A Biography of Klong chen rab ’byams (19)

1.1.3.32. rGyal sras Legs pa rgyal mtshan (1290-1366/67) and the mKha’ ’gro snying thig

rGyal sras Legs pa was the main disciple of the gter ston Padma las ’brel rtsal, whose reincarnation Klong chen rab ’byams is considered to be.

It is almost impossible to date Padma las ’brel rtsal. Tradition reports (sMyo shul chos 'byung, p. 190) that he was born in the year of the iron hare and that he did not live long. This is probably what leads Tülku Thondup to propose 1291[1] as the year of his birth, knowing that he gave teachings to Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje, born in 1284. However, for some reason that escapes us entirely, the Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo [and TBRC] has Padma las ’brel rtsal born in 1248. Tülku Thondup suggests 1315 as the date of his death. We assume that this is because of the numerous allusions to the year of the wooden hare (shing yos) in the colophons of the mKha’ ’gro yang tig, which do not correspond to anything in the life of Klong chen rab ’byams. This has the disadvantage of causing Padma las ’brel rtsal to perish after the birth of Klong chen rab ’byams, said to be his immediate reincarnation. But if this does not bother Tülku Thondup, who is well placed to be well informed of the Tibetan system of “reincarnations” (sprul sku), we have no reason to be upset about it. Let us add that the next reincarnation of Padma las ’brel rtsal[2] is supposed to be Grags pa ’od zer, Klong chen rab ’byams’ own son, apparently born in 1356, some eight years, therefore, before our author’s death !

In the same sense, it is observed that a certain Tshul khrims rin chen, whom we have already had occasion to say was none other than Padma las ’brel rtsal, gave teachings to Karma pa III in 1308 (the very year of Klong chen rab ’byams’ birth), as is indicated in a passage in Blue Annals (p. 524).

According to Kong sprul (op. cit., p. 411 ff.), he was born in the year of the female fire hare; he was ordained as Tshul khrims rdo rje; Rin chen gling pa sent him a shog gser when he was 21; at 23, he discovered the mKha’ ’gro snying thig and other cycles. Then he met Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje in Lhasa. He passed on his teachings to rGyal sras Legs pa and Rin chen gling pa and died at the age of 25 (or rather, counting in the Tibetan way, in his twenty-fifth year). Logically, from these elements, we must conclude that he died between 1308 and 1310, and perhaps rather in 1308, if, as this biography says, Klong chen rab ’byams was his immediate reincarnation (of ma thag tu...). He would therefore have been born in 1284 (the same year that Karma pa was born); but this does not correspond to a year of the hare.

However, in the biography of his disciple rGyal sras Legs pa which appears in the sMyo shul chos ’byung, Padma las ’brel rtsal, at the point of death, makes a prophecy concerning his reincarnation, Klong chen rab ’byams, whose birth he announces five years later. He would therefore have died in 1303. If we subtract from this date the appropriate number of years, we arrive at 1279, which is indeed a year of the hare. But another problem immediately arises: at his death, rGyal sras Legs pa would have been only thirteen years old, which is a bit curious if one considers that he chose him as his successor in the lineage. Without being inconceivable, this is strange. The year of birth of rGyal sras Legs pa (if we are not mistaken about it) almost necessarily implies that his master, Padma las ’brel rtsal, lived beyond the date of Klong chen pa’s birth, even though this upsets our general views on the Tibetan system of reincarnations (sprul sku) and runs counter to what is said in several documents relating to the life of Padma las ’brel rtsal. But, in the present state of our documentation, we do not see a way to know more or to get rid of this web of contradictions.

The sources for the biography of Padma las ’brel rtsal are, indeed, meager.[3] In the gTer byung rin po che'i lo rgyus of the mKha’ ’gro yang tig, Klong chen rab ’byams mentions him only in passing. This is certainly a sign that his own teaching of mKha’ ’gro snying thig was based more on personal inspiration than on an oral tradition from this master.

