MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT IN A PAPER

INSCRIPTION AT ZHA LU MONASTERY: A PRELIMINARY

REPORT*

BENJAMIN WOOD
(UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA)

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

The inscription edited and translated below is found in extremely poor

condition on the wall of Zha lu’s mgon khang,1 written on paper in a
semi-cursive ('khyug ma tshugs) script. With large sections torn away
from its right and left sides, the majority of this inscription’s lines of
text are now partially obliterated: of the 37 lines of visible text (as of
2010), only five lines (13-17) reach both the right and left margins.
The remnants of the inscription from line 28 downwards gradually
disappear into the soot-laden wall and consist of barely discernable
text and almost entirely uncertain readings. Without any remaining
straight paper edges on the inscription’s top or bottom, it is impossible
to know how long the paper may have originally been.

––––––––––
* This study is based on a set of images of the inscription derived from video taken
by Kurt Tropper in 2010. I wish to express my thanks here for Kurt Tropper’s gener-
osity in sharing these images with me. I would also like to thank Shayne Clarke,
Christian Luczanits, and Kurt Tropper for answering initial enquiries on this inscrip-
tion, Khenpo Kunga Sherab for his assistance in the preparation of this paper, and
Peter Schwieger for his helpful comments following the paper’s presentation at IATS.
I am also grateful to the Asian Institute at the University of Toronto for contributing
toward the funding of my travel to Vancouver to present this material, and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for supporting my doctoral
research.
1
For the inscription’s precise location at Zha lu, see Ricca & Fournier 1996: 358.
Lines 1-25 of the inscription are transcribed under the title “Inscription A” in Ricca &
Fournier 1996: 362.
108 BENJAMIN WOOD

On the basis that the benediction oṃ svasti siddham (often begin-

ning monastery inscriptions and a variety of other texts)2 is found at
the top of what is presently extant, it is likely that the inscription’s
opening is still indeed visible. The inscription still retains the outline
of a red square stamp (phyag dam; dam phrug), now completely il-
legible. This stamp, coupled with the document’s structure, language,
shape, and script suggest an affinity, broadly speaking, to an official
writing style shared between various types of legal and diplomatic
documents including edicts, agreements, dispositions, and various
kinds of private and public correspondence.3
Without any extant statement of authorship or date, it is neither
possible to precisely date the document (and the event of its posting),
nor can we definitively state the historical context of the document
(or the event of its posting). A passage found in two biographies of
Zha lu’s abbot Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502-1566) suggests
that the inscription was composed in the mid-sixteenth century. This
hypothesis, nevertheless, is problematic for a number of reasons I
will discuss below. Firmer conclusions on the inscription’s date will
have to await the appearance of additional (i.e., older) photographic
or textual witnesses. While I offer some preliminary enquiries into
the inscription in this paper, definitive conclusions on its content and
historical context will have to be derived from a much more exten-
sive survey of the vast cache of literature generated by the successive
Tibetan masters associated with the Zha lu tradition.
The exceptionally damaged nature of the inscription, coupled with
a lack of corroborating witnesses for its content—save for one verse
from the Abhidharmakośa—allows for only a tentative and partial
translation. Numerous inferences, cited in both the translation and
––––––––––
2
See examples in Tibetan inscriptions, for instance, in De Rossi Filibeck 1999:
194; Tropper 2007a: 114.
3
By “official style,” I refer to the gross structure commonly encountered in Tibetan
documents of introduction, context, and final protocol or eschatocol (cf. Scherrer-
Schaub 2002: fig A and passim), and the categories internal to this structure that each
have a specific function. These categories include the document’s invocation (invoca-
tio), its statement of the document’s creator(s) or originator(s) (intitulatio), its state-
ment of audience (publicatio), the motive for the document’s production (arenga), the
circumstances that generated the document’s inception (narratio), the document’s
decree (dispositio), its threat of penalty for the violation of the document’s terms
(sanctio), and its date of issue and authorship (final protocol / eschatocol). On official
Tibetan documents, see, for instance, Schneider 2002, 2003; Schwieger 2005, 2007;
Schuh 1976; Schuh & Dagyab 1979.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 109

edition, were employed in order to make the translation even barely

readable. For some parts of the inscription, moreover, I was unable to
supply a reasonable translation from the extant content. Given the
fact that no editorial system could ever successfully capture the heavi-
ly damaged remains of an inscription such as the one presented below
in any “objective” and “complete” manner4 it is imperative that those
interested in the inscription refer to the photographic documentation
from which this study was derived (http://www.univie.ac.at/Tibetan-
inscriptions; links: Others → Zhalu → mGon khang → Inscription 01).

OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE

In what remains of the inscription, there is a large space separating

two major paragraphs of text: the first paragraph consists of lines 1-7,
and the second, of lines 8-37. The first section (lines 1-7) might be
described as the document’s intitulatio,5 as it appears to describe the
document’s originators. Owing to the extensive damage in this first
section, it is difficult to interpret precisely how these originators are
connected. Here, nevertheless, speakers are assigned nouns of pro-
clamation—bka', lung, and gtam—which is characteristic of the inti-
tulatio in official Tibetan documents.6
In line 4, the inscription describes the proclamation (bka') of the
bla mas from the lineage of Bu ston rin chen grub (1290-1364) and
his (spiritual) sons (bu ston yab sras). Lines 1-3 appear to describe
Bu ston rin chen grub in his incarnation as Śākya Śrībhadra,7 and in
glorified terms, e.g., “as the crown jewel of all the learned, virtuous
and noble (mkhas btsun bzang)”. Owing to the damage, it is not clear
whether lines 1-3 constitute a preceding invocation (invocatio), or
whether they are included within the intitulatio.
Next comes a reference to the proclamation ([bka'] lung) of a
group of deities, including Vaiśravaṇa (rnam thos sras), and (likely)
Vajrapāṇi. Finally, we find a reference to the proclamation (gtam) of

––––––––––
4
See Tropper 2008: 16-17 for a useful discussion of this point.
5
In describing the inscription’s structure, I mimic analyses of official Tibetan
documents employing classical western diplomatic terminology (e.g., Schneider
2002, 2003; Schwieger 2005, 2007; Schuh 1976; Schuh & Dagyab 1979).
6
See, for instance, the use of the noun gtam ending the intitulatio in a letter of ap-
pointment in Schuh & Dagyab 1978: 140.
7
See note 221.
110 BENJAMIN WOOD

Zha lu’s “thirteenth seat [holder]” (gdan sa bcu gsum pa), whose
identity I discuss below.
After a large space in the inscription, we find the second extant
major block of text (line 8 - end), which addresses the document’s
audience, vaguely describes a conflict, and recounts punishments is-
sued to this conflict’s culprits. Lines 8-9 may be said to constitute the
document’s publicatio, that is, the section mentioning the inscrip-
tion’s audience. The audience is described as the “monastic and lay
communities (lha sde mi sde), lay persons and monks (skya ser), and
great nomads of Tibet who belong to this very dharma college (i.e.,
Zha lu).” The document then exhorts its audience to carefully con-
sider what follows, ending with the words “keep [these things] in
mind!” (nges rgyu la).8
Lines 9-14 praise the monastery of Zha lu as a venerable object
and source of dharma for all Tibetans, and emphasize ideal monastic
conduct in two trilogies of activities: listening, contemplation, and
meditation (thos bsam sgom) for the benefit of oneself; and exposi-
tion, debate, and composition ('chad rtsod rtsom) for the benefit of
others. This section may be said to constitute the document’s arenga,
or its motive for production.9
Juxtaposed against this vision of Zha lu as an ideal monastery be-
gins a vague description of some calamitous event (lines 14-25), which
may have been, or may have involved, some sort of “dispute” (kha
mchu) mentioned in line 25. Lines 14-25 may be said to constitute the
inscription’s narratio, or section detailing the circumstances that cul-
minated in the document’s inception. Two factors here juxtapose the
preceding arenga’s presentation of Zha lu as an ideal monastery. One
is expressed in the line: mkhan thog riṃ pa gzhug mi gzhug kyi skabs
seng, perhaps, “intermissions (skabs gseng) of the successive incum-
bent abbots’ (mkhan thog rim pa) intermittent attendance (reading
gzhug as bzhugs)” (line 14).
A malicious clique of uncertain composition10 is mentioned as the
other deleterious factor, described in lines 14-19, to the ideal vision

––––––––––
8
This is a typical way to end a publicatio. See, for instance, nges rgyur ending the
publicatio in a letter of appointment in Schuh & Dagyab 1978: 144.
9
Similar sentiments often begin “monastic constitutions” (bca' yig). See, for in-
stance, the beginning of the bca' yig from Se ra’s Byes College in Cabezón 1997: 339.
10
The words chen slob gros d=ng may indicate the composition of this group. See
my discussions of this phrase in the notes to the edition and translation below.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 111

of Zha lu presented in the arenga. The group is depicted as being

engaged in misbehavior (spyod ngan), degenerate activities (srol
ngan), and the stirring up of trouble. They are described as short-
sighted or narrow-minded (phugs bsam chung), cowardly (spobs pa
zhum [pa]), despondently lazy (sgyid lug), foolish, unstable, boastful,
scheming, bickering, “like tigers in private and like foxes in pub-
lic”—that is, like cowardly bullies(?). The vaguely defined calami-
tous events appear to have resulted in the Zha lu (monastic?) tradition
becoming an object of ridicule and criticism (lines 18-19).
After describing the culprits of the conflict, the narrator of this
second large block of text, an abbot—possibly the “thirteenth seat
holder” mentioned at the top of the inscription (see below)—recounts
his own struggle amid the conflict (lines 19-22). The abbot recounts
that he “felt like a dog backed into a corner,” neither able to please
the misbehaving monks on the one hand, nor the monastery’s bla mas
and leaders on the other. These lamentations thematically resemble
sentiments prevalent in ecclesiastical hagiography wherein remorse-
ful utterances of ineffectual governance serve to ultimately ennoble
their speakers as great monastic leaders.11
Next, we see an “official” of some sort (sde pa'i drung) making a
proclamation (bka' bkod) in line 24. The term sde pa'i drung may
refer to an official (drung [yig]) of a (provincial) ruler or governor
(sde pa), perhaps here of the Gtsang region. It might also refer to an of-
ficial from the Tibetan government, in which case it might be glossed
as sde pa gzhung gi drung yig or “secretary of the Tibetan govern-
ment.” Finally, it might refer to a kind of clerical official within the
ecclesiastical branch of the Tibetan government during the eighteenth
to early twentieth centuries, which Petech renders as “bla ma offi-
cials” (sde drung or mkhan drung).12 Without being certain of the in-
scription’s date, it is difficult to speculate which meaning is meant here.
In lines 24-25, a group named chen slob—which may either be glos-
sed as slob dpon chen po (great bla mas) or dpon chen slob dpon ([lay]
officials [and] [religious] masters)—appear to have a discussion that
results in the setting down of the inscription’s decree or dispositio.
––––––––––
11
See similar sentiments of ineffective ecclesiastical governance and abbatial in-
ability to control conflict at Zha lu uttered by Bu ston in Zha lu gdan rabs, 25-26.
Compare this with fols. 15rff in Bu ston rnam thar and this latter text’s translation in
Ruegg 1966: 93ff.
12
See Petech 1973: 236.
112 BENJAMIN WOOD

