wangchuk 2002 - authenticity guhyagarbhatantra

8/13/2019 Wangchuk 2002 - Authenticity Guhyagarbhatantra

1/15

BRILL STIBETAN STUDIESLIBRARY

-/J/ , < * -

THE ILl NYCANONS ,L F ./OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM -FI TS 2000: Tibetan Stuhes Proceedingsof the Ninth Seminarof th International Association for Tibetan Studies Leiden 2000

Managmg Editor: Henk Blezer.

E ITE YEDITED Y

HENK BLEZERLEX MCK U

CHARLES R MBLE HELMUT EIMER D VID G E R W O

BRILLLEIDEN. BOSTON KOW

2002


2/15

AN ELEVENTH-CENTURY DEFENCE OFTHEAUTHENTICITY OF THE GUHYAGARBHAT M M

Although Tantric Buddhism ultimately prevailed throughout theentire Tibetan Buddhist sphere, its initial introduction in Tibet wasnot without problems. AIready towards the end of the eighth centuryconsiderabIe doubt seems to have existed as to whether highest yogapractices such as [sexual] union sbyor ha and liberation (sgrolba) should be taken literally and whether tantras containing suchpractices shouId be translated into Tibetan at all? As a result, randomtranslation and practice of t ntr s were forbidden by royal decreeof the Tibetan King Khri ral pa can 805-38).3Nevertheless, the col-lapse of the Tibetan dynasty and its authority left the way openaccbrding to some later Tibetan historians, for t he tantric yogis to

would like to express my gratitude to alI my teachers who have dlrectly orindirectly contributedto this paper. In particular I am ~ndebtedo David Jackson forh1s valuable suggestions on an earlier version of the paper; to Harunaga Isaacson forgoing through the Rnal version and makrng pnceless suggestions; to Anne Mac-Donald for her careful proof-reading and correcttonof my Engl~sh nd above ll tomy wife ma for her valuable cntlque and consrstent support.

he scholarly reception of Buddhist tanpnr in the West was not smooth eitherNineteenth-centuryWe~tern cholars such as L ustine WaddelI Cecil Bendall dela ValICe Poussin M Wintemitz and T W hys David considered Vujruy6nateachings repuIsive a view which Western scholars today perhaps no longer shareSee, For example Newman 1987). p.2741.gra shyor barn po Rnyrs pa, p . 4 gsang Sng gS kyi rgyud r n u m gzhung gisgscln.q bar Bya ba yin tef snod du mu gyur pa rn m~ hshad cing bsrun du yung mirung l bar du bsgyur zhrng spy du g m n g gis b a n g Idem po dug tu b s h a d g o makhrnl nas s r j bthrn du ' in cing log par s p y o d p a g kyang hyungl sngags irgyud kyi nnag nus bhu zhing bod s b d du hsgyur ha dag b a n g b u n g zhes gdagskyi /phyrn chud grwngs ngagzdong rgyud bl nus bka srsal be sgyur du bcug pu m aglogr pa/ s n g a p kyi slpyud dung sngags kyi ttrhig lhu zking h ryyur du mi R m n Rngo// The vanants are not reproduced here].


3/15

266 DOWI W NGCHUK THE GUHYAGAREHA T A W R A 267practice sbyor sgrol incorrectly, in ignorance of the import of thetantras d

In the late tenth century, at the end of the Early PropagationPeriod (Snga dar) and the 'beginning of the Later Propagation Psriod(Phy i dar),Ye shes 4,heking of Pu hrangs in west Tibet, althoughconvinced of the authenticity of the siitra teaching$, becameskeptical regarding the tantric teachings owing to the manner inwhich tantric practices such as sbyor sgrol were practiced during histime, and thus launched a campaign of denunciation. Twenty-oneTibetans, among them Rin chen bzang po (958-1055), were sent toKashrnu to find out if these practices and tantras were authentic?h i s campaign of criticism was continued in the late eleventhcentury by Ye shes 'od's grand nephews Byang chub od and Phobrang zhi ba 'od as well as by other Gsar ma scholars such as theeleventh-century translator 'Goskhug pa Lhas btsas.During this important transitional period at the beginning of theLater Propagation Period, there Iived a scholar and translator who

was the first Tibetan known to have resisted this campaign ofdenunciation. This was the eleventh-century Rnying m a scholarRong zom chos kyi bzang po (henceforth: Rong zorn pa), who wasnot onIy active in translating new Sanskrit texts but also intransmitting, teaching and commenting on old texts passed down tohim by his Tibetan predecessors The sources give the impressionthat he was aware of skepticism among some of his contemporariesthough they do not specify which written compositions he may havehad access to. He is the first scholar known to have written in

See Seyfofi Ruegg (1981) Seyfort Ruegg (1984).' u sron cho byungh, .84: b e shes 0.4~ C S r~han yid kyi yiheg pa bkur sheskyanx ngQgfpa rn rns kyis sbyor sgrof Iu sogs spyod log gis bka yin hc [shorndu gyur tr/ rzn chen bzang go lo sogs pa khye u nyi shu rrsa g c i ~rdzangs nusf.Roberto Vltali, basing himself on both external evidence such a< the cultural

situation in Zhang zhung and internal evidence such as relevant passages In theMn g a r is r ~ y a lubs, demonstrated that Y e shes odand the intelligentsia In Mngaris area had launched a campaign that pursued the eradication of teachings theybel~eved ere heret~calSee V~tali1996). p.226.

For an analysis of Rong zom pa s biographies and a short discussion of hisworks, ee Almogi (forthcom~ng). or a detailed survey of his works and the revivalof h ~ sextual trad~tron,ee Alm og~ 1997).

defense of the teachings of the initial dissemination such as the* ~ u h ~ a ~ a r b h and the Great Perfection (Rdzogs chen)?The uncharted territory of the vast range of bka m a and gter maliterature in the Rnying ma tradition and the number of polemicalwritings both for and against the authenticity of this Iiterature whichhas been accumulated over the centuries makes a detailed investiga-

lion difficult. I am neither in a position to discuss the authenticity ofthe Rnying m a lonbras in genera1 nor to conr;ult all the polemicalwritings on the issue: but shall primarily discuss the authenticity ofonly one important Rnying ma tanfra, i.e., the Guhyagarbha,through the eyes of one exponent, i.e.,Rong zom pa, and consider its

