Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


The Transmissions from Vimalamitra

From Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
7016711.jpg




The Transmissions from Vimalamitra

It has been accepted in many sources that the Phur-pa teachings transmitted from Vimalamitra are the cycles of Phur-pa-phun-sum-tshogs-pa and Phur-pa-gsham-sngon-can. Nyang-ral records that Vimilamitra was first invited by Khri-srong-lde’u-btsan and later again by rMa-rin-chen-mchog during the time of Ral-pa-can.

However, theIDe’u chos ’byung states that Khri-srong-lde’u-btsan sent gNon Klu’i-dbang-po to invite Vimalamitra but he only arrived in Tibet during the time of Ral-pa-can.

gTsang-mkhan-chen states that the two cycles that are summarized from the Phur pa gsang ba ’i rgyud, were transmitted by Vimalamitra .1 2 3 Other sources indicate otherwise, namely that the cycle of Phur-pa-phun-sum-tshogs-pa is based on the Phurpagsang ba’i rgyud while the cycle of Phur-pa-gsham-sngon-can

is abridged from the ba’i rgyud drug and Kilaya tantra bcu gnyis.' Later, Vimalamitra taught these two cycles to gNyags Jnakumara, which is known as gNyags-lugs who then transmitted them to his disciples. Shing-bza’ V sKal-bzang-chos-kyi-rgyal-mtshan (1925-1998) states that the cycle of Phur-pa-gsham-sngon, which is based on the Phurpagsang ba’i rgyud, still existed during his time.

4 The details concerning the transmission of the two cycles will be presented in chapter four.This chapter has dealt with the narratives regarding the origination of the rDo-rje-phur-pa teachings from two aspects, namely Padmasambhava’s obtainment of the teachings and the early spread of them in Tibet. With respect to the first, the narratives are found in both the bKa’-ma and gTer-ma tradition. With respect to the second, although the first propagation

3 See the Phur pa lo rgyus (§19.1, p. 308, for the translation, see 10.19.1, p. 226), mTha’gru’i rgyan (p. 296.9-ii),G« bkra’i chos ’byung (p. 342.7), and bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 379.6-9, for the translation, see Dorje & Kapstein 2002: 712). In Dorje and Kapstein s translation, the cycle of Phur-pa-phun-sum-tshogs-pa is based on the Phurpagsang ba’i rgyud andgSang ba’i rgyud drugvddds the cycle of

Phur-pa-gsham-sngon-can is abridged from the Kilayatantra bcu gnyis. They further explains that the Phur pa phun sum tshogs pa is a means for attainment derived front the Phurpagsang ba’i rgyud and the cycle of bShams-sngon-can is another tradition derived from the Kilayatantra bcugnyis. Together with tlie gSang ba’i rgyud drug they were passed down in the lineage of gNyags Jnakumara, see Dorje & Kapstein 2002: note

704. Their explanation is inconsistent with their translation. It seems that thev render the gSang ba’i rgyud drug and Phurpagsang ba’i rgyud as group. However, based on the Tibetan text, the£&?«£ ba’i rgyud drug should go together with the Kilayatantra bcu gnyis, see the bDud ’joms chos ’byung (p. 379.6-

9): yangphurpagsang ba’i rgyud la brtenpaphun sum tshogs pa dang | gsang ba’i rgyud drug dang | ki la ya tantra bcu gnyis nas bsdus pa gsham sngon can gyi skor gnyags las brgyud tshul sngar bshad. zin to 11 (The version they based on is almost identical with this one, except ki is written as kt).

Origination, Transmission, and Reception of the Phur-pa Cycle of the rDo-rje-phur-pa teachings in Tibet by Padmasambhava initiates most of its subsequent transmissions and popularity, there are also some transmissions derived from [Vimalamitra]]. In chapter four I will take a deeper look into these subsequent

transmissions. What needs to be clarified is that this chapter does not intend to recover the “real” origination of the rDo-rje-phur-pa teachings but rather to survey how the [[Tibetan] sources describe it.


