer to call it early Tibet as a fuzzy way of distinguishing it from the Old Tibetan imperial era. The century and a half in between (mid-9th through end of 10th) we can call the post-imperial era or period of fragmentation.

A somehow distinct emphasis in these works is on differences in terms used in old and new Tibetan translations of scriptures and treatises. Unlike Chinese Buddhists who saved everything in their canon collections, Tibetans simply abandoned earlier translations along with their vocabulary choices and replaced them with new ones to suit new standards. Their efforts were not entirely successful, so old translation terms still survive here and there, so there was at least this one reasonable use for Old-New Glossaries.*

(*I think the earliest examples, like the one by Dbus-pa Blo-gsal, were more strictly done in order to show how old terms had been, or ought to be, replaced by new ones. I don’t say this with complete assurance, it’s just an impression. Later examples were more likely to include old terms from non-canonical sources as well.)

Oddly enough, although no other mentions can be traced in the worldwide web,* Berthold Laufer did mention the Shining of Seven Horses (Seven Horses for short) in his famous and still useful essay, “Bird Divination among the Tibetans,” published way back in 1914, at p. 65, where he says that the 1899 Tibetan-Latin-French dictionary of Father Desgodins made use of it as one of its sources. I hope you’re taking all this in, taking notes if necessary.

(*Believe me when I tell you this Laufer reference was not located through any internet search, I found it in my own notes to Tibskrit. The link to Tibskrit is in the sidebar to your right.)

 

The title (click on it to enlarge)

What this tells us is that the Seven Horses manuscript scanned and posted by BDRC is our nearly unique evidence for the existence of this work. The only other mention of it is as a source of the Desgodins dictionary. This dictionary was very beautifully printed, but not well circulated to say the least. I couldn’t immediately find mention of our title in the front matter of the dictionary, but Laufer corresponded directly with the missionary and could have learned about it in that way rather than from the printed page. Apart from my mother, I know of no other person today who actually writes in handwriting, putting the paper in an envelope, and attaching postage stamps. You may have to take my word when I say it was once a very common method of communication. But enough distraction, let’s spare a few words about the author, as much as we can given the resources at our disposal today.

The name of the author as it appears in the colophon

I couldn’t immediately explain why BDRC lists the author’s name as Kun-bzang-padma-blo-ldan, while the small cursive letters in the colophon actually read dge-kyongs [~ dge-skyong] Padma-blo-ldan. The dge-skyong, or virtue keeping epithet may imply that the person named is a monastic, but it isn’t in any sense a proper part of the name, just an epithet. So the only author’s name we have here in the manuscript is Padma-blo-ldan, a person not very easily identified.

Still we can know things of significance about the author without peering anywhere outside the colophon itself (see the discussion at the head of the Reference list, below). What is sure is that he was a Nyingma belonging to the 17th century. Even if less sure, he likely lived and worked in Kham in Eastern Tibet.

Maybe another time someone will go into the content of this under-utilized work in detail and tell us how well it corresponds with previous works of its genre. A good text for comparison would be the most famous one, known by the short poetic title Li-shi'i Gur-khang by the translator Skyogs-ston. It could help with a number of discussions and arguments we might want to have or make. For now, to close with, I would like to look briefly at something near the end. This might supply enough of a taste of it for now.

After the ending of chapter 30, after the end of the alphabetic series, on folio 17 verso, there is a special section on borrowings from non-Tibetan languages, starting with the most obvious group, borrowings from Sanskrit (or more broadly Indic) language. The reason for going into this is this: Tibetans might very well encounter words that they don’t immediately understand and rush to the conclusion that they are Old Vocabulary terms, when in fact they are borrowings. 

While that motive is surely there, we may also see, mainly in this Indic section, that certain terms underwent local adaptations within Tibet often making them difficult to recognize as borrowings. I call this process “Tibetanization.” Mostly well known examples are given, like Indic pustaka meaning book, evolving into po-ti in Tibet. Another example is Tibetan form bram-ze for Sanskrit brahmaṇa, or, as we say in English, brahmin, meaning the priestly caste.* 

(*Yes, it is true what you may be thinking, we may well imagine Prakritic or colloquializing forms intervening, so at least some of the change could have already taken place in India, no doubt.)

I see a lot of drama in the Tibetanization of the Indian woman saint’s name Lakṣmīṅkarā — Legs-smin-kā-ra — since the first two syllables are transformed into meaningful Tibetan syllables that could be translated well ripened. Our author sees all these things as mistakes Tibetans have made in Sanskrit, rather than seeing the ways they had fun with Sanskrit. I hope you’re having fun, but let’s move ahead to the next bit about Chinese borrowings. 

Here he says that there are instances in which people want to take Chinese borrowed words as being Old Terms. Examples of more-or-less direct borrowings he gives are grum-tse [seating mat], cog-tse [table] and zing-zan [zang-zing as a term for food or meat?]. But also there are calques from Chinese terms like gser-zhal and gser-yig.* All of these items come together with added small-letter explanations in red ink, even if not all are easily read. Gser-zhal [‘gold face’] is glossed as face of the king. Gser-yig [‘gold letter’] is bang-chen-pa [‘one with great messages’], usually understood to mean an imperial envoy. 

(*My impression is these two calques only entered Tibetan usage during the early days of Yuan Mongolian influence.)

But then it’s the next thing that most interests me (fol. 18v.2). We all of a sudden switch from language borrowings and calques to terminology of a different religion. What exact religion might be here intended by Bon we will return to again and again in some other place. The line reads like this (with the glosses in parentheses, all red letters given here in red font):

gnam (mchod rnam legs pa la) gshegs (li shi na ’ang) lor bon po’i brda.

Let me do my best to unpack this rather than straight-up translating. It’s telling us there is such a thing as Bonpo vocabulary, with one example being gnam gshegs, meaning passing [to] heaven, glossed as being in the sense or context of finely made offerings. Then the second gloss says, just before the syllable lor that must mean as reported, “as also in the Clove, the Li-shi.”*

(*This could provoke lots of discussion, not least of all because the expression[s] given aren’t really special Bon terminology in the sense that only Bonpos would understand them, and, less relevant here yet a truth that needs telling, the fact is that Bon writings have carried very many early Tibetan terms into modern times when everyone else had practically forgotten them in around the 13th century.)

This mention of Clove or Li-shi is meant as a clue to have a look at the Clove Canopy of Skyogs-ston. The Clove Canopy does in truth end its vocabulary listings in much the same manner as the Seven Horses, by discussing clusters of items that might be misconstrued as Old Terms. The latter work doesn’t just reproduce what’s in the former, but appears for most part to supplement it. Significantly for us right now, it does have a discussion of passing [to] heaven [p. 22]:

kha cig bon po'i brdar yod de / legs pa la gnam mchod pa dang / mi shi ba la gnam du gshegs pa dang / bsod nams che ba la gnam gyis bskos pa zhes pa dang / dbang che ba la gnam sa'i bdag ces pa sogs shin tu mang zhing...