' Although the term Guhyagurbha IS commonly used to designate the baricranira (miilaranrra) which contams twenty-two chapters (Otani 455). in a widersense, it 1s also used to refer to the larger collection which includes elghty chapters(Otani 457). A comparison of the first twenty-hvo chapter< of the two versionshowever, reveal that they are similar but defin~tely ot ~dentica i. urthermore, thetwenty-two-chaptered rnr7lnrantm appears to have been assumed to e an extractfrom a greater unknown or ~naccessibleco1Iection consi~tlngof one hundredthousand chapters (Dkon mchog grel, p 4: rdo rje sems dpa s ~ y u prul drwa bnle ustong ph rq b r ~ y na las g m n R nying po de kho nu nyid nges pa lus .).According 7 H. Isaacson (lecture), In the Endlan Buddhlst tantric tradition too it ISoften said that given ranrras are extracts from much longer tantms which are usuallysad no longer to be accessible. Also the title of the sanrra vanes slightly in thedifferent editions. It appears wtth or without dpal , with or w~thouthe prefix rnampar, and reads either gsang h or gsang ba i. The longest titIe of the Guhyagarbhnnoted is the one in the Dkon mchog r e / (pp.33 248): P h a g ~ o r rrog pa i rgyulpo rdo rJe .~emv pa sgyu phrui d n v o ha gsung ba snyin~ o de kho na nyid n g r spa i r ~ y u d *~ykai~~ur~uvaJmsa h~amciycijLilag~hya~arhha~urrvavrnlkaya~antra).Rong zom pa might have relied upon the pindrjrthu of the Guhyugurbha (Otani4755) atnibuted to Vlmalamitrawhere the same title appears in the colophon. lexrsSanderson has suggested that the original htle of the text possibly may have beenGuhyukoia (Gsang h l i mdzod) on account of the references he discovered in theSanskrit commentaries on the Nrimnsamgiti by Bhavabhab and VilHsavajra. SeeMayer [1996),p.122,n 13.

The asterisk I* used to indicate a reconstructed Sanskrit title or name isemployed n this paper only when the title or name m u n or the frrsttime' Karrnay primariIy d lu d e d to Rong zorn pa a defense of the Great Perfectronand dnd not refer expl~citlyo his defense of the Guhya~arbhan the Dkon m hog'jirel See K m a y (198K), .13' For a general discussion of the Rnying ma tradition with a backdrop of theiropponents through the centuries, see Smith (1969). pp.2-15 and Smith 1 970) , p p I-52. For a detailed discussion of some polem~cal ~terature oncerning the issue ofauthenticity, see Kapstein (19 9), p p . 2 1 7 4 . Roben Mayer, taking the Phur pa hcugnyis kyi rgyud s h ~ sext case, discussed the pmbIern surmundlng the authentic~tyof some Rnying maranrras.See Mayer (1997).


4/15

268 DORJI WANGCHUK THE GUHYAGARBHA TANTRAcritics from the period of the early tenth to the eleventh century. Inthe course of investigating historically the early Tibetan critiques ofthe Guhyagarbha and Rong zom pa's defense of it, I shalt point outthat some of the critiques appear to have been connected withproblems regarding the textual tradition of the Guhyagarbha, andthat these might indeed have provided grounds for suspicion.

1 THE MPORTANCEO THE GUHYAGARRHAN THEWIN ATR D ~ I O NIn connection wi& the controversies surrounding the authenticity ofthe Guhyagarbha it may not be irrelevant to consider its traditionalimportance for Rnying ma tantric scholarship and practice. TheGuhyagarbha is probably the most commented work in the Rnyingm a tradition and has always played a fundamental role in the Rnyingma tantric philosophical systems, as already noted by G .Tucci.' ~ isconsidered by most Rnying ma scholars including Rong zom pa asthe basic tantrayrtsa rgyud) of theMah~7yiyoga lass. Rong zorn padescribes the Guhyagarbha as the foremost of the authoritativescriptures of all the [vehicles] of siitra and tantra (mtshan nyid d ngr g y d lhams cad kyi Iung gi spyi) and as the secret of all tathd-g a t a s ' y d e bzhirn bshegs pa thorns cad kyi gsang ba). He furtherdescribes it as the ultimate (mthar thug) of all philosophical tenetsrub mtha').'2

I Tucci (1980). p.258, n.202. The rantra has also been the focus of severalstudies by Western sc ho lm , the most rmportant of w h~ ch re: Guenther 1984), awork intended to be a study of the Guhyagarhh from a phenomenologicalperspective eschewing what Guenther calls any ph~lological eductionism (p. vil ;an Martin 1 987);G y u m e Dorje's (1987) translatron of the enormousPhyogs hcsr

mun of KIong hen paI Rong zom pa states ( Dkon mchog 'grcl, p.79 . Among these [tantnc systems],this Guhyagnrhha ranrra belongs to lthe class of] the Muhdyoga rmnrras. Amongthem it 1s known as the 'bas~canrra' whlch mainly estahllshes the methods of thePerfection [Phase] (de 10s gSUn ba snying po i rgyua dinl rnal 'hyor chen po'irgyud du grogs sol1 'I tshul las kyang rdzogs pa ^ tshltI grso bor sgruh par hyed partsa ba'z rgyud d~ pug3 s o / / )

See the Dkon rnchog krd , p.43. Furthermore, the Guhyagarbha has beenglorified by attributing to it 'elghtexcellences' (che ba brgyad , namely, its be~ng:the klng of all tanrras ( r g y d thamr cad i r g p l po) , 2 the zenith of all vehlcles( t h q pa thams cud kyi yang rtse), 3 . he source of d1 doctrines (bsran pa rhams cadlgvr byunskhungs), 4 . he general commentary to all authoritative scriptures (Iungthams cad kyr spyi 'gren,5 the noble ulhmatc intent of all buddhaq ( r ~ y a la [hams

11. RECORDS OF EARLY C R ~ C I S MThe Guhyagarbh , in spite (or perhaps because) of its tremendousimportance to the Rnying ma pas, has been the focus of muchcontroversy. While the exponents of the Rnying ma tantras saw it asthe 'word' (bka ')of the Buddha its critics doubted its authenticity. Inthe following passages, I shall investigate evidence of criticismimplied in Rong zom pa's writings and some of the earliest recordsof criticism namely, the so-called 'refutations of false mantra'(sngags log sun 'byin).11 1 CRITIQUESF THE TANTRA EXPRESSED OR IMPLIEDY RONGZOM FA S DEFENSEOne of the most important sources for critiques against the Guhya-garhha is Rong zom pa's own writings. His commentary on thedifficult points ( d h ' g r e o 1 3of the Guhyagarbha -common1 y calledthe Dkon mchog grel (Jewel Commentary)-is the earliest full-fledged commentary on this tantra by a Tibetan ~cho la r . '~herebefore refuting the opponents' criticism against the authenticity ofthe Guhyagarbha, he summarizes their positions in the followingmanner:'cad ky dgongs pa'i zhe pkugs dam p a ) , 6 . he ultimate of all [spiritual] results ( brashu t h m s cn ky thur rhug), 7 . he trail traversed by all sarhcT~aras de bzhrn gshegspa thams cod k+vigshefi.r pn'i shu[),and 8 . the 'highway' of all yogis ( mnl 'hyorpathams cad kyr lam po c k ) . he Khog g z h l r n ~ s a l r o n ( Ot an~ 7 3 9 ) attributed toVlrnzdam~tre s often given as the source of these eight attributes (Md7od kyz Ide mig,p.16).

