Diseño de actividades

The origin and recent history of the texts constituting the NKCK and NKSB have been described above. As argued, 98 % of the texts included in the NKCK and 63 % of those in the NKSB come from the gNas bcu lha khang. Although the size of the folios, the number of line per page, the handwriting, etc. of the individual manuscripts varies in the originals, the print in the NKCK is a standardized, black and white, 8 x 42 cm reproduction, which might give the impression of a homogeneous collection. The diversity in handwriting, number of lines, size, etc., show the composite character of the collection, which was probably conserved in various libraries before its incorporation in the gNas bcu lha khang. Despite the diversity of the manuscripts, which to some extent hinders the ascertainment of their possible origin, the editors of the dPal brtsegs zhib ’jug khang created a coherent collection covering the various iterations of Mar pa’s exegetical tradition.

They ordered the works chronologically and thematically. The first seven out of ten volumes of the NKCK (fourteen out of thirty-four of the NKSB) are writings by members of the rNgog family or by disciples following their tradition. rNgog mDo sde (known by the name Zhe sdang rdo rje in his writings) was the most prolific author in the lineage with two and a half

162 See Appendix 4 for a chart of all titles as in NKSB, with the author, correspondances in NKCK, DC, KGND and DK-DZO.

volumes spanning the rNgog traditions, from commentaries on the Hevajratantra and Vajrapañjaratantra to rituals on the Nāmasaṃgīti. It is notable that he authored summaries (bsdus don) on all the main tantras he held (Hevajra, Catuṣpīṭha, Mahāmāyā, and Nāmasaṃgīti), as well as most sādhanas for the empowerment and practice of these tantras.

His commentaries and sādhanas set the style of the lineage. This style comes from Mar pa and rNgog Chos rdor’s instructions that open the collection but are much less structured than later works. In many cases, the works attributed to mDo sde seem to be the earliest written traces of any given tradition, and it is likely that it was at this time that Mar pa’s instructions were put to writing more systematically. Despite authorship being attributed to him, the texts themselves often have invocations to masters much later than mDo sde, generally until Byang chub dpal. This indicates that mDo sde was the initiator of the lineage style, which was then taken up and preserved by his heirs. One thus finds many iterations by Thogs med grags, Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, Rin chen dpal bzang po, etc., which either continue, enlarge or comment on the work of their predecessor—a practice quite common in Tibetan scholarship.

It is important to note that only commentaries and sādhanas associated with the creation phase of the highest yoga tantras are included in the NKCK and in the DC.¹⁶³ There are in the NKSB several texts associated with Mar pa and Chos rdor’s key instructions on the perfection phase, but they come from other sources, especially the DK-DZO. Although there are evidences of written traces of Mar pa’s oral instructions in the early phase of the tradition, it is likely that, like in other traditions, these key-instructions were kept secret and did not spread widely until a later time.¹⁶⁴ The same can be said of instructions and rites associated with the protector Dud sol ma, as very few seem to have been preserved in the gNas bcu lha khang and texts in the NKSB come from the KGND.

One can note as well that mDo sde authored two commentaries on the Saṃputatantra, which was not part of the Mar rNgog tradition and had just been received from Rwa Lo tsā ba.¹⁶⁵ It is possible that it was part of an attempt to add legitimacy to his Hevajra transmission. In the Sa skya tradition, it is considered that there are two explanatory tantras on the Hevajratantra, namely the Vajrapañjaratantra and the Saṃputatantra.¹⁶⁶ The former is specific to the Hevajratantra while the latter is common to the Hevajra- and Cakrasaṃvaratantra. Several

163 One notable exception is Maitripa’s Nine Instructions (mnga’ bdag me tri ba’i dgu dgu phrugs), NKCK, 1:

273-315, which deals with the topic of the six doctrines (see Chapter I.2 for details). It is possible that more key instructions on the perfection phase are in the DC (or in the gNas bcu lha khang) but have not been spotted because of their size and general lack of identifying title and/or author.

