A Biography of Klong chen rab ’byams (6)

[1]  This master is not mentioned by the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (mKha’ ’gro yang tig) in the corresponding point of the biography. He appears after Klong chen rab ’byams began his studies at gSang phu, thus a little later in his life. In the mThong snang ’od kyi dra ba (no. 104, p. 245), it is said that Klong chen rab ’byams studied with this master in his twenty-fifth year (1332), apparently after his departure from gSang phu. Moreover, the list of teachings is consistent.

[2]  Note the formula of the gTer byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123): Slob dpon bKra shis Rin chen la sogs pa las..., which forbids the strict attribution of all the teachings listed below to bKra shis Rin chen alone.

[3]  According to the mThong ba don ldan, Lam ’bras gnyis. These are probably the two forms of this major Sa skya pa teaching, the Tshogs bshad (a less esoteric version, “for the public”) and the Slob bshad (a more esoteric version, “for the disciples”). The gTer 'byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123) speaks only of the Lam ’bras in general. This could simply be the bipartite nature of this system, involving the “three visions” (snang ba gsum) and the “three lines” (rgyud gsum).

[4]  Perhaps that of Nāro and that of Nigu. This is in fact the interpretation of Glag bla Chos 'grub (op. cit., p. 26). But there is no mention of either in the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123). Moreover, there is little evidence of any association of Klong chen rab ’byams with the Shangs pa tradition, apart from the affinities that some have remarked between the self-commentary on the sgyu ma lam rim of the pseudo-Niguma and the self-commentary  on the sgyu ma Ngal gso by the master of Gangs ri thod dkar.

[5] The two previous cycles of teachings are not precisely known to us. They are omitted in the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123).

[6] bDe mchog, without precision, in the gTer ’byung rin po che’i lo rgyus (p. 123).

[7] This is a point of great importance. On the one hand, in Klong chen rab ’byams’ youth, two of the greatest masters of this tantric system in the history of Buddhism in Tibet, Bu ston Rin chen grub and Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan, were already at the height of their fame. [It is also a fact that Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje, to who Klong chen pa was more closely associated than with any of those two figures, was a Kālacakra specialist, among other many other things. This escaped my attention when I was preparing the doctoral dissertation and even the 2007 French book. It might be around Rang byung rdo rje that bridges were set up between the Kālacakra and the sNying thig] On the other hand, Ṣaḍaṅgayoga includes visionary practices that are not without some analogy to those of Thod rgal, the ultimate practice in the sNying thig tradition. Now it is clear, on the one hand, that the philosophical construction of Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan is in part inspired by the visionary experience of Ṣaḍaṅgayoga, just as, on the other hand, that of Klong chen rab ’byams has largely as its source the visionary experience of Thod rgal. Two of the most curious and original systems in the history of Tibetan thought, whose authors, moreover, are contemporaries, have, in some respects, related motivations, even though the results are in more ways than one dissimilar.

As early as his work on Bu ston (1966, 1973) Ruegg had observed the curious revival of interest in speculations on Buddha-nature in early fourteenth-century Tibet; but it does not seem to me that he focused his attention on the tantric background of the philosophical reflection of that time. It is true that it is always exceedingly difficult to see all the ins and outs of a discussion which is apparently taking place on the sole plane of Mahāyāna scholasticism, but whose deepest roots plunge into the heart of the Vajrayāna.

[8]  I have already mentioned in passing this great history of Buddhism in Tibet, the work of ’Gos lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481). It has the advantage of being particularly detailed for the period of interest to us here, on the one hand, and of having been the subject of a very correct English translation (Roerich, 1949, 1953, 1976) which, above all, has an extremely well-done index. It is largely thanks to this very useful tool that we have been able to identify some of the masters of Klong chen rab ’byams, whose names traditional biographies hardly mention.

[9] gSar ma’i rgyud, the tantras introduced or retranslated in Tibet during the second diffusion of Buddhism, from the eleventh century onwards.

[10]  Here again, we notice that sMyo shul mkhan po is in a way smoothing over the mThong ba don ldan: he replaces the obscure mention of a Collection of Modern Tantras (gSar ma’i rgyud ’bum), a real or imaginary compilation of modern tantras, with the expression “most of the modern tantras” (gsar ma'i rgyud phal che ba).

However, it is not certain that this gSar ma'i rgyud ’bum is only an invention of the biographer, by imitation of the titles of the compilations of the ancient tantras (rNying ma[’i] rgyud 'bum). Indeed, one can guess, especially from the Triumph over Error (’Khrul pa rab ’joms) attributed to Klong chen pa (whoever the author may be), that in the previous century and in his own century there must have been a proliferation of compilations of sūtra and tantra. According to the ’Khrul pa rab ’joms, the composition of these collections was clearly not without sectarian motivations, in many cases, as regards the choice of texts included and excluded. It was necessary to go through a number of provisional editions before arriving at a consensual collection, such as the present bKa’ ’gyur, whose variations from one edition to another are not very considerable. There may indeed have been a gSar ma’i rgyud ’bum of which Klong chen rab ’byams would have received the consecrations and precepts of this dBang phyug ye shes. In order to make progress on this question, it would be necessary to work with specialists of the history of the compilations of the bKa’ ’gyur.

