Slippage in Buddhist Geography, by Todd Gibson

Swat River, Pakistan - Wikicommons

“Slippage” in Buddhist Geography: 

Orissa, Bengal, Kashmir, and Nepal as Sacred Proxies

Todd Gibson

Note: Today’s blog is an original essay by Todd Gibson. It is extracted from a chapter of his forthcoming book Inner Asia and the Nyingmapa Tradition of Tibet: The Case of Shri Singha.

 

Abstract: The reconstruction of the history of Buddhism in India and Tibet is complicated by the often-haphazard approach to geography found in the Indic sources, and a changing understanding of Indian names in the Chinese material. It is becoming apparent, however, that the shifts in perception of what geographical terms referred to was not always due to a mere lack of adequate information; the article discusses four cases which demonstrate deliberate, ideologically-motivated relocation of sacred sites away from the Indian border areas in the wake of historical changes.

It has long been noticed that geographical accuracy was not a great concern for many Indian scholars of the past. In his masterly survey of esoteric Buddhism in India, Davidson notes (2002, p. 33) that “geographical terms are used in a hazy and imprecise manner” and “alternate names are encountered with alarming suddenness in epigraphs and literature”. As a result, “The problem of the relationship between designation and locale can be acute, especially in medieval Buddhist literature.” This relationship is even more tenuous in Indian accounts of the countries of the mleccha peoples, those which lay beyond the civilized area of Āryavārta.

Chinese sources dealing with Indian Buddhist history must also be used with caution. When Buddhism first began to appear in China, the Chinese had only the haziest geographical understanding of the Indian subcontinent. As a result, the names of Indian locales in Chinese sources altered over time, sometimes (but not always) reflecting an improved understanding of the facts on the ground. Another factor that must be taken into account in weighing geographical references in Chinese Buddhist accounts is the veneration of central India as the holy land of Buddhism, and the increasing desire to distinguish the Buddhism of India from that of the Inner Asian peoples who were China’s neighbors, and who had an often-troubled relationship with the Chinese.[1] These factors, however, do not tell the whole story; creative geography in the service of religious legitimation that is found in some sources (both Indian and Tibetan), is a factor that has not yet been well examined. This article treats four cases in which this factor contributed to several persistent but inaccurate identifications of sacred lands.

The first of these cases is the country of Odiyana.[2] The current scholarly consensus in the West is that the name (in Sanskrit: Uḍḍyāna, Uḍḍiyāna, Oḍḍiyāṇa, Uḍyāna,[3] etc.; in Tibetan: Urgyan, Orgyan), narrowly defined, is conterminous with the region of Swat in the north of present-day Pakistan, a valley west of the Indus and separated from the Indus valley by a single range of mountains. This identification, based first on the testimony of Chinese pilgrims such as Xuanzang,[4] was accepted by early scholars such as Aurel Stein and Giuseppe Tucci,[5] and has been supported by the vast number of Buddhist archaeological data that are still coming to light.[6] Their opinion been followed by the majority of Buddhologists since (dissenting opinions will be discussed below), and can be accepted with some important qualifications.

As is the case with so many toponyms in India and elsewhere, Uḍḍiyāna has not been an entity with fixed boundaries throughout its history. Upasak (1990, pp. 20- 24) has asserted that in the early Indic sources, it designated modern eastern Afghanistan while Kapiśa meant that country’s central region, and Bālhīka its north. He cites Ptolemy as indicating that the name included the whole region to the north and west of the realm of Gandhāra, centered on what is now Jalalabad, and including the Swat valley, but adds that by the fourth or fifth century, Uḍḍiyāna sometimes meant only the eastern part of this region, up to the Indus, while the land from the Kabul River to the Khyber Pass was called Nagarahāra. In considering references to Odiyana, particularly in Chinese sources, it is often necessary to distinguish between these meanings. 

While among Buddhologists, the view now seems to be that, when discussing Buddhist esoterism, Odiyana is indeed to be located in Swat, there have been attempts to claim that the Oḍḍiyāna of the Sanskrit Buddhist sources refers not to the Eastern Afghanistan or Swat regions, but rather the area of Orissa/Odishya (Oḍra) in eastern India. Among modern Indian scholars, this may even be the majority[7] view, but some Western commentators have also thought among similar lines. Huntington (1975, p. 8 n. 12), for example, claimed that “there is substantial indication in Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India . . . that the Uḍḍiyana of the 8th and 9th centuries would have been in the Orissan or the Orissan-Bengal border region.” He bases this evaluation on the idea that most of the mahāsiddhas mentioned in the History were supposedly active in this area.[8] On the other hand, Tāranātha closes his book (Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, 1970, p. 351) by saying that he was not able to include an account of how Buddhism spread to Kashmir, Odiyana (Urgyan), Tokharistan, or South India, for lack of detailed source material. This seems to argue against a location in Orissa. In any case, Tāranātha composed his work in the 17th century, and some of his Indian sources may well have placed Uḍḍiyāna in east-central India.

In his translation of the “official” biography of the master Shan wu wei, the first of the recognized patriarchs of the main East Asian Buddhist tradition, Chou (1945, p. 252 n. 4), notes that the same Chinese logograph can be used to represent Odiyana and Orissa/ Odishya, and clearly this was one of the reasons for a confusion between the two.[9] A possible example of this confusion is found in the history of a major sutra, the Avataṃsaka, in China. The first complete translation of this sutra into Chinese was carried out in 420 by Buddhabhadra, a monk from Afghanistan,[10] who had obtained his copy from the king of Karghalik, just west of Khotan (Hamar, 2013, p. 85). Similarly, another Afghan monk, Prajñā, who hailed from Kapiśa,[11] brought and translated a late version of the Gaṇḍavyūha chapter of the Avataṃsaka to China. The mainstream tradition accepts that Prajñā received the scripture from the king of Orissa, but given the history of the earlier version and Prajñā’s own provenance, it seems more likely that he obtained the scripture from a ruler of Odiyana in the larger sense (i.e. the eastern Afghanistan or Swat area). As for Shan wu wei himself, Chou assumes — for no clear reason — that he was from Orissa, but given the documented association of Odiyana with esoteric currents in Buddhism from early times[12] the subject deserves a thorough revisiting.[13]

In the present case, it is likely that the perceived connection with Orissa is not only a matter of an honest misunderstanding taken up and repeated, but also reflects certain later Buddhists’ attempts to locate all milestones of Buddhist history, especially its esoteric aspects, well within the bounds of the Indian subcontinent. This assertion is borne out by other cases in the later Tibetan (and Chinese) Buddhist literature in which sites in Inner Asia and the northwestern border areas of the Indian subcontinent have evidently been “moved” to India proper. Particularly noticeable in this regard is the case of a country called Zahor. A certain king of Zahor, Indrabhūti (also sometimes known as Tsa, or Dza in the Tibetan tradition), is regarded by the Nyingmapas, the oldest Buddhist school in Tibet, as having transmitted the tantric literature known to them as Mahāyoga. This tradition usually locates Indrabhūti’s kingdom in Odiyana, but sometimes in Zahor.[14] An Indrabhūti also appears in the historical accounts of the newer Tibetan schools as the source of their so-called Yogatantra literature, including the fundamental tantra called the Compendium of Buddhas (Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha).[15] The confusion brought about by the Tibetan attempts to make a coherent whole out of a variety of conflicting accounts of this literature’s history has resulted in various versions, in which one or two Indrabhūtis are posited, and Odiyana is considered to be either the same as or different from Zahor.[16] A few scholars (Davidson, 2002, pp. 242-245; Karmay, 2009, pp. 76-93; Van der Kuijp, 2010) have attempted to deal with this tangle of material, but it is clear that the legend is so fraught with textual corruption and so tied up with issues of religious legitimation that a definitive description of the evolution of these traditions will probably never be had. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the present work, it is significant that the Nyingmapa almost invariably locate Zahor (whether identified with Odiyana or not) in the northwest,[17] while the newer Tibetan schools in general support the idea that Zahor was in eastern India, probably Bengal (Karmay, 2009, pp. 80- 81; van der Kuijp, 2010, p. 148, citing Drigung Paldzin). Karmay has concluded from this (ibid., p. 89) that “Just as the later Tibetan tradition made the first king of Tibet an Indian, in the same way it also desired to connect king Tsa /Dza with the land which gave birth to Buddhism.”

