,/1 'T{r

W IE N E R S TU D IE N

ZU R nB E TO LO G IE U N O B U O D H IS M U S K U N D E

TIB E TA N H IS TO R Y A N D LA N G U A G E

S TU D IE S D E D IC A TE D TO U R A Y G E ZA
O N H IS S E V E N TIE TH B IR TH D A Y
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
ER N ST STEIN KELLN ER

HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON

H E FT 26 E R N S T S TE IN K E LLN E R

.Ai1), 0-:;11.{
U N IV E R S ITA T HAMBURG
Instilut fO r K ultur L:nd G eschichta Indiens una Ti!.J131s
N eue A absn8traB e 3, 20354 H"omburg

W IE N 1991
W IE N 1991

A R B E ITS K R E IS FO R TIB E TIS C H E UND B U D D H IS TIS C H E S TU D IE N

A R B E ITS K A E IS FO R TIB E TIS C H E U N D B U D D H IS TIS C H E S TU D IE N
U N IV E R S IT A. T W IE N
U N IV E R S ITA T W IE N
 SEVERAL WORKS OF UNUSUAL PROVENANCE
ASCRIBED TO SA SKYA PA~OITA

by

David Jackson, Kyoto

'Although as late as a decade ago scholars were still implicitly accepting all
works published in the "Collected Writings" (bka' 'bum) of Sa skya PaQ<Jita (1182-
1251) as authentic, more recent studies have shown that a few works allributed to
this great Tibetan master were forgeries. An investigation of how his collected
works as a whole were compiled, for instance, has made it possible to single out a
small numher of works as obvious later additions and some as patent forgeries.'
Sepanlle investigations of the authenticity of two works - one a systematic treatise
on established philosophical tenets, the g Z h u llg lu g s leg s h sh a d , and the other a
leiter supposedly written to the people of Tibet from the Mongol camp, the BII slo b
m llm s la spring 1m - have likewise indicated that the first was a definite forgery and
the second of very dubious authenticity.2
Further critical investigations are still required for some of the lesser-known
works of Sa skya PaIJ9ita (or Sa palJ), especially for the minor works of unusual
provenance that continue to turn up. In the following pages I would therefore like
to offer a few remarks about three sets of questionable textual materials attrihuted
to him, whose origins were atypical and which were not included in the earliest
collections of his oeuvre.
The first such "set" is actually just a single fragment of a reply to a question
(dris Ian or zhus lall), which survives in the form of a long quotation. The second
is a group of three or four similar replies to questions whose actual authorship was
ascribed to one of Sa palJ'S students but which were thought to derive from Sa palJ'S
teachings and therefore had previously been included within some later collections

• Acknowledgment: I would like to mention my indebtedncss to the Japan Society for the
PromOlion of Science for a research fdlowsbip at Kyolo University in 1990-91, which made possihle
tbe writing of Ihis paper.

t See D. Jackson (1987), pp. 90-101. For related studies, see L. van der Kuijp (1984) and (1987).
2 See D. Jackson (1985) and (1986). On the first work, cf. L van der Kuijp (1985) and (1987),
pp. 129 f.
234 D. Jackson Several Works Ascrihed tll Sil skya Pa~uita 235

of his writings. The third set consists of a nearly complete series of commentatorial
glosses that deal with one of his major works, the sDom gSllm rab d l,ye, and have
only recently resurfaced. Some of the above-mentioned writing.'i first turned up
relatively late as partial or complete quotations in works of 010 bo mkhan chen
bSod nams Ihun grub (1456-1532) and Ames zhabs Ngag dbang bsod nams bstan
'dzin (1597-1659), and some were briefly discussed by later Sa skya pa scholars such
as Ngag dbang chos grags (1572-164 1) or Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen (1700-
1769). The comments by such scholars will also be taken into account
investigations which follow.
(1) The Reply to Our ston
The contents and status of Sa pal)'s minor writings such as epistles and replies
to questions have so far not been investigated systematically or in any detail by
modern scholars. A simple treatment of them is impossible because even their titles
cannot always be trusted for the purpose of basic comparisons of lists of Sa pal)'s
oeuvre: in a few cases a work appears with a different title in other collections, or
the same title was applied to more than one work in different collections.3 It is
therefore impossible to be sure of the actual presence or absence of a given work
in a set of his writings just from the occurrence of a title in the lists. In the present
article I cannot do more than call attention to some of these problems in general
and make a few additional remarks about several minor epistolary works in
particular, one of which does not seem to have been included in the standard
collections of Sa pal)'s writings, and others of which are found in some later
Zhi byed master Sangs rgyas ras pa (1203-12H O ) in Lho brag sometime after 1224.4
Previously the existence of such a work by Sa pal) was primarily known from
its mention in the Record o[Tellchillg.f Received (gSllllyig) of £IKon mchog Ihun gruh
(1497-1557):~ Later this mention was duly noted by Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin
chen (1700-1769) when the latter was preparing his catalogue to the Derge edition
of the Sa skya fJka' '/Jum (a catalogue which was later attributed to the Ngor mkhan
po hKra shis limn gruh). In his catalogue, Zhu chen listed the reply to Gur ston in
in the fact as one of five works that were mentioned in dKon mchog Ihun grub's gSllll yig
hut had not been located or actually carved onto blocks." Sometime after the
completion of the printing blocks and catalogue in 1736, however, two more of
these missing five works were found and carved onto blocks. Thus finally the Glir
was one of not five hut of only three works "officially"
slcm l:..'Yi ZhlLf Ian missing
frolll tbe Derge editiOlL7
In his own R eco rd o f T ea ch in g s R eceived , Zhu chen made a few additional
comments regarding the work in question. He listed it among those works for which
he received a text-transmission reading (IUllg), placing it between nos. 97 and 98 of
the Derge edition (Toyn Bunko reprint). But he commented that it had not been
actually located, despite the fact that he found it listed in other records of teachings
received.R In an annotation he explained that he had not received its IUllg, nor that
for the b K a ' g d a m s p a /lam m klw ' 'b u m g yi d tis la ll. 9
Now a long passage from the G u r stOll gyi zlw s /em has be~ome accessible
ihrough the appearance of a quotation hy 010 bo mkhan chen bSod nams Ihun gruh
(1456-1532) in his 'Kll1ul spong dgollgs rgyan (p. 286 f. = 39b.5), a work which
carried further a controversial exchange that began with the questioning of Sa pal)'s
sDom gSllm rab dbye by gSer mdog paf) chen Shakya mchog Idan (1428-1507).10

collections but even then were never ascribed unilaterally to Sa paf)'s authorship. One of the latter's questions had been: "If the Buddha has not taught any ritual for
One minor and previously almost unknown epistle that was attributed to Sa pal) producing the ultimate Thought of Awakening (b o d h icillU ), what is that [ritual]
but which requires further investigation is a work entitled R ep ly to Ih e Q u estio n s o f which is taught in the treatise [of Nagarjuna], the B o d h icilla viva ra ~ za (B Y lln g ch u h
Teacher Gur (Gur ston gyi zhus Ian). It purports to be Sa pal}'s replies to some
questions put to him by the translator Our ston dPal mdzes rgyal mtshan, one of Sa
pat}'s contemporaries - perhaps even one of his students. Little is known about this 4 The index to o. Roerich's translation indicates another reference to a Our slon on p. 267, bul