The Controversy over the Authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Scriptures

According to the rNying-ma scholars, the Phur-pa teachings were first introduced to Nepal and Tibet by Padmasambhava. Shakya-mchog-ldan states that the early commentators did not question its authenticity.1 Tibetan scholars started to discuss the authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa scriptures when Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od (1016-1111) issued an ordinance in which he claimed that several rDo-rje-phur-pa scriptures were

adulterated. The key point under discussion was whether the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures were translated from Sanskrit or just composed by

Tibetans. Those who were against the rNying-ma tradition—such as Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od, Khug-pa-lhas-btsas (eleventh century), and Chag-lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje-dpal (1197-1263/4)—insist all the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures prevailed in Tibet were composed by Tibetans, and thus should be considered

to be adulterated. When Sa-skya-pandita Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan discovered a Sanskrit rDo-rje-phur-pa text that belonged to Padmasambhava in Shangs-sreg-zhing and translated it, those who opposed it remained silent.1 2 Bu-ston refers to his teachers’ statement that the Sanskrit text of the Phur pa rtsa ba ’i dum bu once appeared

1 See the ’Bui ba’i mol mchid (p. 585.6): sngongyi ’chadpapo de daggispburpa’i rgyud la rtsodpa ma mdzad cing |.

2 See the Deb ther sngonpo (p. 136.2-4, for the translation, see Roerich 1995: 103): dus phyis chos rje sa skya pas shangs sregzhing nos slob dponpadma dngos kyi phyag dpe’i rgya dpe rnyed nos ’gyur mdzadpas thams cad kha rog ste ’duggo |. Shangs-sreg-zhing is a hermitage in the Shangs region. For its relation to the Sreg lineage, see Smith 1970: fn. 16 on 8 & 2001: endnote 807 on 329.


Origination, Transmission, and Reception of the Phur-pa Cycle in Nepal

Later scholars who were in favor of the rNying-ma tradition, such as Shakya-mchog-ldan (1428-1507) and dPa’-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba (1504-1566), tried to defend the authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa scriptures by reiterating the above-mentioned statement and applying polemic strategies. Even the dGe-lugs

scholar Sum-pa-mkhan-po Ye-shes-dpal-’byor (1702-1788) cites the statement of Sa-pan’s discovery of the Sanskrit text to prove the authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa cycle. He also adds that the Phur-pa teachings are less cherished by the later rNying-ma scholars.1 2 3

Dil-mgo-mkhyen-brtse bKra-shis-dpal-’byor (1910-1991), a modern rNying-ma scholar, noticed ’Gos-lo-tsa-ba and Chag-lo-tsa-ba’s criticism of the mantras from the earler translation. He also maintains that ’Brog-mi-lo-tsa-ba saw the eight syllables of the Rulu mantra above a gate in Bodhgaya, and that the Yang-dag and Phur-pa Tantric scriptures belonged to panditas.' Smith mentions that Kha-che-pan-chen (i. e.

Sakyas'ribhadra, 1127/1145-1225), a Kashmiri scholar, asserted that the contemplative methods based on rDo-rje-phur-pa as tutelary deity existed in India. Although the authenticity issue of the rDo-rje-phur-pa is an integral part of that of the entire rNying-ma Tantric canon, this chapter will only focus on

the rDo-rje-phur-pa cycle. The following will examine materials that have discussed the authenticity issue of the rDo-rje-phur-pa scriptures chronologically.

1 See the Bit ston chos ’byung (p. 266.12-14): kho bo’i bla ma skadgnyis smra ba nyi ma’i mtshan can dang rigs ral la sogspa | bsam yas nos rgya dpe rnyed pa’i phyir dang | phur pa rtsa ba’i dum bu’i rgya dpe balpor yang snang bos rgyud yang dag go zhes gsung ngo ||.

2 See the Chos ’byung dpag bsam (p. 769.1-11): ...phur pa rtsa ba’i rgyud bal bor yang snang zer ba dang yang dusphyis sa skya bos shangs sreg zhing nospadma’i rgya dpephur ba rnyed de grel ba’i ’phro bsgyur \...phyi ma daggis phyis kyi rnying ma la thugs rtsis chung la.