A third case of geographical confusion or dissimulation can be seen in the region referred to in the Chinese sources as Jibin. Many or most Buddhist scholars (and some secular historians) have traditionally regarded the word as referring to Kashmir (cf. Zurcher, 2012), because the Chinese word represents an early attempt at transliteration of that name. Kuwayama, however, has noted (2006, p. 110; see also Kuwayama, 2002, pp. 142-146) that “In ancient Chinese accounts and maps Jibin’s location shifted from place to place as the Chinese geographical knowledge changed over time.”[18] Kuwayama uses the travel accounts of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, as well as monastic biographies of fourth- and fifth-century figures to demonstrate that for them, Jibin referred to the general area of Gandhāra, the pilgrimage region where the Buddha’s begging bowl was kept; he shows that on the routes these pilgrims took to and from China, any visit to Kashmir would have represented an extensive detour. More recently, Falk (2022-23, esp. n. 36) has also taken up the question of the Chinese pilgrimage routes, and has asserted that for Faxian, Jibin referred very specifically to the area around Hadda in present-day Afghanistan.

Kuwayama (2006, p. 108) also says that “In the Gaoseng zhuan” — a sixth-century Chinese compilation of Buddhist biographies — “Jibin surpasses any other region of India as the goal of Buddhist pilgrimage, and most of the foreign monk-translators in fourth-to-fifth century China were closely associated with Jibin, whether or not they were natives of that area.” Many celebrated teachers and translators from Inner Asia were trained in the Jibin of this era. The first of these was Fotucheng, who afterwards went to China, arriving in Luoyang in 310. Although Kuwayama believes he was a native of Gandhāra, an earlier, more detailed treatment of his career concluded he was probably originally from Kucha, and only studied in the former region.[19] His impact on Buddhism in China was considerable; he was able to increase the acceptance of Buddhism among both the upper classes and the common people mostly through practical means like rainmaking, war magic, and medicine, at a time of “chaos and misery”, as Wright puts it. This acceptance meant Fotucheng was able to lay the foundation for a future state-supported Buddhism, besides passing on his knowledge to disciples, who came to China from as far away as India and Sogdiana to study with him (Wright, 1948, p. 367).

The next illustrious alumnus of Jibin’s Buddhist schools was the great translator Kumārajīva (344-413). Like Fotucheng, he was from Kucha, and was taken as a child to be educated in Gandhāra.[20] After a few years, he returned to Kucha, but was kidnapped by an army from China and taken to Liangchou, where he remained for almost twenty years. Upon the capture of that city by the Later Qin dynasty, however, Kumārajīva was taken to Changan. Since by that time he knew not only his native Kuchean language, but also Northwestern Prakrit, Sanskrit, Chinese, and possibly Agnean and Sogdian (Hansen, 2012, p. 56), he was put to work at the head of the bureau that was rendering Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, and became the most prolific translator before Xuanzang. His renderings of many sutras remain the preferred versions up to the present, and he trained many Chinese disciples who became famous in their own right. Two other translators from Gandhāra, Buddhayaśas and Bhīmarakṣa, went to China to aid Kumārajīva in his work.

In sum, while there are some Chinese materials in which Jibin does refer to Kashmir, the identity can no longer be taken for granted, particularly in a Buddhist context.

The fourth example of this phenomenon is so well known that there can be no controversy about it. The kingdom of Khotan, stronghold of Mahāyāna Buddhism for over five hundred years, was well known to Tibet from at least the beginnings of the imperial period under the name of “the Li Country” (Li Yul), which name is found among some of the oldest surviving writings in Tibetan. Tibet conquered Khotan between 665 and 670, and solidified their rule in 675. Khotan maintained close contact with the Dunhuang area before and during the Tibetan imperial period, and many later documents in Khotan Saka were found at Dunhuang. Until the coming of Islam to Khotan in 1006, the three areas had strong cultural connections, and the religious chronicles of Khotan were translated into Tibetan. Nevertheless, by the twelfth or thirteenth century, some Tibetans had begun writing as if Li Yul referred to Nepal (in effect, to the Kathmandu Valley) (Snellgrove, 1987, pp. 366, 417; first remarked on by Brough, 1948).[21] It is possible that the relationship with Khotan had gradually been forgotten in Tibet during the institutional chaos that followed the fall of the Tibetan empire, but it is also likely that when the Tibetans began to reassemble their memories of that time, some of them had a vested interest in associating the country with India rather than the north. 

It is well known that sacred sites can “migrate” as part of either the spread or the domestication of a religion; the reduplication of sacred Indic place names throughout Southeast Asia was at least meant to establish a connection with India, and probably also served to supply surrogate pilgrimage sites to those who could not make the journey to the subcontinent. Sacred places may be also moved in the popular imagination, even to unapproachable areas, when the situation on the ground precludes their existence in their former location; the mythic land of Shambhala is probably the best-known example. However, the converse seems to be true as well. As Grenet has shown in relation to Zoroastrianism,[22] a religion may move its sacred sites geographically “inward” in order to be in harmony with changes in the prevailing politico-religious situation. In point of fact, it can hardly be coincidence that three of the four areas discussed above were “relocated” to the single area in India (Bihar-Bengal-Orissa) where Buddhism was still prospering and perhaps even predominant in the ninth century and after, following the Brahmanic Hindu resurgence and Muslim conquests elsewhere (Sanderson, 2009, p. 80). The fourth area, Kashmir, was also able to maintain the Buddhistic aspects of its culture much longer than was Gandhāra. There was probably a felt imperative to situate the holy places of Buddhism, particularly Vajrayāna Buddhism, within the small remaining Buddhist heartland on the subcontinent, and this resulted in the imaginative shift seen in later Indian accounts, in which all important developments were traced back to this area. The Tibetans, who for a variety of reasons became more and more inclined to equate scriptural authenticity with Indian origin, were for the most part happy to fall in with this reading of history.

•

Notes

[1] Chinese Buddhists increasingly differentiated the people of India (fan) from those living to the west of China (hu), and only the former land was held by them to be the domain of true sages. For a treatment of this trend, see Yang, 1988.

[2] I use a phonetic representation of the name rather than the more customary Sanskrit because the earliest named people of the area, the Odis, were neither Sanskrit speakers nor culturally “Sanskritized.” Settlements in the Swat valley date back to the Chalcolithic period, obviously predating the Indo-European incursions to the Indian subcontinent. The Odis themselves first appear in the historical record as satraps of a Saka ruler. Pāṇini, who was himself from the area of modern Peshawar, knew the name as Urḍi or Aurḍayāni (Upasak, 1990, p. 20). As late as the composition of the Purāṇas and the great epic Mahābhārata, Odiyana and its northern and western neighbors were not considered part of Āryavārta (Bronkhorst, 2016, pp. 17-34, pp. 124-25). In sum, it is misleading to insist on the Sanskritized spelling.

[3] But now see Falk (2022, pp. 17-19), who rejects the reconstruction of the name as Uḍyāna.

[4] Xuanzang’s name for the region was previously reconstructed as Wu chang, but this too seems to have been a scholarly error; see Li (1996, p. 82).

[5] Tucci’s 1977 contribution was the first to point out the importance of this area in detail, and pioneered the ongoing work by the Italian, Pakistani, and Japanese archaeological expeditions that have contributed decisively to its study.