Our ston ("Teacher from the Gur [clan or region]"). In the B lu e A1lnals (p. 975), this is apparently a misprint.
S The work was also mentioned by Rin spungs pa Ngag dbang 'jigs grags in his biography of Sa
'Gos 10 tsa ba gZhon nu dpal mentions a teacher with this same name or title who
pal) composed jll 1579. See D. Jackson (1987), p. 97, no. (87).
lived during the period in question. He is recorded to have given teachings to the
6 Zhu chen, dPal so, p. 330.3.3 (ba 45Ia.3).
7 See D. Jackson (t987), p. 94.
8 Zhu chen, dPalldall bla 11I0 ... (=gSoll yig), vol. 2, p. 431.4 (kilo 216a).
9 The laller work was lisled separatety above, and it was included in the Derge edition as TB 96.
~ See for instance DoJackson (1987), p. 516, where in the Glo bo fragments of Sa pal}'s writings
LO The fulllille of 010 bo mkhan chen's treatise is sDom po g.mlll g)'i rob 11/ dbye boO;dris 101l11lllg
the tiLlebKa' gdanu d o bshor ba'; zh u s Ian is given to the work which appears in the Derge edition
gi Is1lad 11I0 'kllrul spong dgollgs rgyall.
under the title bKa' gdallls nom mk1la' 'bl/m gyi VIUS Ian.
236 D. Jackson
'gre/)?"II Glo bo mkhan chen replies critically to Shakya mchog Idan's own
se l1 L f
answers, sometimes further developing lines of argument already begun by Go rams
pa bSod nams seng ge (1429-1489) in an earlier reply to Shakya mchog IdHn's
questions.12
Glo bo mkhan chen mentions in his colophon that he wrote his further
discussions Ht the request of the religious scholar Nor bu ph un tshogs. He specifies
no year of composition, but the work was no doubt wriHen sometime after Go rams
pa's death in 1489. The only other information Glo bo mkhan chen gives about the
composition of the work in his brief colophon is an indirect indication that his
scribe was named Kun dga' rgyalmtshan. The same monk acted as his secretary and
scribe (yi ge pa) when Glo bo mkhan chen was composing his mKhaf Jug mam
bshad in 1527.
This treatise by Glo bo mkhan chen is of particular interest not only for the
light it sheds on the subjects of Shakya mchog Idan's controversial questions and
answers, but also because the author quotes a number of rare sources in it, some
of them in full. Below in an appendix, I will quote the extract from the G u r stOll gyi
dris lall in order to make it more easily accessihle, and also to enable others to
recognize it in case it turns up later as a longer fragment or under a different title.
The 8mfl,icillUI'ivoTtl1'O (B)'ol/g c1l11bscms kyi 'gref po zlre.~b)'o bl~) is indude~ in the Peking
IJ
Tanjur (in Lwuversions, one longer and one shorler'! nus. 2665, 2(66) In the Tantnc con~l11enlary
('EJ~ld 'gre/) sediun just before the POIicokroma, togeLher wiLI~a ~lUm~JCr ~f othc~ works alln~}I~e.dtn
a Niigarjuna. The LranslaLionof a work with the same Sanskrit !I.lle hkew!se allr~butcd to .Nagarj~na
appears in the Sillra-commentary (mdo 'grel, dbu ilia) (P 5470) With the shghlly dlITen:nt Tlhelan tille
Byallg cJlIlb kyi sel7lskyi mam par bsllOd pa.
The original que.~tionsof Shiikya mchog Idan are recorded in his work sDom 1}51/111 rub dl'ye la
dri ba legspa, Collecled Works, vol. 17, pp. 448-462. His own answers make up the lengthy work l.cgs
bshod l}5er g)'i tll/lr ilia, Collected Works, vol. 6, pp. 439-648, and vol. 7...
This particular question on the production of ultimale bod/licit/a through nluatls answered hy
Shakya mchog Idan in ibid., vol. 6, pp. 619-636 (9Ia-99b). There to bc.gin his discussions he quotes
from four works which would seem 10 contain the teaching of such a rztual:
(I) Vairocallilblrisombodlri (rNam snang mngon byang) (620.t-622.6)
(2) sPallg kOllg pllyag Tg}'apo z/Ies byo ba'i mdo (622.(j-623.3) . full detailed dISCUSSion and answers of Shakya mchog Idan to this question of his (parL II questiOIl
(3) Pmicukrullla (Rim pa II/go pa zlll!S bya ba'i bslall beos) ~Y Nagarjunapada (623.3-6)
(4) The same author's Bodhicittotpiidavidhi (Sems b.~k)'edleyl clIO ga' P 5361, 54()]?) (not actually
quoted by Shiikya mchog Idan?)....
The second work, oslensible a SUlra (mdo), was rejected as an apocryphal Tibetan compOSition
(bod l1Ia) by another Sa skYilpa tradition, as can be seen in the sDom gs//m rOllg me/lOll, p. 50.3 (25h).
See below, note 34.
12Go rams pa's reply was a work entilled ;Dom po g.mm ?l:i bsfall ~co! la dris slril/g ns~)~I.l'o'i
lall sdmll gsZUII 'khml Spollg, which was printed
III the Derge edluon of hiS Collecled works. Sl.:e Ihe
modern reprint Sa skya pa'i bka' 'hum, vol. 14, pp. 240.4.1-273.2.6 (Ia 246a-31}a) ...
Go rams pa was among nine or more scholars who answered these queshons. For a prellmmary
skctch of this controversy, see D. Jackson (1983), pp. 17-8.
Several Works Ascrihcd to Sa skya PaJ:l4ita 237
The quoted passage deals with the question of whether the ultimate b o d lzicitta can
be ritually produced - a theme also dealt with at Some length by Sa pal) in both his
sDom g.fllm m b d b ye (clI. 2, ff. 15a-b) and 1 7 w b pu'i dgollgs g m l (ff. lOa-1 Ih), where
he rejects such a vow-created or ritually generated ultimate" b o d lziciu a as an
impossihility. Apparently the original targets of Sa pat)'s criticisms were the rituals
for generating the ultimate h o d h icitta which had heen taught by scholars such as
certain hKa' gdams pa authors of hslall rim treatises and rJe Phag mo gru pa rOo
rje rgyal po (1110-1170) in his liturgy D o n d a m sem s h skyed kyi clio g a , who had
hased themselves on a probably apocryphal work called the sP a n g ko n g p h ya g rg ya
13
Glo bo mkhan chen (p. 285.2 =:: 39a) rejects how Shakya
p a zh es b ya h a 'i m d o .
mch~)g. Idan in his g S er gyi tlzu r m u had interpreted Sa paQ's thought 011 this point,
and illS for the purpose of supporting his own interpretation (and establishing it as
the opinion of Sa paQ) that Glo bo mkhan chen quotes from the G u r stOll gyi zlzu s
/a ll.'4
The existence of this quotation of the G u s sto n g )'i zh u s Ia n in a work by Glo
ho mkhan chen also makes the occurrence of its title in dKon mchog Ihun grub's
R eco rd o f T ea ch in g s R cceil'ed more ea'iily understandable. Since dKon mchog IllUn
gruh was a student of Glo ho mkhan chen in the 1520s (he received his full
ordination from the latter, deriving the "Ihull grub" element in his ordination name
from that of Glo bo mkhan chen, hSod nams /hull grub), perhaps he learned of it
through studies of his teacher's writings or through personal conversations.
From the style and content of the fragment, I for one get the impression that
it might well derive from a genuine work by Sa paI). I hope the complete work will
turn up one day to allow a more thorough appraisal.
13~ee S~akya .mchog Idan, Legs bs/rad gser tllllr, Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 631.3 (97a). For the
7), see ibid., pp. 616-636 (9Ia-99b). '
J .. ~hotoll .(1985), chapte~ 3, melltio.ns two pla~. whe!e '~rug chen Padma dkar po argues for
the vabdlty of ntes for g~neratIllg the ulhmate BOOhlcllta (Ill hiS sDom gSlll1l gyi sllyblg po bSIOIlpa,
p.545, and sDolII 1}5//111 gyI 'KJ'ilIl, pp. 63/). There Padma dkar po referred to Ihe VairOCal1l1blzisambodhi
anLlthe writings of Nagarjunalpadal as his scriptural authorilies. RholOIl atso refers to the above-
mentioned question by Shakya mehog Idan (questioll II 7), and presents lhe reply tu that by Go rams
pa in his sDom gS/lm 'k/rml spall!:, pp. 2563-257.1 Ita 32b-33bl, and the reIalcd discussion by Go rams
pa in his sDol1l grum 11I0111b sh a d , p. 154.2-3 [to 7Ob-71al.
.. 14At one point (~Io bu mkhan chen (01" cil., p. 289.2 = 41a) refers to a statemenl allributed by
tradrlllJn to 8u st~m RIO che~ g~uh and quoled by Shakya mchog Idan (gScr fhur 628.1 = 95b). He
goes 011 to quote lis sharp rejeclJon by dPang 10 Isa ba Blu gros brtan pa.
238 D. Jackson S C \,<"ill Worh i\~crihc" (0 S" ~ky" 1':'I)<,fila 239