164 Examples are the notes on the six doctrines concealed in a felt bag that Chos rdor is said to bequeath his son (see section II.3.1), and Mar pa’s “concealed” instructions on the six doctrines in Sras mkhar (see Ducher 2016b). These fifteen scrolls were discovered by the treasure revealer Gu ru Chos dbang (1212-1270) in the walls of Sras mkhar and spread under the short name Sras mkhar ma. Given the style and content of the scrolls, they cannot have been created by Gu ru Chos dbang and are likely to be from the pen of Mar pa (or attendants).

This shows that there were written notes on these secret oral instructions on the perfection phase but that they did not spread widely. The seven volumes of MPSB should be analyzed in a similar fashion in order to trace the origin of its texts, which have a higher proportion of instructions on the perfection phase than the NKCK.

165 NKSB, 2: 171-287. See section II.3.2.

166 Sobisch 2007.

of mDo sde’s descendants’ writings are similarly commentaries or ritual associated with transmissions having newly entered the lineage.

Among mDo sde’s descendants, the ones known to have composed commentaries and rituals are Thogs med grags, followed by rGyal tsha Ra mo, rGyal tsha rDor seng and their heir Rin chen rgyal po and Rin chen dpal, as well as gTsang tsha Kun dga’ rdo rje and his heirs Seng ge sgra, Rin chen bzang po and Chos kyi rgyal mtshan.¹⁶⁷ Byang chub dpal did not author any other text than ST2, which might be pseudepigraph. Not all of the texts alluded to in the Rosaries are extant in either the NKCK and NKSB, although some that were lacking in NKCK appear in NKSB, which shows that some manuscripts were located by the publishers in the interval. Among these authors, the most prolific was mDo sde’s son Thogs med grags.

He enlarged several of his father’s commentaries by adding notes (mchan) to them and prepared several rites associated with the rNgog maṇḍalas. Not all of his work is preserved in the NKCK/NKSB.

Finally, the case of Rin chen bzang po needs some clarification. This master, the third abbot of sPre’u zhing, is said in the Rosaries to be the author of several texts on Pañjara, Mahāmāyā and gSang ldan as well as of a biography of Mar pa. The responsibility of one Rin chen dpal bzang po is mentioned in the colophons of a few texts in the NKSB and it is tempting to consider that these works were composed by Rin chen bzang po. These texts, in the end of vol. 10 and in vol. 11 of the NKSB do not figure in NKCK, and are also absent from the DC. There is a collection of texts attributed to rNgog gzhung pa Rin chen dpal bzang in the Potala Catalog,¹⁶⁸ and it is likely that dPal brtsegs obtained a copy of these Potala manuscripts only after the NKCK edition was released. It is difficult to check the transcription of the colophons without the photographic reproduction of the originals, but given the overall reliability of the rest of the NKSB collection, we can assume that the transcription of these texts is correct. This collection deals with Pañjara (one text),¹⁶⁹ Catuṣpīṭha (four texts),¹⁷⁰ Mahāmāyā (one text),¹⁷¹ Vajravalī (two texts)¹⁷² and Hevajra (one text),¹⁷³ topics which only partially cover the ones composed by Rin chen bzang po, while adding works on Catuṣpīṭha, Vajravalī and Hevajra. The colophons state that these texts were compiled by rNgog gZhung pa Rin chen dpal bzang po in the solitary place (dben gnas) of Brag dmar chos ’khor gling.

That hermitage is not known from any other source, and it is strange, if Rin chen bzang po is the author, that he should write them elsewhere than sPre’u zhing, which was at the time a bustling institution for which he greatly laboured. Further, one finds within the Pañjara

167 ST1, 20-21; ST2, 45-47.

168 Potala Catalog, 118-119.

169 NKSB, 10: 235-292: ’Jam dpal rigs bsdus pa’i sgo nas ngan song thams cad sbyong ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga nyi ma’i ’od zer.