[6] Callieri (2006); Neelis (2011). Neelis (ibid., p. 245) speaks of the valley’s “especially rich archaeological, artistic, epigraphic, and literary heritage with seemingly innumerable remains of Buddhist stupas, monasteries, and rock carvings.” The earliest Buddhist site, Butkara I, dates back to the third century BCE.

[7] See Mohanti and Panigrahi (2016) for a typical presentation. As with most such claims, their assertions rely largely on very late Indian and Tibetan literary sources. Chandra (1980) even proposed Kanchipuram, in southern India, as an alternative. 

[8] While Orissa was without doubt a major Buddhist stronghold in the ninth century, Tāranātha’s evaluation of the Buddhism prevailing there at that time has been called into question (Kinnard, 1996, pp. 284-287). 

[9] The confusion is not found only in Chinese sources. Sircar (1973, pp. 12- 13) has noted that in the Kālikā Purāṇa, Oḍra is inconsistently substituted for Oḍḍiyāna as one of the four major tantric seats, but he concludes that in relation to the Hindu tantric literature, the notion that the seat in question was actually located in Orissa is “unworthy of serious consideration.” Davidson (2002, pp. 206-211) also discusses the confusion and inconsistency surrounding the location of these seats.

[10] The usual reckoning has Buddhabhadra as Kashmiri, or just “Indian”, but Kuwayama (2002, p. 146; 2006, p. 109) shows that he was from Nagarahāra, specifically the area between Jalalabad and the Khyber Pass.

[11] Copp (2011, p. 360).

[12] As has been often noted, Xuanzang recorded the emphasis that the people of Swat laid on spell literature and meditation; see Li (1996, p. 83-84). 

[13] It should be taken into account that the attempts to connect this master with a later royal family of Orissa — the so-called Bhauma-kara dynasty — are based on a reconstruction of his Sanskrit name (Śubhakarasiṃha) that can in no way be considered equivalent to Shan wu wei (Chou, ibid., p. 251 n. 3). Furthermore, Shan wu wei’s official biography was written by at least two different people (Chou, ibid., pp. 250-251), and while the first half, dealing with his purported birth and career in India, contains the usual tropes of royal descent and miraculous but otherwise unknown teachers, the second begins with his travels towards China and is supported throughout by much historically verifiable information, including the rule of a Türkic khan in Odiyana (in the expanded sense) when he passed through. 

[14] The connection between Indrabhūti and Odiyana seems to date back at least to around 800 (van der Kuijp, 2010, p. 130).

[15] Karmay (2009, p. 80-82). There is a close relationship between a collection of these tantras, which were brought to China by the Sogdian master Amoghavajra, and the tantras of the Mahāyoga, though the two collections are not identical. This was first noticed by Eastman (1981), and the similarities have more recently been taken up and analyzed by Giebel (1995) and Almogi (2014). The East Asian tradition claims that Amoghavajra’s collection was originally taken from a legendary Iron Stupa that was in South India. That the tradition does not claim a provenance in the Orissa-Bengal area might be because the legend of the Iron Stupa was already established in China before the shift in Zahor’s supposed location came about. 

[16] According to Davidson (2002, p. 244), however, the Sakyapas, oldest of the “new” schools, have a tradition of three Indrabhūtis – all from Odiyana.

[17] The Fifth Dalai Lama, who came from a Nyingmapa background, nevertheless felt compelled to invent a convoluted history of his own Zahor ancestry so that he could trace it back to Bengal (van der Kuijp, 2010, pp. 147 ff.). An interesting sidelight to this question is the fact that the traditional Tibetan account of the creation of their alphabet claims that they took the letter za from Zahor (van der Kuijp, 2010, p. 137). While this is usually understood to mean that they took the form of the letter from the alphabet used in that region (which was not the case), it might mean instead that they had to find a way to indicate the voiced sibilant /z/ which is found in Tibetan words, but not in Indic; the /z/ was a native phoneme in Northwestern Prakrit, but only used in “Iranian names and loanwords” in Sanskrit (Salomon, 1990, p. 269). This would also obviously indicate a northwestern location for Zahor.

[18] See Kuwayama (2006, p. 110 n, 14) for a discussion of various reckonings on the question. Kuwayama (2002, pp. 193-199) had earlier used the testimony of later pilgrims, as well as Chinese historical materials, to demonstrate that during the Tang, Jibin came to mean the kingdom of Kapiśa in what is now central Afghanistan. 

[19] See Wright (1948, pp. 332-335) for a discussion. Wright errs, however, in following the then-current consensus that Jibin always referred to Kashmir. Some sources claim that Fotucheng was a native of Central India and a descendant of royalty, but the trope of the royal (or high-caste) descent of prominent Buddhist figures found in Chinese biographical literature is far too commonplace to be accepted at face value, and can be seen as part of the hu vs. fan dynamic mentioned above (note 2).

[20] While McRae (2004, p. 442) continues to place Kumārajīva’s studies in Kashmir, Hansen (2012, p. 66) correctly locates them in Gandhāra. As usual, there also exist accounts that make Kumārajīva the descendent of Indian royalty (Hansen, op. cit.).

[21] Tāranātha was one Tibetan who placed Li Yul south of the Himalayas (Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, 1970, p. 60, n. 41; see also Brough, 1947-48, p. 338).

[22] Grenet (2015, esp. p. 26) demonstrated that while the sites described in the oldest Avestan literature as being created by Ahura Mazda are all located in southern Inner Asia, Afghanistan, or western Pakistan, the later Pahlavi literature moved them to the Iranian plateau.

SOURCES

Almogi, Orna (2014) “The Eighteen Mahāyoga Tantric Cycles: A Real Canon or the Mere Notion of One?” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 30, pp. 47-110.

Bronkhorst, Johannes (2016) How the Brahmins Won: From Alexander to the Guptas, Brill, Leiden.

Brough, John (1948) “Legends of Khotan and Nepal,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12, pp. 333-339.

Callieri, Pierfrancisco (2006) “Buddhist Presence in the Urban Settlements of Swat, Second Century BCE to Fourth Century CE,” in Gandhāran Buddhism: Art Archaeology, Texts, ed. P. Brancaccio and K. Behrendt, UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 47-82.

Chandra, Lokesh (1980) “Oḍḍīyāna: a New Interpretation,” in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, ed. Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi, Aris & Phillips, Warminster, pp. 73-78.

Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya (1970) History of Buddhism in India (by Tāranātha), Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla.

Chou, Yi-liang (1945) “Tantrism in China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8, pp. 241-331; partially reprinted in Payne, 2006.

Copp, Paul (2011) “Prajñā” in Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, ed. Charles Orzech, Handbuch der Orientalistik series no. 24, Brill, Leiden, pp. 360-362.

Davidson, Ronald (2002) Indian Esoteric Buddhism, Columbia University Press, New York. 

Falk, Harry (2022-2023) “Faxian and Early Successors and Their Route from Dunhuang to Peshawar: In Search of the ‘Suspended Crossing’,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute n.s. vol. 31, pp.1 -48.

Giebel, Rolf W. (1995) “The Chin-kang-ting ching yü-ch’ieh shih-pa-hui chih kuei: an Annotated Translation,” Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 18, pp. 106-199.

Grenet, Frantz (2015) “Zarathustra’s Time and Homeland: Geographical Perspectives” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, ed. Michael Stausberg and Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina, Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 21-30.

Hansen, Valerie (2012) Silk Road: A New History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hamar, Imre (2007) “The History of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra: Shorter and Larger Texts” in Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayen Buddhism, ed. Imre Hamar, Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 151-178.

Huntington, John C. (1975) The Phur-pa, Tibetan Ritual Daggers, Artibus Asiae Publishers, Ascona (Switzerland).

Karmay, Samten (2009 [first published 1997]) The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History, Myths Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, vol. 1, Mandala Book Point, Kathmandu.

