-
The wonderful Orgyan Ling Manuscript KanjurPosted on September
19, 2011 by Rob Mayer
Tibetans, especially Nyingmapas, recount numerous legends of
Hidden Lands (sbas yul). These are places ofrefuge where the Dharma
can be safeguarded in times of political danger and religious
persecution, whentemples are vandalised and religious books burned.
Such Hidden Lands are often characterised as obscurevalleys in the
remote Himalayas to the south of Tibet.
Although remote enough, Himalayan, and to the south, I can see
why the Orgyan Ling temple in the MonTawang region in modern day
Arunachal Pradesh might not have any such legends attached to it.
It was notnearly obscure enough, and it ended up being sacked by a
hostile army, with its many Nyingmapa treasuresdestroyed or carried
away. Yet despite this rather serious setback, I would like to
suggest that albeit in a rathertortuous way and perhaps
inadvertently, it did nevertheless achieve one of the prime
purposes ascribed to aHidden Land. My reasons for proposing this
have nothing to do with mystical revelations from Guru Rinpochenor
signs from the dakinis, but derive instead from the prosaic
practice of philology. Orgyan Ling templesucceeded in preserving
intact for posterity an important and famous Nyingma tantra in a
considerably purerand more complete form than anywhere else in
Tibet. Not only that, but it also preserved a number of other
veryrare Nyingma tantras not so far found anywhere else in the
Tibetan cultural world.
Orgyan Ling was founded in the late 15th century by Orgyan
Zangpo, the younger brother of the famousBhutanese terton Pema
Lingpa (1450-1521). In 1683, Orgyan Ling subsequently became the
birthplace ofOrgyan Zangpos famous descendent, the Sixth Dalai Lama
Tsangyang Gyamtso (1683-1706). Thus it was thatin 1699, the Fifth
Dalai Lamas regent, the great Desi Sangye Gyatso, greatly extended
Orgyan Lings buildingsand commissioned new volumes for its library.
So despite its remote situation at the very edge of the
Tibetancultural sphere, its galactic network of family and personal
connections enabled Orgyan Lings library to acquiresome very fine
books indeed, including a copy of the Ancient Tantra Collection
(rNying mai rgyud bum), andtwo Kanjur manuscripts.
The older of the Kanjurs was made in silver and gold, and both
Kanjurs contained a quota of sixty Nyingmatantras freely
intermingled with their Sarma tantras. This number greatly exceeds
the merely twenty-foursqueezed into the carefully segregated
doxographical ghetto that had been reserved for them by Situ
GewaiLodro (1309-1364) in his Tshalpa Kanjur catalogue. Yet the
Thempangma Kanjur traditions dont have anyNyingma Tantra section at
all. Orgyan Ling was evidently such a Nyingma stronghold that even
its Kanjursunashamedly sported unusually large numbers of Nyingma
tantras, unsegregated from the Sarma tantras. Wecan only dream
about what its long lost Ancient Tantra Collection might once have
contained.
But fame is a two-edged sword which can prove fatal to any
Himalayan valleys chances of successfullyqualifying as a Hidden
Land. Not content with merely deposing him in Lhasa, after his
death TsangyangGyamtsos Mongolian enemies extended their sectarian
vendetta to his birthplace, sacking the monastery ofOrgyan Ling
around 1714 in the course of a campaign against Bhutan.
Fortunately however, a quantity of the monasterys surviving
valuable books and artifacts were transferred to
kli klayaDiscoveries and research hypotheses inTibetan Buddhism
from the OrientalInstitute, Oxford University
-
the Geluk establishment of Ganden Namgyal Lhatse in Tawang, even
though the gold and silver Kanjur waspartially destroyed, and the
Ancient Tantra Collection disappeared.
