Kurtis R. Schaeffer - A Letter to the Editors of the Buddhist Canon in Fourteenth-Century Tibet -...

A Letter to the Editors o f the Buddhist Canon

in Fourteenth-Century Tibet:

The Yig mkhan m am s la gdam s pa o f

Bu ston Rin chen grub

K u r t i s R. S c h a e f f e r

U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a

In the summer of 1364, at the monastery of Zhwa lu in midwestem Tibet, Bu ston Rin chen grub, scholar, artist, teacher, abbot, and zealous collector of manuscripts containing the word of the Buddha, died at the age of seventy-four.1 During the elaborate rituals of homage and mourning, the Bka* 'gyur, that part of the Tibetan Buddhist canon which contains the Buddha’s word in translation, was recited three times. There could have been no more appropriate act of devotion toward Bu ston, for he had dedicated a large part of his life to the compilation and production of Buddhist canonical collections and had designed the temple at Zhwa lu Monastery in which the B ka’ ‘gyur was housed.2 While his physical remains were distributed as relics throughout Tibet, India, China, and Nepal, the physical manifestations of his religiously motivated scholarly efforts were eventually to spread as far (farther even) in the form of the Tibetan Buddhist canons.

Bu ston’s love of learning and his desire to propagate the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist masters through textual scholarship—just one facet of his contributions to the spread of Buddhist culture in Tibet— are discussed by his biographer and close disciple Sgra tshad pa Rin chen mam rgyal (1318-88) in A Handful o f Flowers. Sgra tshad pa repeatedly stresses his master’s passion for and expertise in such matters. We are told that at the age of four or five, he learned to read perfectly the Tibetan printed script under the tutelage of his mother, not by using a speller as it seems was the norm, but through copying out and thereupon immediately reciting the Atajha Sutra.2* The five-year-old Bu ston then strove to leam the cursive script, and was so distraught when he could not do so that his patron deity, Mari- jughosa, showed him favor and blessed him with the ability to read this version of the Tibetan script.4

Sgra tshad pa elaborates on the theme of textual learning and scholarship in Bu ston’s life in a number of ways. He evokes visions of a scholar at work in the center of his entourage: “Even surrounded by all the scribes and creating many different types of translations and compositions, [Bu ston] dictated without faltering so that the hand of each [scribe] was not

1. Rin chen mam rgyal, Chos, p. 370. See Ruegg 1966: 164-65. Two beautiful images of Bu ston holding a

manuscript can be found in Heller 1999, pis. 63 and 64.2. See Ruegg 1966: 118, where it is stated that Bu ston collected the majority of the works in the Bka' 'gyur.

See Rin chen mam rgyal, Chos, pp. 345-46: nyid kyis bzhengs p a ’i gtsug lag khang du yang rgyud ‘bum dang 'dul ba lug la sogs p a ’i bka’ ‘gyur ro cog phal che ba bzhengs. See Harrison 1996 on the problem of the Bka ’ ‘gyur at

Zhwa lu.3. 'Phags pa ‘d a ’ ka ye shes shes bya ba theg pa chen p o ’i mdo (.Aryatajha-nama-mahdyana-sutra): Ui 1934,

no. 112.4. See Ruegg 1966: 66.

Journal o f the American Oriental Society 124.2 (2004) 265

266 Journal o f the American Oriental Society 124.2 (2004)

empty.” 5 In particular, he focuses on the increasing importance of editorial activities for Bu ston. In 1332 Bu ston was called upon in a vision by the Sa skya pa master, Rje bstun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216). Grags pa rgyal mtshan urged Bu ston not only to compose commentaries on the sütras and tantras, but also to edit: “Edit the word of the Buddha and the treatises in general, and the tantras in particular. Earlier I thought to edit my own works, but I did not finish. Now you must edit them.” 6 Bu ston took his Sa skya pa ancestor’s injunction to heart, placing editorial work at the center of his scholarly activities.

Sgra tshad pa later praises his master’s work as a mature scholar in his fifties, writing: “Through translation and editorial work he has grown the magnificent life-giving tree, the foundation of the Buddhist teachings.” 7 Indeed, references to books, editing, translating, and textual scholarship abound not only in Bu ston’s life story by Sgra tshad pa, but in songs of praise by later Tibetans as well. Writing in 1485, Sákya mchog ldan (1428-1507) praises Bu ston for editing the words of the Buddha anew, and for setting the Himalayas ablaze with the light of the Buddha’s kindness by producing canonical volumes.8

Just three years prior to his death, Bu ston exhorted his close student, Sgra tshad pa, to take up the editorial revision of several of his own manuscripts, with a concern that the work he had initiated at Zhwa lu Monastery continue, and, it sounds, with an almost manic concern that his reputation as a textual scholar not be tarnished after his death. Sgra tshad pa relates how, in a short-tempered mood, his mentor issued these words of warning to him:

My own collection o f manuscripts— the grammatical and tantric works— must be brought to

completion, [for] if I should die, when scholars and peers look at them they will say, “These

manuscripts o f his were not even edited once!” and they will scoff. When the ignorant look at

them, they will scurry about as if their bladders are filled with urine!9

5. Rin chen mam rgyal, Chos, p. 348.5-7: yi ge pa kun gyis mtha' bskor nas ‘gyur dang rtsom pa 7 rigs mi gcig

pa mang po dus gcig pa la mdzad kyang / rang rang gi lag ma stongs par zhal thon du thang Ihod med pa spobs /.