(2) The Replies to the Meditator Phru ma, rTogs-ldan rGyan-po, biography of Sa par.l Ihal 010 ho mkhan chen composed as part of a lenglhy
and Blo gros rab gsal inlroduclion 10 his COllllllenlary on Sa pal)'s mKlras p a m w m 'ju g p a 'i sg o . The sa/Tle
biography was laler laken over and included by Ames zhabs, with only a few
A curious set of minor, probably apocryphal works attributed to Sa pal) are a changes or additions, in his famed G rea t G en ea lo g y o f tlte S a sly.ya L in ea g e (S a skya
group of texts purporting to be the records of Sa pal)'s doctrinal instructions or g d lln g ro b s clten 11/0).18

replies that were written down in the Eastern Tibetan borderlands or in Western The first three works are quoted by Glo bo mkhan chen in Ihis order:
China by his disciple the doctor Hi ji Rin chen grags. These works were unknown (I) m D o klwlIls kyi sto n p a b lo g rm ra b g sa l gy; d n s /till (fL 30a.3-32a.4; the
in earlier times, and only entered Western and Central Tibetan collections of Sa Derge edition of Sa paD'S Collected works, Toyo Bunko reprinl, no. 97)
pal)'s works in the late 14005, following their recovery from Khams by the 4th Ngor (2 ) rN a l 'b yo r p a p h m m a p a zh es p a s d ris p a 'i Ia n (fL 32a.5-33b.4; Derge ed.,
mkhan po Kun dga' dbang phyug (1424-1478)Y Once again, the texts actually Toyo Bunko reprint, no. 99)
become available to us through their quotation by Glo bo mkhan chen, who re- (3) A very brief and probably apocryphal untitled reply to a question aboul Sa
produced them in his commentary on Sa pal)'s mKhas 'jug, In a brief note included pal)'s criticism of ling b .~ rel relics (fL 33bA-34aA).
there, he also stated that his quotations of three of them derived from text,; A lillie later ·in the m K IU ls Ju g m a m b sh u ll, Glo ho mkhan chen presents yet
discovered by his main teacher:16 another work ascribed to Hi ji:
Although these three stages of replies to questions had not become widespread (4) rTog.~ Idall rgyall po '; dris Ian (rf. 39a.3-43a.6; Derge ed., Toyo Bunko
until now, they are written [here] from [a copy] obtained from Khams by reprint, no. 32).
Vajradhara Kun dga' dbang phyug. Thus, although all rOIlTof Ihe ahove works purport 10 he Ihe recording by Lha rje
Ui ji of Sa pal's teachings, the first two and the fourth carne to be included in some
The account that Kun dga' dbang phyug had searched out such materials in collections of Sa palJ'S works by the time of the tenth Ngor abbot dKon mchog Ihun
Khams and later brought them to Western Tibet was repeated by Glo bo mkhan grub (1497-1557). (As with the above-mentioned case of the G u r stoll gyi zl1us lall,
chen in another work, his catalogue to a locally-commissioned manuscript of the S a <.IKon rnchog Ihun grub was perhaps also influenced here in his evaluation of these
skya blea' 'bum whose arrangement was mainly based on Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang works by the opinions of his teacher Glo bo mkhan chen, who accepted them as
po's record of teachings received. Here (sK yes rtsa , p. 304.5) Glo bo mkhan chen authentic.) Finally the three longer works were printed in the Derge edition of the
stated:J7 S a skya b ka ' 'b u m (1736), and thus they gained a canonical status as far as the more
Moreover, in addition to arranging [this collection] as stated in [Ngor chen's] recent living Sa skya pa tradition was concerned.
I have also included a few fascicles from [Sa pal)'s]
g S a n yig rg ya m tsh o ,
scattered, miscellaneous writings which my noble teacher Kun dga' dbang phyug
brought here after searching out and finding their texts in Khams. Accordingly, The Contents of Hi ji's Works
it is an extremely extensive [collection].
( I) The first of these four works consists of answers given in reply to Ihree
The first three of these replies to questions are found quoted in the extensive questions posed by a certain Khams-pa teacher named Blo gros rab gsal, who
sought clarifications on certain doctrinal points already made by Sa pal) elsewhere
in his major doctrinal treatises. When formulating his first question, the questioner
15 f have briel1y menlioned these works in Jackson (1987), p. 225, D ole 29. Blo gros rab gsal quotes statements from Sa palJ'S T slza d m a rig s g ter and sD o m
16 Gin bo mkhan chen, mKl!os 'jllg mOI1l bshod. p. 33b.5: dris lOll gyi rim po g.ml1l po 'di .mgan g su m ra b d b ye regarding the "non-existence" of the d h a n lla d lttitu , and asks whether
dIad dor bo mo byullg yalng) I mdo Idloll/s lias rdo rje 'drang kUII dga' dbarrg plljlug gi phyag III bY'lllg
bo las bris po yU' 110.
Sa par.l's statements here are to be taken literally. And in the third question he asks
17 The Tibelan lext: de yang gsOIlyig 'lJYtl I1Ilsl,o los ji lIar bJ'll1lgba bzhill bz/,ag po'i slcllgS Sit bka'
whether the Truth of Cessation is "non-created virtue." Some of Sa paI)'S
'b u m ~hor bll bo'i Ilallg Ishall 'go' 1IIig bdag gi 'tiren pa dam po k'lII dga' dballg phy"g gi.f mdo khams
lias dpe rtsad dlOd lias 'dir b.fIlOllfS byon po 'ga' zhig kyang child yod pas shi/' III 'ID'tl.f pa zlrig /Jzllllgs
la l. 1M See also D. Jackson (t986), p. 18 and nnlcs 7 and 8.
 240 D. Jackson
pronouncements in the .5 D o m g sw n ra b d b ye regarding the moral status of the
encouraged such questions and provoked much later discussion,
d lta n n a d ltiitu
especially in connection with the doctrines of the gZhan stong Madhyamaka. The
present work purports to clarify what Sa pal)'s own opinions had originally been.
The final verse of this work, at least as it is quoted by Glo bo mkhan chen in
his m K h a s Ju g m a m s b sh a d (32a) and 'K h rn l sp o n g d g o llg s rg ya n (42a.6), gives the
impression that it was composed by Sa pal} with Bi ji acting as his scribe. That is
what it says if the reading is: la m d g a '; m ;n g g ;.5 la m m kh yen lta rll "by the one
named Kun dga', like the Omniscient One." However, the Derge edition of Sa paQ's
collected works (p. 417.2.2 = Ila 246a) reads: la m d g a 'i m in g g i la m m kh yen lta rll
"like the Omniscient One named Kun dga'," and this can be understood
indicating that Hi ji was answering in accord with what Sa pal}, "the Omniscient
One named Kun dga' (rgyal mtshan)," taught. It concludes, in any case, with a
colophon stating that Bi ji Rin chen grags wrote the work at Gling ka, i.e. in mOo
khams in Eastern Tibet.
(2) The second work consists of five verses ostensibly composed in reply to u
question likewise put to Sa pal} while he was travelling through Eastern Tibet on
his way to the Mongol court in Western China. The questioner, the Yogi Phru ma,
wanted to know the meaning of eight controversial lines in chapter 3 of the sD o m
g sw n ra b d b ye (Ila 35b.2), beginning: "The cultivation of Mahamudra by the
ignorant is taught to be usually the cause for being reborn as an animal." The first
three verses of the reply describe faulty kinds of meditation to be avoided, and the
last two refer to the highest type of meditation recommended in the Paramitiiyiina
and Mantrayana, respectively. Each verse is also accompanied by some small
explanatory notes (mchan bu), mainly consisting of canonical quotations. The work
concludes with a colophon stating: "The Five Verses of Instruction to the Yogi Phru
ma were written by Bi ji at Gling kha of Lower or Eastern mDo khams (m d o kh a m s
sm a d )." In the version quoted by Glo bo mkhan chen (p. 68.4 = 33b), moreover,
yet another explanatory statement appears, which states: "These annotations too
have been written by Bi ji in exact accord with the Dharma-master [Sa pal}]'s
teachings" (m ch a n b u 'd iya n g ch o s rje p a 'ig su n g ji Ita b a b zh in d u b i jis b ris p a 'o ll).
(3) The third answer - which is untitled and extremely brief - was an untitled
reply to a question about Sa pal}'s criticism of spurious rin g b srel relics. This
probably apocryphal composition was apparently never included in Sa pat)'s
collected works. But it is found elsewhere, for instance in the g S u n g sg ro s m a
biography of Sa pal}, C1IOS rje p w ;u j; ta ch en p o 'i n zm n th a r g su n g sg ro s m a , that was
published within the Derge edition of Ngor chen Kun dga' bzang po's works and
Scvcral Works Ascribed 10 Sa skya Pa':l~ila 241
also included - under the title d P a l sa skya p a w !i ta 'i m a m tlla r g sw zg sg ro s I1Ul _
in the biographies section of the L a m 'b ra s slo b b sh a d (Derge ed.), vol. I (ka ), pp.
19
62h.5-63a.2. Its inclusion in the biography would seem to indicate that the latter
work must date to sometime after the life of Ngor chen (1382-1456), since these