Kinnard Jacob N. (1996) “Re-evaluating the Eighth-Ninth Century Pala Milieu: Icono-Conservatism and the Persistence of Śākyamuni,” Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies 19.2, pp. 281-300.

Kuijp, Leonard W. J. van der (2010) “On the Edge of Myth and History: Za hor, its Place in the History of Early Indian Buddhist Tantra, and Dalai Lama V and the Genealogy of its Royal Family,” in Studies on Buddhist Myths: Texts, Pictures, Traditions, and History, ed. Bangwei Wang, Jinhua Chen, and Ming Chen, pp. 114-164.

Kuwayama, Shoshin (2002) Across the Hindukush of the First Millennium, Kyoto University Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto. 

—— (2006) “Pilgrimage Route Changes and the Decline of Gandhāra” in Gandhāran Buddhism: Art, Archaeology, Texts, ed. P. Brancaccio and K. Behrendt, UBD Press, Vancouver, pp. 107-134.

Li, Rongxin (1996)(trans. Xuanzang) The Great T’ang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

McRae, John R. (2004) “Kumārajīva” in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Robert Buswell, Macmillan Reference, New York pp. 442-43.

Mohanty, Bimalendu and Varish Panigrahi (2016) “Guru Padmasambhava of Odiyana (Odisha): The Founder of Lamaism in Tibet,” Journal of Bhutan Studies 34, pp. 80-86.

Neelis, Jason (2011) Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks, Brill, Leiden.

Payne, Richard C. (2006)(ed.) Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, Wisdom Publications, Somerville MA.

Sanderson, Alexis (2009) “The Śaiva Age: the Rise and Dominance of Saivism in the Early Medieval Period” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo, Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, pp. 41-349.

Sircar, D.C. (1973) The Śākta Pīṭhas, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi.

Snellgrove, David (1987) Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors, 2 vols., Shambhala Publications, Boston.

Tucci, Giuseppe (1977) “On Swat. The Dards and Connected Problems,” East and West n.s. 27, pp. 9-85.

Wright, Arthur Frederick (1948) “Fo-tu-teng: A Biography,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 11, pp. 321- 371.

Yang, Jidong (1998) “Replacing hu with fan: A Change in the Chinese Perception of Buddhism during the Medieval Period,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21.1, pp. 157-170.

Zurcher, Eric (2012) “Buddhism across Boundaries: the Foreign Input,” in Buddhism Across Boundaries: The Interplay of Indian, Chinese, and Central Asian Source Materials, ed. John MacCrae and Jan Nattier, Sino-Platonic Papers, pp. 1-25.

Kālacakra Tantra, the Second of Two Rare and Early Woodblocks

Folio 1 verso. The label below the miniature
seems to say “dang po'i sangs rgyas” ༼ ? ༽

2. Woodblocks Carved in Memory of Nyagpuwa

In his essay mentioned in the previous blog, Leonard van der Kuijp* uncovered written evidence that there was one Kālacakra Tantra woodblock printing done not too long after Orgyanpa’s ca. 1295 printing of the same. Done with Mongol imperial support in around 1310-1325, it was associated with the name of Rongpo Dorje Gyaltsen (1283-1325). I haven’t learned of the present existence of this early print, so I can’t show you any photographs and will say no more about it. 

(*The Kālacakra and Patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 26-29.)

In today’s blog I’d like to introduce an interesting early, but post-Mongol-era, printing that appears to have gone unnoticed even now that a scan of it has been made available. I won’t need to discuss it in much detail, since most of the information is already out there, and practically all I have to do is supply the links for you to explore for yourself. I’m trying to say, ‘Don’t read what I write, go to my links.’

I only visited Lhasa a few times. The first and second were very different experiences, even if both had their very high and very low points despite the fact the altitude remained a consistent 2.27 miles high throughout. You may know what I mean, don’t get me started on it. One high point of my second trip was to get the unusual permission to enter the stacks of the newly opened library in front of the Norbu Lingka, the Dalai Lamas’ summer residence. I noticed a lot of fantastic xylographs and manuscripts there on those cold metal shelves but today I’ll only speak of one of them. Unfortunately, although it was doable, I didn’t make any xeroxes of it. Still, I did take down the following notes:

Tibet Library, Lhasa, no. 13013:  Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud 'di thams cad mkhyen pa mnyag phu pa bsod nams bzang <?> thugs dgongs rdzogs pa'i phyir gdan gcig gi ring lugs pa jo gdan sengge dpal gyis …,  This is a copy of 5-chapter Kālacakra Tantra in 75 folios.  Gnyag-phu-ba appears in the printing colophon.

Well, just a few days ago, looking through some new postings of scanned collections on TBRC, I had a huge déjà vu. My eyes fell on what is surely the same woodcarving as the one I had seen long ago in Lhasa. Still, I was thinking it might possibly be a different printed example of it. If you compare my transcription of the title page above with the scan photo you see below, it seems that the right hand side is practically impossible to read in both, so I suppose they are identical, just that now I would read the faint letters a little differently:  

Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud thams cad mkhyen pa gnyag phu pa bsod nams bzang po'i (?) thugs dgongs rdzogs pa'i phyir gdan gcig gi ring lugs pa jo gdan seng ge dpal gyis bzhengs (?).

The colophon at the end of it starts out with the translation statements ending with Shongtön that we mentioned in the earlier blog. But then it continues, likely indicating that it is a somewhat later revision, as we may have expected anyway: 

gang zhig thugs dgongs rnam par dag pa yis // 

'di la bskul zhing 'thun rkyen bsgrubs pa dang // 

bdag gis 'bad las bsod nams gang thob des // 

kun gyis 'di rtogs sangs rgyas sar gnas shog //

slar yang dpal ldan bla ma dam pa chos kyi rje thams cad mkhyen pa* dang //  dpal dus kyi 'khor lo ba chen po dharma kî rti shrî bha dras** // 'di'i don rnams legs par dgongs shing bka' yis bskul nas de dag gi gsung bzhin du // pan ti ta chen po sthi ra ma ti'i*** bka' drin las legs par sbyar ba'i tshul rig pa // lo tstsha ba shâkya'i dge slong blo gros rgyal mtshan dang // blo gros dpal bzang pos // rgyud dang 'grel pa'i rgya dpe mang po la btugs nas // dag pa rnams dang mthun par bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa'o //****

(*This is a person too venerated to even name other than by giving this very long epithet. **This is none other than the Sanskritic form of the name of the Sanskritist Chos-grags-dpal-bzang-po (1283-1363) who ordered Bu-ston (1290-1364)  to translate Tôh. no 452.  TBRC Person ID no. P2251 tells us he was stabbed to death at the age of 81. ***This means one of the several Tibetans named Blo-brtan or Blo-gros-brtan-pa, all of them Sanskritists of the Bodong E school. ****This is included in the Tanjur, Tôh. no. 4288, a work by the Indian called Māṃ-hi-ka-wi (could it be Maṃmaṭa?!?) entitled Kalāpasūtravṛtti Syādivibhaktiprakriyā. It has a colophon that says, according to the catalogue, that it was translated by Blo-gros-brtan-pa and Chos-grags-dpal-bzang-po. But, as I read the colophon, it’s translated by the grammarian Bhikṣu translators Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan and Blo-gros-dpal-bzang-po, at the orders of Chos-grags-dpal-bzang-po. Here it’s possible to recognize almost all of the persons mentioned in this paragraph of our colophon, so we may be sure the revised version of the tantra done in Bu-ston's times, around mid-14th century, is the one contained in this particular woodblock print).  

