On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s-

Kāmadhenu Commentary on the Amarakoṣa in Tibet1

Leonard W. J. van der KuijpHarvard University

Abstract: Subhūticandra’s (ca. 1050-ca. 1110) circa 1100 Kāmadhenucommentary on the Amarakoṣa (’Chi med mdzod) is one of the great monumentsof Indian lexicography. Only several incomplete manuscript witnesses of theSanskrit text are known to have survived. However, a complete manuscript ofNepali origin was translated into Tibetan by the great Si tu paṇ chen chos kyi’byung gnas (1700-74) in the eighteenth century. This paper seeks to provide apreliminary biography and bibliography of theKāmadhenu and the ways in which,beginning with the translation of an incomplete manuscript by Kīrticandra andYar klung lo tsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshan (1242-1346) in Kathmandu, this workwas able to insinuate itself in Tibetan intellectual circles. As a matter of course,it shares a great deal of history with the Amarakoṣa itself.

IntroductionThe transmission of the Sanskrit text of Subhūticandra’s (ca. 1050-ca. 1110)corpulent Kāmadhenu or Kavikāmadhenu commentary on Amarasiṃha’s circafifth century Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana, that is, the famous Amarakoṣa lexicon,2 is a farfrom happy one.3 Only four incomplete manuscript witnesses of this not

1 I owe a debt of gratitude to what was then the Committee on Scholarly Communication with thePeople’s Republic of China,Washington, D. C., and is now the Committee on Scholarly Communicationwith China, New York, for a research grant that enabled me to work at the China Nationalities Libraryof the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, Beijing, from October to December of 1992 and from July toSeptember of 1993. The manuscripts of texts used for this paper housed in this library are marked “C.P. N.” Finally, I have dispensed with placing into brackets what I considered to be implicit in the fewpassages that I have translated. The experienced reader will be able to judge for him or herself whethermy considerations were justified.2Amarasiṃha,Amarakoṣa [’Chimedmdzod], edited by S.Misra (Jaipur: Jagdish Sanskrit Pustakalaya,

2005).3 See Claus Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” in A History of Indian Literature, edited by J. Gonda,

volume 5, fasc. 4 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), 314-15; and now Mahes Raj Pant, ed.,

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): 1-105.http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5699.1550-6363/2009/5/T5699.© 2009 by Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp, Tibetan and Himalayan Library, and International Association of TibetanStudies.Distributed under the THL Digital Text License.

insignificant work have been sighted thus far and to date not even one of these hasbeen fully edited or published. Two of the four were located in Tibet. Since theywere written in the Newari script, there can be little doubt that they were copiedin the Kathmandu Valley rather than somewhere else in the Indian subcontinent.One of these two is the seventeen-folio manuscript R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana (1893-1963)and Dge ’dun chos ’phel (1903-51) photographed in the fall of 1933. Originallypreserved in the Lha khang chen mo complex of Sa skya Monastery in midwestTibet, this manuscript contains Subhūticandra’s comments from almost thebeginning of the Amarakoṣa to I: 4, 8a, with a piece missing in between. Thephotographic plates of this manuscript are located in the library of the K. P. JayaswalResearch Institute, Patna, and copies are stored with the Department of Indian andBuddhist Studies of Göttingen University. Mahes Raj Pant reproduced selectpassages from it in his remarkable recently published study of Jātarūpa’s Amarako-ṣaṭīkā.4 Sāṅkṛtyāyana and Dge ’dun chos ’phel also discovered folios 192-389 ofanother manuscript with a concluding colophon in Ngor evaṃ chos ldanMonastery,which is located to the north of Sa skya. Physically different in appearance fromthe first manuscript, it does therefore most probably not constitute one of its missingportions, as is sometimes thought. Apparently, they did not photograph thismanuscript. Sāṅkṛtyāyana also did not photograph it when he returned to Tibet in1934 and 1936, although he does include a description of it in one of his articleswhere he recounts the successes achieved by these expeditions.5 Writing of hisexperiences with the Indian scholar and the many manuscripts they encountered,Dge ’dun chos ’phel relates that the Ngor manuscript had (unidentified) annotationsin Tibetan (Bod kyi mchan bu can).6We do not really know for certain when thesemanuscripts of the Kāmadhenu entered the Tibetan cultural area, or how theyultimately ended up in Sa skya and Ngor that, we remind ourselves, were built in1076 and 1429, respectively.

Jātarūpa’s Commentary on the Amarakoṣa, Part I and Part II (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000), partI, 285-87. Pant argues with some reason for calling it Kavikāmadhenu. Nonetheless, following Tibetantradition, I will continue to refer to it as the Kāmadhenu.4 Pant, Jātarūpa’s Commentary, part II, 359-70.5 R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, “Sanskrit Palm-leaf MSS in Tibet,” Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research

Society 21, no. 150 (1935): 40. See also Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin shouzangde fanwen beiyejing (Suowei jiaojuan) mulu [Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig zhib ’jug lte gnas su nyar ba’i ta la’i lo ma’ibstan bcos (sbyin shog ’dril ma’i par) gyi dkar chag mdor gsal] (np, nd), 152, no. 173; my thanks toV. A. Wallace for so kindly giving me a copy of Ta la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, a handlist of the titles of alarge number of Sanskrit manuscripts that were found in Tibet.6 This is noted in the fascinating Dge ’dun chos ’phel, *Thog mar lha sa nas phebs thon mdzad pa’i

tshul, in Collected Works, volume 1, edited by Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., Gangs can rigmdzod 10 (Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994), 30. For an in-depth appraisalof Dge ’dun chos ’phel’s (1903-51) encounter with the Indian subcontinent and its culture, see ToniHuber, “Colonial Archeology, International Missionary Buddhism and the First Example of ModernTibetan Literature,” Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ. Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasionof His 65th Birthday, edited by P. Kieffer-Pültz and J.-U. Hartmann, Indica et Tibetica, Bd. 30(Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997), 297-318, and now also his The Holy Land Reborn.Pilgrimage and the Tibetan Reinvention of Buddhist India (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,2008), as well as Du Yongbin, Ershi shiji xizang qiseng (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1999),86-118.

2van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

The present essay focuses on some of the highlights of the ways in which theKāmadhenu was handed down among Tibet’s literati from the late twelfth to themiddle of the eighteenth century. As a matter of course, its transmission is closelytied to that of the Amarakoṣa and it is for this reason that the narrative at timesimpinges on this text’s biography in Tibet as well. It goes without saying that theseTibetan translations of the Amarakoṣa and (a portion of) the large Kāmadhenuwere events that contributed significantly to the ongoing process of the Tibetanacculteration and “enculturation” of the subcontinent’s religious, material, andsocial culture. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify their contributionsto Tibetan culture in general, these two treatises did give rise to an entirely newliterary genre in Tibetan lexicography known as mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos, acalque of Sanskrit abhidhānaśāstra. As in the subcontinent, lexica belonging tothis genre were important reservoirs of words fromwhich the Tibetan scholar-poetsdrew, if not their inspiration, then at least the more arcane and perhaps also themore beautiful and resonant equivalents of otherwise well-used and known wordsfor the enhancement of the expressive power of their poetry or prose.7

The Tibetan Translations and Translators of the Kāmadhenu

Khro phu lo tsā ba byams pa’i dpal (1172-1237)According to its colophon, the Ngor Monastery manuscript of the Kāmadhenu isdated 14 February, 1191.8Whether happenstance or not, this date nicely coincideswith what is so far one of the very first occasions where the very existence of theAmarakoṣa is signaled in Tibetan literature, namely, in a brief passage of Khrophu lo tsā ba byams pa’i dpal’s (1172-1237) autobiography of 1235. There Khrophu lo tsā ba informs us that, shortly after he had turned nineteen (lo bcu dgu pa’istod la, = eighteen), he had begun to harbor a deep desire to study Sanskrit in orderto become a bona fide lo tsā ba or sgra pa, that is, a Sanskritist-cum-translator ofBuddhist scriptures.9 What had apparently prompted him seriously to considersuch a career move was a series of conversations he had with a much older masterby the name of Dkar lo tsā ba.10 A native son of Sha dros in the Dkar area, itselflocated in the Nyang ro district of eastern Gtsang, this little known figure had lived

7 For what someone traditionally needed to learn at a minimum to become a poet of some standingin the subcontinent, see Siegfried Lienhard, “The Making of a Poet,” Indologica Taurinensia 7 [Dr.Ludwik Sternbach Felicitation Volume] (1979), 309-21; see also the introductory remarks in his “AHistory of Classical Poetry. Sanskrit-Pali-Prakrit,” in AHistory of Indian Literature, edited by J. Gonda,volume 3, fasc. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984).8 Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 314.9 What follows is taken from Khro phu lo tsA ba byams pa’i dpal, Khro lo chen pos mdzad pa’i dpag

bsam ’khri shing, handwritten dbu medmanuscript, C. P. N. catalog no. 002786(4), 11a-12a [Khro phulo tsA ba byams pa’i dpal, Pan grub gsum gyi rnam thar dpag bsam ’khril shing, blockprint, C. P. N.catalog no. 002853(2), 11b-12a]. The carving of the printing blocks for the Dpag bsam ’khri shing, theblockprint of the autobiography, is dated 1594.10 Khro phu lo tsA ba, Pan gsum rnam thar, 11b, has “Skor lo tsā ba,” and writes that he was a native

of Skar, which is homophonous with “Dkar.” I am not at all sure which one is correct, and adopt “Dkar”for the sake of convenience.

3Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

in the subcontinent for close to thirty years. As a result, he had come to enjoy thereputation of being very learned in linguistic sciences, especially in Sanskritgrammar, as well as in logic and epistemology, and tantra. Khro phu lo tsā ba addsthe detail that he had a tremendous facility in either spoken Sanskrit or in one orthe other Indian vernacular. Without revealing his source, he relates that whenDkar lo tsā ba would be in conversation with native non-Buddhist scholars in hisresidence in India, those listening outside were quite unable to distinguish betweenthem, so fluent was he. Though evidently recognized as a translator and eminentSanskritist in his life time, I have so far found absolutely nothing in the literaturethat tells us anything about his scholarship in this or any other area.11

Whatever its extent or limitations may have been, upon his return to Tibet, Dkarlo tsā ba landed in Khro phu Monastery for reasons Khro phu lo tsā ba does notrender explicit. There he met and spoke with this institution’s founder and leadingmaster Rgyal tsha kun dga’ shes rab (1118-95), alias Rin chen mgon, Khro phu lotsā ba’s maternal grandfather. And it turned out that he was so impressed withRgyal tsha that he prolonged his stay in Khro phu in order to request him for“instructions (ngo sprod) in the system of D[w]ags po pa.” The phrase in quotationmarks doubtlessly refers to the Bka’ brgyud pa teachings of Sgam po pa bsod namsrin chen (1079-1153) and his nephew Dwags po sgom tshul (1116-69). We do notknow how long he ultimately made Khro phu his residence, but we should hardlybe surprised that the topic of India and his adventures in the “holy land” came upin the course of many informal chats this experienced traveler had with the youngand curious Khro phu lo tsā ba. What the young man learned from him furtherpiqued his curiosity, and his initially diffuse wish to embark on Sanskrit studiessoon sharpened into a firm resolve to venture into the subcontinent and learn itssacred language properly. Recording a discussion about this point between Dkarlo tsā ba and his grandfather, he relates that the former had said12 that it would nothurt were this son of a noble family (jo sras, = Khro phu lo tsā ba) to go to Indiato learn the trade of a lo tsā ba-translator. But Rgyal tsha was a bit less enthusiasticabout the prospect of his grandson heading south of the Tibetan border. In spiteof this, he informed Dkar lo tsā ba that if it were not for the present need to havesomeone teach religion at the monastery because, after all, he was getting on inyears, he would consider sending his grandson to India. Khro phu lo tsā ba writes

11 His name does not figure in the standard handbooks on Tibetan translators, for which see theGangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba du ma’i ’gyur byang blo gsal dga’ skyed (Xining: Mtsho sngon mirigs dpe skrun khang, 1983) and Dbang ’dus tshe ring and ’Phrin las rgya mtsho, Bod kyi sgra sgyurlo rgyus dang lo tsā ba rim byon gyi mdzad rnam gsal ba’i me long (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2001). But, in his ecclesiastic chronicle, Dpa’ bo II Gtsug lag phreng ba (1504-66) registers him amongthe Tibetan translators, for which see Dpa’ bo gtsug lag ’phreng ba, Dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyurba rnams kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, stod cha [volume 2], edited by Rdo rjergyal po (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986), 531.12 The next two quotations read in Khro phu lo tsA ba, Dpag bsam ’khri shing, 11a: jo sras ’di rgya

gar du lo tsatsha bslabs na tshegs med pa la gsung skad/ and kho bo rgas pas jo sras chos bshad pa’dra la bsdad dgos pa min na lo tstsha slob du gtong dgos pa yin pa la gsung /. Khro phu lo tsA ba,Pan gsum rnam thar, 12a, has: jo sras ’di rgya gar du lo tsa slab na tsheg med pa la gsung skad/ andkho bo rgas pas jo sras chos bshad ’dra la sdad dgos pa min na/ lo tsha slob du gtong ba yin pa lagsung /. I follow the former.

4van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

that upon hearing that his grandfather had tentatively and in principle given himhis blessings for studying Sanskrit in India “a great ebullience arose [in me]” (dga’spro chen po skyes).

In deference to the wishes and quiet reluctance of his grandfather to give himpermission to take leave, the young Khro phu lo tsā ba patiently bided his time atKhro phu. But he was not content with sitting on his hands. While for someunknown reason he did not do so with Dkar lo tsā ba, he managed to learn someSanskrit before the long awaited opportunity for travel presented itself in circa1195/6. Having heard of another Sanskritist, Zhang lo tsā ba dge ba (?-ca. 1195),who lived in the nearby ’Bring mtshams area, he was given permission to seekhim out. As befits a scion of Tibetan landed nobility, he set out for this master’sresidence in the company of three servant-companions: Dge bshes brtson ’grusrdo rje, Lha rje Ra phyar, and Ston pa phag mo. Later, in 1195/6, these three men(the second may have even been his personal physician as, after all, he is styledLha rje) were also to accompany him on his journey to the subcontinent, although,because of the social and political unrest caused by the wars that raged in northernIndia, they were only able to get as far as the Kathmandu Valley.

Zhang lo tsā ba dge baConcerning Zhang lo tsā ba dge ba, we know that he had earlier taught Dpyal lotsā ba chos kyi bzang po (?-1217/29) ’phral skad and klog yig, by which Iunderstand an Indian vernacular and the reading of an Indic script (or scripts).13After this initiation into the basic of Indic linguistic lore, Dpyal lo tsā ba had goneoff to the subcontinent where he ended up studying at Nālandā Monastery withinter alia Śākya-Śrībhadra (1127-1225), the famous master fromKashmir, Muniśrī,Kṣitigarbha, Niśka-Laṅka (the Younger), and Ānanda. Parenthetically, a palm-leafmanuscript of the Sanskrit text of the Amarakoṣa that had been in Dpyal lo tsā ba’s

13 A note on his life is found in Shes rab ral gri’s chronicle of the Dpyal family of possibly 1305,for which see the Bla ma chen po dpyal pa’i gdung rabs rin po che’i za ra tshags, handwritten dbumed ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 004399(2), 17b-19a. The author indicates on fol. 19a that he excerptedhis sketch from a separate biography of Chos kyi bzang po, which has so far not been sighted, andKhro phu lo tsā ba’s autobiography.We learn there also that Dpyal lo tsā ba passed away in the wood-ox(shing mo glang) year, which can only be 1205. But this is impossible, inasmuch as he was a teacherof Rgwa rnam rgyal rdo rje (1203-82), alias Rong pa rgwa lo. Titled Dpyal pa’i lo rgyus kyi yi ge, athirteen-folio manuscript of what amounts to virtually the same text has it more ambiguously, yet atthe same time more precisely, on fol. 7b, that he died in an ox (glang) year, which would therefore be1217 or 1229. My thanks to E. Gene Smith for lending me a typescript copy of the latter. A number ofSanskritists were born into the Dpyal family, so that it is not always easy to identify who is beingreferred to when we come across the phrase “Dpyal lo tsā ba.” Of no uncertain interest is of course thatTa la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, 74, no. 100(5), lists a palm leaf manuscript of another Dpyal family historytitled Dpyal ston gdung rabs gser gyi ’phreng ba! Further, the homophone “Spyal” for “Dpyal” is notinfrequently attested, though not always so readily identified; see, for example, Pieter C. Verhagen, AHistory of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet, volume 1. Transmission of the Canonical Literature(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 61. Lastly, a study of one branch of this extended family may be found inRoberto Vitali, “The White Dpyal: Early Evidence (from the 7th century to the beginning of the bstanpa phyi dar),” in Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70thBirthday, edited by B. Kellner et al., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 70.2(Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, 2007), 1023-48.

5Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

possession is apparently located in the library of the Nor bu gling ka in Lha sa.The title page of this manuscript contains a remark made by a certain Mkhan chenma hā lo tsā ba, “the great scholar, great translator,” to the effect that it had belongedto Dpyal lo tsā ba and that the glosses (mchan) were owed to Lo tsā ba byang’bum.14 I am inclined to identify this Mkhan chen ma hā lo tsā ba as none otherthan Thar pa gling lo tsā ba nyi ma rgyal mtshan (ca. 1260-1330), who was closelyassociated with the Dpyal family and the monasteries of Sman lung and, of course,Thar pa gling. In any event, upon the young Khro phu lo tsā ba’s arrival, Dge bafirst taught him the text of the Amarakoṣa, evidently so that his young studentwould be somewhat prepared for his trip to the subcontinent. But the Amarakoṣaformed only part of what turned out to be a rather intense regimen of linguisticstudies. Other treatises that formed part of the curriculum were the Smra sgo, thatis, Smṛtijñānakīrti’s (ca. 1000) Vacanamukhāyudhopama, the Sgra la ’jug pa(*Sabdāvatāra), the Kā bya sa ras nytsa (*Kāvya-?), and the Bya ka ra ṇa’i a langka ra (*Vyā-karaṇālaṃkāra).15 The autobiography does not mention exegeses ofeither the Amarakoṣa or the Vacanamukhāyudhopamā16 in this context, so that,swallowing hard, we should assume that Dge ba taught these without theiraccompanying commentaries.

Dge ba, Khro phuwrites, was himself a native of ’Bringmtshams in southeasternGtsang and one of the “four great Tibetans” (Bod kyi mi chen bzhi) of his time –I do not know who the other three may have been in this context – and that he was

14 Ta la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, 49-50, no. 67. Part of the gloss reads stong ’gyur gyi mchan. I do notunderstand stong ’gyur. However, were we to read stod ’gyur (in cursive Tibetan da and nga are oftenvirtual homographs), then these glosses on the translation of “the first part” of the text were written byLo tsā ba byang ’bum. The latter is probably Rgyang ro byang chub ’bum (? ca. 1270-1330), who wasinvolved in the compilation of the Snar thang Bstan ’gyur of circa 1310-20 as well as in the authenticationof translated scripture. A handwritten dbu med ms. in eighty folios of a copy of the Lhan [sometimes:Ldan] Dkar ma catalog [the title page calls it Dkar chab ldan dkar ma] that belonged to him is locatedunder C. P. N. catalog no. 2376(2). However, it is well to note that neither Bu ston rin chen grub’s(1290-1364) ecclesiastic chronicle of 1322-26 (= bu), nor the one by Dpa’ bo II register either Lo tsāba byang [?chub] ’bum or Rgyang ro in their listings of Tibetan Sanskritists; see, respectively, Bu stonrin chen grub, Bu ston’s History of Buddhism in Tibet, edited by J. Szerb, Beiträge zur Kultur- undGeistesgeschichte Asiens, Nr. 5 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,1990), 112-19; and Dpa’ bo, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Stod cha [volume 2], 525-32. Bstan’dzin phun tshogs, ed., ’Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba’i dpe rnying dkar chag, smad cha(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), nos. 016638, 016736, registers a treatise on linguistics byhim in nineteen and thirty folios that is titled Sgra’i bstan bcos dri med snang ba. We should also addthat Bstan ’dzin phun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, no. 016717, tentatively attributes a nine-foliotract on case-endings, the Sgra’i rnam dbye, to this Dpyal lo tsā ba.15 The Sanskrit titles given in Khro phu lo tsA ba, Dpag bsam ’khri shing, 12a, show the following

orthographic variants: A ma ra ko sha, Kā bya’i sa ra san tsa and Bya ka ra na’i a. Long ago, ProfessorA. Aklujkar suggested to me that *Vyākaraṇālaṃkāra might be a reference to the grammaticalconsiderations found in Bhāmaha’s (?seventh c.) Kāvyālaṃkāra.16 For this work, see Pieter C. Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet,

volume 2. Assimilation into Indigenous Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 37-57. The canonicalcommentary is at times attributed to Smṛtijñānakīrti himself, or to his Tibetan contemporary and discipleRong zom lo tsā ba chos kyi bzang po. Based on a blockprint of the printing blocks whose carving wassubvented by ’Ju mi pham rnam rgyal (1846-1912), it is included in the recently published collectionof Rong zom’s oeuvre, for which see Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum, volume 1, edited by Bkrashis and Pad+ma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999), 413-55.

6van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

one who had studied the art of translation (lo tsā mkhas par bslabs pa cig) in India.To be sure, the “Zhang” prefix to his name in religion indicates that he belongedto one of the many families that traced their origins back to one or the other maternaluncles (Zhang) of the Tibetan emperors.17 It would appear that “Zhang” becamea clan name in later times and that it was variously divided into sub-clans – it seemsthat it was not originally the name of a clan name per se. The Zhang “family” nameis therefore rather widespread, so that it hardly comes as a surprise that the traditionknows several other members of this large, extended “family” who had also beenSanskritists. For example, Pa tshab lo tsā ba tshul khrims rgyal mtshan (d. after1130)18 informs us in his lengthy and extremely rewarding colophon of his Tibetantranslation of the massive Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupas-thānasūtra that a unique son(bu gcig) of the Zhang family had aided him in the final preparation of thetranslation.19 The name in religion of this unique son seems to have been Shes rab’od. Already Nyang ral nyi ma’i ’od zer (1124-92) notes in his ecclesiastic chroniclethat there were two contemporary Zhang lo tsā bas from ’Bring mtshams, namely,Zhang lo tsā ba shes rab bla ma and Zhang lo tsā ba mya ngan med pa’i dpal. Bothwere responsible for translating a trilogy of texts that had to do with the tantricdeity Yamāntaka.20 It is tempting to equate Shes rab ’od with Shes rab bla ma, themore so since bla ma, “teacher,” was most probably not a part of his actual namein religion. However, what he tells us about his (or their) floruit precludes his (ortheir) identification with Dge ba. Inasmuch as they hailed from the same area andtheir names have the identical “Zhang” prefix, we can surmize that they may havebelonged to the same clan or perhaps even to the same extended family – another,perhaps better known Sanskritist of the Zhang “family” was Zhang lo tsā ba grubpa dpal (before 1179-1237), who was a native of Dbus.21

17 On this point, see now Brandon Dotson, “A Note on Zhang: Maternal Relations of the TibetanRoyal Line andMarriage into the Royal Family,” Journal Asiatique 291 (2004): 75-99. A twelve-folio,handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 005555, titled Rgyal ba zhang ston man chad kyi lorgyus is a chronicle of yet another branch of the Zhang “family.”18 He was a teacher of Karma pa I Dus gsum mkhyen pa (1110-93) in Stod lung when the latter was

around twenty years old.19 The Tibetan Tripitaka, Taipei [= Sde dge] Edition, ed. A. W. Barber (Taipei: SMC Publishing

Inc., 1991), volume 15, no. 287 [# 287], 65/7-66/3 [sha, 228a-29b]. The full text of the long colophonis conveniently reproduced in Tadeusz Skorupski, ACatalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur, BibliographiaPhilologica Buddhica, SeriesMaior IV (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1985),150-53. A palm leaf Sanskrit manuscript of a sutra with this title in one hundred and twenty-sevenleaves is registered in Ta la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, 67, no. 88. See also Lin Li-kouang, L’Aide-mémoirede la Vraie Loi (Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra). Recherches sur un Sūtra développé du Petit Véhicule,Publications duMusée Guimet, Bibliothèque d’études, LIV (Paris, 1949), but this work is unfortunatelynot available to me. For further bibliographical notes, see the now somewhat dated remarks in HajimeNakamura, Indian Buddhism. A Survey with Bibliographical Notes (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987),175-76.20 Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, edited by Nyan shul mkhyen rab ’od gsal, Gangs

can rig mdzod 5 (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1988), 481.21 His biographies are found in his disciple Rba d+ha ra shri’s *Zhang lo tsā ba’i yon tan dang lo

rgyus bstan [pa], in Bde mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan [b]rgyud, volume 1 (New Delhi, 1973), 176-86, andin rta, 126-30. See now also Fabrizio Torricelli, “Zhang lo tsA ba’s Introduction to the AuralTransmission of Śaṃvara,” Le Parole e I Marmi. Studi in Onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70ºCompleanno, edited by R. Torella, Serie Orientale Roma, XCII, I (Rome: Istituto Italiana per l’Africa

7Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

The Provenance of the Sanskrit Text of the KāmadhenuIn the said colophon, the longest for any text of the Tibetan Buddhist Bka’ ’gyur,Pa tshab lo tsā ba also relates that he had studied this sūtra (mdo) at Vikramaśīlawith inter alia Mahāpaṇḍita Rab ’byor zla ba, that is, Subhūticandra. In view ofthe time frame, I think it not at all out of the question that he might in fact be noneother than the author of the Kāmadhenu. What is more, he says that he was “ascholar of grammar, poetics and ‘the modality of the Sanskrit language,’” (legspar sbyar ba’i skad kyi lugs la mkhas pa) whereby the latter phrase may, but onlymay, be a clumsy way of designating lexicography. The mention of Subhūticandrain terms of having achieved reknown as a Sanskrit scholar, and perhaps also as alexicographer, is not insignificant towards establishing his dates. It allows us toinfer that he may have been around fifty years old at the time when Pa tshab lo tsāba had studied with him.

Moreover, in his colophon, Pa tshab lo tsā ba also put forth the notion that theĀryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtrawas a large-vehicle sūtra. The great SanskritistSi tu paṇ chen chos kyi ’byung gnas (1700-74) classified theĀryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra as belonging to the corpus of small- ratherthan large-vehicle sūtras in his 1734 catalog of the Sde dge print of the Bka’ ’gyur.22He states that this is supported by what he calls the entries of the “earlier catalogs,”but adds that both Pa tshab lo tsā ba and Rngog lo tsā ba blo ldan shes rab(?1059-?1109) had claimed it to be a large-vehicle scripture. As one of hiscontributions to Buddhism and an act of merit-making, Grags pa ’byung gnas rgyalmtshan dpal bzang po (1374-1432), the Phag mo gru gong ma ruler who reignedfrom 1381 to his passing, had requested Pad dkar bzang po23 to write a generalsurvey of the sūtra-section of the Bka’ ’gyur.24 The latter went to work on it, butit was long in the writing. It appears that the first to ask (or: order) Pad dkar bzang

e l’Oriente, 2001), 875-96. For Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, see my “On the Fifteenth Century Lho rongchos ’byung by Rta tshag Tshe dbang rgyal and Its Importance for Tibetan Political and ReligiousHistory,” Lungta 14 [Aspects of Tibetan History, edited by Roberto Vitali and T. Tsering] (2000),57-76.22 Si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas, Bde bar gshegs pa’i bka’ gangs can gyi brdas drangs pa’i

phyi mo’i tshogs ji snyed pa par du bsgrubs pa’i tshul las nye bar brtsams pa’i gtam bzang po blo ldanmos pa’i kunda yongs su kha bye ba’i zla ’od gzhon nu’i ’khri shing, in Collected Works, volume 9(Sansal: Sherabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 454 (= Sde dge’i bka’ ’gyur dkar chag[Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1988], 380). For this many-sided genius and in particularhis wondrous paintings, see now David P. Jackson, Patron and Painter. Situ Panchen and the Revivalof the Encampment Style. With an Essay by Karl Debreczeny (NewYork: RubinMuseum of Art, 2009).23 Gser mdog paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan’s (1428-1507) 1474 biography of his master Rong ston

shākya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449) notes that Padma bzang po (early fifteenth c.) – I take him to beidentical with Pad dkar bzang po – was also a significant, albeit, in his teacher’s view, a flawedcommentator of the Vimalaprabhā (= Kālacakra) – Pad[ma] dkar [po] is the name of the author of theVimalaprabhā, and it is possible that the Pad dkar / Padma variant reading was enabled preciselythrough this commentary; see Gser mdog paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyenpa’i bshes gnyen shākya rgyal mtshan dpal bzang pa’i zhal snga nas kyi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshardad pa’i rol mtsho, in Complete Works, volume 16 (Thimphu, 1975), 353. Rong ston is there said tohave criticized the said commentary.24 What follows is based on Mi nyag mgon po, ed.,Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe

skrun khang, 2006), 534-35, 462-65.

8van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Po for this unusual treatise, a work in which this still little known scholar has givenan analytical survey of the contents of every sūtra and the doctrinal view that itespoused, were two individuals who lie in relative obscurity behind the phrase“lord of the gods, the king of religion, the uncle and nephew” (lha dbang chosrgyal chen po khu dbon) and the Nye dbang (*Upendra) Bsod nams rgyal mtshan.It would appear that “the uncle and nephew” refers to the Phag mo gru gong maand Grags pa ’byung gnas (1414-45) – in 1440, the Ming court gave him the titleshanhua wang that ended in “king” (wang, dbang) and he was the son of the Gongma’s youngest brother Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan (1389-1457) – and that Bsodnams rgyal mtshan was probably another one of the Gong ma’s younger brothers,the penultimate one, who flourished from 1386 to 1434. At long last, Pad dkarbzang po completed his work well after the Gong ma’s passing, namely, on thethird day of the New Year of 1445, that is, on February 9th of that year. Of interestis that it apparently formed part of a later, even more comprehensive work – wemay presume that the other part dealt with the tantra-section of the Bka’ ’gyur –with the title Bstan pa spyi’i rgyas byed. In addition, the colophon informs us thatthe complete title wasMdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag bka’ bsdu ba bzhi pa. The subtitle,“The Fourth Council” (Bka’ bsdu bzhi pa), is of course quite intriguing. It goeswithout saying that the Tibetans were well aware that, in the remote past, the earlydevelopment of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent knew of three such gatheringsin which revisions were made to the received teachings of the Buddha. The subtitleis no doubt intentional, but its precise intention is still unclear to me and, to myknowledge, this is the second and last time that a Tibetan commentarial treatisewas subtitled in this way. To be sure, the first was Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan’s(1292-1361) perplexing tract of circa 1358 in which he basically summarizes insound bite form the uncommon philosophical and religious conclusions he hadreached over a lifetime of meditative praxis and scholarship.25Amore immediatelyaccessible work, one that is more carefully argued than Dol po pa’s and one thatobviously echoes his Fourth Council, is The Fifth Council, the Bka’ bsdu lnga pa,which is subtitled Mtha’ bral dbu ma chen po’i grub mtha’ rab gsal.26 This tractwas written on the eighth day of the ninth lunar month of an unspecified year bya certain ’Jam dpal grags pa, a disciple of Sa bzang lo tsā ba blo gros rgyal mtshan(1294-1376), Byang chub seng ge, and Mkhas grub lha dbang blo gros, while heresided at Sa bzangMonastery under the sponsorship of Sa bzang pa shes rab dpal.

In the entries in his work, Pad dkar bzang po usually, but not consistently,divides his comments on each individual sūtra into three sections. In the first, heprovides a summary of its contents; in the second, he identifies its grub mtha’; andin the third, he gives, when pertinent, his own “replies to controversies” (rgal lan)that surrounded the sūtra. Thus, as far as the doctrinal position taken in the

25 See the text and translation in Cyrus R. Stearns, The Buddha from Dolpo. A Study of the Life andThought of the TibetanMaster Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Albany: State University of NewYork Press,1999), 123-73.26 ’Phrin las rgya mtsho et al., eds., Jo nang dpe tshogs, volume 16 (Beijing:Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,

2008), 307-81.

9Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra is concerned, Pad dkar bzang po suggeststhat it was written from the point of view of the Madhyamaka which engages inśrāvaka-spiritual practice (nyan thos spyod pa’i dbu ma [pa]), after which hediscusses several controversial points. He characterizes the philosophical tenor ofa number of other sūtras with the uncommon designation nyan thos spyod pa’idbu ma as well.27

Written in a miśra-mixture of verse and prose, the Sanskrit manuscript of theTibetan translation of the Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra must have beenquite formidable, and, with its abundance of fairly arcane lexemes that relate toIndianmaterial culture, the text no doubt posed substantial hurdles for any translator.Pa tshab lo tsā ba therefore was quite the man if he had indeed single-handedlyshouldered the task of rendering this huge work into Tibetan. No doubt, the sūtrahad a complicated textual history, and the extant Sanskrit manuscript of what ispurportedly this very sūtra that was signaled above in note 16 obviously does notmeasure up to the length of the manuscript of the text that lies behind either theTibetan or Gautama Prajñāruci’s Chinese translation of 542-43. Indeed, it mayvery well be an abridged version of the sūtra, a manuscript of which was renderedinto Chinese by Fatien in 973-85. TitledDharmasamuccaya, an excerpt consistingof its verses was compiled by a certain Avalokitasiṃha and was translated intoChinese as late as 1064-67.28 A Tibetan translation of this excerpt is not found inthe printed Bka’ ’gyur (or Bstan ’gyur) collections.

Tibetan Editions of the TextIn terms of the Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra’s actual length, the amountof text of the sūtra as we find it in the Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur measured thirty-sixthousand shu log (śloka)-units of text – this number is given towards the end ofsūtra itself.29 And we find the following stated in a post-colophonic note:30

The number of bam po was not determined. The length of the text, thirty-sixthousand [ślokas], was contained in the Indian manuscript itself. There appearsto be some dissimilarity from the older terminology [my translation of this sentenceis entirely uncertain!!]. Were it determined that three hundred [ślokas] were onebam po, the Smṛtyupasthāna consists of one hundred and twenty bam pos.31

27 See, for example, Mi nyag mgon po, Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag, 55, 76, anent the*Nandagarbhāvakrānti-[nirdeśa]sūtra and theMaitreyamahāsiṃhanādasūtra.28 The Varanasi edition of the Sanskrit text can be accessed at

www.sub.uni-goettigen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/buddh/bsa052_u.htm.Currently, the text is being reedited by Bao Quoc Do in a dissertation at the Phillips UniversitätMarburg,Germany, under Prof. Dr. Michael Hahn.29 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 15, no. 287 [# 287], 65/7 [sha, 228a].30 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 15, no. 287 [# 287], 66/3 [sha, 229b].31 // bam po’i grangs ni ma bcad do / / gzhung tshad ni stong phrag sum cu rtsa drug tu rgya dpe

rang la bzhugs so / / yi ge’i brda sngon gyi rnying pa dang mi ’dra ba cung zad snang / / dran pa nyebar gzhag pa* shlo ka sum brgya la bam por bcad na brgya nyi shu’o//.

-

*The Sde dge text has pa /, whereas Skorupski, A Catalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur, 153, omits the/.

10van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

A term and measure word for which there are no Indic equivalents, bam po isused to denote a certain amount of text that is measured in a number of differentshu log-units of text; it is discussed by me elsewhere.32 In the present instance, onebam po equals three-hundred ślokas. The Sde dge print of the Tibetan translationof the Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra consists of four volumes marked yato sha. Of these, volume ya begins with “the first bam po” (bam po dang po),volume ra with the twenty-first bam po, and volume la with the forty-sixth bampo, and volume sha does not begin with any bam po identification. In fact, the lastpiece of text that is marked by a bam po is bam po forty-nine, and this occurs inthe middle of volume la!33 That the history of its translation may be morecomplicated than is immediately evident from the colophon which is, for example,appended to the Sde dge or Stog Palace text is evident from Ngor chen kun dga’bzang po’s (1382-1456) 1447 catalog of the Bka’ ’gyur manuscript that was housedin Brag dkar theg chen gling Monastery, in Glo bo smon thang, present dayMustang, Nepal. Apparently not a “mainstream” Bka’ ’gyur, we learn from thiscatalog that the first twenty-four bam pos of the text were identified as having beentranslated “during the era of the emperor and ministers” (rgyal blon gyi ring las[sic]), that is, during the late imperial period, and that Pa tshab lo tsā ba had onlytranslated the remainder of the text into Tibetan.34 The repeated copying and editingof the Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur collections from the late thirteenth to the fifteenthcenturies in particular, had given rise to a special concern with catalography andseveral scholars were beginning to notice that some of these had serious problems.Dpa’ bo II was among those who focused their attention on these matters and wrotewhat was apparently a comparative study of the various catalogs of the Bka’ ’gyur,and two generations earlier Stag tshang lo tsā ba shes rab rin chen (1405-77), aliasChos ’khor sgang lo tsā ba, credits himself with a tract in which, judging from thetitle, Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag ’dres ’khrug rnam ’byed, he had examined thevarious contaminations and confusions that had crept into earlier catalogs of theBstan ’gyur.35

To be sure, the uncertainty surrounding the author or authors of the translationof the entire sūtra will have to be explored a little further, since it impinges in nouncertain terms on the veracity of the apparent terminus ad quem of its translation.We find further evidence for this uncertainty in the undated catalog of titles of

32 See my “Some Remarks on the Tibetan Word bam po,” which is forthcoming in the Zangxuexuekan [Journal of Tibetology], Sichuan University.33 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 14, no. 287 [# 287], 388/5 [la, 101a]. There is also a problem

with the length of the last bam po, for whereas bam po forty-seven extends from 366/2 to 372/3 [la,22b-44a], bam po forty-eight extends from 372/3 to 388/4 [la, 44a-100b]!34 Helmut Eimer, The Early Mustang Kanjur Catalogue, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und

Buddhismuskunde, Heft 45 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien UniversitätWien, 1999), 129-30.35 Dpa’ bo II’s unpublished work is titled Bka’ ’gyur snga phyi’i dkar chag don legs grub pa and

Stag tshang lo tsā ba registers this work in his 1470 autobiography, for which see Dpa’ bo II, Lo chenthams cad mkhyen pa shes rab rin chen rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i zhabs kyi rnam par thar pa,Gsung ’bum, volume 2, Mes po’i shul bzhag, volume 30, edited by Rgyal mo ’brug pa (Beijing: Krunggo’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 38.

11Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

translated scripture (and a few other items besides) that Dar ma rgyal mtshan(1237-1305), alias Bcom ldan [rig(s) pa’i] ral gri, most probably completed in the1270s. There, he registers the following titles:36

1. Dam pa’i chos dran pa nyer [b]zhag; the translation consisted up toforty-three bam po units of text from a total of thirty-six thousand shulog-units.

2. “Its” versified summary in one bam po.3. “Its” mdo, or sūtra, in fifty shu log-units.

Similarly, Bu ston has three entries in his catalog of titles of translated scripture(and a few other items besides) which he appended to his ecclesiastic chronicle of1322-26 that he titles Dran pa nye bar gzhag pa or that have this phrase in theirtitle.37 The first is the ’Phags pa dran pa nye bar gzhag pa and it is simply markedbam po. It is this work that was translated by Pa tshab lo tsā ba. Bu ston classifiedit as a small vehicle-sūtra, adding that, while “large catalogs” stated it to be a smallvehicle-sūtra, Pa tshab lo tsā ba himself had held it to be a large vehicle-Mahayanasūtra. He lists the other two under the heading of titles of “texts that were certainlytranslated previously, but were not obtained at present”; these are a versifiedDranpa nye bar gzhag pa in one hundred ślokas and a “short” (chung ngu)Dran pa nyebar gzhag pa. And he writes of the former that: “I think that the Ldan [better: Lhan]Dkar ma catalog counted it as a commentarial treatise (bstan bcos, śāstra).” Hewas right, as we will presently see.

The Lhan (also: Ldan)Dkar ma and ’Phang thang ma catalogs of, respectively,824 and 830 list the titles of two works that contain the title Dam pa’i chos dranpa nye bar gzhag pa. The former registers one in twelve thousand and nine hundredśloka or forty-three bam po units in length and another text, this time in verse, ofone hundred śloka units in length.38 The first is classified under the rubric of “smallvehicle-sūtra” and the second under that of “commentarial treatise.” The ’Phangthang ma catalog lists a summary-in-verse “from” the Dam pa’i chos dran pa nyebar gzhag pa in one bam po and an incomplete translation of the “large” ’Phagspa dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar gzhag pa.39 Here the first is listed under the

36 Kurtis R. Schaeffer and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan Survey of BuddhistLiterature. The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldan ral gri, Harvard Oriental Series,volume 64 (Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, 2008), 148, 7.1-3.37 Bu ston rin chen grub, Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab

rin po che’i mdzod, inCollectedWorks of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa], part 24 (NewDelhi: InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, 1971), 922; see also Soshū Nishioka, “Index to the Catalog Section of Buston’s ‘History of Buddhism’ I [in Japanese],” Tōkyō Daigaku Bungakubu Bunkakōryū Kenkyū-shisetsuKenkyū-kiyō [Annual Report of the Institute for the Study of Cultural Exchange, University of Tokyo]4 (1980), nos. 9, 90, 91.38 See Marcelle Lalou, “Les textes bouddhiques au temps de roi Khri srong lde btsan,” Journal

asiatique CCXLI (1953), 325-26, nos. 271, 312.39 See the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, in Dkar chag ’phang thang ma, edited by Bod ljongs rten

rdzas bshams mdzod khang (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003), 20, 48.

12van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

heading of “small vehicle-sūtra” and the second under that of “incompletetranslations of sūtras and Vinaya [texts].”

Now Pa tshab lo tsā ba also states in his colophon that he used some fivemanuscripts of the sūtra while studying it at Nālandā and two while he was atVikramaśīla. At Nālandā he worked inter alia under Abhayākaragupta (ca. 1050-ca.1125)40 and at Vikramaśīla his masters were Śākyarakṣita, the MahāpaṇditaSubhūticandra and ?Aṭitacandra. He mentions a prince by the name of Ne[?]BaiPāla who was associated with the monastery of Jagaddala in Varendra and alsowrites that he translated the sūtra during the reign of his father, the Pāla kingRamapāla, whomD. C. Sircar has dated circa 1072-1126.41 This provides additionalsupport for holding that circa 1100 is the Kāmadhenu’s terminus ad quem. Myworking hypothesis therefore is that Subhūticandra’s dates can be roughly calculatedto have fallen sometime between circa 1050 and circa 1120, which is a sigh and ahalf earlier than the date Pant has proposed, namely, that the Kāmadhenu waswritten in approximately “the sixth decade of the twelfth century.”42 Thus, if theSubhūticandra as Pa tshab lo tsā ba’s informant and the Subhūticandra as the authorof theKāmadhenuwere identical, and I strongly believe that this is in fact the case,then the obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that he probably wrote theKāmadhenu around the year 1100. Of course, the fact that Rngog lo tsā ba appearsto have made a pronouncement on its doctrinal affinity suggests, but only suggests,the same dating, in spite of the fact that his precise dates are still a matter of somecontroversy.43 But there is nothing in the book that offers any evidence that heknew of Pa tshab lo tsā ba’s translation, and that he did not have the earliertranslations in mind when he made the said judgement.

In Tibet, the sūtra itself was the object of several studies. Karma pa III Rangbyung rdo rje (1284-1339) wrote two of these. Sometime in the fifth lunar monthof a monkey-year (1320), he composed a versified explanation of the sūtra at hisretreat of Bde chen steng (near his see of Mtshur phu) as well as a summary of itscontents.44 In the remarks with which he concluded the first, the Karma pa wrotethat earlier translators and paṇ di tas had rendered the section styled “the thirty-threeabodes” (sum cu rtsa gsum gyi gnas) and that later, Pa tshab lo tsā ba had translatedthe remainder. The reference to these abodes also occurs in the aforecited colophon

40 Skorupski, A Catalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur, 151, has “Akaragupta” (sic).41 D. C. Sircar, Some Epigraphical Records of the Medieval Period for Eastern India (New Delhi:

Abhinav Publications, 1979), 31.42 Pant, Jātarūpa’s Commentary, part I, 291.43 For him, see now the detailed study of Ralf Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator. Life and Works

of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), Collectanea Himalayica 1 (München: Indus Verlag, 2007).The author does not address the question of the various sets of dates that we find proposed for this greattranslator in a number of Tibetan sources, a circumstance to which, as Kramer observes on p. 43, n.71, already A. Vostrikov had drawn attention.44 See the Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje, Dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i mdo yi don

gsal bar byed pa’i bstan bcos, in Collected Works, volume ca (Xining, 2006), 456-70, 471-568. Itssummary, the Dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i bsdus don, is found on pp. 456-70 of thissame volume.

13Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

of the “Mustang Bka’ ’gyur” where it is said that the second volume of the text,there volume kha, begins with bam po forty and extends from the section on thethe thirty-three abodes up to the first part of the passage dealing with “the divineabode that is free from strife” (’thab bral gyi lha gnas), that is, from Trāyastrimśato the first section on Yāma. Finally, Shes rab rin chen, a disciple of the Karma pa,composed an undated commentary on the Karma pa’s versified explanation of thesūtra. Written at the Karma pa’s see (?of Mtshur phu), this work was included inthe Xining edition of the Karma pa’s oeuvre.45 Shes rab rin chen writes in hisintroductory remarks that it was Pa tshab lo tsā ba nyi ma grags (eleventh-twelfthc.) who had “completed” the translation of the sūtra and that, because the sūtra’smanuscript was incomplete, its purport could not be wholly ascertained. There isno evidence that “Nyi ma grags” and “Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan” areinterchangeable. In fact, these are two distinct individuals, so that we should nothesitate to place his “Nyi ma grags” in the dustbin of bibliographical oversights.

Khro phu lo tsā ba and His TranslationTo return to our story, both the blockprint and the undated handwritten manuscriptof Khro phu lo tsā ba’s autobiography relate that he took his monk’s vows towardsthe end of his nineteenth year (lo nyi shu’i smad la). On this occasion, Rgyal tshafunctioned in the capacity of abbot, and the other two monks officiating at theceremony were his old teacher Gtsang dkar, who acted as the ritual master, andhis paternal uncle Kun ldan ras pa (1148-1217), alias Zhi ba tshul khrims, whofullfilled the duty of the confessor. Ultimately, Khro phu lo tsā ba was only ableto take leave of Khro phu after the funerary rituals for his deceased grandfatherhad been completed. As stated, he departed for the subcontinent in 1195, but nevermade it to India proper. The military campaigns of the invading Afghan-Turkmenarmies in northern India and the political and social upheaval that came in theirwake forced him and his party to remain in the KathmanduValley. Thus, the periodof time in which Khro phu lo tsā ba could have studied with Zhang lo tsā ba dgeba is framed by a span of time amounting to about a year and a half. This leavesus with the question of the year of his birth, for the sources waver between 1172and 1173. While he nowhere in his autobiography relates when he was born, hedoes state that he was ten (= nine) when he and his teacher Gtsang dkar were atSa skya Monastery to attend the funerary ceremonies held in honor of ’Khon rtsemo.46 The latter must refer to Slob dpon bsod nams rtse mo (b. 1142), Sa skya’ssecond patriarch and scion of a branch of a branch of its ruling ’Khon clan, whopassed away on the eleventh day of the smal po month (11 November) of 1182.47

45 Shes rab rin chen, Dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel pa, in CollectedWorks, volume cha (Xining, 2006), 1-219. The colophon titles it: Dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i donsnang bar byed pa’i tshig le’ur mdzad pa’i rnam par bshad pa.46 Khro phu lo tsA ba, Dpag bsam ’khri shing, 11a-12a [Khro phu lo tsA ba, Pan gsum rnam thar,

11b-12a].47 This date is given in his biography written by his younger brother Rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan

(1147-1216), for which see the Bsod nams rgya mtsho, comp., Bla ma’i rnam thar bstod pa khyod nyidma, in Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum vol. 3, no. 4 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968-69), 83/3. The converted

14van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

And this means that Khro phu lo tsā ba was born in 1173. But there are problematicreadings in both manuscripts of the text of his autobiography. For one, they haveit that he was twenty-twowhen Rgyal tsha died in the shing mo yos bu year (1195),48which would imply that he was born in 1173. These ambiguities led ’Gos lo tsāba II Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481; or his assistant[s]), who no doubt had access tothe autobiography or a source closely related to it, to date Khro phu lo tsā ba’smeeting with Zhang lo tsā ba dge ba to the year 1191. He thus writes that Khrophu lo tsā ba was born in 1173 and that he was nineteen (= eighteen) when he metDge ba.49 On the other hand, in his 1446-47 large study of the Bka’ brgyud paschool and its principal exponents, Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal dates the year of hisbirth to 1172, which is the year that we come across in most other sources,50although he does not relate the episode of Khro phu lo tsā ba’s interaction withZhang lo tsā ba dge ba. This confusion stems from the conflicting dates in theautobiography, but the preponderance of the evidence argues for the year 1172.Whatever the case may have been, it is therefore a priori not impossible that theNgor manuscript of the Kāmadhenu may have been the one that had been carriedto Tibet by our Zhang lo tsā ba dge ba.

Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s Dissemination of the TextNotwithstanding the fact that the year 1191 is thus so far the earliest attestation ofthe presence of a manuscript of the Amarakoṣa, if not also of the Kāmadhenu, inCentral Tibet, if not in the Tibetan cultural area, it was almost twenty years laterthat Sa skya paṇḍi ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251) introduced the Amarakoṣafor the first time to a wider Tibetan audience. According to Lho pa kun mkhyenrin chen dpal, one of his students and biographers, the master had studied the entiretext of the Amarakoṣa and theViśvaprakāśawith the west Indian scholar Sugataśrīin the first decade of the thirteenth century. And he reports that Sa skya paṇḍi tahad already begun to translate the Amarakoṣa’s entries during this time.51Contrary

date and the ones that follow below are all owed to the Tabellen in Dieter Schuh, Untersuchungen zurGeschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften inDeutschland, Supplement Band 16 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1973).48 Khro phu lo tsA ba, Dpag bsam ’khri shing, 11a-12a [Khro phu lo tsA ba, Pan gsum rnam thar,

11b-12a].49 George N. Roerich, tr. The Blue Annals (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979), 708-9.50 Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos ’byung, ed. Gling dpon pad+ma skal bzang and Ma

grong mi ’gyur rdo rje, Gangs can rig mdzod volume 26 (Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpeskrun khang, 1994), 331.51 What follows is based on the Dpal ldan sa skya paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar, in The Slob bshad Tradition

of the Sa skya Lam ’bras, volume 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 97, 104. David P. Jackson, TheEntrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa skya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇaand Philosophical Debate, volume 1, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft17,1 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1987), 108-9,indicates that Sa skya paṇḍi ta had studied with him in “c. 1205 to early 1208.” The other biographyof Sa skya paṇḍi ta by his student and relation Zhang rgyal ba dpal – Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s younger brothermarried a daughter of Zhang – mentions only his Amarakoṣa studies with this man; see the Dpal ldansa skya paṇḍi ta chen po’i rnam par thar pa, in Sa skya bka’ ’bum 5, no. 111, 437/3. Sugataśrī eulogizedhis uncle Rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan in a little ephemeral Sanskrit work, whose Tibetan translaton

15Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

to Zhang rgyal ba dpal’s study of their teacher’s life, Lho pa kun mkhyen relatesfurthermore that Sa skya paṇḍi ta had also read the first chapter of an Amarakoṣacommentary with the east Indian Dānaśīla who, like Sugataśrī had come to Tibetin 1204 as part of Śākyaśrībhadra’s entourage. Though he does not say so, we canwithout dire consequences assume that this “commentary” refers to theKāmadhenu.If so, this passage would so far be the first concrete indication of the presence ofa manuscript of the Kāmadhenu in Tibet. The aforenoted Viśvaprakāśa is noneother than the Buddhist Maheśvara Kavi’s homonymic dictionary of 1111/2.52Although Tibetan Sna tshogs gsal ba renders both titles, the Viśvaprakāśa shouldof course be distinguished from Śrīdharasena’s possibly early thirteenth centuryViśvalocana, the only other Sanskrit lexicon that was first translated into Tibetan,this time much later, in 1498, by Zhwa lu lo tsā ba rin chen chos skyong bzang po(1441-1528), alias ’Gos lo tsā ba III, who had done so at the behest of Zhwa dmarIV Chos grags ye shes (1453-1524).53 The ambiguity of their Tibetan titles was

contained in the Bstan ’gyur Sa skya paṇḍi ta co-authored with Sugataśrī himself; see Taipei Sde dgeTripitaka, volume 21, no. 1174 [# 1171], 71/7-72/2 [ka, 249a-250a].52 For this treatise, see Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 329-31. We learn of his acquaintance with

this work in hisMkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo andNga brgyad ma’i ’grel pa, for which, see, respectively,Sa skya bka’ ’bum 5, no. 6, 81/4; and no. 18, 150/2. The equivalence of Sna tshogs gsal ba withViśvaprakāśa can be inferred from the passages in Sa skya bka’ ’bum 5, no. 6, 81/4; and 98/4.53 For details, see Claus Vogel, Śrīdharasena’s Viśvalocana. Ein Jaina-Worterbuch des Sanskrit im

lamaistischen Kanon, in Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrg, no. 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), and thecomplete studies of the text by AlexWayman and Lozang Jamspal; see, for example, the AlexWayman,tr., Abhidhānaviśvalocanam of Śrīdharasena, Monograph Series III-2 (Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji,1994). For Zhwa lu lo tsā ba, see Lozang Jamspal’s disappointing “Zhalu Lotsava Chos skyong bzangpo and His Literary Works,” Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the InternationalAssociation for Tibetan Studies Narita 1989, ed. Sh. Ihara and Z. Yamaguchi, volume 1 (Narita:Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), 175-79, and now also Chapter Three in K. R. Schaeffer’s forthcoming TheCulture of the Book in Tibet (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); see also the indices ofVerhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1 and volume 2. His dates are stillfairly controversial. The year of his birth is taken from his 1517 biography by his disciple Skyogs stonlo tsā ba rin chen bkra shis; see Skyogs ston lo tsā ba rin chen bkra shis, Rje btsun zhwa lu lo tsā ba’irnam par thar pa brjed byang nor bu’i khri shing, handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no.002790(9), 2a. For the year of his passing, we must go to his biography in A mes zhabs ngag dbangkun dga’ bsod nams’s (1597-1659) 1636 history of the Kālacakra cycle, for which see A mes zhabsngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams,Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i zab pa dang rgya che ba'i dam pa'i chos 'byungba'i tshul legs par bshad pa ngo mtshar dad pa'i shing rta, in Collected Works, vol. pa, handwrittendbu medmanuscript, C.P.N. catalog no. 003204, 161b-62a; or A mes zhabs ngag dbang kun dga’ bsodnams, Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i zab pa dang rgya che ba'i dam pa'i chos 'byung ba'i tshul legs par bshadpa ngo mtshar dad pa'i shing rta, in Collected Works, vol. 19 (Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsungrab slob gnyer khang, 2000), 311-12. Ri phug blo gsal bstan skyong (1804-?) also writes in his Zhwalu gdan rabs – The History of the Monastery of Zhwa lu (Leh, 1971), 242, that he passed away in 1528.Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, is by and large reproduced in A mes zhabs, Dus’khor chos ’byung, 126a-60a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 243-308, and somewhat beyond, inparticular, with respect to the listing of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s own and translated oeuvre. At the end ofhis study, A mes zhabs says that he had summarized the earlier work on Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s life by Paṇchen ’bum phrag gsum pa, subtitledDad pa’i ’jug ngogs, to which he added further details from Skyogsston lo tsā ba’s work which, too, is in part based on it. The only possible candidate nicknamed “[Paṇchen] ’bum phrag gsum pa” is no doubt Paṇ chen rin chen chos kyi dbang po (sixteenth c.); see my“Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History VI: The Transmission of Indian Buddhist Pramāṇavādaaccording to Early Tibetan Gsan yig-s,” Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques XLIX (1995), 926-27,n. 20. Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 40b-41a, states that he was the chu (= ?chos)

16van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

later briefly commented on by Si tu paṇ chen, who is quoted to this effect by hisstudent Khams sprul IV Bstan ’dzin chos kyi ma (1730-79) in his outstanding 1770exegesis of the Kāvyādarśa.54

Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s studies of these lexica resulted in his circa 1210 WordTreasury (Tshig gi gter), a treatise that constitutes the very beginning of theMngonpar brjod pa (or Mngon brjod) genre of Tibetan lexicography. TheWord Treasuryis essentially a translation of select passages from the Amarakoṣa’s first chapter,including its final section of expressions that have to do with the subterraneanregions (sa ’og gi sde, pātālavarga). To amuchmore limited degree, it is apparentlyalso based on his reading of the Viśvaprakāśa. So far, two recensions of theWordTreasury have come down to us. The first is the one contained in the 1736 Sde dgeprint of his collected oeuvre. Written in verse, its punctuation of the double shad

sgo ba of Gdan sa mthil (or: thel), the Phag mo gru dynasty’s premier monastery and spiritual home.A Chos sgo ba rin chen ’bum is recorded in Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos ’byung, 378, asone who “caused spiritual maturity [in the ordinandus] by means of four gestures” (brda bzhi’i sgo nassmin par byas) during the first ordination of the eight-year old Spyan snga grags pa shes rab (1310-70),Ta’i si tu byang chub rgyal mtshan’s (1302-64) younger brother – I do not know what is indicated bythese “four gestures.” A Chos sgo ba brtson ’grus bzang po is mentioned in Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal,Lho rong chos ’byung, 383, as having performed the function of “timer” (dus [b]go byas) during thefinal ordination of Spyan snga grags pa byang chub (1356-86), Ta’i si tu’s nephew. There, the onelinked to the phrase containing the “four gestures” was Slob dpon tshul khrims rgyal ba. The expressionchos sgo ba, “one associated with chos sgo (dharma gate)” thus seems to be prima facie an epithetderived from an association with, possibly, a structure in Gdan sa mthil called chos sgo. On the otherhand, Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos ’byung, 387, notes that an otherwise unidentified chossgo ba functioned in the context of the aforementioned “four gestures” during the proceedings of Gongma or Dbang (Ch. Wang) Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s first ordination in 1380, whereby the same Tshulkhrims rgyal ba officiated in a different capacity. Further, Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos’byung, 389, has it that Chos sgo ba tshul khrims bzang po “opened the dharma-gate” (chos sgo phyes)when Byang chub rdo rje (1377-1428) received his first ordination in 1383. The same phrase chos sgophyes occurs in Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos ’byung, 391, and this would make it ratherunlikely that chos sgo refers to a structure of the monastery. Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos’byung, 391, also observes that Chos sgo ba tshul khrims bzang po gave the young Bsod nams bzangpo (1380-1416), alias Sgo sel ba, “one associated with the Sgo sel structure of Sne’u gdong,” a/the“empowerment of brda ba” (brda ba’i dbang bskur); this might refer to an empowerment for thepractise of a form of Vajravārāhī (Rdo rje phag mo). For example, we read in the biography of Ngaggi dbang phyug grags pa dpal bzang po (1418-96), the twelfth abbot of Stag lung Monastery, by Staglung’s seventeenth abbot Ngag dbang rnam rgyal’s (1571-1626) history of Stag lung that he had givenZhwa dmar IV the brda dbang of Phag mo (= Rdo rje phag mo); see Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lungchos ’byung, ed. Thar gling byams pa tshe ring, Gangs can rig mdzod, vol. 22 (Lha sa: Bod ljongs bodyig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1992), 447. Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims, Brda dkrol gser gyime long (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 384, renders brda ba by rgyas pa, “vast,” on thebasis of an entry in A kya yongs ’dzin blo bzang don grub (ca. 1760-1830), Byang chub lam gyi rimpa chen mo las byung ba’i brda dkrol nyer mkho bsdus pa. However, the probable entry in this workto which the former refers, Collected Works, volume 1 (New Delhi, 1972), 137, has brta ba and notbrda ba! The chos sgo ba of Gdan sa mthil thus seems to have been charged with providing youngnovices with an introduction to the principles of Buddhism. The office of the chos sgo ba is alsoassociated with other monastic institutions. For example, Stag lung Monastery had one, for which seeRi phug blo gsal bstan skyong, Zhwa lu gdan rabs, 113, where mention is made of a Stag lung chossgo baMkhan po sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan.54 See Khams sprul IV Bstan ’dzin chos kyi ma, Rgyan gyi bstan bcos me long paṇ chen bla ma’i

gsung bzhin bkral ba dbyangs can ngag gi rol mtsho legs bshad nor bu’i ’byung khung (Thimphu,1976), 69. Si tu paṇ chen suggests there that Śrīdharasena was a Bal po, that is, a Newar, and this mayhave been due to the fact that the manuscript Zhwa lu lo tsā ba translated is dated in Nepālsaṃvat (Balpo’i lo), on which see Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 349.

17Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

(//) after each line excepting of course those instances where the foot-final graphitself has the vertical line, a “leg” (rkang pa), is unproblematic. The blockprintthus follows the orthographic rule, proposed much earlier, that only one shad (/)needs to be placed at the end of a line of verse that has a foot-final graph with arkang pa, like the graphs of ka, kha, and ga.55 A trifle puzzling is, however, theoccurrence of the so-called sbrul shad at certain intervals, which are placed withinthe double shad. It turns out that these are topic markers and the sporadicallyoccurring sublinear annotations that identify the different topics probably have aforeign hand as their origin. The second recension is the recent text published inwestern format that is based on the Sde dge print, a handwritten manuscript fromZhwa lu and Lu phu monasteries.56 It preserves none of the curious punctutationfeatures of the Sde dge print. The text of the Word Treasury itself is divided intothe two chapters (sde, *varga) of: (1) Heaven (Mtho ris, Svarga) and (2)Netherworld (Sa ’og, Pātāla).57 Both Kṣira-Svāmin (eleventh c.) and, moreimportantly for Tibetan philology, by Subhūticandra argued for this very textualdivision in theAmarakoṣa’s first chapter.Writing in 1750-57 or 1748-56, dependingon whether we accept the entries of his diaries or the note in the colophon,58 Si tupaṇ chen says in his afterword to his monumental Tibetan rendition of a virtuallycomplete text of the Kāmadhenu that Sa skya paṇḍi ta had “translated by way ofa summary a few portions of the beginning of the text” (gzhung gi stod cha cungzad bsdus nas bsgyur ba).59 This translation does not seem to have survived. Whatis more, Sa skya paṇḍi ta nowhere cites Subhūticandra in his writings and I havethus far not come across one single, unambiguous innuendo from his pen thatwould otherwise lead us to suspect that he was thinking of the Kāmadhenu or thathe had taken one or the other lexeme from this work.

Only one commentary on the Word Treasury has surfaced to date, namely theone written by Snye thang lo tsā ba blo gros brtan pa (?- ca. 1460), alias Paṇ chenblo [gros] brtan [pa] IV – Blo gros brtan pa is of course the Tibetan equivalent of

55 See, for example, the Dag yig nye mkho bsdus pa, handwritten dbu can ms., C. P. N. catalog no.004323(9), 5a [= Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs, volume 1, edited by Karma bde legs et al.(Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 101] and Byamsgling paṇ chen bsod nams rnam rgyal’s (1400-75) 1434 Brda’i bye brag rnam par dbye ba’i tshig le’urbyas pa smra ba’i rgyan, 1479/1539 Gr[w]a nang lhun grub gling blockprint, C. P. N. catalog no.004325(1), 35b. The title-page and colophon of the first attributes it to Rngog lo tsā ba, but this is notat all unproblematic; for some remarks, see my “A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and LogicAttributed to Klong chen Rab ’byams pa (1308-1364) and Its Place in Indo-Tibetan Intellectual History,”Journal of Indian Philosophy 31 (2003), 392.56 This is Sa skya paN+Di ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, Sa skya gong ma rnam lnga’i gsung ’bum dpe

bsdur ma las sa paṇ kun dga’ rgyal mtshan gyi gsung pod bzhi pa, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 18, ed.Rgyal mo ’brug pa et al. (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007). I am unable to locateLu phu Monastery.57 Sa skya paN+Di ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, Tshig gi gter [Word Treasury], in Sa skya bka’ ’bum,

vol. 5, no. 14, 125/1-30/2, and 130/2-31/3; Sa skya paN+Di ta,Gsung pod bzhi pa, 192-211, and 211-16.58 Si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas and ’Be lo tsA ba tshe dbang kun khyab, The Autobiography

and Diaries, ed. Lokesh Chandra (NewDelhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1968), volume5, 420; and si1, 272, 348.59 Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, volume 5, 420.

18van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Sthiramati. We learn from an entry for the year 1448 of Jo nang kun dga’ grolmchog’s (1507-66) biography of Gser mdog paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan that thatSnye thang lo tsā ba had taught Gser mdog paṇ chen this commentary, which hehad apparently just completed.60 Thus we can confidently date his exegesis to eitherthe end of 1447 or the beginning of 1448. A bibliographical note at the end of thiswork states that glosses by a Shong ston were among the sources he had used whilewriting his work.61 These glosses most probably indicate an annotated manuscriptof the Word Treasury, rather than a full-fledged commentary. In theory, “Shongston” can refer to either Rdo rje rgyal mtshan (ca. 1230-? after 1280) or his youngerbrother Blo gros brtan pa, alias Blo [gros] brtan [pa] II. Both men were Sanskritistsin their own right, but I incline to identify Snye thang lo tsā ba’s “Shong ston”with the former. Needless to say, a study and edition of the Word Treasury inconjunction with this commentary is an important desideratum for the field ofTibetan lexicography. I should hasten to add that the commentary was not Snyethang lo tsā ba’s only contribution to the linguistic sciences, for he apparentlywrote a substantial exegesis of the Kalāpasūtra as well as a shorter study titledBrda’ sprod pa’i snying po ka lāpa’i mdo’i bshad pa, a brief tract on illustrationsof verbal conjugation, the Te sogs [*ty ādi] dper brjod gcig [b]sgrub tshul.62

60 Jo nang kun dga’ grol mchog, Paṇḍita chen po shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mornam par ’byed pa [The Complete Works of Gser mdog Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan], volume 16(Thimphu, 1975), 42. In all, three witnesses of this work are now available. Titled Mngon brjod kyibstan bcos tshig gi gter zhes bya ba’i ’grel pa rgya cher don gsal ba, snye was published in the dbucan script, though the manuscript on which it is based was originally written in a cursive dbu medscript. It includes several sublinear notes. A handwritten dbu med manuscript with the same title infifty-two folios is listed under Bstan ’dzin phun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, no. 016810. Thesecond is a digitized version of a handwritten dbu med manuscript of unidentified provenance, forwhich see Snye thang lo tsA ba blo gros brtan pa, Tshig gter gyi ṭik snye thang pa blo gros brtan pabzhi pas sbyar ba, Dpal ldan sa skya pa’i gsung rab, comp. Mkhan po kun dga’ bzang po, pod bzhipa, Mngon brjod, in Bod kyi bcu phrag rig mdzod chen mo, ed. Mog chung phur ba (Beijing / Xining:Mi rigs dpe skrun khang / Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004). It is titled Mngon brjod kyibstan bcos tshig gi gter gyi ’grel pa lung gi snye ma in its colophon. And the third is an unpublisheddbu med manuscript in sixty-eight folios housed at the India Office Library, London, for which see,briefly, E. Gene Smith, Tibetan Catalog, volume 2 (Seattle: University of Washington, 1969), 175. Itis differently titled from Tshig gter don gsal and Tshig gter gyi ṭik, namely, Tshig gter gyi rgya cher’grel pa me tog gi chun po. The Alashan Mongol scholar Ngag dbang bstan dar (1759-ca. 1840), aliasBstan dar lha rams pa, cites it twice in his Gangs can gyi brda’ gsar rnying las brtsams pa’i brda’ yigblo gsal mgrin rgyan, in Collected Works, volume kha (New Delhi, 1971), 338, 389-90.61Snye thang lo tsA ba blo gros brtan pa,Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos tshig gi gter zhes bya ba’i ’grel

pa rgya cher don gsal ba (Gangtok, 1977), 304 [Blo gros brtan pa, Tshig gter gyi ṭik, 176]. Snye thanglo tsā ba occasionally points out where certain lexemes of the Word Treasury could not be located inthe Amarakoṣa; see, for example, ri yi khu pa (read: ba) as a synonym for īśvara and ’jigs las skyes[pa] as a synonym for mist, in Blo gros brtan pa, Tshig gter don gsal, 49 and 117 [Blo gros brtan pa,Tshig gter gyi ṭik, 50 and 82]; ad Sa skya paN+Di ta, Word Treasury, 126/2 and 127/3 [Sa skya paN+Dita, Gsung pod bzhi pa, 195: ri yi ku ba!, and 199: ’jig las skye!] (ad I: 1, 27-28; and Amarasiṃha,Amarakoṣa, I: 3, 13-17). He writes that, though an equivalent (skad dod) for ri yi khu ba is unavailable,a similar lexeme me’i khu ba will be dealt with later. Sa skya paṇḍi ta probably adopted ’jigs las skyes[pa] from the Viśvalocana.62 See, respectively, Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, 343, n. 3; and Bstan

’dzin phun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016584, 016658 and 016695, and 016818. Bstan ’dzinphun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, nos. 016585-7, 016596 are long manuscripts of exegeses of thefirst, second, and thirdming le, theKalāpasūtra sections on nominal declension and sandhi from “[?his]large commentary of the Kalāpasūtra.” Finally, Bstan ’dzin phun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, no.

19Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshanThe Amarakoṣa also figures in another work that was written almostcontemporaneously with the Word Treasury. Just as Rje btsun grags pa rgyalmtshan edited several of his brother Slob dpon bsod nams rtse mo’s writings, so,too, did his prodigious nephew Sa skya paṇḍi ta subsequently review and revise afew specimens of his oeuvre. These are tagged as such in their colophons. Noindications of this kind are present in the colophon of Rje btsun’s careful exegesisof the Āryadākiṇīvajrapañjarātantra, where the Amarakoṣa is signaled, albeit butonce.63 Titled ’Phags pa rdo rje gur gyi rgyan, its colophon’s substantial lengthmatches its extraordinary and tortuous textual history.64 We learn there that, aftera delay of some twenty-odd years, he finally managed to bring it to completion inthe tenth lunar month, October-November, of 1210, to the delight and satisfactionof his disciples Tsong kha cang ston brtson ’grus grags, Mu tshu byang chub grags,Lha thog yon tan gzungs, and Rigs ldan shes rab rin chen. Much earlier, a certainRang (= rong) ston seng ge rgyal mtshan65 had petitioned the slob dpon to writesuch a work but, due to his sudden passing, he had only been able to finish writingthe invocation and its programmatic verses. It is likely that he had also left behindsome notes, though Rje btsun is silent on this score. Rje btsun was then requestedby Brtson ’grus grags and Byang chub grags to finish it, but nothing came of hispromise to do so. He was then asked by Lha thog pa ston pa yon tan ’od, the nephewof Bla ma a, one of his own teachers, but was again unable to make fulfill hispromise. He blames a disease and discomfort bringing Dākiṇī (Mkha’ ’gro gnyan)for his very slow progress. Finally, it was only at the repeated entreaties of Shesrab rin chen, a scion of the landed Khun family (khun jo sras) of Rgyang ro in theeastern Myang river valley, that the Dākiṇīs began to look at him with a favorableeye, so that he was at long last able to bring this work to completion. Two passagesin his commentary relate to our present interest.66 In the first, he cites a Sanskritmanuscript (rgya dpe) of the tantra against a reading of the text on which basissomeone had argued that there were a total of thirteen “mother” tantras (ma rgyud).This suggests that Rje btsun may have been able actually to read Sanskrit, thoughit is unclear from the very few sketches we have of his life where and from whom

016619, tentatively ascribes to him a linguistic study of a panegyric of Mañjughoṣa, the ’Jam dbyangs[la] bstod pa, the eight-folio manuscript of which has annotations in black and red ink.63 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 16, no. 419, 288/3-298/4 [nga, 30a-65b]; the translation was

carried out by Gayadhara and ’Brog mi lo tsā ba shākya ye shes (?993-?1077); for these two men, seenow Cyrus R. Stearns, Luminous Lives. The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras Tradition inTibet (Boston:Wisdom Publications, 2001), 47-59, 83-100, and especially RonaldM. Davidson, TibetanRenaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 2005), 161-210. Rje btsun’s comment is found in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 3, no. 12,175/1-211/1.64 Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 3, no. 12, 210/4-11/1.65 He had requested the slob dpon for the large 1174 Hevajratantra exegesis in Sa skya bka’ ’bum,

volume 2, no. 6, 41/3-109/3, a ritual study of this tantra in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 2, no. 12,147/2-168/2, and his 1175 Saṃpuṭatantra study in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 2, no. 15, 188/1-307/1.66 Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 3, no. 12, 201/3-4 and 207/3; Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 16,

no. 419, 295/3 [nga, 54b] and 297/4 [nga, 62a].

20van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

hemay have acquired this skill.67 For now it is equally likely that he simply repeatedan earlier statement to this effect by someone who had actually been able to inspectsuch a manuscript. The second passage is of greater pertinence to our discussion,for this may be the earliest express reference to the Amarakoṣa in a work writtenby a Tibetan scholar. There he refers to “the treatise on language, the Amarakoṣa”in connection with the “[seven] varieties of sound in vocal music” (gre ba’i ’gyurgyi bye brag), and then cites the following unidentified lines of verse that obviouslyallude to Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 7, 1:68

rug las skyes pa rma bya’i dbyangs//ba lang dga’ dbyangs ra ṣa pa//gandhar p[=b]a ni ra skyes sgra//khrung khrung bar ma’i dbyangs su sgrogs//me tog thun mong rgyas pa’i tshe//khu byug sgrogs pa lnga pa yin//rta ni blo gsal dbyangs su ’tsher//’khor nyan pa ni glang chen sgra//rma bya la sogs de dag rnams//myos pa’i tshe na lnga bar sgrogs//.