See Ruegg 1966: 123.6. Rin chen mam rgyal, Chos, p. 343.19-22: spyir bka * bstan bcos mams dang khyad par gsang sngags kyi

bstan bcos zhus dag mdzod / yang sgos su nga 7 bstan bcos kun la nga rang gi zhus dag cig by a snyam na ang ma

grub /d a nyid kyis zhus dag gyis shig ces lung bstan /. See Ruegg 1966: 112.7. See Ruegg 1966: 118 and elsewhere. This image is also evoked in Taranatha, Myang, p. 176: sbyin bdag sku

zhang kun d g a ’ don grub kyis mdzad nas thams cad mkhyen pa bu ston lo tsa has sngar ma bsgyur ba 7 mdo rgyud

bstan bcos mang du bsgyur zhing / chad pa rnams kyang hor khong bsabs / rgyun rdzus ma rnams sun phyung /

bka’ bstan bcos khag cig gzhi ‘g yu r/k h a g cig zhu chen / khag cig hor khong bsabs te bstan pa'i srog shing chen

po mdzad L

8. Sakya mchog ldan, Dpal, p. 548.1 -3: phyi mo 7 go rim slar yang bsgrigs pa dang / / sngon mas ma rnyed chos

tshan stong phrag tsam / / gsar du bsnan pa 7 zhus chen dam pa mdzad //gan gs can Ijongs su bka ' dang bstan bcos

kyi / / glegs bam ma nyams sgron ma ‘bar ba yis / / ston pa 7 bstan pa nyi mor Itar gsal ba 7 b ka ' drin mtshungs

med gang las byung gyur ba / / bcom ldan ral gri brgyud bar bcas pa dang / / mkhyen rab dbang phyug bu ston lo

tsa yi / / legs mdzad kun la nges par yi rang zhing / sgo gsum kun nas gus pas phyag ‘tshal lo //.

9. Rin chen mama rgyal, Chos, p. 367 (Ruegg’s edition: f. 37a.7-37b. 1): de bas kyang byings dang rgyud la sogs

rang re 7' dpe skor ‘di tsho la zhu dag bya dgos pa dang yig cha bya ba dam bca ’ ba ‘dra yang yod de /rdzogs pa

chen po 7 ngang du rgyob / nga shi tsa na mkhas pa dang ‘dun pa yod pas bltas na / kho 7 dpe ‘di tsho la zhus dag

gcig kyang ma ‘byor 'dug zer te 'phya / mi shes pas bltas tsa na / phugs cin gyis khengs pa bzhin myur po ‘ong /. See Ruegg 1966: 159-60 for a paraphrase for this difficult passage. Writing in 1779, the Dge lugs pa scholar Ye shes

rgyal mtshan (1713-93) concluded his summary of Bu ston’s life with a paraphrased version of this scene. See Ye

shes rgyal mtshan, Thams, p. 354: byings dang rgyud la sogs pa sgra skor ‘di dag gis gtsos rang r e ’i brtsams chos

‘di dag la zhus dag bya dgos pa mang du yod de da long ma byung / nga shi ba 7 ‘og tu mkhas pas bltas nas legs

par dpyad na kho bo 7 brtsams chos ‘di dag la zhus dag legs po ma byung ‘dug zer ba cig ‘ong / rjes ‘brang gi blun

po tshig tsam gyi rjes su ‘jug pa dag gis bltas nas rigs pas mi dpyod par tshig tsam la zhen pas chu ma thub par

phugs rul ba zhig ‘ong ste bya thabs med gsungs te /.

S chaeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o f Bu ston Rin chen grub 267

It is perhaps fitting, then, that the earliest and most detailed work that describes the process of editing and copying Buddhist manuscripts in Tibet currently known to us is a small letter written by Bu ston. That Bu ston was instrumental in the formation of the Tibetan canonical collections is now well known; during the first half of the fourteenth century, in the wake of nearly six centuries of translation and transmission of Buddhist literature from India and elsewhere to Tibet, the intertwining processes of collation, authentication, and canonization were in full swing. Recent scholarship has drawn a complex picture of the proliferation of canonical collections in Tibet, a picture based primarily on the text-critical study of the relationship between the various recensions of the collections.10 One scholar has recently likened the passage of the multitude of Buddhist manuscripts through Zhwa lu and other monasteries to the shape of an hourglass;11 to these centers of learning were gathered copies of sutras, tantras, poetic songs, and treatises on logic and epistemology from all around Tibet, and through the efforts of scholars like Bu ston, they were transformed into a highly organized body of literature which could then, in a manner of speaking, be mass-produced and reintroduced into the region at large.