de ltar gsung rab rgya mtsho'i nges don stong nyid snying rje'i snying po ni // 

rnam kun mchog ldan stong pa nyid dang 'gyur med mchog gi bde chen du //  

legs ston dus kyi 'khor lor 'bad pa'i dge ba gang des 'gro ba kun // 

gzhung 'di rtogs shing lam der zhugs nas 'bras bu de nyid myur thob shog // 

[end translation/revision colophon, and begin printing colophon]

xxx xxx legs lam zab mo'i don bston rgyud kyi rgyal po mchog gyur 'di // rnam kun mchog ldan zab don mngon gyur chos kyi rgyal po gnyag phu ba // rnam mang gdul bya gang la gang gdul rang rang skal pa dang mtsham pa // rnam pa mang po yi smin grol mdzad de'i dgongs pa yongs su rdzogs phyir dang // rnam dkar nges don bstan pa dar rgyas mtha' yas sems can don [.8] phyir du // rnam par gus pas seng ger 'bod pa'i kha che paṇ chen rings lugs pas // spar du sgrubs pa'i dpon yig dge ba kos (~yi ge rkos?) mkhan ma las pa nam seng dang // mgon dpal bsod rgyal yon tan dpal te kun kyang kun mkhyen myur thobs shog // gang de'i mthu las bstan pa dar rgyas bstan 'dzin sku tshe ring ba dang // bstan pa kun dang rgyal khas bde skyid dg[e] legs 'ph[e]l ba'i bkra shis shog.

°

At the very end of this you can see a set of names, I think four names in all, the chief of them being the foreman of the wood carvers, with a name that isn't clear to me, perhaps Ma-las-pa Nam-seng? Or is the chief of the woodcarving shop a woman? That may make more sense of what we see there, which could be read as “yig-ge brkos-mkhan-ma,” ‘female letter carver,’ in which case her name would be Las-pa Nam-seng, or Craftsperson Nam-mkha’-seng-ge? I’m not sure of it. Let me know if you see or understand something else.*

(*Note, Dec. 4, 2021: Now, for what looks like a better reading, see this.)

The person who actually went about the business of getting the carving done here gives his name in a short form as "the one called Sengge,” but we know from the title page that he was Jo-gdan Seng-ge-dpal. The colophon adds the information that he was a follower of the tradition of Khache Panchen, and that means the Kashmiri pundit Śākyaśrībhadra as founder of a monastic lineage.* And it says again that it was made in part in fulfillment of the intentions of Nyagpuwa, describing him as a master of these teachings able to adjust them to the abilities and potentials of a wide variety of students.

(*See Hou Haoran, “Some Remarks on the Transmission of the Ascetic Discipline of the ‘Single Mat’ within the ’Bri gung Bka’ brgyud pa Tradition,” a PDF located on the internet. Try here.)

To see the entire woodblock print, see TBRC no. W3CN26624 by clicking on this sentence. Or if the link doesn’t work, search for that number on TBRC/BDRC or BUDA websites and when you find it go to volume 1.

For information on Nyagpuwa, his names and dates (1341-1433), see TBRC person ID no. P2460. Cyrus Stearns has written a remarkable summary of his biography in Treasury of Lives.

Himalayan Art Resources (HAR) has a brilliant portrait of Nyagpuwa belonging to the Rubin Collection that you can see at HAR no. 273. Once you get there, find Nyagpuwa depicted in the lower left-hand corner of the tanka painting. It’s really him as you can know if you “Take a closer look” and magnify the area next to him, where you ought to find his name revealed in golden letters.

Did I say what I think the date of the woodcarving would have been? No date is supplied in the colophon. Still, given that Nyagpuwa died in 1433, and seeing that it was accomplished as part of his death memorial observances, it must have been made soon after 1433. This was just the time when woodblock carving seems to have started becoming a Tibet-based printing art, outsourcing in China or Tangut Land no longer a necessity.

Well, there is a lot more to find out about the history of Tibetan-language woodblocks, but at the moment, if forced to generalize and guesstimate, I think it got its start in a small way with short texts in the middle of the 12th century in Tangut Land,* subsequently received the support of Mongolian royalty, and only started to take off as a serious profession for Tibetan craftspeople in the 15th.** In the next centuries, Tibetan workers showed themselves more than capable of taking on larger and larger projects, with their heyday in the 18th century. That general picture will need a lot of adjusting and fleshing out in the future, of that there is no doubt.

(*I could list references for this if you need them, just that I can’t seem to find the energy to do it right now. If you want to know when Tibetan-inscribed woodblocks first appeared in Tangut Land you had better ask a Tangutologist. Or have a look at the essays by Shen Weirong and by Heather Stoddard as contained in: Jean Luc Achard, Anne Chayet, Christina Scherrer-Schaub, Françoise Robin, eds., Édition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir, Indus Verlag [Munich 2010], especially the sample xylographic print illustrated on p. 364. **The Yunglo xylograph of the Kanjur appeared in 1410, so I suppose it could have been a source of inspiration.) 

°

Works of Snyag-phu-ba Bsod-nams-bzang-po / སྙག་ཕུ་བ་བསོད་ནམས་བཟང་པོ་ (1341-1433)

I’ve tagged on here at the end a listing of Nyagpuwa’s works currently known to me, taken from Tibskrit. Not included in it is a history of the Lamas who transmitted the Fasting Rites of Avalokiteśvara entitled Smyung gnas bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar. I purchased a woodblock print of it in the Barkhor in Lhasa during the trip mentioned before.

Note that PPTK, pp. 145-146, has a listing of 17 titles from a manuscript volume of the works of “Jo gdan Snyag phu ba Bsod nams bzang po.”

PPTK means this catalog of collected works of Kagyü masters in the Potala Palace in Lhasa: Pho brang po ta la do dam khru’u rig dngos zhib ’jug khang, Pho brang po ta lar tshags pa'i bka' brgyud pa'i gsung 'bum dkar chag, Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang (Lhasa 2007).  

Most of the list compiled here is based on the Drepung Catalog, where his works are scattered here and there (I doubt I could find everything). 

Chos 'byung rin po che'i gter.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.  A 31-folio manuscript. This history book has in recent years been published at least three times. It's largely based on the history bu Bu-ston.

Chos kyi dris lan legs bshad rgya mtsho.

— PPTK, p. 145.

Dbu ma chos kyi dbyings su bstod pa'i rnam par bshad pa snying po gsal ba.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.

'Dul ba bdud rtsi'i nying khu.

— Drepung Catalog, pp. 1435, 1447.  Here the author is named as Jo gdan Gnyag phu ba Bsod nams bzang po.

— PPTK, p. 145.

'Dul ba'i lag len rin po che'i gter.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.

Gsang 'dus gnyis med rnam rgyal gyi dkyil 'khor gyi cho ga bdud rtsi'i rgya mtsho.

— Drepung catalog, p. 414.

Gtan tshigs rigs pa'i don bsdus pa rin po che'i phreng ba.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.

Jo bo bka' gdams pa'i nyin zhag phrug gcig gi mchod brjod kyi rim pa.

— PPTK, p. 145.

Padma dbang chen gyi dkyil 'khor du 'jug cing dbang bskur ba'i cho ga padma'i rigs kyi snying po.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 631.  Author named as Gnyags phu Bsod nams bzang po.

Padma dbang chen gyi sgrub thabs 'phrin las gsal byed nyi ma'i 'od zer.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 631.

Padma dbang chen yang gsang khros pa'i dbang chog padma'i rigs kyi snying po.

— PPTK, p. 145.

'Phags pa bcu gcig zhal gyi bla brgyud rnam thar.

— PPTK, p. 145.

'Phags pa don yod zhags pa'i snying po zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 561.

'Phags pa gnas brtan bcu drug la gsol ba gdab pa'i cho ga bklag pa tsam gyi don 'grub pa.

— PPTK, p. 145.

Rgyas pa'i bstan bcos tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi 'grel bshad rin chen phren ba.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.  A 247 folio manuscript.

Rgyud 'bum rin po che'i dkar chag paṇ chen ma ti nas brgyud pa.  Written by one of his students.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 918.