Among the volumes transferred to Ganden Namgyal Lhatse was the
Kanjur manuscript commissioned by theDesi Sangye Gyatso in 1699,
beautifully calligraphed by master scribes especially hired from
the E region ofCentral Tibet. Fortunately, this Kanjur still
survives, together with its full complement of sixty Nyingma
tantras.But it is not its master calligraphy that concerns us
(although that is certainly impressive), nor its fine thickpaper:
rather, it is the presumably lost exemplars from which the master
scribe must have made his copy, andthe textual traditions they
represented.
Over the last few years, Cathy and I have been engaged in making
a critical edition of an important Nyingmatantra called the Phags
pa thabs kyi zhags pa padma phreng gi don bsdus pa, which one might
translate as ANoble Noose of Methods, the Lotus Garland Synopsis
(hereafter abbreviated as Thabs zhags). In addition, wehave
simultaneously edited its commentary.
The Thabs zhags is a magnificent example of Mahyoga literature,
often juxtaposed with the Guhyagarbha inclassic doxographies, and
its commentary is one of the few remaining genuinely early
word-for-wordcommentaries on a Mahyoga tantra. While we dont adhere
to the unrealistically perfectionist dogma thatevery text in
existence must be exhaustively critically edited as a matter of
principle, as academic scholars we doshare the perception of
numerous learned Tibetan lamas of the past and the present, that a
certain proportion oftexts in the popular editions of the Tibetan
canon can end up in rather bad shape, and are ideally in need
ofcritical editing. It is specifically these damaged texts that we
seek to restore.
The Thabs zhags and its commentary are among such damaged texts.
The commentary survives in threedifferent Tenjur editions, yet in
all three instances, around a third of its text has become
completely lost: forexample, everything between Chapter Six and the
end of Chapter 10 has disappeared, and there are othersignificant
losses of text too.
In most of its more popular canonical versions, the root tantra
has only slightly less serious problems. Thesemore popular versions
derive either from the Tshalpa branches of the Kanjur (which here
must includes theDerge Ancient Tantra Collection, since it borrowed
the relevant woodblocks from the Derge Kanjur), or from
theBhutanese Ancient Tantra Collection manuscripts. Yet they reveal
a pattern of confusion: the respectiverenderings of the final
section of the very long Chapter 11, for example, are so radically
different in the TshalpaKanjur and Bhutanese recensions, that to
the untrained eye it seems hard to credit that they are reproducing
thesame text at all.
To remedy this situation, we assembled twenty one different
witnesses from every conceivable source, andbegan to try to piece
together the evidence.
The commentary was reasonably easy to fix. Whilst the
transmitted tradition of the Tenjur was irrevocablydamaged, new
evidence in the form of a partially complete 10th century Dunhuang
manuscript was discoveredin the early 20th century and brought to
London by Sir Aurel Stein. This enabled us to restore the text to
itscomplete form, almost certainly for the first time in several
centuries, since, by great good fortune, those partsmissing in the
Tenjur were preserved in the Dunhuang manuscript, while those parts
missing in the Dunhuangmanuscript were preserved in the Tenjur. It
became a simple matter of splicing.
The root text proved more complex, but nevertheless exhaustive
collation and stemmatic analysis permitted us aclear result. It
became evident that the currently three most popular versions those
of the Tshalpa Kanjurs, of
-
the Derge Ancient Tantra Collection, and of the Mtshams brag
Ancient Tantra Collection from Bhutan represented two distinct
attempts to reconstruct the root text from out of the commentary.
At some stage in itslong history, the root text must have been lost
in the main centres of Nyingma learning, perhaps during one ofthose
periodic persecutions of the Nyingmapas that made them want to
retire to the Hidden Lands in the firstplace. Two different
attempts were then made to recover the root text by extracting its
verses out of the word-by-word commentary, one attempt witnessed in
the Tshalpa Kanjurs and the Derge Ancient Tantra Collection,and the
other attempt witnessed in the Bhutanese Ancient Tantra Collection
manuscripts of Mtshams brag,Sgra med rtse, Sgang steng-A and Sgang
steng-B.
