A Biography of Klong chen rab ’byams (5)

[To return to the beginning of this biographical series, click here]

1.1.3.4. Digression on Klong chen rab 'byams and the Bön

One point is worth emphasizing in passing (since studies of the rDzogs chen and the rNying ma pa are often open to the Bön, given the doctrinal similarities and textual similarities between these two branches of Tibetan religion): I have noted almost no occurrence of the very word Bön[1] in the numerous volumes of Klong chen rab ’byams’ writings, nor any trace of links with this tradition in his biographies. Of course, one might say that this very silence speaks volumes, and that he would not have omitted the Bön so well if he had not thought of it very often. But, with such arguments, one would soon go looking for the Bon sources of the writings of Sa skya paṇḍita or Tsong kha pa.

Even if it were true that some of the texts of Klong chen rab ’byams have their ultimate source in the Bön, which it is permissible to believe, it is no less likely, in any case, that he was not clearly aware of this.

On the other hand, he does not hide the fact that he often reworked material received from earlier generations of sNying thig masters (this is clearly shown in some colophons of the Zab mo yang tig, for example, and it partly explains why he was able to compose such a vast work in a rather short life). It is quite possible that the author may have unknowingly assimilated Bön elements in this way. What is important to us, at least, and this does not imply any value judgment, is that there is no evidence, until further notice, that Klong chen rab ’byams was ever consciously interested in Bön as such.

I am not trying to show that Klong chen rab ’byams was “a pure Buddhist.” This question is of no interest. Even if he had found the key to the interpretation of certain Buddhist texts in the literature of the Bön, this would not detract from his status as a great Buddhist thinker, any more than the partly Mazdean inspiration of a Sohravardî would remove his work from the sphere of Islamic thought. What we simply want to say is that the idea of a “Bön influence on Klong chen pa's thought” seems to me, in the present state of research, to be largely devoid of philological and historical positivity, or even of any precise meaning.

Jean-Luc Achard, in an appendix to his Essence Perlée du Secret presents facts - the translation of textual fragments from one corpus to another – that are undeniable. It is true that the antiquity of the Bön text that Klong chen rab ’byams is supposed to have demarcated is not solidly established in Jean-Luc Achard’s reasoning; I think that, so many years later, he would be no less critical of the Bönpos’ assumptions about the antiquity of their literature that he was then of the rNying ma pa’s  ideas about theirs. But the general thesis - that of reciprocal borrowings between rNying ma pa and Bon po, especially in the field of rDzogs chen - is well established, beyond all doubt, though most Tibetans would not be willing to admit it. In any case, and this is the main point in my view, there is no reason at this stage to suppose a conscious borrowing on the part of Klong chen rab ’byams.

1.1.3.5. bSam grub rin chen and Kun dga’ ’od zer

When he was twelve or thirteen years old (according to the sources, 1319 or 1320), he received the monastic consecration[2] in bSam yas. The “abbot” was bSam grub rin chen[3] and the “master”[4] was Kun dga’ ’od zer. This precision, which is not found in the mThong ba don ldan, was certainly borrowed by sMyo shul mkhan po from the Lo rgyus rin chen phreng ba of the Bla ma yang tig yid bzhin nor bu (no. 263, p. 68).

He received the name of Tshul khrims blo gros and applied himself to the study of the code of monastic discipline (Vinaya)[5] and, at the age of fourteen or fifteen (1321 or 1322), “as he had given a new exegesis of it, his fame as a scholar broke through” (sMyo shul chos ’byung, p. 254: bshad gsar mdzad pas mkhas pa’i grags pa thon).

It may be assumed that it was also in bSam yas that he received the teaching of the three masters who are the subject of the following paragraphs. This monastery, according to tradition, was the first to be founded in Tibet under royal protection in the eighth century, under the direction of Śāntarakṣita and with the blessing of Padmasambhava. Until the end of his life, incidentally, Klong chen rab ’byams was called bsam yas pa (“[monk] of bSam yas”). It is not clear that this was due solely to his ordination to bSam yas; indeed, many of his works were written in mChims phu, not far from this monastery, which seems to indicate that he retained ties there until the end of his life - it was also in mChims phu that he died.

1.1.3.6. bKra shis rin chen[6]

When he was sixteen (1323), he received from the master Rin chen bkra shis (sMyo shul chos ’byung) or rather bKra shis rin chen (mThong ba don ldan, p. 172, and especially Lo rgyus rin chen phreng ba, p. 68)[7] the consecrations and precepts of the two Lam ’bras[8] of the Sa skya pas, the two versions of the “Six Dharmas”,[9] the six dharma of Vajravārāhī (according to the Lo rgyus rin chen phreng ba), Phyag na rdo rje ’khor lo chen po[10] and bDe mchog dril bu pa[11] , i.e., the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara in the tradition of the mahāsiddha Gaṇṭapada. The gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123), which omits several of the terms in this list, adds the Ṣaḍaṅgayoga (sByor drug) of the Kālacakra,[12] the Zhi byed and the rDzogs chen sems phyogs. The mThong snang ’od kyi dra ba (p. 245) gives a slightly different list, including the gCod yul and the Pañcakrama (from the Guhyasamāja).

The Deb ther sngon po (Blue Annals, p. 309)[13] mentions, in the chapter devoted to the posterity of Atiśa, a bKra shis rin chen, who appears to be a contemporary of Klong chen rab 'byams. Indeed, he seems to have been active around 1337, the date of the monastic consecration of a certain brTson ’grus bzang po, born in 1310, who studied under him. Similarly (op. cit., p. 528), Grags pa seng ge (1283-1349), the future “first Zhwa dmar pa,” would have received full monastic consecration from him. The exact date is unknown to us, but it remains in the first third of the 14^th century. In fact, the episode takes place at least five years before 1332, a date that appears a little later in the biography, i.e. in 1327 at the latest.

A master by the name of bKra shis rin chen also appears in the chapter devoted to the various lineages of the Kālacakra in Tibet; but, in the absence of historical indications or sufficient context, it is difficult to equate him with any certainty with the personage before us. That said, it is worth recalling what the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus says about the fact that our author received the Ṣaḍaṅgayoga from him. But, according to the TBRC database, it seems that there was, in addition to Klong chen rab ’byams’ master, another bKra shis rin chen in the 14^th century, younger. This can only make us cautious about hasty identifications.

For the next episode of this series, please click here.