The First Tibetan Translation: Kīrticandra and Yar klung lo tsāba grags pa rgyal mtshan (1242-1346)The very first Tibetan translation of what must have been a severely truncatedSanskrit manuscript of the Kāmadhenu was executed by the joint efforts ofKīrticandra and Yar klung lo tsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshan (1242-1346)69 in

67 Sa skya paṇḍi ta signals his uncle’s still lost Yi ge’i rnam dbye, no doubt a work on Sanskrit-Tibetangraphs and phonology, in his 1205? Byis pa bde blag tu ’jug pa’i rnam bshad, in Sa skya bka’ ’bum,volume 5, no. 9, 119/4.68 For these lines, see also Sa skya paN+Di ta, Word Treasury, 129/3-4 [Sa skya paN+Di ta, Gsung

pod bzhi pa, 208], and the comment in Blo gros brtan pa, Tshig gter don gsal, 225-26 [Blo gros brtanpa, Tshig gter gyi ṭik, 135]. See further the discussion in Zhol khang bsod nams dar rgyas, Glu gartshangs pa’i chab rgyun (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1992), 34-38. Sa skya paṇḍita declined to discuss this septet in his circa 1203-4 treatise on instrumental and vocal music, becauseof the difficulty of reproducing the sounds of Sanskrit in Tibetan; see the remarks in his Rol mo’i bstanbcos (and in the 1624 commentary by A mes zhabs) in Rol mo’i bstan bcos (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 1986), 75-76. Suffice it furthermore to say here that these lines of verse do not correspond towhat we find in the Kāmadhenu, for which see Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s and Si tu paṇ chen’s translations in,respectively, Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4301], 261/7-62/1 [se, 291a-b] and Situ paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, volume 4, 440-41. Subhūticandra quotesthere a passage enumerating these from a work by a certain Thub pa mi[s] byin bu, that is, *MuniNaradattaputra. Lastly, Smin grol gling lo tsā ba chos dpal (1654-1718) cites the Laṅkāvatārasūtravṛtti(Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 38, no. 4024 [# 4019], 328/4 [pi, 16b]) of Ye shes rdo rje (Jñānavajra)in his Bya sa zhabs drung sku gzhon pa’i dri lan,Dri lan skor rmongs pa’i mun sel legs bshad nyi ma’isnying po las dri ba sna tshogs kyi lan phyogs bsdoms, in Collected Works, volume 5 (np, nd), 231-32,where Jñānavajra quotes several similar lines of verse from an unidentified “early treatise” (sngon gyigtsug lag, *pūrvaśāstra).69 These dates are taken from the late Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan, Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo ji ltar dar

tshul brgyud pa’i lo rgyus dang bcas pa skal bzang rna ba’i dga’ ston, Bod kyi rtsis rig kun ’dus chenmo, volume 1, edited by Byams pa ’phrin las (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998), 82.The summary of his activities in Khri bsam gtan, Skad gnyis smra ba’i rin chen bang mdzod (Lanzhou:

21Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Kathmandu – the spelling of klung is quite unstable in the literature, for we alsocome across lung, lungs, and klungs, and I have purposively standardized it forthis paper. The place of translation suggests of course that he probably used amanuscript other than the one that was studied by Sa skya paṇḍi ta. This same teamwas also responsible for the first Tibetan rendition of the Amarakoṣa in its entirety.Both were ultimately included in the 1742 blockprint of the Snar thang Bstan ’gyuras well as in the one carved in Beijing (after 1742).70Unfortunately, their translationof the Kāmadhenu is as often fatally flawed as it is fragmentary – it breaks off atthe comment on Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 3, 15b, and we should hasten to addthat their rendition of the Amarakoṣa was also quite flawed. Neither wereunqualified successes. Reading their work – perhaps it is better to change thepossessive pronoun their to “his,” meaning Yar klung lo tsā ba, and therebyexculpate Kīrticandra from any ultimate responsibility for the Tibetan text – wequickly become painfully aware that, aside from omissions which may have beendue to the nature of the manuscript(s) with which they were working, they feltconstrained not only to leave much of the text stand in Sanskrit, but also that muchof what they did in fact manage to translate was transmuted into a hybrid “Tibskrit”that must have posed virtually insurmountable difficulties for the average Tibetanscholar who was unfamiliar with Sanskrit. For the fact that both are so seriouslydisabling in a number of places also shows how foreign the particulars of India’smaterial and social culture still were to Yar klung lo tsā ba when he was translatingthese works. He thus retained many of the lexical entries of the text in the originalSanskrit, a feature that we may have to attribute to a lack of sufficient experience.Thus it hardly needs to be said that, for the Tibetan Sanskritist, these translationswere unmitigated philological disasters. Little wonder, then, that Si tu paṇ chenwas to render a devastating judgement on both.71 The same team was also

Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005), 244-48, is flawed owing to this conflation with another Lotsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshan of Bo dong e, whose dates are 1352 to 1405. Dbang ’dus tshe ring and’Phrin las rgya mtsho, Bod kyi sgra sgyur lo rgyus dang lo tsā ba rim byon gyi mdzad rnam gsal ba’ime long, 295-96, also confuse him with [Bo dong] Lo tsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshan, as did others beforethem, including Per Kvaerne, An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs (Bangkok: White Orchid Press,1977), 2. For [Bo dong] lo tsā ba, see now Ngag dbang skal ldan rgya mtsho, Shel dkar chos ’byung.History of theWhite Crystal, tr. PasangWangdu andH. Diemberger (Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 72-76.70 The texts were published in Satis Chandra Vidyābhūṣaṇa, ed., Amaraṭīkā-kāmadhenu, Bibliotheca

Indica, New Series, no. 1348 (Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press, 1912) and Satis ChandraVidyābhūṣaṇa, ed., Amarakoṣa, Bibliotheca Indica, no. 204 (Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press,1911-12); the latter was reprinted in 1984, in Gangtok, Sikkim. The Amaraṭīkā-kāmadhenu goes up toSubhūticandra’s comments on am, I: 3,15b, albeit with very many lacunae.71 Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Karma kaṃ tshang rnam thar, 5: ……gzhung tshang ma bsgyur

ba’i skabs su paṇḍi ta yod par ma zad rab ’byor zla ba’i ’grel pa’ang yod par ’dug mod kyi skabs dangpo’i thad du sa pan [read: paṇ] gyis sngar bsgyur ba la’ang cha ma bzhag pa lta bus skyon du mamngon pa mang zhing / spyir stod smad thams cad du ming ’jug yul gyi mtshams phyed pa dang / ming’chad byed ming gi rnam grangs su ’khrul pa dang / su pa kyi mtha’ rtags tsam du ’khrul pa dang /rtags kyi khyad par ston byed kyi tshig mang po chad pa dang / rtogs par rlom nas don dang ’gal barbsgyur ba la sogs pa skyon gyi rnams grangs su btab na brgya phrag gis kyang mi lang bar ’dug…/.

-

This contrasts sharply with his laudatory comment on Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s translations of the WordTreasury that precedes this passage. The expression su pa kyi mtha’ reflects sūP-anta and refers tonominal declension.

22van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

responsible for a translation of Candragomin’s play, the Lokānandanāṭaka.72Singularly unimpressed by their translation, Michael Hahn came to the well nighunavoidable conclusion that the philological quality of their rendition of the playwas by no means beyond reproach in that “it teems with clumsy, semanticallyambiguous, or even wrong passages.”73 Similarly, Ryugen Tanemura came to thesame conclusion, but his assessment needs to be set against the background of aninsufficient appreciation of the changes that can and often do occur in thetransmissive history of a Tibetan text, from handwritten manuscript to blockprintto copies thereof.74

Sa skya paṇḍi ta speaks of problems with Tibetan translations of Sanskrit textsin the second chapter of hisMkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo in a rather general way.He writes inter alia that:

Because some do not properly know the narratives

72 Harṣadeva’s Nāgānandanāṭaka is the other Sanskrit play translated into Tibetan, of which theBstan ’gyurs but contain the joint translation of Shong ston lo tsā ba rdo rje rgyal mtshan and Lakṣmīkara;see Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 46, no. 4159 [# 4154], 65/1-72/6 [u, 225a-52a] and now alsoRoland Steiner, Untersuchungen zu Harṣadevas Nāgānanda und zum indischen Schauspiel, Indica etTibetica, Bd. 31 (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997). Dar ma rgyal mtshan registersonly the much earlier, but hitherto unknown, version by Lo tsā ba rin chen bzang po (958-1055) inSchaeffer-van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan Survey, 227, 22.200. Sa skya paṇḍi ta had studied the Sanskrittext of the Nāgānandanāṭaka with Sugataśrī, and himself refers to it in his Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’isgo and Nga brgyad ma’i ’grel pa; see, respectively, Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 5, nos. 6 and 18, 88/3;and 150/1. Still lost, one of his two contributions to the field of dramaturgy titled Rab dga’i [or: Dga’la] ’Jug pa was probably in part based on it – Rab [tu] dga’ [ba] = Kun tu dga’ ba = Ānanda; see thereference in Jackson, The Entrance Gate, volume 1, 83, 102, note 2; and also Bla ma dam pa bsodnams rgyal mtshan, Bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba, in The Slob bshadTradition of the Sa skya Lam ’bras, volume 16 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 90 (= handwrittendbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002799[7], 37a).73 Michael Hahn, Candragomin’s Lokānandanāṭaka. Ein Beitrag zur klassischen indischen

Schauspieldichtung, Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 39 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), 26. Hahn’sassessment is echoed in Kvaerne, An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs, 20 ff., in connection withhis rendition of Munidatta’s *Caryākoṣagītavṛtti. The circa 1330 revision by Sgra tshad pa rin chenrgyal mtshan, at Sa skya, of Yar klung lo tsā ba’s and the Kashmirian (Kha che’i) scholar Dharmadhara’sTibetan translation of Nāropā’s Paramārtha-saṃgrahasekoddeśaṭīkā was used by Raniero Gnoli andGiacomella Orofino in their rendition of the text inNāropā. Iniziazone Kālacakra, Biblioteca Orientale,volume 1 (Rome: Adelphi Edizione, 1994), 129-371. On page 100, the authors say that an edition ofthe Tibetan text will be published in the Serie Orientale Roma, but it has not yet appeared. A goodlisting of Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translations (some are not his, however, but by one of his namesakes)is found in the Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba du ma’i ’gyur byang blo gsal dga’ skyed, 314-31.Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 32, no. 3755 [# 3759], 183/7-84/2 [tshu, 984b-85a] contains his andthe Indian abbot (rgya gar gyi mkhan po) Dharmadhara’s translation of the Jambhalastotra by the“Lord of Man” (Mi’i dbang po), Nyi ma rnam par gnon pa (?Sūryavikrama). It was done in Sa skya atthe behest of the kalyāṇamitra Gzhon nu shes rab. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that Gzhonnu shes rab is the Shes rab gzhon nu, who wrote in 1275 a commentary on the Rgyal po la gdams pa’irab tu byed pa by his master ’Phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-80), Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s nephew,for which see Sa skya bka’ ’bum, vol. 7, no. 154.74 See Ryugen Tanemura, Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā: A Critical Edition and Annotated

Translation of Selected Sections, Groningen Oriental Studies, volume 19 (Groningen: Egbert Forsten,2004), 114, 307-27. But see now also the review in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 125(2005), 410, in which T. Tomabechi has shown that some of the problems with the Tibetan translation,as detailed in on pp. 307-27 of Tanemura’s book, are simply due to the faulty transmission of the textand to a significant degree exculpates Yar klung lo tsā ba.

23Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

that occur in the Purāṇas,I have observed a few expression that were wrongly translated,On account of having misunderstood the raison d’être ofthe proper names.75

Commenting on this passage in his 1997 exegesis, Bo thar bkra shis chos ’phelcontrasts the method of translating Sanskrit into Tibetan of Pa tshab lo tsā ba nyima grags and Yar klung lo tsā ba.76 But it turns out that this contrast was hardlyhis own. He evidently adopted it from the earlier assessment of Dge ’dun chos’phel, himself no mean Sanskritist, but took it out of context. I do not know onwhat basis Dge ’dun chos ’phel made this observation, but he is more charitablethan Hahn by claiming that although Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translations are difficultto understand, he did render literally the Sanskrit cases.77 To be sure, this is notsaying very much.

75 Sa skya bka’ ’bum, vol. 5, no. 6, 99/2-4: la la sngon rabs las byung ba’i// gtam rgyud legs par mishes pas// ming gi rgyu mtshan ma rtogs nas// log par bsgyur ba cung zad mthong//.

-

The cited passage of the Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo is not further clarified by Glo bo mkhan chenbsod nams lhun grub (1456-1532) in his commentary of 1527, for which see Glo bo mkhan chen bsodnams lhun grub, Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo’i rnam par bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed (New Delhi,1979), 454-56. The same holds for the more succinct study of 1601 by Mkhan chen ngag dbang chosgrags (1572-1641), for which see Mkhan chen ngag dbang chos grags, Bstan bcos chen po mkhas pa’jug pa’i sgo’i rnam par bshad pa blo gsal mgrin pa’i dpal yon, in Sa paṇ mkhas ’jug rtsa ’grel, editedby Pad+ma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998), 338 (= Mkhan chen ngagdbang chos grags, Bstan bcos chen po mkhas pa ’jug pa’i sgo’i rnam par bshad pa blo gsal mgrin pa’idpal yon, in Collected Works, volume 3 [Darjeeling: Sakya Choepheling Monastery, n.d.], 587). Ofinterest is that Dmar ston chos kyi rgyal po (ca. 1198-1259) criticizes the earlier commentary on histeacher Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s collection of gnomes, the Legs bshad rin po che’i gter, by Btsun pa rin chendpal of ’Bring mtshams (= ?Lho pa kun mkhyen) in part on the grounds that he had the wrong talesform the literary background to some of the gnomes; see Dmar ston chos kyi rgyal po, Legs par bshadpa rin po che’i gter zhes bya ba’i ’grel pa (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1982),209. The author of a recently published but hitherto unknown commentary on Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s work– he signs himself as “Bsod nams” – simply says that he primarily, though not exclusively, based hisexegesis on Btsun pa’s poetic tales (rtogs brjod, *avadāna), without mentioning any of the problemsDmar ston associated with them; see the Legs bshad rin po che’i gter gyi rnam par bshad pa dgos ’dodkun ’byung, Sa skya’i legs bshad kyi rtsa ’grel, edited by ’Phrin las don grub (Xining: Mtsho sngonmi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1995), 472. Bsod nams has mined Dmar ston’s study. For example, in hiscomment on verse 321 of Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s Legs bshad rin po che’i gter, for which see Dmar stonchos kyi rgyal po, Legs par bshad pa rin po che’i gter dang ’grel pa, 190-96, Dmar ston relates a pieceof the story of Rāma and Sītā, and much of this is found in the Legs bshad rin po che’i gter gyi rnampar bshad pa dgos ’dod kun ’byung, 390-98. For Dmar ston’s version, see Ulrike Roesler, “The GreatIndian Epics in the Version of Dmar ston Chos kyi rgyal po,” Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet,Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000,edited by H. Blezer and A. Zadoks (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 442-48. Bsod nams, whom I cannot identify,apparently completed his treatise on the eighth day of the second Hor-month of a fire-male-horse year,while residing in the monastery of Dpal ldan nor bu chos ’phel.76 Bo thar bkra shis chos ’phel,Mkhas ’jug gi rnam bshad ’chad rtsom gsal ba’i me long, in Sa paṇ

mkhas ’jug rtsa ’grel, edited by Pad+ma tshul khrims (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,1998), 208.77 The entire passage reads in Dge ’dun chos ’phel, Legs sbyar bang mdzod, in Collected Works,

volume 3, edited by Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., Gangs can rig mdzod, volume 12 (Lha sa:Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994), 370: ’dir asya bya ba drug pa’i mtha’ yin yangbod skad la ’di ni bya ba las bsgyur ma gtub cing / spyir rgya skad kyi drug pa phal cher bod skad lagnyis pa dang dang po kho na yin cing / pa tshab sogs kyis de ltar bsgyur ’dug pas sngon gyi ’gyur

24van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

In spite of his numerous and varied activities as a Sanskritist and translator,very little is known about this Yar klung lo tsā ba. So little, in fact, that the fairlywell-informed early seventeenth century history of Sanskrit studies in Tibet byDngos grub rgya mtsho even fails to mention his name altogether.78 One result ofthe paucity of information about him is that there has been some uncertainty abouthis floruit and his scholarly and religious affiliation. Following the earlierindications of J. Naudou, Michael Hahn suggested that he lived some time betweencirca 1295 and 1378. Claus Vogel restricted this time frame by placing him in andaround the year 1300, andRanieroGnoli andGiacomellaOrofino vacillated betweenassigning him to the fourteenth or thirteenth century, whereas D. Seyfort Rueggsuggested the fourteenth century.79 David P. Jackson argued, it turns out rightly,that he may very well have been one of Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s disciples, since the Lam’bras slob bshad collection of Sa skya pa tantric texts contains a versified biographyof Sa skya paṇḍi ta, the colophon of which states that it was written by a Grags pargyal mtshan, whowas obviously one of his students.80 Shared by such later scholarsas Mang thos klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-96),81 among others, this view is at firstblush only convincing if we accept not merely the integrity of this colophon butalso that this Grags pa rgyal mtshan, a not uncommon Tibetan name in religion,was in fact Yar klung lo tsā ba. In this connection, it is furthermore important tobear in mind that the name “Grags pa rgyal mtshan” and the epithet “Yar klung lotsā ba” are absent from the earliest, more abbreviated listings of Sa skya paṇḍi ta’sdisciples, so that this might cast some doubt on the matter. In addition, neither Buston’s nor Ngor chen kun dga’ bzang po’s records-of-what-was-studied (gsan yig),record-of-what-was-studied, mention any teachings a Grags pa rgyal mtshan or aYar klung lo tsā ba had received from Sa skya paṇḍi ta. Indeed, the former onlynotes him some four times as having been a student of Paṇḍita Ratnaśrī,

rnams go bde ba’i rgyu mtshan gcig de yin la/ yar klung grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi ’gyur rnams godka’ ba yang rnam dbye rnams ji lta ba bzhin bsgyur bas yin/.78 Dngos grub rgya mtsho, Tha snyad rig gnas lnga’i byung tshul, edited by Nor brang o rgyan,

Gangs can rig mdzod, volume 4 (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 255-322.79 Hahn, Candragomin’s Lokānandanāṭaka, 24-25; Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 312; Raniero

Gnoli and Giacomella Orofino, Nāropā. Iniziazone Kālacakra, 304, note 3, and 371, note 2; and D.Seyfort Ruegg, “Sanskrit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionaries and Some Problems in Indo-TibetanPhilosophical Lexicography,” Lexicography in the Indian and Buddhist Cultural Field. Proceedingsof the Conference at the University of Strasbourg 25 to 27 Aprl 1996, edited by B. Oguibénine (München:Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998), 127; seealso Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1, 93-94.80 Jackson, The Entrance Gate, volume 1, 33, note 5; and Yar klung pa, Chos kyi rje sa skya paṇḍi

ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa ’bring po, in The Slob bshad Tradition ofthe Sa skya Lam ’bras, volume 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 64-76. The author of this workoften refers to Sa skya paṇḍi ta as “my master,” and the colophon clearly states that it was written by“Yar klung pa,” though it uses the honorific mdzad (“made, written”). He is sometimes confused withYar klung pa byang chub rgyal mtshan, another one of Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s biographer-disciples, whotook part in the novitiate ordination of ’Phags pa, in 1255.81 See the Bstan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed, edited by Nor brang o rgyan, Gangs can rig mdzod 4 (Lha

sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 151.

25Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Vimalaśrībhadra,82 Śāntarakṣita, and Kīrticandra, and that he was the master of[Rong po] shes rab seng ge, Lo tsā ba mchog ldan legs pa’i blo gros, and Grub padpal.83 And Ngor chen merely connects him with Ratnaśrī and Shes rab seng ge.84If his position in these lines of transmission of the relevant teachings tell us anythingat all, it is that he must have been Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s junior contemporary. So, ifthe aforementioned biography of the master is indeed by him, then it is of coursequite possible that he had been part of Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s entourage when the lattertraveled to the court of the Mongol Prince Köden in 1244-46.

But another key-indicator that some kind of a link did exist between these twomen is surely found in the colophon of his translation of Munidatta’s*Caryākoṣagītavṛtti. There we learn that the combination of the oral instructionshe had received from Kīrticandra and the “kindness of the Sa skya pa, the lord ofreligion, the uncle and nephew” had enabled him to bring this translation to asatisfactory conclusion.85 The term “uncle” no doubt alludes here to Sa skya paṇḍita and the “nephew” to ’Phags pa. And this obviously means that he enjoyed somekind of a connection, most likely a direct one, with Sa skya paṇḍi ta. But he certainlywas a contemporary of ’Phags pa. We also find some additional rewarding andimportant information in the colophon of one of the two extant translations of theRaktayamāritantra in nineteen chapters that is preserved in the Sde dge print ofthe Bstan ’gyur; there we read the following:86

bla ma chos kyi rgyal po’i gsung gi ’od zer dang / bho ṭa paṇḍi ta’i gsung dang/ mi’i dbang po kun dga’ bzang po’i gsung dang / dpon kun gzhon gyis gser gnangba la brten nas/ shākya’i dge slong candra shrī’i zhal snga nas zhus shing / paṇḍi

82 A grand-nephew of Śākyaśrībhadra, so identified in Ngor chen kun dga’ bzang po’sGsan yig rgyamtsho, in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, vol. 9, no. 36, 77/2; and an erstwhile resident of Sa skya, Vimalaśrībhadraor Vimalaśrī (Weimaluoshili) was active in Yuan China during at least the years 1285-87; see HerbertFranke, Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China in der Yüanzeit, Studia Tibetica, Quellenund Studien zur tibetischen Lexicographie, Band III (München: Kommission für ZentralasiatischeStudien Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 116. Weimaluoshili is there called a Xitianmonk and said to be an expert in the traditional five domains of knowledge (wuming, *pañcavidyā).83 Bu ston, Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba’i tshul bka’ drin rjes su dran par byed pa,

The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa] [Lha sa print], part 26 (Delhi: InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, 1971), 65, 81, 82, 91. Tanemura was misled in thinking that Rong po shesrab seng ge (1251-1315) was one of his teachers; see hisKuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā: A CriticalEdition and Annotated Translation of Selected Sections, 113-14, where his interpretation of the colophonof Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translation of the Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā is not unproblematic. For one, Rongpo shes rab seng ge was the financial underwriter (sbyin bdag) of the translation.84 Gsan yig rgya mtsho, in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, vol. 9, no. 36, 82/1.85 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 28, no. 2297 [# 2293] 224/5 [zhi, 206a]: chos kyi rje dpal ldan

sa skya pa khu dbon rnams kyi sku ’drin la brten nas…-

Kvaerne, An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs, 2, translates the colophon without recognizing theimport of the phrase, chos kyi rje dpal ldan sa skya pa khu dbon. We may not be absolutely certain that“Grags pa rgyal mtshan” of the colophons that are discussed below always refers to Yar klung lo tsāba. But the existence of each of the translations to which they are added for the early fourteenth centuryis evidenced by their inclusion in the catalog Bu ston appended to his his ecclesiastic chronicle, forwhich see bu and Nishioka, “Index to the Catalog Section,” 4 (1980): 61-92; 5 (1981): 43-94; and 6(1983): 47-201.86 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 17, nos. 473-74 [# 474-75], 157/1 [ja, 214b].

26van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

ta chen po candra kīrti dang / yar lungs pa grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis/ bal yulyam bu’i grong khyer du bsgyur ro//.

Here, “Bla ma dam pa chos kyi rgyal po” can only refer to ’Phags pa. I am notentirely sure who the “Tibetan Paṇḍita” (Bho ṭa paṇḍi ta) may have been. His placein this listing suggests that he had a great deal of religious and political clout. Bsodnams ’od zer’s biography of U rgyan pa rin chen dpal (1230-1309) mentions a bhoṭa paṇḍi ta several times in connection with U rgyan pa’s circa 1265 sojourn inthe Kathmandu Valley,87 and I think it highly likely that these are one and the sameindividual. Of course, he does remain to be identified! “Lord of Man” (mi’i dbangpo) Kun dga’ bzang po is of course none other than the second Grand-Governor(dpon chen) of Sa skya and Central Tibet, whose term of office lasted from circa1270 to 1275/6. He was executed for treason in 1281.88 It is not at all transparentfrom the colophon whether he was still in office at the time of this translation. Inany event, these three men had recommended or given the order that this tantrabe rendered into Tibetan, but the translation itself was financed by dpon, “theofficial,” Kun dga’ gzhon nu. The latter was appointed the sixth Grand-Governorin 1282,89 so that we must preserve a distinction, one that our Tibetan sources donot always maintain, between a dpon chen and a dpon. The text itself was requestedfrom a certain Candraśrī, whereafter the great paṇḍi ta Candrakīrti and Yar klunglo tsā ba translated it in Kathmandu. All the instances of this colophon that I haveseen have “Candrakīrti” and not “Kīrticandra.” This notwithstanding, I am inclinedto view this as an old confusion, but have no real proof for it. Bu ston registerstwo different Tibetan recensions of this tantra in his aforenoted catalog, one byYar klung lo tsā ba and the other by Shong ston lo tsā ba blo gros brtan pa.90 TheStog Palace manuscript of the Bka’ ’gyur, which only contains the latter, relatesin its colophon courtesy of Skorupski’s catalog that the Kashmirian Rāhulaśrībhadraand Blo [gros] brtan [pa] rendered it into Tibetan at the behest of Bla ma dam pachos kyi rgyal po (= ’Phags pa) with the financial support of Grand-Governor Kundga’ bzang po.91 This means of course that this particular translation dates fromthe mid-1270s.

87 Bsod nams ’od zer, Grub chen o rgyan pa’i rnam par thar pa byin brlabs kyi chu rgyun (Gangtok,1976), 124, 126 (= Bsod nams ’od zer, Grub chen u rgyan pa’i rnam thar, edited by Rta mgrin tshedbang, Gangs can rig mdzod 32 [Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1997], 176-77,179).88 See Luciano Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yüan-Sa skya Period of Tibetan History,

Serie Orientale Roma, volume 65 (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990),21-25. For a possible solution to a long standing conundrum of the question of what he was guilty, seemy “U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal (1230-1309) Part Two: For Emperor Qubilai? His Garland of Talesabout Rivers,” in The Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in TraditionalTibet, edited by C. Cüppers (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004), 307 ff.89 Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols, 27.90 Bu ston, Chos ’byung, 986.91 See Skorupski, A Catalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur, 232. Bu ston’s catalog of a collection of

tantras only contains this work; see Helmut Eimer, Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu ston im Vergleich mitder Abteilung Tantra des tibetischen Kanjur. Studie, Textausgabe, Konkordanzen und Indices, Indicaet Tibetica, Bd. 17 (Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1989), 78-79, no. 106.

27Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Yar klung lo tsā ba’s close ties to Sa skya are in evidence in other colophonsof his translations as well. For example, in this monastery, he rendered into Tibetana work on the evocation of the deity Kulalokanātha, a tract by Vimalaśrībhadra onthe same, and a treatise on the meaning and predictive force of certain bodilymarkings.92 But there are two, somewhat more rewarding colophons in which, Isubmit, the Grags pa rgyal mtshan whom they mention is none other than Yarklung lo tsā ba as well. One is found at the end of the Tibetan translation of theSādhanasamuccaya, and there we read the following:

These works included in the Ocean of Evocations of Various Deities were fullytranslated by Grags pa rgyal mtshan, the deśāntariyogi[n] (?the foreign yogi), inthe holy hermitage of Chu mig rdzing kha on the third day of the first fortnightof the twelfth lunar month of the hen-year, through Grand-MasterDharmapalarakṣita’s ?protective presence (sku skyabs) and Grand-Governor Kundga’ gzhon nu andMa gcig pa having acted as financial sponsors, after the traditionthat issued from the great paṇḍi ta Gautamaśrī93 and having been asked to do soby the great paṇḍi ta Kīrticandra in the great monastery of lustrous Sa skya.94

The date given in this colophon can be calculated with some confidence.Dharmapālarakṣita must be ’Phags pa’s nephew, the son of his younger brotherPhyag na rdo rje (1239-67) and Ma gcig mkha’ ’gro ’bum, a lady of Zhwa lu’sLce family. And his dates are 1268 to 1287. And Kun dga’ gzhon nu is of coursenone other than the sixth Grand-governor of Sa skya and Central Tibet. Given

92 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 27, nos. 2136-37 [# 2133-34], 571/5, 575/3 [tshi, 181b, 194b],and volume 51, no. 4343 [# 4338], 313/4. The second of these was translated at the behest of theofficial-physician (mi chen lha rje) Ma ga ling, whose name is not Tibetan, and the name in religion“Grags pa rgyal mtshan” is prefixed by “Yar lungs pa Shud ke”; Yar lungs pa means, of course, “theone from [or: associated with] Yar klung,” but I am not at all sure what might be meant by Shud ke.We come across just “Shud ke Grags pa rgyal mtshan” in the colophon of theKulalokanāthapañcadaśaka; see Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 16, no. 436, 386/1 [ca, 29a]. Theexpression Shud ke occurs in the list of chiliarchies in Mkhas pa lde’u’s circa 1260 Rgya bod kyi chos’byung rgyas pa, edited by Chab spel tshe brtan phun tshogs (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrunkhang, 1987), 260; see also Karl-Heinz Everding, Das Königreich Mang yul Gung thang. Königtumund Herrschaftsgewalt im Tibet des 13.-17. Jahrhunderts, Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Band 6 (Teil2) (Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000), 281-82. Vimalaśrībhadra played an unspecifiedrole in its production at Sa skya, but we do learn that a certain Byang chub rin chen had made therequest for its translation. Two different handwritten dbu med manuscripts of the third work werereproduced in Encyclopedia Tibetica. The Collected Works of Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs las rnamrgyal, vols. 2 and 9 (New Delhi: The Tibet House, 1970), 147-74 and 401-26.93 Gautamaśrī or Gautamaśrībhadra was also one of the masters of Thar pa gling lo tsā ba nyi ma

rgyal mtshan, himself a major teacher of Bu ston; see Bu ston, Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzungba’i tshul bka’ drin rjes su dran par byed pa, 65-66. See also below for a few more details about him.94 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 32, nos. 3405-3649 [#3400-3644], 74/3 [mu, 257b]: lha so so’i

sgrub pa’i thabs rgya mtsho zhes bya ba ’di rnams ni dpal ldan sa skya’i gtsug lag khang chen porpaṇḍi ta chen po gau ta ma shrī las brgyud cing / paṇḍi ta chen po kīrti candra’i zhal snga nas zhusnas/ slob dpon chen po dha rma pa la rakṣi ta’i sku skyabs dang / dpon chen po kun dga’ gzhon nudang / ma gcig pas sbyin bdag mdzad pa la brten nas/ de shānta ri yo gi grags pa rgyal mtshan gyis/bya lo zla ba bcu gnyis pa’i dkar po tshes gsum la dben gnas dam pa chu mig rdzing khar yongs surdzogs par bsgyur ro//.

-

I must confess there is some uncertainty in the translation of …las brgyud shing…zhal snga nas zhusnas/.

28van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

these facts, the Ma gcig pa of the colophon may therefore very well be identifiedas this Mkha’ ’gro ’bum. And since the hen-year in question can only be 1285, itis obvious that, using the Tabellen of Dieter Schuh, the translation was completedon 30 November of that year.95 If my suspicion proves to be correct, then we mayhave to date their translations of the Amarakoṣa and the Kāmadhenu to not laterthan circa 1280.

Th e o t h e r c o l o phon o c cu r s a t t h e e nd o f t h eEkavīrākhyāśrīcaṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra in which we read that he, here called “Lotsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshan,” and Ratnaśrī completed their translation at Sa skyaMonastery on the tenth day of the tenth lunar month of a serpent-year,96 and thatthey had carried out their work at the behest of [Rong] shes rab seng ge, an expertin the Kālacakra (Dus ’khor ba chen po), who had been given the financial supportfor this enterprise by the Great Lama (bla ma chen po) Rin chen rgyal mtshan. Thelatter must surely be identified as the scion of Sa skya’s Shar House, whose datesare 1257/8 to 1305.97 In fact, he functioned as Sa skya’s seventh abbot from 1288to 1297, whereafter he was appointed Imperial Preceptor by Emperor Ölǰeitü(Chengzong; r. May 10, 1294, to February 10, 1307), a post he held from 1304 tohis passing. Only the last two of the three serpent-years that might be considered,namely, 1281, 1293, or 1305, are probable candidates, with the first being morelikely than the second. This would mean that the translation was finished eitheron October 9, 1293, or, less likely, on October 28, 1305.

We thus know from the colophons of Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translations that hesojourned for some time in the Kathmandu Valley. He was also connected inimportant ways to another great traveler of his time, namely, Sman lung pa bsodnams dpal (?1239-?after 1299), among whose claims to fame was his successfulpilgrimage, begun in 1268, to South India in order to visit the Dhānyakaṭaka, astūpa sacred to the Kālacakra cycle, and Mount Poṭalaka, the Indian residence ofAvalokiteśvara.98 During part of his travels, he was accompanied by

95 In his article on several collections of sādhana-evocations and their importance for Tibetan Buddhisticonography, Naoji Okuyama, “Two Problems Relating to the Development of the Buddhist Pantheonin Tibet [in Japanese],” Indogaku Bukkyō Kenkyū 36.2 (1988), 889, refers to this colophon and calculatedthe translation to have fallen in 1286, but this is a slight oversight.96 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 16, no. 431, 377/6 [nga, 343a].97 See my “Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam ’bras Teachings of

the Sa skya pa and Ko brag pa,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17 (1994),188-90. Neither this translation nor Yar klung lo tsā ba are mentioned in the slightly incomplete,twenty-four-folio manuscript of Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes’s (1257-1320) biography of Rin chenrgyal mtshan, for which see Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes, Chos rje ’jam dbyangs chen po’i rnam tharyon tan rgya mtsho, handwritten dbu med ms. C. P. N. catalog no. 004381(10).98 The dates given for Sman lung pa are based on the (problematic) information provided in his

undated biography by Bsod nams bzang po: Grub sman rnam thar, 6a – he was twenty-six (=twenty-five) in 1264 – and Grub sman rnam thar, 11b – he was sixty-five (= sixty-four) in theearth-male-pig year (1299)! Bsod nams bzang po also writes, in Grub sman rnam thar, 11b, that Smanlung pa went toMountWutai in Shanxi Province, and that he stayed there for many years. It thus seemsthat he never returned to Tibet. He was in part the subject of Ariane Macdonald, “Le Dhānyakaṭaka deMan luṅs gu ru,” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient LVII (1970): 169-213. At my peril,

29Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Gautamaśrī[Bhadra] and Jetāribhadra, where the latter was a disciple of the former.Upon his return to Central Tibet, Sman lung pa was eulogized by Vimalaśrī forhis connection with the stūpa, and this ephemeral piece was then later translatedin the monastery of [S]man lung[s] by Gautama[Śrī]Bhadra and Lo tsā ba byangchub grags pa.99 It now appears that Yar klung lo tsā ba had served Bsod namsdpal in the capacity of an informant, and the latter observes that, aside from theKathmandu Valley, he had also stayed for some time in what is now Bihar Statein India.100

To recapitulate, we wander in twilight when it comes to ascertaining the yearin which Yar klung lo tsā ba (and Kīrticandra) completed the Tibetan versions ofthe Amarakoṣa and the Kāmadhenu. Dating these to sometime before circa 1280is not altogether satisfactory, but, we can find some solace in the fact that thisuncertainty hardly spells the end of the world. Dar ma rgyal mtshan does not registereither in his catalog and we also may consider this fact a terminus a quo. Indeed,Dar ma rgyal mtshan registers there none of his many translations, for he ends hiswork with a listing of the translations by his teacher Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal(1197-1264) and Zhang lo tsā ba grub pa dpal. Be this as it may, his disciple Dbuspa blo gsal byang chub ye shes (ca. 1265-ca. 1355) included their translations inhis circa 1310-20 catalog of a manuscript Bstan ’gyur of Snar thang Monastery,as did Bu ston, first in the catalog of translated scripture he appended to hischronicle, and then later in his 1335 catalog of the Zhwa lu Bstan ’gyur.101 Theirinclusion in these early Bstan ’gyur manuscripts does not mean that we shouldexpect that these two treatises were part of each and every Bstan ’gyur manuscriptfrom the early fourteenth century on. That this is not necessarily the case isillustrated by the fact that neither were part of the Bstan ’gyur manuscript that washoused in Brag dkar theg chen gling Monastery, in Glo bo smon thang, Nepal, forwhich Ngor chen compiled a catalog in 1447.102

As noted, we can hardly rule out the possibility that the philological deficienciesof both were due to Yar klung lo tsā ba having been relatively inexperienced as aSanskritist when he began working on these texts, and that they may have been

I adopt (and have changed whenever necessary) the reading Sman lung instead of the homophonousMan lung[s].99 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 32, no. 3764 [#3759], 192/2-93 [tshu, 113b-14a]. This eulogy

is noted in Bsod nams bzang po, Grub sman rnam thar, 10a. There it is titled Chos ’byung rab gzigs,which is actually the phrase with which it opens. It may have been written earlier, but could not havebeen translated before 1276 for, as is indicated in Bsod nams bzang po, Grub sman rnam thar, 10b,this is the year in which Gautamaśrī arrived in Central Tibet.100 Bsod nams bzang po, Grub thob [s]man lung pa’i rnam thar, handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N.

catalog no. 002834(1), 8b, 9b, 11b, 12b.101 See, respectively, Dbus pa blo gsal byang chub ye shes, Bstan bcos kyi dkar chag, handwritten

dbu med manuscript, C. P. N. catalog no. 002376, 59a, which lists it and the Amarakoṣa translation inits seventeenth chapter, Bu ston, Chos ’byung, 973, and Bu ston, Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhinnor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba, in The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa] [Lha saprint], part 26 (Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 627-28.102 Bstan bcos ’gyur ro ’tshal gyi dkar chag thub bstan rgyas pa’i nyi ’od, in Sa skya bka’ ’bum, vol.