Once we had the full commentary available to us together with
the evidence from our twenty one witnesses, itbecame unfortunately
evident that neither of these brave attempts at reconstruction had
been entirelysuccessful. Both in their different ways and at
different junctures mistakenly introduced commentarial passagesinto
the root text, whilst also excluding passages of root text through
the mistaken assumption that they werecommentary. Nor did they
agree in their errors hence for example their radically different
interpretations ofChapter 11.
But this is where the Hidden Land principle comes into play.
While these famous mainstream texts of theTshalpa Kanjur, the Derge
Ancient Tantra Collection, and the Bhutanese Ancient Tantra
Collection wereuniformly confused about what was root text and what
was commentary, all around that great geographical arcthat
comprises the southern Himalayan fringe of the Tibetan cultural
zone, in sometimes obscure and ignoredlocal monasteries, versions
of the text survived that derived not from one or another attempt
to reconstruct theroot text from the commentary, but directly, from
the original root text itself. In the forgotten ruins of an
oldlibrary in Hemis, along the Nepalese borders, and even in
far-off Bathang in the North-East of Tibet, ancientversions of the
text, or their direct copies, survived. It was through studying
these that we were able to restorethe text to its original
boundaries, differentiating root text from commentary with clarity
and ease. Applyingstemmatics to all the witnesses together, we were
also able restore many other original readings.
But the last word belongs to the excellent Orgyan Ling
manuscript. It can only be consulted in one place, in thelibrary of
the Central University for Tibetan Studies in Sarnath, and
microfilm is not easily available. Hence wedid not get to see it at
all until a provisional version of our edition was already
complete. To our delight andastonishment, it agreed with our
stemmatic reconstruction at every significant juncture. Not only
that, but itssuperior scribe from E had even eliminated spelling
errors and many other small problems, just as our laboriousedition
had attempted to do. We found ourselves face to face with a
beautifully calligraphed late 17th centuryversion of the text that
was virtually identical in all important respects to the one we had
so painstakinglyreconstructed over the previous three years. The
only differences were that the Orgyan Ling manuscriptpreserved a
few more archaic spellings than we saw fit, and its scribe had
fallen for one minor slip of the penwhen describing a mudra.
The moral of the story is this: we should not allow ourselves to
become excessively swayed by the grandreputations and
religious-political support invested in the few mainstream editions
of the canons. Dont forgetthe Hidden Land principle, which tells us
that just occasionally the most valuable editions can be located in
theleast expected places. This was something well understood by the
great Tibetan critical editors of the past, menlike Situ Panchen,
Tsongkhapa or Kathok Rigdzin Tsewang Norbu, who became dissatisfied
if they found reasonto suspect that the standard canonical fare was
deficient, and who left no stone unturned in seeking out
rarewitnesses in Sanskrit and Tibetan to complete their own
critical editions.
This entry was posted in Mainly monthly postings. Bookmark the
permalink.
-
8 Responses to The wonderful Orgyan Ling Manuscript Kanjur
Dan says:September 20, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Hi Rob,
Very interesting blog today! It isnt exactly your main point, of
course, but I was intrigued by those word, both Kanjurscontained a
quota of sixty Nyingma tantras freely intermingled with their Sarma
tantras.
I wonder that it (or they) had Old tantras interspersed with
New. As I think you know That was a characteristic of Nyang-rals
collection put together in the early decades of the 13th century,
and even in his time it seems to have caused somediscussion. (I
could dig up a reference, but I think you could do this just as
well on your side). I wondered if you haveanything more to say
about this. What were the motives for this interspersing? Just the
obvious one of the sponsors orcompilers being extra-ordinarily
liberal and open, or do you think there was something more sinister
afoot? Were theyindifferent? People who could care less about these
categorical distinctions we might hold dear?