We have as yet made far less progress in the study of the actual events, the day-to-day activities that went into the creation of such an enormous body of Buddhist literature.12 The economic, social, political, or institutional realities that constituted the making of a canon are still only poorly known. Who paid for the work? What sorts of laborers were involved and how many, and how might the systems of management that were no doubt necessary for the successful completion of such a large project have been organized? Further, what range of religious significance did the making of a canon hold, either for its patrons, its readers, its editors and scribes, or for the manual laborer who delivered the paper to the monastery?13 More specifically, what steps did the actual work of editing, copying, or proofreading involve?14 Bu ston was renowned for his textual scholarship, which included making fundamental translations (gzhi ‘gyur), revising or editing translated works (zhu chen), and filling in gaps in faulty texts {hor khong/kong gsob p a ) .15 Under what social circumstances and with what material resources did he go about these activities?

It is to these sorts of questions that the letter written by Bu ston to editors of Buddhist texts provides the beginnings of an answer. The two-page letter, containing detailed instructions to the virtuous friends, or kalyanamitras, and distinguished scholars overseeing a manuscript- copying project, is undated and contains no proper names. Though it is thus impossible to

10. See Harrison 1996 as well as the other works listed in his bibliography. Most recently, see Skilling 1997.

The essays collected in Eimer 1992 are foundational for the modem study of the Tibetan Buddhist canons.

11. Harrison 1994.

12. Gronbold 1982 provides a useful summary of the physical aspects of book production in Tibet. Briggs 2000

provides a useful summary of recent work on literacy, reading, writing, and book production more generally in

medieval Europe.

13. For a study of these issues in connection with the printing of the Bkaf ‘gyur and Bstan ‘gyur during the1720s and 1730s at Sde dge, see Schaeffer forthcoming.

14. On this last question, see Schaeffer 1999. See also Samten 1987: 20-36 for passages describing the methodsof the scribes and editors o f the Tshal pa Bka’ ‘gyur o f 1347-49.

15. See Ruegg 1966: 123 and Rin chen mam rgyal, Chos, p. 348.3-4: de la sogspa bka' bstan bcos kha cig gi

gzhi ‘gyu r/kh a cig gi zhu zhen /kh a cig gi hor kong bsabs te /. These activities are also mentioned in the biographical summary of Bu ston in Bkra shis don grub’s mid-sixteenth century history of Zhwa lu. See Bkra shis don grub,

Chos, ff. 31a.4-5: bstan *gyur lha khang du bcos bod du ‘gyur ro cog rnams bzhengs / sngar ma ‘gyur ba mams

bsgyur chad pa rnams hor khong bsab pa la sogs pa mdzad /. See Martin 1997, entry 171, for more information

on this work. See also the history of the Myang valley, which recapitulates much of the phrasing of Sgra tshad pa’s

biography of Bu ston: Taranatha, Myang, pp. 176-77.


say with certainty to whom Bu ston was addressing his instructions, it is quite likely that he was in correspondence with the managers in charge of copying the reorganized Bstan ‘gyur at Zhwa lu monastery. In the catalogue to his Bstan ‘gyur, Bu ston tells us that in mid-1334 the secular ruler of the Zhwa lu region, the nobleman Sku zhang Kun dga’ don grub,16 funded the project, and “invited the most learned scribes in the regions of central and midwestem Tibet.” Three kalyanamitras, Sakya seng ge, Dar ma byang chub, and Gzhon nu ‘phel, came to Zhwa lu to oversee the endeavor.17 It is in all likelihood that these same scholar-craftsmen, in charge of instructing and managing the workers involved in the production of this manuscript version of the Bstan *gyur, were the initial recipients of Bu ston’s letter.

It is certainly possible that this letter was sent to some other editors, perhaps those in charge of the production of a B ka’ ‘gyur at Tshal Gung thang, the consecration of which Bu ston oversaw at Gung thang in 1351 at the invitation of Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje, alias Dge ba’i bio gros (1309-64).181 believe, however, that it is more likely that Bu ston was writing to the scholars working on the Bstan ‘gyur at his home institution of Zhwa lu for the following— admittedly tenuous— reasons. First of all, arguing from negative evidence, we have no definite statement at our disposal that Bu ston actually played a role in the making of the B ka’ ‘gyur of 1347-49 at Tshal Gung thang; the scribal colophons of the Tshal Bka ’ ‘gyur preserved in the Li thang block-print B ka’ ‘gyur list the names of many scholars, and Bu ston is not among them .19 Secondly, Bu ston employs similar terms for his scholarly audience in both his letter to editors and his Bstan ‘guyr dkar chag, including yon tan mkhan po , “distinguished scholar,”20 and dge b a ’i bshes gnyen 2} These scholars are also said to have received gifts (rdzong) in both the letter and the Bstan ‘gyur dkar chag 21 Finally, passages in the letter itself referring to common phrases in sutras make it clear that Bu ston was giving instructions for canonical literature.