The final extant section, although badly damaged, appears to con-

tain the beginning of the document’s dispositio, or decree, demanding
the action of three individuals named Khang, Rong, and Lte’o—per-
haps the conflict’s principal instigators. The inscription states in lines
25-26 that each of them should offer a punishment in the form of an
ounce of gold “to the Gtsang pa” (perhaps to the leader of the
Gtsang pas?), comply with some sort of written contract (gan rgya)
that agrees to the acceptance of sanctions (gnang), and what seems to
be some kind of requirement that friends should “vouch” (khag khur),
acting as guarantors for the guilty.
Although it is by no means impossible that monks are indicated
here as the punished, the reference to the offering of gold suggests
that the inscription in fact describes lay persons as the conflict’s
culprits. This, coupled with the document’s (clear) audience of both
laypersons and clergy, the (possible) mixed lay and monastic partici-
pants of the conflict, the mentioning of both religious and secular
systems of law, the presence of the sde pa'i drung (likely here a lay
figure) in the conflict’s resolution, and the fact that the inscription is
posted inside the monastery, suggest that the conflict and its re-
solution involved both laypersons and clergy.
In the final readable fragments of the inscription, we see a pos-
sible sanctio, or “threat of contractual penalty should the terms of the
contract be violated.”13 Beginning in line 27, we see: gtsang gi 'gro
lugs / lung ==== gnas dbyung, which might have read: gtsang gi 'gro
lugs / lung pa nas gnas dbyung, or “[following] the customs of
Gtsang [law], [you shall be] expelled from the region.” Nevertheless
the l on lung is highly uncertain, so this is only a tentative translation.
The extensive damage allows us only to see a few words (or frag-
ments of words) in lines 28-37. It is possible that a sanctio continues
in these lines, as there are (likely) two more instances of the word
gnas dbyung in lines 29 and 31, which may either refer to an
expulsion from a region or else a demotion in position or rank.14
The end of the document would almost certainly have contained a
final protocol / eschatocol, containing the document’s date, and per-
haps its place of issue. These crucial pieces of information would
have served to firmly establish the document’s historical context.

––––––––––
13
Schneider 2002: 416, n. 11.
14
See the entry for gnas dbyung in Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: 1549.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 113

A closer inspection of the inscription’s structural and linguistic fea-

tures is needed in order to situate the inscription’s place in the vast spec-
trum of official Tibetan documents.15 As an inscription, however, this
document is relatively unique in terms of its structure and content, at
least in terms of the extant inscriptions in Tibetan monasteries hith-
erto documented.16 The inscription’s inclusion in the official style of
Tibetan writing suggests its initial existence as a document separate
from the wall, and not, as in the case of other paper inscriptions, as a
copy of a previous (disintegrating or disintegrated) wall inscription.17
Without being able to see the entire document, or determine with
certainty when or under what conditions the document was posted, it
is difficult to postulate on the inscription’s function within the
monastery or within Zha lu’s larger social world. The document may
have been selected for use as a public notice, perhaps because of the
importance of the events narrated therein. In this case, the document
––––––––––
15
A preliminary comment to be made here is that the extant material found in the
inscription does not closely resemble the structure and contents of “monastic constitu-
tions” (bca' yig). This is the case with reference to both bca' yig documents in general
and two documents in particular from Zha lu monastery that are early examples (or
precursors) to bca' yig texts: Bu ston’s Mkhan po gdan sa pa la snyan skul gyi yi ge
(“A Reminder Letter to the Seat-Holding Abbots”) and Mkhan slob dge 'dun dang
bcas pa'i spyi la snyan bskul ba'i yi ge (“A Reminder Letter to all of the Khenpos,
Teachers, and the Community of Monks”). These texts provide advice on a range of
matters to Zha lu’s monastic community, resembling some of the structures and con-
tents of later texts that are officially designated bca' yig. Following Ellingson’s study
of fifty-one bca' yig, these documents tend to feature broader structures that incorpo-
rate a wider range of content than seen in the paper inscription’s remains. Almost all
bca' yig, for instance, contain sections on the importance of discipline (tshul 'khrims)
and the Vinaya ('dul ba) (see Mkhan po gdan sa pa la snyan skul gyi yi ge, fol. 86r,
and Mkhan slob dge 'dun dang bcas pa'i spyi la snyan bskul ba'i yi ge, fol. 89r); bca'
yig also contain sections about the history and structure of the monastery, duties of
monastic officials, entrance requirements for new monks, provisions governing ritual
performance, and much more. Besides the fact that the inscription’s extant material
appears to focus on one particular issue—differing in scope from bca' yig—it also
explicitly addresses a mixed lay and monastic audience, and recounts a judicial proce-
dure that appears to have the participation of lay participants. The document is hence
not likely exclusively focused on Zha lu’s monastic congregation. On bca' yig, see
Cabezón 1997, Ellingson 1990. Of particular importance to the inscription might be a
text entitled Zhwa lu ri phug gi bca' khrims yi ge rab gsal nor bu written by Ngag
dbang dpal ldan chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1850-1886)—currently held within the Potala.
16
As it is partially addressed to a lay audience, and embodies a cautionary tone, the
inscription loosely resembles the “Admonitory Inscription” at Tabo (Tauscher 1999).
17
Cf. De Rossi Filibeck 1999: 190f. It is well known that Zha lu monastery housed
a cache of official documents. See Tucci 1949: 670-673, 705, n. 938, 747-755.
114 BENJAMIN WOOD

could have been meant to serve a cautionary function, posted in the

context of related (or even entirely new) troubles. The inscription
also may have been intended as a reminder for a newly established
monastic rule that once appeared in the document’s (now obliterated)
lower sections. Still another possibility is that the inscription com-
memorated the resolution of the conflict––a testament, perhaps, to the
talents of the monastery’s thirteenth seat holder.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There are two possibilities for who is meant by the inscription’s “thir-
teenth seat [holder]” (gdan sa bcu gsum pa) of Zha lu: he is either the
thirteenth abbot in the abbatial succession following Zha lu’s found-
er, Lce btsun shes rab ’byung gnas, or the thirteenth abbot in the suc-
cesssion following Bu ston rin chen grub.18 Following Zha lu’s
founder Lce btsun shes rab ’byung gnas, the thirteenth seat holder
would be Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1365-1448).19 In the
succession following Bu ston rin chen grub, on the other hand, the
thirteenth abbot would be Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502-
1566).20
Presently clear in the inscription are the words “the thirteenth seat
[holder] of the glorious Zha lu Gser khang” (dpal zha lu gser khang
gi dgan sa bcu gsuṃ pa). Unfortunately, the abbot’s name is not en-
tirely clear: one element contains the uncertain reading of blo gsal.
Another element of the abbot’s name, recorded as grags pa rgyal
mtshan by Ricca and Fournier was likely in a section of the inscrip-
tion that has been torn away since their transcription was published in
1996. Only the final n of the purported grags pa rgyal mtshan is still
visible as of 2010. The element dpal bzang po, which is clearly

––––––––––
18
Blo gsal bstan skyong (b. 1804) numbers Zha lu’s abbots in two lineages in his
Zha lu gdan rabs. In the “Old Abbatial Succession” (Mkhan brgyud rnying ma, 354-
366), each biography of the ten abbots who reigned at Zha lu before the arrival of Bu
ston begins with the same statement, “the sixth generation of abbots …” (mkhan rabs
drug pa ni …), “the seventh generation of abbots …” (mkhan rabs bdun pa ni …), and
so forth. In the “New Abbatial Succession” (Mkhan brgyud gsar ma, 366-422), the
abbots’ biographies begin with the words “the nineteenth monastic seat [holder] …”
(gdan sa bcu dgu pa …), “the twentieth monastic seat [holder] …” (gdan sa nyi shu
pa …).
19
See his biographies in the Zha lu gdan rabs, 101-105 and 372.
20
See ibid., 268-279 and 385.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 115

visible, is presented as the final segment of the name of the abbot

Grags pa rgyal mtshan in the Zha lu gdan rabs21 and the Lce'i gdung
rabs,22 while neither text attests to an element of his name resembling
the uncertain blo gsal. Instead, we find the element 'jam dbyangs or
'jam pa'i dbyangs preceding grags pa rgyal mtshan in the Zha lu
gdan rabs23 and the Lce'i gdung rabs.24
Ricca and Fournier hypothesize that the inscription contained the
words of Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po––that is, the thirteenth
seat holder in the lineage following Lce btsun shes rab ’byung gnas––
and dated the inscription to the years 1411-1415 based on evidence in
Tucci’s partial translation of the Lce'i gdung rabs.25 It is more likely,
however, that Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho––the thirteenth seat
holder in the lineage following Bu ston rin chen grub––is the abbot
described at the beginning of the inscription. In Tshar chen blo gsal
rgya mtsho’s biography written by the fifth Dalai Lama, Ngag dbang
blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-1682) in 1676, we find all the elements
of the abbot’s name (likely) mentioned in the inscription, i.e., blo gsal
rgya mtsho grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po.26 Nevertheless, as
the identity of the abbot in the inscription is far from certain, the fol-
lowing postulations on the inscription’s content should be taken as
mere conjecture pending the location either of a textual witness for
the inscription, or else older photographic documentation.27
A passage from Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s biography found
in the nineteenth-century Zha lu gdan rabs, itself drawn from an
earlier biography of this abbot written by the fifth Dalai Lama in
1676, corroborates the suggestion that Tshar chen blo gsal rgya
––––––––––
21
Zha lu gdan rabs, 101, 161-2.
22
Lce'i gdung rabs, fol. 52r.
23
Zha lu gdan rabs, 101.
24
Lce'i gdung rabs, fol. 52r.
25
Ricca & Fournier 1996: 358. Ricca and Fournier formulate this date on the basis
of Tucci’s From the Genealogies of Ža lu (Tucci 1949: II, 656-662), a partial trans-
lation of the Lce’i gdung rabs. Tucci neither specifies the name of this text, nor does
he comment on the manuscript of the Lce’i gdung rabs. From the Genealogies of Ža lu
is very likely a translation of the Lce’i gdung rabs, although numerous passages were
omitted by Tucci. Page numbers and content are precisely correlated between this
manuscript and Tucci’s translation and the passages that are marked with square
brackets in the manuscript are omitted from Tucci’s translation.
26
Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar A, 363.
27
My attempts at obtaining Ricca and Fournier’s records of this inscription were
unsuccessful.
116 BENJAMIN WOOD