Much could be said about the discovery of mKha’ ’gro snying thig. Some passages in the mThong snang ’od kyi dra ba suggest that Rin chen gling pa also discovered it on his own, although he also received the transmission from rGyal sras Legs pa. Since Klong chen rab ’byams seems to have “re-revealed” the gter chos of Padma las ’brel rtsal too and to have completed it, it should be assumed that this revelation broke out almost simultaneously in at least three places.[4] Again, this is without even mentioning the texts which are found both (identically or with small variations) in the mKha’ ’gro snying thig and in the Bi ma snying thig or the dGongs pa zang thal, etc.[5]

One can only be surprised by the absence of rGyal sras Legs pa, both in the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus and in the mThon snang ’od kyi dra ba, as if Klong chen rab 'byams had written the mKha’ ’gro yang tig solely on the basis of the texts given by ’Od zer go cha and his own inspiration, before formally receiving the transmissions held by Padma las ’brel rtsal’s disciple.[6]

sMyo shul mkhan po clearly writes that Klong chen rab ’byams, out of concern for proper usage and correct forms, requested and received from rGyal sras Legs pa the ritual consecrations and transmissions (lung) of mKha’ ’gro snying thig. This is also the opinion of Tülku Thondup (op. cit. p. 153). mKhas btsun bzang po rin po che,[7] for his part, asserted, when asked about the absence of rGyal sras Legs pa in the lives of Klong chen rab ’byams, that the transmission of mKha’ ’gro snying thig to Klong chen rab ’byams had been entirely visionary, in the mode of dgongs gter. This point remains to be clarified.[8]

We have seen that Klong chen rab ’byams seems to have conferred the mKha’ ’gro snying thig consecrations around 1339. One may believe, as Padma gling pa's autobiography suggests,[9] that Klong chen rab ’byams had in fact received the teaching of rGyal sras Legs pa even before he met Ku ma rā dza, perhaps in the interval between his departure from gSang phu (1332) and that meeting (1334). But then, why do the texts of the mKha’ ’gro yang tig, composed apparently between 1337 (at the earliest) and 1343, never name him? I prefer to believe that Klong chen rab ’byams met rGyal sras Legs pa after 1343 and received these teachings from him in order to silence criticisms which are slightly echoed in the mThong snang ’od kyi dra ba. There is no reason why this should not be the case, since both of them had more than twenty years to live at that time.

The account of this meeting given by sMyo shul mkhan po[10] does not tell us much about the history of this meeting:

It was from this master [rGyal sras Legs pa] that the omniscient Dharma king Dri med ’od zer [received this tradition]. In accordance with the last prophetic words of the treasure-discoverer Las 'brel rtsal, he went to rGyal sras Legs ldan pa, and told him about his past lives (sngon rabs). The latter said: “Apart from the change in physical appearance, you are really my master; it would be superfluous [for me to confer] consecrations and ritual transmissions on you.” But [Klong chen rab ’byams] replied, “Because of this change from one life to another, and since it is necessary for the tradition to be uninterrupted, it would not be appropriate [for me not to receive these transmissions].” Thus, having received [from Legs pa rgyal mtshan] the entire transmissions of the tantras, consecrations, precepts, and practice instructions of the Secret Quintessence of the ḍākiṇī, the omniscient king of the Dharma finally became (rim par) the repository of the hidden treasure of the Guru[Padmasambhava]’s brief lineage.

There is also an interesting biography of rGyal sras Legs pa in the sMyo shul chos ’byung (pp. 197-202), but it contains nothing that would allow us to situate the meeting with Klong chen rab 'byams historically.

sMyo shul mkhan po often corrects the errors and implausibilities of the current tradition, but he has the delicacy of not pointing them out as such, which is embarrassing for us, because he thereby omits the reasoning by which he arrived at the solution he presents. We can never know, therefore, whether he is merely “tinkering” with the tradition to make it acceptable, or whether he has good reason to make slight corrections, without touching the main structure. I regret that I did not interview him during his lifetime; his state of health did not allow me to burden him with questions of mere erudition, [although he seemed to regard his work as a historian as one of his most central tasks - for fear that if the rDzogs chen tradition were to be passed on in ignorance of its “pedigree,” it might lead to doubts and criticism in the future].

To read more, please click here.