Sangs rgyas kyi dus chen bzhi dang brgyad kyi ngos 'dzin.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 618.

Sbyor ba yan lag drug gi ngo sprod rab gsal zla ba [khrid ma thob pa la gsang].

— Drepung Catalog, p. 155.

Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i lus rnam gzhag gi bsdus don.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 1452.

Spyan ras gzigs kyi gzungs sgrub.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 709.

Spyan ras gzigs phyag stong spyan stong gi sgrub thabs thugs rtse'i 'byung gnas.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 945.

Thugs rje chen po bcu gcig pa'i sgrub pa nyams su len thabs.

— Drepung Catalog, p. 561.

🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊

Kālacakra Tantra, the First of Two Rare and Early Woodblocks

1. Woodblocks Carved for Orgyanpa

One Thanksgiving holiday in Boston back in 1998, E. Gene Smith gave me free use of his library with permission to take out and photocopy anything I found interesting. I did find many astounding things. With one exception, I won’t bother you with them right now. That one thing I’d like to draw attention to is a woodblock printed copy of the Kālacakra Tantra with all five of its chapters in 179 folios. I didn’t photocopy it, but I surely did take some notes. I could scarcely believe I was holding such a precious object in my own hands and seeing it with my own eyes.

I noticed it had Chinese characters in the righthand margins. These are numbers for the benefit of printshop workers who couldn’t read Tibetan numbers, indicating that the woodcarving was not done inside Tibet. It also had glued directly onto every page tiny squares of paper bearing Arabic page numbers, as if in preparation for its photo-reproduction. The cloth label extending from the narrow end of the volume read: “dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i rgyud yar 'brog par rnying” (which would seem to mean that it was an ‘old print’ [par rnying] from the area of Yamdrok Lake? I really can’t explain it). I will insert here a transcription of the printing colophon with part of the translator’s colophon that comes before it. It tells us that what we have here is the translation as established by one particular Sanskrit grammarian who was so important for the history of Tibetan literary arts, the fully ordained monk Shongtön (ཤོང་སྟོན་) who lived ca. 1235 to sometime after 1280. Since no later revisers are mentioned, we assume that this print represents Shongtön’s actual unrevised editorial work. This could prove of some significance for future studies of the changes in the Tibetan translation done over time. It has been said that the Tibetan version of the Kālacakra Tantra underwent around 25 different stages of translation and revision. The colophon says Shongtön compared two different Sanskrit exemplars from Magadha when he made his translation. And the Bla-ma Dam-pa Chos-kyi-rgyal-po mentioned there without a doubt intends the ruler Phagpa (འཕགས་པ་), known to have sponsored Shongtön’s philological pursuits with generous grants of gold.

According to what Gene told me later, this print in his collection had already been published in the works of Bodong Panchen Choglenamgyal (བོ་དོང་པཎ་ཆེན་ཕྱོགས་ལས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་, 1376-1451). In fact, I could eventually locate it in vol. 116 of the set published under the English title Encyclopaedia Tibetica, where it fills the entire volume. Have a look at it. If you wonder what it is doing in the works of Bodong Panchen, wonder no more. Often things by other authors on subjects he had a special interest in were included,* and both he and Shongtön belonged to what might be called the Bodong E lineage of Sanskrit literary expertise. Shongtön would have been regarded by Bodong Panchen as an ancestor of sorts.**

(*The Padampa texts are another example of such texts not authored by him that were included. I may go into that another time. **A less important detail, but still worth noting is that this reprint version lacks the handwritten mchan-note that forms a part of the following transcription, but seems otherwise closely identical. If you were paying attention you would know that the text I saw in Gene's library was very likely the one used in the making of the published version just linked, so the absence of the mchan-note would seem to indicate an erasure in the publication process...  But then another small bit is clear only in the published version...)

Here are the colophon pages. I’ll transcribe them at the end of this blog:

So where would a poor Tibetanist like me turn for more information about the circumstances surrounding the making of this woodblock print? Where else but to Harvard professor Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp and his splendid essay entitled, The Kālacakra and Patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, at pages 20 and following. He dates the preparation of the woodblocks to somewhere between 1294 and 1309. That makes it a “Hor Par-ma” — let’s translate that as ‘Yuan Print’ — and one among the earliest woodblock prints ever made in the Tibetan language.* 

(*Some old Dhāraṇī prints may be considerably older, and notice, too, some other early and earlier things mentioned below in the bibliography. Small texts were woodblocked in Tibetan in Tangut Land already in the middle of the 12th century.) 

The colophon doesn’t state it in so many words, but it does appear that the Empress Mother (Ta’i-hu Yum) and Child, identified by Leonard as Kököcin and her son Öljeitü would have sponsored this printing as part of memorial observances for Qubilai following his death in the winter of 1294. To avoid possible confusion with another member of Mongolian royalty, this particular Öljeitü is one and the same as Qubilai's grandson and successor Temur (1265-1307).  The expressed function of the carving project is indicated in the line that could be translated, ‘completing the intentions of the Royal Lord of Men.’ Completing the intentions is a normal way to speak about meritorious donations of sacred objects (holy books, icons and so on) on behalf of the deceased person as one kind of funerary observance.

But I would say it isn’t just its age that makes it significant, the woodblock print itself is a veritable contact relic of the famous Kālacakra master Orgyanpa. And regardless of where it was made it’s a cultural monument of the Tibetan people’s literary and religious arts. Just knowing about its existence should go for a blessing.

•

Here’s my transcription of the colophon for the use of those who read transliterated Tibetan with ease. I made some of the names in red font to draw attention to them.

177v.2  kha che'i pandi ta so ma nā tha dang lo tsha ba 'bro dge slong shes rab grags kyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa las / dus phyis yon tan phul du byung ba dpag tu med pas spras pa'i bla ma dam pa chos kyi rgyal po'i bka' lung dang / dpon chen shākya bzang po'i gsung bzhin du / mkhas pa chen po zhang ston mdo sde dpal dang / dus kyi 'khor lo'i tshul khong du tshud pa'i dge slong tshul khrims dar gyis don gyi cha la legs par dpyad cing bskul te / legs par sbyar ba'i skad kyis brda sprod pa'i bstan bcos rig pa'i dge slong shong ston gyis / dpal sa skya'i gtsug lag khang chen por yul dbus kyi rgya dpe gnyis la gtugs shing / legs par bcos te gtan la phab pa'o // // 

gang gi thugs dgongs rnam par dag pa yis //

'di la bskul zhing mthun rkyen bsgrubs pa dang //

bdag gis 'bad las bsod nams gang thob ba //

kun gyis 'di [178r] rtogs sangs rgyas sar gnas shog //

bde legs su gyur cig //

dpal ldan dus 'khor rgyud kyi rgyal po 'di //

sangs rgyas bstan pa dar cing rgyas pa dang //

mi dbang rgyal po'i thugs dgongs rdzogs pa 'am //

tha'i hu yum sras chab srid brtan byas nas //

gdul bya sems can kun la phan phyir du //

u rgyan pa zhes grags pas par du bsgrubs //

[note: here there is a handwritten mchan-note saying “sprul sku rin chen dpal bzang po”]