This small correspondence provides us a window into the workshop of the creators of a collection of Buddhist literature that would exert a profound impact on the history of Buddhism in Tibet for the next six hundred years. In what follows I will translate this letter and provide a brief commentary upon it. Bu ston opens his letter thus:

Homage to the Virtuous Friends o f All People:

An appeal to the ear o f virtuous friends, the religious stewards and distinguished scholars who

are producing the great treatises, and a request that you work in accordance with the instructions

I have given: through looking them over sufficiently, the guidelines o f my advice will come fully

to distinguished scholars. Take them to heart; it is extremely important that those distinguished

scholars listen.23

16. See Vitali 1990: 89-122 for the most detailed discussion to date on the early history of Zhwa lu, and pp. 9 8 -

103 for the Sku zhang rulers in particular.17. Rin chen grub, Bstan, pp. 637.6-638.1: dkon mchog gsum legs par m chodpa 7 sbyin b d ag /sku zhang chen

po kung dga ’ don grub kyis / dbus gtsang gi sa cha na yod pa 7 yig mkhan gang mkhas mkhas rnams mkhas btus

su spyan drangs te / lung dang rigs pa smra ba 7 dge ba 7 bshes gnyen fäkya seng ge dang / dar ma byang chub

dang / zhon [sic] nu 'phel rnams kyis zhal ta legs par bgyis te /. See Ruegg 1966: 32-33.18. See Ahmad 1995: 109 and Ruegg 1966: 134.

19. See Samten 1987: 20-36. Harrison 1994: p. 315, n. 70 cautiously suggests only that “the Tshal pa Rgyud

may have been influenced by Bu ston’s work to some extent.”

20. Rin chen grub, Bstan, p. 638.3.21. Ibid., p. 637.7.

22. Ibid., p. 638.3.23. Rin chen grub, Directions, pp. 344-45: yongs kyi dge b a ’i bshes gnyen rnams la phyag ‘tshal lo //b stan

bcos chen po bzhengs p a ’i chos gnyer ba dge ba 7 bshes gnyen rnams dang /y o n tan mkhan rnams kyi snyan du

S ch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o fB u ston Rin chen grub 269

After these firm yet conciliatory remarks, Bu ston moves quickly to a detailed description of the process of emending problematic passages in the manuscripts the scribes and proofreaders were copying and editing. Here, as in the rest of the letter, he is giving polite instructions to the kalyânamitras— the editors-in-chief, if you will— on how to direct the workforce of scribes and proofreaders. As we move through the letter we must imagine the many types of manuscripts that had been gathered to the scriptorium at Zhwa lu: some old and brittle, some abounding in spelling mistakes, some in barely legible scribal hands, and some perhaps exquisitely penned in gold ink upon black paper. From the following passage it is clear that Bu ston upheld a strict set of aesthetic guidelines concerning the look of the written page. He continues:

Have [the scribes] insert missing words to be added in [their] original place; affix a paper patch

right upon that [spot] on the thin paper [of the original manuscript, and] write upon that [patch].

Do not write contractions; even those [contractions] present in the original [manuscript] should

be expanded. In spots where insertions o f missing words are needed, repeatedly look over each

small passage [of text] previous [to those spots] when you proofread.

See whether or not the small marginal numbers and notations are legible, and have [the work

ers] insert [them] so as to make those that are illegible or unintelligible, intelligible. See whether

or not the size o f the letters and the slash and dot [punctuation marks] are consistently spaced,

and whether or not each line contains one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty letters.

Please instruct [the scribes] that incomplete [lines] must be written out completely.24

Bu ston then touches on several points quickly, all having to do with the copying and checking of the newly created manuscripts:

Please instruct the writers o f printing style letters to make [them] small, complete, joined, and

firmly printed, and [instruct] the writers o f cursive letters to make [them] such that they don’t

exceed proper orthographic dimensions, [to make them] smooth, generally even, and correctly

spelled.

During proofreading, [the text] should be read out loud slowly and with clarity by the reciter,

and the scribes should certify that reading with the certifier in between work [periods]. At the

end o f completed texts [the scribes] should write a full [record o f certification]. Please instruct

[the workers] to make no omissions or additions.25

At this point Bu ston enters into a fairly technical discussion regarding the proper punctuation of the new manuscripts. Here he is primarily concerned with employing punctuation

gsol ba / nged kyis kha ta byas pa 7 lugs bzhin mdzad ‘tshal ba / gzigs rtog 'them po mdzad nas / yon tan mkhan

po rnams la zhal ta ’i rim pa rnams ma lus par by on cing / yon tan mkhan po mams kyis kyang sems la bzung nas

nyan pa gal che ’o //.