l The word bka-re[ as a standard translation of the Sansknt term gaiijihi isattested n the Mahnvyslrparti (no.1461). In fact, Rong zom pa's commentaries onthe Guhyagarbha and the BuddharamcTyoga a n both wns~dered o be puEjiEs,Rong zom pa h~mse lf tates (Dkon m c h o ~greI ,p 596) that his commentary to theGuhyagorbha i s a commentary on difficult pointF. However, although thecommcntaty of the B u d d h a ~ a ~ y u g us indicated as a dka>rel In the title ( S a n ~ srgyar thamr cad dang rnnyam par sbyor ha M a gm sgyu n bde ba'i rnchogces b p ha'i r g y d ky d h ' krel),1have not found the term in th commentary itself.

The two importnnt Indian commentaries of the Guhyagarbha-ViIisavajra'sRgyud kyi rgyal pn chen po dpal gsang bu snying pw'i kreE pa (Otan~ 718 ) -commonly called Spar k h r Rrn po che'i spar khah as md~catedn the colophon,and Siiryastmha's Dpal gsang ba snying po i rgya char 'grel pa (Otani 4719),commonly known as the R ~ y u ker 'grel-are perhaps the onty two fullcommentaries that predate Rong zom pa's Dkon m h u g p e l .

l Dkon mchag 'grcl,p.83: ~ z h a nang k ic di sknd x r re/ gsang sngags kyirgyud du grogspu 'drdng layam [dab bu dang z os bur hsbun pa mang du hston e/


5/15

270 D O U I WANGCHUK THE CUHYAGARBHA TAhTRA 271Moreover, some allege that numerous overlaps and redundanciesoccur in these [works] which a re said to be the iantras of theM a n m [ y ~ n a ~ , ' 6hus undermifiing" the [authenticity of the] tanfras.Still some others1' suspect [ these works] to have been composed byearlier Upadhy3yas [by], for instance, collecting [materials] from[other tantnc] treatises. Therefore, thlnking that [these works cannot]be an ohject of faith and that they also cannot be a cause o f tantric

de bas nu 'dz dug rgyud yin par Rhun ~s hyungll] yong khu cig sngon gyr mkhan pomamy i~z h u n ~us hsdus pa la sogs pa rang gis sbyar bu )*in pur thc tshom t a~ t . 4e bas no dad pa'i p iiu mm k y ~ ra dung1 Ias (zhl ba'l las?)dung d n ~ o s r u hky rgyur yang mr rung ngo snyam du the tshom za ba srel dr Iru f m n g ba bs.4u.v pulas g.~ungs e'i hynng chub s e m kyi k u d a n ~ ligs kyi yum dung khro o bcumi. I R R U ~ S ong/ las dong drag po i las y brful zhugs dangl phur pa hprn g y ~ s rtahpa r cho ga Itu bul sgyu 'phrul dnva ba i rgyud h r b a n g / de bzkin u zlos burg~srngs a dong/ sung ha snyrng po dong br~ yod crr pa Ira hu mnng nyung zios burgxungs pa dong/ de bzhrn du rdo r# dun bzhi chc c h u n ~ ~ n g lri:naymnari chechung a sogspa dr d a ~tonpus de bzhin du gsungs so the bya bn nil zlos burbshad pa don m d oor kyur la/ gal re gang zag gcig gis xdehs pa zhig yrn na y u n ~ lgong du hsfan pa Ira bu'l skyon du kyur l gang zag gi dpang po l u n g med de/ dehas nn di lia 6u Brel pa hvgmhpar mi nus so zhe naE.

l According to H lsaacson, overlaps and redundancies arc common features inIndian tanhicworks.The understanding of the term kk un~ s hyung is critical in determining theauthorial Intent here The spelling k h l r n ~ a "~ource" or origin ) is preferabIe tokhung ("hole" or "pit"), though a hirtorical md etymological link between the twoterms may exist. Also the spell~ngphyunfi terns, at least nowadays, to be p referableto phvungs, being the pas1 and ~mperatwe orm of hyin ("extract, take out"). Itranslate the term khungs ph ~un g ere EL< "undermine,+' although one may translate italso as "challenge" or "que~tion A relation between khungs phyung and sunphyung ("refute" or critic~ze ),may alqo be assumed: khungs phyung m y he aspec~ f i cu n p h y u n ~ . he word khungs phyung p also used In t he author's colophonwhich reads (Dkon mchog krel, p. 249) yui dus RanR zag dman bzhzn Mag R Snil/

dam pas mdzad ces khungs phyung ma hyus pas//. ' lhe line-dam pas mdzad ceqkhungs phyung ma hyas pas-may be translated as Because [I] did not chailengethat lthe Guhyagarhha] wm composed by the sublime ones ... However, In thefollowing sentence fram the T h q chen tshul $g which read< (p. 445): gal re hsamXytr mi khyab pa' c h o , ~in no zhc nu nil nan gyis kun brtags pn thamr cad b a n #bsam gy1s mi khyub pa yin par khungs dhytbng du rung bar gyur o, the expressionkhungs dbyung du rung ba may be translated as qucstionable'kr "chalIengeable."CT., however. the Sngags log sun 'hy1n attributed to Lhas btqas, which reads (p. 21):gnuh sangs rgyas rin chcn y i s rgya gar nas khungs byungl rmad du byung ba n chosbdsamsl. Hcre the phrase rgya gar nos khungs byunfi seem< to mean "hav~ngextracted from Ind~a[n ]ources."Vn ll verslons of the Tibetan texts avaiIable to me, the stroke (shad) is placedafter yang reading khvngs phyung yanR which translates as "although it undermrnes.. Contextually, this does not make any sense. Hence, suggest the reading: ...khungsphyungt yang Rhrr cig ...

actiu~ties and accompIishments, they have their doubts. Likewise. (1)the bodhicin chapter , (2) the mantras of the consorts of the families[of the five Buddhas] and of the ten wrathfut ones, (3) the penance ofthe [peaceful] and wrathful activities, and (4) the fitual procedure forblesslng the [ritual] peg, [all a lready] taught i n the Guhyasamiija, arealso redundantly taught in the M a y a [tantras such as the Guhya-garbha]. And [even within the Mdyii cycle, tantras] like the Guhya-garbha a n d the Rrgyad hcu are taught in varying si?es redun-dantly. And similar [is the case with other works] such as the Vujra-catuspfttha (i .e.,Cn t~s~ i t ha )~nd the ~ r s ~ u y a m d r i , ~hich too varyin size. Claiming that th e teacher ( i.e . , the Buddha) taught them In thrsmanner ( i.e . , redundantly) , [ they argue further] , would lead to theillogical consequence of the implication that Buddha s] teachings,being redundant, are purposeless. If [these works] were compiled b y asingle individual, ~t would lead to faults such as those demonstratedabove ( i.e . , not being an object of devotion and s o forth). Furthermore,there is also no w ~ t n e s s f person, and thus no [sniptural] coherencycan be established in this way.