'di las byung ba'i dge ba'i rtsa ba rnams //

'gro bas kun mkhyen thob phyir smon lam brdab //

phyogs bcu rgyal ba rgya mtsho sras dang bcas //

ka rgyud [=bka' brgyud] bla ma rgyal ba'i 'phrin las mdzad //

rgyal ba'i gsung rab tshig don bcas pa dang //

'phags pa'i dge 'dun rnam grol zhi ba'i thugs //

dkon mchog gsum la phyag 'tshal skyabs su mchi //

'gro ba ma lus rtag tu ghurs [=thugs] rjes skyobs //

dkon mchog gsum gyi rang bzhin 'gro ba'i 'gon //

dus gsum rgyal ba'i ngo bo chos kyi rje //

khams gsum 'gro ba kun gyi skyabs gyur ba'i //

dpal ldan dgod tshang ba la gsol ba ['debs] //

[illeg. about 10 letters;   i] bzang sk[ye] ba thams cad du //

rang gi 'dod pa gang yang mi sgrub cing //

mtha' yas 'gro ba'i dpal mgon bya ba'i phyir //

rnam pa kun du bzhan [=gzhan] don byed par shog //

[178v] [illeg, about 6 letters] spy[o?]d snyan grags gnyen 'dun dang //

bdag gi dge ba'i rtsa ba thams cad kyis //

sems can kun la phan pa'i don gyi phyir //

phangs sems zhen chags med par rtongs bar [?] shog [?] //

mtha' bral phyag rgya chen po'i don rtogs nas //

dmigs med snying rje chen pos rgyud [.....?] bsten //

stong nyid snying rje zung 'jug rtogs pa'i don //

mtha' yas 'gro ba kun la skye bar shog //

pha rol phyin drug bsod nams mthar phyin te //

ye shes rtogs pas bzung 'dzin rtsad nas dag //

'gro kun tshogs gnyis lhun gyis grub pa'i //

dpal ldan sku gsum rgyal srid skyongs par shog //

zab mo dbang bzhi dgongs pa mthar phyin te //

gnas skabs bzhi bor sku bzhir lhun gyis grub //

nyon mongs rnams ni ye shes chen por 'bar //

'gro kun zab mo'i sngags la spyod par shog //

skye zhing skye ba dag ni thams cad du //

sdom gsum dri med rtsang ma srun pa dang //

bla ma dam pa'i zhabs drung gus btud te //

zab mo rdo rje theg pa'i tshig don rnams //

thos zhing rtogs nas tshul bzhin sgrub par shog //

phyogs bcu nam mkha'i mtha' dang mnyam pa'i //

sems can rnams gyi don rnams sgrub pa'i phyir //

ji ltar [remainder missing, but it is found in the reprint in Bo-dong-pa's Encyclopaedia Tibetica, vol. 116, p. 359, =fol. 179r] rgya dang rgyal ba'i sras rnams kyis //

dpag med 'gro ba'i don rnams grub pa ltar //

de ltar bdag gis kyang ni sgrub par shog //

bdag gis dus gsum dgye ba ci spyad pa //

nam mkha'i mtha' las gyur pa'i sems rnams //

bla med theg pa mchog gi sgor zhugs nas //

kun kyang rdo rje 'dzin pa'i bdag nyid shog //

sdig sems mi dge' nam yang mi spyod cing //

rtag tu dge ba 'ba' zhig spyod par shog //  //

 dge'o /

bkra shis par gyur cig / /  

[scribal colophon:] yi ge'i mkhan po rtse lda [=rtse lde, =rtse lnga?] rin chen dpal gyi dag par bris //  

om ye dharmâ he du pra bha wa he dun te … … [ends with verse of interdependent origination, but the style of its printed {?} letters seems rather different]

§=§=§

Reading List for Early Woodblock Printings of Tibetan Language Works

Dungkar Lobzang Trinlé, “Tibetan Woodblock Printing: An Ancient Art and Craft,” translated by the late Tsering Dhondup Gonkatsang, Himalaya, vol. 36, no. 1, article 17 (May 2016), pp. 162-177.  A useful introduction to the subject, much recommended.

David P. Jackson, “More on the Old Dga’-ldan and Gong-dkar-ba Xylographic Editions,” Studies in Central and East Asian Religions, vol. 2 (1989), pp. 1-18.

David P. Jackson, “Notes on Two Early Printed Editions of Sa-skya-pa Works,” Tibet Journal, vol. 8, no. 2 (1983), pp. 5-24. From p. 6: “The earliest known Tibetan-language xylographic blocks from which prints survive are those of the Kālacakra Tantra that were carved under Mongol patronage at the request of lama U-rgyan-pa (1230-1309).” The attached footnote 14 located on p. 22, gives the published version of it in Encyclopaedia Tibetica and comments that it was E. Gene Smith who brought it to his attention.

Matthew T. Kapstein, “A Fragment from a Previously Unknown Edition of the Pramāṇavarttika Commentary of Rgyal-tshab-rje Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432),” contained in: Franz-Karl Ehrhard & Petra Maurer, eds., Nepalica-Tibetica: Festgabe for Christoph Cüppers, International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies (Andiast 2013), vol. 1, pp. 315-324.

Kawa Sherab Sangpo, “Mongolian Female Rulers as Patrons of Tibetan Printing at the Yuan Court: Some Preliminary Observations on Recently Discovered Materials,” contained in: Hildegard Diemberger, Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Peter Kornicki, eds., Tibetan Printing: Comparison, Continuities, and Change, Brill (Leiden 2016), pp. 38-44.

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Faulty Transmissions: Some Notes on Tibetan Textual Criticism and the Impact of Xylography,” contained in: Jean Luc Achard, Anne Chayet, Christina Scherrer-Schaub, Françoise Robin, et al., eds., Édition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir, Indus Verlag (Munich 2010), pp. 441-463. Here is some impressive information about how students of Smar-pa Shes-rab-seng-ge (1135-1203) had his works carved into woodblocks in the very early 1200’s in Tangut country (see p. 453). There is mention, too, of a 1278 Dadu (Beijing) woodblock edition of the Tshad-ma Rigs-pa'i Gter by Sakya Pandita (p. 445), the date making it a definite Hor Par-ma.

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, The Kālacakra and the Patronage of Tibetan Buddhism by the Mongol Imperial Family, The Central Eurasian Studies Lectures series no. 4, Department of Central Eurasian Studies (Bloomington 2004), a booklet in 62 pages, especially pp. 20-29.

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “A Note on the Hor Par-ma Mongol Xylograph of the Tibetan Translation of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika (Tshad ma rnam 'grel),” Journal of Tibetology, vol. 9 (2014), pp. 1-5.  This woodblock print, to be seen at TBRC no. W1CZ2047, dates to 1284.

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, “Two Mongol Xylographs (Hor Par Ma) of the Tibetan Text of Sa Skya Pandita's Work on Buddhist Logic and Epistemology,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 16, no. 2 (Winter 1993), pp. 279-298. This is about two Yuan era woodblock prints of Tibetan works, the first a work of Sakya Pandita printed in 1284 that Leonard at the time suggested is "perhaps... the earliest Tibetan blockprint as such." With all the new facsimiles and published editions of old Tibetan texts popping up in recent years, he was bound to change his mind, and did. The 2nd dates to the mid-Mongol era, likely the year 1315.

Brenda W.L. Li, A Critical Study of the Life of the 13th-Century Tibetan Monk U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal Based on His Biographies, doctoral dissertation, Oxford University (Oxford 2011). This seems to be the latest word on the life of Orgyanpa. It’s downloadable here. Once you have it on your screen, go first to p. 46, then to p. 294 for illustrations from the "woodblock text printed by U rgyan pa in Dadu (Beijing) in c.1293." It looks like an independently existing original print from the same woodblocks. It does seem hasty to say that Sherab Sangpo ‘discovered’ the existence of Yuan period printings of Tibetan texts (with reference to his 2009 publication). “Until this discovery, there had been neither textual nor other material evidence to prove that texts in the Tibetan language were printed in Yuan China.” If there is a discoverer, I suppose it would, to the best of my knowledge, have to be David Jackson (his 1983 essay, listed above) or E. Gene Smith before him. But even then, using the language of discovery or ‘firsts’ is bound to prove risky, every bit as risky as statements of who got somewhere first, or when any particular thing first took place in history.