10, no. 157, 365/4-66/1.

30van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

among his first forays in the art of translation. We can further speculate that thereason why he had embarked on their translation in the first place was most likelydue to his studies with Sa skya paṇḍi ta and this scholar’s own interests in Sanskritlexicography. We do not know whether the manuscripts he used for his effortswere ever current in Tibet, that is, whether he had been able to bring them alongupon his return fromNepal. So far, no authorities have become available that wouldsupport or argue against this. But if my suspicion proves to be correct, then wemay have to date to not earlier than circa 1280 the first translations of theAmarakoṣa and the piece of the Kāmadhenu.

Now, in one of his studies of logic and epistemology, that is, tshad ma, Dar margyal mtshan quotes a verse in the context of how an argument should be expressed,which, he states, is taken from the ’Chi med mdzod (Amarakoṣa); the verse inquestion is:103

ngo mtshar dang ni rtsod pa dang //khro dang zhum dang nges gzung dang //dad dang dga’ ba dag la ni//lan gcig lan gnyis brjod par bya//.

In spite of the allegation that this verse came from the Amarakoṣa, I have beenunable to locate it in the Sanskrit text or in the various extant Tibetan translations.If my hunch that Dar ma rgyal mtshan’s extant oeuvre on logic and epistemologybelongs to his middle period, that is to the 1270s and perhaps even the early 1280sturns out to be true, then he most probably could not have taken this verse fromone or the other manuscript of Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translation of the Amarakoṣathat may have been circulating among the Central Tibetan literati. Alternatively,it is not at all impossible that he took it from another, as yet unknown (to me)Indian source in which it was quoted. This is something that can be decided upononce a digitized, searchable Bstan ’gyur has become available, a desideratum thatis now close to being realized. In any event, he cites the verse in the context ofhow one ought comport oneself in the course of a public disputation, bodily interms of one’s gestures and stance as well as verbally in terms of the tone and levelof one’s voice. Stating that the learned claim that no error ensues even if one wereto repeat oneself (zlos par smras) in order to make one’s position clear to thewitness (dpang po, sākṣi) or referee and others, he first cites a passage fromDharmakīrti’s (ca. 600-660) Vādanyāya to the effect that:

103 See Dar ma rgyal mtshan, Tshad ma’i bstan bcos sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog, in Bka’ gdamsgsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs, volume 54, edited by Karma bde legs et al. (Chengdu: Si khron dpe skruntshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 94b (= ed. Sun Wenjing [Beijing: Krung go’i bodkyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1991], 132) (= handwritten dbu medms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002468[2],91b). In the first, the last line of this quatrain reads lan 1 [= gcig] lan 2 [= gnyis] brjod par bya//,whereas the second and third wrongly have tshig 1 lan 2 brjod par bya//.

31Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Even though one has repeatedly stated one’s position to the witness and so forth,doing so is not in the slightest a dirty trick (chala, dor thabs).104

And this is followed by the quatrain that allegedly derives from the Amarakoṣa.Of course, his earlier Bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog, a work on the development of

Buddhism in India (and to a very limited extent in Tibet), which he completed in1261, mentions both the Amarakoṣa and the Viśvaprakāśa. But he may very wellhave taken these titles as well as those of such other Indian treatises as King Bhoja’s(eleventh c.) Dbyangs can gyi mgul rgyan (Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa) from hiserstwhile teacher Sa skya paṇḍi ta or his scholarly oeuvre, with which he wasthoroughly familiar.105 The same may hold in part for his enumeration, in the samechronicle, of several treatises of Sanskrit grammar. The three witnesses of the textthat are at my disposal, A, B, and C, have quite different readings for this passage:106

A …lha’i dbang po brgya byin gyi[s] mdzad pa’i in [dra] bya ka ra [sublineargraph of an “open”: and on the bottom margin of the folio we read: bramze pa nis mdzad pa’i pa ṇi ni dang :] na dang : de’i ’grel pa klu nor rgyas kyisbyas pa dang : slob dpon can dra go mis byas pa’i can dra ba dang: de’i ’grelpa rat na ma ti dang : ni masa ngag dang : gang la zla bas mdzad pa dang : paṇḍita sarba rmas byas pa’i ka la ba de sgras byas pa’i mdo bzhi dang : slob dponra dza shris byas pa dang : slob dpon zla grags kyi[s] byas pa’i kun du bzang pozhes bya ba yod do/.

B …lha’i dbang pos mdzad pa’i indra byā ka ra ṇa dang / bram ze pā ni’i [read:nis] mdzad pa’i pā ṇi/ de’i ’grel pa klu nor rgyas kyis byas pa/ tsandra’i tsandrapa de’i ’grel pa ratna mā ti / ni māṃ sa na/ gang ba zla bas mdzad pa/ sharbawarmas byas pa’i ka lā pa ste/ sgra’i mdo bzhi dang / rā dza shrīs byas pa dang/ zla ba’i kun bzang zhes bya ba yod do//.

C …lha’i dbang po brgya byin gyis mdzad pa’i indra bya ka ra na dang / bramze pa nis mdzad pa’i pa ni dang / de’i ’grel pa klu nor rgyas kyis byas pa dang /slob dpon can dra go mis byas pa’i can dra ba dang / de’i ’grel pa rat na ma tidang / ni man sa ga dang / gang pa zla bas mdzad pa dang / paṇḍi ta sarwawarmas byas pa’i ka la ba ste / sgra’i mdo bzhi dang / rā dza shris byas pa dang/ slob dpon zla grags kyis byas pa’i kun tu bzang po zhes bya ba yod do//.

104 dpang po la sogs pa la yang yang brjod du zin kyang cung zad kyang dor thabs ma yin no[//].-

The Sanskrit text has: sākṣiprabhṛtīṇāṃ punaḥ punar brūyāt, api na tatra kiṃcic chalam, for whichsee Michael Torsten Much, Dharmakīrti’s Vādanyāyaḥ, Teil I, Sanskrit Text (Wien: Verlag derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 50; and Michael Torsten Much, Dharmakīrti’sVāda-nyāyaḥ, Teil II, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, 91. Thus, it does not account for the adverbialphrase cung zad kyang, “even the slightest,” which is also not found in the Tibetan text of the Sde dgeprint in Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 46, no. 4223 [# 4218], 586/3 [che, 348b].105 For the place of King Bhoja’s work in Sa skya paṇḍi ta’s Mkhas pa rnams la ’jug pa’i sgo, see

now Jonathan C. Gold, The Dharma’s Gatekeepers. Sa skya Paṇḍita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 264 [Index].106 See his [A] Bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog, handwritten dbu medms., C. P. N. catalog no. 007916(10),

21a; (= [B] Thub pa’i bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog, handwritten dbu medms., C. P. N. catalog no. 007114,19b; [C] Thub pa’i bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog, handwritten dbu med ms., Nepal-German ManuscriptPreservation Project, Reel no. L493/2, 16b). My thanks to K. R. Schaeffer for a transcript of C.

32van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Aside from the alternating use of mdzad and non-honorific byas, the texts ofhis chronicle mention: the legendary Indravyākaraṇa, Pāṇini[’s Aṣṭādhyāyī], anda commentary on it by a Klu nor rgyas pa (= ?); Candragomin’sCāndra[vyākaraṇa]and its commentaries by Ratnamati (eleventh c. or earlier), a ?Mīmāṃsaka, andPūrṇacandra;107 theKalāpasūtra (or:Kātantra) by S/Śarvavarma (or: ?Saptavarma);the basic texts are the the four linguistics sutras (sgra’i mdo bzhi). He then addsthereto an untitled grammar by a Rājaśrī and Candrakīrti’s *Samantabhadragrammar.108 Surprisingly, he registers only five treatises on grammar and relatedsubjects in his catalog of translated scripture and scientific literature, and thewritings of a highly select number of Tibetan scholars;109 these are theVacanamukhāyudhopama in the translation by its author, five chapters of theKalāpasūtra in the now seemingly lost translation of Dānaśīla,110 and Chag lo tsāba’s now seemingly lost rendition of Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa, as well as the nativeTibetan texts of the Sgra sbyor bam po 2 [gnyis] pa and the Sgra’i gnas brgyadby Che khyim ’brug (read: Lce khyi ’brug). Several decades later, his discipleDbus pa blo gsal was to register the following translations of treatises on Sanskritgrammar in his catalog (the supra- and sublinear glosses, Lo tsā ba bsod nams ’odzer’s translations of the Sanskrit personal names, are reproduced in squarebrackets):111

…slob dpon tsandra go mis [btsun pa zla ba] mdzad pa lung du ston pa tsandrapa’i mdo/ nyer sgyur nyi shu pa rtsa ’grel : yi ge’i mdo/ de’i ’grel pa slob dponchos skyong [dharma pā la] gis mdzad pa rnams nyi ma rgyal mtshan gyi ’gyur/paṇḍi ta sarba warmas [thams cad go cha] mdzad pa sgra’i bstan bcos ka lā padang / de’i ’grel pa paṇḍi ta bgrod par [durga singha] dka’ ba’i seng ges mdzadpa ji snyed pa grags pa rgyal mtshan gyi ’gyur/ sbyor ba’i sgo rtsa ’grel : ldogpa bsdus pa rtsa ’grel/.

Thus we now have fully-fledged Tibetan renditions of the Cāndra[vyākaraṇa],of the (basic text plus) commentary of Candragomin’s Viṃśatyupasarga, of theVarṇasūtra and Dharmapāla’s commentary, all of which are by Thar pa gling lotsā ba; of the Kalāpasūtra and Durgasiṃha’s exegesis by [Yar klung lo tsā ba]Grags pa rgyal mtshan, of the basic text (?by Vararuci) and commentary of thePrayogamukha and, finally of the basic text and commentary of the

107 For these names, see Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1, 76-77.They are most likely taken from the opening lines of the Piṇḍanivartananirdeśa; see Taipei Sde dgeTripitaka, volume 50, no. 4298 [# 4293], 163/3-4 [she, 250b-51a].108 For these two works in the Tibetan tradition, see Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical

Literature, volume 1, 202, 173, 188-89.109 Schaeffer-van der Kuijp, An Early Tibetan Survey, 214, 277, 279, 295, 298.110The entry reads: sgra ka la pa’i le’u lnga. The text consists of four major divisions of which only

the first has five sections; see Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1,246-49. The entry’s le’u lnga could refer to these five.111 Dbus pa blo gsal byang chub ye shes, Bstan bcos kyi dkar chag, 58b-59a.

33Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Piṇḍanivartananirdeśa.112 The identities of the translators of the latter two havenot come down to us. But this is not all. In addition to these, Dbus pa blo gsal alsoregisters the following two texts as part of a corpus of rare manuscripts (dpe dkonpa rnams) that his other colleague Rgyang ro byang chub ’bum had apparentlylocated after he had completed the main body of his catalog:113

…slob dpon su bha shi kīrtis [legs bshad grags] mdzad pa’i smra ba kun la ’jugpa rtsa ’grel/ slob dpon ’phrog byed bzang pos mdzad pa’i rnam dbye’i tshig[s]le’ur byas pa shong ston blo brtan gyis bsgyur ba rnams bzhugs so//.

We therefore need to add: the basic text plus commentary of Subhāṣākīrti’sSarvabhāṣāpravartanavyākaraṇa, the translator of which is unknown, and theVibhaktikārikā by Haribhadra/Siṃhabhadra in Shong ston lo tsā ba blo gros rgyalmtshan’s rendition. To be noted is that Pho brang zhi ba ’od’s (1016-1111) versionof an excerpt of *Ugrabhūti’sKalāpalaghuvṛttiśiṣyahitā, which he completed afterhis ordination as a monk in 1056, is neither listed in the catalogs of Dar ma rgyalmtshan and Dbus pa blo gsal, nor in the catalog Bu ston appended to his chronicle.In fact, it first surfaces in Bu ston’s 1335 catalog of the Zhwa lu Bstan ’gyur.114

Bsam gtan bzang po states in his undated biography of Dar ma rgyal mtshanthat one of his master’s first teachers was the same Dānaśīla, no doubt now welladvanced in years, with whom Sa skya paṇḍi ta had studied in the early 1200s.115Neither the Amarakoṣa nor the Kāmadhenu nor, for that matter, any other titles oftreatises having to do with Sanskrit linguistics, broadly conceived, figure in hisincomplete survey of what Dar ma rgyal mtshan had studied with this Indianmaster.However, we do find in the passage outlining his studies with Bla maDānaśīla thefollowing three descriptive phrases of what he was taught by him in this domainof learning: (1) sgra’i ’god tshul, (2) dbri bsnan, and (3) yi ge’i brjod tshul. Thefirst and third may be roughly paraphrased by: (1) the way in which grammar isput forth (or: grammar) and (3) the way in which phonemes are articulated, thatis, the pronunciation of Sanskrit. I do not quite understand the second expressiondbri bsnan which, if it is to be taken as a dvandva compound, literally means“elision and addition.” It also occurs in the long colophon of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’stranslation of a truncated manuscript of the Kāmadhenu, where it does have thesense of elision and addition, as well as in a work by Dol po pa, where it shouldbe taken as a dvandva in both cases.116 The first phrase, sgra’i ’god tshul, recurs

112 The author of the commentary on this fascinating work was the Buddhist Navi- or Nirvidharma.For this and other details, see Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1,76-79, 265-66.113 Dbus pa blo gsal byang chub ye shes, Bstan bcos kyi dkar chag, 78b-79a.114 Bu ston, Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba, 627.115 What follows is taken from the Bsam gtan bzang po, Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri’i rnam thar dad

pa’i ljon shing, handwritten dbu med ms., 5a-6b. I dwell somewhat on Dar ma rgyal mtshan, since,owing to a lack of sources at the time, he only briefly figures in Verhagen, A History of SanskritGrammatical Literature, volume 2, 99, 140, 142, 251.116 See, respectively, Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 269/5 [se, 318a]: dbri

bsnan gyi dbang gis bar skabs su mtshams sbyor ba’i tshig phrad dang rnam dbye rnams bod skad la

34van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

in connection with his studies under a certain Śīlaśrī of whom Bsam gtan bzangpo writes that he was a / the junior scholar-associate (pan [sic!] chung) ofSādhukīrti. In addition, he worked under him on the Kalāpasūtra’s six chapterson sandhi (mtshams sbyor gyi rab tu byed pa le’u drug)117 and also studied readingSanskrit (rgya klog) and Indian script[?s] (rgya yig). Bsam gtan bzang po has anentry for Phu thang pa ston shag just prior to his notice of Śīlaśrī. The latter hadapparently taught Dar ma rgyal mtshan the Vacanamukhāyudho-pama, the TheArticulation of Mantras (Rig pa bklag pa), and Candragomin’s Varṇasūtra. It isnot clear to me whether Rig pa bklag pa is a title or simply a descriptive expressionmeaning “The Articulation of Mantras.” The first recorded Tibetan translation ofthe Varṇasūtra is the one Thar pa gling lo tsā ba effected not earlier than late inthe second half of the thirteenth century. The fact that Phu thang pa taught him thetext means therefore that, in one form or another, it was known and studied in Tibetbefore this translation. A final, revised Tibetan version of this little tract is owedto Skyogs ston lo tsā ba. Lastly, another teacher of his was a paṇḍi taŚubhakarase[?Na], who taught him grammar (sgra’i sbyor ba) and the variety of[Indian] graphs (yi ge’i bye brag). Dar ma rgyal mtshan’s grammatical andlexicographical studies resulted in a fascinating treatise titled Sgra’i bstan bcossmra ba rgyan gyi me tog ngag gi dbang phyug grub pa, of which a handfulmanuscripts have now come to light.

Perhaps as much as one century after Yar klung lo tsā ba, another Sanskritistwith close ties to the Kathmandu Valley by the name Lo tsā ba nam mkha’ bzangpo (ca. 1350-1420), alias Stag lung lo tsā ba, seems to have been the first to havedealt with portions of Subhūticandra’s commentary on the Liṅgādisaṃgrahavarga,the closing section of the Amarakoṣa at Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, III: 4, 1-47. Amanuscript copy of his work has not been located thus far, but Si tu paṇ chen, inthe sources used for this essay, the only scholar to mention him in this connection,refers to this work in his undated expository study of the Amarakoṣa as well as inthe concluding remarks to his translation of theKāmadhenu.118Aside from varioustranslations, the only work in the linguistic sciences by him that is now readilyavailable is his Sanskrit-Tibetan lexicon of mantras that is titled Skad gnyis sbyortshul kun gsal me long.119 Its colophon states that this little tract was requested bya Bla ma dznya na shrī (= Ye shes dpal) and that it was compiled at the greatmonastery of Dpal bo dong e. It actually consists of a series of glosses ([m]chanbu) on Buddhist mantras (nang gzungs) that he collated with a volume that had

ji ltar bde bas bla thabs su bsnan/, and Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, So so’i skye bo’i paṇḍi ta lasogs pa’i ’krul pa lung bstan pa, in Collected Works, ’Dzam thang blockprint, volume ya, 606.117 The first section of the Kalāpasūtra has five chapters on sandhi, whereas the translation of the

complete Kalāpalaghuvṛttiśiṣyahitā by Dpang lo tsā ba blo gros brtan pa III (1276-1346) has six; seeVerhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1, 248, 256.118 Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, volume 5, 420; and Si tu paN chen

and ’Be lo tsA ba, Karma kaṃ tshang rnam thar, 6.119 Lo tsā ba nam mkha’ bzang po, Skad gnyis sbyor tshul kun gsal me long, in Three Rare

Grammatical Works from Helambu (Gangtok, 1984), 219-378. Verhagen, A History of SanskritGrammatical Literature, volume 2, 160, 343, indicates that he also authored a commentary of theKalāpasūtra.

35Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

been the property of Dpal bla ma blo gros brtan pa, whom I should like to identifyas Dpang lo tsā ba.120 Zhwa lu lo tsā ba wrote a biographical study of his life ofwhich a manuscript has yet to surface.

Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s TranslationTurning to the four different blockprints of the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur, we notice thatthey contain two different recensions of Kāmadhenu translations. The shortest isthe one found only in the Snar thang print and, as was noted above, this is Yarklung lo tsā ba’s truncated recension. The Sde dge (1744), Beijing, and Co ne(1772) prints, all contain a translation of the longer recension, roughly extendingto Amarasiṃha,Amarakoṣa, II: 8, 82a, which is the one Zhwa lu lo tsā ba completedsometime between 1484 and 1488.121 Zhwa lu lo tsā ba was doubtlessly the greatestSanskritist of his era and among the greatest Tibetan scholars of Sanskrit ofpost-thirteenth century Tibet. If not their equal, we would certainly have to placehim second to Dpang lo tsā ba and Bu ston, and perhaps also to Si tu paṇ chen. Hefelt a particularly close affinity with Bu ston, if only because he was born in Zhwalu Monastery’s Khang gsar gong ma with his father Bsam ’grub dpal bzang beingan official and a scion of this institution’s ruling family and he is recorded to havewept when he read aloud the narrative of Bu ston’s passing from this master’sbiography to an audience. But, like these men, and everyone else, Zhwa lu lo tsāba was hardly infallible. Assessing the quality of his Kāmadhenu translation, Situ paṇ chen writes only in his rendition of the Kāmadhenu and not in theintroduction to his study of the Amarakoṣa as such, that Zhwa lu lo tsā ba had erredon many occasions, because he had failed to examine or because he hadinsufficiently examined the earlier Tibetan versions without taking recourse to thecommentaries (or: comments).122 He also impatiently castigates his precursor forvarious infelicities and outright mistakes in his commentary on theCāndravyākaraṇa.123 In the late 1480s and early 1490s, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba translatedthe Pañjikā-style exegesis of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣya that isattributed to Sthiramati [I] – subtitled Tattvārtha, it has the (?Tibetan) nickname

120 This could be the same work as Dpang lo tsā ba’sGzungs ’bum [Collected Works], which he readunder the guidance of Stag tshang lo tsā ba; see Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar,11a, and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 135a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 260.121 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 248/5-269/5 [se, 244a-318a]; see also

Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 21b; and Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 315. Itis absent in A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos ’byung, and A mes zhabs, Collected Works, but present in afifty-two-folio manuscript of Skyogs ston lo tsā ba’s work, for which see fol. 25a – this manuscript ispart of a very large convolute of biographies of the major figures of Zhwa lu Monastery that Ri phugblo gsal bstan skyong mined fot his study vitrd sbpv in n. 48. C. P. N. catalog no. 002348(6) lists aforty-seven folio, handwritten dbu medms. of hisMngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzodkyi ’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i zla ba’i ming gi skabs yan chad sngar bsgyur zin pa’i phro nas bzung ste bodla nye bar ’kho ba btus nas bsgyur ba. Not available to me at present, I suspect it is a slightly shorterversion of the text that was included in the canon.122 Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, volume 5, 420: …sngon bsgyur

ba de rnams phal cher ’grel pa rnams la brten nas legs par ma dpyad cing / cung zad dpyad pa rnamsla’ang nor ’khrul mang du mthong bar ma zad/…123 Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 2, 177-78.

36van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Gnam lcags thog zer (*Karakāśani).124 Themanuscript of this text had at first beengiven to ’Gos lo tsā ba by the ruler of the Byang Principality (byang bdag), Rnamrgyal grags pa bzang po (1395-75), in the expectation that he would render it intoTibetan – so far, no sources are available that record whence the byang bdag himselfmight have gotten hold of this manuscript in the first place. But failing eyesightprevented this by then aged scholar to decipher the manuscript’s tiny graphs, andthe task of rendering it into Tibetan ultimately devolved on the much youngerZhwa lu lo tsā ba, who did so at the urgent request of Zhwa dmar IV. In hisunfinished exegesis of the Abhidharmakoṣa, Si tu paṇ chen takes issue at leasttwice with Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s rendition by referring to a manuscript of the originalSanskrit text that was in his possession.125 I strongly suspect it was a differentmanuscript from the one used by the latter, but the problems to which he drawsattention would no doubt have also been found in the one used by Zhwa lu lo tsāba, since they appear to be unrelated to specific variant readings that would havebeen present in the one to which he had access. A propos of his first criticism, hewrites in a long and somewhat convoluted sentence anent Abhidharmakoṣa, III:14, that:

In this connection, in the Tibetan text of *Rājaputra’s [= Yaśomitra’s] commentary“rmugs pa and gnyid and…,” rmugs pa and gnyid were reckoned separately.126And although these were also placed accordingly in the Tibetan text of Sthiramati’scommentary that was translated by Zhwa lu lo tsā ba,127 having realized that,

124 A Sanskrit palm leaf manuscript of this work in one hundred and thirty-seven folios is registeredin Ta la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, 73, no. 99. This manuscript is being edited in Japan. See also YasunoriEjima, “Sthiramati’s Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Especially on the traikāl- yavāda[in Japanese],” Bukkyōgaku 19 (1985), 5-32; and Marek Mejor, Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa andthe Commentaries Preserved in the Tenjur, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, Bd. 42 (Stuttgart: FranzSteiner Verlag, 1991), 90-110.125 Si tu paN chen, Chos mngon pa mdzod kyi tshig don rnam par ’grel pa brgya byin thog pa’i nor

bu’i ’od snang, in Collected Works, volume 13 (Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies,1990), 348, 479. Recent reports suggest that much of the library of Dpal spungs, Si tu paṇ chen’s see,has survived the “Cultural Revolution.” It is thus possible that this and the numerous other Sanskritmanuscripts that belonged to his private library have survived. For the holdings of its libraries, includinga number of Sanskrit manuscripts, see now Karma rgyal mtshan, “Bka’ brgyud kyi gdan sa chen po’og min sa spyod gsung gi ’khor lo mdo khams sde dge’i shar dpal spungs thub bstan chos ’khor glinggi lo rgyus ngo sprod rags bsdus,” in Dpal spungs thub bstan chos ’khor gling gi lo rgyus, edited byKarma rgyal mtshan et al. (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 579 ff.126 The reference to the Tibetan text of Yaśomitra is found in Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 41,

no. 4097 [# 4092], 359/3 [gu, 268a] (= Yaśomitra Abhidharmakośa & Bhāṣya of Ācārya Vasubandhuwith Sphutārthā Commentary of Ācārya Yaśomitra, edited by S. D. Śastri, Part I [Varanasi: BauddhaBharati, 1981], 423), where eleven faults (skyon, apakṣāla) are counted – see also Louis de La ValléePoussin, tr. and ann., L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, Tome II, Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques,volume XVI (Bruxelles: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1971), 46.127 The reference to Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation of Sthiramati’s text is found in Taipei Sde dge

Tripitaka, volume 52, no. 4428 [# 4421], 505/4 [tho, 351a]. The listing of his extraordinary oeuvre inSkyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 36b-37b and Ames zhabs,Dus ’khor chos ’byung,165a-b; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 318-19, is somewhat truncated, and both refer to an editionof his collected writings (bka’ ’bum) for further details. Later on, Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsāba’i rnam thar, 38b, and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 167a; A mes zhabs, Collected Works,321; note furthermore that he had authored / translated aMdzod kyi bla ma brgyud pa’i lo rgyus, a titlewhich suggests that it was a history of the transmission of the Abhidharmakośa!

37Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

because the case-ending between styāna andmiddha of the phrase styānamiddhaṃin the Sanskrit manuscript of Sthiramati’s commentary was compounded, rmugsgnyid dag, the two, rmugs and gnyid, were compounded into one phrase in theSanskrit text without having been split up into individual parts, I arranged thephrase accordingly, because of the contradiction due to there being otherwisetwelve and not eleven faults.128

Sought out by Central Tibetan scholars and the religion-minded ruling elitealike for his linguistic and scholarly expertise,129 Zhwa lu lo tsā ba lived a verybusy and full life indeed, a life that can be roughly divided into four periods.Extending from his birth to the year 1480, he primarily spent the first portion ofhis life in Gtsang. Some fifteen years of this period, roughly from 1465 to 1480,were devoted to the large project of editing and correcting at least one of the premiermanuscript editions of the Bstan ’gyur Rab brtan kun bzang ’phags (1389-1442),the erstwhile and most prominent ruler of the principality of Rgyal mkhar rtse andfounder of the great monastery of Dpal ’khor sde chen, had caused to prepare atthis see in 1432.130 Skyogs ston lo tsā ba and Ames zhabs record in their biographiesof Zhwa lu lo tsā ba that, just prior to this, he had studied the Amarakoṣa andnumerous texts on Sanskrit grammar, under the tutelage of Stag tshang lo tsā bain the late 1460s.131 While Stag tshang lo tsā ba was among his premier teachers

128 ’dir rgyal sras mar/ rmugs pa dang / gnyid dang / zhes so sor bgrangs shing blo brtan gyi ’grelpa zhwa lus bsgyur bar yang de bzhin du bkod kyang / blo brtan gyi rgya dper/ styāna middhaṃ/ zhesstyāna dang middha’i bar du rnam dbye bsdus pas rmugs gnyid dag so so ma phye bar gcig tu bsduspar rtogs nas bdag gis ’di ltar bkod pa ste/ gzhan du na grangs bcu gnyis su ’gyur bas ’gal ba’i phyirro//.129 Glo bo mkhan chen, for example, elicited his help on linguistic matters while writing his

commentary on theMkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo; see Glo bo mkhan chen,Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’isgo’i rnam par bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed, 442-45, 605. Indirect evidence for this may also be foundin Glo bo mkhan chen, Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i dris lan lung gi tshad ma ’khrul spongdgongs rgyan, Rgyud sde spyi rnam gsal byed sogs (Dehra Dun, 1985), 284. See also the brief Zha lulo tsā ba la dri ba mdzad pa, in Collected Works, volume 3 (New Delhi, 1977), 53-55. The table ofcontents suggests that this little work extends from pp. 53 to 71, but this is not so. Pp. 55-71 consist ofsome fifteen replies to questions a mchod gnas, an unidentified ecclesiastic whom he seems to havepatronized, from the ruling house of Byang ngam ring had posed to him. For these, see now JowitaKramer, A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhan chen (1456-1532), WienerStudien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 68 (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische undBuddhistische Studien, 2008), 201-2, nos. 214-15.130 See his biography, wrongly ascribed to Bo dong paṇ chen ’jigs med grags pa (1375-1451), the

Rab brtan kun bzang ’phags gyi rnam thar, edited by Tshe don (Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpeskrun khang, 1987), 169. Pp. 170-81 quote from the catalog, written by Bo dong paṇ chen, of both Rabbrtan kun bzang ’phags’s earlier Bka’ ’gyur manuscript [begun in 1431] and a/the Bstan ’gyur.Culminating in an entry for the year 1481, pp. 360-71 deal with the editing of various Bka’ ’gyur andBstan ’gyur manuscripts.131 Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 12a ff., and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos

’byung, 134a ff.; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 259 ff. For Stag tshang lo tsā ba’s own studies ofthese subjects under Shab smad lo tsā ba thugs rje dpal bzang po and a few others in 1437 and beyond,see Dpa’ bo II, Lo chen thams cad mkhyen pa shes rab rin chen rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i zhabskyi rnam par thar pa, 26 ff. Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 2, 101,drew attention to his (then) unpublished work on the Kalāpasūtra. Stag tshang lo tsā ba himself writeson pp. 37 about his own treatises on the Kalāpasūtra, Cāndravyākaraṇa, and a work on the essentialsof verbal roots (byings, dhātu), the Byings grub nyer mkho. The recently published incomplete editionof his writings includes his large Kalāpasūtra commentary, for which see the 1451 Lung ston pa’i

38van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

of Sanskrit and the linguistic arts, he also studied with Lo tsā ba grags pa rgyamtsho, the “linguist of Dpal ldings Monastery,” who was another one of Lo tsā bathugs rje dpal’s disciples. Though this is all they divulge about his training inSanskrit lexicography per se, they do state that when he worked on the ’Phyongsrgyas stag rtse manuscript edition of the Bstan ’gyur in circa 1485 at the requestof the Nang so rdo rje tshe brtan, the lord of this region, and his son ?Tshe dbangrnam rgyal, he used copies of texts belonging to the Bstan ’gyur (and Bka’ ’gyur)manuscripts of Dpal ’khor sde chen to augment this edition and vice versa.132 Thisbit of informationmight be of some use when thesemanuscripts or their descendantscome to be studied at some future time. From around 1482 to 1514, he spent mostof his time in Dbus. He then returned to Gtsang to when appointed him to mountZhwa lu’s abbatial throne, a position he occupied from 1514 to 1524. Thereafter,he left for Dbus where was appointed him abbot of Grwa thang and where heultimately passed away.

Zhwa lu lo tsā ba concludes his translation of the incomplete manuscript of theKāmadhenu with a lengthy colophon133 in which he provides some pertinentobservations about the text itself and the circumstances under which he had beenable to render it into Tibetan. He begins with a survey of the many sourcesSubhūticandra used for his lexicographic analyses. Noting that the Kāmadhenu’sopening verse pays homage to Candragomin, he states that Subhūticandra’spresentation of the modes of the word-formation of each noun (ming so so’i sgrasgrub tshul rnams) by and large follows the relevant stipulations of theCāndravyākaraṇa.We then learn that the incomplete Sanskrit manuscript containingover half of the Kāmadhenu that was used by him, was housed in the temple ofSne’u gdong rtse, the residence of the princes of the Phag mo gru Dynasty.Unfortunately, he relates nothing about the manuscript’s provenance. As was said

snying po cha bsags kyi mdo’i ’grel bshad; or the Brda sprod pa’i snying po ka lā pa’i mdo’i bshadpa; or Stag tshang lo tsA ba, Lung ston pa ka lā pa’i rnam par bshad pa legs sbyar snang ba’i sgronme, in Gsung ’bum [Collected Works], volume 7, edited by Rgyal mo ’brug pa, Mes po’i shul bzhag,volume 35 (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007).132 Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 19a, and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos

’byung, 143a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 276. The resulting manuscript Bstan ’gyur ultimatelyformed the basis of the so-called “Golden Manuscript” that was published by the Cultural Palace ofNationalities, Beijing. For this Bstan ’gyur, see inter alia now Shin’ichiroMiyake, “Comparative Tableof the Golden Manuscript Tenjur in Dga’ ldan Monastery with the Peking Edition of Tenjur,” AnnualMemoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute 17 (1999), 1-64.133 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [#4300], 269/2-5 [se, 316b-18a]; his scribe was

a certain Dpe med rin po che. Of limited interest is that Zhwa lu lo tsā ba cites, on p. 269/5 [se, 318a],a passage from the early ninth century Sgra sbyor bam po 2 [gnyis] pa handbook for translators ofscripture, for which seeMie Ishikawa, ed., ACritical Edition of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnis pa, Materialsfor Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionaries, volume 2, Studia Tibetica, no. 18 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,1990), 2. The dates of 1484-88 are taken from Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar,21a-22a, and Ames zhabs,Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 140b-44a; or Ames zhabs,CollectedWorks, 272-78.Of some importance for our understanding of the development of Classical Tibetan would be thethirty-three folio handwritten dbu medmanuscript of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa that is listed underBstan ’dzin phun tshogs, ’Bras spungs dkar chag, no. 016705, for it is characterized as a manuscriptof the text before the spelling standardization by royal decree had taken place! This is clearly a differentmanuscript from the one that was published in Dkar chag ’phang thang ma / Sgra sbyor bam po gnyispa, edited by Bod ljongs rten rdzas bshams mdzod khang, 69-205, for it consisted of eighty folios.

39Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

in the beginning of this paper, we do not know when or how the fragmentarySanskrit manuscripts of theKāmadhenu ended up in Sa skya and NgorMonasteries.Both Skyogs ston lo tsā ba and A mes zhabs note that he spent some time in Ngorin the company of Stag tshang lo tsā ba, when he was in his early twenties.134 Therethey consulted and read several Sanskrit manuscripts, and took the opportunity toedit the earlier Tibetan translations of the second Candrakīrti’s Pradīpoddyotanacommentary to the Guhyasamājatantra and the Kriyasamuccaya, among othertreatises, all the while comparing them with the locally available Sanskritmanuscripts. The emendations made to these translations in various locations inDbus over a period of some fifteen years, roughly from the age of twenty-four tothirty-nine, must have resulted in local, handwritten editions of these works that,however, never seem to have been included in one of the printed Bstan ’gyurs. Inthe late 1470s, he was able to spend some time in the Sgo rum complex of Sa skya,courtesy of Bdag chen rgya gar/dkar ba, that is, Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1436-94),the twenty-first – in some sources the eighteenth – grand-abbot of the monasteryand a scion of its Rin chen sgang Residence. This provided himwith the opportunityto peruse the good number of Sanskrit manuscripts that were housed in its library.Comparing several of these to their corresponding Tibetan translations, he wasprompted to make some editorial corrections in them. Again, the resultantmanuscripts of these new editions may never have passed beyond Sa skya’sthreshold. Traveling to Gtsang, he was patronized by the powers at Sne’u gdongand, among other things, was thereby enabled to make corrections in the translationof inter alia the Gur gyi rgyud, that is, the Vajrapañjaratantra. This must have ledRdo rje gdan pa kun dga’ rnam rgyal (1432-96) to request that he look for theso-called gur garmantras while he was again in NgorMonastery.135 The expressiongur gar must refer to the dances (gar) relating to the rituals associated with theVajrapañjaratantra.

NowZhwa lu lo tsā ba nowhere acknowledges the earlierKāmadhenu translationby Yar klung lo tsā ba and Kīrticandra in the colophon to his own partial translationof the text – Si tu paṇ chen’s criticism was thus not off the mark. However, hedoes not fail to mention that the person who ordered him to carry out his work andwho patronized this undertaking was one of the Phag mo gru dynasty’s “royalty.”He gives his full name as Spyan snga ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa phyogs thamscad las rnam par rgyal ba lha,136 snd his characterization of this man’s station issuitably hyperbolic: he was one who had absconded with the pride of the “lord ofthe gods” (skabs gsum dbang, *tridaśen-dra = Indra/Śakra), he is a wishfulfillinggem, and he is lord of the entire world! The colophon of his translation ofSūryagarbha’s Saṃbandhasiddhi, a treatise on various aspects of Sanskrit grammar,

134 What follows is taken from Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 11b, 16a; andfrom A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 135b, 139b-40a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 261,270.135 This is only found in Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 21a.136 He is also mentioned in Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 18a; and A mes

zhabs, Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 142a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 274.