3 See 1 hej; Cams tshogsphyogs bsdus skor (p. 1796.3—5): gsangsngags snga ’gyurgyiphyogs la lo tsd ba ’gos dang chag sogs kha ciggis the tshom du mdzadpa na | ’brog mi lo chengyu rdo rjegdangyi sgorgongdu ru lu ’bru brgyad kyi sngags brispa dang | pandi ta ga’zhiggiphyag dpe’igseb tuyangphur rgyud

kyi dum bu ’dragzigs kyang man ngag ma gsan gsungs te. Compare with Smith 2001: 238 where Smith states that ’Brog-mi-lo-tsa-ba had seen the eight-syllable mantra of rDo-rje-phur-pa above one of the portals at Bodhgaya. But in an early version of his article, he does not specifies the eight-svllable mantra is

the mantra of rDo-rje-phur-pa, see Smith 1970: 8. In the two articles Smith does not provide the Tibetan sources he referred to. As Dil-mgo-mkhyen-brtse bKra-shis-dpal-’byor is a recent scholar, there should be some sources he relied on. However, due to time limitation, the earlv sources, which mentioned ’Brog-mi-lo-tsa-ba saw the Phur-pa mantras, and texts, has not been found.

4 See Smith 1970: 8 & 2001: 238. Smith does not give the Tibetan sources he referred to. So far, no records about Kha-che-pan-chen’s assertion has been found in Tibetan sources.


Chapter 3: The Controversy over the Authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Scriptures

Before the time of Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od, Lha-bla-ma Ye-shes-’od, who was a king of the Gu-ge kingdom, had already issued an ordinance (bka’shog) forbidding practices related to sbyor, sgrol, and tshogs. In this ordinance, the rDo-rje-phur-pa Tantric scriptures are not mentioned.

1 Due to this ordinance, a campaign was carried out by the king’s grand-nephews Byang-chub-’od and Zhi-ba-’od as well as other gSar-ma translators—such as ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas to criticize the perverse practices. One of the most important early sources that discusses the authenticity of the [[Phur-pa] scriptures is the ordinance of Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od.

Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od was the first person in the Tibetan royal family to become a translator.- He became well known for the ordinance he issued in 1092.

The original ordinance, which is not available so far, is cited completely by Sog-bzlog-pa in his Nges don ’brug sgragd There are also many references to this ordinance throughout history. The earliest source which refers to it is probably the sDorn gsurn rab dbye of Sa-skya-pandita Kun-dga’-rgyal-mtshan, who mentions a sNgags log sun ’byin written by Zhi-ba-’od.

Bu-ston also mentions that Zhi-ba-’od composed a sNgags log sun ’byin.

Later, ’Bri-gung dPal-’dzin (fourteenth century),rGyang-ro Byang-chub-’bum (early fourteenth century), Shakya-mchog-ldan, and Sum-pa Ye-shes-dpal-’byor all make references to this ordinance.


The purpose of the ordinance was to warn Buddhist practitioners and monks not to follow the adulterated Tantric scriptures and sadhanas, as they were possibly a path leading to lower rebirth.

8 Karmay has edited and translated this ordinance based on that cited by So-

4 Two versions of the Nges don ’brug sgrag have been found.

One (A) is published by Si-khron-mi-rigs-dpe-skrun-khang separately.

The other (B) is included in the Sog bzlogpagsung ’bum. The ordinance of Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od is in A (pp. 204.16-209.12) and B (pp. 462.3-467.3).

bzlog-pa.1 Karmay divides this ordinance into three parts. The Phur-pa scriptures are mentioned in the first part, in which Zhi-ba-’od treats them as forgeries claiming to be the word of the Buddha, pretending to have an Indian name but in fact being composed by Tibetans.


The texts mentioned include

(i) The long and short versions of the .Mya ngan las ’das-pa-,

(2) the Khu byug rolpa-j (3) the Ki laya’i tantra which is the exposition tantra {bshad rgyud.') of Khu byug rolpa-,

(4) the dGongs pa lung stow,

(5) the gSang ba gter sbas-,

(6) the rDo rje gsal bkod-,

(7) the Ki la ya tantra chung ngu-,

(8) the Byi to’i rgyud dugsol ba-,

(9) the sTag mo kha gdangs-,

(10) the Phag mo kha gdangs-,

(n) the gSang phur kha gdangs-,

(12) the Tshub nag rol pap

(13) the Zhe sdangsemssu dagpa’i rgyud-,

(14) thegSangsngags druggi rgyud dang ’grel ba dang cho gar bcaspa.