In some cases we have words of the Bonpos. For something that is quite fine, they say sky offering (gnam mchod-pa), and for a person who has died they say he has gone to heaven (gnam-du gshegs-pa). For someone of superior merits, they say he is sky appointed (gnam gyis bskos-pa), and for someone of superior power, they say lord of sky and earth (gnam sa'i bdag).

Without reading this passage from the Clove Canopy, I fear we would never be able to see the point of the corresponding passage in the Seven Horses. True enough. But let me make the point I want to make here in connection with some arguments in a recent blog entry with the title “Nam, an Ancient Word for Sky.” Both the Clove Canopy and the Seven Horses can come to our aid,* seeing that these expressions make use of the concept of gnam. In the minds of these glossary writers, gnam belongs to a non-Buddhist “Bon” context that would likely feel alien or archaic to your typical Tibetan Buddhist reader of their times.

(*Along with still other sources like the well known quote, falsely attributed to the Nel-pa history, about how Bonpos “like the sky.” See the discussion under “Nel-pa” in the list below.)

 

Reference list

For more on Tibetan-language lexical tools, see our July 16, 2015 blog “Lexical Euphoria: Good News on Dictionaries.”

In the list you can see below, I’ve included several works known to me that belong to the genre of Old-New Glossaries. I had no idea to make a complete list. One way you can look for still more examples is to do a search at BDRC/BUDA, where you can even find their subject heading for it together with its own independent listing (try this link). Alternatively, do a more general search of BDRC using the terms “gsar rnying brda” or “brda gsar rnying” or “brda’ rnying.” You can try the same in a worldwide web search, but make sure to include the double quote marks when you do.

Before typing up the bibliographical list, let me give the details for the Seven Horses:

The full title-page title is: Bod yul gyi skad gsar rnying gi rnam par bzhag pa rta bdun snang ba [zhes bya ba bzhugs so legs so ngo mtshar mchog lags]. A Sanskrit title is also given in Tibetan script. The title page verso has a slightly variant title: Bod yul gyi skad gsar rnying gi rnam par dbye ba rta bdun snang ba [zhes bya ba].

It can be found here at this page.

But it can also be found here at this page.

Both manuscripts end on the verso of folio 19, even if the number of folios is stated differently. They are for all purposes identical. BDRC gives its author’s ID as P5081, along with three forms of his name: [1] Kun-bzang-padma-blo-ldan. [2] Stag-ras-pa. [3] Stag-ras-pa Kun-bzang-padma-blo-ldan. Thanks to Google and its help finding the article by Cantwell (q.v.), I could find a mention of one by the full name (no. 3), as author of a biography of Bdud-’dul-rdo-rje. BDRC is as correct as it can be about the date of the work. It must be 17th century because it names the author’s teacher as Padma-blo-gros, holder of the treasure lineages of Bdud-’dul-rdo-rje and Mi-’gyur-rdo-rje. The former is the very well known tertön by that name who lived from 1615-1672. The latter, a still more famous tertön, lived from 1645-1667. Both were particularly active in Khams, and had their early main followers there.

The author’s teacher is identifiable as Stag-bla Padma-ma-ti (aka Padma-blo-gros), whose dates are 1591 to 1637. The author held this teacher’s lineages from both of the just-mentioned tertöns. The person who actually requested that the work be written is given as the fully ordained monk Blo-gros-nyi-ma, also known as the Yogin Tshul-khrims-rgyal-mtshan, and further described as my own root Lama. I haven’t been able to make a definitive identification of the root Lama yet. What we can know is that the author belonged to the 17th century and a Nyingma milieu, and even if it isn't so sure, he likely lived and worked in the eastern parts of the plateau we normally know as Khams. In any case our single available manuscript was scanned in Khams, in a particular monastery within the modern county called Kardze.

 

° ° °

A-lag-sha Ngag-dbang-bstan-dar (1754-1840), Gangs can gyi brda' gsar rnying las brtsams pa'i brda' yig blo gsal mgrin rgyan. A 52-folio woodblock print listed as part of the collection of the Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, nos. B6744/27, B8922/4. It is also findable in his Collected Works, vol. 2 [KHA] (New Delhi 1971).

A-myes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga’-bsod-nams (1597-1659), Gsar rnying brda'i rnam dbye legs par bshad pa gsung rab kun la lta ba'i sgron me. The text is available (see BDRC).

Blo-bzang-bsam-’grub (1820-1882), Dpe chos rin chen spungs pa'i btus ming shes rab kyi mig gsal byed kyi sgron me. Woodblock print in 28 folios. Vocabulary from the Dpe chos, an early Kadampa work. The author’s name is given in the colophon as Sngags-rams-pa Chos-rje Lcam-sring-skyabs. Its poetic title could be translated, Lamp that Lights Up the Eye of Insight. A distinct New-Old Glossary by this same Mongolian author, Gangs can bod kyi brda gsar rnying las brtsams pa'i brda yig blo gsal mgul rgyan, in 66 folios, is listed in Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature, no. 10164. I have no idea about its present availability.

Blo-gros-rgya-mtsho and Bkra-shis-dngos-grub, Brda rnying tshig mdzod gsar bsgrigs, Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa 2011), in 381 small-format pages. This is a modern-day compilation of various works of the Old-New Glossaries genre. I’ve always found the Btsan-lha dictionary more useful.

Btsan-lha Ngag-dbang-tshul-khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyi me long, Mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Beijing 1997). The great virtue of this dictionary is that it combines a large number of early Old-New Glossaries (along with still other lexicographical genres). It lists their titles at the end of the volume, at pp. 1040-1063. Although the author is surely quite advanced in age by now, I understand he has been working on a much expanded version, something students of early Tibet would be right to anticipate. Meanwhile the 1997 edition has gotten more and more difficult to find.

Cathy Cantwell, “Reincarnation and Personal Identity in the Lives of Tibetan Masters: Linking the Revelations of Three Lamas of the Dudjom Tradition,” a 32-page essay, apparently only available as a draft on the internet at this URL. On its 19th unnumbered page, you can see a very rare instance of a mention of our author, only here he is author of a biographical work on Bdud-’dul-rdo-rje:

“A much longer list of the previous incarnations of Düdül Dorje is given in a namthar (rnam thar, ‘hagiography’) compiled by Takrepa Künzang Pema Loden (Stag ras pa kun bzang padma blo ldan, 1997), apparently a direct student of Düdül Dorjeʼs.” 