40van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

also makes mention of this very same Spyan snga.137Many contemporary and latersources abbreviate his name without the Spyan snga title as Ngag gi dbang po.138But Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, who also worked in close proximity to this rulingfamily, reads his name as Ngag dbang grags pa, and relates furthermore that, bornin a sheep-year, this son of Dbang or Gong ma, Phag mo gru’s supreme ruler,Grags pa ’byung gnas, was eight (= seven) years old at the time of his writing.139Indeed, “Ngag dbang grags pa” can be short for “Ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa”as well as, albeit perhaps less commonly, for “Ngag gi dbang po grags pa.” In thebiography of his master, Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, too, identifies his patron as thePhag mo gru spyan snga. Thus, there is no room for doubting that he must beidentified as Ngag gi dbang phyug (1439-90),140 alias Ngag gi dbang po, who had

137 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 49, no. 4283 [# 4278], 519/-520/1 [re, 105b-6a]. Verhagen, AHistory of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 1, 160, has “Se’u gdar(?) rtse,” the reading offeredby the Co ne, instead of the correct “Sne’u gdong rtse,” that we find in the Sde dge print. FollowingH. Cordier, he mistakenly equates the Spyan snga with Ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa dpal bzang po,Stag lung’s hierarch. In connection with the one who ordered this work to be translated – the colophoncharacterizes his role as a precondition (mthun rkyen) for the translation, Pieter C. Verhagen, “‘Royal’Patronage of Sanskrit Grammatical Treatises in Tibet,” in Ritual, State and History in South Asia.Essays in Honour of J.C. Heesterman, edited by A. W. van den Hoek, D. H. A. Kolff, and M. S. Oort(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 377, 384, n. 15, writes that Zhwa dmar IV was officially part of the Phagmo gru administration. This was not the yet case. Zhwa dmar IV was only appointed Spyan snga ofGdan sa mthil in 1493, at the same time becoming the de facto ruler of Sne’u gdong rtse. A thirty-eightfolio handwritten dbu medmanuscript of this translation is found under C. P. N. catalog no. 002348(10).There the colophon says that the Spyan snga functioned as the principal precondition (bdag rkyen) thatgave rise to the translation. See further Verhagen, AHistory of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume1, 110-13, 276-78. In 1757, Si tu paṇ chen prepared a translation of the cognate *Vṛddhasaṃbandha,for which see the Sgra’i byed dngos las gsum gsal bar byed pa’i gzhung ’brel pa la mkhas, in CollectedWorks, volume 5 (Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 423-65, and the very shortnote in Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 2, 111. The latter is silent onthis, but, rightly or mistakenly, Si tu paṇ chen does state in the colophon that its author was a certainDrang srong byin (*Ṛṣidatta). On the basis of the contents of his opening evocation and the illustrationsof grammatical points, he says that Drang srong byin seems to have been a Buddhist. His undated anduntitled brief comparative study of aspects of the Saṃbandhasiddhi and the *Vṛddhasaṃbandha isfound in the Rgya tshan sprul sku’i dri lan lung bzhin ’doms pa’i snyan tshig, in Collected Works,volume 8 (Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 365 ff., where the title of theSaṃbandhasiddhi wrongly occurs as ’Grel grub.138 Roerich, The Blue Annals, 595.139 Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal, Lho rong chos ’byung, 402. A Spyan snga ngag gi dbang phyug is

the recipient of four letters written to him by Khrims khang lo tsā ba bsod nams rgya mtsho’i sde(1424-82), for which see the Yongs ’dzin dam pa rnams kyi drung du phul ba’i zhu yig dang / zhal slobsbyin bdag dang bcas pa rnams la chos skyes su stsal ba’i bka’ yig phreng ba kun khyab snyan pa’iba dan, Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel no. AT 111/2, 40a-45b, and there is noquestion that he is our man, at the time the Spyan snga resident of Gdan sa mthil; see Franz-KarlEhrhard, ed., A Buddhist Correspondence: The Letters of Lo chen Bsod nams rgya mtsho, LumbiniInternational Research Institute, Facsimile Edition Series 3 (Lumbini: Lumbini International ResearchInstitute, 2002), xiii.140 Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 23b; and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos

’byung, 146b; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 282. I follow the dates given in Chab spel tshe brtanphun tshogs and Nor brang o rgyan, Bod kyi lo rgyus rags rim g.yu yi phreng ba, bar cha (Lha sa: Bodljongs dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1990), 242, where we also learn that he passed away on the secondday (tshes gnyis) of the sixth lunar month, namely, June 19 or 20. This is more or less confirmed inDpa’ bo, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Stod cha [volume 2], 1134-35. It is for this reason thatSkyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 21b, calls him “The precious spyan snga [whopassed away on] the second day” (Spyan snga rin po che tshes 2 pa). For various other, but wrong dates

41Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

becomeDbang or Gongma in 1481, while at the same time retaining his ecclesiastictitle of Spyan snga until his death. To be sure, the Spyan snga title was by nomeansthe exclusive property of this dynasty or of Gdan sa mthil. Other prelates belongingto the Bka’ brgyud pa and Bka’ gdams pa traditions also carried it.

An earlier entry in his biography for roughly the middle of 1480 suggests thatZhwa lu lo tsā ba met a hierarch by the name of Spyan mnga’ (read: snga) Ngaggi dbang phyug grags pa who is of course none other than the already mentionedtwelfth abbot of Stag lung Monastery.141 Though the reach and range of this in somany ways remarkable man’s abilities in Sanskrit are uncertain – he is said to havebeen “learned in linguistics [read: Sanskrit grammar]” (sgra la mkhas pa) – hisbiography suggests that he may have been a collector of Sanskrit manuscripts, orat least that he was a remarkable bibliophile. During the early 1470s, he edited andrevised, among other Tibetan translations of scripture, the renditions of a host oftexts by taking recourse to a substantial number of rgya dpes that he was able touse, that had come into his possession, or that had already been part of hismonastery’s library for some time; these were in part the following:142

1. Six manuscripts of an unidentified Hevajratantra commentary2. Six manuscripts of theMañjuśrīnāmasaṅgītī3. One manuscript of the *Ekavīramañjuśrīsiddha[-grub pa (?or: sādhana)]4. Four manuscripts of the Uṣṇiṣasitātapatrā-lha yul che ba5. Three manuscripts of the Bodhicāryāvatāra6. Three manuscripts of the Uttaratantra7. Three manuscripts of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra

We also learn in his biography that, in 1476, a certain Dka’ bcu pa grags pathugs rje of Rtse[d] thang, a monastery located in Sne’u gdong’s immediate vicinityand an important teaching institution of the Phagmo gru dynasty, had been engagedin editing the Tibetan translations of the Amarakoṣa andKāmadhenu!143 This Gragspa thugs rje should probably identified as the Grags pa mtha’ yas, who figures inthe large colophon of the edition of the Amarakoṣa that was prepared by ’Jam

for Ngag gi dbang po, see Huang Mingxin and Xie Shuqing, Bstan rtsis ka phreng lag deb (Beijing:Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2000), 328.141 Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar, 20b-21a; and A mes zhabs, Dus ’khor chos

’byung, 144a-b; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 278-79. Both also note a Kun spangs pa in thispassage as having studied under him the grammatical diagrams (sa ris) for the Kalāpasūtra, as well assome Indic scripts. This Kun spangs pa is possibly none other than the twelfth abbot of Stag lung who,during the fourth lunar month of the fire-female-hen year (1477), “had relinquished all” (kun spangs);for this, see Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lung chos ’byung, 438. However, political unrest and warfareamong the leading ruling families of Dbus and Gtsang prevented him from fully following through onhis desire to remain aloof from and uninvolved in what was going on around him.142 For what follows, see, Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lung chos ’byung, 433-34. An incomplete

Sanskrit palm leaf manuscript of purportedly the (?)Abhidharmakośavyākhyānirdeśa in one hundredand fifty-one folios is listed in Ta la'i lo ma'i bstan bcos, 129, no. 154, and a note suggests that it hadbelonged to Stag lung chos rje rin po che, whom I take to be none other than the twelfth Stag lungabbot. This tallies with what is reported in Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lung chos ’byung, 442, namely,that he possessed more than one hundred manuscripts.143 Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lung chos ’byung, 437.

42van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I, Ngag dbang brtson ’grus (1648-1722), which isreproduced below. It really ought not be surprising that this datum is absent fromthe canonical recensions of either work. Indeed, anyone working in the field andfamiliar with Tibetan biographical and autobiographical literature will be awareof the information that these fecund sources contain about the extent to which someTibetan literati in one way or another privately continued to exert themselves inthe philological dimensions of the Tibetan translations of Indian texts in particular.These efforts are usually not mentioned anywhere in the various normativecollections of canonical scripture and, indeed, more often than, never met withtranslocal recognition and were therefore unable to play much of a role in themainstream of Tibetan intellectual practices.

The Beijing print of the Bstan ’gyur contains Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s (incomplete)translation of the Amarakoṣa, the Sde dge and Co ne prints of the Bstan ’gyur havehis bilingual edition of the text; the so-called Golden Bstan ’gyur of 1733-40contains Kīrticandra’s and Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translations of both the Amarakoṣaand theKāmadhenu.144According to the colophon of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation,his own rendition of the Amarakoṣa was the result of a revision-cum-translationhe carried out by having compared Yar klung lo tsā ba’s earlier version with aSanskrit manuscript of unknown provenance.145He evidently completed this editionwhile translating theKāmadhenu, for we read in the last line of the short colophon’sconcluding verse that “having compared the text of the Amarakoṣa with thecommentary, I sanitized and corrected it” (’grel dang bstun nas byi dor rnam dagzhu). Several hundred years later, in 1715, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje Iprepared another edition of the text. Though it is obviously dependent on Zhwa lulo tsā ba’s edition, the genesis of this particular edition contains several puzzlesto which I will only draw attention without being able to come up with a satisfactorysolution. In the first place, his reembodiment ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje IIDkon mchog ’jigs med dbang po (1728-91) states in his 1758 biography of hisprecursor that the latter has observed that an/the older translation of the text hadmany lacunae and that, on the basis of one or the other manuscript in na ga recharacters (na ga re’i dpe, devanāgari), he translated the text from beginning toend.146 The phrase na ga re’i dpe does not necessarily imply a Sanskrit text, andcould also indicate a Tibetan text written in the devanāgari script, even if this israther unlikely in the present context. The bilingual edition itself has essentially

144 They can be found in the Dan zhu’er, volume 206 [she] (Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 1988),1-139, 141-95.145 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4304 [#4299], 248/2 [se, 243a]. An undated, handwritten

dbu medms. of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s work is deposited in the library of Otani University in Kyoto, Japan,under no. 13988. I take the phrase “old translation” (’gyur rnying) of the colophon to refer to Yar klunglo tsā ba’s version.146 See ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje II Dkon mchog ’jigs med dbang po,Mkhas shing grub pa’i

dbang phyug kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar skal bzang’jug ngogs, in Collected Works, volume 2 (New Delhi, 1971), 270 (= ed. ’Brug pa [Lanzhou: Kan su’umi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987], 194).

43Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

two colophons.147 The first of these belongs to the text proper and makes it plainthat this edition was in fact based on the earlier one by Zhwa lu lo tsā ba, albeitvia various earlier transformations. This particular colophon reads as follows:

// paṇḍi ta chen po kīrti tsandra’i zhal sna [789] nas dang / yar lung pa grags pargyal mtshan gyis bal yul [yam?] bu’i grong khyer du bsgyur ba las slad nas bsodnams chen po’i dpal gyi ’dzin ma’i khyon yangs par stobs kyi[s] ’khor los bsgyurba’i sa skyong chen po/ / mi ’phrog pa’i mkhyen rab dkar po dri ma med pa dangldan pas/ mtha’ yas pa’i shes bya’i bya lam [?] yangs pa la thogs med cing /khyad par bde bar gshegs pa’i gsung rab thams cad kyi phul du gyur pa dpal duskyi ’khor lo’i phyi nang gzhan gsum gyi tshul rnam par ’byed pa las/ dpal shaṃbhala’i yul gyi sa bcu pa’i sprul pa’i sku rigs ldan padma dkar po slar yang gangscan khrod pa’i dpal mgon du bsam bzhin du skye ba bzhes pa lta bu’i mi’i dbangpo chen po shākya rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i zhal snga nas mkhas pa rnamskyi yid brtan par bos pa’i bstan bcos ’di’i/ rgya gar gyi skad dang bod kyi skadzung du sbyar ba/ ma ’khrugs shing thad sor sbyor ba/ kun gyis go bde ba zhiggi glegs bam gsal bar bsgrubs shig ces bka’ gnang ba la brten nas/ bstan bcos’di’i rgya dpe gnyis dang bod dpe ’gyur rnying yar lung pa grags pa rgyal mtshangyis bsgyur ba dang / ’gyur gsar yar lung pa grags pa mtha’ yas kyis mkhyen rabkyi dbang phyug dpal stag lung thang chen po ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa’izhal snga nas kyis bka’ stsal pa bzhin bsgyur ba dang / ’grel pa’i rgya dpe dangbod dpe’i dum bu ji ltar rnyed pa la gtugs te/ bod la mkho che ba rnams legs parbtus [790] shing / phan tshun [r]nam ’dres pa/ rgya bod kyi skad thad sor sbyarzhing / rgya dpe dang snga ’gyur la yod pa’i rtags ngos ’dzin pa’i tshig rnamsdang / bod la nye bar mi mkho zhing go dka’ ba ’ga’ zhig bor te/ rang gis ji ltarrtogs pa rnams gsal bar sbyar la/ rgya gar gyi skad rnams rgya dpe las go rimbzhin bris na/ bod skad dang ’byor dka’ bar snang bas rnam dbye dang kha skonggi tshig bor nas sdeb sbyor spang te kun gyi[s] go sla bar bris pa ’di’i byed papo ni/ legs par sbyar ba’i skad kyi brda sprod pa’i bstan bcos kā la pa dangtsandra pa cha lag dang bcas pa rnams cha shas tsam rigs pa/ zha lu lo tstshaba dge slong chos skyong bzang po zhes bgyi ba’o/ / shu bha mastu dza ga taṃ/.

Contrary to the colophons of the canonical recensions of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’stranslation of theAmarakoṣa –wemust also include the said handwrittenmanuscriptof the same – we now learn that the Tibetan text of his was based not on one buton two preceding translations. The first was Yar klung lo tsā ba’s and the secondone was “the new translation” by a Yar [k]lung pa grags pa mtha’ yas, who hadtranslated the text at the order of the Stag lung abbot Ngag dbang grags pa. To mylimited knowledge, no manuscript of the latter has so far come down to us, butseveral glosses in ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I’s edition refers to some readings

147 ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I,Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzod, inCollectedWorks, volume 15 (New Delhi, 1973), 786, 789-91 – the folios got a little mixed up! For its printinghistory, see now K. R. Schaeffer, “Printing the Words of the Master: Tibetan Editorial Practice in theCollectedWorks of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I (1648-1721),” Acta Orientalia 60 (1999), 172-73.The Tibetan text of this edition was reprinted in the ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I, Mngon brjodkyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzod, edited by Grags pa (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 1983).

44van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

from this work.148 Further, the driving force behind Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s efforts wasapparently a certain nobleman and “great lord of man” by the name of Shākyargyal mtshan dpal bzang po, whowas recognized as the reembodiment of Puṇḍarīka,the second Kalkī ruler of Sambhala (= Shambhala). I do not know who this localruler may have been and, in fact, no one with this name is mentioned in thebiographies of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba that are accessible to me.

The second colophon reads in part:

…skyabs mgon sku phreng gnyis pa’i drung nas na ga ra’i yi ge shan sbyar gyiphyag dpe ngo ma byung ba par du sgrub rtsis kyi zhus dag pa la gtad kyang thogtu ma khel/_’chi med mdzod dpal ldan zla bas kyang sgron gsal du khungs sudrangs pa’i gzhung tshad ldan dang /_lhag par kun mkhyen bla mas ’gyur bcosgnang ba gal che snyam nas phyis su rtsad bcad pas mkhas dbang dbyig gi rab’byams pa ’jam dbyangs dpal ldan pa’i dpe tsam las gzhan ma byung la/_der yangyar klung lo tsA ba grags pa rgyal mtshan dang yar klung grags pa mtha’ yasgnyis kyi ’gyur la zhwa lu lo tsA ba chos skyong dbang pos ’gyur bcos mdzadpa nyid gzhir bzhag ’dug kyang de’i dpe zur gzhan yang ma rnyed pas de dangmi ’dra ba’i lhag khyad dang ’go ’jug rdzogs ma rdzogs kyi zhib cha ma nges/_’onkyangma dpe gcig pu de chud zos dogs nas mchan bu dang tshig gi gcodmtshamskyi rtags sogs de na gang yod sor bzhag la zhus dag phran tshegs byas nas par dubkod pa yin pas slar yang don du gnyer zhing rnam dpyod kyi rtsal dang ldan padag gis kun mkhyen bla ma’i phyag dpe na g[a] ra’i yi ge shan sbyar nyid ’badpas btsal nas bsdur rgyu byung na shin tu legs so//.

The colophon begins with a quotation of the remark ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’irdo rje II made in his biography of his predecessor, hence the “…” in my citation,and but relates some of the problems that were encountered in establishing the textitself. Of interest is that the authority of the Amarakoṣa is in part based on the factthat the second Candrakīrti quotes it in his Pradīpoddyotana. From what followsit transpires that the text as it now stands is a not too proximate cry from the onethat had actually issued from ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I’s pen and that, infact, it represents a considerably reworked version of the single copy that hadbelonged to a ’Jam dbyangs dpal ldan. This man is no doubt to be identified as theseventh abbot of Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil Monastery’s Rgyud smad college, whoflourished from 1682 to 1754.149

148See, for example, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I,Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’imdzod, 580, 587. Text-critical notes as regards to the ?Sanskrit manuscripts (rgya dpe) are found fromalmost the very beginning of the text, on pp. 572-77, and so forth, but they occur less frequently thefarther we get into the edition. Of note is that, on p. 703, a reference is made to a gloss in the Sanskritmanuscript as well as to a lexicographical point made by the Kashmirian physician-scholarCandranandana who flourished not later than circa 1000.149 A very brief sketch of his life is given in Dpal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan’s (1764-1853)

1800 chronicle of Bla brang Monastery, for which see theMdo smad bstan pa’i ’byung gnas dpal ldanbkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs rang bzhin dbyangs su brjod pa’i lha’i rnga bo che, Collected Works,volume 1 (New Delhi, 1974), 535-36 (= ed. Smon lam rgya mtsho [Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpeskrun khang, 1987], 494-96).

45Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Long ago and not entirely without oversights, Lokesh Chandra made animportant beginning in the study of the transmission of the Amarakoṣa in theTibetan cultural area when he compared specimen from Si tu paṇ chen’s renditionwith their corresponding readings in the earlier translations of the text in hisIntroduction to this great luminary’s undated study of Sanskrit nominal declensionsbased on the Amarakoṣa.150 However, he went a trifle astray when he translatedthe phrase rgya dper hor khong yod by: “Though Indian manuscripts existed inHor…”151 A curious term, hor khong – hor skongs is an obvious variant – hasnothing to do with Mongolia (Hor) and simply means “lacuna.” A little later, E.Gene Smith did the same for the text of the Amarakoṣa that is contained in arecension of Bo dong paṇ chen ’jigs med grags pa’s (1375-1451) extended versionof his massive De kho na nyid kyi ’dus pa collection.152 The forays by Chandraand Smith already show the degree to which the translation of this work, and byextension the Kāmadhenu, was beset with fundamental philological and semanticproblems, and that despite the enormous efforts of those Tibetans who lookedsouth for their religious inspiration and intellectual aspirations, the processes ofthe enculturation of Indic cultural norms and standards, material and social realities,flora and fauna, and so forth, had been a mixed success.

Finally, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s interests in lexicography were not limited to theAmarakoṣa and the Kāmadhenu. For he not only translated Śrīdharasena’s(?thirteenth c.) substantial Viśvalocana or Muktāvalī lexicon, he also wrote animportant work on Tibetan ortho-tactics (dag yig) as well as short glossaries ofpolysemous Sanskrit and Tibetan words.153 Apart from Glo bo mkhan chen andhis immediate students, many other junior contemporaries of his and generationsof scholars who came after him were the beneficiaries of his signal achievementsin the area of lexicography. One of these was ’Dul ’dzin mkhyen rab ’od zer, whoobviously cites his translation of Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 1, 13-14b, in his1557 study of the history and literature of the Rnying ma pa school.154

150 See the Introduction to Lokesh Chandra, The Amarakosa in Tibet (Delhi: International Academyof Indian Culture, 1965).151 The Amarakosa in Tibet, 12.152 Encyclopedia Tibetica, volume 6, 3-7.153 For these, see, respectively, the edition and studies by Lozang Jamspal and Alex Wayman,

Monograph Series of Naritasan Institute of Buddhist Studies, 3 vols. (Narita: Naritsan shinshoji,1992-95); Berthold Laufer, “Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft der Tibeter. Zamatog,” Sitzungsberichteder philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classe der k.b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zuMünchen 1 (1898), 519-90; the second is listed in Skyogs ston lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam thar,37b; and A mes zhabs,Dus ’khor chos ’byung, 165a; or A mes zhabs, Collected Works, 318, and Zhwalu lo tsA ba, Sgra 1 kyis kyang don du ma ston par byed pa’i skad dod sang skri ti’i skad yid bzhin norbu, handwritten dbu medms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002336(6), fols. 3; and Zhwa lu lo tsA ba, Sgra gciggis don du ma ston pa dang don gcig la sgra du ma la ’jug pa[’i dbu phyogs lags so], handwritten dbumed ms., C. P. N. catalog no.002346(8), fols. 8.154 ’Dul ’dzin mkhyen rab ’od zer, Sangs rgyas bstan pa’i chos ’byung dris lan nor bu’i phreng ba

(Gangtok, 1981), 475.

46van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Si tu paṇ chen’s Amarakoṣa WorksZhwa lu lo tsā ba’s seminal contributions notwithstanding and in spite of all theseearlier efforts extending over several centuries, it is safe to say that Kāmadhenuand, as a matter of course, Amarakoṣa studies in Tibet attained their zenith in thegenius of Si tu paṇ chen.155 We learn from his own diaries and his biography byhis disciple ’Be lo tsā ba tshe dbang kun khyab that this renaissance man firsttraveled from his native home in eastern Tibet to Central Tibet and thence to theKathmandu Valley in 1723-24. There he met with inter alia Jagajjayamalla, Kingof Kathmandu, and a certain Ratnamuni, whom he generously calls “the bestNepalese [=Newar] scholar of Sanskrit grammar and logic.” ABuddhist, Ratnamunitook his refuge vows from him in 1723, and the relationship that was therewithcemented between these two men was to last several decades. While sojourningin the Kathmandu Valley, the youthful Si tu paṇ chen first came in contact withmanuscripts of theKāmadhenu and Bhānuji Dīkṣita’s (ca. 1620) Rnam bshad bdudrtsi (Vyākhyāsudhā) exegesis of the Amarakoṣa “in twelve thousand verses,”together with Klu’s study of Pāṇini’s grammar – “Klu” (*Nāga) may refer toNāgeśa Bhaṭṭa (ca. 1700) – and Medinikara’s (thirteenth c.) Nānārthaśabdakoṣalexicon. He took some time off from his other duties to study these under theguidance of a certain Viṣṇupati. A brāhmaṇa from Tirahuti, he notes that his actualname (dngos ming) was ?Bachur Ojā as opposed to “Viṣṇupati,” his “Vedic name”(rig byed kyi ming). King Jagajjayamalla was evidently so impressed by the youngTibetan that he remained in contact with him for many years after his departurefrom Nepal. This was no doubt in part due to Si tu paṇ chen unusual aptitude forlearning foreign languages and the consequent ease with which he was able toconverse with the king. ’Be lo tsā ba relates that, in 1726, while on the Skya thungPlain in the Chab mdo district of East Tibet, he met with some Kashmirians (Khache), Nepalese (= ?Newars), and Chinese, and was able to speak with each of themin their own vernacular!156

Upon the completion of what was to become the Sde dge edition of the Bka’’gyur-canon in 1733, the now more mature Si tu paṇ chen arrived once again in

155 For what follows, see Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, 115 ff.,120-21, 125, and the translation in Todd T. Lewis and L. Jamspal, “Newars and Tibetans in theKathmandu Valley: Three New Translations from Tibetan Sources,” Journal of Asian and AfricanStudies 36 (1988), 196-97, 199. Jamspal’s renditions are not always reliable. A superior introductionto and an appreciation of Si tu paṇ chen’s contributions to the linguistic sciences, save for lexicography,are afforded in Verhagen, A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature, volume 2, 106-36, 161-80,and in Pieter C. Verhagen, “Studies in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Hermeneutics (1): Issues of Interpretationand Translation in the Minor Works of Si tu Paṇ chen Chos kyi ’byung gnas (1699?-1774),” Journalof International Association of Buddhist Studies 24 (2001), 61-88.156 Si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas and Sgrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che’i

rnam par thar pa rab ’byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba [History of the Karma Bka’ brgyudpa Sect] (New Delhi, 1972), 503. This information is absent from the diary’s entry for the year 1726,in Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, 137-141. The diary contains an isolatedgloss on a lexeme in the Naxi language (’jang skad) of northern Yunnan Province. In the entry for 1739at Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, 184, he states that Tibetan grongdpon, “village head,” is the equivalent of Naxi ’ban ser. For his activities in Yunnan, see K. Debreczeny’sessay in Jackson, Patron and Painter, 223-51.

47Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Central Tibet, in 1735, in search of Sanskrit manuscripts of canonical texts thathad not been available to him at home. Jagajjayamalla received word of this anddispatched a greeting party of envoys, including Ratnamuni. He was staying notfar from Lha sa in Mtshur phu Monastery, and the party met him there in thebeginning of March of 1736. There Si tu paṇ chen once again availed himself ofthe opportunity to study with the learned Newar, who had of course not comeempty-handed. Among the gifts he had brought for his teacher was a Sanskritmanuscript of an Amarakoṣa commentary subtitled ’Grel pa tshig zla, with whichSi tu paṇ chen had become acquainted during his earlier stay in Kathmandu. Thiswork is of course none other than BṛhaspatiMiśra’sPadacandrikā study of 1431/32.Later, in 1748, an unnamed Dzu dzu (= ?Vajrācārya) of Bhaktapur presented himwith yet another manuscript of the Padacandrikā.157 All these went into hispathbreaking studies of the Amarakoṣa that included the following three treatises:158

1. A translation of almost the entire Kāmadhenu, which its colophon datesto the years 1750-57159

2. An undated study on Sanskrit nominal declensions based on theAmarakoṣa3. An edition of a bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan text of the Amarakoṣa, inTibetan script, of 1764160

In addition, Jagajjayamalla had also sent him the first part of aPañjikā-commentary on the Amarakoṣa that was of uncertain authorship. Si tu paṇchen’s translation of the Kāmadhenu extends almost to the very end ofSubhūticandra’s comments on the last section, the Liṅgādisaṃgrahavarga.161 Hisedition and translation of the Amarakoṣa as well as his Kāmadhenu translation

157 Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, 268.158 As indicated, these are contained in vols. 4-6 of hisCollectedWorks (Sansal: Shesrabling Institute

of Buddhist Studies, 1990). The dates of the second are found in its colophon. However, the entries inthe diary for 1748 and 1756, in Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography and Diaries, 272,348, suggest that these may have to be changed to these years. The colophon of the second attests thataside from Rāyamukuṭa’s study he also had at hand manuscripts of the commentaries by BhaṭṭojiDīkṣita’s son Bhānuji Dīkṣita, namely, the Rnam bshad bdud rtsi, and by Zhi ba’i rje (= Kṣīrasvāmin);for these, see Vogel (1981: 314, 316). Both Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Autobiography andDiaries, 121; and Si tu paN chen and ’Be lo tsA ba, Karma kaṃ tshang rnam thar, 493, state that thesecond work was by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, but this is due to a miscarving of the printing blocks. Theauthorship of this son is vouchsafed by the bibliographical remark in Si tu paN chen’s undated ’Chimed mdzod kyi gzhung la brten nas legs par sbyar ba’i skad kyi ming dang rtags kyi ’jug pa gsal barbyed pa bstan bcos legs bshad sgo brgya ’byed pa’i lde mig, in Collected Works, volume 6 (Sansal:Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 6. He adds that he had access to another unspecifiedexegesis of some problematic points (dka’ ’grel, pañjikā).159This is the Si tu paN chen,Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos ’chi med mdzod kyi rgya

cher ’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo, in Collected Works, vols. 4 and 5 (Sansal: Shesrabling Institute ofBuddhist Studies, 1990), 243-738, 2-421.160 See his Slob dpon ’chi med seng ges mdzad pa’i ming dang rtags rjes su bstan pa’i bstan bcos

’chi med mdzod ces bya ba’i gzhung skad gnyis shan sbyar, in Collected Works, volume 4 (Sansal:Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), 1-241, where each of the verses is numbered.161 He briefly remarks on this lacuna in Si tu paN chen,Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos

’chi med mdzod kyi rgya cher ’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo, 421-22:…mjug cung zad rgya dpar [sic!] matshang ba….

48van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

appeared too late to be included in the initial Sde dge block-print of the Bstan’gyur-canon, which Zhu chen tshul khrims rin chen (1697-1774) finished editingin 1743. Given his immense productivity in the area of Sanskrit (and Tibetan)lexicography, it goes without saying that the contributions of future generationsof Tibetan lexicographers stood much in his debt. For example, the Legs par sbyarba lha’i skad dang gangs can pa’i brda’i shan sbyar ba dri bral nor bu’i me longand the Ming gi mngon brjod mdor bsdus pa legs bshad gser gyi lde mig, two ofthe more important texts of the 1771 Prajñā collection of texts of Zhe chen drungyig padma rnam dag, alias Bstan ’dzin rgyal mtshan, and Mi pham rgya mtsho’s(1846-1912) Skad gnyis shan sbyar rab gsal nor bu’i me long of 1910 are quiteunthinkable without Si tu paṇ chen’s efforts and those of his precursors such asSa skya paṇḍi ta and Zhwa lu lo tsā ba in particular.162

Differences in the Various Tibetan Translations

Was Amarasiṃha a Buddhist Author?Generally speaking, Tibetan Buddhist literary culture is monochromatic and itsexponents only rarely ventured into territory that laid explicitly beyond theintellectual domains that did not expressly have a Buddhist tone. By definitionthen, and mindful of Vasubandhu’s well-known influential etymology of the wordśāstra (bstan bcos) – “that which protects the Buddhist Teaching” – so that, atleast in theory, no śāstra-treatise could be included in the Bstan ’gyur for whichIndo-Tibetan or Tibetan Buddhist scholarship could not marshall some sliver ofevidence that its author was a Buddhist and that, by extension, his work was anextension of his persuasion. But a misjudgement was made occasionally. Cases inpoint would be Daṇḍin and hisKāvyādarśa and Surūpa and hisKāmaśāstra, neitherof whom it turns out were demonstrably Buddhist.163 As far as Amarasiṃha isconcerned, there are several good reasons for holding that he was in fact a Buddhist,and Vogel proffered three of them, including the possibility of reading a Buddhistsense into Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 1,1, the Amarakoṣa’s opening verse ofhomage.164 This verse states:

Whose qualities are faultless,Because he is an unfathomable ocean of wisdom and kindness.

162 See, respectively pp. 1-402 and 450-536 of the text published by the Namgyal Institute ofTibetology in Gangtok, in 1962, and Mi pham’s Collected Works, volume 4 (Chengdu: Gangs can riggzhung dpe rnying myur skyobs lhan tshogs, 2007), 69-701.163 For the first, see Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa, which is dedicated to Viṣṇu in particular; for the second,

see Claus Vogel, ed. and tr., Surūpa’s Kāmaśāstra. An Erotic Treatise in the Tibetan bstan ’gyur, StudiaOrientalia 30.3 (Helsinki, 1965).164Vogel, “Indian Lexicography,” 310; see also Theodor Goldstücker, “Über den einleitenden Verse

des Amara- kosha,” Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7 (1850), 180-81. ChristopherMinkowski, “Why Should We Read the Maṅgala Verses,” Śāstrārambha. Inquiries into the Preamblein Sanskrit, ed. W. Slaje, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Band LXII (Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008), 9, indicates that this verse is one of the earlier examples of a maṅgalaverse in a Buddhist śāstra.

49Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

The wise should honor the imperishable,Because of his perfection and immortality.165

The various Tibetan versions of this stanza appear to differ substantially fromone another – the caveat here is that I have not sought to provide text-criticalversions for each of the passages in the Tibetan translations of the Amarakoṣa andthe Kāmadhenu that I address below. While Sa skya paṇḍi ta did not translate thisstanza, Yar klung lo tsā ba rendered it as follows:166

gang gi mkhyen brtse’i rgya mtsho ni//gting med sdig med yon tan rnams//mi zad rten gyi blo ldan rnams//de yi dpal dang bdud rtsi’i phyir//.

This translation in which the Sanskrit the word-order is virtually exactlyreproduced in Tibetan is hardly, well, a translation, and makes very, very littlesense without having the original Sanskrit at hand. Further, sevyatām, “honor,serve, attend on,” an imperative of the verb sev, is sten with rten as a commonvariant. The translation in Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s bilingual text reads:167

gang gi gting mi rtogs pa mkhyen brtse yi//rgya mtsho skyon med yon tan mi zad pa//de ni dpal dang bdud rtsi’i ched du yang //blo ldan rnams kyis bsten par bya ba yin//.

Note that he rendered sevyatām by the more gently admonishing bsten [parbya]. This is in every respect an improvement over the first, which is somethingwe can hardly say about the translation we have in ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdorje I’s edition:168

gang gi mkhyen brtse’i rgya mtsho ni//gting med sdig med yon tan rnams//bsten bya mi zad blo ldan rnams//dpal dang bdud rtsi’i ched du yang //.…

165 yasya jñānadayāsindhoragādhasyānaghā guṇāḥ/ sevyatāmakṣayo dhīrāḥ sa śriye cāmṛtāya ca//.-

I have translated this verse with one eye on Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation of the Kāmadhenu and theother on Si tu paṇ chen’s, for which see, repectively, Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305[# 4300], 248/5-49/1 [se, 244a-46a], and Si tu paN chen,Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos’chi med mdzod kyi rgya cher ’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo, 246-48. Subhūticandra suggests on the handthat Lord Samantabhadra is the object of this maṅgala verse and that the verse itself emulates theso-called quality of clarity (prasādaguṇa) of the kāvis; on this quality, according to Daṇḍin’sKāvyādarśa,I: 45-46, see Dragomir Dimitrov,Mārgavibhāga. Die Unterscheidung der Stilarten, Indica et Tibetica,Bd. 40 (Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2002), 176-77, 220. Subhūticandra himself reproduces therelevant citation from the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa. However, Subhūticandra also writes that the versecould also self-reflexively refer to the Amarakoṣa!166Vidyābhūṣaṇa, ed., Amarakoṣa, 1.167 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4304 [# 4299], 214/7 [se, 126b].168 ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I, Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzod, 591.

50van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

And Si tu paṇ chen has a version that is more preferable than all the other ones:169

gang gi mkhyen brtse’i rgya mtsho ni//gting med sdig med yon tan mi zad de’i//yon tan dpal dang bdud rtsi’i phyir//blo ldan rnams kyis bsten par gyis//.

Further Differences between the Various Tibetan TranslationsThe translation of many other verses of the Amarakoṣa have this kind of intensevariation, and the same holds for many of the prose passages of the Kāmadhenu.For example, Pant edited Subhūticandra’s partial comment on the word śri of thisopening quatrain as follows:170

śrīstrivargasampattiḥ/ taduktaṃ vyāḍinālakśmīsarasvatīdhītrivargasampada-vibhūtiśobhasu/ upakaraṇaveśaracanāvidhāsuca śrīriti prathiteti/.

Curiously, Yar klung lo tsā ba’s translation omits this passage of theKāmadhenualtogether,171 but Zhwa lu lo tsā ba has:172

dpal ni sde tshan gsum gyi phun tshogs pa’o// de yang slob dpon vyā ḍas[read: ḍis]/dpal dang dbyangs dang blo yi sde gsum gyi//phun tshogs ’byor bas mdzes par gyur rnams la//’jigs pa med pa’i yo byad gang yin pa’i//yon tan de yang dpal zhes rab tu bshad//ces gsungs so//.

And Si tu paṇ chen rendered it in a doubtless more accurate fashion:173

dpal ni sde tshan gsum gyi phun tshogs pa ste// ji skad du/ slob dpon vyā ḍis/dpal mo dbyangs can blo dang sde gsum gyi//phun sum tshogs dang ’byor ba mdzes pa dang //’tshogs chas ’jigs med tshal dang ’phags pa dang //bdud rtsi rnams la dpal zhes rab tu grags//zhes so//.

As stated, it is not altogether clear why Si tu paṇ chen’s translation of theKāmadhenu and his bilingual edition of the Amarakoṣawere never included in theSde dge print of the Bstan ’gyur, while Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s were. We will probablynever know why Zhu chen or an enterprising post-Zhu chen editor/scholar with

169Si tu paN chen, Slob dpon ’chi med seng ges mdzad pa’i ming dang rtags rjes su bstan pa’i bstanbcos ’chi med mdzod ces bya ba’i gzhung skad gnyis shan sbyar, 2.170 Pant, Jātarūpa’s Commentary, part II, 383.171 See the Vidyābhūṣaṇa, ed., Amaraṭīkā-kāmadhenu, 3-4. This could mean that the manuscript he

used was different from the Sa skya manuscript.172 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 249/1 [se, 246a].173 Si tu paN chen,Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos ’chi med mdzod kyi rgya cher ’grel

pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo, 248.

51Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

good connections to the ruling house of the Sde dge kingdomwas unable to includethese in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, if such an idea had occurred to them at all. Afterall, it would have merely been a matter of carving the printing blocks for two morevolumes! To all appearances, the Sde dge ruling house enjoyed a surplus economythroughout the eighteenth century, not to mention the support it enjoyed from theQianlong Emperor’s court in Beijing, so that their absence from the Sde dge Bstan’gyur could not simply have been due to a lack of funds. On the other hand, thefact that the blocks for them were available in the printery of Si tu paṇ chen’s seeof Dpal spungs Monastery probably had something to do with their absence in theSde dge printery. The authorities may have been reluctant to reduplicate efforts.Whatever the case may have been, the original manuscript of Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’sKāmadhenu translation that was used by Zhu chen, the editor of the Sde dge Bstan’gyur, as well as by the editors of the Beijing and Co ne Bstan ’gyurs, containeda number of interesting annotations in an unknown hand. We cannot prima facierule out the possibility that Zhwa lu lo tsā ba was the author of at least some ofthese, but, alas, the manuscript contains no indication that explicitly points to himbeing their author. A number of these glosses are text-critical in nature.174 The firstconcerns a passage in the comment on Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 1, 5a, whereit is stipulated that the phrase in question was absent from the Sanskrit manuscript.This indicates that at least this particular remark was most likely instigated byZhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation and it rightly adds that the earlier version by Yarklung lo tsā ba and Kīrticandra did have it. The second has to do with a gloss inthe list of synonyms, Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 1, 61-62, for the god of the wind.The Sanskrit text of the Amarakoṣa that I have used has the following forAmarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 1, 61-62:

śvasanaḥ sparśane vāyurmatirīśvā sadāgatiḥ/pṛṣadaśvo gandhavaho gandhavāhānilāśugāḥ//samīramāruta marujjagatprāṇa samīraṇāḥ/nabhasvadvātapavanapavamānaprabhajjanāḥ//.

To repeat, we do not know the quality of the various Amarakoṣa manuscriptsthat entered the Tibetan cultural area, so that we do not know to what extent theTibetan translations reflect the state of the manuscripts on which these are based.Of the available translations, Sa skya paṇḍi ta rendered these lines which he or hisglossator identified as those that enumerate the different names of the wind-god(rlung lha) as follows:175

dbugs ’byin reg byed ma mos ’phel//rtag ’gro rta lan dri len dang //dri bzhon gnas med myur ’gro dang //sim byed sim pa yang dag ’gro//’gro ba’i ngang tshul skye ’gro’i srog/.

174 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 250/1 [se, 249b], 257/5 [se, 276a], 261/4[se, 289b].175 Sa skya paN+Di ta, Word Treasury, 127/1 [Sa skya paN+Di ta, Gsung pod bzhi pa, 197].

52van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Yar klung lo tsā ba and Kīrticandra have here:176

dbugs ’byin reg ldan ma bdag nyal//rtag ’gro rta lenⁿ dri len dang //dri dren rlung dang myur ’gro dang //skye ’gro’i srog dang ’gro ba’i dang //nam mkha’i bdag po ’gro ba pa//gang byed gang ldan rab ’joms so//.

ⁿ A gloss by the editor reads: “rta lan stands for rta sre.”

Zhwa lu lo tsā ba has:177

dbugs ’byin reg ldan ma mos ’phel//rtag ’gro rta spre dri len dang //dri bzhon rlung dang myur ’gro dang //’gro byed rgyug byed yang dag rgyug/g.yo ba’i rang bzhin ’gro’i srog/nam mkha’i bdag po ’gro ba pa//gang phyed gang ldan rab ’joms so//.

’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I has here:178

dbugs ’byin reg ldan ma mos ’phel//ⁿrtag ’gro rta sre dri len dang //dri bzhon rlung dang myur ’gro dang //’gro byed rgyu byed yang dag rgyug/skye ’gro’i srog dang ’gro ba’i ngang //nam mkha’i bdag po ’gro ba yang //’gro bar byed ldan rab ’joms so//.

ⁿ A gloss states: rta spre zer lo grags, that is, “Lo tsā ba grags pa rgyal mtshansuggested rta spre,” which is the reading we have in Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s text!

’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I adds that these are synonyms for the “Lordof the Northwest” (nub byang bdag po), an identification that he probably tookfrom Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation of the Kāmadhenu, for Si tu paṇ chen’stranslation only states that the two stanzas deal with “names for the wind” (rlunggi ming ngo). And finally, Si tu paṇ chen has here:179

dbugs ’byin reg ldan rlung dang ni//ma mos ’phel dang rtag tu ’gro/rta sre can dang dri len dang //

176Vidyābhūṣaṇa, ed., Amarakoṣa, 17.177 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4304 [# 4299], 216/4 [se, 132a]; the Kāmadhenu’s

comment is found in Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 257/5-6 [se, 276a-b].178 ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I,Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzod, 581-82.179Si tu paN chen, Slob dpon ’chi med seng ges mdzad pa’i ming dang rtags rjes su bstan pa’i bstan

bcos ’chi med mdzod ces bya ba’i gzhung skad gnyis shan sbyar, 11; the Kāmadhenu’s comment isfound in Si tu paN chen, Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos ’chi med mdzod kyi rgya cher’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo, 321-22.

53Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

dri bzhon srog byed myur ’gro dang //legs ’gro ’chi byed dngos ’chi byed//rgyug byed srog dang ’gro ba pa//mkha’ can rlung po gang byed pa//gang ldan dang ni rab ’joms so//.

Note that Si tu paṇ chen is the only one to have translated the two Sanskritverses with two Tibetan quatrains. I will refrain from the host of philological issuesthat can be addressed here. Zhwa lu lo tsā ba’s translation of the Kāmadhenuindicates that his Sanskrit text had this single kārikā-verse [sic] (rgya dpe la tshigsbcas gcig snang):

rlung ni ’gro phyir ’gro ba ste//snying la gnas phyir srog ces bsgrags//.

This appears in a quite different form in Si tu paṇ chen’s translation of the text:

dza gat gnas la ma ning ’gyur//rlung la pho dang ’gro la gsum//prā naḥ srog gi rlung dang rlung //stobs dang sra rtsir rab tu grags//.

The third text-critical gloss suggests that our anonymous annotator had twodifferent Sanskrit manuscripts (rtsa ba’i rgya dpe gnyis) of the Amarakoṣa at hand,on which basis he was able to state at Amarasiṃha, Amarakoṣa, I: 6, 14b, that thereading of kilā for kāla was wrong. Additional annotations include:180 theidentification of Ratnamati as the author of an exegesis of the Cāndravyākaraṇagrammar, a manuscript of which Dge ’dun chos ’phel and R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana locatedin Ri phug near Zhwa lu Monastery – at one time, Ri phug had been Bu ston’sprivate retreat181 – a reference to the translations of ’Brog mi lo tsā ba shākya yeshes (eleventh c.) and Lo grags [= ?Yar klung lo tsā ba], and a note to the effectthat early translators rendered Karṇikāra by Dong kar.

ConclusionAside from drawing on their wealth of synonymous expressions, Tibetan scholarsfrom the fourteenth century onward also frequently mined the translations of theAmarakoṣa and Kāmadhenu for the more specialized vocabularies of the astralsciences – astrology and astronomy – and medicinal plants. Instantiations of thisthat immediately come to mind are Bu ston’s 1326 treatise on astronomicalcomputation and Dar mo sman rams pa blo bzang chos grags’ (1638-after 1697)revision and completion of Zur mkhar ba blo gros rgyal po’s (1509-after 1572)comments on the fourth and last phyi rgyud-chapter of the Rgyud bzhi – printingblocks were prepared for it between 1679 and 1681 – as well as his 1680 study of

180 Taipei Sde dge Tripitaka, volume 50, no. 4305 [# 4300], 250/5 [se, 251b] – see also 269/3 [se,317a] – 260/1 [se, 284b], 265/7 [se, 305a].181 See the former’s *Thog mar lha sa nas phebs thon mdzad pa’i tshul, in Collected Works, volume

1, edited by Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., 24.

54van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

the twentieth chapter of the Rgyud bzhi’s bshad rgyud.182 To determine the extentto which this was done and the degree to which variations in the translations playeda role, if any, are tasks for the future. At all times we have to bear in mind that thetwists and turns of the texts and translations of these two treatises as they, in theirvarious versions, made their way through Tibetan intellectual history are by nomeans as clearcut as it may appear from the foregoing. There are no simplisticstraight lines that can be drawn here. Indeed, the more one becomes familiar withTibetan book culture by reading through the enormous legacy of Tibetan writing,the more one comes to the unsettling realization of how complicated everythingreally is, and howmuch incertitude displaces what we thought we knewwith somecertainty. In the present essay, I have but explored a very tiny fraction of whatneeds to be done when we merely begin to think about the transmission of theAmarakoṣa andKāmadhenu, not to mention their enculturation in Tibet. And whenwe consider the enormous amount of Tibetan literature that has yet to be publishedand/or explored, we can be sure that some of its findings will stand in need ofrevision.

182 See, respectively, Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i rtsis kyi bstan bcos mkhas pa rnams dga’ bar byed pa,in The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa] [Lha sa print], part 4 (New Delhi: InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, 1971), 852-54; (ed. Bsod nams phun tshogs [Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang, 1987], 262, 264-66) and, for example, the Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pagsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma ’phrin las rgyud kyi mdo man gyi ’grel pazhal lung gnyis pa dka’ gnad rdo rje’i mdud ’grol, in Rgyud bzhi’i ’grel pa mes po’i zhal lung, smadcha, edited by Rdo rje rgyal po (Beijing: Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1989), 559-62,564, 566-67; and the Bshad rgyud rkyang sel gyi ’grel pa mes po’i dgongs rgyan, ed. Sgrol dkar skyabs(Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997), 78-79, 82, 93.

55Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

GlossaryNote: these glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entrieslist the following information in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliterationof the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, theSanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolianor Latin, associated dates, and the type of term.

Ka

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextSan. *Kāvya-?Kajasarenytsakā bya sa ras nytsa

TextKajé Sarasantsakā bya’i sa ra san tsa

PublisherKensu MirikPetrünkhang

kan su’u mi rigs dpeskrun khang

AuthorKarma Gyentsenkarma rgyal mtshan

PersonKarmapakarma pa

PersonKünga Zhönnukun dga’ gzhon nu

PersonKünga Zangpokun dga’ bzang po

TermSan. ānandaküntu gawakun tu dga’ ba

Person1148-1217Künden Repakun ldan ras pa

Termhad relinquished allkünpangkun spangs

PersonKünpangpakun spangs pa

PublisherTrunggoBökyi SherikPetrünkhang

krung go bod kyi shesrig dpe skrun khang

PublisherTrunggöBökyi SherikPetrünkhang

krung go’i bod kyishes rig dpe skrunkhang

TextChi. Zhongguozangxue yanjiu

Trunggö Bökyi SherikZhimjuk TenesuNyarwé Talé LoméTenchö (JinshokDrilmé Par) GyiKarchak Dorsel

krung go’i bod kyishes rig zhib ’jug ltegnas su nyar ba’i tala’i lo ma’i bstan bcos(sbyin shog ’dril ma’i

par) gyi dkar chagmdor gsal

zhongxinshouzangde fanwenbeiye jing

PublisherTrunggö BörikpaPetrünkhang

krung go’i bod rig padpe skrun khang

PersonSan. *NāgaLuklu

PersonLunor Gyepaklu nor rgyas pa

Termreading of an Indicscript

lokyikklog yig

TermSan. pañjikāproblematic pointkandreldka’ ’grel

PersonKapchupa DrakpaTukjé

dka’ bcu pa grags pathugs rje

PlaceKardkar

TextKarchak Pangtangmadkar chag ’phangthang ma

TextKarchap Denkarmadkar chab ldan dkarma

56van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

PersonKar Lotsawadkar lo tsā ba

Person1728-91Könchok JikméWangpo

dkon mchog ’jigs meddbang po

CollectionKangyurbka’ ’gyur

TextKangyur NgachiKarchak DönlekDruppa

bka’ ’gyur snga phyi’idkar chag don legsgrubpa

TextKagyükyi DensaChenpo OkminsaChösunggi KhorloDokham Degé SharPelpung TuptenChönkhor LinggiLogyü Ngotrö Rakdü

bka’ brgyud kyi gdansa chen po ’og min saspyod gsung gi ’khorlo mdo khams sdedge’i shar dpalspungs thubbstan chos ’khor glinggi lo rgyus ngo sprodrags bsdus

OrganizationKagyüpabka’ brgyud pa

OrganizationKadampabka’ gdams pa

SeriesKadam SungbumChokdrik

bka’ gdams gsung’bum phyogs bsgrigs

TextThe Fifth CouncilKadu Ngapa: TadrelUma Chenpö DruptaRapsel

bka’ bsdu lnga pa:mtha’ bral dbu machen po’igrub mtha’ rab gsal

TextThe Fourth CouncilKandu Zhipabka’ bsdu bzhi pa

Termcollected writingskanbumbka’ ’bum

Termlegkangparkang pa

TextKenyi Jortsül KünselMelong

skad gnyis sbyor tshulkun gsal me long

TextKenyi Mawé RinchenBangdzö

skad gnyis smra ba’irin chen bang mdzod

Text1910Kenyi Shenjar RabselNorbü Melong

skad gnyis shan sbyarrab gsal nor bu’i melong

Termequivalentkedöskad dod

TermSan. *tridaśenlord of the godskapsum wangskabs gsum dbang

PlaceKarskar

Term?protectivepresence

kukyapsku skyabs

PersonKor Lotsawaskor lo tsā ba

Geographicfeature

Kyatungskya thung

PersonKyoktön Lotsawaskyogs ston lo tsā ba

PersonKyoktön LotsawaRinchen Trashi

skyogs ston lo tsā barin chen bkra shis

TermSan. apakṣālafaultkyönskyon

Kha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

EthnicityKashmirianKhachékha che

EthnicityKashmirianKhachékha che’i

57Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

BuildingKhangsar Gongmakhang gsar gong ma

PersonKhamtrülkhams sprul

ClanKhunkhun

AuthorTri Samtenkhri bsam gtan

Person1424-82Trimkhang LotsawaSönam Gyamtsö Dé

khrims khang lo tsāba bsod nams rgyamtsho’i sde

MonasteryTropukhro phu

AuthorTropu Lotsawakhro phu lo tsā ba

Author1172-1237Tropu Lotsawa JampéPel

khro phu lo tsā babyams pa’i dpal

TextTrolo Chenpö DzepéPaksam Trishing

khro lo chen posmdzad pa’i dpag bsam’khri shing

Person1572-1641Khenchen NgawangChödrak

mkhan chen ngagdbang chos grags

PersonKhenchen MahaLotsawa

mkhan chen ma hā lotsā ba

PersonKhenpo SanggyéGyentsen

mkhan po sangs rgyasrgyal mtshan

TermSan. dākiṇīkhandronyenmkha’ ’gro gnyan

PersonKhandro Bummkha’ ’gro ’bum

PersonKhedrup LhawangLodrö

mkhas grub lha dbangblo gros

TextKhenjukgi NamshéChetsom SelwéMelong

mkhas ’jug gi rnambshad ’chad rtsomgsal ba’i melong

PersonKhepa Deumkhas pa lde’u

TextKhepa Namjukpé Gomkhas pa rnams ’jugpa’i sgo

TextKhepa Namjukpé GöNampar Shepa RiknéSeljé

mkhas pa rnams ’jugpa’i sgo’i rnam parbshad parig gnas gsal byed

TextKhepa Namla JukpéGo

mkhas pa rnams la’jug pa’i sgo

TextKheshing DruppéWangchuk KünkhyenJamyang Zhepé DorjéNampar TarpaNgomtsar KelzangJukngok

mkhas shing grub pa’idbang phyug kunmkhyen ’jam dbyangsbzhad pa’i rdo rje’irnam par thar pa ngomtshar skal bzang’jug ngogs

ClanKhön’khon

PersonKhön Tsemo’khon rtse mo

Ga

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextGangchengyi DasarNyinglé TsampéDayik Losel Dringyen

gangs can gyi brda’gsar rnying lasbrtsams pa’i brda’ yigblo gsal mgrin rgyan

58van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

SeriesGangchen Rikdzögangs can rig mdzod

PublisherGangchen RikzhungPernying NyurkyopLhentsok

gangs can rig gzhungdpe rnying myurskyobslhan tshogs

TextGangjong KenyiMawa DuméGyurjang Losel Gakyé

gangs ljongs skadgnyis smra ba du ma’i’gyurbyang blo gsal dga’skyed

Termdancegargar

Termgurgargur gar

TextSan.Vajrapañjaratantra

Gurgyi Gyügur gyi rgyud

PersonGongmagong ma

PersonDrakpa Gyentsengrags pa rgyal mtshan

PersonDrakpa Tukjégrags pa thugs rje

PersonDrakpa Tayégrags pa mtha’ yas

Person1414-45Drakpa Jungnégrags pa ’byung gnas

Person1374-1432Drakpa JungnéGyentsen Pel Zangpo

grags pa ’byung gnasrgyal mtshan dpalbzang po

TextDrupchen UrgyenpéNamtar

grub chen u rgyanpa’i rnam thar

TextDrupchen OrgyenpéNampar TarpaJinlapkyi Chugyün

grub chen o rgyanpa’i rnam par thar pa

byin brlabs kyi churgyun

TextDruptop MenlungpéNamtar

grub thob sman lungpa’i rnam thar

Termphilosophicalunderpinnings

druptagrub mtha’

TermSan. sādhanadruppagrub pa

PersonDruppa Pelgrub pa dpal

Term[seven] varieties ofsound in vocalmusic

drebé gyurgyi jedrakgre ba’i ’gyur gyi byebrag

Termvillage headdrongpöngrong dpon

MonasteryDratanggrwa thang

MonasteryDranangLhündrupling

grwa nang lhun grubgling

Termoxlangglang

TextLugar TsangpéChapgyün

glu gar tshangs pa’ichab rgyun

PersonLowo Khenchenglo bo mkhan chen

Person1456-1532Lowo KhenchenSönam Lhündrup

glo bo mkhan chenbsod nams lhun grub

PlaceMustangGlowo Möntangglo bo smon thang

Terma great ebulliencearose [in me]

gatro chenpo kyédga’ spro chen poskyes

59Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

TextGala Jukpadga’ la ’jug pa

Author1903-51Gendün Chömpeldge ’dun chos ’phel

PersonGewadge ba

PersonGeshé Tsöndrü Dorjédge bshes brtson ’grusrdo rje

PersonGö Lotsawa’gos lo tsā ba

Termold translationgyurnying’gyur rnying

Textdreldrup’grel grub

Termhaving comparedthe text of theAmarakoṣawith thecommentary, Isanitized andcorrected it

dreldang tünné jidornamdak zhu

’grel dang bstun nasbyi dor rnam dag zhu

TextDrelpa Tsikda’grel pa tshig zla

Termreplies tocontroversies

gellenrgal lan

Person1203-82Ga Namgyel Dorjérgwa rnam rgyal rdorje

Termreading SanskritGyalokrgya klog

TermIndian abbotgyagargyi khenporgya gar gyi mkhanpo

TermSanskrit manuscriptgyapérgya dpe

TextGya Bökyi ChöjungGyepa

rgya bod kyi chos’byung rgyas pa

TextGyatsen TrülküDrilenLungzhin DompéNyentsik

rgya tshan sprul sku’idri lan lung bzhin’doms pa’i snyantshig,

TermIndian scriptGyayikrgya yig

PersonGyangrorgyang ro

Person? ca.1270-1330

GyangroJangchupbum

rgyang ro byang chub’bum

TextGyengyi TenchöMelong PenchenLamé SungzhinTrelwa YangchenNgakgi Röltso LekshéNorbu Jungkhung

rgyan gyi bstan bcosme long paṇ chen blama’i gsung bzhinbkral ba dbyangs canngag gi rol mtsho legsbshadnor bu’i ’byung khung

PlaceGyelkhartsérgyal mkhar rtse

TextGyelpola DampéRaptu Jepa

rgyal po la gdamspa’i rab tu byed pa

TextGyelwa ZhangtönMenchekyi Logyü

rgyal ba zhang stonman chad kyi lo rgyus

Termduring the era of theemperor andministers

gyellöngyi ringlérgyal blon gyi ring las

PersonGyeltsargyal tsha

Person1118-95GyeltsaKünga Sheraprgyal tsha kun dga’shes rab

60van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Termvastgyepargyas pa

TextGyüdé Chinam SeljéSok

rgyud sde spyi rnamgsal byed sogs

Monasticcollege

Gyümérgyud smad

CollectionGyüzhirgyud bzhi

TextGyüpzhi DrelpaMepöZhellung

rgyud bzhi’i ’grel pames po’i zhal lung

Person1079-1153Gampopa SönamRinchen

sgam po pa bsodnams rin chen

BuildingGorumsgo rum

BuildingGoselsgo sel

Personone associated withthe Sgo selstructure of Sne’ugdong

Goselwasgo sel ba

TextDrachik KyikyangDönduma TönparJepeké DösangSkritiiké Yizhin Norbu

sgra 1 kyis kyang don

du ma ston par byedpa’i skad dod sangskri ti’i skad yid bzhinnor bu

TextDrachikgi DöndumaTönpa dangDönchiklaDradumalaJukpé Uchok Lakso

sgra gcig gis don dumaston pa dang don gcigla sgra du ma la ’jugpa’i dbu phyogs lagsso

Termdrapasgra pa

TextDrajor Bampo Nyipasgra sbyor bam pognyis pa

Termlearned inlinguistics [read:Sanskrit grammer]

drala khepasgra la mkhas pa

TextSan. *SabdāvatāraDrala Jukpasgra la ’jug pa

Termthe way in whichgrammar is putforth [or: grammar]

dré götsülsgra’i ’god tshul

TextDré Tenchö DriméNangwa

sgra’i bstan bcos drimed snang ba

TextDré Tenchö MawaGyengyi MetokNgakgi WangchukDruppa

sgra’i bstan bcossmra ba rgyan gyi me

tog ngag gi dbangphyug grub pa

Termfour linguisticssūtras

dredo zhisgra’i mdo bzhi

TextDré Negyésgra’i gnas brgyad

TextDré Namyésgra’i rnam dbye

TextDrejé NgölesumSelwar Jepé ZhungDrelpala Khé

sgra’i byed dngos lasgsum gsal bar byedpa’igzhung ’brel pa lamkhas

61Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Termgrammardré jorwasgra’i sbyor ba

TextHistory of theKarma Bka’ brgyudpa Sect

Drupgyü KarmaKamtsang GyüpaRinpoché NamparTarpa Rapjam NorbuDawa ChushelgyiTrengwa

sgrub brgyud karmakaṃ tshang brgyud parin po che’i rnam parthar pa rab ’byamsnor bu zla ba chu shelgyi phrengba

Nga

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextNgagyemé Drelpanga brgyad ma’i ’grelpa

PersonNgakgi Wangpongag gi dbang po

PersonNgakgi WangpoDrakpa

ngag gi dbang pogrags pa

Person1439-90Ngakgi Wangchukngag gi dbang phyug

PersonNgakgi WangchukDrakpa

ngag gi dbang phyuggrags pa

Person1418-96Ngakgi WangchukDrakpa Pel Zangpo

ngag gi dbang phyuggrags pa dpal bzangpo

AuthorNgawang KeldenGyamtso

ngag dbang skal ldanrgya mtsho

PersonNgawang Drakpangag dbang grags pa

Person1759-ca.1840

Ngawang Tendarngag dbang bstan dar

Person1571-1626Ngawang Namgyelngag dbang rnamrgyal

Person1648-1722Ngawang Tsöndrüngag dbang brtson’grus

Terminstructionsngotröngo sprod

MonasteryNgorngor

PersonNgorchenngor chen

Person1382-1456Ngorchen KüngaZangpo

ngor chen kun dga’bzang po

MonasteryNgor Evaṃ Chödenngor evaṃ chos ldan

Termactual namengömingdngos ming

DoxographicalCategory

Ngönjömngon brjod

TermSan.abhidhānaśāstra

Ngönjökyi Tenchömngon brjod kyi bstanbcos

TextNgönjökyi TenchöChiwa Mepé Dzö

mngon brjod kyi bstanbcos ’chi ba med pa’imdzod

62van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextNgönjökyi TenchöChiwa Mepé DzökyiDrelpa Döjö DawéMinggi Kap YenchéNgargyur Zinpé TronéZungte Böla NyewarKhowa Tüné Gyurwa

mngon brjod kyi bstanbcos ’chi ba med pa’imdzod kyi ’grel pa’dod ’jo’i zla ba’iming gi skabs yanchadsngar bsgyur zin pa’iphro nas bzung stebod la nye bar ’kho babtus nas bsgyur ba

TextNgönjökyi TenchöTsikgi Tergyi DrelpaLunggi Nyema

mngon brjod kyi bstanbcos tshig gi gtergyi ’grel pa lung gisnye ma

TextNgönjökyi TenchöTsikgi Ter ZhejawéDrelpa GyacherDönselwa

mngon brjod kyi bstanbcos tshiggi gter zhes bya ba’i’grel pa rgya cher dongsal ba

DoxographicalCategory

Ngönpar Jöpamngon par brjod pa

PersonNgok Lotsawarngog lo tsā ba

Person?1059-?1109Ngok Lotsawa LodenSherap

rngog lo tsā ba bloldan shes rab

TermSan. *pūrvaśāstraearly treatisengöngyi tsuklaksngon gyi gtsug lag

Ca

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termeven the slightestchungzé kyangcung zad kyang

PlaceChonéco ne

TextChomden RikpéReldri Namtar DepéJönshing

bcom ldan rig pa’i ralgri’i rnam thar dadpa’iljon shing

PersonChomden RikpéReldri

bcom ldan {rig[s]pa’i} ral gri

ClanChelce

PersonChekhyi Druklce khyi ’brug

Cha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonChak Lotsawachag lo tsā ba

Person1197-1264Chak Lotsawa ChöjéPel

chag lo tsā ba chos rjedpal

PlaceChamdochab mdo

PersonChappel TsetenPüntsok

chab spel tshe brtanphun tshogs

Termchugowachu sgo ba

MonasteryChumik Dzingkhachu mig rdzing kha

Termshortchungnguchung ngu

PersonChekhyim Drukche khyim ’brug

63Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

TextThe Slob bshadTradition of the Saskya Lam ’bras

Chökyijé SakyaPendita KüngaGyentsen Pel ZangpöNampar TharpaDringpo

chos kyi rje sa skyapaṇḍi ta kun dga’rgyal mtshan dpalbzang po’i rnam parthar pa ’bring po

PersonChökyi Zangpochos kyi bzang po

PersonChokhor GangLotsawa

chos ’khor sgang lotsā ba

Person1453-1524Chödrak Yeshéchos grags ye shes

Termchögochos sgo

Termopened thedharma-gate

chögo chéchos sgo phyes

Termone associated withchos sgo (‘dharmagate’)

chögowachos sgo ba

PersonChögowa TsöndrüZangpo

chos sgo ba brtson’grus bzang po

PersonChögowa TsültrimZangpo

chos sgo ba tshulkhrims bzang po

PersonChögowa RinchenBum

chos sgo ba rin chen’bum

TextChöngönpa DzökyiTsikdön NamparDrelpa Gyajin TokpéNorbu Önang

chos mngon pa mdzodkyitshig don rnam par’grel pa brgya byinthog pa’i nor bu’i ’odsnang

TextChöjé JamyangChenpö NamtarYönten Gyamtso

chos rje ’jam dbyangschen po’i rnam tharyon tanrgya mtsho

TextDampéChökyi KhorloGyurwa NamkyiJungwa Selwar JepaKhepé Gatön

dam pa’i chos kyi’khor lobsgyur ba rnams kyibyung ba gsal barbyed pa mkhas pa’idga’ ston

TextChöjung MetokNyingpo DrangtsiChü

chos ’byung me togsnying po sbrang rtsi’ibcud

TextChöjung Rapzhikchos ’byung rab gzigs

Termglosschenmchan

Termglosschenbumchan bu

Termchönémchod gnas

TextSan. AmarakoṣaChimé Dzö’chi med mdzod

TextChimé DzökyiZhungla TennéLekpar Jarwé KekyiMingdang TakkyiJukpa Selwar JepaTenchö Lekshe GogyaJepé Demik

’chi med mdzod kyigzhung la brten naslegs par sbyar ba’iskad kyi ming dangrtags kyi ’jug pa gsalbar byedpa bstan bcos legsbshad sgo brgya ’byedpa’i lde mig

64van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Ja

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Person1507-66Jonang KüngaDröchok

jo nang kun dga’ grolmchog

TextJonang Petsokjo nang dpe tshogs

Termson of a noblefamily

joséjo sras

TermNaxi languageJangké’jang skad

AuthorJampel Drakpa’jam dpal grags pa

PersonJamyang Pelden’jam dbyangs dpalldan

PersonJamyang Zhepé Dorjé’jam dbyangs bzhadpa’i rdo rje

TextJamyangla Töpa’jam dbyangs la bstodpa

Termjiklé kyé’jigs las skyes

Person1846-1912Ju Mipam Namgyel’ju mi pham rnamrgyal

PersonJetsünrje btsun

Person1147-1216Jetsün DrakpaGyentsen

rje btsun grags pargyal mtshan

TextJetsün TamchéKhyenpé ShenyenShakya Gyentsen PelZangpé ZhelnganekyiNampar TarpaNgomtsar DepéRöltso

rje btsun thams cadmkhyen pa’i bshesgnyen shākya rgyalmtshan dpal bzangpa’i zhal snga nas kyirnam parthar pa ngo mtshardad pa’i rol mtsho

TextJetsün Zhalu LotsawéNampar Tarpa JejangNorbü Trishing

rje btsun zhwa lu lotsā ba’i rnampar thar pa brjedbyang nor bu’i khrishing

Nya

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Person1124-92Nyangrel NyiméÖzernyang ral nyi ma’i ’odzer

PlaceNyangronyang ro

TermMadhyamakawhich engages inśrāvaka-spiritualpractice

nyentö chöpé umanyan thos spyod pa’idbu ma

PersonNyima Draknyi ma grags

PersonSan. SūryavikramaNyima NamparNönpa

nyi ma rnam par gnonpa

TermSan. *upendraNyewangnye dbang

Termnyignyid

OrganizationNyingmaparnying ma pa

PersonNyetang Lotsawasnye thang lo tsā ba

65Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Person?- ca.1460

Nyetang LotsawaLodrö Tenpa

snye thang lo tsā bablo gros brtan pa

Ta

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonTai Situta’i si tu

Person1302-64Tai Situ JangchupGyentsen

ta’i si tu byang chubrgyal mtshan

TextSan. *Ty ĀdiTesokte sogs

TextTesok Perjö ChikDruptsül

te sogs dper brjodgcig bsgrub tshul

PersonTatsak Tsewang Gyelrta tshag tshe dbangrgyal

TermSan. *avadānapoetic taletokjörtogs brjod

PersonTaktsang Lotsawastag tshang lo tsā ba

Person1405-77Taktsang LotsawaSherap Rinchen

stag tshang lo tsā bashes rab rin chen

MonasteryTaklungstag lung

PersonTaklung ChöjéRinpoché

stag lung chos rje rinpo che

TextTaklung Chöjungstag lung chos ’byung

PersonTaklung Lotsawastag lung lo tsā ba

BuildingTokstog

Termtonggyurstong ’gyur

Termtonggyurgyi chenstong ’gyur gyi mchan

Termtöchastod cha

PlaceTölungstod lung

PersonTönpa Pakmoston pa phag mo

Termtawabrta ba

CollectionTengyurbstan ’gyur

TextTengyurgyi KarchakDretruk Namché

bstan ’gyur gyi dkarchag ’dres ’khrugrnam ’byed

TextTengyurgyi KarchakYizhin Norbu WanggiGyelpö Trengwa

bstan ’gyur gyi dkarchag yid bzhinnor bu dbang gi rgyalpo’i phreng ba

TermSan. śāstracommentarialtreatise

tenchöbstan bcos

TextTenchökyi Karchakbstan bcos kyi dkarchag

TextTenchö GyurroTselgyi KarchakTupten Gyepé Nyiö

bstan bcos ’gyur ro’tshal gyi dkar chagthub bstan rgyas pa’inyi ’od

TextTenchö ChenpoKhepa Jukpé GöNampar Shepa LoselDrinpé Pelyön

bstan bcos chen pomkhas pa’jug pa’i sgo’i rnampar bshad pa blo gsalmgrin pa’i dpal yon

PersonTendar Lharampabstan dar lha rams pa

66van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextTenpa Gyengyi Metokbstan pa rgyan gyi metog

TextTenpa Gyepa GyengyiMetok

bstan pa rgyas pargyan gyi me tog

TextTenpa Chi Gyejébstan pa spyi’i rgyasbyed

TextTentsi KatrengLakdep

bstan rtsis ka phrenglag deb

TextTentsi Selwé Nyinjébstan rtsis gsal ba’inyin byed

PersonTendzin Gyentsenbstan ’dzin rgyalmtshan

Person1730-79Tendzin Chökyimabstan ’dzin chos kyima

Tha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextTanyé Rikné NgéJungtsül

tha snyad rig gnaslnga’i byung tshul

MonasteryTarpalingthar pa gling

PersonTarpaling Lotsawathar pa gling lo tsā ba

Personca.1260-1330

Tarpaling LotsawaNyima Gyentsen

thar pa gling lo tsā banyi ma rgyal mtshan

PersonSan. *MuniNaradattaputra

Tuppa Mi Jinbuthub pa mis byin bu

TextTuppé Tenpa GyengyiMetok

thub pa’i bstan pargyan gyi me tog

TextTokmar LhasanéPeptön Dzepé Tsül

*thog mar lha sa nasphebs thonmdzad pa’itshul

Termpreconditiontünkyenmthun rkyen

TermSan. svargaHeaventorimtho ris

Termthe divine abodethat is free fromstrife

tapdrelgyi lhané’thab bral gyi lhagnas

Da

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termortho-tacticsdakyikdag yig

TextDakyik Nyekho Düpadag yig nye mkhobsdus pa

TextDepé Jukngokdad pa’i ’jug ngogs

TextDampé ChödrenpaNyebar ZhakpéTenchökyi Drelpa

dam pa’i chos dran panye bar bzhag pa’ibstan bcos kyi ’grelpa

TextDampé ChödrenpaNyepar Zhakpé DoyiDönselbar JepéTenchö

dam pa’i chos dran panye bar bzhagpa’i mdo yi don gsalbar byed pa’i bstanbcos

67Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

TextDampé ChödrenpaNyepar ZhakpéDüdön

dam pa’i chos dran panye bar bzhag pa’ibsdusdon

TextDampé ChödrenpaNyerzhak

dam pa’i chos dran panyer [b]zhag

Person1237-1305Darma Gyentsendar ma rgyal mtshan

Person1638-after1697

Darmo MenrampaLozang Chödrak

dar mo sman rams pablo bzang chos grags

TextDükyi Khorlö Zappadang GyachewéDampé ChöjungwéTsül Lekpar ShepaNgomtsar DepéShingta

duskyi ’khor lo’i zab padang rgya che ba’idam pa’i chos ’byungba’i tshul legs parbshad pa ngo mtshardad pa’i shingrta

DoxographicalCategory

San. KālacakraDünkhorwa Chenpodus ’khor ba chen po

Termtimerdü gojédus bgo byas

Person1110-93Düsum Khyenpadus gsum mkhyen pa

TextualCollection

Dekhonanyikyi Düpade kho na nyid kyi’dus pa

PersonDongkardong kar

TermSan. chaladirty trickdortapdor thabs

PersonDölpopadol po pa

Person1292-1361Dölpopa SherapGyentsen

dol po pa shes rabrgyal mtshan

Person1116-69Dakpo Gomtsüldwags po sgom tshul

PersonDakpopadwags po pa

PersonSan. *ṚṣidattaDrangsong Jindrang srong byin

TextSan. *Saddharma-smṛtyupasthāna

Drenpa NyebarZhakpa

dran pa nye bar gzhagpa

TextDrenpa NyebarZhakpé Dön NangbarJepé Tsikleur DzepéNampar Shepa

dran pa nye bar bzhagpa’idon snang bar byedpa’i tshig le’ur mdzadpa’i rnam par bshadpa

TextDrilenkor MongpéMünsel Lekshé NyiméNyingpolé DriwaNatsokkyi LenchokDom

dri lan skorrmongs pa’i mun sellegs bshad nyi ma’isnying po las dri basna tshogs kyi lanphyogs bsdoms

MonasteryDensa Tilgdan sa mthil

Termprincipalprecondition

dakkyenbdag rkyen

PersonDakchen Gyakarwabdag chen rgya dkarba

PersonDakchen Gyagarwabdag chen rgya garba

68van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextDütsi Nyingpo YenlakGyepa SangwaMenngakgi GyüléDumbu Zhipa ChimaTrinlé GyükyiDomengyi DrepaZhellung Nyipa KanéDorjé Dündröl

bdud rtsi snying poyan lag brgyad pagsang ba man ngag girgyud las dum bu bzhipa phyi ma ’phrin lasrgyudkyi mdo man gyi ’grelpa zhal lung gnyis padka’ gnad rdo rje’imdud ’grol

PlaceDechen Tengbde chen steng

TextDewar ShekpéKagangchengyiDedrangpé ChimöTsok Jinyepa ParduDruppé TsülléNyewar TsampéTamzangpo LodenMöpé Künda YongsuKhajewé Daö ZhönnuTrishing

bde bar gshegs pa’ibka’ gangs can gyibrdas drangs pa’iphyi mo’i tshogs jisnyed pa par dubsgrubs pa’itshul las nye barbrtsams pa’i gtambzang po blo ldanmospa’i kun da yongs sukha bye ba’i zla ’odgzhon nu’i ’khrishing

TextDewar Shekpé TenpéSeljé Chökyi JungnéSungrap RinpochéDzö

bde bar gshegs pa’ibstan pa’igsal byed chos kyi’byung gnas gsungrab rin po che’imdzod

TermSan. sūtradomdo

TextDodé Chi Namzhakmdo sde spyi’i rnambzhag

TextDodé Chi NamzhakKanduwa Zhipa

mdo sde spyi’i rnambzhag bka’ bsdu babzhi pa

TextDomé Tenpé JungnéPelden TrashiKhyilgyi DenrapRangzhin YangsuJöpé Lhé Ngawoché

mdo smadbstan pa’i ’byunggnas dpal ldan bkrashis ’khyil gyi gdanrabs rang bzhindbyangs su brjod pa’ilha’i rnga bo che

PersonDüldzin KhyenrapÖzer

’dul ’dzin mkhyen rab’od zer

Personca. 1230-?after 1280

Dorjé Gyentsenrdo rje rgyal mtshan

Person1432-96Dorjé Denpa KungaNamgyel

rdo rje gdan pa kundga’ rnam rgyal

Buddhist deitySan. VajravārāhīDorjé Pakmordo rje phag mo

TextDen Karmaldan dkar ma

TermSan. *vargachapterdésde

PlaceDegésde dge

TextDegé KangyurKarchak

sde dge’i bka’ ’gyurdkar chag

69Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

TextDompa Sumgyi RaptuJewé Drilen LunggiTsema TrülpongGonggyen

sdom pa gsum gyi rabtu dbyeba’i dris lan lung gitshad ma ’khrul spongdgongs rgyan

TextDatröl Sergyi Melongbrda dkrol gser gyime long

TextDatröpé NyingpoKalapé Dö Shepa

brda sprod pa’isnying po ka lā pa’imdo’i bshad pa

Termdawabrda ba

Termempowerment ofbrda ba

dawé wangkurbrda ba’i dbang bskur

Termdawangbrda dbang

Termcaused spiritualmaturity [in theordinandus] bymeans of fourgestures

dazhi goné minpar jébrda bzhi’i sgo nassmin par byas

TextDatröpé NyingpoKalapé Dö Shepa

brda’ sprod pa’isnying po ka lā pa’imdo’i bshad pa

TextDé Jedrak NamparYewé Tsikleur JepaMawé Gyen

brda’i bye brag rnampar dbye ba’i tshigle’urbyas pa smra ba’irgyan

Na

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termnagaréna ga re

TermSan. devanāgarinagaré dpéna ga re’i dpe

TermBuddhist mantranangzungnang gzungs

PersonNangso Dorjé Tsetennang so rdo rje tshebrtan

TermLord of theNorthwest

Nupjang Dakponub byang bdag po

BuildingNorbu Lingkanor bu gling ka

TextSan. *KarakāśaniNamchak Tokzergnam lcags thog zer

Person1395-75Namgyel DrakpaZangpo

rnam rgyal grags pabzang po

TextSan. VyākhyāsudhāNamshé Dütsirnam bshad bdud rtsi

TextNatsok Selwasna tshogs gsal ba

PlaceNartangsnar thang

PlaceNeudongsne’u gdong

PlaceNeu Dongsne’u gdong

PlaceNeudong Tsésne’u gdong rtse

Pa

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonPatsap Lotsawapa tshab lo tsā ba

70van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Personeleventh-twelfth c.