LL2. OTHERRECORDS ARLY CR~TICISMSThere are a number of 'refutations of false mantra written by thecritics of the Rnying m a taniras. In this paper, however, I shaIIc o n s i d e r mainly the earliest ones i.e., those written, or said to bewritten, either before or during Rong zom pa's time, namely, thewritings by Ye shes 4,i n chen bzang po, Zhi ba 'od a n d Lhasbtsas, and investigate them in the light of the Guhy~ ~ a r bhu . ' ~

l9 The term "actrvities" here rnlght not refer to the tantlic activltres themselvesbut rather to the ability or the power to carry them out for soteriological or worldlypurposes.

T h e B r ~ p d cu pa (TBh.981 Otani 457), a tantsa of the f iyd cycle, ismentioned in the ordinance of Zhi ba od a yncrttlstic (Ures ma . ee Karmay( 1998b),p.31 (Engllsh translahon) and p.38 (T~betanext).

2 Sricatus~irharnahfivo~ini tun~urdiaOtanl67).-~ r J n n & r i (T6h.469, 473); &e also Sarndhong Rinpoche, Vrajvallabha- .Dwivedi, et al., eds., Krsnayama-ri tunfro, Rare Buddhist Texts Series 9, Sarnath,1992.Ye shes 'd, ln chen h n g po, Zhl ba 'od and Lha?btsas are all mentioned inthe Bu sion chos hyunf, (pp.266 & 313) s persons who considered Rnying matantras to be inauthentic ban g dug ma in pa)


6/15

DORJI WANGGHUK THE GUHYAGARBHA TAhTRA272 273

11 2 1 THE RDINANCE (RKA' HOG) OFL H A LA M A YE SHES OD 11.2.2. THE SNGAGSLOG SUN BWN RGYAS PA BY R NCHEN BZANG POIThe ordinance of Ye shes bd was sent to the tantric practitioners ofcentral Tibet and primarily called for the remedying and straighten-mg of their view. One of the earliest references to the ordinance ismade by Bu ston rin chen grub (1290-1364). Sog zlog pa blo grosrgyal mtshan (1552-1624) quoted, interpreted and responded to it?A certain two-page Lefrer [Refubdng] False Mantras (Sngags logspring r i g ) by Y e shes 'od is listed in A khu chin's Tho yig.2 ~stprobably only one such ordinance was issued by Y e shes kd, andconsidering the size indicated in A khu chin's list, it appears that theone quoted by Sog zlog pa and the one mentioned in the list are oneand the same text. At this stage, thc only source for this letter is Sogzlog pa's N g ~ s on 'brug ~ g r a ~ ~rom which Smten Karmayextracted the ordinance, edited, translated and commented upon it.28Although this ordinance does not refer explicitly to the Guhyagarbhaor any other text, Karrnay, reading between the lines, thinks thatthe Guhyagarhha. among others, is the object of criticism. It is truethat the practices of 'union' and 'liberation' are taught in theGuhyagarbha, but, in my opinion, criticism of such practices (orrather mal-pracdces) does not necessarily imply that all tantras thatteach such practices were (or could he) the targets of criticism.

The 'ordinancekf Ye shes od, ad, like any other composition of this kind,nc itle.The Bar ston chos bjung p.313) does not speak of an ordinance but ratherof refutation of false mantras (sngags log sun 'byinpa) . 15 is elegantly referred toby Sog zlog pa (pp.179 & 1X7) a? an ordinance (bka' shog or chub s h og) , and in Akhu chin's list (no.15802). it is designated a letter springs rg). The line: Arequestsen t to the tanmc practitioners of central Tibet by the Lha bla ma the king ofr a n g ~ ,o remedy and straighten their vlew (pu hrung. ~yr ~ g y a l p ohu bla ma'r&a s n ~ oas hod dbus kyi sngogspa rnams la brdzangs pa/ jinyen pn mdzud crngIra ba bsrung bar zhu ofl) probably appeared at the begmning of she letter.Nges don %rug g ra , pp 181-83 (the quotation o f the ordmance), pp.183-87(Sog loga's ~nterpretat~onjnd pp.187-203 (h~s esponsc to~ t ) .Tho y ig , p 673, no.15802.

27 Unforhmately, the collection of refutations of false mantras published inTh~rnphuent~tledSngags log sun Byin yz skor does not include Ye ~h e s d sord~nsnce take the oppormnlty here to thank Gregory Hillrs for pmv~drngme witha copy of the tcxtKarrnay 19983). or the date of issue of the ordinance f .Vitali 1 996), p.239.

Sa pan kun dga' rgyal rntshan (1 182-1251) refers to a work by Rinchen bzang po entitled Treatise on the Distinction of D h m a andNan-Dharma (Chos dang chos min rnam par byed pa'i bstanb ~ t l s ) ? ~hereas Bu ston mentions a certain Extensive Refutation ofFalse Mantras (Sngags log sun 'byinpa rgyas pa) by the renownedt ran~ la tor .~t would be, indeed, interesting to learn a h u t Rin chenbzang pa's position. Nevertheless this work, aIthough documentedby A khu chin in his list of rate texts, seems not to be available atpresent.'' All we know about Rin chen bzang po's view regarding theRnying ma tantras is that he, in general, considered them inauthenticbang dug m a yira pa) ?2 Thus as long as we do not have any access toRin chen bzang po's Sngags log sun 'by in,we will never know if andhow he treated the Guhyngarhha.11.2.3. THEORDINANCEBKA SHOG)OFZHIBA ODThe next important earIy source is the ordinance of Zhi ba 'od. Notonly does Bu ston count Zhi ba 'od as a critic of the Rnying matantr-as:J he also alludes to a certain Refutation of False Mantrascomposed by him.34Sa pan, however, sounds somewhat skepticalabout the existence of such a Sog zlog pa fully quotes a po-lemical composition by Zhi ba 'od in his Nges don 'brug sgra, refer-ring to it as an ordinance (bka' ~ h o , q ) . ~ ~khu chin mentions such a