works were apparently rediscovered from Khams by Ngor chen's nephew sometime
after Ngor chen's death. But such a conclusion cannot be drawn so simply because
there also existed a g S lIIzg sg rm m a biography of Sa pal) hy Hi ji Rin chen grags,
which was one of the Sources for the above-mentioned later g S u n g sg ro s m a , as
mentioned in the colophon of the latter, p. 67a.5. The existence of such a biography
by Bi ji is also known from an even later reference found in the writings of Ames
as zhahs, though it is not known to he extant as a complete work.20
(4) The fourth work, the rT o g s Id a n rg ya n p o 'i d ri.r la n , deals with such
controversial subjects as Sa pal)'s views on Mahamudra and his criticisms of bla ma
Zhang's doctrine of Mahamudra as "singly or instantaneously decisive" (cltig c1lO cl)
(p. 335.3.1 = Ila ROa). Its colophon indicates that the little work also had a second
title, the "[ Mcdicnl J Eye-spoon of the Mahamudrii" (P llya g rg ya ch en p o 'i m ig IlllIr).
It concludes with the statement that Hi ji composed it on Wu tai shan (Tib. Ri bo
rtse Inga), the famous sacred mountain in Western China associated with Mafiju~ri,
having again and again emphatically resorted to (?) (/la ll ch a g s b ya s lia s) Sa pal.1's
words or teachings.
In addition to quoting these four works at length in his m K h a s Ju g m a m b sh a d ,
Glo bo mkhan chen also quoted one of them, the sT O ll p a b lo g ro s ra b g sa l g yi d ris
la ll, in his 'K h rn l sp o n g d g o n g s rg ya ll, p. 269.4-272.1 (31a.4-32b.l). The context of its
quotation by Glo bo mkhan chen was in reply to the question by Shli.kya mchog
Idan (I, number 12) regarding the moral status of the d lza m za d h iitu . 21
Critical Remarks by Ngag dbang chos grags
Thus the contents of the works were accepted as authoritative by Glo bo
mkhan chen (and no doubt by Kun dga' dbang phyug, too) and as representative of
19 The lerm g.nlllg sgros ma in Ihe title of a biography indicates Ihatthe work purporls 10 record
lhe a~tual sa~ings (gslmg sgros) of !he.masler. II is thus normally the work of a direcl sludenl, Ihough
occaSIOnallyII can also be a compllallon of such direct reports, as in lhe present case.
20 The c~slence of s~ch .a g~ulIg sgros ma biography by Bi ji is recorded by A mcs zhabs Ngag
dbang kun dga bsod nams In hiS bIography of sNgags 'chang Kun dga' rin chen, Srid pa gmlll, p.26b.3.
21 See Shiikya mchog Idan, Legs bshad g.fer IllIIr, p. 486 (24b). Cf. Go rams pa's brid reply in his
sDom gSllm '/(IImJ spOllg, f. 15b3, where this is counled as lhe t9th qucstion.
244 D. Jackson
early stage the original was not complete and that at some intervening time the
basic verses alone had been copied [to fill this gap of one folio].
Consequently [mkhan po Ngag blo Rin po che, who was hoping to print
this work,] intended to find another original to compare it with, and so
postponed having it carved onto blocks. But he had no luck at all in obtaining
another original. later, when he was near death, he hestowed it upon me,
together with a last testament. Accordingly I have valued it higher than any of
the three c1ao;sesof sacred objects - (images, scriptures and stUpas) - and I
have looked after it, keeping it with me wherever I went.
later (p. 7.4) he justifies its publication because:
Though the basic text of the sDu11l gswn rub d b ye has previously been carved
onto printing blocks, these author's annotations, though they are mentioned as
existing in a few authentic sources, have only actually been located in this
[single] manuscript, and therefore this is an extremely rare textual tradition.
Evidence for Accepting it as Authentic
Tshu\ khrims rgyal mtshan in his Tibetan introduction strongly advocates the
position that the work is genuine, and he makes the following points in that
connection. To begin with (pp. 3f), he states that the existence of a gloss-
commentary has been mentioned in the writings of a number of trustworthy
scholars, and observes that the quotations by those scholars agree with the text as
we actually have it. Three such commentaries or treatises which quoted it as
authentic and authoritative are said to have been: (1) the sDom gsum mum {}shad
zla 'od /lor b u , a sDo11l gsum commentary by Ngag dbang chos grags (1572-IM1),
(2) the b sT a /l rt~ is l/za g b sa m ru b d ka r, a work on chronology and history by Klu
sgrub rgya ml~ho (1523-1596), and (3) the L a m 'b ra s kiu klu id , a practical manuul
on the L a m 'b ra s sN a n g g su m and rG yu d g su m by the same scholar. I have not yet
been able to trace the two quotation in the works of Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (though
the existence of these quotes should be possible to confirm in the future).24
Nevertheless, the work is definitely cited and accepted by Ngag dbang chos grags,
as will be described below.
Furthermore, the Geshe states (pp. 40 that three of the annotations can be
seen upon examination to have the diction (/s/zig sgros) of Sa palJ.'S compositions.
24 Both works of Mang lhos Klu sgrub rgya mlsho are inaccessible to me at the nwmenl, lhough
his bsTo/rrtsis has been reproduced in Tibel (Lhasa: 19871) and his Lam 'hras 'k/Jriti yig is availahle
in vol. 14 (plio) of lhe Lam 'bras .rlab bs!lati, Derge edilion.
Sever,,! W ••• ks Ascrihed III Sa skya Pal)qila 245
Nellr the heginning, the rirst of them says "( have set forth these points which are
connected with Tantra hriefly (here), hut ( have expounded them elsewhere in
detail" (g.wl1g .\"l1gag.s clang 'Illd pa (Ii dag lIulo I.Wlm zllig bSlall lal rgyas par gZIIll/l
till bJ(cl/l rod). (n a second passllge dealing with the discipline of the Uodhisallva,
the note l'ppears: "Fur details 011 the differences between these two, see my 'Ritual
for Creating the Thought of Awakening'" C eli gn}'i.f kyi khyud pur rgyas pa kilO ho.r
/lyCIJ p a l .\'l'IIlS h.\·kyed kyi clIO g a r flo.s). The third such reference occurs near the end,
and H is less conclusive. The not~ :-.lall'S: "There are limitless errors [such as thesel,
and since I could never explain them all, you should investigate them to a suilllble
extent yourself!" ('kltm l p a d p a g filmed p a yo d d el b sh a d kyis m a la n g s p cu l ra n g re.r
d rigt [Jas d p ro d ).
These pllssages are indeed reminiscent of Sa jJHlJ'Sdiction and though!. The
first of the three mirrors a mysterious reference to the same effect by Sa palJ in a
final passage of his sDo11l gsum ra b dfJye.2S There (p. 320.2.4; l1a 47b) Sa pal)
says:u,
Though indeed there are infinitely many key points Itaught by others} which
disagree with the intent of the Tantras and the great adepts because they vitiate
the key points of the Vajrayana, I will explain them elsewhere because they are
purely Mantra Idoctrine].
(n fact, although Sa pal) did compose several lllntric commentaries early in his
career, at some point he gave up the project of writing in detail on Tantra,
preferring instead to edit and promulgate the tantric writings of his illustrious
grandfather and unc\es.27
2.5See alslI rhe similar passage in his Rigs gter rOl/g 'grel where he says thaI he discus..~edIwo of
Ihe jiifis (11ul(e/IOd) c1sewhen: in del ail (p. 259.3.3): rab hyed dallg IIIlshwrgs po dO/lg dlls las 'tias po
ml.t/ll/llg.r I'a '; dbyc ba 1II0llK po zlrig yod mod kyi I yi ge lIIullgS k)';s dogs pus II/a bris mod I klro bns
gZ11ll1ltill b.t/rallpar Mia bar b)'o'ol I. Almost nothing else is knuwn ahout the work referred 10 here,
as also nored in D. Jackson (1987), p. 153, nole 34.
0 (0 ho mkhan chen refers to Ibis unknown Pramal)a work hy Sa pal.! in his commenlary .tD c
btlrl1lm,J~) ... mum b.rhad, p. 392.6 (196b.6), where he menlions thaI Ihis work was said to exisl in
early annol,llions (me/rUII mY;l/g) but Ihal it was /101 avail<lblc in his own lime alld lherefore should
he seilrched fllr. There 'Ire a few olber myslerious citalions of unknown works in Sa pal)'S wriling.~.
26 The Tibetan lexl:
rdo rje Ilreg pu'i gllud drugs pus I I
rgYlld sde mams dallg gTttb Ihob kyi II
dgollg.t pa maills dOllg 'gal bo'; glladll
dpag med yod mod gsallg sl/gags lIyidll
)'il/ phy;r kilO bns gzIra1/ dll bshud II
27 Sa pal) menlions ht~ laler decision ill his Ngo brgyad mo, p. 151.3.3 (/ha JOSh), as being based
011 Ihe lack of benefit for lhe earlier founders' writings if he did compose new Irealises on Tanlra: rd o
rje l/reg pu /a'allg spy; dOllg bye brag gi bSloll beDSci rigs po byed 'dad po yod mod kyi I 'OIl /cy01/gbla
ilia I((mg ilia de dog gi gsuI/g rob /0 bogs db)~t118'ID ~1mu 11I1110118
bas bslall beDSpIrro 11/0/Som nra grogs
 242 D. Jackson Several Works A~cribcd In Sa skya Pa.,t,lilil 243