Chos-ldan-rgya-mtsho, Brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag legs par ston pa'i reg gzigs gsar bu'i nyer mkho. Listed in Btsan-lha, no. 1052, but I suspect confusion with the work by Rje-drung Lhun-grub-blo-ldan, q.v.

Co-ne Grags-pa-bshad-sgrub (1675-1748), Snyan ngag mngon brjod brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag mdor bsdus blo gsal yid 'phrog. A woodblock print in 12 folios. Signed “shākya'i dge slong bshad sgrub ming can.” Composed at G.yar khral. Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, nos. B5660/2, B8487/23. See Leonard van der Kuijp's article about bam po in Journal of Tibetology, at p. 120, where he comments that this work cannot be found in its author’s collected works.

Dalai Lama VII Skal-bzang-rgya-mtsho (1708-1757), Tā go shrī dge slong shes rab rgya mtsho'i dogs sel dris lan dang brda gsar rnying gi brda chad 'ga' zhig gi dris lan. Listed in Btsan-lha’s dictionary, p. 1052. Answers to inquiries about archaic vocabulary items.

Dbus-pa Blo-gsal (ca. 1265-1355), Brda gsar rnying gi rnam par dbye ba. For the Otani University manuscript, click here. This is the same one used in the studies by Mimaki, q.v. Other editions have since become available, just search for them in BDRC.

Auguste Desgodins (1826-1913), Dictionnaire thibétain-latin-francais par les missionnaires du Thibet, Imprimerie de la Société des Missions Étrangères (Hong Kong 1899). Look here, although I was unable to make the .tif files open on my computer. Perhaps you will have better luck? You might also try here. As I said, there doesn’t seem to be any direct mention of the Seven Horses in this publication, but either it or another book like it is alluded to on p. vi: “nous indiquons par (A. = R. ancien égale récent), les mots qui ne se trouvent guère que dans la langue sacrée ancienne...” Oh, and notice that the Bibliothèque Nationale de France has this interesting page about Desgodins with lists of his publications and letters. Their own Gallica website offers what appears to be a superior scan of the dictionary, click here to get started (the download button is findable on the right side of the window; it is very slow, but worth the wait).

Dngul-chu Ngag-dbang-rdo-rje (1720-1803), Brda gsar rnying gi khyad par bstan pa gsar bu'i blo gros skyed byed. A work in 6 folios. This has been published a number of times in various formats, just do a search for it at BDRC.

Gnya’-gong Dkon-mchog-tshe-brtan, Bod kyi brda rnying yig cha rtsa chen bdams bsgrigs rnams kyi tshig don kun nas khrol bar byas pa rab gsal me long, Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Lanzhou 2001). This work is unlike the others, [1] in the first place because it studies a number of works, listing their vocabulary items separately, and [2] because it intends to explain the old terminology to be found in Dunhuang documents (documents unknown to post-imperial Tibet up until the 20th century) along with stele inscriptions of imperial times (inscriptions in large part available, and to some degree known to and studied by Tibetans in past centuries).

Kun-bzang-rdo-rje, ed., Chos skad brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag sbrang rtsi'i bum pa, Rdzong kha gong 'phel lhan tshogs (Thimphu 2011), in 159 pages.

Berthold Laufer, “Bird Divination among the Tibetans (Notes on Document Pelliot No. 3530, with a Study of Tibetan Phonology of the Ninth Century),” T'oung Pao, series 2, vol. 15 (2014), pp. 1-110. As part of a very useful discussion of Old-New Glossaries, he has these words on p. 65:

“There is, further, a work under the title Bod yul-gyi skad gsar rñiṅ-gi rnam-par dbye-ba rta bdun snaṅ-ba, which has been carefully utilized in the “Dictionaire thibétain-latin-français par les Missionnaires catholiques du Thibet” (Hongkong, 1899).” (The footnote attached to this passage is also of considerable interest.)

Berthold Laufer, “Loan-Words in Tibetan,’ contained in: Hartmut Walravens, ed., Sino-Tibetan Studies: Selected Papers on the Art, Folklore History, Linguistics and Prehistory of Sciences in China and Tibet, Aditya Prakashan (New Delhi 1987), vol. 2, pp. 483-643 [originally published in 1916], at pp. 523-524, or pp. 443-444 in the original 1916 publication. 

After posting the blog, but on the very same day, I noticed Laufer, back in 1916, made a translation of the passage about Chinese loanwords from the Clove Canopy that I had translated on the basis of the shorter corresponding passage in Seven Horses, so it’s interesting to compare them, even if I won’t do that here and now.

Mimaki Katsumi, “dBus pa blo gsal no "Shin Kyu Goi Shu" — Kôtei bon Shokô [The brDa gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba of dBus pa blo gsal — A First Attempt at a Critical Edition],” contained in: Asian Languages and General Linguistics: Festschrift for Prof. Tatsuo Nishida on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Tokyo 1990), pp. 17-54. This contains a critical text edition in Roman transcription (with numbers inserted so that one may first locate words in Mimaki's alphabetic index, and then locate them in the critical text edition).

Mimaki Katsumi, “Index to Two brDa gsar rñiṅ Treatises: The Works of dBus pa blo gsal and lCaṅ skya Rol pa'i rdo rje,” contained in a special issue of the Bulletin of the Narita Institute for Buddhist Studies (Naritasan Bukkyôkenkyûjo kiyô), vol. 15, no. 2 (1992), pp. 479-503.

Mimaki Katsumi, “Two Minor Works Ascribed to dBus pa Blo gsal,” contained in S. Ihara and Z. Yamaguchi, eds., Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita 1992), vol. 2, pp. 591-598. Discussion about an existing text, at Otani University, of his Brda gsar rnying gi rnam par dbye ba, as well as his Rtags kyi 'jug pa'i 'grel pa.

Nel-pa Paṇḍi-ta, Sngon gyi gtam me tog gi phreng ba, "a 13th century source on the history of Tibetan kings and rulers by Ne'u Paṇḍi-ta Grags-pa-smon-lam-blo-gros, with other rare historical texts from the library of Burmiok Athing," T.D. Densapa, LTWA (Dharamsala 1985).