Sdom gsum rab dhye, p.94.Bu stan chos 'byung, p.313. Bu ston's descnptron of Rln chen bzang po's

Refutations of False Mantra as extensrve is perhaps due to tts relative large s i z eof forty-erghr folios (see the follaw~ng ootnote).Most of the earlier writrngs on thetopic are very brief, There is also reference to Rin chen btang po's works, amongothers In Chag lo tsi ba's Sngags log sun 'bym shes rob mi gti, just before thesuspicious author's coIophon: sun 'byin 'di dang mthun par rm chen bzang po ~sngars log sun 'byin dang gos dang pho brang zhi ha 'ad dang tsa mi I s o p pa'r~ p r i n g s tg dang ppandrra shdyashrr i zhus h n d a n ~ho b r u~ii gzc ma ru mgodung/ dpafi med kyi springs yrg yod do//chug lo cken pos mdzud pa dgc legs 'pheifJ.See the Sngags log sun 'byin R ~ Ikor, pp.17f

31 ho yig, p.673, no.] 801: ([val.] kn)pa la r in chen bwng go r sngags log sun'byin la zhe br gyad .

' I Bu ston chos 'byung, p.266.' 11 ston chos 'byung, p.266.Ru ston chos 'byung, p.3 3 .donm p v r n rub dbye ,p.95: de yi sloh ma ht ha 'od / ldes yang snRag.r log sun

'byinpall' the3 hya'r bsion hcos mdzad ces zcrllNges don 'brug sgra, pp.204-17.


7/15

274 DORJI WANGCKUK THE GUHYRGARBHA T M R A 275two-folio work by this author and designates it a letter springsy i g . f 7 The two are presumably referring to the same text. This worktoo was edited , translated and analyzed by Karmay based on the textcited by Sog zlog pa. Unlike the ordinance of his father Ye shes od,the ordinance of Zhi ba 'od is more specific in its details. A numberof tantras, inclusive of the group to which the Guhyagarbha belongs,are referred to there as adulterated ( ' d r ~ s a). Here again therc is noexplicit mention of the Guhyagarbha itseIf.Perhaps one should dif-ferentiate here between an accusation of the tantras being adulteratedand an outright rejection of their authenticity. On e might assume thatthe expression and others (la sogs pa rncams)" which refers toother aantras in the MiiyE cycle, is intended to include the Guhya-garbha. Yet I believe that the Guhyagarbha may not have been in-cluded within this group of syncretistic texts. If the Guhyagasbhahad been considered hy Zhi ba 'od to be apocryphal or syncretistic,one might expect it to have been mentioned, especially since h e didmention the Spar khab;" a Guhyagarbha commentary ascribed bythe Rnying ma pas to thc Indian scholar VilZsavajra (= Sgeg pa'i rdorje), claiming it to be an indigenous work composed by Zur chensh3kya 'byung gnas (1002-62) and others. ' And the fact that the

Tho yig ,p.673,no ,15801 da i sras chung ha f i e., the younger son of Ye shes'odlpho brung zhl ha 'od k y ~pringsyi la gnyisl.''K m a y 198Oh .''Nges dun ' b s u ~jira p 205 ang pa la sgyu phrul gyr rgyud la bc u gsum pndung/ bcu d ~ u dung/ bhr bcu pa danf/ h r g p d bcu pa dung a 'u lag b sogspamumv ni dres mar snangf.The term spar khuh is attested In none of the lexicons and d~ctionariesconsr~lted . lnce I have been so far ~rnableo Iocate any discussion of I L ~ eaning inny of the commentaria1 literature either, the meanlng of the term must remain

obscurefor the ttrne heingThe status of the Spar k h a b Otanl4718) is a complex one. Even Klong chenpa (Phynp.7 hcu man sel, p.74) dismissed this text as 'Tibetan bod ma) nd thus

unreliable (yid sren du mi rung bo). The Blue Annnls. apart from menttoningKlong chen pa's preference for Rong mrn pa's commentary to the Spar khab, alsoreports tha t Zur chen studied thi s work under one teacher called ll o d dkar namrnkha' sde. See Roerich 1988), pp.110 & 157. n any case, although Zur chen padoes seem to have had something to do with t h ~ sext, whether he was the author 1squestionable. og zlog pa (Nges don 'bruxsgm .210), on the other hand, states:Concerning the Spar bkah, it s certain that a disciple of JetZri called Vllisavajrawho attained the siddhr of White Maiijuhi had composed it. Because of its fine andprofound literary expressions, it totally lacks the style of a Tibetan composition'(spar bkah ni j e tk i ' r slob ma yarn dkar yi sgrub fhob slob dpon sgeg gok rdo rjezhe3 pa des mdzad pa nges pa stel tshig tang zhing brling bas bod rtsom fiyi nJtomr

Guhyagarbha was not included in this list, no doubt, led Sog zlog pato believe that Zhi ha 'od had considered it an authentic l a n t r ~ . ~11.2.4. HE SNGAGS LOG SUN BYIN BY GOS HUG PA LHAS BTSASThe Sngags log sun byin attributed to Lhas btsas is of particularinterest for the history of the Guhyagurbha and the controversiessurrounding it, for Lhas btsas was not only a contemporary of Zurc h e n s h a y a 'byung p a s 100242) . Zur chung Shes rab grags pa(1014-74) and Rong zom pa , all important exponents of the Guhya-garb ha, but is also said to have confronted these three scholars inperson.4' Wh iIe Sa pan does refer to a Sngags fog s un 'byin by Lhasbtsas? BU ston, in spite of including Lhas btsas as a critic of theRnying ma tantras in his history of Buddhism, makes no mention ofsuch a work by hirnP5 A khu chin mentions a certain four-folioSpring yig by Lhas btsasPh Sog d o g pa states that three propagandapamphlets ( byamsyig) attributed to Lhas btsas were known to haveexisted, viz., an extensive (rgyas) , a medium ('bring) and a short(bsdus)one. ' Wh en he wrote his Nges don 'brug sgra, he had accessto only two of them and believed that a third did not exist at aIlPgtan u s m e d l ) . See also Karmay 1998b1, p.32, n 78, and Loseries (198 '3 , p.218,n 35. Mkhan po rnam grol tshe ring (b. 1953)proposed two explanation^ gard dingKlong chen pa's comment on the Spar khab: (a) The text is indeed corrupt,since i nthe course of the textual trxnsmiss~ons,annotations crept (lit. were lost nr fell )into the text (mchan gzhung Iu shor ha) . b) Some teachers are of the opinion thattwo different texts are in question: the Spar khuh composed b y an Ind~anmaster andanother text entitled Spur k h b bod ma ( A Tiberan spar khah) whtch w a ~he onereferred to by KIong chen pa. I shall, however, refram from making any definitestatement at this point.'lN#es don ' h r u ~pa pp 217 &:299.

d3 It is s a ~ dhat Lhas btsas went to Zur chen to study but was made to workDispIeased, he went to 'Brog mi who demanded gold in exchange for tantricinstmct~ons.He left 'Brog mi, went to India, and later became one of the moatprolific translators of the Gsar ma era See Roerich 198R),p3h0; lso cf he Nyatagml rhos 'hyung, p.475. For his meetings with Zur chung and Rong zorn pa, seeRoerich (19881, pp.121 & 165, respechvsly.