(15) the ’Phrospa man naggi rgyud Inga.

(16) the Chags rgyud-,

(17) the gShin rje’i bsnyel mams-,

(18) the six king-like Tantric scriptures {rgyud kyi rgyalpo drug) such as the dPal khro bo’i rgyud composed by gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas-ye-shes-rin-po-che (henceforth gNubs-chen).5 It is evident that Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od treated the Phur-pa scriptures mentioned in his ordinance as products of Tibet and he strongly disapproves of the practice of following these texts.

In the Nges don ’brugsgra, Sog-bzlog-pa again alludes to the Tantric scriptures that the ordinance of Zhi-ba-’od maintains were composed by Tibetans. Among them, the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures are almost identical with the aforementioned list, with slight differences in titles and separation of titles, and

several scriptures are omitted and one is added.6 Due to the lack of author’s nams and the abbreviation of the titles, it is difficult to identify these texts. According to Karmay’s study, none of the texts numbered 1-17 correspond to the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures in the rNying ma rgyud ’bum (see, for example, Tk. vol. 27, 28, and 29)

1 Karmay 1998b: pp. 17-40. Snellgrove also discussed this ordinance, see Snellgrove 1987: 474-475.

2 See the Nges don ’bru sgra (p. 205.1-3): sangs rgyas kyi bka’ Itar bcos pa’i rgyud dang | grel ba dang | sgrub thabs sngaphyir bod du rgyagar ma’i ming brtags shing bod kyis by as pa ni ’di dag sde |.

3 The Tibetan reading is: phurpa’i rgyud la khu byug rolpa ] B,phurpa’i rgyud dang khu byug rolpa A.

4 The Tibetan reading is: tshub nag rolpa ] B, tshubs nag rol ba A.

5 The Phur-pa scriptures listed above are an unsettled separation of titles based mainly on Karmay’s rendering, see Karmay 1998b: 33.

6 See the Nges don ’brugsgra (A: p. 307.6-16; B: pp. 567.6-568.3): yangspu hrangs kyi lo tsa ba lhapho brang zhi ba ’od na re \...yang dpal ’bar khro bo’i rgyalpo lasogspa’i rgyud drug dang | bdud rtsi bampo brgyadpa la sogspagnubs sangs rgyasye shes kyis byas so ||...|| yangphur ba’i rtsa rgyud khu byug

rolpa dang bshad rgyud ki la ya ’i rgyud che chung dang dgons pa lung ston danggsang ba gter sbas dang rdo rje gsang ba bkodpa dang ki la ya bi ro’i rgyud dangsta mo khagdangs dangsengge khagdangs dangphag mo khagdangs danggsangphur kha gdangs dang tshub nag rol ba dang zhe sdangyongs su dagpa’i rgyud dang | ’phrospa man ngaggi rgyud Inga dang \...bod kyis byas so ||.


Chapter 3: The Controversy over the Authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Scriptures except no. 13

Zhe sdangsems su dagpa’i rgyud which is probably the Zhe sdangyongs su dag pa’i rgyud kyi rgyalpo (op. cit., vol. 27, pp. 285-322).1


3.2 The sNgags log sun ’byin Attributed to ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas

’Gos-lo-tsa-ba Khug-pa-lhas-btsas (henceforth ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas) was a famous translator contemporary with Zur-po-che Sakya-’byung-gnas (1002-1062).

During his lifetime, he made several trips to India and studied with seventy-two different teachers there. He was a vital figure in the transmission of the

Guhyasamaja. Whether the sNgags log sun ’byin was written by ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas remains unclear. From its

opening line and concluding passages, it is hard to ascertain for sure that he composed it. Sog-bzlog-pa agrees with some scholars that the pamphlet does not seem to be by ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas. He states that if they were indeed by Lhas-btsas, they should then be understood to be of intended meaning (dgongs pa can).2, Dorji Wangchuk suggests the references to Lhas-btsas as the author in the opening line and the

colophon-like concluding passages seem suspect and are likely to be later insertions.1 2 3 Sog-bzlog-pa also mentions there were three propaganda pamphlets (’byams yig) attributed to Lhas-btsas, namely an extensive (rgyas) one, a medium (’bring)

one, and a short (bsdus) one. When he wrote the Nges don ’brugsgra, he only saw two of them and believes that the third does not exist at all.4 In the sNgags log sun ’bying attributed to ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-