Nel-pa is at times credited with the statement that Bonpos “like the sky” (gnam-la dga'). However, this one edition of the text I have at hand reads, at p. 14 line 1: gnam las babs par smra ba ni / bon pos lhad bcug par yin no. “This saying that they [the books, etc.] fell [onto the palace roof of the Tibetan Emperor Lha Tho-tho-ri Gnyan-btsan] from the sky is to be explained as an interpolation by the Bonpos.” I should go check the German of Helga Uebach’s translation and see how she understood it. Here it is on her p. 87: “Das Gerede des Vom-Himmel-Kommens ist eine Verfälschung seitens der Bon-po.” I suppose “falsification” suits the tone of it well enough. Just try doing a Googlebook search for “gnam la dga’” and you will see there is a problem of quote attribution by earlier writings in both Tibetan and English that needs fixing. Right now I think those words like the sky were first pronounced much later on, in the mid-16th century history the Scholars’ Feast, but I’ll put that difficult discussion on hold for another time, another blog. Finding the truth of the matter is one thing, but tracing back the sources of error can be even more laborious and challenging (and somehow revealing on occasion).

Ngag-dbang-chos-dar, Brda gsar rnying, Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Xining 1980), in 217 pp. A modern work, based on the Gangs can gyi brda gsar rnying las brtsams pa'i brda yig blo gsal mgrin rgyan by A-lag-sha Ngag-dbang-bstan-dar, q.v.

Rje-drung Lhun-grub-blo-ldan (19th century), Brda' gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag legs par ston pa gsar bu'i nyer mkho, Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press (Sarnath 1966), in 118 pp. For a scan of a beautiful woodblock print in 37 folios, click here. The statement naming the author is found in the woodblock’s colophon at folio 36 recto, line 5. Perhaps this has to do with the similarly titled text by Chos-ldan-rgya-mtsho, q.v.

Rnam-rgyal-tshe-ring, Bod yig brda rnying tshig mdzod, Krung go'i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (Beijing 2001), in 678 pages. A Tibetan-Tibetan-Chinese dictionary, the preface is written in Chinese. It doesn’t seem to state what its sources were, but you do notice an uncommonly strong emphasis on Old Tibetan words from Dunhuang documents.

Ulrike Roesler, “Der dPe chos rin chen spuṅs pa'i btus miṅ — eine Quelle zur tibetisch mongolischen Lexographie und Schriftkunde,” contained in: D. Dimitrov, U. Roesler and R. Steiner, eds., Śikhisamuccayah: Indian and Tibetan Studies, Collectanea Marpurgensia Indologica et Tibetica, Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien (Vienna 2002), pp. 151-173. This is a study of the work by Blo-bzang-bsam-’grub, listed above.

Skyogs-ston Lo-tsā-ba Rin-chen-bkra-shis (student of Zha-lu Lo-tsā-ba), Brda gsar rnying gi rnam gzhag li shi'i gur khang (=Bod kyi skad las gsar rnying gi brda'i khyad par ston pa legs par bshad pa li shi'i gur khang), ed. by Mgon-po-rgyal-mtshan, Mi rigs dpe skrun khang (Beijing 1981, 1982). It must have been written in 1476 (the preface wrongly states 1136, and still other dates have been put forward). This is by far the most-mentioned work of the genre, and has been republished numerous times. The advantage of this edition is that it first gives the text in its original form, then once again with the vocabulary items rearranged in Tibetan alphabetic order. If you would prefer a searchable unicode version of it, click here.

Sman-rgyal Sangs-rgyas-rin-chen, Gsar rnying brda'i legs bshad bai ḍūrya yi gur khang gi don gsal nyi ma. Listed in Btsan-lha, p. 1062.

Manfred Taube, “Zu einigen Texten der tibetischen Brda'-gsar-rñiṅ-Literatur,” Asienwissenschaftliche Beitrage (Berlin 1978), pp. 160-201. This isn’t available to me at the moment.

Zhabs-drung Chos-rje Ngag-dbang-tshe-ring (=Wa-ghin-da, fl. 1840), Brda gsar rnying gi rnam bzhag. Listed in Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature, no. 6618.

Zhe-chen Padma-dri-med-legs-pa'i-blo-gros (1901?-1960), Brda gsar rnying gi bye brag rtogs byed. Listed in Btsan-lha, p. 1052.

§   §   §

PS (December 31, 2023, Happy New Year!):

I just found that Padma-blo-ldan's glossary called the Light of Seven Horses, exists in the form of an 18-folio manuscript posted this year in the digital scan version of Nebesky-Wojkowitz’s Tibetan collection. Just go to this URL

https://hav.univie.ac.at/collections/nebesky/node/573/

and see it for yourself.

Sex Rites of the Christian Missionaries

Count von Zinzendorf receiving light rays from the side wound,
oil painting by Johann V. Haidt (1700-1780) dated 1747

I suppose I first sensed something odd was going on years ago. I was testing the limits of my German comprehension, reading one of the oldest essays ever written by a non-Tibetan about the Tibetan Bon religion. August Hermann Francke (1870-1930), published several pieces on that subject during the last three decades of his life. Most famously he started translating the Gzer-myig, the medium-sized biography of Bon’s founder, Lord Shenrab.

In his 1927 essay entitled “Die Zufluchtsformel der Bon-Religion der Tibeter” [‘The Refuge Formula of the Tibetan Bon Religion’], Francke, a Moravian missionary in Lahul, takes the Bon Refuge formula, as found in the Gzer-myig scripture, and compares it with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He pays particular attention to the Bon goddess Sa-trig-er-sang, as adding a female aspect to divinity. This emphasis on female or feminized aspects of the godhead begins to make more sense the more you learn about the Moravians.

The goddess Sa-trig-er-sang bears a Zhang-zhung language name that may be Tibetanized as Shes-rab-byams-ma. This may then be Anglicized as “Insight (or Wisdom as many prefer) Loving Mother.” No doubt, if viewed from outside by a Christian missionary, it might be expectable to see something of Sophia (Wisdom) and Mary the Mother of God (the Theotokos) in that Bon goddess’s name. Both Sophia and Theotokos are icons for veneration in eastern Christianities for whom Holy Wisdom with her female appearance is none other than Jesus. I believe this is at least in general outline the kind of connection Francke meant to draw. Still more germane to our story, Sophia, as the feminine aspect of godhead, has special meanings in the theology of the Moravians, although their tendency is to identify her with the Holy Spirit, unlike the Greek Orthodox, who identify her with Jesus...*

(*See Fogelman’s book, chapter 3: ‘The Challenge to Gender Order.’ Moravians also tended to feminize Jesus; see Rimius.)

I once took a university course about communalistic religious movements in early New England,* but after a few decades my knowledge has worn thin as fine muslin, and what I think I know about Moravian history in Europe and North America comes from recent readings of books and essays of the kind you see listed below. I will try not to torture you with my own ideas too much. You will do so much better if I send you to hear from real experts in the field.

(*I just searched online for the teacher of that class and found that he died earlier this year, age 81. His name is Stephen Stein.)