170 Ibid. 11: 1-71: dPal ldan bzhi pa’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga; 11: 72-11: dPal ldan bzhi pa’i rnal ’byor nam mkha’i mngon rtogs; 11: 112-118: dPal ldan bzhi pa’i dkyil ’khor gyi gegs sel ba’i stang stabs kyi rim pa;

NKSB, 11: 119-187: dPal ldan bzhi pa’i zhi ba dang rgyas pa’i sbyin bsreg gi cho ga.

171 NKSB, 11: 188: dPal sgyu ’phrul chen mo’i sgrub thabs.

172 NKSB, 11: 310: Phreng ba’i dka’ ’grel; NKSB, 11: 320: dPal rdo rje phreng ba’i thig gi dka’ ’grel.

173 NKSB, 11: 208: dPal dgyes pa rdo rje’i mngon par rtogs pa.

empowerment ritual verses of homage that run until rNgog Byang chub dpal.¹⁷⁴ For all these reasons, it appears that the author is not the abbot Rin chen bzang po, but Sang Rin’s son, known as Rin chen dpal bzang po, who lived during the abbacy of Byang chub dpal (1360-1446)(see section II.3.4.8). As he belonged to a branch of the main gTsang tsha line, it is likely that he lived in a house distinct from sPre’u zhing. A further indication to a late date of composition is the fact that the colophon to the Pañjaratantra empowerment ritual states that the author relied on instructions by Rin chen dpal zhe sdang rdo rje (?) and rNgog gZhung pa rDo rje rin chen. The latter may be Byang chub dpal’s first son. Hence, it is reasonable to consider that the texts attributed to Rin chen bzang po in the NKSB were actually authored several generations later by Rin chen dpal bzang po. The abbot Rin chen bzang po’s works, especially his hagiography of Mar pa, remain unavailable.

Volumes 6 and 7 of the NKCK (vols. 15-18 of NKSB) contain the works of rTsags Dar ma rgyal po and ’Gar ston bKra shis dbang phyug, who are considered mDo sde’s two main disciples. rTsags Dar ma rgyal po figures in the rNgog lineage of gSang ldan and in the lineage of Catuṣpīṭha of several records of teachings received,¹⁷⁵ in both cases as a disciple of mDo sde. He authored three commentaries on the Hevajratantra and one on the gSang ldan tradition of the Nāmasaṃgīti, which are quite voluminous and played an important role in the tradition (section II.3.2.6.1). ’Gar (mGar) ston bKra shis dbang phyug hailed from the powerful mGar clan. His name does not appear in any of the lineages of the rNgog tradition, but he authored commentaries on Hevajra¹⁷⁶ and Mahāmāyā,¹⁷⁷ and requested mDo sde to write an important commentary on gSang ldan (section II.3.2.6.2).¹⁷⁸ The Mahāmāyātantra commentary was written in the rGyal thang Temple of Yar klung, where rTsags’ gSang ldan commentary was emended by a Shes rab nam mkha’. Although these two texts demonstrate different handwriting and may not be by the same scribe, there are many manuscripts whose handwriting, size, etc., are very close to the gSang ldan manuscript. It is therefore possible that a sizeable quantity of the collection comes from this place in the Yar klung valley.

A long commentary on Hevajra preserved in the NKCK (vol. 7) and NKSB (vol. 20)¹⁷⁹ represents the lineage held by yet another disciple of mDo sde’s, sNgo tsha Chos sku, who came from southern gTsang (see section II.3.2.6.3). sNgo tsha Chos sku held a familial lineage that continued for several generations and figures in some lineages of Mahāmāyā and Catuṣpīṭha.¹⁸⁰ According to its colophon, the text was composed on the basis of rNgog mDo sde’s instructions by sNgo tsha Chos sku, and was completed in rNgog Byang chub dpal’s time (15^th century), in sPre’u zhing, by a monk called Zhang rDo rje dbang phyug. It is noteworthy that this text is the only one in the NKCK to contain a xylographic image of rNgog mDo sde (NKCK, 7:92, see the opening of the present dissertation).