2 See the Nges don ’brugsgra (A: p. 229.13-20; B: p. 487.4-6): de’iphyir bk.a’shog ’di la mkhaspa kha ciggis | brjod bya bzangpo gcig kyang mi snang la | rjod byed kun kyang grong tshig kho na snang || de phyir ’gos kyis mdzadpa’ng min pa ’dra | zhes gsungs pa bzhin du snang | gal te mdzad du zin nayang

| mkhaspa mams kyis shes rab kyis chos la dpyadpar bya ba’iphyir | zhesgsungspas | skyes bu shes rab can mams kyi ni dgongspa can gyi gsung yin pa nyid du nges so ||.

3 The opening line of the sNgags log sun ’byinskor(y>. 18.2-3) reads: gsang sngags mtha’ dag la mkhaspa | mkhas pa ’i dbangphyug ’gos khugpa lhas btsa kyigdamspa | and the concluding passage (op. cit. p. 25.3-4) reads: brtse ba’i dbanggis lo tstsha ba mkhaspa chenpo ’gos khugpa lhas btsas kyi

sngagspa dang rab byung chos nor ba la zhugs pa mams la phan pa ’i phyir du ’di bsgyur ba yin no 11. Fora discussion about the reference to this sNgags log sun 7/pw and its authorship, see Wangchuk 2002: pp. 275-276.

4 See the Nges don ’brugsgra (A: p. 217.13-16; B: p. 475.4-5): da ni lo tsa ba chenpo ’gos lhas btsas kyis mdzad do zhespa’i ’byamsyig la rgyas bsdusgsumyodpargrags kyang | da Itaggnyis mthong ba ’di las lhagpa’i brjod bya zhig logs su me pa’i phyir mi bdenpa ’dra la |. Which two of the pamphlets were available to Sog-bzlog-pa is unclear.

btsas, it is stated that the Ki la ya bcu gnyis along with many other Tantric scriptures composed

by gNubs-chen, were fallacious teachings full of errors.1 In his response to one of the three pamphlets attributed to ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas, Sog-bzlog-pa quotes the above statement, however, the Tantric scriptures are slightly different.2 3 In the same response, Sog-bzlog-pa quotes another statement of’Gos

Khug-pa-lhas-btsas saying that Tibetans composed many fallacious teachings based on the Ki la ya bcu gnyis, which was composed by gNubs-chen. None of these teachings were based on Sanskrit texts and were proved to be errant by means of interviewing panditas. ' In the Nges don ’brug sgra, Sog-bzlog-pa again cites ’Gos

Khug-pa-lha-bstas’ discourse that lists many Tantric scriptures composed by gNub-chen, and treats them to be errant and fabricated by Tibetans.4 As can be seen from the above discussion, ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas, if he was the author of the sNgags log sun ’byin, took the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures—at least the Ki la ya bcu gnyis—to be false teachings authored by Tibetans.


3.3 The sNgags log sun ’byin Attributed to Chag-lo-tsa-ba Chos

There is a text titled sNgags log sun ’byin attributed to Chag-lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje-dpal (henceforth Chag-lo-tsa-ba), but dPa’-bo gTsug-lag-phreng-ba was skeptical about this attribution

zer ro || kha skonggi rgyud la | chos nyid zhi ba’i lha rgyud \...de thams cad chos logdri ma can yin no\\.

2 See the Nges don ’brug sgra (A: pp. 225.10-226.4; B: pp. 483.4-484.2). According to Wangchuk, owing to the structure of the text as found in the Nges don ’brug sgra, it is quite improbable that Sog-bzlog-pa combined the two pamphlets that were available to him and cited them together, and it is more likely that he choose the larger one of the two, see Wangchuk 2002: fn. 50 on 276.