Sa palis own thought Not all later Sa skya pa scholars, however, welcomed these different and more positive conclusion. If the reasons traditionally adduced for its
works with the same enthusiasm. In the mid-17th century, in fact, the illustrious authenticity can be accepted as conclusive by modern scholars too, this work may
scholar and Sa skya abbot Ngag dbang chos grags raised the subject of the works' turn out to be the most important of those discussed in the present article.
authenticity in one of his commentaries, and gave what amounts to a polite Two titles appear on the title page of the modern reprint: that of the basic
rejection of their authenticity. treatise, the sD o m p a g .m m &'Yi ro b Iu d b ye h a '; IW a ll b co s, and that of the
This discussion appears in Ngag dbang chos grags's sD o m g su m ra b d b ye cOllllllcntary .. \D o m gsu/1I mllg mchall 'kltm l med. i.e. "The Genuine Explanatory
commentary, the sD o m p a g su m gy; ra b Iu d b ye b a '; m a m b slla d leg s p a r b sh a d p a Annotations to thc .fDom g.wlIl ruh dbye." The recent Indian edition (New Delhi:
zla 'o d n o r b u (New Delhi: T. G. Dhongthog Rinpoche, 1978). In one passage he Ngawang Topgyal {A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024], 1987) is a reprint of
mentions the titles of the answers to Blo gros rab gsal and Phm ma collectively, or the 1986 Lhasa edition by the Na lendra dge bshes Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan. The
as if they both referred to the same work.22 Shortly thereafter he described the table of contents mentions, in addition to the main work, two introductory sections
origins of these texts: by its original editor: (I) an account of how the work came to be published (sDom
. This textual tradition was received indirectly at a later time from the region of g .w m ru h d b ye'; ra n g m ch a ll d p e h skn lll g sa l b sh a d ), by the editor, Na lendra dge
Khams by rGyal tshab Kun dga' dbang phyug (1424-1478, 4th abbot of Ngor), hshcs Tshul khrims rgyalmtshan, hmo., pp. 1-8; and (2) an outline of the contents
and thus it did not appear previously. These words seem to be excellent, and (N a n g d o n sa b ca d ), Intro., pp. 9-11.
they are merely of a similar type to the writings of'Phags pa (1235-1280). I do
not believe they are the writings of the Great Master [Sa pal}], for there can
be seen here and there pOinL'i requiring investigation in the first three The Provenance of the Original Manuscript
verses?3
The manuscript used as the basic text for the modern edition appears to have
No doubt Ngag dbang chos grags derived the information about the origin of the been very rare, if not nearly unique (though the same work was also available in
texts from his readings of one or both of GJo bo mkhan chen's above-mentioned this century to the Sa skya mKhan chen Sangs rgyas bstan 'dzin. b. 1906. as will be
works. AJthough he by no means rejected these writings as worthless, he did mentioned below). The dge bshes Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan devotes a page or two
explicitly deny their ultimate authorship by Sa pal}, basing his conclusions on the of his introduction to telling the interesting story of how this rare original
contents of the first three verses of one of them. manuscript was transmitted down to his teacher, the Na lendra bshad grwa mkhan
po Ngag dbang blo gros (1892-ca. 1959), and brieny alludes to how it survived the
ravages of the Cultural Revolution to become the basis for lhis new publication:
(3) The "Own-Notes" on the sD o m g su m ru b d b ye The old original of lhe above-mentioned "genuine annotations by the author
himself" (rang mc/ulII 'kh m l m ed ) was a book owned by Pal) chen Ngag dbang
Yet another work ascribed to Sa pag that later Sa skya pa scholars such as chos grags that had come into the possession of the Na lendra great abbot and
Ngag dbang chos grags discussed critically was a version of Sa pal}'s famed sD o 1 1 l Vajradhara, our own nohle teacher Ngag blu Rin po che. The first and lasl
gsW7I rab d b ye which included numerous explanatory glosses or annotations (mchall folios were newly wriHen in extremely excellent characters. nut if one considers
bu) - i.e. the so-called "sD o m g su m with its Author's Own Glosses" (sD o m g S 1 l1 1 l that they contain a few annolations, it is apparent that these {folios] were
ra llg m ch a n ). With this work, however. Ngag dbang c1lOs grags reached a quite probably nothing more than recopies of folios that had become excessively old
and damaged, and were not [made to fill up} omissions. Nevertheless, beginning
from the phrase yo d t.sa m d O ll b yed IIUS p lzy;r rol I in the basic text and
22 See Ngag dbang chos grags, toe. cll •• p. 292.5 (146b): mol 'byor po phrl/llla'am I 'go' zhig mdo
kI,ol/ls Icy; SIOI/po blo gros rob gsol zer ba del .
continuing until the words h .m g o h a th a m s ca d jig p a r gyurll, there is one short
folio in old-style calligraphy which is different from both the paper and
23 Ibid., p. 293.3: dpe 'IDqlll 'dj phyis rgyallslzob kll1l dgo' dballg po'i llgo la khams kyi phyogs /las
brg}q,d de bJ'llllgba yill pas I Sllga sor lIIi snollgllShig 'di dag leRSpo ,mang zlzillg 'pllags pa'i Crullg gi rigs characters in the rest of the manuscript, and here there are not any
'dra bo Isam 'dug I bdag llyid ellell po 'j gsllllg yill par IIi yid lIIi dies Ie I tslligs bead sligo 11I0gmm 10 annotations. Therefore there has been good reason to suspect that from an
dpyod 'XVI' klla yor slIallg bas so I.
246 D. Jackson S""er ••l \V(lrks Ascrihed In Sa skya l'al.1"il •• 247