Indifferently yours,Dan
Reply
Rob Mayer says:September 23, 2011 at 10:43 am
I did not recall that about Nyang rals NGB thanks for mentioning
it. Because its textual readings are basically the same asthose
from the other outlying areas of the Tibetan cultural zone, my
initial hunch was that the texts at least were copied fromold local
exemplars, albeit by an expert scribe who could achieve an utterly
perfect spell-check and grammar-check as hewent along (the same
operation took us months and months). However the doxographical
arrangement might have beendifferent: it might, as you perhaps
indirectly suggest, have followed an arrangement found in a dkar
chag sent along by theDesi and he might well have felt Nyang Rals
doxography to have many merits. I think that ultimately the choice
to havesuch an interspersing of New and Ancient tantras might have
related to the sinister indifference you suggest: these peoplehad
the temerity to believe that a rNying ma tantra is as good as a
gSar ma one and they might as well all be put together.Maybe that
attitude is part of what made the Mongolian fanatics mad and
motivated them to sack the monastery.
Reply
Dan says:September 25, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Really, I dont know about you, Rob, but I find it totally
unacceptable that people would accept the tantra scriptures
thatbelong to the other group as somehow valid. Im sure the Desi
Sanggy Gyatso did, since he quotes from Nyingma tantrasquite a lot
in his huge book about the Fifth Dalai Lamas funerary chorten. How
is this sense of acceptance to be combatted?What will be next?
Accepting other religions? Isnt Buddhism a strictly circumscribed
and thoroughly reasoned philosophy-religion with lots of rules
about rejecting wrong people with their wrong ideas? Dont they just
bring it on themselves withtheir inaccurate versions of the true
Dharma?
Oh, heres the reference to the NGB of Nyangrel Nyima zer:
chapter 10 from the biography of Nam-mkha-dpal (composed by 3 of
his own disciples), son of Nyang-ral, who was 23 (i.e.22) when
Nyang-ral died (otherwise, its difficult to give his date, since
Nyang-rals own death-date is not completely settled),the chapter on
the construction of the Speech Receptacle (found in Bka brgyad bde
gshegs dus pai chos skor areproduction of a ms. collection of texts
from the revelations of Mnga-bdag Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-od-zer.
Reproduced from acollection from the library of Kyirong Lama
Kunzang now preserved in the Library of Tibetan Works &
Archives [Dalhousie1977]. Vol. 1), pp. 55-59.
-
There it says they (the sons of Nyangrel) didnt pick sides in
the Dharma and included inner & outer, old translation &
new,and kama & terma. But some of the scribes would only copy
new tantras and left the old ones alone, while some othersscribed
only the old tantras and left the new ones alone.
Does any of that sound OK to you? How can we join those
Mongolian hordes? Are they too exclusive to accept us?
Yours,D
Reply
Rob Mayer says:September 25, 2011 at 8:19 pm
O, now I remember this Nyang ral passage. It came up in my PhD
back in the 1990s. And if I recall rightly, it was youwho sent it
to me then!
Buddhism clearly fluctuates on these issues. I am wondering at
the moment about Khu tsha zla od, and Gu ru Chosdbang. They were
both born in Lho brag, and both revealed gter ma for both Buddhism
and Bon. It seems to me thatmaybe they felt free to practice both
religions so long as they did not mix them up. Rather like being
free to enjoyboth burger and ice cream, so long as one does not mix
them together in a single dish.
People with less courage or insight obviously find that
threatening.
BTW, we stand no chance of being accepted by the Mongolian
hordes. Not good enough on horseback, poor weaponsskills,
insufficient appetite for war.
Reply
Dan H says:September 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Thank you both for this interesting and entertaining discussion.
Will certainly look forward to seeing your work on Thabszhags, Rob;
my mind already turns towards Bka brgyad even as I attempt to focus
on Nyang rals historiography for mydissertation.