mtsho is the thirteenth seat holder mentioned in the inscription. Fol-

lowing his enthronement at Zha lu in the wood-hare year [1554-5] at
the age of 54, we read in the Zha lu gdan rabs that the abbot revived a
tradition at Zha lu of propitiating the deity indicated in the text as ma
he (“buffalo”), most likely a buffalo-faced form of Yama, “the lord of
death” (Gshin rje; Yama).28 At that time (presumably still in the
wood-hare year), we read that Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho wrote
(mdzad) an inscription (sgo yig).29
The Zha lu gdan rabs provides a description of this inscription
that partially resembles the intitulatio of the inscription edited below.
The first element of the inscription described in the Zha lu gdan rabs
includes a pronouncement (bka') of the sublime and glorious masters
(dpal ldan bla ma dam pa rnams), who are described as root- and
lineage- (rtsa ba dang brgyud) bla mas, beginning with Vajradhara,
and headed by the omniscient Bu ston and [his spiritual] sons (bu ston
thams cad mkhyen pa yab sras kyis gtso mdzad).30 Although not a
verbatim copy of the inscription presented below, several shared ele-
ments are present in both, including the same noun of speech, bka'.
The second element of the Zha lu gdan rabs-inscription is a “pro-
nouncement of Yamāntaka” (gshin rje gshed kyi lung). Yamāntaka
(gshin rje gshed) is not present in the extant parts of the inscription
below, and the latter document instead lists a group of deities, includ-
ing Vaiśravaṇa (rnam thos sras), and (likely) Vajrapāṇi (phyag na
rdo rje). Nevertheless, the word lung marks the second “pronounce-
ment” in both the inscription below and the Zha lu gdan rabs-inscrip-
tion. The third pronouncement in the Zha lu gdan rabs’ description of
Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s inscription bears the closest resem-
blance to the third pronouncement in the inscription below. The Zha
lu gdan rabs-inscription is described as containing the words (yi ge)
of the “thirteenth seat holder of the glorious Zha lu Gser khang, the
Śākya-bhikṣu [and] Vajra[yāna lineage]-holder” (dpal zhwa lu gser
khang gi bdan sa bcu gsum pa shākya'i dge slong rdo rje 'dzin pa).31
Although the abbot here is unnamed, the same line is also present in

––––––––––
28
Nebesky-Wojkowitz, R. de 1996: 85.
29
Zha lu gdan rabs, 277; Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar, 598. Blo gsal rgya mtsho
rnam thar reads sgo yig, “inscription,” or “doorway sign,” while the Zha lu gdan rabs
reads sgo yig bka' shog “official document-inscription(?).”
30
Zha lu gdan rabs, 277; Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar, 598.
31
Zha lu gdan rabs, 277; Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar, 598.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 117

the inscription below, except that “words” appears as gtam instead of

yi ge.
The same parallel structure appears to function in both the Zha lu
gdan rabs’ description of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s inscrip-
tion, and the inscription presented below. Both feature three nouns of
proclamation: in the inscription below, we find bka', lung, and gtam,
while in the Zha lu gdan rabs (and in the abbot’s biography by the
fifth Dalai Lama), we find bka', lung, and yi ge. Each noun likewise
has its origin in similar (although not precisely the same) groups of
speakers in both the inscription and the Zha lu gdan rabs. Never-
theless, the Zha lu gdan rabs’ description of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya
mtsho’s inscription diverges from the extant content of the inscription
presented below as it describes an “exhortation (zlo ba) to the hu-
man and non-human demons who abide and wander in the three exis-
tences,”32 and also begins its description with a mantra that is not
present in the extant content of the inscription below.33
The partial resemblances between the Zha lu gdan rabs’ descrip-
tion of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s inscription and the inscrip-
tion presented below suggest the possibility that the inscription was
incompletely remembered in the generation of Tshar chen blo gsal
rgya mtsho’s life story. The important differences between the two
accounts throw into question the degree to which the textual account
of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s inscription is actually about the
inscription included in this paper.
Following its description of the inscription, the Zha lu gdan rabs
provides an account of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho performing a
ritual wherein he sets down his vajra on a mask (zhal brnyan), pre-
sumably of Gshin rje,34 commanding Gshin rje (here called “the
pledge-bound dharma king;” dam can chos rgyal) and his consort to
annihilate enemies and obstructers (dgra bgegs). During the ritual,
the abbot’s face grows entirely deep-red, the audience becomes terri-
fied and trembles, and a certain particularly hateful enemy of Zha lu

––––––––––
32
srid ba [read pa] gsum na gnas shing phyug'i [read rgyu ba'i(?)] 'byung pho
[read po(?)] mi dang mi ma yin pa rnams la zlo ba (Zha lu gdan rabs, 277); srid pa
gsum na gnas shing rgyu ba'i 'byung po mi dang mi ma yin pa rnams la zlo ba (Blo
gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar, 598).
33
shrī madgu ru badzra bhai ra wā ya na maḥ (Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar,
598).
34
See this mask’s origin story in Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar, 596.
118 BENJAMIN WOOD

instantly vomits blood and dies.35 As a result, the Zha lu gdan rabs
tells us, high officials(?) (sde pa yas phyin) who wanted to plunder
the monastery’s land holdings (chos gzhis) were unable to do so for
many years out of paralyzing fear.36
One might propose that these defeated enemies of Zha lu are the
very same culprits described in the inscription below. This, and any
other hypotheses on the connections between the Zha lu gdan rabs
and the inscription contained in this paper is complicated by the
presence of another paper inscription in Zha lu’s mgon khang, also
transcribed by Ricca and Fournier.37 This inscription is also written in
cursive script on paper, but by a different hand, and is in a much
better state of preservation.38 Written in verse, it exhorts the pro-
tection of a group of deities and dedicates offerings to them. These
deities include Gshin rje, who is described as the “pledge-bound
dharma king Gshin rje” (gshin rje'i rgyal po dam can) and as a “red-
faced wrathful buffalo” (ma he khros pa zhal dmar).39 Could it be that
memories of details from these two inscriptions were combined to-
gether in the writing of Tshar chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s biogra-
phies? Only an in-depth study of these two paper inscriptions, Tshar
chen blo gsal rgya mtsho’s biographies, as well as the abbot’s many
available writings could answer this question. As a step forward in
this direction, however, it is important to note that physical objects
mentioned in Tibetan hagiography and historiography fulfill their
own specific ideological functions and may bear only very loose cor-
relations to the physical remains found in monasteries.
One possible scenario left to explore here is that the “thirteenth-
seat holder” is in fact Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po. This is a
highly unlikely suggestion, not only because of the important (though
suspect) parallels present between the inscription contained below
and Blo gsal rgya mtsho’s inscription as described in the Zha lu gdan
rabs, but also because the uncertain reading blo gsal cannot be at-
tested to for Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po in the Zha lu gdan
––––––––––
35
Zha lu gdan rabs, 277.
36
Ibid., 277. On chos gzhis and other administrative terms, see Jahoda 2007.
37
The inscription’s location is described by Ricca & Fournier 1996: 358 and tran-
scribed as “Inscription B” on p. 363.
38
The inscription is also damaged on the bottom and lacks a date and statement of
authorship according to its transcription by Ricca and Fournier. I have not yet had the
opportunity to inspect Tropper’s photographs of this inscription in detail.
39
Ricca & Fournier 1996: 363.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 119

rabs or the Lce'i gdung rabs. Nevertheless, the scenario is not com-
pletely impossible. Blo gsal rgya mtsho may even have included the
words of Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po in the inscription.
One piece of evidence to support the distant possibility that Grags
pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po is somehow implicated in the inscrip-
tion below is because the conflict narrated therein bears some resem-
blance to what is described in the Zha lu gdan rabs as the “great quar-
rel” (yo 'khyoms chen po / che ba).40 This calamity is mentioned twice
in the Zha lu gdan rabs: once in the biography of Grags pa rgyal
mtshan dpal bzang po (1365-1448),41 and again in the biography of
his successor, ’Khrul zhig tshul khrims rgyal mtshan (1399-1473).42
Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’s biography contains a record
of a sermon delivered to a large assembly in the year 1440. Although
the record of this sermon is entirely different from the inscription, the
two accounts bear some striking similarities.
We read in the Zha lu gdan rabs that in the year 1440 Grags pa
rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po summoned all of Zha lu’s bla mas,
officers (las sne), and lay leaders (sde'i khur 'dzin) to his residence,
furnished them with a great feast, and issued a sermon of advice
describing troubles at the monastery.43 The audience in this assembly
resembles the inscription’s own diverse audience of “monastic and
lay communities, lay persons and monks, and great nomads of Tibet.”
As the inscription precedes its narration of troubles with an aren-
ga that praises Zha lu and its tradition, Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal

––––––––––
40
This phrase is derived from the verb yo ba, “to be slanted,” and 'khyom ba, “to
wobble,” or “to be disturbed.” See Jäschke 1881: 514. The Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen
mo defines yo 'khyoms as 'khrugs pa'am gnod rkyen; 'khrugs pa refers to a distur-
bance, such as a “quarrel,” “disagreement,” “feud,” etc., and gnod rkyen means “con-
dition of harm.” The following example sentence is provided in the Bod rgya tshig
mdzod chen mo (p. 2597): mi ngan de tshos spyod ngan byas te mang tshogs khrod du
yo 'khyoms chen po bzos song, “those bad people misbehaved and created a great
disturbance (yo 'khyoms chen po) in the community.”
41
Zha lu gdan rabs, 103.
42
Ibid., 147.
43
Two accounts of this same assembly are given in the Zha lu gdan rabs: once in
the biography of Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (beginning on 103), and the
other in the biography of ’Khrul zhig tshul khrims rgyal mtshan (beginning on 146).
The date of the assembly is provided in the latter biography on 146. It reads: rje nyid
kyi dgung lo zhe gnyis pa lcags sprel lo // hor zla bcu gnyis pa'i tshes gcig la, “[in the]
Lord [’Khrul zhig tshul khrims rgyal mtshan]’s forty-second year, [in] the iron-ape
year [1440], on the first day of the twelfth month.”
120 BENJAMIN WOOD

bzang po’s sermon in the Zha lu gdan rabs features a similar state-
ment exalting Zha lu and its tradition of Bu ston rin chen grub (Bu
lugs), saying: “This great monastery [of] ours of Zha lu Gser khang is
like the second Bodhgayā of Tibet, [where] the omniscient father Bu
ston, who is like the second Buddha, [and his spiritual] sons estab-
lished a great tradition of the Buddhist teachings and caused [those
teachings]––dissimilar to other sets of teachings––to flourish.”44
Again, as in the inscription below, the Zha lu gdan rabs then juxta-
poses its description of recent calamities against the preceding ideal-
ized tradition of Zha lu. As in the inscription, the details of the con-
flict in the Zha lu gdan rabs are vague: its culprits are described as
“senseless people” (mi bsam shes med pa),45 resembling the inscrip-
tion’s descriptions of culprits as ignorant (ci yang mi shes) and as
fools (rmongs pa).
Although the origin of the “great quarrel” is never explained in
the Zha lu gdan rabs, we are given several pictures of Zha lu’s queru-
lous culture of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in its
biographies. In the biography of So ston Śākya dpal (1355-1432),46
we learn that this master flees the monastery in response to a heated
conflict. The biography relates that a great argument and fight (kha
mchu dang 'khrug long) erupted among the newcomer students
(bshad [grwa gra] gsar ba rnams) about an offering given by one of
the kings (gong ma) of Tibet, based at Nedong.47 Although it is still a
remote possibility, these calamitous events––perhaps the “great quar-
rel” itself or some related conflict––may have engendered the com-
position of this paper inscription. More likely, however, the inscrip-
tion’s resemblance to these passages in the Zha lu gdan rabs of four-
teenth and fifteenth century conflicts is simply coincidental. Further
research into Zha lu’s vast historical record might reveal further
details that would help to clarify the inscription’s content, and per-
haps context.
––––––––––
44
rang re zhwa lu gser khang gi gtsug lag khang chen po 'di bod kyi rdo rje gdan
gnyis pa lta bu yin cing / sangs rgyas gnyis pa lta bu'i bu ston thams cad mkhyen pa
yab sras kyis sang rgyas kyi bstan pa'i srol chen po btsugs te dar zhing rgyas par
mdzad pa'i chos sde gzhan dang mi 'dra ba yin (Zha lu gdan rabs, 103).
45
Zha lu gdan rabs, 103.
46
Ibid., 123-139.
47
This might be Gong ma Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1374-1432), based at Nedong,
who is noted in the Zha lu gdan rabs to have been a patron to the abbot Grags pa rgyal
mtshan dpal bzang po. See 102-3.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 121

REMARKS ON THE EDITION AND TRANSLATION

Save for one verse from the Abhidharmakośa,48 I know of no other

witnesses for the inscription’s content besides Ricca and Fournier’s
transcription, which records lines 1-25 of the visible 37 lines. I have
noted Ricca and Fournier’s variances from my reading of the inscrip-
tion in the edition’s footnotes (followed by the letters RF). Ricca and
Fournier’s transcription is an invaluable source since it captures
material that has disappeared from the inscription through damage
since their record was made in 1996. In some cases, as will be noted
in the footnotes, words clearly present in Tropper’s recording of 2010
have not been transcribed by Ricca and Fournier. In other cases, er-
rors and uncertain readings in the inscription appear already emended
(but not annotated) in their transcription.49 Only four explicit sugges-
tions for emendations appear in Ricca and Fournier’s transcription.
The inscription contains numerous instances of contracted writing
(bskungs yig)––for instance, thaṃd for thams cad, zhabsen for zhabs
sen, rine for rin po che, dpaldan for dpal ldan, dgi for dag gi, and so
forth. Final m almost exclusively appears as a bindu placed above the
word. Several spelling peculiarities are also present: gzhug or gzhugs,
for instance, are likely the equivalent to the “standard” bzhugs. Both
the standard mark for shad in the form of a vertical line, as well as
one commonly appearing in the shape of a colon (:) have all been
indicated by the mark /. Uncertain readings are largely the result of
minor damage (where most of a letter or word remains) and, less
commonly, of uncertain orthographic features.50
––––––––––
48
tshul gnas thos dang bsam ldan pas // bsgom ba [read pa] la ni rab tu sbyor;
found on p. 41 of the Chos mngon pa'i mdzod kyi tshig le'ur byas pa (Abhidharma-
kośakārikā; Adk in the edition’s footnotes).
49
In addition, Ricca and Fournier’s transcription does not indicate the beginnings
and endings of lines.
50
The inscription’s script features numerous orthographic peculiarities. My lack of
knowledge of this script’s use in comparative documents precludes a clear determina-
tion on what is actually unique in this document, and I am hence only able to offer a
few tentative reflections here. The letters p and s are nearly indistinguishable in the
inscription, with p often (but not exclusively) having a slightly rounder shape. I have
not marked p and s as uncertain readings in every case, largely because I am suf-
ficiently “certain” of the reading given the context of the word wherein p/s appears.
The letter g sometimes appears in two parts: a circle (somewhat resembling b) imme-
diately to the left of (but detached from) a vertical line (resembling a short d). Only
some of the uncertain cases of g have been marked. In some cases, the ’ appears as
122 BENJAMIN WOOD

As noted above, of the 37 lines of text now extant (as of 2010),

only five lines of text (13-17) reach both the right and left margins.
Entirely obliterated sections of lines have been indicated in the edi-
tion by marking an estimation of the number of missing ‘letters’—for
instance: “[3-5]” indicates that approximately 3-5 ‘letters’ would
have fit into a damaged space. For lines 31-37, I do not employ this
system of indicating damaged spaces, since the vast majority of the
lines is either highly damaged or completely obliterated. For these
final lines, I merely list the visible fragments from left to right. It is
imperative that those interested in these final lines inspect their
photographic documentation as most recordings here would likely
appear differently to different readers.
In the edition’s notes I often annotate these markers, providing hy-
potheses for the missing content. I generally infer the number of
missing letters through a comparison to the five complete lines (13-
17).51 In the edition’s annotations, I list both hypothetical reconstruc-
tions of (partially or entirely) damaged words and suggest emenda-
tions to “errors,” or “non-standard” Classical Tibetan spellings, in-
cluding instances of contracted writing (bskungs yig). The emenda-
tions are differentiated from the hypothetical reconstructions of dam-
aged words by the use of bold font for the emendations.52
Where the inscription has been damaged since Ricca and Fournier’s
transcription, I place translated material derived from that transcrip-
tion in angle brackets < >. Where I supply information hypothesized
to have existed in sections damaged even before Ricca and Fournier’s
transcription, I place these words in curly brackets { }. These in-
stances of inference are cited in both the translation and edition. The
terse, obscure, and/or colloquial expressions are unpacked into postu-
__________
two curved, mirroring vertical lines. I have not marked these cases as uncertain. A
common orthographic peculiarity of the inscription’s script is of a na ro extended
slightly farther than usual to the right. Being such a common pattern, I have not
rendered such cases of extended na ros as uncertain readings.
51
Lines 13-17 have an average of about 54 ‘letters’. After subtracting the missing
numbers from this “average” in a given line, I make further adjustments to these cal-
culations based on word spacing and visual judging.
52
I do not offer emendations for uncertain readings––unless otherwise indicated, I
proceed in the translation as if the uncertain readings (marked by underlined words or
letters) are correct. In the edition’s notes, I compare these uncertain readings to Ricca
and Fournier’s record. I do not compare divergences regarding Ricca and Fournier’s
recordings of shad.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 123

lated glosses in the translation’s notes, and many of the spelling vari-
ations have been supplied with suggested “standard” Classical Tibet-
an substitutes. Many of these instances are merely hypothetical.

EDITORIAL SIGNS

{1}, {2}, {3} etc. beginning of a line

/ shad and a sign resembling a semicolon
t uncertain reading (underlined letter)
= illegible ‘letter’53
- illegible letter(s) that formed part of a partly
legible ‘letter’, with one hyphen representing
up to three letters
ṃ bindu
xxxpaxxx insertion above the line
<1>, <2>, <3> etc. empty space, with the respective number de-
noting how many ‘letters’ fit into this space.
The more or less regular instances found at
the end of a line and in front, in between or
after a (double) shad are not indicated.
[3-5] Entirely obliterated (torn away) sections, with
an estimation of the number of missing ‘let-
ters’

In the translation, I employ the following:

<> material recorded in Ricca and Fournier’s edi-

tion, but now (presumably) lost to damage
{} material inferred in damaged sections
[] conceptual / grammatical inferences
(…) a break in the translation due to a damaged
section
[…] a break in the translation due the absence of
any suitable English rendering of the extant
material
––––––––––
53
A ‘letter’ refers to “any combination of letters in the Tibetan alphabet that
occupy in vertical arrangement of the letter sequence the space of a single grapheme,”
whereas letter refers to “the single signs for consonants or vowel modification only”
(Steinkellner & Luczanits 1999: 15, n. 12).
124 BENJAMIN WOOD

EDITION

{1} [8-10]54 oṃ55 swa sti56 siddhaṃ57 / rgyal ba thams cad gyi58
mkhyen==59 nus60 pa61 gcig tu bsdus62 pa'i bd-=63 [10-12]64
{2} [8-10]65 gsal gyi rnaṃ par 'phrul pa66 / rgya gar kasmi ra'i ma hā
paṇḍi ta67 shākya shrī bha ḍra68 [12-14]69