24. Ibid.: chad ‘jug rnams dkyus su chug c in g /sh o g bu srabpa rnams la d e ’i thadkar shog lhan gyis l a / d e ’i

steng du bris / bsdus yig ma byed cig / phyi mo na ‘dug pa kun kyang khrol mdzod / chad ‘jug dgos pa 7 skabs su

zhus dag byed tsa na / d e ’i gong nas dum [345] re skyor la m d zo d /zu r gyi ang chung rnams gsal mi gsal la bltas

nas mi gsal ba dang mi go ba rnams go bar byed du chug m d zo d /y i ge 7* che phra dang /sh a d b ar/tsh eg bar rnams

la dkar tshad Idan ‘ong pa dang / phreng re la yig rdog brgya dang bco Inga nas nyi shu 7 bar tshang bar ‘dug mi

‘dug gzigs la / ma tshang ba rnams la tshang bar bris gsung mdzod /.

25. Ibid., p. 345: yi ge gzab ma pa rnams kyis / thung ba dang rdzogs pa dang / 'dril ba / thebs par ‘ong pa

dang / shar (read: gshar) ma pa rnams kyis / ‘bru ’i thig tshugs dang mi ‘gal zhing / \jam po ‘ong ba dang / spyi

khyab tu snyoms pa dang / dag po ‘ong ba 7' zhal ta mdzod / zhus dag mdzad dus ‘don ba bos bul po mdzad cing

nges po ‘ong ba d a n g / babs sprigs pa la yig mkhan rnams kyis chos cha 7' bar du skad de babs d a n g /y i ge rdzogs

pa 7 gsham rnams su khengs pa bris shing / chad dang lhag pa med pa gyis gsung mdzod /.


marks to divide either major divisions of a given work, or to separate clearly commentarial passages from primary text, or sutra passages:

[The text division called] bam po marks the beginning [of a section], and the [text division

called] le'u marks the end [of a section], and therefore [these cases] require a blank space.

Please instruct [the workers] to make a detailed analysis o f the [punctuation marks:] the single

slash, double slash, quadruple slash, and the dot-and-slash. Add a double slash after such phrases

as “In the sutra . . . ” and after the completion o f root-verses (within a commentary]. Add them

in between commentary and a second [quote from the root-verses], [after] phrases such as “So it

is said . . . , ” [and after] reduplicated letters. Add a dot-and-slash in between commentarial words

following those [root-verses].26

At this point Bu ston devotes just one sentence to the hermeneutics of textual emendation, hinting to us that an editorial process known in classical scholarship as conjectural emendation was in use in fourteenth-century Tibet as well. He writes:

Since an understanding o f the word and the meaning are dependent upon one another, when

some doubt arises, understand the meaning from the word by looking at [the word] analytically,

and the [correct] graph will be understood from the meaning.27

In other words, the text should make sense, and if it does not the editor is encouraged to emend it in accordance with his reasoned understanding of what the text should say. The act of editing was, at least in part, an act of personal interpretation. This method of editing no doubt led to many problems, and not a few anonymous editors have been accused of fabricating meanings on their own in their attempts at conjectural emendation.

Next he addresses the proper writing of Sanskrit mantras in the Tibetan script:

Distinguish the orthography o f [Sanskrit] mantras from that o f Tibetan. Also, write the long

and short [vowels] and the aspirated and unaspirated [consonants] in mantras with no mistakes,

according to manner adhered to in each individual sadhana evocation ritual. D on’t make the mis

take o f patterning your hat after your boot!28

Here it seems that Bu ston was concerned that each tradition of sadhana, or the ritual of deity evocation, retain the proper pronunciation of its unique mantra, so as not to vitiate the efficacy of the ritual. As on paper, so in the spoken word of the ritual performance; for Bu ston

26. Ibid.: bam po mgo skya dang / le ’u gsham skya bya ba lags pas / dkar thob pa dang / chig shad / nyis shad

/ bzhi shad tsheg shad mams la 'ang rtog dpyod zhib po mdzad cing / mdo las bya ba Ita bu sogs dang / rtsa tshig

rdzogs pa 7 rjes nyis shad thob pa yin na 'ang ‘brel pa dang gnyis kyi bar dang / gsungs so bya ba Ita bu sogs nyis

shad thob pa yin na ’a n g /s la r bsdus tshig nyis shad thob pa yin na 'ang/ de ma thag 'grel pa 7 tshig ‘ong ba mams

kyi bar du tsheg shad re byed du chug mdzod /.

The issue of punctuation was taken up later by Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba Chos skyong bzang po (Chos skyong bzang

po, Body p. 88): de dag mams dang tshig rkang mthar / / nyis bshad l e ’u mtshams bzhi shad thob / / ga yig rjes su

chig shad bya / / shad gong phal cher phyi tsheg spang / / rkyang shad dang ni tsheg shad dag / thob tshul skabs

dang sbyar la dpyad //. Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi ‘byung gnas (1699/1700-74) also touches on punctuation in Chos

kyi ‘byung gnas, Thon, p. 78: Ihug pa'i don mang ming mtshams dang / / don ‘bring ‘byed dang don nyung rdzogs

/ / tshigs bead ga mthar chig shad bya / / rdzogs tshig mtha ’ can Ihug pa dang / / tshigs bead rkang mthar nyis shad

‘thob / / don tshan chen mo rdzogs pa dang / / le 'u mtshams su bzhi shad dgos / / nga yig ma gtogs yig shad dbar / /

tsheg med de sogs zhib tu ‘bad//. A recent essay in Tibetan by Ur kho (1995) presents the main features of Tibetan

punctuation and compares older styles with those of contemporary writing.27. Rin chen grub, DirectionSy p. 345: tshig don gnyis rtogs pa p h a r Itos tshur Itos lags p a s / the tshom byung

na Ita rtog zhib p o m dzad p a s tshig las don rtogs shing / don las brda rtog p a lags so /.