If you don’t have much time, go directly to the video linked just below with a lecture by Paul Peucker entitled “Opening the Blue Cabinet,” or read his 2011 article if you prefer. If your spirits guide you, go read some of the other items. If you want a well-balanced discussion of historical influences and contexts, definitely read Atwood’s 2004 book. He foregrounds Moravian pietism as a product of its times, with considerable background information, before going on to speak of their unusual marital practices and views on gender, which is as it should be. Contrast Fogleman’s 2007 book, recommended if you have less (yet some) patience for historical detail and theology and would prefer the sexy bits more up front and center.

One thing to bear in mind, the time of Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) and the so-called “Sifting Time,” when the most remarkable ritualized sex observances and theological enthusiasms took place, were by most accounts not only long over but gone by the time the Herrnhut Brethren entered Tibetan cultural realms of northern India in the 1850’s. There had even been an attempt to scrub the archives clean (Peucker 2012). Yet some of the early ideas had carrying power. If the missionaries in Lahul were not making use of The Blue Cabinet, and I do not believe they were, still their marriages were arranged for them (often planned out in detail) by the church. Earlier Moravians regarded the marriage bed as a religious sacrament (which is not the same as Catholics who regard the institution of marriage, the rite itself, as a sacrament). Moravians had to submit to the church in general, and accepting the church’s choice of spouse was just another instance of submission. 

And in those earlier days the church was very closely and intimately involved in their followers’ marital lives. In truth the physical union was then treated as a religious ritual with promise of spiritual benefits, done in combination with prayers. That means not only prayers and hymns done by themselves, but also by the church elders sitting just outside the door absorbed in hymn singing and fervid praying. But don’t take my word for it.

I wouldn’t want to leave anyone with the impression that the Moravian Brethren were just a pack of randy rascals. I don’t have time or inclination to grant them complete justice, what anthropologists call adequate representation, here in this place. I’ll only say it again, read Atwood’s book. Still, let me say a thing or two to close with. 

The Moravians were quite influential, and not only controversial, particularly in the early times. We should review some of their accomplishments briefly:

They didn’t make the first hymnals, but they did make the first hymnals intended for congregational singing, like those you find today in every Protestant church. 

They published the first Bible in Czech language. 

They were the original “world missionaries” even if this isn’t often recognized. (For an exception, see Ward’s book.) Zinzendorf himself visited the New World to do missionary work. In North America they proselytized and invited to worship with them both native-born populations and slaves, disregarding race, accepting everyone. They converted those who were willing, without pressuring them to renounce their cultures. 

They not only recognized a female aspect in the godhead in their theology, in practice they gave a much greater role to women than was common in other churches — a feminist impulse was in evidence. 

There was also what we may see as an ecumenical impulse, even if it was largely about how intense devotion and piety could overcome the credal boundaries drawn by contending theological convictions.

 

But when we limit ourselves to our Tibeto-centric perspective their biggest contributions were in the works of Francke, Jäschke and others who were doing more for the field of Tibetan studies than anyone else in their day. They may have had missionary interests, but at least they had the good sense to take an interest.

The Moravian Mission in Keylong, from Missions Archive

§  §  §

The Video

• Paul Peucker, Opening the Blue Cabinet 

from Moravian Seminary on Vimeo 

(https://vimeo.com/31960203)

Relevant literature 

(Items I most recommend are marked by a red bullet: • )

• Craig D. Atwood, “Adoring the Wounded Savior.” Go to this webpage (and don’t neglect to download the Powerpoint that goes with it; it ought to appear if you just tap on the words “Adoring the Wounded Savior Slideshow” at the very top of the essay).

• Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem, Pennsylvania State University Press (University Park 2004). Try here. 

Craig D. Atwood, “Little Side Holes: Devotional Cards of the Mid-Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Moravian History, no. 6 (Spring 2009), pp. 61-75. He argues against Fogleman’s tendency to view all the devotional wound imagery as necessarily erotic. All the same he accepts that it is heavily laden with womb symbolism.

Craig D. Atwood, “Mother of God’s People: The Adoration of the Holy Spirit in the Eighteenth-Century Brüdergemeine,” Church History, vol. 68, no. 4 (December 1999), pp. 886-909.

Craig D. Atwood, “Sleeping in the Arms of Christ: Sanctifying Sexuality in the Eighteenth-Century Moravian Church,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 8, no. 1 (July 1997), pp. 25-51.

Craig D. Atwood, “The Union of Masculine and Feminine in Zinzendorfian Piety,” contained in: Katherine M. Faull, ed., Masculinity, Sense, Spirit, Bucknell University Press (Lewisburg 2011), pp. 11-37

Craig D. Atwood, “Understanding Zinzendorf’s Blood and Wounds Theology,” Journal of Moravian History, no. 1 (2006) pp. 31-46.

Rafal Beszterda, The Moravian Brethren and Himalayan Cultures: Evangelisation, Society, Industry, Munshiram Manoharlal (New Delhi 2014).  PDF.

John Bray, “A.H. Francke’s Last Visit to Ladakh: History, Archaeology and the First World War,” Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 44 (2015), pp. 147-178. The author has a very extensive body of writings on the Moravian missionaries in the Himalayas, and only a few of these will be listed here.

John Bray, “Heinrich August Jaeschke: Pioneer Tibetan Scholar,” The Tibet Journal, vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 1983), pp. 50-55. Interesting information about Jaeschke’s ancestor being one of the founding members of Herrnhut.

• John Bray, “Ladakhi Knowledge and Western Learning: A.H. Francke’s Teachers, Guides and Friends in the Western Himalaya,” Revue d'Etudes Tibetaines, vol. 51 (2019), pp. 39-70. With interesting photographs.

John Bray, “Recalling the Life of Ladakh Scholar A.H. Francke on His 150th Birthday Anniversary,” a blog posted at Ladakhstudies.org on November 4, 2020.

R.K.C., A Strategy for Bringing Contextualized Gospel into the Tibetan Buddhist World, master’s thesis, School of Divinity, Regent University (Virginia Beach 2020). 

A work of practical mission-ology. I checked and found that this Regent University is nondenominational Christian — yet obviously evangelical, believing in the global missionary imperative, scriptural inerrancy, literal interpretation etc.* — with half their students not residing in Virginia Beach (yes, Bible-believing Boomers can be Zoomers). I have to say I’m not impressed at the depth of insight this thesis demonstrates, and think I could have made a lot better suggestions, for example, how to appropriate tulku ideas by integrating them into Christian incarnation theology. The faculty advisers sign their names, but the student fears to do so for reasons we can only imagine to our horror.