Regarding the second annotation referred to, it can be said that Sa pal) did
compose such a liturgy for the ritual production of the Thought of Awakening, i.e.
for the Bodhisattva Vow. It is 1'B 21: d B u m a lu g s ky; Jell/.f /Jskycd kyi clIO g a (cia
221a-239a). Elsewhere Sa pal) referred to this work in another major treatise, his
T h u b p a '; d g o n g s g sa l, in a somewhat longer citation (p. 5.3.4; th a lOa): "For
particulars on the ritual of the Madhyamaka tradition, the rules of training and so
forth, these are explained in the text of my Ritual for Producing the Thought, and
therefore you should refer there.,,28
For the third annotation too, some close parallels in thought - if not in exact
wording - can be found in the following passage from the sD o m g su m ra b dhye (p.
320.2.5; n a 47b):29
Though there can still be seen infinitely many faulty [and] erroneous
formulations, I will leave it at this because I fear my treatise will grow too long.
But those intelligent persons who understand the key points .of scripture
reasoning should investigate well and perform refutations and proofs [regarding
those faults].
The parallels found in this last instance, however, are not in themselves convincing.
since one could expect a similarity in thought (and perhaps even in diction) from
a gloss on a closely related passage in the same work!
Further Discussions or Favorable Mentions by Ngag dbang chos grags and Luter
Scholars
Thus there was at least some internal evidence for &"cribing the work to Sa
paI), and in addition there were a number of noteworthy traditional precedents for
accepting it as authentic. As the dge bshes Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan mentioned,
po Ius yon§S su rdzo§S po'; bsla/l bcos sngon chad kI,o bos 11I0bsdebs soil.
28 The Tibetan text: bye brag III dbu 11I0po'; lugs ky; clIO go dOllgl bslab bya 10 sags po kIlO bos
byas po'; serns bskyed kyi clIO go'; yi ger §Sol bas der blla bar byo'o II.
In his treatise on the Bodhisauva vow, Sa paJ;l refers to the related work TB 22 Byang chub ky;
mchog III sems bskyed po'; clIO go'; II/llg sbyor. See p. 273.1.3 (do 238a): 'd; 10 /lye bar mkho ba'; II/llg
sbyor ra' zh;g kho bos logs Sl/ bris pas der blla bar bya'o II.
29 The Tibetan text:
d o dUIIg 'kluul po 'j ma", gzllag II; II
SkyOll can dpog med snallg na yang II
gVlIIIIg ma1ll}f dogs pas re zh;g bzhag II
gol Ie II1IIg da1l8 ri§S po'j gnadll
shes po'; blo can moms kyis dell
legspar dpyod 10 dgag bsgmb gyis II
two key Sa skya pa scholars of the 16th (lnd 17th centuries - Mang thos Klu sgruh
rgya mtsho and Ngag dhang elms grags - quoted the R ang IIIchall commcntary as
:luthenlic. This spcaks very much ill its favor, hut in fact, anothcr evcn morc
important discussion hy Ngag dhang el10S grags of this qucstion exists. The latter,
in a passage of his celebrated POl ch en tlm g gi 'b el glam in the section dealing with
the sf)om g.H111l rah tlh ye and its related commentatorial traditiolls, mentions these
notes as the earliest cOllllllentatorial writing on Sa pa!)'s sDolII gSUf1L '-Ie carefully
specifies at the beginning that there were two different versions of this work in
circulation which should not be confused with each other - one being the shorter,
genuine work. and the other being a longer version which had been enlarged by
another person. He also points out that while there was no mention or discussion
whatsoever of these notes by the main early commentators, nor by either Go rams
pa or Shakya mchog Jdan, the great scholar Gung ru ba Shes rab bzang po (141 I·
and 1475) did maintain that such a gloss-autocommentary existed.30 (If Gung ru ba had
in fact known of it, however, it is strange that Go rams pa, who studied the sDom
g .m m ro h d h ye intensively under him in 1453, never mentions it.)ll And Ngag
dhang chos grags himself takes it In he dcfinilely authentic, saying that teachings to
this effect have corne down from the great Vajradhara of their tradition, Ngor chen
Kun dga' hzang po (1382-1456).32
Furthermore, as the dge bshes Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan mentioned in his
modern introduclion, Ngag dbang chos grags also treated the work as authentic in
his sD o m g .m m ra b d b ye commentary. One such passage from that work is p. 302
(15 Ib), where the glusses are cited after Sa par;t's Thull pa dgongs gsal as a genuine,
authoritative source (p. 302.4 = 15Ib): th u b p a dgollgs g sa l d a n g I sdol1l gsum ra n g
mchall clu d ra n g s pa la ~ I ...
Other later influential Sa skya pa scholars also became convinced of the work's
authenticity. For instance, the 17th-century Sa skya khri pa and outstanding
historian Ames zhabs Ngag dhang kun dga' bsod nams (1597-1659), accepted the
work, though as a pupil of Ngag dhang chos grags it could be expected that he
30 Gung ru ba was the sixth abbot of 'Phan po Na tendra, Ihe monastic scat of Rong sian Shcs
bya kUII rig. For olher references 10 him, sce D. Jackson (1989), pp. 15f.
31 Conceivably il could have come inlo Gung rU ba's hands arIer the time of Iheir studies together
in the early 145()s.
32 Ngag dbang chos grags, Bod ky; ",khas, pp. 256-7 (l29b-130a): 'd; la elros rje so pa~llIy;d kyj
rallg ",chall 'Ihor (p. 257) bll IIIdor bsdlls yoa' I 'di 10 klra cig gis "'ChO/I SilO bsrings lias ellllg zod 1II0llg
dll sOllg bo )'Od mod I rallg IIIcllall rkya1lgpo ny;d du 'khml por 111;b yo I rob dbye 'j 'grel chell ",dzad po
sligo ",a mOllls dallg I go shak gnyis ky; gsung las fallg me/lOll gyi 'phros ye med /cyangI mkhas po 'j dbollg
po gl/lIg nI sher bzollg rallg mclloll yod par bzhed dllg I de'allg rallg fe'; rdo rje 'challg kUlI dga' bzallg po ';
gSl/llg rgyJ111
los bYllng ba'; Ishad l/rub IIges Sll 'dugl
 248 D. Jackson Several Wmks Ascrihed to Sa skya Pa~~ita 249

would have agreed with his teacher. In a list of Sa palJ's works in his genealogy of is not Indinn, and therefore Indian palJc)iras have not considered it as valuable.
the Sa skya lineage, he includes the sD o m g su m ra n g m ch a n as one of several Even if one were forced to consider it as valuable, ...
general gloss-commentaries (mdlan 'grel) that Sa palJ is said to have written, Several other notes contain similar critical remarks relating 10 spurious Tibct<ln
including those on the Samputa and VajravidarQJ)1 dharar.zi (rDo rje mam Joms).33 texts, doctrines and adepts.35
Furthermore, the most recent commentator on the sD o m g su m ra b d b ye, the Sa Thus, even if some or all of the annotations were not in fact by Sa pa!}, they
skya mkhan chen Sangs rgyas bstan 'dzin (b. 1906), a follower in the tradition of still represent an old (15th-century or earlier?), incisive, and traditionally valued set
Ngag dbang chos grags and Ames zhabs, also accepts these notes as genuine, and of comments on the .\Dol1l gSlim ra b d b ye. 36 The "Author's Own Annotations')
he used them as one of his main sources when compiling his own mchall 'grel should Hccordingly be taken into account by modern scholars in future studies of the
commentary, which he wrote in Tibet and had published in India under the title sDo/ll gsu/Il and its commentaries.

sD o m p a g su m g yi ro b tu d b ye b a 'i m ch a n 'g rel (New Delhi: T. G. Dhongthog, 1979).