28. Ibid., pp. 345-46: sngags brda d a n g /b o d brda gnyis so sor phye ste m dzod/ sngags la ’ang sgrub thabs so

so 7 bzhed tshul gyis / ring thung dang drag zhan sogs ma ‘khrul bar mdzad nas / lham dpe zhwa la bkab pa 7 skyon

[346] med par mdzod /.

S ch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o fB u ston Rin chen grub 271

it was vital that the scribes write down these “words of power” according to exacting traditional specifications, the intricacies of which he was no doubt well versed in, having himself compiled nearly three hundred and fifty mantras.29 “Don’t pattern your hat after your boot” stresses by analogy the importance to the scribe of not just taking any sadhana (a boot) as the model for the mantra at hand (the hat).30

Bu ston then dispenses some advice on spelling manuals, in which he shows a fairly ecumenical distrust for all manuals but his own:

Since there are many different manuals on spelling, work according to the correct [manuals]

I have composed as well as the Imperial D ecree and Rgyab bzang31 [linguistic guides]. Though

there are correct [instructions] in all manuals, since there is the possibility for incorrect [points]

in even the best spellers, [they] are not reliable.32

“Imperial decree” (bka ’ bead or bkas bead) refers to both the Bye brag tu rtogs par byedpa (Mahavyutpatti) and its commentary, the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa (Madhyavyutpatti). The term bkas bead occurs in the introduction and conclusion of Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa (completed 814/15), where it denotes the edicts of Khri lde srong btsan ordering the translation and revision of sutras and sastras.33 Bu ston quotes from the Sgra sbyor in his Chos ‘byung in reference to the bkas bead issued by Ral pa can.34 He also lists three bkas bead works in the catalogue of scripture and treatises in chapter four of the Chos ‘byung.35

The term “imperial decree” also has a wider definition that includes three periods of translation and revision. As noted by both Simonsson and Stein,36 the Li sh'Ti gur khang of Skyogs ston Rin chen bkra shis (ca. 1495-after 1577)37 divided Tibetan translation history into three periods of imperial patronage and direction: (1) that of Khri srong lde btsan, (2) that of Khri Ral pa can, and (3) that of Lha bla ma Ye shes ‘od.38 We can trace this scheme— and indeed the entire passage devoted to the three bkas bead in the Li sh i’i gur khang— to the end of the thirteenth century; writing a generation before Bu ston, Bcom ldan ral gri (1227— 1305)39 describes the three bkas bead in his Sgra’i bstan bcos smra ba rgyan gyi me tog.40

29. See Bu ston’s Collected Works, vol. 16.30. Dpa’ ris sangs rgyas glosses the term zhwa dpe lham bkab in the following way (Dpa’ ris, Dpe , pp. 323—

24): zhwa gang zhes dris pa la lham 4di zhes ston pa ste / gzhug bya dang 'jug byed nor bu 7 dpe 'o /. See also Sangs

rgyas bstan dar and Rigzin 1994: 205.3 1 . 1 have been unable as yet to identify the Rgyab bzang.

32. Rin chen grub, Directions, p. 346: dag byed kyi yig cha mi *dra ba du ma bdog pas nged kyis byas pa 7 nges

pa can mams de bzhin du mdzad cing / gzhan mams bka’ bead dang / rgyab bzang rnams kyi rjes su m d zo d /y ig

cha byung tshad la nges pa bcas kyang / dag yig rab la ’ang ma dag pa srid pas yid mi rton lags so //.

33. For further information on bkas bead in the context of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis p a , see esp. Uray 1989;

also Ishikawa 1990: 2, 4; Verhagen 1996: 282-86; Snellgrove 1987: vol. 2, pp. 442-43; Simonsson 1957: 238-80,

and in particular pp. 246, 259, 263. For recent Tibetan scholarship on this topic, see Gsang bdag 1993. For a detailed

survey o f the lexicographic and grammatical entries of the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa , see Verhagen 1994: 15-45.

34. Compare Rin chen grub, Bde, p. 190.25 through p. 191.4, with Simonsson 1957: 241-42, sections 2 and 3. See also Obermiller 1932: 196-97. See Uray 1989 for an exhaustive discussion of the confusion between Khri lde

srong btsan and Ral pa can in Tibetan historiography dealing with the translation and revision.

35. See Rin chen grub, Bde, p. 310.21-22, and Nishioka 1983: 116.36. See Simonsson 1957: 218 and Stein 1983: 151-52.

37. See Verhagen 1996 on this figure.

38. See Rin chen bkra shis, Bod, pp. 398-99.

39. Bcom ldan ral gri’s hitherto unknown dates have been determined from the biography written at the request

of his uncle by Bsam gtan bzang po: see Bsam gtan bzang po, Bcom, ff. 19a.5-19b.2, and f. 20a.5.