(*In case you wonder, yes, these would be some of the very people who voted for Donald Trump. See this story about one of his rallies held there on campus in 2016, addressed by Pat Robertson, naturally, since he’s its founder, chancellor and CEO. God told him Trump would win that latest presidential election, and no, he didn’t. The evangelicals knew for certain that Trump was not a good person, but nevertheless chose to see him as an instrument of divine will (as his Vice President, Pence spoke in just those terms when addressing evangelical audiences). Serving as an instrument in this case could very well mean hastening the end of the world, something they greatly anticipate, at times displaying an eagerness that can only be described as perverse. If you haven’t heard about their Cyrus arguments, about the usefulness of flawed vessels, you really ought to look into it. Well, if everybody is imperfect, then everyone should get to be head of state, if you will allow me to give a little push to their tortured logic. Trump was always forced to respect them, given their voting power, even when he would mock them as losers and demonstrate his disbelief beyond all possibility of doubt. Remember that photo op of him holding up a Bible in front of a church? Remember how much trouble was taken to put on this display? A calculated ploy to boost his falling approval ratings... To quote The Who, We won’t be fooled again... 

H.M. Cushman, “Handling Knowledge: Holy Bodies in the Middle English Mystery Plays,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, vol. 47, no. 2 (2017), pp. 279-304, at p. 279:

“In the climax of the N-Town and Chester Nativity plays, the midwife Salome puts her hand inside the Virgin Mary...  In the plays featuring Thomas the Apostle, Thomas’s fingers penetrate the resurrected Jesus’s wounded side and hands. Both the midwife and the apostle are searching for something. Salome is seeking evidence that supports or disproves the Virgin Mary’s claim that, although she has just given birth, she retains the anatomical features of a ‘clene mayde and pure virgyn.’...

“...  They conduct manual experiments, or what the plays sometimes call ‘assayes,’ in order to acquire new knowledge to which these bodies bear witness.”

Keri Davies, “Bridal Mysticism and ‘Sifting Time’: The Lost Moravian History of William Blake’s Family.”  Digital document from internet.  

• Katherine Faull and Jeannette Norfleet, “The Married Choir Instructions (1785),” Journal of Moravian History, no. 10 (2011), pp. 69-110.

J. Kestell Floyer, “The Emblem of the Five Wounds of Christ,” Theology, vol. 4, no. 22 (1922), pp. 194-200.

• Aaron Spencer Fogleman, Jesus is Female: Moravians and the Challenge of Radical Religion in Early America, University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia 2007).

Aaron Spencer Fogleman, “Jesus is Female: The Moravian Challenge in the German Communities of British North America,” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 2 (April 2003), pp. 295-332.

• August Hermann Francke, “Die Zufluchtsformel der Bon-Religion der Tibeter,” Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, vol. 4 (1927), pp. 150-158.  

You will have to go to the link to locate this one. Most printed copies of the journal will have crumbled to dust by now. And the online catalog of the Library of Congress doesn’t record its existence anywhere. For a more detailed summary, see D. Martin, Unearthing Bon Treasures, Brill (Leiden 2001), pp. 333-334.

August Hermann Francke, “gZer-myig, A Book of the Tibetan Bon-pos,” Asia Major, vol. 1 (1924), pp. 243-346; vol. 3 (1926), pp. 321-339; vol. 4 (1927), pp. 161-239, 481-540; vol. 5 (1928), pp. 7-40; vol. 6 (1930), pp. 299-314; new series vol. 7 (1949), pp. 163-188.

John Gill, The Banished Count: The Life of Nicholas Louis Zinzendorf, “from the French of M. Felix Bovet,” James Nisbet (London 1865).  PDF.

H[einrich] A[ugust] Jäschke, A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects, Routledge & Kegan Paul (London 1972), first English edition was dated 1881, while the original German edition appeared in lithographic form, almost entirely in handwriting, between the years 1871 and 1876.

George Fenwick Jones, “Count von Zinzendorf’s Letter to King Tomochichi,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 4 (Winter 2002), pp. 617-619. About a failed effort to colonize Georgia (the Georgia the New World, not the Old) with Moravians and convert the local populations.

Dan Martin, Bon Bibliography,  posted for free download in 2020.

Rich Miller, “Zinzendorf and the Unitas Fratrum: Mutual Edification, Powerful Strategies,” a course paper for the Regent School of Divinity (Virginia Beach 2010).  Document from internet. For more on Regent University, look above under “R.K.C.”

Seth Moglen, “Excess and Utopia: Meditations on Moravian Bethlehem,” History of the Present, vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall 2012), pp. 122-147. The same author has written a book I haven’t seen, Bethlehem: American Utopia, American Tragedy.

Cameron Partridge, “Side Wound, Virgin Birth, Transfiguration,” Theology & Sexuality, vol. 18, no. 2 (2012), pp. 127-132.

Paul Peucker, A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century, Pennsylvania State University Press, (University Park 2015).  Reviewed by Tom Schwanda in Spiritus, vol. 16 (Spring 2016), pp. 123-125. At this point I’ve read the review, but not the book.

• Paul Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet: Moravians, Marriage & Sex,” Journal of Moravian History, vol 12 (2011), pp. 7-37. Particularly recommended.

Paul Peucker, “Inspired by Flames of Love: Homosexuality, Mysticism and Moravian Brothers around 1750,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 15, no. 1 (2006).  PDF (by subscription only).

Paul Peucker, “Selection and Destruction in Moravian Archives Between 1760 and 1810,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 12, no. 2 (2012) pp. 170-215. On attempts to purge the  church archives of historical records pertaining to the so-called Sifting Time.

Paul Peucker, “The Songs of the Sifting: Understanding the Role of Bridal Mysticism in Moravian Piety during the Late 1740’s,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 3 (2007), pp. 51-87.

Paul Peucker, “Wives of the Lamb: Moravian Brothers and Gender around 1750,” contained in: Katherine M. Faull, ed., Masculinity, Sense, Spirit, Bucknell University Press (Lewisburg 2011), pp. 39-54.

Oskar Pfister, Die Frommigkeit des Grafen Ludwig von Zinzendorf [‘The Piety of Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf’], Schriften zur angewandten Seelenkunde, no. 8  (Leipzig and Vienna 1910). 

I don’t pretend to have read it, it’s just interesting to know that this was the book that brought Count Zinzendorf to the attention of the Viennese psychoanalytical circle with their evolving ideas about sexual repression (see Silberer’s book listed just below). Actually, Pfister although a Lutheran minister in Switzerland, was enthusiastically involved in the Viennese circle, exchanging letters with Freud and so on. To quote a line from Freud’s 1914 essay, ‘History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement’:

“Dr. Pfister, a pastor in Zurich, has traced back the origin of religious fanaticism to perverse eroticism in his book on the piety of Count von Zinzendorf, as well as in other contributions. In the latest works of the Zurich school, however, we find analysis permeated with religious ideas rather than the opposite outcome that had been in view.”