44 Sdom gsum ub dbye, p 95- has bras z h e ~ ya 'i lo txil ball dcs b a n g choos l o gsun 'hyin pa// thcs hyaT hsran hcos mdzad nus nr// chos dung ckos min mam parphyell45 Bu sron chos 'byung,p 266Thoy ~ g , .673, no.15805 ([vo l kha pa l a ) .. rta nag 'gos khugpa h a s hrsas

i ~ p r i n g ig la bzhi/.'' ge . ~ on ' h r u ~pa , p.217.'' Whlch two of these three pamphlet4 were availabfe to Sog t Iog pa is uncrear.


8/15


9/15


10/15


11/15


12/15

A s for the unsuitability of [such questionable tantras to function as]the cause of [tantric] activities and accomplishments, even if [a aanrro]1s the authentic word of the Victorious One, it will not-except forsome remarkable few who are fortunate, devoted and have [engagedin] meditative equipoise-be suitable as a cause for [tanhic] activittesand accomplishments through the collection of [related] treatises andquintessenbal instructions transmitted, respectively, from the hand an dthe mouth of teachers, whose tantric pledges have deteriorated andwhose continuity of transmission has been inkrmpted. Therefore, itshould be realized that for the proponents of non-erroneousnessregarding the objecb of LnowIedge the establishment of the rea so n ~ n gofscriptural coherency alone would suffice.Only the reception of teachings from a genuine master [can] be thedominating condition for a quick attainment of Itantric] activities andaccomplishments. It is through this [reception of teachings] that thetasks of a person are thoroughly accomplished. Otherwise, svspectingtantric treatises of having been manipulated by persons and of other[faults] will grve rise to bases for numerous shortcomings. As it isstated:Because one enters [the path] with faith alone,This analytical analysis is a mere theoryFrom which o ne who meditates is cornpIetely free.67It IS explained that h rejection or acceptance of the {Buddha's] word[due to prejudices] is the cause of deterioration of the generalMakdydna commitments. Furthermore, the causes for accumulatingkarmic obscorations related to the Doctrine and such [obscurations]related to the person are similar to the [causes for] accumulatingkarmic obscurations in connection with the Buddha. There fore, even iftantric treatises are taught with overlaps and so on, and even if it ispossible that hey were cornpired and composed by [Tibetan]iJpFidhyayas, they should not onsidered objects of doubt, for theways the blessings of the tathrigatas appear are not restricted.I f [the opponent] states: "Even the Victorious One permitted disputingabout the assessment of [various] views for it brings about benefit forsentient beings. Also the early Upfidhy3yas taught so. Thus there i s no

theg pa gonx m po l yang skur pa gdab tu gu la rung stel r ng rang xi sknl badung mos pa ji liar m t s h a m pa bzhin so sor spyad par bya'all rgyud di nyid b skyangl sa rnam khyad par bkod pa yun ll gsang ba'i saying por gm b a 'i l a d l yeshfsngo mtshar rab b y a m yrs l l don du mi gyus onp ma gsungs/l zhes g sung sp altu Inulr ol/ e bas songs gyus ky bsran rnams ni 'groba chud mi gsonpa lo soso rang bden pa yin pas/ ra ba mrho d m n r t s d pa r skahs su yang gcig l gags m d zng rsrodpa'i phyir skur pa ml bp il n ~ e sa'i don gang nye ba rr i g s p a 'grunpa tsarn la nyes skyon med do{/ .See also the Dkon mchog grel,p.245.am unable to i dent~fyhe source of t h i q verse.

TH UHYAGARBHA TsLNTRA 285fault in degrading the inferior views." Such [an issue] is established ina way similar to [that o l the coherency with the general authoritativescriptures. If the Buddha himself taught that even the well-expoundedtreatises of the trrrhihkcls are teachings [caused by] the Buddha sblessings and emanations, what need is there to mention thoseauthonrative scriptures that were taught through the appearance of theTathSgata himself Because [all Buddhist teach~ngs] re similar in sofar as they w r aught by the Victorious Ones for the sake of sentientbeings, even the smaller vehicles should not be given up andcondemned. How can one as well disparage the hlgher vehicles[simply] because there are [differences in] the level of the vrews and inthe degree of the skilful means One should, therefore, engage onewlfin accordance with one's own endowments nnd preferences just a5stated in this tantra [i.e., the Guhyagar bha] :~The stages, though differently fashioned,Are [all] paths leading to the Secret Essence.Nothrng meaningless has ever been taught b y he Buddhas]Through the amazingly infinite gnosis.Therefore, the doctrines of the Buddha are true in their own rightinsofar as they w r [all intended] not to 'lay waste the [fields of]living kin gs ." Tnus, even while debating about the assessment of the[varying] vzews, one should not deprecate [any of them just] in orderto condemn and refute one another. However, there is no fault in themere contest of reasoning to assess w ho draws closest to the definitivemeaning.

V THE ROB BLEREASONFOR SUSPICIONGiven the complicated and complex nature of the textual history ofthe Guhyagarbha, it is difficult to say anything with certaintyregarding the allegations of the tantra being a Ti b e t an co mp i l a t i o n orcornpo~ition.~arious factors including a peculiar phenomenon

6 For the commentary on this verse,see thc Dkon mchog grel,p.245.Cf. Sa pan s criQque (Sdom pa gsum rub dbye, p.74): Some announce to a11that each vehicle is true in ita own level (kha cig rheg pr r ng s na/ bden p yinzhes kun l sgrogs//). One wonders if Sa pan had Rong zom pa in mind.Nonetheless, before any judgement of Rong wm pa's posttion in this regard can bemade, a thorough investigation of Rong zo pa s extensive coverage on thedtsttnctions and sirnilarit~es f the vmous phiIosophical tenet4 and their theonesshould be undertaken in order to prevent his statements from king taken out ofcontext.