Patsap LotsawaNyima Drak

pa tshab lo tsā ba nyima grags

Persond. after1130

Patsap LotsawaTsültrim Gyentsen

pa tshab lo tsā batshul khrims rgyalmtshan

PersonPekar Zangpopad dkar bzang po

Personearlyfifteenthc.

Pema Zangpopadma bzang po

Termjuniorscholar-associate

penchungpan chung

PersonPenchen Lodrö Tenpapaṇ chen blo grosbrtan pa

AuthorPenchen BumdrakSumpa

paṇ chen ’bum phraggsum pa

Personsixteenthc.

Penchen RinchenChökyi Wangpo

paṇ chen rin chenchos kyi dbang po

TextPendrup SumgyiNamtar PaksamTrilshing

pan (sic) grub gsumgyi rnam thar dpagbsam ’khrilshing

TermSan. paṇḍitaPenditapaṇḍi ta

Termpö zhipapod bzhi pa

TermSan. sākṣiwitnesspangpodpang po

PersonPang Lotsawadpang lo tsā ba

Person1276-1346Pang Lotsawa LodröTenpa

dpang lo tsā ba blogros brtan pa

PersonPawodpa’ bo

TermSan. śripeldpal

MonasteryPenkhor Dechendpal ’khor sde chen

TextPeldükyi Khorlo JitarDartsul Gyüpé Logyüdang Chepa KelzangNawé Gatön

dpal dus kyi ’khorlo ji ltar dar tshulbrgyud pa’i lo rgyusdang bcas pa skalbzang rna ba’i dga’ston

TextPeldükyi KhorlöTsikyi Tenchö KhepaNam Gawar Jepa

dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’irtsis kyi bstanbcos mkhas pa rnamsdga’ bar byed pa

MonasteryPelden NorbuChömpel

dpal ldan nor bu chos’phel

TextPelden Sakya PenditaChenpö NamparTarpa

dpal ldan sa skyapaṇḍi ta chen po’irnam par tharpa

TextThe Slob bshadTradition of the Saskya Lam ’bras

Pelden Sakya PenditéNamtar

dpal ldan sa skyapaṇḍi ta’i rnam thar

TextPelden SakyapéSungrap

dpal ldan sa skya pa’igsung rab

MonasteryPeldingdpal ldings

71Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

MonasteryPelpungdpal spungs

TextPelpung TuptenChönkhor LinggiLogyü

dpal spungs thubbstan chos ’khor glinggi lorgyus

MonasteryPel Bodong Édpal bo dong e

PersonPel Lama LodröTenpa

dpal bla ma blo grosbrtan pa

Person1764-1853Pelmang KönchokGyentsen

dpal mang dkonmchog rgyal mtshan

Termrare manuscriptspekönpanamdpe dkon pa rnams

PersonPemé Rinpochédpe med rin po che

Termthe officialPöndpon

TermGrand-GovernorPönchendpon chen

ClanCheldpyal

TextCheltön DungrapSergyi Trengwa

dpyal ston gdung rabsgser gyi ’phreng ba

TextChelpé Logyükyi Yigédpyal pa’i lo rgyus kyiyi ge

PersonChel Lotsawadpyal lo tsā ba

Person?-1217/29Chel Lotsawa ChökyiZangpo

dpyal lo tsā ba choskyi bzang po

PersonChenngaspyan mnga’

PersonChenngaspyan snga

Person1356-86Chennga DrakpaJangchup

spyan snga grags pabyang chub

Person1310-70Chennga DrakpaSherap

spyan snga grags pashes rab

PersonChennga NgakgiWangchuk

spyan snga ngag gidbang phyug

PersonChennga NgakgiWangchuk DrakpaChok TamcheléNampar Gyelwa Lha

spyan snga ngag gidbangphyug grags paphyogs thams cad lasrnam par rgyal ba lha

PersonThe precious spyansnga [who passedaway on] thesecond day

Chennga RinpochéTsé Nyipa

spyan snga rin po chetshes 2 pa

ClanChelspyal

Pha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Buddhist deityPakmophag mo

DynastyPakmo Druphag mo gru

PersonPakmodru Gongmaphag mo gru gong ma

PersonPakmodru Chenngaphag mo gru spyansnga

PersonPutangpaphu thang pa

PersonPutangpa Tönshakphu thang pa stonshag

72van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Person1016-1111Podrang Zhiwa Öpho brang zhi ba ’od

Person1239-67Chakna Dorjéphyag na rdo rje

Termchigyüphyi rgyud

PersonPakpa’phags pa

TextPakpaDrenpaNyebarZhakpa

’phags pa dran pa nyebar gzhag pa

TextPakpa Dorjé GurgyiGyen

’phags pa rdo rje gurgyi rgyan

Person1235-80Pakpa LodröGyentsen

’phags pa blo grosrgyal mtshan

TextPangtangma’phang thang ma

PlaceChonggyé Taktsé’phyongs rgyas stagrtse

TermIndian vernaculartrelké’phral skad

AuthorTrinlé Gyamtso’phrin las rgya mtsho

Ba

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termbampobam po

Termthe first bam pobampo dangpobam po dang po

Termbarchabar cha

EthnicityNewarBelpobal po

TermSan. nepālsaṃvatBelpö lobal po’i lo

Termunique sonbuchikbu gcig

PersonButönbu ston

Person1290-1364Butön Rinchendrupbu ston rin chen grub

PersonBotar Trashi Chömpelbo thar bkra shis chos’phel

PlaceBodongbo dong

PersonBodong Penchenbo dong paṇ chen

Person1375-1451Bodong PenchenJikmé Drakpa

bo dong paṇ chen’jigs med grags pa

PlaceBodong Ebo dong e

TextBökyi Dragyur Logyüdang LotsawaRimjöngyi DzenamSelwé Melong

bod kyi sgra sgyur lorgyusdang lo tsā ba rimbyon gyi mdzad rnamgsal ba’i me long

TextBökyi ChutrangRikdzö Chenmo

bod kyi bcu phrag rigmdzod chen mo

Termbökyi chenbuchenbod kyi mchan bu can

Termfour great Tibetansbökyi michen zhibod kyi mi chen bzhi

TextBökyi Tsirik KündüChenmo

bod kyi rtsis rig kun’dus chen mo

TextBökyi Logyü RakrimGyuyi Trengwa

bod kyi lo rgyus ragsrim g.yu yi phreng ba

PublisherBöjong PenyingPetrünkhang

bod ljongs dpe rnyingdpe skrun khang

73Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

PublisherBöjong BöyikPenying Petrünkhang

bod ljongs bod yigdpe rnying dpe skrunkhang

PublisherBöjong MimangPetrünkhang

bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang

TextJakarané Abya ka ra na’i a

TextSan. *Vyākaraṇa-alaṃkāra

Jakaraṇé Alangkarabya ka ra ṇa’i a langka ra

TextJasa Zhapdrung KuZhönpé Drilen

bya sa zhabs drungsku gzhon pa’i dri lan

PlaceJang Ngamringbyang ngam ring

PersonJangchup Drakbyang chub grags

Person1377-1428Jangchup Dorjébyang chub rdo rje

PersonJangchup Rinchenbyang chub rin chen

TextJangchup LamgyiRimpa ChenmoléJungwé DatrölNyerkho Düpa

byang chub lam gyirim pa chen molas byung ba’i brdadkrol nyer mkho bsduspa

PersonJangchup Senggébyang chub seng ge

Termruler of the ByangPrincipality

Jangdakbyang bdag

Person1257-1320Jangsem GyelwaYeshé

byang sems rgyal baye shes

Person1400-75Jamling PenchenSönam Gyel

byams gling paṇ chenbsod nams rnam rgyal

TermSan. dhātuverbal rootjingbyings

TextJingdrup Nyerkhobyings grub nyermkho

TextJipa Delaktu JukpéNamshé

byis pa bde blag tu’jug pa’i rnam bshad

MonasteryDrakkar Tekchenlingbrag dkar theg chengling

MonasteryLabrangbla brang

MonasteryLabrang Trashi Khyilbla brang bkra shis’khyil

Termteacherlamabla ma

TermGreat LamaLama Chenpobla ma chen po

TextLama Chenpo ChelpéDungrap RinpochéZaratsak

bla ma chen po dpyalpa’i gdung rabs rin po

che’i za ra tshags

PersonLama Dampa ChökyiGyelpo

bla ma dam pa choskyi rgyal po

TextLamaDampa NamkyiJesu Zungpé TsülKandrin JesuDrenparJepa

bla ma dam pa rnamskyis rjessu bzung ba’i tshulbka’ drin rjes su dranpar byed pa

74van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextLamaDampa NamkyiJesu Zungpé TsülKandrin JesuDrenparJepa

bla ma dam pa rnamskyis rjessu bzung ba’i tshulbka’ drin rjes su dranpar byed pa

AuthorLama Dampa SönamGyentsen

bla ma dam pa bsodnams rgyal mtshan

PersonLama Dznyana Shribla ma dznya na shrī

PersonLama Abla ma a

TextLamé Namtar TöpaKhyönyima

bla ma’i rnam tharbstod pa khyod nyidma

TermSan. sthiramatiLodrö Tenpablo gros brtan pa

TermTibetan PaṇḍitaBota Penditabho ṭa paṇḍi ta

PersonWangdbang

Person1374-1432Wang DrakpaGyentsen

dbang grags pa rgyalmtshan

AuthorWangdü Tseringdbang ’dus tshe ring

Termuchendbu can

Termumédbu med

PlaceÜdbus

PersonÜpa Loseldbus pa blo gsal

Personca.1265-ca.1355

Üpa Losel JangchupYeshé

dbus pa blo gsalbyang chub ye shes

TextSan. Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa

Yangchengyi Gülgyendbyangs can gyi mgulrgyan

Termelision and additiondrinendbri bsnan

PersonBé Lotsawa’be lo tsā ba

PersonBé Lotsawa TsewangKünkhyap

’be lo tsā ba tshedbang kun khyab

Termvillage headbanser’ban ser

TextDrepung GönduZhuksu SölwéPernying Karchak

’bras spungs dgon dubzhugs su gsol ba’idpernying dkar chag

PlaceDringtsam’bring mtshams

Person?993-?1077Drokmi LotsawaShakya Yeshé

’brog mi lo tsā bashākya ye shes

AuthorBa Dhara Shrirba dha ra shri

Termfinancialunderwriter

jindaksbyin bdag

Termdrüshésbrul shad

Ma

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonMagalingma ga ling

Term“mother” tantramagyüma rgyud

PersonMachikKhandroBumma gcig mkha’ ’gro’bum

75Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

PersonMachikpama gcig pa

Person1523-96Mangtö LudrupGyamtso

mang thos klu sgrubrgya mtsho

Termofficial-physicianmichen lharjémi chen lha rje

AuthorMipammi pham

Person1846-1912Mipam Gyamtsomi pham rgya mtsho

PublisherMirik Petrünkhangmi rigs dpe skrunkhang

TextMinggi NgönjöDordüpa LekshéSergyi Demik

ming gi mngon brjodmdor bsdus pa legsbshad gsergyi lde mig

TextMingdang TakjesuTönpé Tenchö ChiméDzökyi GyacherDrelpa Döjö Bamo

ming dang rtags rjessuston pa’i bstan bcos’chi med mdzod kyirgya cher ’grel pa’dod ’jo’i ba mo

Termmingléming le

Termmodes of theword-formation ofeach noun

ming sosö dradruptsülnam

ming so so’i sgrasgrub tshul rnams

PersonLord of ManMi Wangpomi’i dbang po

PersonMutsu JangchupDrakmu tshu byang chubgrags

Termmei kubame’i khu ba

SeriesMepö Shülzhakmes po’i shul bzhag

Geographicfeature

Nyangmyang

PersonMartöndmar ston

Personca.1198-1259

Martön ChökyiGyelpo

dmar ston chos kyirgyal po

Termmukrmugs

Termmuknyidakrmugs gnyid dag

Termmukparmugs pa

Termmechasmad cha

MonasteryMenlungsman lung

PersonMenlungpasman lung pa

Person(?1239-?after1299

Menlungpa SönamPel

sman lung pa bsodnams dpal

MonasteryMenlungsman lungs

Termmelposmal po

Person1654-1718Mindrölling LotsawaChöpel

smin grol gling lo tsāba chos dpal

TextMagosmra sgo

Tsa

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonTsongkha ChangtönTsöndrü Drak

tsong kha cang stonbrtson ’grus grags

76van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

PlaceTsanggtsang

PersonTsangkargtsang dkar

Person1504-66Tsuklak Trengwagtsug lag phreng ba

AuthorTsenlha NgawangTsültrim

btsan lha ngag dbangtshul khrims

PersonTsünpabtsun pa

PersonTsünpa Rinchen Pelbtsun pa rin chen dpal

MonasteryTsetangrtsed thang

PersonTsöndrü Drakbrtson ’grus grags

Tsha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termlogic andepistemology

tsematshad ma

TextTsemé Tenchö DedünGyengyi Metok

tshad ma’i bstan bcossde bdun rgyan gyi metog

TextWord TreasuryTsikgi Tertshig gi gter

TextTsiktergyi GyacherDrelpa MetokgiChünpo

tshig gter gyi rgyacher ’grel pa me toggi chunpo

TextTsiktergyi TiknyéTangpa Lodrö TenpaZhipé Jarwa

tshig gter gyi ṭik snyethang pa blo grosbrtan pa bzhi passbyar ba

PersonTsültrim Gyelwatshul khrims rgyal ba

PersonTsültrim Gyentsentshul khrims rgyalmtshan

PersonTsewang Namgyeltshe dbang rnam rgyal

Termsecond daytsenyitshes gnyis

Termsix chapters onsandhi

tsamjorgyi raptu jepaleudruk

mtshams sbyor gyi rabtu byed pa le’u drug

MonasteryTsurpumtshur phu

PublisherTsongön MirikPetrünkhang

mtsho sngon mi rigsdpe skrun khang

Dza

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonSan. VajrācāryaDzudzudzu dzu

Termmade, writtendzémdzad

TextDzökyi Lama GyüpéLogyü

mdzod kyi bla mabrgyud pa’i lo rgyus

PlaceDzamtang’dzam thang

Zha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextZhalu LotsawalaDriwa Dzepa

zha lu lo tsā ba la driba mdzad pa

ClanZhangzhang

PersonZhang Gyelwa Pelzhang rgyal ba dpal

77Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

PersonZhang Lotsawazhang lo tsā ba

Personbefore1179-1237

Zhang LotsawaDruppa Pel

zhang lo tsā ba grubpa dpal

Person?-ca. 1195Zhang Lotsawa Gewazhang lo tsā ba dge ba

PersonZhang LotsawaNyangen Mepé Pel

zhang lo tsā ba myangan med pa’i dpal

PersonZhang LotsawaSherap Lama

zhang lo tsā ba shesrab bla ma

TextZhang LotsawéYönten dang LogyüTenpa, DechokKhandro Nyengyü

*zhang lo tsā ba’i yontandang lo rgyus bstanpa, bde mchog mkha’’gro snyan brgyud

PersonZhiba Tsültrimzhi ba tshul khrims

PersonSan. KṣīrasvāminZhiwé Jézhi ba’i rje

PersonZhuchenzhu chen

Person1697-1774Zhuchen TsültrimRinchen

zhu chen tshul khrimsrin chen

PersonZhechen DrungyikPema Namdak

zhe chen drung yigpadma rnam dag

AuthorZhölkhang SönamDargyé

zhol khang bsod namsdar rgyas

PersonZhamarzhwa dmar

MonasteryZhaluzhwa lu

TextZhalu Denrapzhwa lu gdan rabs

PersonZhalu Lotsawazhwa lu lo tsā ba

Person1441-1528Zhalu LotsawaRinchen ChökyongZangpo

zhwa lu lo tsā ba rinchen chos skyongbzangpo

Termtranslated by wayof a summary a fewportions of thebeginning of thetext

zhunggi töchachungzé düné gyurwa

gzhung gi stod chacung zad bsdus nasbsgyur ba

Person1392-1481Zhönnu Pelgzhon nu dpal

PersonZhönnu Sherapgzhon nu shes rab

Za

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Person1509-after1572

Zurkharwa LodröGyelpo

zur mkhar ba blo grosrgyal po

Termto repeat oneselfdöpar mezlos par smras

TextCollected WorksZungbumgzungs ’bum

Ya

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonYarlungpayar klung pa

PersonYarlungpa DrakpaTayé

yar klung pa grags pamtha’ yas

PersonYarlungpa JangchupGyentsen

yar klung pa byangchub rgyal mtshan

78van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

PersonYarlung Lotsawayar klung lo tsā ba

Author1242-1346Yarlung LotsawaDrakpa Gyentsen

yar klung lo tsā bagrags pa rgyal mtshan

Termthe one from [or:associated with] yarklung

Yarlungpayar lungs pa

TermYarlungpa Shükéyar lungs pa shud ke

Termthe way in whichphonemes arearticulated, that is,the pronunciation ofSanskrit

yigé jötsülyi ge’i brjod tshul

TextYigé Namyéyi ge’i rnam dbye

Termgraphyigé jedrakyi ge’i bye brag

PersonSan. JñānavajraYeshé Dorjéye shes rdo rje

PersonYeshé Pelye shes dpal

TextYongdzin DampaNamkyi DrungduPülwe Zhuyik dangZhellop Jindak dangChepa NamlaChökyesu TselwéKayik TrengwaKünkhyap NyanpéBaden

yongs ’dzin dam parnams kyi drung duphul ba’i zhu yig dang/ zhal slob sbyin bdagdang bcas pa rnamsla chosskyes su stsal ba’ibka’ yig phreng bakun khyab snyan pa’iba dan

Ra

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Person1284-1339Rangjung Dorjérang byung rdo rje

TextRapgé Jukparab dga’i ’jug pa

PersonRaptu Gawarab tu dga’ ba

Person1389-1442Rapten Künzang Pakrab brtan kun bzang’phags

TextRapten KünzangPakgyi Namtar

rab brtan kun bzang’phags gyi rnam thar

PersonSan. SubhūticandraRapjor Dawarab ’byor zla ba

PlaceRipukri phug

Person1804-?Ripuk LoselTenkyong

ri phug blo gsal bstanskyong

TermSan. īśvarariyi khupari yi khu pa

Termriyi khubari yi khu ba

TextThe Articulation ofMantras

Rikpa Lakparig pa bklag pa

TermVedic namerikjekyi mingrig byed kyi ming

PersonRikden SherapRinchen

rigs ldan shes rab rinchen

PersonRinchen Gönrin chen mgon

PersonRinchen Gyentsenrin chen rgyal mtshan

BuildingRinchengangrin chen sgang

PersonRongtönrong ston

79Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Person1367-1449Rongtön ŚakyaGyentsen

rong ston shākyargyal mtshan

PersonRongtön SenggéGyentsen

rong ston seng gergyal mtshan

PersonRongpa Ga Lorong pa rgwa lo

Person1251-1315Rongpo SherapSenggé

rong po shes rab sengge

PersonRongzomrong zom

TextRongzom ChözanggiSungbum

rong zom chos bzanggi gsung ’bum

PersonRongzom LotsawaChökyi Zangpo

rong zom lo tsā bachos kyi bzang po

PersonRong Sherap Senggérong shes rab seng ge

TextRölmö Tenchörol mo’i bstan bcos

Termnames for the windlunggi mingngorlung gi ming ngo

Termwind-godlunglharlung lha

La

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

TextLamdré Lopshélam ’bras slob bshad

MonasteryLupulu phu

TextLung Tönpa KalapéNampar Shepa LekjarNangwé Drönmé

lung ston pa ka lā pa’irnam par bshadpa legs sbyar snangba’i sgron me

TextLung Tönpé NyingpoChasakkyi DöDrelshé

lung ston pa’i snyingpo cha bsags kyimdo’i ’grelbshad

TextLekpar Jarwa Lhekédang Gangchenpé DéShenjarwa DridrelNorbü Melong

legs par sbyar balha’iskad dang gangs canpa’i brda’i shan sbyarba dri bral nor bu’ime long

Termscholar of themodality of theSanskrit language

lekpar jarwé kekyilukla khepa

legs par sbyar ba’iskad kyi lugs la mkhaspa

TextLekpar ShepaRinpoché Ter dangDrelpa

legs par bshad pa rinpo che’i gter dang’grel pa

TextLekpar ShepaRinpoché Ter ZhejawéDrelpa

legs par bshad pa rinpo che’i gter zhes byaba’i ’grel pa

TextLekjar Bangdzölegs sbyar bangmdzod

TextLekshé Rinpoché Terlegs bshad rin poche’i gter

TextLekshé RinpochéTergyi Nampar ShepaGöndö Künjung

legs bshad rin poche’i gter gyi rnamparbshad pa dgos ’dodkun ’byung

80van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

PersonLodraklo grags

Termlo chugupé tölalo bcu dgu pa’i stod la

TextLochen TamchéKhyenpa SherapRinchen Gyentsen PelZangpö ZhapkyiNampar Tarpa

lo chen thamscad mkhyen pa shesrab rin chen rgyalmtshan dpal bzangpo’i zhabs kyi rnampar thar pa

Termthe end of hisnineteenth year

lo nyishü melalo nyi shu’i smad la

Termone who hadstudied the art oftranslation

lotsa khepar lappachik

lo tsā mkhas parbslabs pa cig

TermLotsawalo tsā ba

PersonLotsawa DrakpaGyamtso

lo tsā ba grags pargya mtsho

PersonLotsawa DrakpaGyentsen

lo tsā ba grags pargyal mtshan

PersonLotsawa ChokdenLekpé Lodrö

lo tsā ba mchog ldanlegs pa’i blo gros

PersonLotsawa Tukjé Pello tsā ba thugs rjedpal

Personca.1350-1420

Lotsawa NamkhéZangpo

lo tsā ba nam mkha’bzang po

PersonLotsawa JangchupDrakpa

lo tsā ba byang chubgrags pa

PersonLotsawa Jangbumlo tsā ba byang ’bum

Person958-1055Lotsawa RinchenZangpo

lo tsā ba rin chenbzang po

PersonLotsawa Sönam Özerlo tsā ba bsod nams’od zer

Sha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PlaceShadrösha dros

PersonShakya Gyentsen PelZangpo

shākya rgyal mtshandpal bzang po

Termshéshad

PersonShapmé LotsawaTukjé Pel Zangpo

shab smad lo tsā bathugs rje dpal bzangpo

Monasticcollege

Sharshar

Termwood oxshingmo langshing mo glang

Termshingmo yöbushing mo yos bu

TermSan. ślokashulokshu log

TermShükéshud ke

Person1436-94Sherap Gyentsenshes rab rgyal mtshan

PersonSherap Lamashes rab bla ma

PersonSherap Zhönnushes rab gzhon nu

PersonSherap Öshes rab ’od

81Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

AuthorSherap Reldrishes rab ral gri

PersonSherap Rinchenshes rab rin chen

PersonSherap Rinchenshes rab rin chen

PersonSongtönshong ston

PersonSongtön LotsawaDorjé Gyentsen

shong ston lo tsā bardo rje rgyal mtshan

PersonShongtön LotsawaLodrö Gyentsen

shong ston lo tsā bablo gros rgyal mtshan

PersonShongtön LotsawaLodrö Tenpa

shong ston lo tsā bablo gros brtan pa

Termshegyübshad rgyud

TextShegyü KyangselgyiDrelpa MepöGonggyen

bshad rgyud rkyangsel gyi ’grel pa mespo’i dgongsrgyan

Sa

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

MonasterySakyasa skya

TextSakya GongmaNamngé SungbumPedurmalé SapenKünga GyentsengyiSungpö Zhipa

sa skya gong marnam lnga’i gsung’bum dpe bsdur malas sa paṇ kun dga’rgyal mtshan gyigsung pod bzhi pa

PublisherSakya GyelyongSungrapLopnyerkhang

sa skya rgyal yongsgsung rab slob gnyerkhang

OrganizationSakyapasa skya pa

PersonSakya Penditasa skya paṇḍi ta

Person1182-1251Sakya Pendita KüngaGyentsen

sa skya paṇḍi ta kundga’ rgyal mtshan

TextSakyapé Kanbumsa skya pa’i bka’’bum

TextSakyé LekshekyiTsadrel

sa skya’i legs bshadkyi rtsa ’grel

TextSapen Khejuk Tsadrelsa paṇ mkhas ’jugrtsa ’grel

MonasterySazangsa bzang

PersonSazangpa Sherap Pelsa bzang pa shes rabdpal

Person1294-1376Sazang LotsawaLodrö Gyentsen

sa bzang lo tsā ba blogros rgyal mtshan

TermSan. pātālaNetherworldsa ’og

TermSan. pātālavargasubterranean regionsaokgi désa ’og gi sde

Termgrammaticaldiagram

sarisa ris

Person1389-1457Sanggyé Gyentsensangs rgyas rgyalmtshan

82van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextSanggyé TenpéChöjung DrilenNorbu Trengwa

sangs rgyas bstan pa’ichos ’byung dris lannorbu’i phreng ba

PublisherSitrön Petrün Tsokpasi khron dpe skruntshogs pa

PublisherSitrön MirikPetrünkhang

si khron mi rigs dpeskrun khang

PersonSitu Penchensi tu paṇ chen

Person1700-74Situ Penchen ChökyiJungné

si tu paṇ chen chos kyi’byung gnas

Termthe thirty-threeabodes

sumchu tsasumgyi nésum cu rtsa gsum gyignas

PlaceSeudar Tsése’u gdar rtse

TextSosö Kyewö PenditaLasokpé Trülpa LungTenpa

so so’i skye bo’i paṇḍita la sogs pa’i ’krulpa lung bstan pa

Termloppönslob dpon

TextLoppönChimé SenggéDzepé MingdangTakejesu TenpéTenchö Chimé DzöChejawé ZhungkenyiShenjar

slob dpon ’chi medseng ges mdzad pa’iming dang rtags rjessu bstan pa’i bstanbcos ’chi med mdzodces byaba’i gzhung skadgnyis shan sbyar

PersonLoppön TsültrimGyelwa

slob dpon tshul khrimsrgyal ba

Personb. 1142Loppön SönamTsemo

slob dpon bsod namsrtse mo

Termrecord of what wasstudied

senyikgsan yig

TextSenyik Gyamtsogsan yig rgya mtsho

PersonSerdok Panchengser mdog paṇ chen

Person1428-1507Serdok PenchenShakya Chokden

gser mdog paṇ chenshākya mchog ldan

PersonSamdrup Pelzangbsam ’grub dpalbzang

PersonSamten Zangpobsam gtan bzang po

PersonSönambsod nams

PersonSönam Gyentsenbsod nams rgyalmtshan

PersonSönam Pelbsod nams dpal

Person1380-1416Sönam Zangpobsod nams bzang po

PersonSönam Özerbsod nams ’od zer

Ha

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PlaceMongoliaHorhor

Termlacunahorkonghor skongs

Termlacunahorkhonghor khong

83Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

BuildingLhakhang Chenmolha khang chen mo

Termlharjélha rje

PersonLharjé Racharlha rje ra phyar

PersonLhatokpa TönpaYönten Ö

lha thog pa ston payon tan ’od

PersonLhatok Yönten Zunglha thog yon tangzungs

Termlord of the gods, theking of religion, theuncle and nephew

lhawang chögyelchenpo khuwön

lha dbang chos rgyalchen po khu dbon

Termlhayül chewalha yul che ba

PublicationPlace

Lhasalha sa

TextLhen Karmalhan dkar ma

PersonLhopa Künkhyenlho pa kun mkhyen

PersonLhopa KünkhyenRinchen Pel

lho pa kun mkhyen rinchen dpal

TextLhorong Chöjunglho rong chos ’byung

A

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Authorca.1760-1830

Akya YongdzinLozang Döndrup

a kya yongs ’dzin blobzang don grub

TextSan. AmarakoṣaAmarakoshaa ma ra ko sha

PersonAmé Zhapa mes zhabs

Person1597-1659Amé Zhap NgawangKünga Sönam

a mes zhabs ngagdbang kun dga’ bsodnams

PersonUrgyenpau rgyan pa

Person1230-1309UrgyenpaRinchen Pelu rgyan pa rin chendpal

Sanskrit

TypeDatesSanskritEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Personca.1050-ca.1125

Abhayākaragupta

TextAbhidharmakoṣa

TextAbhidharmakoṣa-bhāṣya

TextAbhidharmakośa

TextAbhidharmakośa-vyākhyānirdeśa

TextAmarako-ṣaṭīkā

TextAmarakośa

PersonAmarasiṃha

TextAmaraṭīkā-kāmadhenu

PersonĀnanda

84van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextĀryadākiṇī-vajrapañjarā-tantra

TextĀryasaddharma-smṛtyupasthāna-sūtra

TextAṣṭādhyāyī

TextAṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra

PersonAṭitacandra

AuthorAvalokitasiṃha

Buddhist deityAvalokiteśvara

Person?seventhc.

Bhāmaha

Personca. 1620Bhānuji Dīkṣita

PersonBhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita

Personeleventhc.

Bhoja

TextBodhicāryāvatāra

Termbrāhmaṇa

PersonBṛhaspati Miśra

PersonCandragomin

PersonCandrakīrti

PersonCandranandana

PersonCandraśrī

TextCāndravyākaraṇa

TextCaryākoṣagītavṛtti

PersonDānaśīla

PersonDaṇḍin

Termdeśāntariyogi[n]the foreign yogi

BuildingDhānyakaṭaka

Termdharma

Termdharmadhara

Personca. 600-ca. 60

Dharmakīrti

PersonDharmapāla

PersonDharmapalarakṣita

PersonDharmapālarakṣita

TextDharmasam-uccaya

PersonDurgasiṃha

Termdvandva

TextEkavīrākhyā-śrīcaṇḍamahāroṣaṇa-tantra

Text*Ekavīra-mañjuśrī-siddha

85Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

AuthorGautamaPrajñāruci

PersonGautamaśrī

PersonGautamaśrībhadra

TextGuhyasamājatantra

PersonHaribhadra

PersonHarṣadeva

TextHevajratantra

Non-Buddhistdeity

Indra

TextIndravyākaraṇa

MonasteryJagaddala

TextJambhalastotra

AuthorJātarūpa

PersonJetāribhadra

TextKalāpalaghuvṛtti-śiṣyahitā

TextKalāpasūtra

PersonKalkī

Termkalyāṇamitra

TextKāmadhenu

TextKāmaśāstra

Termkārikā

TextKarṇikāra

TextKātantra

Termkāvi

TextKavikāmadhenu

TextKāvyādarśa

TextKāvyālaṃkāra

AuthorKīrticandra

TextKriyāsaṃgraha-pañjikā

TextKriyasamuccaya

Personeleventhc.

Kṣira-svāmin

PersonKṣitigarbha

Buddhist deityKulalokanātha

TextKulalokanātha-pañcadaśaka

PersonLakṣmīkara

TextLaṅkāvatārasūtra-vṛtti

TextLiṅgādisaṃgraha-varga

TextLokānandanāṭaka

86van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

DoxographicalCategory

Madhyamaka

PersonMaheśvara Kavi

Termmahāpaṇḍita

TextMaitreya-mahāsiṃhanāda-sūtra

Termmaṅgala

PersonMañjughoṣa

TextMañjuśrīnāma-saṅgītī

Personthirteenthc.