3 See the Nges don ’brug sgra (A: p. 224.9-13; B: p. 482.4-5): gnubs sangs rgyas ye shes rinpo ches ki la ya bcu gnyis kyi rgyud brtsams 11 de la brten nas bod mams kyis chos log dri ma can bsamgyis mi khyabpa byas so 11 de dag thams cad rgyagar na med cingpandi ta mangpo la dr is pas chos nor ba yin

gsungs | zhes pa yang. However, this statement is not found in the extant sNgag log sun ’byin attributed to ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas. Therefore, it is possible that the one Sog-bzlog-pa quoted and responded to is different from the extant one.

4 See the Nges don ’brug sgra (A: pp. 308.19-309.10; B: pp. 569.5-570.2): yanggnubs sangs rgyas ye shes rin po ches kila ya bcu gnyis kyi rgyud dang... phrin las kyi rgyud karma ma le dang Inga brtsams so yang de nyid kyis.da sogs pa brtsams pa nyi bod kyis rang bzor byas pa’i chos log dri ma can yin no || zhezerro ||. This citation is quite similar to the one cited in fn.2 on p. 44, but the Tantric scriptures are not identical.


Chapter 3: The Controversy over the Authenticity of the rDo-rje-phur-pa Scriptures

and referred to this work as“supposedly composed by Chag-lo-tsa-ba.”1 Chag-lo-tsa-ba was also one of the polemists who were against the followers of the rNying-ma school. He visited Bodhgaya and was a disciple of Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-’od-zer. Chag-lo-tsa-ba’s attitude towards the Phur-pa teachings is ambiguous.

He first points out that all the rNying-ma Tantric doctrines were made up by Tibetans {bod. kyis byas), not taught by the Buddha {sangs rgyas kyis ma gsungs), and were non-existent in India {rgyagar na med), with the exception of the so-called three compendia {’dus pa gsum), namely rDo-rje-gzhon-nu as

the deity, the rDo-rje-phur-pa teachings as the mantras, and the Eight Sadhanas—which originated from rDo-rje-’chang and were Padmasambhava’s personal practice.1 2 * Although Chag-lo-tsa-ba criticizes all the rNying-ma Tantric scriptures for their non-authenticity, he excludes the Phur-pa teachings from them.

However, he then rejects the authenticity of the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures, stating that three persons called So-zur-gnubs, who were possessed by the “king spirits” {rgyalpo), composed the Phur-pa Tantric scriptures, for instance the Ki la ya bcugnyis, after having mixed the scriptural traditions of non-

Buddhist, Buddhist “upper” and “lower” sadhanas, Tantric scriptures regarding worldly devils, and the scriptural tradition of Bon-po together, then named them in accordance with dharmas.1’ He also rejects the narrative of Padmasambhava obtaining the Phur pa Tantric scriptures at Yang-le-shod.4 The reason for

Chag-lo-tsa-ba’s rejecting all the rNying-ma Tantric scriptues except the three compendia is perhaps that the three compendia were accepted by his tradition and he could probably not reject them.

This view in the sNgags log sun ’byin has been referred to and cited by some scholars; for example, dPa’-bo gTsug-lag-’phreng-ba cites and rephrases most of thejTVgzZjp log sun ’byin


1 See the Log rtog mam sbyong (p. 126.1): yang chag lo tsa ba chos rje dpalgyis byas zer ba na. For a study of the authorship of this work, see Raudsepp 2009.

2 See the sNgags log sun ’byin skor (p. 6.-15): spyir bod kyis byas shing sangs rgyas kyis magsungs la | rgyagar na med par gsang sngags rnying mar mi ng btags pa mams so || de’i ruing nos lha rdo rje gzhon nus gsang sngags ki laya’i chos brtsams ’dus pa yang dag pa yin | yangsgrub pa che brgyad ’dus pa gsum ni rdo rje chang gi phyag na rdo rje la bstan te | li byi nos brgyud do 11 gu rupadma’i thugs dam yin te |, cf. the Log rtog mam sbyong (p. 126.11-14).

J See the sNyags log sun ’byin skor (p. 7.1—3): so zur snubs gsum gyi khongs su rgyalpo zhugs te | phyi rolpa’i gzhunglugs dang | ruingpa’isgrubs thabsgong ’ogdang | ’jigs rtenpa’i dregs byed mams kyi rgyud bonpo’igzhung lugs mams bsres nos riling chos /Ling mthun par btags nos | ki la ya bcugnyis bya ba la

sogspaphur rgyud dpag tu medpa brtsams |, cf. the Logrtogrnam sbyong (p. 126.16-19). The So-zur-gnubs refers to So Ye-ses-dbang-phyug, Zur Sakya-’byung-gnas, andgNubs-chen.