General Conclusions
Some Additional Remarks
Obviously, the textual history of Sa pal}'s collected works was a long and
For my own part, I too get the impression that some of these annotations could complicated affair. Even the preliminary investigations into it are not yet complete
have been by Sa palJ, or at least by a very learned, critically minded person by any means.37 Future research on the presently available sources - such as the
thoroughly steeped in Sa pag's tradition. A small number of the glosses are minor commentaries on Sa palJ'S works - are likely to turn up other quotations from,
grammatical expansions which merely clarify the phrasing without adding much to references to, and discussions of still more questionable works attributed to him. In
an understanding of the key points at issue. The majority of annotations, however, the coming years, too, a number of other similar works attributed to him are almost
are more substantial, identifying the scriptural origins of various quotes, or clarifying certain to appear when the huge collections of books surviving in the Potala or at
other aspects of the discussions. Some indeed add a new and interesting dimension Sa skya in the Lha khang chen mo finally become accessible. Though few are likely
to the debate. For instance, in connection with the discussion of the ultimate to be authentic works of Sa paJ), each must be given a fair hearing.
34
b o d h icitta created through ritual, one note asserts:
Even though [some] say that the P ang kOllg teaches that the production of the
ultimate b o d h icitta is a ritual act (bya b a ), the Pallg kOllg is a Tibetan text, but

33 Ames zhabs, Byallg phyogs ... (=5a skya gilulIg rabs d,ellmo), p. 121.5 (61a): me"all 10
sambula) rdo rje mam 10ms k;f 'X)'U dJ sdolll gsum rob dbye la sogs po dri ma med pa'i bstall beos
mal/g du mt:had de bslall po gsal bar mdzad po yill I/O I.
34 The Tibetan text, p.50 (25b): pallg kOllg las dOll dam pa byallg chub kyi sellls bskyed bya har
gsrlllgs so zer /Ia'allg pallg kollg bod 11I0 yill gyi rgya gar (ilia'!) ma yill pas {1Q1.rqi to maJ//s gcsigs SII lIIi

byed( r J gal te gtsigs SII byed dgos Iia YOllg I.
As mentioned above in connection with the Gllr SIOII gyi zJIIIS 1011 and Glo bo mkhan chen's
quotation of it, Shlikya mchog Idan (vol. 6, p. 622.6 '" 92b) quoted the sPallg kOllg phyo!: 'ID'a pa zhcs
byo ba'i IIIdo as one scriptural source for the opposing interpretation, but does not secm to question
its authenticity.
One Tibetan lradition recorded by the B o d 'XJ'D tshig mdzod clleIl mo, p. 1650, slates Ihal the
sPallg skOJlg pllyag brgyo po'; mdo is a religious teaching or text which appeared in Tibet at Ihe time
of the early ruler Tho tho ri gnyan btsan, together wilh the 1/100 sde za mQ log. The lalter lext is said
to have miraculously dropped onto the roof of a palace and lhen to have been kept by Ihe Tihetan
rulers for several genemtions until it was finally lranslated into Tihetan hy Thu llIi 10 tsa ha in Ihe 71h
century.
35 Sce for instance thc sDom grllm rallg me/rol/, p. 13.3 (7a), wherc the aulhor mentions the
frequent quotation of lhe lines: IEJ~I yi dlls 110 'bras h/l yodll los 'pIITO call gyis nags par gyllrl r. Then
he givcs a blankct denial that such words were taught in any authentic Buddhist Siilra, Tantra or
lreatise; instead, this is said to have been the fabrication of some Tibetan who was inclined toward
non-Buddhist Indian traditions. See also p. 30.2 (15b) where the term dkar Ilog zOllg 11101 is said not
to exist in India, but to be heard of in Tibel ('d; 'dra IEJ'Q gar I/O med b o d dll II/Os).
36 The version of the basic text it incorporates may also be important for later editing work, if
it can be shown lhat it was not emeuded under the influence of the Derge edition of the sDQIII gS/l1II
rub dl~I't!.
.17 cr. L. van der Kuijp (1'J1l7), p. 135.
250 D. Jackson Severo,l Wurks /\scrihnllu S•• skya 1'~IIl~ril~1 251

hIll Oi (40hj kun rtlzoh yin par 'dud! I

Appendix ces pa lIar roll
des na rnam silang mngnn byang dangl gsang ba 'dus pa la sogs pari rnam pa
The Quotation of the Answer to Gur ston's Question dang I IIlIIS pa dangl rten 'brei lam <.Iuhyed pa phar phyin la ma grags pa'i thalls
mkhas pa'i khyad par la nyas modi 'di '<.Ira'i rigs can gsang sngags kyi thabs kyi
Glo bo mkhan chen, sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dl>ye ba'i drir lall lung gi tsJ/(ul ilia khyad par mang po gtla' slel dhang hskur ba l11a[sic!J Ihoh pa la gsang har bshad
'klJml spong dgongs rgyall, pp.286-8 (39b-40h): yodl dhang hskllf ha ilia Ihoh pa'j khrol1l chen po la hshad na gsang hll sgrogs pa'i
rlsa hung dLl hshad gda" des na gsang sngags kyi limns la mkhas pa'i khyad par
10 tsa ba gur ston dpal mdzes rgyal mtshan gyi dris Ian lasl phar phyin gyi smon 'jug gi rjes la shyar nasI dOll dam sems bskyed du ming blags
nHS chos rgyus chung bas gsang sngags dang phar phyin gyi khyad par ma phye<.l par
mam snang mngon byang las don dam sems bskyed cho ga las skye bar bshad pa 'gro[IJ
Ita bu de phar phyin gyi lugs kyi don dam sems bskyed d~'i cho ga ma lag.<;1gsang
sngags kyi lugs phar phyin la ma grags pa mam pa dangl mos pa dangl rten 'brei
lam du byed pal dper nal sho nya ta'aml swa bha: wa'i sngags kyis stong pa [40aJ
nyid du bsgom pa Ita bu gcig lagsl gsang sngags pa la 'di 'dra'i rigs kyis mam pa
lam du byed pa la sogs pa phar phyin las khyad par du 'phags pa mang du gda'i Bihl jography
dper na phar phyin du ye shes la kha dog dang dbyibs med par bshad kyangl gsang
sngags pas me long Ita bu'i ye shes zla ba'i dkyil 'khor mdog dkar poll dbyibs zlum Tibetan Sources
po'oll 'ga' zhig tu gm gsum du'ang bshadl mnyam pa nyid kyi ye shes nyi ma'i dkyil
'khor du bshad pa la sogs pa dangl de bzhin du chos dhyings ye shes Iha zhal phyag dKon rnchog lllUn grub. dPalldml bla ma dam pa mams {as dam pa'i ellOs 1 /IO S pa';
gi mam pa can du gsungs zhes dangl dper na phar phyin mdo sde rnams dangl yi ge (1011 gllyer gdcngs call rol pa'i ellll gter. Oehru Dun, O. OyaItsan, 1970. 2
byams pa'i chos Ingal klu sgrub kyi rigs tshogsl thogs med kyi rgyas bsdus kyi bstan vols.
bcos mtha' dag dang! bslab btusl spyod 'jug dangl jo bo rje'i bar yun chad kyis
kyang smon 'jug gnyis la cho ga bshad kyil don dam sems bskyed la cho ga hshud Go rams pa hSlld nams seng ge. sDo//1 pa gSlim gyi Imall beDS fa dris siring rtsod
pa mi gda'i spyir yang don shes brjod las 'das pa la cho ga mi mchi stel mdo lasl pa'i lall sdom g.sum 'khrnl spollg. Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bUill. Tokyo: T ayo Bunko,
don dam pa la sems kyi rgyu ba yang med na yi ge Ita smos kyang ci dgos 1969. Vol. 14, PI'. 240.4.1-273.2.6 (ta 246a-311a).
zhes gsungs pa dangl
phra phyir thos pa'i yul min tell --------. sJ)om pa gS1l11lgyi rob tu dbye ba'i mam bshad rgyal ba'i gsung rab kyi dgollgs
I
don dam yin pas bsam mi khyab II pa gsal ba. Sa skya pa'j hka' 'bum. Vol. 14, 1'1'.119.1.1-199.3.6 (ta la-16Ia).
I
chos nyid zab phyir 'jig rten pa'il! I
bsgom pa la sogs yul ma yinll 010 bo mkhan chen bSod !Hlms Ihun grub. mKlzas pa mams Jug pa'i sgo'i mam par
zhes dangl klu sgrub kyis kyangJ bshad pa rig gnus gsaf byed. [reprint of aGIo bo manuscript.J New Delhi, N.
f
brjod par bya ba bzlog pa stell Topgye, 1979.
sems kyi spyod yul log pas so II
zhes dang! byang chub sems 'grellasl J ________
. sD e bdun mdo dang bellS pa'i dgongs 'gret tshad ilia figs gter gyi phyogs snga
de Har kun rdzob pa'i sems clIO gas bskyed nasi don dam hyang chub kyi sems mam par bshad pa rigs lam gsal byed_ 29 ff. Reprint of the Derge editioB-
bsgom pa'i stobs kyis bskyed par bya'o Manduwalla, Dehra Dun, Pal Ewam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985.
zhes pa dangl spyod 'jug lasl
don dam blo yi spyod yut minI I
 252 D. Jackson Several Works Ascribed h. Sa sky" Pa,:,"i'a 253