My note: By Zurich school, he means Pfister’s own circle of followers. Freud could never express his appreciation for another member of his circle without also chiding them for something or another. He does a similar thing every time he mentions Silberer’s dream theories. Perhaps compensating for un-admitted inadequacies, he always made himself look a little better than the rest, more knowledgable, more analytical, more scientific, even. Maybe that’s why he came out at the head of the pack?

Henry Rimius,  A Candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Herrnhuters, Commonly Call'd Moravians, or, Unitas Fratrum; with a Short Account of Their Doctrines Drawn from Their Own Writings, 2nd ed., A. Linde (London 1753), pp. 40-41:

“The Holy Ghost is called by the Herrnhuters, the eternal Wife of  God, the Mother of Christ, the Mother of the Faithful, the Mother of the Church...”

[Jesus] “is called the Lamb, their little Lamb, their little Jesus. They make his Name of the feminine gender, calling him their Mother, their Mama Jesua.” 

Herbert Silberer (1882-1923), Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts, Dover Publications (New York 1971). This English translation was first published under the [better] title Problems of Mysticism and its Symbolism in 1917 (Probleme der Mystik und ihrer Symbolik, in 1914). At pp. 264-266, his discussion on Count Zinzendorf includes these words: 

“Thus the pious man indulges his phantasy with a marked predilection for voluptuousness in the ‘Seitenhölchen’ (Wound in the Side) in Jesus’ body and with an unmistakable identification of this ‘cleft’ with the vulva.”

Kristof Smeyers, “Making Sense of Stigmata: How Victorians Explained the Wounds of Christ,” Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 24, no. 2 (2019), pp. 227-240.

August Gottlieb Spangenberg (1704-1792), The Life of Nicholas Lewis Count Zinzendorf: Bishop and Ordinary of the Church of the United (or Moravian) Brethren, Samuel Holdsworth (Ann Arbor 1838). Try archive.org/.

Peter Vogt, “Honor to the Side: The Adoration of the Side Wound of Jesus in Eighteenth-Century Moravian Piety,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 7 (Autumn 2009), pp. 83-106.

Peter Vogt, “Zinzendorf’s ‘Seventeen Points of Matrimony’: A Fundamental Document on the Moravian Understanding of Marriage and Sexuality,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 10 (2011), pp. 39-67.

W.R. Ward, Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History, 1670-1789, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 2006).

John R. Weinlick, Count Zinzendorf, Abingdon Press (New York 1956).

Karl Wilhelm Westmeier, “Zinzendorf at Esopus: The Apocalyptical Missiology of Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf — A Debut to America.” Missiology, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 1994), pp.  419-436.  I haven’t seen this yet (because of the pay wall).

Yashoda, “50 Stars of Christmas:  Moravian Church, Leh, Highest Church in the World.” Posted November 24, 2017.  Look here, particularly for the photo of the Moravian church in Leh, Ladakh, made to resemble local style architecture.

PS: Looking at the frontispiece, it is difficult to avoid the thought that it was inspired and informed by earlier paintings of St. Francis of Assissi receiving the Stigmata. See for a ca. 1300 example Giotto’s.

Whether Moravian wound devotion was an unnatural aberration or an expectable development of trends within the broader Christian world (see especially Vogt) is something you may have to sort out for yourself, if that’s the sort of thing that interests you. In the British Isles one may detect a longterm development between the 15th century when a cult of Five Wounds reached its peak (Floyer), until the 19th when a anomalously Protestant rash of stigmata took place (Smeyers).

But if you closely inspect and contrast Haidt’s and Giotto’s paintings you will observe the differences in the places the light rays lead to and from, and then some of you will want to conclude that Haidt was influenced by Tibetan Buddhism.

For Paul Peucker’s hour-long exploration of Haidt’s life and artistry, we have this interesting video, posted April 16, 2021. An odd detail: Haidt’s painting of a manger scene shows what apparently is Mary’s midwife, known only in extra-canonical scriptures. Her name was Salome, and a cave-tomb that was once a cult center for Christians in her memory was only made public earlier today (December 21, 2022). There is one decisive clue that the 2nd woman is the midwife: We see in the painting how her one hand holds the other. Part of the story is that her hand was paralyzed when she temporarily doubted the Virgin’s virginity. The tomb had been known for sometime, but newly identified thanks to the recent discovery of an inscription that reads something like, “Salome who was Mary’s midwife.” That the story was released shortly before Christmas was not an accident. 

PPS (still Dec. 21): If you would like to unravel the mystery of why Salome is holding her hands in that way, you shouldn’t trust the news stories, or my own account of it just given, and go directly to the “Infancy Gospel of James,” chapters 19-20. We can all use some fact checking sometimes. Salome was not exactly the midwife, and her hand wasn’t exactly paralyzed (in fact, her “hand was on fire, and falling away from her’). As a “doubting Thomas” type of figure she has to perform her empirical test by inserting her finger somewhere else besides the side wound.

Another thing: The burial cave and its inscription with the name of Salome has been known for years now. For proof, see this 2019 blog by a Holy Land tour guide. Today’s news releases are more than a little disingenuous about this, using weasel words like “recently.”

-  -  -

“O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs,* let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice ; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.” 

—    Song of Solomon 2:14 [King James version]

(*Crag or overhang, in the singular, would have been better translation choices.  Or maybe alcove, a word of Semitic origins.)

 

Rock of ages, cleft for me,

let me hide myself in thee;

let the water and the blood,

from thy wounded side which flowed,

be of sin the double cure;

save from wrath and make me pure.

—    Rock of Ages, the hymn by Augustus Toplady (1763) 

Note: For a typically allegorical Christian interpretation (not something that should ever be done by people like Calvinists, professing a belief in the inerrancy of scripture taken literally) of the Bible verse by John Gill, a teacher of the just-mentioned Toplady, look here. These were Calvinists, not Moravians, although they did belong to the same century as Zinzendorf. Rock of Ages was written soon after Zinzendorf’s death. It is today among the top most-sung hymns in North American evangelical hymnbooks. It might come in at second place after Amazing Grace.

The Realm of Dharmas, a Treasury of Jewels. Chapter 6: Everything is Included in Bodhicitta

The Realm of Dharmas,

a Treasury of Jewels,

by Longchen Rabjampa

CHAPTER SIX

EVERYTHING IS INCLUDED IN BODHICITTA

[It has been shown that all dharmas are included in the purity of the Awareness substantiality.  Meanwhile, it will be shown that, because Dharma Proper and suchness are on the same side, everything is included in the Unproduced continuity.]