174 NKSB, 10: 238-240.

175 Gong dkar gsan yig, 416-417; Ngor chen thob yig, 326; DL5 thob yig, 4: 632.

176 dPal dgyes pa rdo rje’i bshad ’bum nor bu sgron me, NKSB, 17.

177 Ma hā ma ya’i rgyud kyi ’grel pa, NKSB, 18: 1-82.

178 ’Jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa’i ’grel pa, NKSB, 7.

179 sNying po kye’i rdo rje rin po che’i rgyan dang ’dra ba’i bshad pa, NKCK, 7: 91-289; colophon p. 287.

180 Bu ston gSan yig, 56; KGNDdkar chag, 32; Gong dkar gsan yig, 414.

In the second half of volume 7 and the beginning of volume 8 of the NKCK (NKSB, vol. 21 and 22) there are several texts authored by Tre bo rDo rje mgon po. He was known as a great scholar, conversant in Guhyasamāja, Cakrasaṃvara, Pañjāra and Hevajra. He was a disciple of rGya Nam mkha’ dbang phyug, himself a holder of the “Ram Tradition” of Hevajra coming from Ram rDo rje grags and of Mar pa do pa’s tradition of Cakrasaṃvara.¹⁸¹ The Ram Tradition was related to the rNgog tradition of Hevajra, but with its own distinctive style. The Ram tradition of Hevajra is also represented in the NKCK by the commentaries of lCe’i ban de dben tsa and Shes rab thar dan (NKCK, vol. 8; NKSB, vols. 23 and 24).

According to the latter, who explicitely traces his tradition to Ram, the monk dBen tsa of the lCe family was one of Ram’s four main disciples (see section II.3.1.5).¹⁸²

Another tradition coming from Mar pa that is represented in the collection is that of Hevajra passing by Mes ston tshon po (see section II.1.3.3.), one of Mar pa’s four main disciples (NKCK, vol. 8 and 9; NKSB vol. 25 and 26). This tradition is represented by the commentary on the Hevajratantra by Cher ston bSod nams bzang po, who states in his commentary that he follows the teaching of Glan ston gSal ’od, who held the lineages of both Mes and rNgog gZhung pa.¹⁸³ It is also followed by sKyas bande rGya mtsho grags, who identifies himself as Zhang Ye shes snying po’s disciple, who was separated from Mes ston by only one person.¹⁸⁴ rGya mtsho grags also authored a commentary on Cakrasaṃvara according to Mar pa Do pa Chos kyi dbang phyug’s tradition.¹⁸⁵ This tradition, although completely unrelated to Mar pa or the rNgog, is also represented in vols. 32 and 33 of the NKSB, along with Mar pa do pa’s tradition of Hevajra.

Another important transmission represented in the NKCK is Mar pa’s tradition of Guhyasamāja passing through mTshur ston (section II.1.3.2). Although Guhyasamāja was quite important for Mar pa, and the source of most of his worries for domination of the 11^th -century Tibetan religious field,¹⁸⁶ rNgog Chos rdor did not receive it. Mar pa’s tradition of Guhyasamāja was mostly spread by mTshur ston dbang nge. One of his three main disciples, Khams pa Ro mnyam rdo rje, authored a large commentary expounding it (NKCK, vol. 10;

NKSB, vol. 28). There are also three short texts representing mTshur ston’s iteration of Mar pa’s teaching in vol. 2 of the NKSB.

181 BA, 407-408 for a presentation of the Ram tradition and the relationship of the Rams with the rNgog. See also BA, 388 which states that Tre bo mgon po’s line of interpretation of Hevajra is according to the Ram Tradition.