––––––––––
54
Coming immediately before the benediction, this missing fragment in line 1 is
not likely to have contained any text.
55
See my note in the introduction above for a discussion on the position of the na
ro above root letters in this inscription.
56
sti : sti RF. The t might also be read as d.
57
siddhaṃ : siddhi RF. This bindu is unusually narrow (compared to others in the
inscription) and might hence possibly be read as a gi gu, as Ricca and Fournier appar-
ently have.
58
gyi : kyi (kyi RF).
59
mkhyen== : mkhyen pa'i? (mkhyen pa'i RF)
60
nus : nus RF.
61
pa : pa RF.
62
bsdus : bsdus RF.
63
bd-= : bdag(?) (omitted RF)
64
If the last (incomplete) word of line 1 were bdag, it might be followed by nyid chen
po—hence, bdag nyid chen po (mahātman). This is a somewhat likely possibility since
the first three (extant) lines of the inscription appear to be a concatenation of epithets
for Bu ston rin chen grub, and bdag nyid chen po commonly describes Bu ston (e.g.,
Bu ston rnam thar, fol. 8). With approximately 10-12 ‘letters’ able to fill this damaged
section, one possibility, reflected in the translation, is that bdag nyid chen po is
followed by the words sangs rgyas, giving us eleven ‘letters’ all together; sangs rgyas
might have preceded Ricca and Fournier’s recording of gsum pa rab preceding the
(now extant) word gsal beginning line 2. Taken all together this hypothetical scenario
gives us the words sangs rgyas gsum pa rab gsal, “the third Buddha Pradyota.”
Unfortunately, Ricca and Fournier do not provide line numbers, only giving us an
ellipsis (…) where damage occurs, so it is uncertain whether or not they observed line
2 beginning with the word gsum in 1996. The words sangs rgyas gsum pa rab preced-
ing gsal are reasonable for reasons of context. See my note in the translation below.
65
Ricca and Fournier list the words gsum pa rab before the first extant word of
line 2 visible in Tropper’s photographs from 2010, suggesting that a fragment con-
taining these words was torn away between the years 1996 and 2010. See the above
note for a discussion of these words.
66
pa : ba RF.
67
ma hā paṇḍi ta : mahāpaṇ ḍi ta RF.
68
ḍra : ṭa RF. The letter appears to be a backwards d, or possibly a backwards t
(marking the Sanskrit retroflex dentals ṭ or ḍ), possibly with an appended r subscript.
69
This damaged section may have included some of the words: gangs can, gangs
can gyi, or possibly, bod gangs can gyi. See the following note for a discussion.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 125

{3} [13-15]70 gsuṃ thaṃd71 kyi gtsug72 rgyan nor bu'i khri la73
zhabsen74 padma mngon par bkod pa'i snyigs dus kyi rgya=75 [8-10]76
{4} [10-12]77n78 [2]yab79 sras g=bor80 gzhugs81 pa'i82 rtsa83 rgyud kyi
dpaldan84 bla ma daṃ pa rnaṃs kyi bka' // <2> gsang [7-9]85
{5} [13-15]86'i yidaṃ87 dkyil 'khor gyi lha tshogs rnaṃs88 dang / chos
––––––––––
70
Ricca and Fournier’s edition of this inscription lists the following words appearing
before the word gsuṃ: ljongs du mkhas btsun bzang. This would corroborate the sug-
gestion above that a section of the paper in this area was torn away between the years
1996 and 2010. The words ljongs du may have been preceded by gangs can, gangs
can gyi, or possibly, bod gangs can gyi, giving us “in the Land of Snow,” or “in Tibet,
the Land of Snow.”
71
thaṃd : thams cad (thams cad RF).
72
gtsug : gtsug RF.
73
la : la RF.
74
zhabsen : zhabs sen (zhabs sen RF).
75
rgya= : rgyal (possibly preceding a ba in the following damage––i.e., rgyal ba)?
(rgyan RF)
76
This damaged section may have contained the word thams cad. See the fol-
lowing note for an explanation.
77
Ricca and Fournier record the words mkhyen pa chen po bu ston rin po che ap-
pearing before yab, the first completely visible extant word in line 4. The fragment
mkhyen pa chen po bu ston might fit into the postulated 10-12 spaces at the beginning
of the line. Of Ricca and Fournier’s recorded rin, only the final n hypothetically
remains. Ricca and Fournier’s recorded po che would fit into the torn space of about
two ‘letters’, although their reading(?) seems somewhat questionable here, as one can
still see what appear to be the long downstrokes of two letters. Coming before mkhyen
pa chen po bu ston rin, I would postulate a thams cad, perhaps reaching back into the
end of line 3, giving an expected combination of epithets before and after Bu ston,
“the great all-knowing Bu ston Rinpoche(?)” (thams cad mkhyen pa chen po bu ston
rin po che[?]).
78
n : rin? (rin RF)
79
[2]yab : po che yab? (po che yab RF)
80
g=bor : gtso bor (gtso bor RF).
81
gzhugs : bzhugs(?) (bzhugs RF).
82
pa'i : pa'ī RF.
83
rtsa : rtsa RF.
84
dpaldan : dpal ldan (dpal ldan RF).
85
Ricca and Fournier list the words dpal phyag na rdo rje la sogs pa'i coming
before the first completely extant visible word of line 5, yidaṃ. If this were the case, it
would not at all be unreasonable that the last extant syllable in line 4, gsang, was
followed by sngags kyi bdag po. All together we have the hypothetical combination
between lines 4 and 5 of sngags kyi bdag po dpal phyag na rdo rje, “glorious Vajra-
pāṇi, the guardian of the Vajrayāna.”
86
The damaged section contains the following words in Ricca and Fournier’s
edition: dpal phyag na rdo rje la sogs pa('i). See the above note for a discussion.
87
yidaṃ : yi dam (yi dam RF).
126 BENJAMIN WOOD

skyong pa'i89 rgyal po chen po rnam thos sras zhi drag90 lasogs pa91
{6} [13-15]92kyi lung / dpal zha lu gser93 khang gi gdan sa bcu gsuṃ
pa shākya'i dge slong rdo rje 'dzin pa blo gsal94 [3-5]95
{7} [8-10]96n97 dpal bzang po zhes grags pa'i bden pa'i gta-98 / /99

[square red seal]

<a space of approximately three lines of text high>

{8} chos grwa chen po 'di nyid la rtogs pa'i100 lha sde / mi sde / skya
ser / bod101 'brog / chen po / slob dpon / la102[13-15]
{9} dang bcas pas dgongs103 shing104 nges rgyu105 la / spyir106 'gro ba
__________
88
rnaṃs : rnam RF.
89
pa'i : ba'i RF.
90
drag : khro RF. This may be an interpretative reading on the part of Ricca and
Fournier. The g on drag is damaged and might also be read as n.
91
lasogs pa : la(s) sogs pa (omitted RF). The uncertain pa is missing a tsheg
(where there is presently no damage to the paper); lasogs occurs quite frequently in
early hand-written sources and is probably a bskungs yig for las sogs (which is an
[early] variant of la sogs). For examples see, e.g., Tropper’s contribution to this
volume (panels no. 5, l. 1; 6, l. 1; 10, l. 5; 11, l. 4; 13, l. 2; 14, l. 1; etc.)
92
Ricca and Fournier’s edition reads the following words before kyi: dpal mgon
chos skyong bsrung ma rnams.
93
gser : gser RF.
94
blo gsal : blo gsal RF. The position of the na ro makes it unclear which word is
being marked. The b on blo, being open at the top, could easily be read as s. Never-
theless, the letter is smaller than a typical s in this inscription.
95
Based on the fact that Tropper’s 2010 photos do not show the words grags pa
rgyal mtshan following the uncertain reading of blo gsal in line 6 and preceding the
words dpal bzang po in line 7, I propose that a piece has been torn off since Ricca and
Fournier’s transcription in 1996. The fragment n coming before the words dpal bzang
po at the beginning of line 7 may have been the end of the now missing grags pa rgyal
mtshan. The words rgya mtsho may have followed blo gsal, giving us Blo gsal rgya
mtsho grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, the final segment in the name of Tshar
chen blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502-1566) found at the beginning of Blo gsal rgya mtsho
rnam thar A, 364.
96
See the above note.
97
]n : mtshan? (mtshan RF) See n. 38 above.
98
gta- : gtaṃ (gtam RF).
99
The line appears to end earlier here, likely signalling the end of the paragraph.
100
rtogs pa'i : gtogs pa'i(?) (rtogs RF).
101
bod : bod RF.
102
la : omitted RF.
103
dgongs : dgongs RF.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 127

yongs kyi phan pa dang bde ba107 ma lus pa sangs rgyas kyi bsta=108
[7-9]109
{10} yun ring du gnas pa kho na la rag lus110 pa yin / khyad par
chos111 grwa chen po 'di112 nyid113 bod kha ba can pa yongs[9-11]
{11} yul daṃ114 =r115 gyur pa'i spyi'i116 mchod gnas / zab pa dang
rgya che ba'i mdo sngags kyi bstan pa rinoe'i117 'byung ’-u118[11-13]
{12} gzhugs119 rnaṃs kyang / [1]120 tshul gnas thos121 dang bsaṃdan122
pa123 / / sgoṃ pa124 la ni rab tu sbyor / / zhes gsungs pa [3-5]tshul125
[4-6]126
{13} dag pa dang ldan pa'i sgo nas daṃ pa'i chos la rang don du
thosaṃ127 sgoṃ gsuṃ dang / gzhan don du =chad128 rtsod129 rtsoṃ[3]-u=s130

__________
104
shing : shing RF.
105
rgyu : rgyud RF.
106
spyir : sbyir RF.
107
bde ba : bde ba RF.
108
bsta= : bstan(?) (bstan RF).
109
Ricca and Fournier record a pa following the word bstan. The words rin po che
may have followed sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa in this damaged space.
110
lus : lus RF.
111
chos : chos RF.
112
'di : 'di RF.
113
nyid : nyid RF.
114
daṃ : dam RF.
115
=r : par(?) (par RF).
116
spyi'i : phyi'i RF.
117
rinoe'i : rin po che'i (rin po che'i RF).
118
’-u : omitted RF. I propose the word khungs here in the damaged area, directly
following 'byung, as in 'byung khungs, “source.”
119
gzhugs : bzhugs(?) (bzhugs RF).
120
This torn piece was probably blank.
121
thos : thos RF, Adk.
122
bsaṃdan : bsam ldan (bstin RF; bsam ldan Adk).
123
pa : pas(?) (pa RF; pas Adk).
124
pa : pa RF; ba Adk.
125
tshul : omitted RF. The damaged space preceding the syllable may have read bzhin.
126
I propose the words khrims rnam par in this damaged section. Following the ex-
tant word tshul and preceding the extant word dag pa at the beginning of line 13, with
the addition of khrims rnam par, we have the complete expression tshul khrims rnam
par dag pa.
127
thosaṃ : thos bsam (thos bsam RF).
128
=chad : 'chad RF.
129
rtsod : rtsod RF.
130
rtsoṃ[3]-u=s : rtsoṃ gsuṃ pos or rtsoṃ gsum sgrub? (rtsoms gsum RF)
128 BENJAMIN WOOD

dus 'da' ba cig dgos131

{14} rgyu yin pa 'dug132 na'ang / spyir133 dus snyig134 pa'i135 dbang
dang / bye brag tu / mkhan136 thog riṃ pa gzhug137 mi gzhug138 kyi
skabs seng139 dang chen140
{15} slob gros d=ng141 rnaṃs kyang la142 la =ugs143 bsaṃ chung zhing /
'ga' zhig spobs pa zhuṃ zhing sgyid lug=144 sog145 kyi skyon nad la
sten146 /
{16} ci yang mi shes shi[3]147 yang[4-5]rmongs148 pa / phyi ru wa 'dra
zhing nang du stag 'dra ba'i rtsab149 hral rnaṃs snyi150 ma long151 ma
kha 'phangs152