--------. sDom po. gsum gyi rob III dbye ba'; dris Ian lung gi tshad ma 'khrul spollg --------. sT em p o . M o g m s ra h g sa l lOIi d lis la n , Sa skya pa'i hka' 'hum. Tokyo, Toyli
dgongs rgyan. rGyud sde spyi mam gsal byed sogs. Manduwalla, Dehra Dun. Pal Bunko, 19Mt Vol. 5, pp. 416.3.4-417.2.3 (Ila 2441>-246a). [Supposedly thc
Ewam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985. pp. 209-321 (la-57a). recording hy Bi ji Rill chcll grags of teachings givcn hy Sa paJ.l.j

Ngag dbang chos grags, mKhan chen. sDol1~ po. gSlim gyi rub tu dbye ba'i mam bslult/ --------- 1 7 m b pal. clgol1gt pa mb III g\u/"l)(), SKKIl Vol. 5, pr. I. 1.I-50. 1.6 (tlw la-
legs par bslzad po. zla 'od nor bu. Delhi: T. G. Dhongthog Rinpoche, 1978. 99a).

--------. Bod kyi mkllar po. Sf/go.phy; dag g; grub mtha'; shall 'byed mlha' dpyod dallg -------- . .rOom pa gS1l1ll gyi ra/J tll dhye bu, SKKB. Vol. 5, pp_ 297.1.1-32U.45
bear pa'; 'bel ba'; gtam skyes dpyod ldall mkhas pa'; Ius rgyall rU t chell mdze.f pa'i (Ilo. I a-4Rb.5).
pllm tsltom bkod po.. Thim-phu, Kunsang Topgyal and Mani Dorje, 1979.
---------. sDom po. g.\li11l b:yi rab III dbye ba'; bstafl b eo s of Sa-skya Par:l()ita wilh the
Chos rje pa1J4; to. chell po'; mam thar gSUllg sgros 11!a See dPal so. skya pa~/(Ji tal .rOom gsum rang I1/ChaJl 'klzrul med: Explanatory Annotations to Sa skya
mam thar ... Par.lf,litu's .rD om g.\WlI ra b d b ye, AUributed to Sa skya Pa,,~lita Kun dga' rgyal
mtshan (1182-1251). Reprint of lhe 1986 Lhasa Edition by the Na lendra dge
dPal sa skya p01.14ita'i mom thar gsullg sgros ma, Lam 'bras slob bshad (Derge ed.). hshes Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan. New Delhi: Nguwang Topgyal, 1987.
Yol. 1 (ka), ff. 57a.1-67a.6. See also the edition ill the Derge edition of Ngor
chen Kun uga' bzang po's collected works, CIIOSrje pa~14i ta chen po '; mam tlUlr --------. rNal 'byor pa pl/lu ma pa zl1es pas d1i.f pa'i lan, SKKB. Yol. 5, pp. 419.1.2-
gswrg sgros 11/0., Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum (Tokyo: Toyu Bunko), vol. 8, pp. )0.3.2- 419.3.\ (na 249h-250h). [Supposedly the recording hy Bi ji Rin chen grags (If
3 6 .3 .5 (ka 61a-73a). [The name of the author or compiler is nol specified.j teachings given by Sa palJ-l

Zhu chen Tshu\ khrims rin chen. dPal Idall bla ma dam pa nUi11Lf las dam fla'i --------. 7:rlw cl m u rigs pu'i gter, SKKB. Vol. 5, pp. 155.1.]-167.1.6 (da 1<1-25a.6).
cllOS thos pa'; yi ge dOll gllyer gdengs call rol pa'i ellU gter. Dehra Dun,
D.GyaItsan, 1970. 2 vols. A Illes zhahs N gag tlhung kiln t1ga' bso<.Jnam s, 'Jam m gon. 'Dzam g/ing f}yung pllJ'ogs
kyi lllUh pa'i rgval t.flwb chell po dpallduJI sa skya pa'i gdWlg rabs rill po che ji
[Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen]. dPal sa skya'i rje btsull gOllg ma l/lga'; gSUllg rab ltar byo/1 plI'i I.f/lll/ lori mam par thar pa ngo mtshar nil po cite'; bang mdzoc/ dgos
rin po cI,e'i par gyi sgo 'pilar 'b,ed pa'; dkar chag 'pltrul gyi Ide 11I;g, Sa skya pa'i 'dod kUIl 'bYling. Delhi, Tashi Dorje, 1975.
bka' 'bum. Tokyo, Taya Bunko, 1969. Vol. 7, pp. 310.3.1-343.1.6. [Falsely
ascribed to bKra shis Ihun grub.]
Modern Sources
Shakya mchog Idan, gSer mtlog palJ chen. sD o m p a g su m gy; ra b tu d b ye
ba'i bstan beos ky; 'bel glam mam par nges po. legs bshad gser gyi thur ma. David Jackson (1983). "Commentaries on (he Writings of Sa-skya PaQt,lita: A
Collected Works. Thimphu: 1975. Vol. 6, pp. 439-648, vol. 7. Bibliographical Sketch," Tibet Joumal. Yol. 8-3, pp. 3-23.

-------, sDom gsum rab dbye 10. dri ba legs pa, vol. 17, pp. 448-462. -------- (1985). "Two Grub mlha' Treatises of Sa-skya Pa"t,lita - One Lost and One
Forged,» The Tibet Joumal. Vol. 10-1, pp. 3-13.
Sa skya Pal)r,lita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan. rTogs Idall rgyall po'; dris lall, Sa skya pa'i
bka' 'bum. Yol. 5, pp. 3342.2-335.4.1 (na 77a-80a). [Supposedly the recording --------- (1986). "Sa-skya Pal)f,!ita's letter to the Tibetans: A Late and Dubious
by Bi ji Rin chen grags of teachings given by Sa pal).] Addition to his Collected Works," U te Journal o f the Tibet Society. Yol. 6, pp.
17-23.
254 D. J ack.~()n

------ (1987). T h e E n tra n ce G a te fo r th e W ise (S ectio n Ill): S a -skya P a {u /.ita o n

Wiener
In d ia n a n d T ib eta n T ra d itio n s o f P ra m ii{la a n d P h ilo so p h ica l D eb a te.
Studien zur 1Jbetologie und Buddhismllskunde. Vienna. ':'01. 17, 2 parts.

----- (1989). T h e E a rly A b b o ts o f 'P h a n -p o N a -Ien d ro : T h e V icissitu d es o f a G rea t

T ib eta n M o n a stery in th e 1 5 th C en tu ry. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde. Vienna. Vol. 23.

Leonard van der Kuijp (1984). "Marginalia to Sa-skya Pal}~jta's Oeuvre," Jo u m a l

o f th e In tern a tio n a l A sso cia tio n o f B u d d h ist S tu d ies. Vol. 7-1, pp. 37-55.

------- (1985). "On the Authorship of the G zb u n g -lu g s leg s-p a r b sh a d -p a attributed
to Sa-skya Par.I(Jita,
" Jo u rn a l o f th e N ep a l R esea rch C en tre. Vol. 7 pp. 75-86.

------ (1987). "Further Marginalia to Sa-skya .PalJ~ita's Oeuvre," B erliller

In d o lo g isch e S tu d ien . Vol. 3, pp. 129-137.

Jared D. Rhoton (1985). "A Study of the sDom-gsum of Sapan," unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia Universily.