182 NKSB, 24: 23. The historical part of the commentaries is on pp. 11-23. He mentions shortly the rNgog tradition, though it follows the Ram tradition. Lce’s commentary has an historical part (NKSB, 23: 9-12) which is quite different from that of the rNgog.

183 NKSB, 25: 303. The lineage on pp. 6-9 stops after Mar pa.

184 NKSB, 26: 3: Lineage: Nāropa à Mar pa lHo brag pa à Mes ston tshon po à Zhang bSod nams mkhar à Zhang Ye shes snying po à sKyas Ban de rGya mtsho’i grags. See also Deb sngon, 490.

185 NKSB, vol. 26, 225-333. The lineage is given 230: Nāropa à Pham thing pa à Mar pa [Do pa] Chos kyi dbang phyug à dPal bDe mchog rdo rje à sKyas Ban de rGya mtsho’i grags. (Mar pa Do pa also received the transmission from Sumatikīrti who was the disciple of Manakaśri, one of Nāropa’s four main disciples).

186 Ducher 2017, 35. For instance, Mar pa’s biographies often mention his fear that Nāropa’s disciple Ākarasiddhi may spread Guhyasamāja in Tibet before himself does and thus prevent his tradition from spreading.

Volume 9 of the NKCK includes a commentary on the Pañjaratantra authored by the monk dBang phyug rin chen. Although he relates his tradition to Nāropa, Maitripa and Śāntibhadra, hence most probably to Mar pa, Mar pa and his disciples are not directly mentioned.

Thus, in short, the NKCK includes several transmissions associated with Mar pa’s exegetical lineage according to three of his disciples, rNgog Chos rdor, Mes ston tshon po and mTshur ston dbang nge, as well as the Ram tradition of Hevajra, which was related to both Mar pa and the rNgog, although quite distinct in its commentarial style. The reason for their inclusion in the slightly misleadingly titled “Compilation of rNgog Cycles” (rngog chos skor phyogs bsgrigs) is that they were stored in the gNas bcu lha khang. More detail about the life and teachings of these masters are found in the section on Mar pa and his disciples (II.1.3), and on the rNgog and their disciples (II.3).

The last volumes of the NKSB (29-34) contain transmissions not directly related to Mar pa.

The reason for their inclusion is likely the same, namely that these texts were stored in the gNas bcu lha khang. Although an attempt has been made in this dissertation to contextualize all traditions coming from Mar pa, no further account than the following is provided with regards to these unrelated traditions.¹⁸⁷

First, volumes 30 and 31 of the NKSB contain some of the writings of gSer sdings pa gZhon nu ’od,¹⁸⁸ who held Mar pa’s tradition of Guhyasamāja, along with several others. Then, volumes 32 and 33 feature Mar pa do pa’s writings on Cakrasaṃvara and Hevajra. The reason why he is included is probably his famous encounter with Mar pa while the latter was returning from his last journey to India and informed Do pa of Nāropa’s unavailability to disciples at large.¹⁸⁹ It is possible also that his family name did play a role in the publisher’s inclusion of his writings in the “Complete Works of the rNgog and their Disciples’ Lineages”

(rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum). This too might be the reason for the inclusion of an important commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra according to the rNgog/rDog Tradition. As argued in section II.2.2.1, there was in the early centuries of the second spread of Buddhism in Tibet an important family lineage called rNgog or rDog. The name is not quite settled, although rDog seems preferable. They held ’Gos Khug pa lhas

(rngog slob brgyud dang bcas pa’i gsung ’bum). This too might be the reason for the inclusion of an important commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra according to the rNgog/rDog Tradition. As argued in section II.2.2.1, there was in the early centuries of the second spread of Buddhism in Tibet an important family lineage called rNgog or rDog. The name is not quite settled, although rDog seems preferable. They held ’Gos Khug pa lhas