Medinikara

Termmiddha

PersonMīmāṃsaka

Termmiśra

TextMuktāvalī

PersonMunidatta

PersonMuniśrī

TextNāgānandanāṭaka

Personca. 1700Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa

MonasteryNālandā

TextNāmaliṅgānuśāsana

TextNānārthaśabdakoṣa

Text*Nanda-garbhāvakrānti-[nirdeśa]sūtra

PersonNāropā

PersonNavidharma

PersonNe[?]bai Pāla

PersonNirvidharma

PersonNiśka-laṅka

TextPadacandrikā

EthnicityPāla

Term*pañcavidyā (Chi.wuming)

five domains ofknowledge

Termpaṇḍita

PersonPāṇini

DoxographicalCategory

Pañjikā

TextParamārthasaṃgraha-sekoddeśaṭīkā

TextPiṇḍanivartana-nirdeśa

MountainPoṭalaka

TextPradīpoddyotana

CollectionPrajñā

87Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Termprasādaguṇaquality of clarity

TextPrayogamukha

PersonPuṇḍarīka

TextPurāṇa

PersonPūrṇacandra

Author1893-1963R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana

PersonRāhulaśrībhadra

Person*Rājaputra

PersonRājaśrī

TextRaktayamāritantra

Non-Buddhistdeity

Rāma

PersonRamapāla

Personeleventhc. orearlier

Ratnamati

PersonRatnaśrī

PersonRāyamukuṭa

TermSādhana

TextSādhanasamuccaya

PersonSādhukīrti

Non-Buddhistdeity

Śakra

Person1127-1225Śākya-śrībhadra

PersonŚākyarakṣita

PersonŚākyaśrībhadra

Text*Samantabhadra

TextSaṃbandhasiddhi

PlaceSambhala

TextSaṃpuṭatantra

Termsandhi

PersonŚāntarakṣita

PersonSaptavarma

TextSarvabhāṣā-pravartana-vyākaraṇa

PersonŚarvavarma

PersonSarvavarma

PlaceShambhala

PersonŚīlaśrī

PersonSiṃhabhadra

Non-Buddhistdeity

Sītā

Termsevyatāmhonor, serve, attendon

Personca. 1000Smṛtijñānakīrti

88van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

TextSmṛtyupasthāna

Termśrāvaka

PersonŚrīdharasena

Personca. 510-70Sthiramati

Termstūpa

Termstyāna

Termstyānamiddhaṃ

PersonŚubhakarase

PersonSubhāṣākīrti

Authorca.1050-ca.1110

Subhūticandra

PersonSugataśrī

PersonSurūpa

PersonSūryagarbha

Termsūtra

TextTattvārtha

TextTrāyastrimśa

Person*Ugrabhūti

TextUṣṇiṣasitātapatrā

TextUttaratantra

TextVacanamukhāyudho-pama

TextVacana-mukhāyudhopama

TextVacana-mukhāyudhopamā

TextVādanyāya

PersonVararuci

PlaceVarendra

TextVarṇasūtra

PersonVasubandhu

TextVibhaktikārikā

PlaceVikramaśīla

TextVimalaprabhā

PersonVimalaśrī (Chi.Weimaluoshili)

PersonVimalaśrībhadra

TextViṃśatyupasarga

DoxographicalCategory

Vinaya

Non-Buddhistdeity

Viṣṇu

PersonViṣṇupati

TextViśvalocana

TextViśvaprakāśa

89Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Text*Vṛddhasaṃbandha

Text*Vyākaraṇālaṃkāra

TextYāma

Buddhist deityYamāntaka

PersonYaśomitra

Chinese

TypeDatesChineseEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PlaceBeijing

PublicationPlace

Chengdu

PersonChengzong

TextDan zhu’er

AuthorHuang Mingxin

PublicationPlace

Lanzhou

DynastyMing

PersonQianlong

Termshanhua wang

PlaceShanxi

PublicationPlace

Tianjin

PublisherTianjin gujichubanshe

MountainWutai

AuthorXie Shuqing

PublicationPlace

Xining

TermXitian

DynastyYuan

PlaceYunnan

Other

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonNep. Bachur Ojā

PlaceNep. Bhaktapur

PlaceNep. TirahutiBihar

Person?-1736Nep.Jagajjayamalla

PlaceNep. Kathmandu

Person

PersonNep. Ratnamuni

90van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

BibliographyA kya yongs ’dzin blo bzang don grub. Byang chub lam gyi rim pa chen mo lasbyung ba’i brda dkrol nyer mkho bsdus pa. In Collected Works, volume 1,137. New Delhi, 1972.

A mes zhabs ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i zab padang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos ’byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa ngomtshar dad pa’i shing rta. In Collected Works, volume pa. Handwritten dbumed manuscript, C. P. N. catalog no. 003204. Fols. 283.

———. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos ’byungba’i tshul legs par bshad pa ngo mtshar dad pa’i shing rta. InCollectedWorks,volume 19. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang,2000. Pp. 532.

Amarasiṃha.Amarakoṣa. Edited by S.Misra. Jaipur: Jagdish Sanskrit Pustakalaya,2005.

Barber, A. W., ed. The Tibetan Tripitaka, Taipei [= Sde dge] Edition. Vols. 72.Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991.

Bla ma dam pa bsod nams rgyal mtshan. Bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pango mtshar snang ba. In The Slob bshad Tradition of the Sa skya Lam ’bras,volume 16. Handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002799[7], 37a.Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983.

Bo thar bkra shis chos ’phel.Mkhas ’jug gi rnam bshad ’chad rtsom gsal ba’i melong. In Sa paṇmkhas ’jug rtsa ’grel. Edited by Pad+ma tshul khrims. Chengdu:Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1998.

Bsam gtan bzang po. Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri’i rnam thar dad pa’i ljon shing.Handwritten dbu med ms., 5a-6b.

Bsod nams. Legs bshad rin po che’i gter gyi rnam par bshad pa dgos ’dod kun’byung. In Sa skya’i legs bshad kyi rtsa ’grel. Edited by ’Phrin las don grub.Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1995.

Bsod nams bzang po. Grub thob [s]man lung pa’i rnam thar. Handwritten dbumed ms. C. P. N. catalog no. 002834(1). Fols. 12.

Bsod nams ’od zer. Grub chen o rgyan pa’i rnam par thar pa byin brlabs kyi churgyun. Gangtok, 1976.

———. Grub chen u rgyan pa’i rnam thar. Edited by Rta mgrin tshe dbang,176-77, 179. Gangs can rig mdzod 32. Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnyingdpe skrun khang, 1997.

Bsod nams rgya mtsho, comp. Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum. Vols. 15. Tokyo: The ToyoBunko, 1968-69.

91Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Bstan ’dzin chos kyi ma, Khams sprul IV. Rgyan gyi bstan bcos me long paṇ chenbla ma’i gsung bzhin bkral ba dbyangs can ngag gi rol mtsho legs bshad norbu’i ’byung khung. Thimphu, 1976.

Bstan ’dzin phun tshogs, ed. ’Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs su gsol ba’i dpe rnyingdkar chag, smad cha. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004.

Btsan lha ngag dbang tshul khrims. Brda dkrol gser gyi me long. Beijing: Mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 1997.

Bu ston rin chen grub. Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byunggnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod. In The Collected Works of Bu ston [andSgra tshad pa], part 24. [Lha sa blockprint]. NewDelhi: International Academyof Indian Culture, 1971. Pp. 633-1056.

———. Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba’i tshul bka’ drin rjes su dranpar byed pa. In The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa]. Lha saprint, part 26, 65, 81, 82, 91. Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,1971.

———. Bu ston’s History of Buddhism in Tibet. Edited by J. Szerb, 112-19.Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, no. 5. Wien: Verlag derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990.

———. Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phrengba. In The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa]. Lha sa print, part26, 627-28. Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971.

———. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i rtsis kyi bstan bcos mkhas pa rnams dga’ barbyed pa. In The Collected Works of Bu ston [and Sgra tshad pa]. Lha sa print,part 4, 852-54. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971.

———. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i rtsis kyi bstan bcos mkhas pa rnams dga’ barbyed pa. Edited by Bsod nams phun tshogs. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang, 1987.

Byams gling paN chen bsod nams rnam rgyal. Brda’i bye brag rnam par dbyeba’i tshig le’ur byas pa smra ba’i rgyan. Gr[w]a nang lhun grub gling,1479/1539, blockprint, C. P. N. catalog no. 004325(1).

Byang sems rgyal ba ye shes. Chos rje ’jam dbyangs chen po’i rnam thar yon tanrgya mtsho. Handwritten dbu med ms. C. P. N. catalog no. 004381(10).

Chab spel tshe brtan phun tshogs and Nor brang o rgyan. Bod kyi lo rgyus ragsrim g.yu yi phreng ba, bar cha. Lha sa: Bod ljongs dpe rnying dpe skrun khang,1990.

Chandra, Lokesh. The Amarakosa in Tibet. Delhi: International Academy of IndianCulture, 1965.

Dag yig nye mkho bsdus pa. Handwritten dbu can ms., C. P. N. catalog no.004323(9).

92van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Dan zhu’er, volume 206 [she]. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 1988.

Dar ma rgyal mtshan. Tshad ma’i bstan bcos sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog. Bka’gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs, volume 54. Edited by Karma bde legs etal. Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2007.

———. Tshad ma’i bstan bcos sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog. Edited by SunWenjing.Handwritten dbu medms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002468[2], 91b. Beijing: Krunggo’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1991.

———. Bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog. Handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalogno. 007916(10).

———. Thub pa’i bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog. Handwritten dbu med ms., C. P.N. catalog no. 007114.

———. Thub pa’i bstan pa rgyan gyi me tog. Handwritten dbu med ms.,Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel no. L493/2.

Dar mo sman rams pa blo bzang chos grags. Bdud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyadpa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las dum bu bzhi pa phyi ma ’phrin las rgyudkyi mdo man gyi ’grel pa zhal lung gnyis pa dka’ gnad rdo rje’i mdud ’grol.In Rgyud bzhi’i ’grel pa mes po’i zhal lung, smad cha. Edited by Rdo rje rgyalpo, 559-62, 564, 566-67. Beijing: Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang,1989.

———. Bshad rgyud rkyang sel gyi ’grel pa mes po’i dgongs rgyan. Edited bySgrol dkar skyabs. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997.

Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth ofTibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Dbang ’dus tshe ring and ’Phrin las rgya mtsho. Bod kyi sgra sgyur lo rgyus danglo tsā ba rim byon gyi mdzad rnam gsal ba’i me long. Beijing: Mi rigs dpeskrun khang, 2001.

Dbus pa blo gsal byang chub ye shes. Bstan bcos kyi dkar chag. Handwritten dbumed manuscript, C. P. N. catalog no. 002376, 59a.

de La Vallée Poussin, Louis, tr. and ann. L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu,Tome II. Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, volume 16. Bruxelles: InstitutBelge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1971.

Dge ’dun chos ’phel. Legs sbyar bang mdzod. In Collected Works, volume 3.Edited by Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., 370. Gangs can rig mdzod,volume 12. Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994.

———. *Thog mar lha sa nas phebs thon mdzad pa’i tshul. In Collected Works,volume 1, ed. Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., Gangs can rig mdzod 10.Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994.

93Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Dkonmchog ’jigs med dbang po, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje II.Mkhas shinggrub pa’i dbang phyug kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje’i rnampar thar pa ngo mtshar skal bzang ’jug ngogs. In Collected Works, volume 2,270. New Delhi, 1971.

———. Mkhas shing grub pa’i dbang phyug kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhadpa’i rdo rje’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar skal bzang ’jug ngogs. Edited by’Brug pa. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Dimitrov, Dragomir.Mārgavibhāga. Die Unterscheidung der Stilarten. Indica etTibetica, Bd. 40. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2002.

Dmar ston chos kyi rgyal po. Legs par bshad pa rin po che’i gter zhes bya ba’i’grel pa. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1982.

Dngos grub rgya mtsho. Tha snyad rig gnas lnga’i byung tshul. Edited by Norbrang o rgyan. Gangs can rig mdzod, volume 4. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang, 1987.

Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan. So so’i skye bo’i paṇḍi ta la sogs pa’i ’krul palung bstan pa. In Collected Works, ’Dzam thang blockprint, volume ya, 606.

Dotson, Brandon. “A Note on Zhang: Maternal Relations of the Tibetan RoyalLine and Marriage into the Royal Family.” Journal Asiatique 291 (2004):75-99.

Dpa’ bo gtsug lag ’phreng ba. Dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyibyung ba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, smad cha [volume 1]. Editedby Rdo rje rgyal po. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986.

———, Dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byung ba gsal bar byedpa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Stod cha [volume 2]. Edited by Rdo rje rgyal po.Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986.

———. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. In ’Bras spungs dgon du bzhugs sugsol ba’i dpe rnying dkar chag, stod cha [volume 2]. Edited by Bstan ’dzinphun tshogs, 525-32, nos. 016638, 016736. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2004.

———. Lo chen thams cad mkhyen pa shes rab rin chen rgyal mtshan dpal bzangpo’i zhabs kyi rnam par thar pa. In gsung ’bum, volume 2. Mes po’i shulbzhag, volume 30. Edited by Rgyal mo ’brug pa, 38. Beijing: Krung go’i bodrig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007.

Dpal ldan sa skya paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar. In The Slob bshad Tradition of the Saskya Lam ’bras, volume 1. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983.

Dpal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan. Mdo smad bstan pa’i ’byung gnas dpalldan bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs rang bzhin dbyangs su brjod pa’i lha’irnga bo che. In Collected Works, volume 1, 535-36. New Delhi, 1974.

94van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

———. Mdo smad bstan pa’i ’byung gnas dpal ldan bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdanrabs rang bzhin dbyangs su brjod pa’i lha’i rnga bo che. Edited by Smon lamrgya mtsho. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Du Yongbin, Ershi shiji xizang qiseng (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe,1999), 86-118.

’Dul ’dzin mkhyen rab ’od zer. Sangs rgyas bstan pa’i chos ’byung dris lan norbu’i phreng ba. Gangtok, 1981.

Ehrhard, Franz-Karl, ed. A Buddhist Correspondence: The Letters of Lo chenBsod nams rgya mtsho. Lumbini International Research Institute, FacsimileEdition Series 3. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2002.

Eimer, Helmut Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu ston im Vergleich mit der AbteilungTantra des tibetischen Kanjur. Studie, Textausgabe, Konkordanzen und Indices.Indica et Tibetica, Bd. 17. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1989.

———. The Early Mustang Kanjur Catalogue. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologieund Buddhismuskunde, Heft 45. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische undBuddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1999.

Ejima, Yasunori. “Sthiramati’s Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya,Especially on the traikāl- yavāda [in Japanese].” Bukkyōgaku 19 (1985): 5-32.

Encyclopedia Tibetica. The Collected Works of Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs lasrnam rgyal, vols. 2 and 9, 147-74 and 401-26. New Delhi: The Tibet House,1970.

Everding, Karl-Heinz. Das Königreich Mang yul Gung thang. Königtum undHerrschaftsgewalt im Tibet des 13.-17. Jahrhunderts. Monumenta TibeticaHistorica, Band 6 (Teil 2). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000.

Franke, Herbert. Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China in derYüanzeit. Studia Tibetica. Quellen und Studien zur tibetischen Lexicographie,Band III. München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien BayerischeAkademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba du ma’i ’gyur byang blo gsal dga’ skyed. Xining:Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983.

Glo bo mkhan chen bsod nams lhun grub. Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo’i rnampar bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed. New Delhi, 1979.

———. Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i dris lan lung gi tshad ma ’khrul spongdgongs rgyan, Rgyud sde spyi rnam gsal byed sogs. Dehra Dun, 1985.

Gnoli, Raniero, andGiacomellaOrofino.Nāropā. Iniziazone Kālacakra. BibliotecaOrientale, volume 1. Rome: Adelphi Edizione, 1994.

Gold, Jonathan C. The Dharma’s Gatekeepers. Sa skya Paṇḍita on BuddhistScholarship in Tibet. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007.

95Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Goldstücker, Theodor. “Über den einleitenden Verse des Amara- kosha.”Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7 (1850): 180-81.

Gser mdog paṇ chen shākya mchog ldan. Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa’i bshesgnyen shākya rgyal mtshan dpal bzang pa’i zhal snga nas kyi rnam par tharpa ngo mtshar dad pa’i rol mtsho. In Complete Works, volume 16, 353.Thimphu, 1975.

Hahn, Michael. Candragomin’s Lokānandanāṭaka. Ein Beitrag zur klassischenindischen Schauspieldichtung. Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 39. Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz, 1974.

Huang Mingxin and Xie Shuqing. Bstan rtsis ka phreng lag deb. Beijing: Mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 2000.

Huber, Toni. “Colonial Archeology, International Missionary Buddhism and theFirst Example of Modern Tibetan Literature.” In Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ.Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday.Edited by P. Kieffer-Pültz and J.-U. Hartmann, 297-318. Indica et Tibetica,Bd. 30. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997.

———. The Holy Land Reborn. Pilgrimage and the Tibetan Reinvention ofBuddhist India. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Ishikawa, Mie, ed. A Critical Edition of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnis pa, Materialsfor Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionaries, volume 2. Studia Tibetica, no. 18. Tokyo:The Toyo Bunko, 1990.

Jackson, David P. The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa skya Paṇḍitaon Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa and Philosophical Debate,volume 1. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 17,no. 1. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien UniversitätWien, 1987.

———. Patron and Painter. Situ Panchen and the Revival of the EncampmentStyle. With an Essay by Karl Debreczeny. New York: Rubin Museum of Art,2009.

’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I. Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’imdzod. In Collected Works, volume 15, 786, 789-91. New Delhi, 1973.

———. Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos ’chi ba med pa’i mdzod. Edited by Gragspa. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983.

Jamspal, Lozang, and Alex Wayman. Monograph Series of Naritasan Instituteof Buddhist Studies, 3 vols. Narita: Naritsan shinshoji, 1992-95.

———. “Zhalu Lotsava Chos skyong bzang po and His LiteraryWorks.” TibetanStudies. Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association forTibetan Studies Narita 1989. Edited by Sh. Ihara and Z. Yamaguchi, volume1, 175-79. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992.

96van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Jo nang kun dga’ grol mchog. PaN+Dita chen po shAkya mchog ldan gyi rnampar thar pa zhib mo rnam par ’byed pa [The Complete Works of Gser mdogPaṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan], volume 16.Thimphu, 1975.

Karma bde legs et al., eds. Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs, volume 1.Chengdu: Si khron dpe skrun tshogs pa / Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2007.

Karma rgyal mtshan. “Bka’ brgyud kyi gdan sa chen po ’og min sa spyod gsunggi ’khor lo mdo khams sde dge’i shar dpal spungs thub bstan chos ’khor glinggi lo rgyus ngo sprod rags bsdus.” InDpal spungs thub bstan chos ’khor glinggi lo rgyus, 579 ff. Edited by Karma rgyal mtshan et al. Beijing: Mi rigs dpeskrun khang, 2007.

Khri bsam gtan. Skad gnyis smra ba’i rin chen bang mdzod. Lanzhou: Kan su’umi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2005.

Khrims khang lo tsā ba bsod nams rgya mtsho’i sde. Yongs ’dzin dam pa rnamskyi drung du phul ba’i zhu yig dang / zhal slob sbyin bdag dang bcas pa rnamsla chos skyes su stsal ba’i bka’ yig phreng ba kun khyab snyan pa’i ba dan.Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel no. AT 111/2, 40a-45b.

Khro phu lo tsA ba byams pa’i dpal (1172-1237). Khro lo chen pos mdzad pa’idpag bsam ’khri shing. Handwritten dbu medmanuscript. C. P. N. catalog no.002786(4). Fols. 90.

———. Pan [sic] grub gsum gyi rnam thar dpag bsam ’khril shing. Blockprint.C. P. N. catalog no. 002853(2). Fols. 78.

Kramer, Jowita. A Noble Abbot from Mustang. Life and Works of Glo bo Mkhanchen (1456-1532). Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde,Heft 68. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, 2008.

Kramer, Ralf. The Great Tibetan Translator. Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldanshes rab (1059-1109). Collectanea Himalayica 1. München: Indus Verlag,2007.

Kvaerne, Per. An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. Bangkok: White OrchidPress, 1977.

Lalou, Marcelle. “Les textes bouddhiques au temps de roi Khri srong lde btsan.”Journal asiatique CCXLI, nos. 271, 312 (1953): 325-26.

Laufer, Berthold. “Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft der Tibeter. Zamatog.”Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classeder k.b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München 1 (1898): 519-90.

Lewis, Todd T., and L. Jamspal. “Newars and Tibetans in the Kathmandu Valley:Three New Translations from Tibetan Sources.” Journal of Asian and AfricanStudies 36 (1988): 196-97, 199.

97Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Lienhard, Siegfried. “The Making of a Poet,” Indologica Taurinensia 7 [Dr.Ludwik Sternbach Felicitation Volume] (1979): 309-21.

———. “A History of Classical Poetry. Sanskrit-Pali-Prakrit.” In A History ofIndian Literature. Edited by J. Gonda, volume 3, fasc. 1. Wiesbaden: OttoHarrassowitz, 1984.

Lin Li-kouang. L’Aide-mémoire de la Vraie Loi (Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra).Recherches sur un Sūtra développé du Petit Véhicule. Publications du MuséeGuimet, Bibliothèque d’études, LIV. Paris, 1949.

Lo tsA ba nammkha’ bzang po. Skad gnyis sbyor tshul kun gsal me long. In ThreeRare Grammatical Works from Helambu, 219-378. Gangtok, 1984.

Macdonald, Ariane. “Le Dhānyakaṭaka de Man luṅs gu ru.” Bulletin de l’ÉcoleFrançaise d’Extrême-Orient LVII (1970): 169-213.

Mejor, Marek. Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa and the Commentaries Preservedin the Tenjur. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, Bd. 42. Stuttgart: Franz SteinerVerlag, 1991.

Mi nyag mgon po, ed. Mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 2006.

Mi pham rgya mtsho. Skad gnyis shan sbyar rab gsal nor bu’i me long. In Mipham’s Collected Works, volume 4, 69-701. Chengdu: Gangs can rig gzhungdpe rnying myur skyobs lhan tshogs, 2007.

Minkowski, Christopher. “Why Should We Read the Maṅgala Verses.” InŚāstrārambha. Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit. Edited by W. Slaje.Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Band LXII. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008.

Miyake, Shin’ichiro. “Comparative Table of the Golden Manuscript Tenjur inDga’ ldan Monastery with the Peking Edition of Tenjur.” Annual Memoirs ofthe Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute 17(1999): 1-64.

Mkhan chen ngag dbang chos grags. Bstan bcos chen po mkhas pa ’jug pa’i sgo’irnam par bshad pa blo gsal mgrin pa’i dpal yon. In Sa paṇ mkhas ’jug rtsa’grel. Edited by Pad+ma tshul khrims. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 1998.

Mkhas pa lde’u. Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa. Edited by Chab spel tshebrtan phun tshogs. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

———. Bstan bcos chen po mkhas pa ’jug pa’i sgo’i rnam par bshad pa blo gsalmgrin pa’i dpal yon. In Collected Works, volume 3. Darjeeling: SakyaChoepheling Monastery.

Much, Michael Torsten. Dharmakīrti’s Vādanyāyaḥ, Teil I, Sanskrit Text. Wien:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991.

98van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

———. Dharmakīrti’s Vāda-nyāyaḥ, Teil II, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen.Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991.

Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism. A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.

Ngag dbang bstan dar (Bstan dar lha rams pa). Gangs can gyi brda’ gsar rnyinglas brtsams pa’i brda’ yig blo gsal mgrin rgyan. In Collected Works, volumekha, 338, 389-90. New Delhi, 1971.

Ngag dbang rnam rgyal. Stag lung chos ’byung. Edited by Thar gling byams patshe ring. Gangs can rig mdzod, volume 22. Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpernying dpe skrun khang, 1992.

Ngag dbang skal ldan rgya mtsho. Shel dkar chos ’byung [History of the WhiteCrystal], tr. Pasang Wangdu and H. Diemberger. Wien: Verlag derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

Nishioka, Soshū. “Index to the Catalog Section of Bu ston’s ‘History of Buddhism’I [in Japanese],” Tōkyō Daigaku Bungakubu Bunkakōryū Kenkyū-shisetsuKenkyū-kiyō [Annual Report of the Institute for the Study of Cultural Exchange,University of Tokyo] 4 (1980), 61-92; 5 (1981), 43-94; 6 (1983), 47-201.

Nor brang o rgyan, ed. Bstan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed. Gangs can rig mdzod 4.Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Nyan shul mkhyen rab ’od gsal, ed. Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’ibcud. Gangs can rig mdzod 5. Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,1988.

Okuyama, Naoji. “Two Problems Relating to the Development of the BuddhistPantheon in Tibet [in Japanese].” Indogaku Bukkyō Kenkyū 36.2 (1988): 889.

Pant, Mahes Raj, ed. Jātarūpa’s Commentary on the Amarakoṣa. Part I and PartII. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000.

Petech, Luciano. Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yüan-Sa skya Period ofTibetan History. Serie Orientale Roma, volume 65. Rome: Istituto Italiano peril Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990.

’Phrin las rgya mtsho et al., eds. Jo nang dpe tshogs, volume 16. Beijing: Mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 2008.

Rab brtan kun bzang ’phags gyi rnam thar. Edited by Tshe don. Lha sa: Bodljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Rang byung rdo rje, Karma pa III. Dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’imdo yi don gsal bar byed pa’i bstan bcos. In Collected Works, volume ca,456-70, 471-568. Xining, 2006.

Ratnamati. *Thog mar lha sa nas phebs thon mdzad pa’i tshul. InCollectedWorks,volume 1. Edited by Hor khang bsod nams dpal ’bar et al., 24.

99Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

Rba d+ha ra shri. *Zhang lo tsā ba’i yon tan dang lo rgyus bstan [pa]. In Bdemchog mkha’ ’gro snyan [b]rgyud, volume 1, 176-86. New Delhi, 1973.

Ri phug blo gsal bstan skyong. Zhwa lu gdan rabs [The History of the Monasteryof Zhwa lu]. Leh, 1971.

Roerich, George N., tr. The Blue Annals. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.

Roesler, Ulrike. “The Great Indian Epics in the Version of Dmar ston Chos kyirgyal po.” In Religion and Secular Culture in Tibet, Proceedings of the NinthSeminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000.Edited by H. Blezer and A. Zadoks, 442-48. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Rong zom lo tsA ba chos kyi bzang po. Rong zom chos bzang gi gsung ’bum.Edited by Bkra shis and Pad+ma tshul khrims, 413-55, volume 1. Chengdu:Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999.

Rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal. Lho rong chos ’byung. Edited by Gling dpon pad+maskal bzang and Ma grong mi ’gyur rdo rje. Gangs can rig mdzod, volume 26.Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1994.

Sa skya paN+Di ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. Rol mo’i bstan bcos. Beijing: Mi rigsdpe skrun khang, 1986.

———. Sa skya gong ma rnam lnga’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma las sa paṇ kundga’ rgyal mtshan gyi gsung pod bzhi pa. In Mes po’i shul bzhag 18. Editedby Rgyal mo ’brug pa et al., 192-217. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrunkhang, 2007.

———. Tshig gi gter [Word Treasury]. In Sa skya bka’ ’bum, volume 5, no. 14.Pp. 125/3-31/4.

Sāṅkṛtyāyana, R. “Sanskrit Palm-leaf MSS in Tibet.” Journal of the Bihar andOrissa Research Society 21, no. 150 (1935): 40.

Schaeffer, Kurtis R., and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp. An Early Tibetan Surveyof Buddhist Literature. The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldanral gri. Harvard Oriental Series, volume 64. Cambridge: Department of Sanskritand Indian Studies, 2008.

———. “Printing the Words of the Master: Tibetan Editorial Practice in theCollected Works of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I (1648-1721).” ActaOrientalia 60 (1999): 172-73.

———. The Culture of the Book in Tibet. New York: Columbia University Press,2009.

Schuh, Dieter.Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung.Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, SupplementBand 16. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1973.

100van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Seyfort, D. Ruegg “Sanskrit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionaries and SomeProblems in Indo-Tibetan Philosophical Lexicography.” In Lexicography inthe Indian and Buddhist Cultural Field. Proceedings of the Conference at theUniversity of Strasbourg 25 to 27 Aprl 1996. Edited by B. Oguibénine.München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademieder Wissenschaften, 1998.

Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. InDkar chag ’phang thang ma. Edited by Bod ljongsrten rdzas bshams mdzod khang, 20, 48. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,2003.

Shes rab ral gri, Bla ma chen po dpyal pa’i gdung rabs rin po che’i za ra tshags.Handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 004399(2), 17b-19a.

Shes rab rin chen.Dam pa’i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i bstan bcos kyi ’grelpa. In Collected Works, volume cha, 1-219. Xining, 2006.

Si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas. Bde bar gshegs pa’i bka’ gangs can gyibrdas drangs pa’i phyi mo’i tshogs ji snyed pa par du bsgrubs pa’i tshul lasnye bar brtsams pa’i gtam bzang po blo ldan mos pa’i kunda yongs su kha byeba’i zla ’od gzhon nu’i ’khri shing. InCollectedWorks, volume 9, 454. Sansal:Sherabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990.

———. ’Chi med mdzod kyi gzhung la brten nas legs par sbyar ba’i skad kyiming dang rtags kyi ’jug pa gsal bar byed pa bstan bcos legs bshad sgo brgya’byed pa’i lde mig. InCollectedWorks, volume 6. Sansal: Shesrabling Instituteof Buddhist Studies, 1990.

———. Chos mngon pa mdzod kyi tshig don rnam par ’grel pa brgya byin thogpa’i nor bu’i ’od snang. In Collected Works, volume 13, 348, 479. Sansal:Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990.

———. Ming dang rtags rjes su ston pa’i bstan bcos ’chi med mdzod kyi rgyacher ’grel pa ’dod ’jo’i ba mo. In Collected Works, vols. 4 and 5, 243-738,2-421. Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990.

———. Rgya tshan sprul sku’i dri lan lung bzhin ’doms pa’i snyan tshig. InCollected Works, volume 8, 365 ff. Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of BuddhistStudies, 1990.

———. Sde dge’i bka’ ’gyur dkar chag. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrunkhang, 1988.

———. Sgra’i byed dngos las gsum gsal bar byed pa’i gzhung ’brel pa la mkhas.InCollectedWorks, volume 5, 423-65. Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of BuddhistStudies, 1990.

———. Sgrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che’i rnam par tharpa rab ’byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba [History of the KarmaBka’ brgyud pa Sect], volume 2. New Delhi, 1972.

101Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

———. Slob dpon ’chi med seng ges mdzad pa’i ming dang rtags rjes su bstanpa’i bstan bcos ’chi med mdzod ces bya ba’i gzhung skad gnyis shan sbyar.InCollectedWorks, volume 4, 1-241. Sansal: Shesrabling Institute of BuddhistStudies, 1990.

———and ’Be lo tsA ba tshe dbang kun khyab. The Autobiography and Diaries.Edited by Lokesh Chandra. New Delhi: International Academy of IndianCulture, 1968.

Sircar, D. C. Some Epigraphical Records of the Medieval Period for EasternIndia. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1979.

Skorupski, Tadeusz. A Catalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur. BibliographiaPhilologica Buddhica, Series Maior IV. Tokyo: The International Institute forBuddhist Studies, 1985.

Skyogs ston lo tsā ba rin chen bkra shis. Rje btsun zhwa lu lo tsā ba’i rnam parthar pa brjed byang nor bu’i khri shing. Handwritten dbu med ms. C. P. N.catalog no. 002790(9). Fols. 41.

Smith, E. Gene. Tibetan Catalog, volume 2. Seattle: University of Washington,1969.

Smin grol gling lo tsA ba chos dpal. Bya sa zhabs drung sku gzhon pa’i dri lan.Dri lan skor rmongs pa’i mun sel legs bshad nyi ma’i snying po las dri ba snatshogs kyi lan phyogs bsdoms. In Collected Works, volume 5 (np, nd), 231-32.

Snye thang lo tsA ba blo gros brtan pa.Mngon brjod kyi bstan bcos tshig gi gterzhes bya ba’i ’grel pa rgya cher don gsal ba. Gangtok, 1977.

———. Tshig gter gyi ṭik snye thang pa blo gros brtan pa bzhi pas sbyar ba.Dpal ldan sa skya pa’i gsung rab. Comp. Mkhan po kun dga’ bzang po, podbzhi pa. Mngon brjod. In Bod kyi bcu phrag rig mdzod chen mo. Edited byMog chung phur ba. Beijing / Xining: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang / Mtsho sngonmi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004. Pp. 27-176.

Stag tshang lo tsA ba. Lung ston pa ka lā pa’i rnam par bshad pa legs sbyar snangba’i sgron me. In Gsung ’bum [Collected Works], volume 7. Edited by Rgyalmo ’brug pa. Mes po’i shul bzhag, volume 35. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig padpe skrun khang, 2007.

Stearns, Cyrus R. Luminous Lives. The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam’bras Tradition in Tibet. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001.

———. The Buddha from Dolpo. A Study of the Life and Thought of the TibetanMaster Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1999.

Steiner, Roland. Untersuchungen zu Harṣadevas Nāgānanda und zum indischenSchauspiel. Indica et Tibetica, Bd. 31. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et TibeticaVerlag, 1997.

102van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Tanemura, Ryugen. Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā: A Critical Edition andAnnotated Translation of Selected Sections. GroningenOriental Studies, volume19. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 2004.

Torricelli, Fabrizio. “Zhang lo tsA ba’s Introduction to the Aural Transmissionof Śaṃvara.” In Le Parole e I Marmi. Studi in Onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo70º Compleanno. Edited by R. Torella, 875-96. Serie Orientale Roma, XCII,I. Rome: Istituto Italiana per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 2001.

Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan. Dpal dus kyi ’khor lo ji ltar dar tshul brgyud pa’i lorgyus dang bcas pa skal bzang rna ba’i dga’ ston. In Bod kyi rtsis rig kun ’duschen mo, volume 1. Edited by Byams pa ’phrin las, 82. Chengdu: Si khron mirigs dpe skrun khang, 1998.

van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. “A Treatise on Buddhist Epistemology and LogicAttributed to Klong chen Rab ’byams pa (1308-1364) and Its Place inIndo-Tibetan Intellectual History.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 31 (2003):392.

———. “Apropos of Some Recently Recovered Texts Belonging to the Lam’bras Teachings of the Sa skya pa and Ko brag pa.” Journal of the InternationalAssociation of Buddhist Studies 17 (1994): 188-90.

———. “Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History VI: The Transmission ofIndian Buddhist Pramāṇavāda according to Early Tibetan Gsan yig-s.”Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques XLIX, no. 20 (1995): 926-27.

———. “On the Fifteenth Century Lho rong chos ’byung by Rta tshag Tshe dbangrgyal and Its Importance for Tibetan Political and Religious History.” Lungta14 [Aspects of Tibetan History, ed. Roberto Vitali and T. Tsering] (2000):57-76.

———. “Some Remarks on the TibetanWord bam po.” Zangxue xuekan [Journalof Tibetology]. Sichuan University, forthcoming.

———. “U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal (1230-1309) Part Two: For Emperor Qubilai?His Garland of Tales about Rivers.” In The Relationship between Religion andState (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet. Edited by C. Cüppers. Lumbini:Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004.

Verhagen, Pieter C. AHistory of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet, volume1. Transmission of the Canonical Literature. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

———. A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet, volume 2.Assimilation into Indigenous Scholarship. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001.

———. “‘Royal’ Patronage of Sanskrit Grammatical Treatises in Tibet.” InRitual,State and History in South Asia. Essays in Honour of J.C. Heesterman. Editedby A.W. van den Hoek, D. H. A. Kolff, andM. S. Oort, 377, 384, n. 15. Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1992.

103Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

———. “Studies in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Hermeneutics (1): Issues ofInterpretation and Translation in the Minor Works of Si tu Paṇ chen Chos kyi’byung gnas (1699?-1774).” Journal of International Association of BuddhistStudies 24 (2001): 61-88.

Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Satis Chandra, ed. Amarakoṣa. Bibliotheca Indica, no. 204.Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press, 1911-12.

———, ed. Amaraṭīkā-kāmadhenu. Bibliotheca Indica, New Series no. 1348.Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press, 1912.

Vitali, Roberto. “The White Dpyal: Early Evidence (from the 7th century to thebeginning of the bstan pa phyi dar).” In Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers Dedicated toErnst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Edited by B. Kellneret al., 1023-48. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft70.2. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, 2007.

Vogel, Claus, “Indian Lexicography.” In A History of Indian Literature. Editedby J. Gonda, volume 5, fasc. 4. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979.

———. Śrīdharasena’s Viśvalocana. Ein Jaina-Worterbuch des Sanskrit imlamaistischen Kanon. In Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaftenin Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrg 8. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

———., ed. and tr. Surūpa’s Kāmaśāstra. An Erotic Treatise in the Tibetan bstan’gyur. Studia Orientalia 30.3. Helsinki, 1965.

Wayman, Alex, tr. Abhidhānaviśvalocanam of Śrīdharasena. Monograph SeriesIII-2. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1994.

Yar klung pa. Chos kyi rje sa skya paṇḍi ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzangpo’i rnam par thar pa ’bring po. In The Slob bshad Tradition of the Sa skyaLam ’bras, volume 1, 64-76. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983.

Yaśomitra. Abhidharmakośa & Bhāṣya of Ācārya Vasubandhu with SphutārthāCommentary of Ācārya Yaśomitra. Edited by S. D. Śastri, Part I, 423. Varanasi:Bauddha Bharati, 1981.

Zhwa lu lo tsA ba rin chen chos skyong bzang po. Sgra 1 kyis kyang don du maston par byed pa’i skad dod sang skri ti’i skad yid bzhin nor bu. Handwrittendbu med ms., C. P. N. catalog no. 002336(6).

———. Sgra gcig gis don du ma ston pa dang don gcig la sgra du ma la ’jugpa[’i dbu phyogs lags so]. Handwritten dbu med ms., C. P. N. catalogno.002346(8).

———. Zha lu lo tsā ba la dri ba mdzad pa. InCollectedWorks, volume 3, 53-55.New Delhi, 1977.

104van der Kuijp: On the Vicissitudes of Subhūticandra’s Kāmadhenu Commentary

Zhe chen drung yig pad+ma rnam dag (Bstan ’dzin rgyal mtshan). Legs par sbyarba lha’i skad dang gangs can pa’i brda’i shan sbyar ba dri bral nor bu’i melong. Gangtok: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, 1962.

———.Ming gi mngon brjodmdor bsdus pa legs bshad gser gyi lde mig. Gangtok:Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, 1962.

Zhol khang bsod nams dar rgyas. Glu gar tshangs pa’i chab rgyun. Lha sa: Bodljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1992.

Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin shouzangde fanwen beiye jing (Suoweijiaojuan) mulu [Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig zhib ’jug lte gnas su nyar ba’i tala’i lo ma’i bstan bcos (sbyin shog ’dril ma’i par) gyi dkar chag mdor gsal](np, nd).

105Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)