The deposit of a certain manuscript of the Guhyagarbha in Bsam yas dkormdzod gling, 19 already reported In the Nyang r l chos 'byung (p. 3081, For accountsof the discovery of a Sanskrit m nuscript in Bsam yas somet~rne n the 1 2 / 1 3 ~


13/15

occurring in the Guhyagarbha called 'phyong may have contributedto its authenticity being called into question. The meaning of theterm pyong is uncIe;u. It appears in Nyang ral's history oBuddhism twice but unfortunately in both cases the text is ob~cure .~ 'Rong zom pa states that some claim that Rma r n chen mchog adirect student of Vimalamitra, who in turn was instrumental in thetranslation, teaching and transmission of the Guhyagarbha extractedcertain passages from other Mdyd tantras and inserted themsporadically in the Guhyagarblna.Later, Gtsug ru Rin chen gzhon nua disciple of Rrna Rin chen mchog) sorted them out with the resuItthat two recensions of the Guhyagarbha came to be transmitted, onewith jphyong (i.e., with aIlegedly inserted verses) and oneHence for the purpose of the present discussion, I suggest renderingthe term as Ysporadicj insert i~ns . ~' s already mentioned, thepropaganda pamphlets ascribed 1 Lhas btsas alIeged that Rma rinchen mchog was the author of the Guhyagarbha. One cannot helpbut wonder if the allegation that Rma rin chen mchog had insertedthe 'phyong was not the actud cause of the critics suspecting hisauthorship of the tantra. Thar lo nyi ma rgyal mtshan (who was Buston's teacher) stated in his translation colophon of the Guhyagarbhathat the Sanskrit manuscript used by him had six 'chongs {i.e.,'phyongs) while Indian commentaries such as Sihyasimha's did nothave any. It was thus d e a r to him that two Sanskrit versions (withand without 'phyong)had existed and t ha t the allegation that the partsof the manuscripts (consisting of 'phyongs) were concealed in Tibetwas not true.7d Klong chen pa, too, devotes a few passages to thiscentury, see, for example, Roench (1988), pp EO3f and the Thar by i y u r @arrgpp.121-27.' See the Nyang rai chos 'byung', pp.422f and 4 3 5 ;Nyung ral chos 'byung,plate3 16 (fol.70htplate 315 (fol.7 Ia,) and plate 3 5 (fo1.56a).

72 Dkon mchog ' p a l , p ,149:sku yr phyag rgya che mchog ni / / / / e s b y a ba la s o g sPO nt p h p n g du grags pa $re// loh d p n rin cen mchog Rrs sgyv phrul gzhun nusp h y u n ~ tel skabs skubs su bcug pa las grsug ru rin cm gzhon nus p h o n ~ od padong rned pa'r dpe n s Rn y s su phye s e de bzhin du grags so zhrs t e r rot/. See alsoop cit . ,p. l61.

The word khyong accurs seldom in T~betanBuddhist literature whereas its ms o occur frequently in Eon po llteramre with a meaning nearing on chapter.Bod r ~ pshig mdzod chen rno gives its meaning as r u t ( corner or side ].Thclr l o I k y u r hyang. pp.12 1-27: 'chong d r u g b u n g rgyu d p e klr n u s # h a n gbar b u n g zhingl rgya krel nyi od la sogs par ma byung has/ rgyu dpe la yangrgyus bsdud gnyis su yod gar gsal zhingf bod du d p e mkhyud byas zhes pa mr bdenc rg l izhung rgyas bsdus bstan pa gin no/ / . t appears that while some had alleged

THE GUHYAGARBHA TAATRA 287issue in which he also classifies and explains the various types of'phyongs.' y impression is that this issue, while providing lertileground for the subsequent allegations of falsification, c ould also shedlight on the controversiaS textual history of the Guhyagarbha ifproperly s tudied. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, no modem scholarhas brought it up yet in connection with the textual problems of theGuhyagarbha.

A discussion of Rong zom pa's defense of the authenticity of theGuhyagarRha and its teachings without mention of his policy of'inclusivism' in general would be neither just nor adequate. From adoctrinal point of view, he saw the Great Perfection according 1which he interpreted the Guhyagarbha not only as the source fromwhich d l vehicles emerge (phros) but also the domain where allphilosophical systems can merge into one single taste of the Bud-dha's teachings, as remarkably illustrated in the following passage:76that the 'phyongsw r nserted and had thus cormpted the tantm others prhaps hadalleged that the 'phyongs, wh ~chwere Iegitlmate parts of the rantra, were removedfrom the t a n m and concealed.Cf. the next footnote on Klong hen pa's dtscussionof Phyong ( no3) .Klong chen pa presents some of the theones regarding the phenomenon of'phyong:The first theory that he cites seems to be a verbatlm reproductionof the onealready mentioned by Rong zwn pa. The second theory 1s that the G uhy a ~ a r b hntranslated b y Gnyags ~f i inakurniras wlthout 'ghyonx and the one translated by Rmann chen mchog is with 'phyong on accountof his insertionof them.The third one sthat Rrna rin chen mchog concealed them (the ' p h y o n ~ s )ut of envy ( ser snu yosnus). The ourth theory i s that of Klong chen pa himself: The eady translahon'(Snga gyur ) b y Buddhaguhya and Vairocwa and the 'middle translation' ( b a r'gyur) by Padrnasambhava and nyags YA akumZra contained 'phyong, while the'later translation' @hyi k}~ur)y V~rnalamitra,Gnyaga j f i8nakumh and Rrna rinchen mchog dsd not. According to Klong chen pa. whether or not the translation ofthe Guhyagarbha contmns ' p h y o n ~ epends on the length of the original Sanskntmanuscript used by the translator$, hus ind~catinghat the 'phyong were not in~ertedby Tibetans. See the Phy o r . ~ cu mmun se t, pp.86446 .

a a'i hrpd b y a n g , p p T2f.: songs q y a s kyi chos t h a m cad nf ro gcig patsharl gcrg pa st.4 'di ltar mnyam pa chen ppo'i ngang du m f h o rm i I j u ~ ing mr du bamed del jr ltar chu phran thams cad chu chcn po rnams dang 'grogs tel rgya mtshochen por phyrn pa nu r h a m cod fan frha'iro gcig pa bzhrn du theg p ORmu pa is ~ ohra mo t m cad b a n g gang ztag gr b d a ~ d par rtogs pu'r thus/ d n g o sp o rIra ba t haan b i n m u m s rimr gyis drd d e f rheg pa chen po mums d a n ~ s d o n ~ s os/mthar rdzogs pa chen po'i rgya mtsho chen por hob pa n l mnyam pa chen po ingang du ro mi gcrg pa'r rntshan nyrd rdul phra mo tsam yung med doll di /tar sangs