As lights are gathered in the essence of the Sun, even

so, the roots of all dharmas are gathered in Bodhicitta.

Appearances/becoming, material/vital and even impure error,

in short, all occurrences are, when the realm of their situations

and dependencies is examined,

gathered in the continuum of foundationless, totally disentangled

citta.

The continuum of the great x—pansive total receptive center that

Dharma Proper is

is gathered in a place beyond the words and meanings of 

‘error’ and ‘unerror’.

˚

[Just as dreams are included in the sleep continuity, so all dharma-having (objects) are included in the continuity of Awareness.]

The appropriate manifestations which are pure—

Body, Buddha, and

the miraculous play of Full Knowledge activity as well,

are included without inclusion or exclusion

in the continuity of the self-engendered.

Including all appearances/becoming and sangsara/nirvana,

the Bodhicitta

is an uncompounded void-clarity like the sun-sky.

From the beginning, it is an expansive total receptive centre,

self-engendered.

[This Awareness-Bodhicitta which excludes no dharmas whatsoever is, like the sun, naturally and implicitly luminous and, like the sky, void and ownerless.  The self-engendered Full Knowledge is called “the primordial Dharmabody which has buddhaized whatever is.”

The All Making King says,

Dharma Proper beyond everything is Bodhicitta.

Bodhicitta is the heart of all dharmas.

Bodhicitta is the root of all dharmas.

As the root, it combines the purpose of everything.]

˚

[The great receptive centre shows the nature of citta.]

The continuity of the changeless sky great receptive centre that

Mind Proper is

has no fixed part to play.  It is Bodhicitta’s special power.

Since it steers all sangsara/nirvana Vehicles,

the one thing that is unemployed is the master of all.

It isn’t separated from objective spheres of those who have

gone to extremes.

There has been no place to go besides the Dharma-Proper-Bodhicitta.

˚

[Now there will be closely formulated for the All-including a simile of its unmovedness.]

The total good of everything has dawned as one naturally-arrived-at.

Everything without exception included, its supremacy is beyond compare.

The greatest of greats total good Realm of Dharmas,

like a king, draws everything together.

Unmoved, yet it has wielded its power over all sangsara/nirvana.

[Just as a king, without moving from his own palace, draws his subjects under his rule, the continuum of Awareness, without moving from Dharma Proper, draws together all sangsara/nirvana.

Everything was made by Bodhicitta and, while everything has dawned from citta, the Mind Proper was not made by anything.  It is beyond all actions and things to do; so things to do are shown to be unnecessary.

The All Making King says,

Bodhicitta made everything.  One was not made.

The all-made the nature of clear comprehension made.

For the one unmade, making is unnecessary.]

˚

[Because the nature of the totality of dharmas is levelness, it is shown to lack good/bad, pushing/striving.]

Everything is totally good.          Not one is bad.

Without good/bad, things are one in Total Good.

Things arrived-at or unarrived-at are all one Realm.

All are, in naturally-arrived-at unmoving levelness,          one.

˚

[What has dawned from the Realm is in itself beyond pushing/striving.]

Everything has dawned from one.    The Realm of All Dharmas

is nothing to be made.                      In its continuity

is nothing to be pushing,                nothing to be striving for.

Pushing/striving do not exist apart from the appropriate Realm.

So from where did you push?          To where do you strive?

˚

[Therefore, it is beyond both cause/effect & pushing/striving.]

There is no objective field of pushing,     nothing to see in meditation,

no place to strive for.     It hasn’t come from somewhere else

It doesn’t come.     It doesn’t go.     It is levelness,

the Dharmabody.

It is subsumed into the Realm of the Great Drop, naturally completed.

[The sky-like substance of Mind Proper is a single spot Realm. Since all dharmas are included in its continuity, there is nothing to be pushed by the ten natures, etc. That which isn’t to be pushed is the Realm of Dharmas, undelineated.]

˚

[Now it will be shown that in Awareness-Bodhicitta all Vehicles are included.  The way the three lesser Vehicles are included:]

The scriptural authorities of Hearers,

                                          Solitary Realizers &

                                           Bodhisattvas

have determined the non existence of me and mine.

The underlying meaning to the “sky-like undiffusive” is the same.

And the scriptural authorities of the supremely secret great yoga of Ati?

Because no matter how it is that the self-engendered Full Knowledge

is actually assigned

to the expansive sky-without-self/other-divisions,

the underlying intention is, in any case, included

in this supreme Heart Ati.

[The Hearers hold that all internal and external dharmas are sky-like, lacking selfhood and ‘person’. The Solitary Realizers say, moreover, that half of the dharmas are not things to be grasped. The Bodhisattvas say that the absence of grasper and grasped, of selfhood pertaining to either dharmas or ‘person’, is sky-like. These views affirm rather than contradict the view of Ati-yoga.]

˚

[The middling three Vehicles are also included in Ati.] [Note: The Diamond Peak is a tantra of the Yoga class held as especially authoritative by the Japanese Shingon school.]

All the three classes of Kriya,

                                      Upa &

                                   Yoga

are the same in holding that the immaculate attainments of body,

                                                                                     speech &

                                                                                      mind

come from the offering rituals of oneself,

                                                 the divinities &

                                                  samadhi.

According to the secret king of scriptural authorities,

the Diamond Peak,

appearances and sounds are immaculate Awareness totally divinized.

Since they bring the immaculate attainments of body,

                                                                     speech &

                                                                      mind into the open,

all their underlying intentions are included in this supreme Heart Ati.

˚

[The superior three Vehicles are completed in Ati.]

The three grades Maha,

                         Anu &

                         Ati believe

in the unmoving Dharma Proper and self-engendered Full Knowledge.

Since appearances/becoming, material/vital, the fields of gods & goddesses,

and Realm-Full Knowledge are immaculate in their indivisibility,

in this most secret supreme, everything is immaculate.

Everything is disentangled into the total vastness receptive centre of

Dharmabody.

Without named dharmas, pushing-working or accepting/rejecting,

everything is from the unmade Palace, the total receptive centre

field of comfort

with no in or out side, spread-out,   embracing all.

All these underlying intentions are included in the great secret

Heart Ati.

˚

[Now, everything being included in Bodhicitta, the meaning is completely summed up.]

One complete.   All complete.   The receptive centre where

all dharmas are included

is included in the totally settled, self-luminous Great

Naturally-arrived-at.

[“One complete.” means completion in Bodhicitta.

  “Two complete.” means the creations of mind are complete.

  “All complete.” means every last thing is perfect.]

 

Return to the beginning.