[11]  The dates of this famous personage, a contemporary of Mar pa lo tsā ba, do not seem to be well known. Yet he left a deep mark on the Tibetan mind. He is illustrious, indeed, for his travels in Nepal and India (see the curious description of Bodhgāya in his biography) and for his activity as a prolix and reputedly very rigorous translator of Sanskrit texts. He also left his mark on Tibetan memory for his qualities as an active teacher and for his immense material donations to various masters and institutions. But his name remains mostly attached to the legend of the many deaths of rival and impertinent masters whom he is supposed to have dispatched to the other world by his magical power. Moreover, the tradition of Vajrabhairava practice originating from him has enjoyed immense fortune, since this wrathful form of Mañjuśrī has virtually become the principal tutelary deity (yi dam) of the dominant school in modern times, the dGe lugs pa, who borrowed it from the Sa skya pa. [When this was written, Brian Cuevas’ book, Ra Yeshé Sengé – The All-Melodious Drumbeat [2015] was not published yet. He gives 1016 as a date of birth for Rwa lo tsā ba, but does not seem to suggest a date for his death.]

[12] Unknown to us. The title is not specific enough to allow us an identification.

[13]  Zab lung is read in the sMyo shul chos 'byung. But this is probably a mistake.

[14]  Or the doctrines of the Tshal pa bka’ brgyud school (tshal pa’i chos skor), as sMyo shul mkhan po writes. But it is more or less the same thing, since Zhang tshal pa or Zhang g.Yu brag pa brTson ’grus grags pa (1123-1193) is the founder of this school.

[15]  rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje or mGon po dpal (1189-1258), one of the founding masters of the ’Brug pa bka’ brgyud pa. His biography can be found in the Deb sngon (Blue Annals, pp. 680-687). He seems to have composed a treatise entitled Ro snyoms sgang ’dril (op. cit., p. 687) [This is actually found in vol. 3, p 219 sq. of his gSung ’bum, now on TBRC : W3CN22956].

[16] That is to say, in the terminology of the time, a very literate monk, since the academic title of dge bshes was not yet well established.

[17] See also below gZhon nu rdo rje.

[18] We shall see later for what reason Samten Karmay says, in The Great Perfection (p. 209), that the Chos dbyings mdzod (no. 60) of our author is connected with the teachings of the Klong sde and the Sems sde.

[19]  Not the year of the male earth tiger (sa pho stag), as an interpolated note in the modern Beijing edition of the mThong ba don ldan falsely states, but the year of the fire tiger (me stag). This is confirmed by all other sources, including the mThong snang ’od kyi dra ba (no. 104, p. 244). This is the year when the great philosopher of the Jo nang pa school, Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361), became abbot of Jo nang. This remark is not accidental: Indeed, the absence of Dol po pa, not only in the work (with the exception of a few mentions in the ’Khrul pa rab 'joms (no. 31), whose authorship is doubtful), but also in the biography of Klong chen rab ’byams, the absence of almost any contact between these two thinkers, who were more or less contemporaries, perhaps the most original in the history of Tibetan thought and both famous in their time (Dol po pa probably more than Klong chen rab 'byams), may be surprising. Klong chen rab ’byams is attached by multiple indirect links to Bu ston, whose (powerless) opposition to Dol po pa is reported in several hagiographic traditions. If the Triumph over Error (’Khrul pa rab ’joms) were to be attributed to our author (which is at least uncertain) ; if, according to Gene Smith's hypothesis, ’Bri gung dPal ’dzin, author of the polemical treatise to which this text responds, is indeed a jo nang pa author, a disciple of Dol po pa (which is all the more likely since quotations from the Kālacakra tantra and its commentaries - specialties of the Jo nang pa - are much very frequent in the 'Khrul pa rab ’joms), then one may wonder whether there was not some hostility between Klong chen rab ’byams and Dol po pa. It remains to try to unravel the whole thing.

There is another point of contact between the two authors: both were associated with Dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan. It was at the request of the latter, in particular, that Dol po pa composed the essential summary of his doctrine, the bKa’ bsdu bzhi pa, as Cyrus Stearns explains in his indispensable book, The Buddha from Dolpo - A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Now, this text has a certain parallelism with the address to Dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan (no. 143) found in Klong chen rab ’byams’ gSung thor bu. Is it possible that Dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan put these two masters, and perhaps others, in rivalry by inviting them to compose on the same subject? Certainly, Klong chen rab 'byams’ treatise is not comparable to that of Dol po pa: on the one hand, we have a small piece of occasional writing, far below the average level of Klong chen rab ’byams’ production, and on the other hand, perhaps the most dazzling and comprehensive expression of Dol po pa's very particular genius. Whether there is any connection between these two writings is a question that we are not, for the moment, in a position to decide.

[20] Cf. Tülku Thondup, Buddha Mind (p. 147) for this remark on the decline of gSang phu. For its source, cf. Ferrari, Mk'yen Brtse's Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet (Rome, 1958).