14/15


15/15

29 DORJI WANGCHUK THE GUHYAGARRHA TAhTRA 291Sdom gsum rab dhye by Sdom gsum rab hf dbyc ba'i bstan bcos. In Su pan

kun dga rxyaI mtshan gyi gsvrag 'bum, vo1.3, Gangs-can Rig-mdzodSeries 25, Bod ljongs bod yig dpe skrun khang , Lhasa, 1992.Sgra shyor burn po g n y r pa by M shikawa. ed. A Critical Edition of theSgra shyor barn po gnyis pa: An 01d and Basic Commentmy on theMahQutpar i i . Studia Tlbetica, no.18, MaterinIs for TibetanMongolran D ~ction aries, o1.2, The Toyo Bunko, 1990.Sngags log sun 'byin skor by 'Gos khug pa (has btsas, Chag lo ts8 ba, e t a .Sngaxs log sun 'bgin skor: Chug lo tsfi ha dung Gosk h q po lhasbisas sags kyi mdzad pa. Dpal ldan 'brug gzhung, Kunsang TobgyelMani Dotji, Thlmphu, 1979.7has lo I gyurb a n g by Thar lonyf ma rgyal mtshan. Gsang snying rbrya dpe'ipusbyalag In Dpal pang ba ,vying po'ide kko na nyid m m ar ngespa z rgyud chenpo. D h m a Publishers, California,n.d., pp.113-28.Theg u h n ts hul j u ~y Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po. the^ pa chen po'itsh ul La jug pa zhes bya ha i bstan hcus. In Rung z n n chos bmng g i{sung 'bum.Sr khron mi rigs dpe skrung khang, Chengdu 1999. ~ 0 1 . 1 ,pp.417-555.7ko yig by A khu Shes rab rgya rntsho Dpe rgyun dkon pa a1 . tix xi thoyig.Tn Materials for a Histoly of Tibeton Literature ( pt .3 ). ~ a t a ~ i t a k aSeries, vo1.30,New Delhi, 1963,pp.673-74.

Almogi, Orna. (1997). The Li f i and Works of Rong zom Pundira Chus-kyi-brang po. M.A. thesls, Unrversity of Hamburg.forthcoming) Sources on the Life and Works of the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi bzang-po: A BriefSurvey . The Proceedings of the IRTS. E.J. rill, L i d e n .Dorje, Gyurme Dorje. (1987) Tke Guhyagarbh-fanira and its Cummen-tory. Unpublrshed Ph.D. them. SOAS, University of London.Edgerton, F. (1985). Buddhist Hyhrid Sansknt G r a m m r and Dictionary.Rinsen Book Co., Kyoto (repr. 1953)vo1.2.Guenther, Herbert V. (1984). Matrix of Mystery: Scientific and HumanisticAspects ofofsDzogs chen houg ht.Shambnla, Boulder London.Kapstein, M. (1989). The Purificatory Gem and Its Cleansing: A LateTibetan Polemical Discuss~on of Apocryphal Texts. Histov ofReligions. University o f Chicago Press, Chicago, ~01.2813, p .217-44.K a m a y , S G (1988). The Grear Perfection: A Philosophical ondMeditutive Teachmg of Tibeton Buddhism. E . J Brill, Leiden, 1988.1998a). The Ordinance of [Ha Rla ma Ye shes 'od. The Arrow andrhr Spindle: Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet.Mandala B ook Polnt, Kathmandu, (repr. 19801,pp.3-40.

1998b). An Open Letter by Pho-brang Zhi-ba-'od.' e Arrow andthe Spindk: Studies in History, Myths, Rituais and Beliefs in Tibet.Mandala Book Point, Kathmandu, (repr. 19801,pp.17-40.1998,). King TsalDza and VajraySna. The Arrow and th Spindle:Studies in History, Myth, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet. Mandala BookPoint, Kathmandu (repr. 1981),pp.7693.Loseries, U. (1989). Guru P a d m a n b h a v a s lnstrukion, die Ketette derAnschuuun~en University of Bonn.Martin, Daniel. (1987) Illusion W eb-Locating the Guhyagasbha Tunirain Buddhist Intellectual History. In ed. Christopher I Beckwith,Silver on Lnpi.~: Tibetan Literary Culhare and History.BIoomington:The Tibet Society. Pp.175-220

Matsunaga,Y d (1978) Guhyasam-jatantra. Osaka.Mayer. R. (1996). A Scripture of the Ancient Tantru Collection: The Phurpa bcu gmyis. KiscadaIe Publications, Oxford, 1996.1997). Were the Gsar-ma-pa Polemicists Justified in Rejecting SomeRnylng-ma-pa Tantrns? Tibetan Siudies, eds. H Krasser. M . T.Much, E. Steinkellner, H . Tauscher, Verlag dcr osterreichischenAkadem~edmWissenschaften,Wien, vo1.2, pp.6 19-32.N e w m ~ n , . (1987). The Outer Wheel of Time. Ph.D, dissertation, Univetsi-ty of Wisconsin, M adison, pp.27-41.Obemil le r , E. (1986). The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet hy Bu-ston. Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi (repr. 1932).Roerich, G. N. (1988). tr. The BIue Annals. Motilal Bananidass, Delhi(repr. 1949).Seyfort Ruegg, D. 1984). Problems in the Transmission of Vajray5naBuddhism in the Western Himalaya about the Year 1000. Studies ufMysticism in Honor of the 115UfiAnniversaq* of Kobo-Daishi's Nir-vc7nam,Acta Indoiorica, Naritasan Shmshoji, Narita, vo1.6,pp.369-8 1

1981). D e u ~ b l k m e s d ExCgkse et de Pratique Tantrigues: selonDiparjcaragrijAHna et le Paindapgtikn de YavadvTpal Suvarnadvipa.Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour 0 f R . A . Stein (Mtlanges Chinoiset Bouddhiques , voI.20).ed. M. Strickmann, Institut Belge dos Haotes6tudes Chinoises, Bruxelles, vol.1, pp .212-26.Smith, G. (1969). The Aumhingraphical Reminiscences of Ngag-dhang-IlpaL-hzang: Late Ahhot of Kah-thog Monastery. Sonam T . K z i ,Gangtok, pp.2-15.1970). Introduction. Kongfml's Encyclopaedia of Indo-TibetanCulture. R.1-3, ed. Lokesh Chandra, International Academy of IndianCulture, New Delhi, pp.1-52.

Tucci, G. 1980). Tibetan Painted Scrolls.RinsenBook Co. ,Kyofo rep- . 1949).Vitali, R. 1996). The Kingdom of Gu.ge Pu.hranx: According to mEJga9.risrgyal.rabs by Gu ge mkhan cken Ngag.dbang grags.pa. Tho.linggtsug .lag khang lo gcig.stong 'khor ba'i rjes .dran md zad sgo i sgo sgigtshogs.chung, Dharamsala.

wangchuk 2002 - authenticity guhyagarbhatantra

Documents