Porong Dawa, “New Discoveries in Early Tibetan Printing History,” contained in: H. Diemberger, et al., eds., Tibetan Printing: Comparisons, Continuities & Change, Brill (Leiden 2016), pp. 195-211. An open access publication, find it if you can.

Marta Sernesi, “A Mongol Xylograph (hor par ma) of the Tibetan Version of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya,” contained in: Vincent Tournier, Vincent Eltschinger & Marta Sernesi, eds., Archaeologies of the Written: Indian, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies in Honour of Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, Università degli Studi di Napoli L'Orientale (Naples 2020), pp. 527-549. I suppose I should have listed a lot of other works on Tibetan xylography by Michela Clemente and by Marta Sernesi, but I'll do this some other time.

Shi Jinbo, “A Study of the Earliest Tibetan Woodcut Copies.”  PDF from internet.  I hope you can find it if you search for it.

Heather Stoddard, “The Woodcut Illustrations in Tibetan Style from the Xixiazang,” contained in the 2nd edition of her Early Sino-Tibetan Art, Orchid Press (Bangkok 2008), pp. 33-42. In the century before they were very nearly wiped out by the Mongol invasion (see The Flood that Backfired), the Tanguts (མི་ཉག / Xixia) were the foreigners who patronized verbal and visual icons for Tibetan masters. The emphasis here is on woodblocks of artworks rather than Tibetan texts, but in any case, it’s entirely relevant.

•

This blog is offered in homage to Leonard, with gratitude.

•

Have a close look at the Metropolitan Museum’s outstandingly accomplished stitched silk ‘painting,’ dated to 1330-32, depicting in its lower left-hand corner, these two Mongol princes, their wives in the facing right-hand corner. All four are in typical devotional poses as patrons of the holy object that is none other than the very icon where their portraits appear. Try to identify them. Didn’t Heather write about this somewhere? At least one of the legends is legible enough.

A detail. See the rest of it at the Met's website.

Postscript (December 1, 2021)

I see that TBRC has put up a scan a print from the 1294 Kālacakra Tantra woodblocks, but its first and last folios are either damaged or replaced by manuscript pages. Still, it's interesting as another impression from the same blocks.  Go to https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=W4CZ75 to see it.

Tibschol Downloadable

This is just a brief message to announce Tibschol (Tibetan Scholarship Bibliography) has today been made available to the public for the first time ever. This is a bibliography of works (primarily journal articles, but also books, etc.) about Tibet primarily in English (and Western European languages). What that means is that it will probably be of use to a larger number of persons than the more specialized Tibskrit, which I circulated once again not so very long ago.

 (I should add that the 2009 version is available HERE and HERE).  [Sorry, these links have expired as of Sept. 2014; try doing an internet search for "Tibskrit" and it should be findable)

Some people might think that the power of internet searches has done away with the usefulness of bibliographies such as this. I don't agree. If you think it's true, I recommend that you download Tibschol and make use of it along with your internet searches and let me know the outcome of your experiment.

I will first wish you all happy holidays, safe travel, tolerable weather, good health, and happy times with people you like to be with and who feel great having you around!

Here is a long quote from the introduction followed by the download links (which should be active for the forseeable future).

This bibliography covers primarily Tibetan studies, and only secondarily Nepalese/Himalayan and general Buddhist studies. To anticipate your next question, No, this isn't a proper bibliography in the sense that I have personally inspected every single item listed here. In fact, one of the motivations, in the beginning at least, was to keep references to articles and books that I would have liked very much, but hadn't so far been able, to see. Still, the overwhelming majority of entries do indeed result from my direct perception of the publications in question.

A few, but not many, general anthropological articles, or otherwise not especially relevant items, are included. I hope this won't irritate anyone.

Articles in non-Tibetan languages are the main emphasis, although I have included Tibetan language articles that have appeared in the proceedings of the IATS (International Association of Tibetan Studies).

I include as well Euro-American books that would very likely not be readily available in local libraries, which means in particular older and less-known travel literature, books by members of the Younghusband Expedition and the like.

There is some, but not very much, missionary, mountaineering and specialized geological literature (these have never been at the center of my personal research interests). If these are your main interests you will proably find better bibliographies elsewhere.

The word 'scholarship' in the title is used loosely, with the intention that the emphasis should be on articles in specialized periodicals and collective publications of some degree of scholarly repute; the secondary emphasis is on works that, regardless of (or because of) the metaphysical/materialist assumptions or the methodologies employed, ought to be interesting to serious researchers and academics. (Inclusion here does not mean I approve of or otherwise endorse the content. Sometimes the very badness of a publication is enough to make it interesting or remarkable.)

As far as general Buddhist studies are concerned, the emphasis is on published texts and translations of individual Kanjur and Tanjur works (although a separate bibliography, with diacritic marks, which supplies greater coverage for these has been made, entitled "Tibskrit Philology." It has already been available for free download on the internet, the link given above).

There is less emphasis on East and Southeast Asian and Sri Lankan Buddhism, and on general Indological works (a bit stronger on Central Asian and Indian Buddhism).

References to literature in Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian and Russian languages are all given at second hand. Be warned.

American master's theses and doctoral dissertations are usually, but not always, accompanied with their UMI (University Microfilms International) purchasing numbers.

I estimate that there are at present at least 17,000 entries. Hence it would seem to be larger than Halvard K. Kuløy & Yoshiro Imaeda, Bibliography of Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita 1986), which contains 11,822 entries. (There is, however, much in the Kuløy/Imaeda bibliography that is not included here, and vice versa; I have only on occasion made use of the Kuløy bibliography while making my own, so one ought to consult both bibliographies.)

Unfortunately, the bibliographical database "Karma dgon Tibetan Bibliography: by Erwan Temple has according to my latest information been "deactivated." It was once available at this website: http://www.bibliographietibet.org/. Although it was only possible to search through keywords or author names (and impossible to see the entire bibliography all at once), it was (and probably is) a quite extensive listing (one source estimated it had about 40,000 records!). If it were still available, or if it eventually becomes available again, I would certainly suggest using it as an alternative place to turn in order to find things that are not to be found here, or as a way of verifying or filling out bibliographic details.

I am aware of a few other major bibliographic resources, but since these are only supplied in return for payment, I will not advertise them here. I have neither purchased nor made use of any of them.

If you are fortunate to have a good research library nearby, it is likely it will have the otherwise quite expensive book by Julie G. Marshall, Britain and Tibet, 1765-1947: A Select Annotated Bibliography of British Relations with Tibet and the Himalayan States including Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, Routledge/Curzon (New York 2004). As may be known from the subtitle, this is a specialized bibliography. I sometimes wish I owned a copy.

For more bibliographical resources for Tibetan studies, see this link.

Diacritics: Please note that certain diacritical marks in common use for Sanskrit transcriptions have simply been omitted (for typographical reasons going back to the time the bibliography was first started, but also because these may not translate into different software environments unless they are equipped for Unicode fonts). Hence, both ´s ('s' with slash mark above, in case it doesn't display properly) and .s ('s' with dot below) are represented by simple 's' (except where the original title in fact uses the 'sh' spelling). Dots above or below 'h,' 'n' or 'm' are omitted. For an example: Astamangalakamâla, in which the 2nd & 3rd letters ought to have dots beneath, and the 7th letter a dot above. Length-marks are represented by "ˆ" above the lower-case vowel, but omitted above capitalized vowels (example: Acârya, in which the initial letter ought to have a length-mark, but does not).

In order to make word searches more effective, Tibetan-language proper names & book titles have been repeated in my own preferred way of transcribing them (employing Wylie system with dashes), and "keywords" (which may include proper names) have often been added (especially when the title is in a language other than English).

So if you are ready for it, go to Tibschol by pressing HERE and following he links you will find there.  In any case, have fun with it. It is free and will continue to be free forever.

TIBSCHOL is unfortunately unavailable at the moment (September 2010), but I will try to have a working link up again soon.