––––––––––
131
ba cig dgos : omitted RF.
132
'dug : 'dug RF.
133
spyir : sbyir RF.
134
snyig : snyigs(?) (snyigs RF).
135
pa'i : ma'i(?) (ma'i RF).
136
mkhan is preceded by a respect marker, resembling the upper half of a sbrul shad.
137
gzhug : bzhugs(?) (bzhugs RF).
138
gzhug : bzhugs(?) (bzhugs RF).
139
seng : gseng(?) (omitted RF).
140
dang chen : omitted RF.
141
gros d=ng : grwa dpon 'bangs RF. Numerous readings are possible here, although
I find Ricca and Fournier’s suggestion highly improbable and likely interpretive. The
ambiguous position of the na ro suggests the possibility that gros may be read as gra
[grwa], hence allocating the na ro to the following word. In the case of the latter, one
possible reading for the second word might be rog. The word gra [i.e., for grwa?] rog
might be analogous to a word like chos grogs, as in “fellow practitioners” or, in this
case, “fellow monks,” or monks of equal and no particular authoritative status as com-
pared to the immediately preceding chen slob. This reading, however, is also prob-
lematic since it ignores an additional damaged ‘letter’––possibly s––on the end of the
preceding word gra. Additionally, in terms of rog itself, the r could easily be read as a
d, the na ro is perhaps too far to the left, and the g is partially damaged and could also
be a b, p, or s, followed by ng (nevertheless, as I explain above, g is often found
separated in two parts in this inscription).
142
la : la RF.
143
=ugs : phugs? (phugs RF)
144
lug= : lug la(?) (lugs RF).
145
sog : sogs RF.
146
nad la sten : omitted RF.
147
shi[3] : shing gang? (omitted RF)
148
yang[4-5] : yang mi byed cing? (omitted RF)
149
rtsab : rtsab RF.
150
snyi : snyi RF.
151
long : ? ('dogs RF).
152
ma kha 'phangs : omitted RF.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 129

{17} 'cho153 ba'i dpes sde dkrugs spyod ngan dang srol ngan kho nas
dus 'da'154 bar byas / brag155 sar156 rloṃ157 pa rnaṃ=158 kyis kyang de
dgi159 ngan rgyab160 dang kha161
{18} 'dzin 'ba' zhig byas pa la rten / don gyi snying162 po lugs gnyis
gang gi'ang khriṃs kyi tha snyad med cing / rang gzhan thaṃ=163 [3-5]
{19} khrel164 zhing165 'cha'166 smod167 kyi gnasu168 gyur pa kun gyis
dgongs shing nges pa 'di yin / de 'thun169 / nged khri thog170 'dir sleb
pa171[3-5]172
{20} spyir bya ba sna173 tshogs cig dang / khyad par rtsun pa ngos ma
gsod 'dug174 / bla ma / chos sne175 thaṃd176 khyad du bsad177 pa'i
khriṃs 'gal178[1-2]
{21} rnaṃ par mi 'tshaṃ pa179 byung ba la bsaṃs dus / nged la'ang
khyi bso bsdungs180 kyi rnaṃ pa 'di bzhin byed phyin / gnyen po bsten
pa la[2-4]
––––––––––
153
'cho : cho? ('pho RF)
154
'da' : ? ('da' RF) A less likely reading for this word is bdag.
155
brag : drag(?) (drag RF).
156
sar : sar RF.
157
rloṃ : rlom RF.
158
rnaṃ= : rnaṃs(?) (rnams RF).
159
de dgi : de dag gi (de dag gi RF).
160
ngan rgyab : rang rgyal RF.
161
dang kha : omitted RF.
162
snying : rnying RF.
163
thaṃ= : thaṃd? Read thams cad(?) (thams cad RF).
164
khrel : khrims RF.
165
zhing : nyid RF.
166
'cha' : 'phya(?) ('cha' RF).
167
smod : rmod RF.
168
gnasu : gnas su (gnas su RF).
169
'thun : mthun(?) ('thun [mthun?] RF).
170
thog : thog RF.
171
sleb pa : slebs RF.
172
nas? (nas RF).
173
sna : sna RF.
174
'dug : 'dug RF. The word 'dug can only be tentatively accepted as the reading
here. The word also resembles lugu or even lugunga, and may hence be another ex-
ample of contracted writing (bskungs yig).
175
sne : sde RF.
176
thaṃd : thaṃd(?) (read thams cad?) (thams cad RF).
177
bsad : bsad RF.
178
'gal : la RF.
179
'tshaṃ pa : 'cham pa RF.
180
bsdungs : bstungs(?) (bstungs RF).
130 BENJAMIN WOOD

{22} yul ngan spong ba legs pas / nged rang / rang yul mgo nas
bsaṃstan181 bsgoṃ pa 'thad snyaṃ zhing lag182 tu183 len184 par thag
bcad185[2-4]
{23} yin'ang186 / chen187 slob rnaṃs kyi'ang ngang bsring lugs188 dgos /
dgongs par gyi189 'gal ba cis kyang byed gsung ba dang / khyad par /
khri=190 [2-4]
{24} nas sde pa'i drung gis191 thugs bsaṃ rnaṃ par dag pas kuns192
slangs pa'i193 grogs ldan194 bka' bkod195 mdzad196 / chen slob bka' gros pa
thaṃd197 kyis sa la ci=198 [2-4]
{25} cig tu199 bka' -r-s pa'i200 snying po201 la / khang rong202 lte'o203
gsuṃ pos gser[3]-e-i204 'chad pa gtsang =r205 phul / khaṃ chu'i206
bcod207 rgya=[3-5]

––––––––––
181
bsaṃstan : bsam stan(?) (omitted RF).
182
lag : ? (la RF) This is a highly uncertain reading of g. The ‘letter’ has a peculiar
shape and might be read as b or n.
183
tu : rgyu RF.
184
len : med RF.
185
bcad : bcad RF.
186
yin'ang : omitted RF.
187
chen : en [chen?] RF.
188
lugs : lugs RF.
189
gyi : bgyis? (gyi RF)
190
khri= : khri(?) (khri………pa RF). The word khri is possibly followed by a
word beginning with a d or r. Since the tsheg is not clear here, however, the word
might be khrid or perhaps khrir.
191
gis : gi RF.
192
kuns : kun nas (kun nas RF).
193
slangs pa'i : bslangs pa'i(?) (blangs pa'i RF).
194
grogs ldan : grogs dan(?) (grogs ldan RF).
195
bkod : bkod RF.
196
mdzad : mdzod RF.
197
thaṃd : thams cad (thams cad RF).
198
The reading sa la ci= (omitted RF) is highly uncertain and should be taken as
extremely tentative.
199
cig tu : gcig tu(?) (omitted RF).
200
-r-s pa'i : sgros pa'i? (omitted RF)
201
snying po : rnying po RF.
202
rong : tong RF.
203
lte'o : lde'o RF.
204
gsuṃ pos gser[3]-e-i : gser srang re'i(?) (gser srang re'i RF).
205
=r : par? (bar RF)
206
khaṃ chu'i : kha mchu'i (kha[m] chu'i RF).
207
bcod : gcod(?) (bcod RF).
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 131

{26} tshar yon bka' gang gnang lhu=208 len pa'i gaṃ rgya209 rogs
kyis[5] rnaṃ pa'i khag khur dang bcas pa'i sgrub blangs byed[4-6]
{27} ba rdi tshar rtogs dang bcas[3]210s pa gtsang gi 'gro lugs / lung
[4] gnas dbyung211 / rjes bcod thaṃ=-i='212 dang bcas / [6-8]
{28} [14-16?]lung <1>nged kyis kyang [4]-i[2]-e[7]=ngs / chen slob
=-u[14-16?]
{29} [30-35?] =n=213 dbyung ===214[16-18?]
{30} [30-35?] sa ===215 [16-18?]
{31} [?] me [10]216cas==[5]-u-ud / wa==dang / gnyi==gnas dbyung [?]
{32} [?]=======[10]nas nga na[?]
{33} [?] ====ng [2] na rtag bstan du [3] da / =ng / dang =-i-i[?]
{34} [?] ==kyang====-in===='gal -yed217 ==218[?]
{35-37}219

TRANSLATION

{1} Oṃ svasti siddham! [Homage to?] the {Mahātma220}, in whom the

power of the knowledge of all the Buddhas has been subsumed (…)
{2} [who was born as the] Mahāpaṇḍita of Kashmir, India, Śākya
Śrībhadra, an incarnation of the <third> {Buddha} <Pradyota (rab
gsal)>221 (…) {3} [and who] <in the country [of Tibet was]222> the

––––––––––
208
lhu= : lhur?
209
gaṃ rgya : gan rgya.
210
The last ‘letter’ of this space possibly contained a d, r, or n.
211
lung [4] gnas dbyung : lung pa nas gnas dbyung(?). The l on lung here is highly
uncertain, possibly resembling a b.
212
thaṃ=-i=' : thaṃd (read thams cad) kyi bka'?
213
=n= : gnas?
214
There is a visible na ro here.
215
Possibly a subscribed y or r?
216
Fragments in this space might include an m, na ro, and d.
217
-yed : possibly byed or phyed.
218
== : possibly dang.
219
These last lines are extremely difficult to render. Photographs of the inscription
should be visually inspected by those interested.
220
bdag nyid chen po. See a plausible reconstruction of this expression in the notes
above in the edition.
221
See Roerich 1976: 1062, where it is mentioned that Śākya Śrībhadra “was des-
tined to become the Third Buddha Pradyota (Rab gsal).” One of Bu ston’s previous in-
carnations is asserted to have been Śākya Śrībhadra according to several of the textual
sources that Blo gsal bstan skyong treats in his biography of Bu ston, which is con-
132 BENJAMIN WOOD