To weigh in on Nyang rals interaction with other lineages, in
wading through his biographies, it appears that he was
lessecumenical than his son. Aside from the various lineages
transmitted by Padampa Sangye, Nyang ral received and recoveredthe
core cycles of what became renowned as Nyingma, and appears to have
had little contact with Sarma. A contention couldbe made by citing
the colophon to his Chos byung: it states that Jigten Gonpo
sponsored the text, but this statement alongwith the coda and the
section describing other lineages that precedes it is from an
extended version of the text. Asdiscovered by Meisezahl, an earlier
version ended with the section describing Atia, so while Nyang ral
may have beeninterested in how Buddhism was revived, he had little
concern for other lineages. He does not seem to be especially
sectarianeither, but the credit should go to Namkha pel who, in
spending the resources accumulated by his famous father,
attemptedto be more ecumenical in their distribution (despite the
scribes).
Reply
Rob Mayer says:September 28, 2011 at 9:59 am
Dan H, many thanks for this extremely interesting comment. It
leaves me with no doubt that your forthcoming workon Nyang Rals
biographies will be of huge value to our understanding! I look
forward to it with happy anticipation.May I ask you, to what extent
are the Nyingma Troma lineages descended from the transmission from
Padampa toNyang ral that you mention? And does Nyang ral have
anything to say about Bon?
Reply
-
kli klaya
Dan says:September 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Dear Rob,Thanks for asking Dan H the very same question I was
wanting to ask! Nyangral has to be one of the most intriguing
ofcharacters, I think.
Reply
Dan H says:September 28, 2011 at 8:43 pm
First, I have to thank Rob for filling me in on Troma (Khros
ma), a gcod practice focused on Khrodakl. Did not recognize itby
name, but I am a little familiar with its current iteration because
of the Gcod Monlam now held at the Mahabodhi everyyear (beautiful
melody!).
I have not seen any specific references to Khros ma in Nyang
rals biographies. He does receive an unspecified gcod practicefrom
one Lama Dzongpa of Tsang, and the Blue Annals (914) record Padampa
as stating that this lama belongs to the type ofindividuals of
spontaneous development, so he appears to have been impressed with
his attainment. Rob also mentionedthat Nyingmapas count a Nyang ral
Khros ma as especially prestigious, but these days I am growing
increasingly skeptical ofsuch claims, at least in the Bka ma
transmissions of his gter ma, so to speak.
What gives me pause is the revitalization of Nyang rals
transmissions that occurred through the activity of Terdak Lingpain
the seventeenth century. He received Guru Chwangs Bka brgyad from
his father, but it seems that Nyang rals Bkabrgyad may have died
out already. Following some dreams and visions of Nyang ral
himself, Terdak Lingpa recovered anumber of Nyang ral yang gter,
which I believe to comprise the only Nyang ral Bka brgyad cycles
that are still (very rarely)transmitted today. Likewise for Guru
Drakpo and Sangwe Khandro, two other famous cycles attributed to
Nyang ral but thatappear to have originated more recently at
Mindroling. So there is a major issue here in that the oral
transmissions of Nyangrals gter ma died out, and new yang gter were
introduced in their place by Terdak Lingpa. While there were
undoubtedlysome historical connections between Nyang ral and
Padampas lineages (meaning some even appear in both
biographies,which is rare!), it may be unlikely that a Khros ma
lineage extends back to him. In contrast, Nyang rals biographies
detailspecific lineages of Zhi byed or Pacification (Dri ma med pa
lists three: So, Skam/Ka, Rma, whereas Gsal bai me long
onlydescribes the last of them), all of which are corroborated in
the Blue Annals, as are the teachers from whom Nyang ralreceived
them.
His biographies are also silent on Bon, and all of his treasure
texts are listed as Chos in nature. One question I have, however,is
how we should categorize his various ritual texts and materials.
Some of these rites were Nyang rals bread and butterbefore he
started finding gter, but are thread-crosses (mdos), for example,
Buddhist in origin? Indic? Or are theyadaptations from Bon? I
remain intrigued by this question of where to draw the line between
what is Buddhist and what isBon (or perhaps just other/undefined?).
Have yet to read Jake Daltons recent publication, but I wonder
whether headdresses this issue.
Reply
Proudly powered by WordPress.