+ See sNgags log sun ’byinskor{p. 7.4-5): padnui ’byunggnas yang le shod du bsdadpa la rgyagar nas mi bdun gyis thig tshad bskur byung ba de yin zer nas rdzun byas te di mams la yang dag cig kyang me do 11, cf. the Log rtogrnam sbyong (p. 126.19-20).


Origination, Transmission, and Reception of the Phur-pa Cycle in his Log rtog mam sbyong.1 Sum-pa-mkhan-po briefly refers to Chag-lo-tsa-ba’s view in his Chos ’byung dpag bsam.’


3.4 Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub s Position

Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364, henceforth Bu-ston) states that mantras from the earlier translation were considered impure by Lo-tsa-ba Rin-chen-bzang-po, Lha-bla-ma Ye-shes-’od, Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od , ’Gos Khug-pa-lhas-btsas and so forth. Nonetheless, his teachers— Thar-pa-lo-tsa-ba Nyi-ma’i-mtshan-can,

bCom-ldan Rig-pa’i-ral-gri as well as others—maintained that they were real Tantric scriptures because the original Indian text had been found in bSam-yas, and part of the Sanskrit rDo-rje-phur-pa root scripture had been discovered in Nepal.1 2 3 When Bu-ston complied the Tibetan Buddhist canon, he excluded

the rNying-ma Tantric scriptures because he could not find their Indian originals.4 * Nonetheless, he included the rDo rjephur ba rtsa ba’i dum bu translated by Sa-skya-pandita in his rGyud ’bumgyi dkar 5

According to Sog-bzlog-pa’s Nges don ’brug sgra, Bu-ston considers the cycle of the Phur-ba as belonging to the Amoghasiddhi family [don yod grub pa’i rigs) and maintains that because the rNying-ma people treat the Phur-pa deity as the karma deity [phrin las kyi lha), it is related to the karma family [las kyi rigs).6 Sog-bzlog-pa then states that if the rNying-ma


2 See the Chos ’byung dpag bsam (p. 756.12-16): chag los kyang | bod kyi so zur snub gsum gyi snying la rgya I ’gongzhugs nos phur bu’i rgyud ki la ya bcu gnyis dang grub pa bka’brgyad dang padma dbangchen rta mcho rol ba dang dkar ma li dangzhi khros ’duspa dang khogsnanggshin rje dang ma mo’i rgyud lung dangsgyu ’phrul brgyad bcu sogs brtsams |.

3 See the Bu ston chos ’byung (p. 266.10-14): snga ’gyur gsang sngags rnying ma ni | lo tsa ba chenpo rin chen bzangpo dang lha bla ma ye shes ’od dang pho brangzhi ba ’od dang ’gos khugpa lhas btsas la sogs pa mams yang dag pa ma yin par smra la | kho bo’i bla ma skad gnyis smra ba nyi ma’i mtshan

can dang rigs ral la sogs pa | bsam yas nos rgya dpe rnyedpa’iphyir dang | phurpa rtsa ba’i dum bu’i rgya dpe balporyangsnang bos rgyud yang dag go zhes gsung ngo 11. The original Indian text refers to the *Guhyagarbhatantra, see Schaeffer & Van der kuijp 2009: 48. This paragraph is cited in the Nges don

’brugsgra (pp. 231.21-232.6), but does not mention the Sanskrit rDo-rje-phur-pa root scripture, only mentions that many Sanskrit texts appeared in Nepal. Roerich translated this part in his translation of the Deb ther sngonpo, see Roerich 1995: fn. 1 on 102.

6 See the Nges don ’brug sgra (A: p. 233.14-17; B: p. 491.4): rgyud sde spyi rnam du | de Itar phurpa don yod grub pa’i rigs yin pa dang | rnying ma ba mams phur pa phrin las kyi lha zer bos las kyi rigs su byas so || zhes gsungs te |.



Source