{victor} of the degenerate age, [who] manifestly placed [his] lotus

feet on [Zha lu’s] jewelled throne223 [as] the highest crown jewel of
all of [Tibet’s] <learned, virtuous and noble> (…)
[Here below contains?]:
{4} The speech (bka') of the glorious, holy root- [and] lineage-bla
mas,224 the foremost225 of whom being the father, (…) the <great>
{all-} <knowing Bu ston, the precious one(?)> [and Bu ston’s spiri-
tual] sons.
{6} The instructions ([bka'] lung) [of] <the glorious dharma pro-
tectors> (…) {5} including the divine assembly of the maṇḍala of
tutelary deities <such as the glorious Vajrapāṇi>, (…) {4} {the guard-
ian of the Vajrayāna}, and {5} the great king of the dharma protectors,
the peaceful and wrathful [manifestations of] Vaiśravaṇa.
{6-7} The truthful words (gtam) of the thirteenth seat [holder] of
Zha lu Gser khang,226 the Śākya-bhikṣu227 [and] Vajra[yāna lineage]-
holder known as Blo gsal228 {rgya mtsho?} <grags pa rgyal mtshan>
dpal bzang po.

[square red seal]

[a space of approximately three lines of text high]

__________
tained within his Zha lu gdan rabs. See the section on Bu ston’s previous embodi-
ments (8-13).
222
Ricca and Fournier begin this line with the words ljongs du, now effaced by
damage. I would postulate gangs can (gyi) coming before ljongs du, giving us gangs
can gyi ljongs du “in Tibet,” or “in the Land of Snow.”
223
For discussions of this imagistic language of feet on thrones, see Klafkowski
1987: 103, n. 76, and 104, n. 84. Here, mngon par might also be read along the lines
of an expression like mngon par mtho ba, “exalted,” or mngon par bstod pa, “thor-
oughly praised.”
224
On the difference between “root bla ma(s)” (rtsa ba'i bla ma) and “lineage bla
ma(s)” (rgyud pa'i bla ma), Roerich (1976: 1016-17) explains: “mūla-guru [rtsa ba'i
bla ma] means the personal Teacher of a disciple; rGyud-pa’i bla-ma means the
Teachers of the Spiritual Lineage to which the disciple belongs.”
225
I am uncertain of how to translate gtso bor here. It is either the case that the
speech is “mainly” (gtso bor) of Bu ston and his spiritual sons (yab sras), or that the
tradition has Bu ston and his spiritual sons (yab sras) “as [its] head” (gtso bor).
226
gser khang often describes the entire Zha lu monastic complex in the Zha lu
gdan rabs (e.g., 103).
227
śākya'i dge slong. This epithet here is juxtaposed with rdo rje 'dzin pa, signal-
ling that the abbot practices both exoteric and esoteric Buddhism.
228
Blo gsal is uncertain: see the edition’s notes above.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 133

{8} Monastic and lay communities,229 lay persons and monks,230

great nomads of Tibet and preceptors {9} who belong to this major
dharma college itself (…)––all [of you]––think [about these things]
and bear [them] in mind!
{9-10} In general, the entire benefit and happiness of all sentient
beings is only dependent upon the Buddha’s {precious} teachings
abiding for a long time [in the world]. {10-11} [And] in particular, this
major dharma college [of Zha lu] itself [is] a public object of venera-
tion that became a holy object (…) [to] all Tibetans (…) [Zha lu is?]
{the source} of the precious teachings of the deep and vast sūtras and
tantras. […]231

{12} [You should be] disciplined [as a foundation], [and then]

listen. [Having] contemplated [the teachings], intensively apply
[yourself] to meditation!232

{Like} it was said [in the Abhidharmakośa], {13-14} to [practice] the

dharma [effectively] through possessing {pure moral} discipline
(tshul {khrims rnam par} dag pa), [one] should listen, contemplate,
and meditate (thos bsam sgom) for the benefit of [one]self, and [one]
should spend [one’s] time [in] {practicing(?)} exposition, debate, and
composition ('chad rtsod rtsom) for the benefit of others. {14} Yet
[this has not been the case] in general, [because of] the degenerate
age (dus snyigs ma), and, in particular, [because of the] intermissions
of the successive incumbent abbots[’] (mkhan thog rim pa) inter-
mittent attendance, and [because] some […]233 [were] short-sighted
––––––––––
229
lha sde mi sde: literally, “class of gods, class of men” (Jäschke 1881: 599); figu-
ratively, “monastic and lay communities.”
230
skya ser: literally, “gold/yellow and white” or monks and laypersons (i.e., as in
their clothing colours). See Jäschke 1881: 25.
231
The words gzhugs [i.e., bzhugs(?); bzhugs RF] rnaṃs kyang appearing at the be-
ginning of line 12 are excluded from the translation. They may refer to “the ones who
stay (in Zha lu)” and constitute the (logical) subject of what follows, i.e.: And the ones
who stay (in Zha lu) “[should be] disciplined …”.
232
Adk: 41. The translation in de La Vallée Poussin 1989: 911 reads: “Firm in his
cultivation, endowed with teaching and reflection, he will be capable of giving him-
self up to meditation.”
233
Omitted here are the words chen slob gros d=ng rnaṃs kyang. This terse ex-
pression referring to groups of people may indicate the composition of the villainous
clique whose activities are described immediately hereafter; chen slob might possibly
be glossed as dpon chen slob dpon, or “[lay] officials [and] [religious] masters,” or
134 BENJAMIN WOOD

(phugs bsam chung) and others ('ga' zhig) [were] cowardly (spobs pa
zhum [pa])234 and despondently lazy235 and so on.
{16} On the basis of these disease[-like] faults, [those culprits who]
do not know anything (ci yang mi shes) (…)236 [are] foolish, unstable
monks who are like tigers in private and like foxes in public. […]237
{17-18} [They] have spent their time with nothing but degenerate
activities (srol ngan), misbehaviour (spyod [pa] ngan [pa]) and stir-
ring up the community. Still, [they] boasted [of their own] exalted
importance. On the basis that [they] merely conspired among them-
selves [to do] evil and bickered [with others], {18} there is essentially
no [endorsement for what they did] even [in] secular [or] religious
legal terminology. {18-19} And {everyone}(…)––[not only their] own
[clique], [but also everyone] else [at the monastery?] (…)––became
objects of ridicule238 and disapproval.239 [All of] this is known by
everyone.
{19} Moreover, <after> I took this throne [of Zha lu], (…) {20} [I]
generally [carried out] various duties. Particularly, [at times I] wasn’t
keeping the monks happy(?).240 [Other times, when I did keep them
happy, I] disregarded [the orders and advice of] all [of Zha lu’s] bla
mas and leaders,241 which was in violation of [monastic] law (…) {21}
[Thus] was [my conduct] completely unbecoming [to an abbot].

__________
else as slob dpon chen po, that is, great bla mas. See my notes in the edition for a dis-
cussion of gros d=ng.
234
spobs pa zhum pa: “in low spirits from loss of hope or courage” (Duff 2009, s.v.).
235
According to Duff 2009, s.v., sgyid lugs is a particular type of laziness: “the
laziness of not accomplishing anything because of feeling that the task at hand is too
big for one’s abilities, that one is not up to the task.”
236
Read: “(and) do nothing at all,”?
237
I have not been able to sufficiently decipher the following words and they are
hence excluded from the translation: snyi ma long ma kha 'phangs 'cho ba'i dpes (“by
way of instigation, accusation and … (traps) [they] …”?).
238
khrel, as in khrel rgod (?) “ridicule”?
239
'cha' smod [read 'phya smod?] “blame”?
240
rtsun pa ngos ma gsod 'dug may perhaps be read as rtsun pa ngo ma bstod 'dug,
that is, “the monks were not being praised (lit. [to their] faces).” The meaning of ngo
bstod, close to ngo srung, “fawning” or “phony flattery” accords well with the de-
scriptions of the culprits as arrogant and boastful.
241
chos sne. Ricca and Fournier (explicitly) offer the emendation chos sde, but
chos sne also makes reasonable sense if expanded to chos sde'i sne 'dzin pa, or
“leaders of the monastery.”
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 135

When [I] thought about [all that] I moreover [felt] like a dog
backed into a corner(?).242 {21-22} The most effective antidote for the
various happenings like this [would have been for me to just] aban-
don [this] calamity! […]243 {23} […]244 {24} The secretary of the
[lay?] leaders (sde pa'i drung)245 [of Gtsang?] set out a helpful pro-
clamation, which was motivated by [his] pure [altruistic] aspirations.
{25} The essential [result] of the (…) discussion [undertaken] by all
the [lay] leaders, bla mas,246 (and) advisers [was] that:
Khang, Rong, and Lte’o––the three [of them] shall:
[A:] <each> offer a punishment of [one] <ounce> of gold to the
Gtsang pa [leader?] […]247 (…)
[B:] {26} […]248 [accept] a written contract (gaṃ rgya [read gan
rgya]) which voluntarily accepts whatever sanctions [are] command-
ed.
[C:] Adopt [good conduct] in the company of a companion who
will (…) [act as their] guarantors.