40. Cf. Rin chen bkra shis, Bod, pp. 398-99, with the following passage from Bcom ldan ral gri, Sgra'i, 4b .6-

5b.7: bkas bead la ’ang dang po dang / bar pa tham gsum mi ‘thun //ch o s sgyur ba na lo pan dang rgyal blon dang


It is possible that Bu ston also had this wider sense of bkas bead as the major historiographic periods of translation in mind when he used the term in his instructions.

The term continued to have significance in literature in the centuries following Bu ston. Writing in 1514, Bu ston’s scholarly descendant, Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba Chos skyong bzang po (1441-1527), also makes reference to the imperial decree in the concluding verses of his linguistic survey, the Za ma tog, where he appears to mix both senses of the term.41 Klong rdol Bla ma Ngag dbang bio bzang (1719-94) uses the term with yet a different implication, though still related to book production. He refers to an imperial decree by the “Dharma Kings” of Tibet stating that large scriptural volumes should be written in large headed letters (<dbu can), Indian treatises in a mid-sized script, and Tibetan treatises in a small script.42

Bu ston then takes a step back from the intricacies of the copying and proofreading process, and addresses the realities of managing a work team, a team in which there was a definite hierarchy of labor, and in which schedules were firmly enforced. He warns:

Again, for every single letter have [the workers] make a detailed inspection. Please instruct

[them] to write new writer’s colophons, and not to write the old [colophons], even if patrons

wrote them.

If [the scribes] are not producing letters both distinct and complete, or if they are not listening

to instructions, the religious steward must have a word [with them]. Kindly inform the scribes

and proofreaders o f the scriptorium that the fine will be half an ounce o f tea if [they] do not

come in when the break-time bell has sounded.43

Finally, Bu ston once again stresses the importance of their task, as well as the magnitude of the undertaking. He concludes the letter, writing:

In short: this is not just writing down some village fam ily’s little sutra. These are the manu

scripts o f the nobleman [of Zhwa lu], and therefore care is vital for everyone. Great efforts

should go into attaining provisions [for the workers]. Since we will handsomely provide wages

brda la mkhas pa rnam 'dus te / yul tha dad na ming du ma yod kyang ‘di'i ming ni ‘dir ‘thad do zhes bead pa ni

bka ‘ bead de / de la yang gsum te / mthon mi sambho fa dang btsad po khri srong Ide btsan gyi dus kyi dang po

byas pa ’i ‘gyur rnams ni dang por byas pa 7 bkas bead kyis bsgyur te / sangs rgyas phal po che dang / lung sde bzhi

dang mdo sde kha cig dang / slier phyin gyi mdo kha cig ste skad gsar bad kyi bstan la ma phab pa rnams so //.

. . . [5b.4] gnyis pa skad bsar bead la ni de dag g i zla bo j i skad bshad pa rnams dang gzhan yang deng sang gsung

rab la grags p a ’i ming phal che ba rnams yin no / / bkas bead pa gnyis po de ni mnga’ bdag khri ral pa can yan

chad du bka ’ cog zhang gsum la sogs pas byas pa yin no / / skas bead gsum pa ni lha bla ma ye shes 'od kyi dus kyi

sgra bsgyur rin chen bzang po nas bzung ste kho bo 7 bla ma chag lo che ba dge slong chos rje dpal yan chad kyi

byas pa yin no //.

41. Chos skyong bzang po, Bod, p. 89: bka ' srol de nyid la brten nas / / lo pan skyes mchog du ma yis / / rgya

gar rgya nag kha che dang / li dang bal po 7’ yul sogs nas // thub pa 7 gsung rab sna tshogs bsgyur // brda yang mi

‘dra sna tshogs g y u r // chos rgyal ral pa can gyi dus / ska cog zhang sogs mkhas mang gis / / rgya I po'i bkas bskul

gsar bead kyi / / skad kyis brda sbyar gtan la phab //.

42. Ngag dbang bio bzang, Rig, p. 684: bka ’ pod che ba mams dbu can che bas bri / rgya gzhung bstan chos

rnams dbu can ‘bring pos bri / bod gzhung rnams dbu can chung ngus bri dgos pa bod chos rgyal mams kyi bkas

bead yin /.43. Rin chen grub, Directions, p. 346: yig rdog re r e ’i phyir yang rtog dpyod zhib po mdzod / s by in bdag gis

bris kyang rnying pa ‘dug pa mams ma ‘bri / bris byang so ma ‘bri ba zhal ta 7 gsung bdog pas gzigs nas zhal bkod

mdzod / ‘bru chad ‘them pa 7 gnyis par mi gtong pa dang / zhal ta la mi nyan ba byung na / chos gnyer bas skad

mdzod / gung seng gi ‘khar rda byung nas ma sleb na / ja srang phyed re 7 chad pa la yig tshang de 7* yig mkhan

rnams dang zhus dag pa gsol /.