––––––––––
242
nged la'ang khyi bso bsdungs [read bstungs(?)] kyi rnaṃ pa. The combination of
khyi, “dog” and bstungs (pres. stung), “to make shorter,” or “to be strictly controlled,”
suggests the image of a dog backed into a corner. An analogous expression using
these two words might be kyi gyang khug bstungs, “a dog backed into a corner.” The
word bso might be a homophone here to the word zur, “corner,” as in the “corner (of
a room),” rtsig zur.
243
I was unable to render a reliable translation for the following words in line 22:
nged rang / rang yul mgo nas bsaṃstan bsgoṃ pa 'thad snyam zhing lag tu len par
thag bcad. The meaning could be something along the lines of: “(And therefore [pas])
I thought it was proper that I myself and my country practiced meditation (bsam gtan
bsgom) from the (very) beginning, and I decided to apply it in practice.”
244
I was unable to render a reliable translation for the following words in line 23:
yin'ang / chen slob rnaṃs kyi'ang ngang bsring lugs dgos / dgongs par gyi 'gal ba cis
byang byed gsung ba dang / khyad par / khri=. The first word of line 24, nas, is also
omitted from the translation. The meaning could be something like: “However, it was
necessary to have a system sustaining the continuity of the ‘lay leaders and bla
mas’(?), too, I thought; after (some people were?) acting and speaking in an exceed-
ingly adverse manner, and, in particular, ... throne(?), (the secretary ...).”
245
The title sde pa'i drung could mean “secretary of the Tibetan government,” in
which case it would have to be glossed as: sde pa gzhung gi drung yig. See my dis-
cussion of this term above in the introduction.
246
chen slob. See a discussion of this term above.
247
Lacking enough context, the words khaṃ chu'i [read kha mchu'i] bcod [gcod?]
rgya=[3-5] are excluded from the translation, although they appear to denote that the
dispute (kha mchu) was eliminated (gcod).
248
The words tshar yon have been excluded here from the translation.
136 BENJAMIN WOOD

{27} […]249 [following] the customs of Gtsang [law], [you shall

be] expelled from the {region?}. […]250
{28-37} […]251

REFERENCES

TIBETAN SOURCES

Sgra tshad pa rin chen rnam rgyal. [Bu ston rnam thar]. Chos rje thams cad mkhyen pa
bu ston lo tsā ba'i rnam par thar pa snyim pa'i me tog ces bya pa. Vol. 27 (sha),
in Gsung 'bum: Rin chen grub. Lha sa: Zhol par khang, 2000, 8-89 [1r-42r].
Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. [Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar]. Rigs dang dkyil
'khor kun gyi khyab bdag rdo rje 'chang blo gsal rgya mtsho grags pa rgyal
mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa slob bshad bstan pa'i nyi 'od. Vol. 2,
in Lam 'bras slob bshad. Dehradun: Sakya Centre, 1983-1985, 399-637 [201r-
320r].
–––– [Blo gsal rgya mtsho rnam thar A]. Rigs dang dkyil 'khor gyi khyab bdag rdo rje
'chang blo gsal rgya mtsho grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam thar
slob bshad bstan pa'i nyi 'od. Vol. 9, in Gsung 'bum: Ngag dbang blo bzang
rgya mtsho. Dharamsala: Nam gsal sgron ma, 2007, 362-592.
[Adk] Chos mngon pa'i mdzod kyi tshig le'ur byas pa (Abhidharmakośakārikā).
Bstan 'gyur (Snar thang). Vol. mngon pa (gu) [151], 1-57 [1r-29r].
Bu ston rin chen grub. Mkhan po gdan sa pa la snyan skul gyi yi ge. Vol. 26 (la), in
Gsung 'bum: Rin chen grub. Lha sa: Zhol par khang, 2000, 317-323 [86r-89r].
–––– Mkhan slob dge 'dun dang bcas pa'i spyi la snyan bskul ba'i yi ge. Vol. 26 (la),
in Gsung 'bum: Rin chen grub. Lha sa: Zhol par khang, 2000, 323-325 [89r-
90r].
Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006.
Blo gsal bstan skyong. [Zha lu gdan rabs]. Dpal ldan zhwa lu pa'i bstan pa la bka'
drin che ba'i skyes bu dam pa rnams kyi rnam thar lo rgyus ngo mtshar dad pa'i
'jug ngogs. In On The History of the Monastery of Zhwa-lu: being the texts of
the Zhwa lu gdan rabs and the Autobiography by Zhwa-lu-Ri-sbug Sprul-sku
Blo-gsal-bstan-skyong. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, Vol. 9. Leh: S.W. Tashi-
gangpa, 1971, 1-471.

WESTERN-LANGUAGE WORKS

Cabezón, J. I. 1997. The Regulations of a Monastery. In D. S. Lopez Jr. (ed) Religions

of Tibet in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 335-351.
De la Vallée Poussin, L. 1989. [trans.] Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. L.M. Pruden (En-
glish trans). Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
––––––––––
249
The words ba rdi tshar rtogs dang bcas[3]s pa are excluded from the translation.
250
rjes bcod thaṃ=-i=' dang bcas : rjes su tshar gcod thams cad kyi bka' dang
bcas?
251
The few visible words (or fragments of words) in lines 28-37 are not trans-
lated here.
 MISBEHAVIOUR AND PUNISHMENT 137

De Rossi Filibeck, E. 1999. Later Inscriptions in the Tabo Gtsug Lag Khaṅ. In L.
Petech & C. Luczanits (eds) Inscriptions From the Tabo Main Temple: Texts
and Translations. Roma: Istituto Italiano per L’Africa e L’Oriente, 189-206.
Duff, T. 2009. The Illuminator Tibetan-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Version
5.17. Electronic Edition For Cross-Platform Unicode Reader. Kathmandu: Pad-
ma Karpo Translation Committee.
Ellingson, T. 1990. Tibetan Monastic Constitutions: The Bca’-yig. In L. Epstein &
R.F. Sherburne (eds) Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of
Turrell V. Wylie. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 205-230.
Goldstein, M.C. (ed.) 2001. The New Tibetan-English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huber, T. 1999. The Cult of Pure Crystal Mountain: Popular Pilgrimage and Vi-
sionary Landscape in Southeast Tibet. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jahoda, C. 2007. Socio-Economic Organisation of Village Communities and Mon-
asteries in Spiti, H.P., India: The Case of a Religious Administrative Unit (Chos
gzhis). In A. Heller & G. Orofino (eds) Discoveries in Western Tibet and the
Western Himalayas: Essays on History Literature, Archaeology and Art. PIATS
2003 (8): Leiden: Brill, 215-240.
Jäschke, H.A. 1881. A Tibetan-English Dictionary: With Special Reference to the
Prevailing Dialects, to Which is Added an English-Tibetan Vocabulary. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Klafkowski, P.K. (trans.) 1987. Rosary of White Lotuses, Being the Clear Account of
How the Precious Teaching of Buddha Appeared and Spread in the Great Hor
Country. [Chen po hor gyi yul du dam pa'i chos ji ltar dar ba'i tshul gsal bar
brjod pa padma dkar po'i phreng ba]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Nebesky-Wojkowitz, R. de. 1996 [1956]. Oracles and Demons of Tibet: The Cult and
Iconography of the Protective Deities of Tibet. Kathmandu: Book Faith India.
Petech, L. 1973. Aristocracy and Government in Tibet 1728-1959. Rome: Istituto Ital-
iano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Ricca, F. & Fournier, L. 1996. Notes Concerning the Mgon-khaṅ of Źwa-lu. Artibus
Asiae 56 (3), 343-363.
Roerich, G.N. (trans.) 1976 [1949]. The Blue Annals. [Deb ther sngon po]. Delhi: Mo-
tilal Banarsidass.
Ruegg, D.S. (trans.) 1966. The Life of Bu ston Rin po che, [Tibetan text in facsimile],
SOR XXXIV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Scherrer-Schaub, C. 2002. Enacting Words: A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial
Decrees (bkas bcad) and Their Application in the Sgra sbyor bam po gñis pa
Tradition. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25 (1-2),
263-340.
Schneider, H. 2002. Tibetan Legal Documents of South-Western Tibet: Structure and
Style. In H. Blezer (ed.) Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies 1: PIATS 2000.
Leiden: Brill, 415-427.
–––– 2003. The Formation of the Tibetan Official Style of Administrative Corre-
spondence (17th-19th century). In A. McKay (ed.) Tibet and Her Neighbours: A
History. London: Edition Hansjörg Mayer, 117-125.
Schuh, D. 1976. Urkunden und Sendschreiben aus Zentraltibet, Ladakh und Zanskar:
1 Teil: Faksimiles. MTH III,2, St. Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.
138 BENJAMIN WOOD

Schuh, D. & Dagyab, L.S. 1979. Urkunden, Erlasse und Sendschreiben aus dem Besitz
sikkimesischer Adelshäuser und des Klosters Phodang. St. Augustin: VGH
Wissenschaftsverlag.
Schwieger, P. 2005. Documents on the Early History of He-na-ku, a Petty Chiefdom
in Ladakh. In J. Bray (ed.) Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives.
Leiden: Brill, 161-174.
–––– 2007. A Document of Chinese Diplomatic Relations with East Tibet during the
Ming Dynasty. In P. Maurer & P. Schwieger (eds) Tibetstudien: Festschrift für
Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag. Bonn: Bier’sche Verlagsanstalt, 209-226.
Steinkellner & Luczanits. 1999. The Renovation Inscription of the Tabo Gtsug Lag
Khaṅ: New Edition and Translation. In L. Petech & C. Luczanits (eds) Inscrip-
tions From the Tabo Main Temple: Texts and Translations. Roma: Istituto Ital-
iano per L’Africa e L’Oriente, 9-28.
Tauscher, H. 1999. The «Admonitory Inscription» in the Tabo ’Du Khaṅ. In L.
Petech & C. Luczanits (eds) Inscriptions From the Tabo Main Temple: Texts
and Translations. Roma: Istituto Italiano per L’Africa e L’Oriente, 29-94.
Tropper, K. 2005. Die Jātaka-Inschriften im skor lam chen mo des Klosters Zha lu.
Einführung, textkritische Studie, Edition der Paneele 1-8 mit Sanskritparallelen
und deutscher Übersetzung. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismus-
kunde, Heft 63. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien,
Universität Wien.
–––– 2007a. The Historical Inscription in the Gsum brtegs Temple at Wanla, Ladakh.
In D. Klimburg-Salter, K. Tropper, & C. Jahoda (eds) Text, Image and Song in
Transdisciplinary Dialogue. PIATS 2003 (7): Leiden: Brill, 105-50.
–––– 2007b. The Buddha-vita in the skor lam chen mo at Zha lu monastery. In B.
Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M. Torsten Much & H. Tauscher (eds) Pramāṇa-
kīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70 th Birth-
day. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.1/2. Vienna:
Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 941-
73.
–––– 2008. The Founding Inscription in the gSer Khaṅ of Lalung (Spiti, Himachal
Pradesh): Edition and Annotated Translation. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan
Works & Archives.
–––– (this volume). The Buddha-vita in the White Temple of Tsaparang.
Tucci, G. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Vol. 1 & 2. Rome: Libreria dello Stato.
Vitali, R. 1990. Early Temples of Central Tibet. London: Serindia Publications.