S ch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o f Bu ston Rin chert grub 273

and bonuses afterwards as befits the qualifications [of the different workers], care is vital for

everyone, so very vital. Be well.44

Clearly for Bu ston the production of a manuscript version of the Buddhist canon was not a domestic affair; this was big business, and everyone must act accordingly. Once again the letter provides a unique glimpse into the social aspects of book production, for from these last passages we can infer several things; first, the craftsmen were generally respected, at least to the extent that they were paid well upon the completion of their duties. This accords with other accounts we have of the treatment of scribes and craftsmen involved in producing canonical literature.45 Disciplinary problems were not unknown in the scriptorium, however, and one wonders to what extent such reprimands as the docking of tea were enforced. Secondly, Bu ston clearly considered this manuscript canon to be the property of Sku zhang Kun dga’ don grub, the ruler of the Zhwa lu region, and not that of the monastery or its abbot. The canon was the property of the patron. Finally, we can infer that in addition to large-scale manuscript copying enterprises such as this, there was also an economy of local, household book production, in which the “little sutras of village families” were copied. It is likely that many of the scribes in the scriptorium at Zhwa lu were employed in such small- scale ventures when not working on canonical projects backed by heavy patronage.

It is clear that Bu ston does not mention every type of craftsman who would have been involved in this enterprise. Fortunately we have a longer list of workers from a Bstan ‘gyur catalogue composed twenty-eight years after Bu ston completed his own project. Beginning June 8, 1362 and finishing November 4 of the same year, three scholars directed a group of craftsmen at Zhwa lu under the patronage of the Phag mo gru leader Ta’i Si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan (1304-64). The catalogue mentions the following craftsmen: directors (zhal ta ba), scribal managers (yig gnyer ba), proofreaders (zhus dag pa ), chief scribes (gtso bo yig mkhan) (also known as “distinguished scholars,” the same appellation given to the recipients of Bu ston’s letter), paper makers (shog bzo ba), engravers (rkos mkhan), goldsmiths who worked on the book covers (gdong rkos kyi gser bzo mkhan), page-numberers (grangs yig pa), collators (gras mkhan), book-strap makers (sku rags mkhan), and blacksmiths who made the buckles for the straps (sku rags kyi chab m a fi mgar ba).46 No specific number of workers is listed in Bu ston’s letter, but based upon other projects at the time it seems likely that the workforce ran into the hundreds. To cite one example from the fourteenth century: sometime

44. Ibid.: mdor na grong pa sgo gcig gi mdo phran gcig 'bri bar mi g d a ' zhing / drung gi phyag dpe lags pas

kun gyis gzab pa gal che 'o / / zhabs thog rnams kyang 'bad pa chen pos sgrub c in g /ph y is yon rdzong rnams kyang

bzang por yon tan la j i Itar 'os pa bzhin zhu ba bgyid pa lags pas kun gyis gzab pa gal che 'o / /g a l che 'o / / f ubham //.

45. Ehrhard (2000: xix) translates an account of a printing project of 1533 in which the craftsmen were said to

be compensated*well. The scribes who worked on the Bka’ 'gyur til ‘Bri gung were also apparently treated well: see

Bstan *dzin padma’i rgyal mtshan, Nges, p. 134: yig rig pa rnams la zang zing gi yon gyis tshim par mdzad /.

46. Bsod nams dpal bzang po, Bstan, p. 568: chu pho stag gi lo 7 zla ba drug pa 7' tshe brgyad la dbu btsugs nas

lo de nyid kyi zla ba bcu pa'i tshes bcu bzhir rdzogs par grub ste / zhu dag mkhan po rnams kyi yongs su dag par

byas te /zh a l ta b a /y ig gnyer ba /zh u s dag p a /y o n tan mkhan po 7* gtso bo yig mkhan / shog bzo ba / rkos mkhan

/g d o n g rkos kyi gser bzo mkhan / grangs yig pa / kag ta pa / gras mkhan / gdong kag pa / sku rags mkhan dang /

sku rags kyi chab ma 7 mgar b a / de rnams rang rang so so 7 zhabs thos dang bcas pa mams / ston mo dang / mdun

'jog dang / bskon dang / bskon spar dang / rdzong ba bzang pos legs par mnyes par byas te /. I have been unable

to determine the meanings of kag ta pa and gdong kag pa. On the historical background of this project, see van der

Kuijp 1994: 140-42.


between 1354 and 1363, Chos kyi rgyal po (1335-1407), the tenth abbot of ‘Bri gung Gdan sa thel, employed four hundred scribes to create a B ka’ ‘gyur for his establishment.47

Nor does Bu ston reveal much about the primary materials used to make these volumes of scripture— the paper and ink that were to embody the word of the Buddha. From other sources we see that throughout the fourteenth century in Dbus and Gtsang B ka ' ‘gyur and Bstan ‘gyur manuscripts were made both with black ink on white paper and with gold or silver ink on blue-black paper. Bu ston himself had three Prajhaparamitd works made with gold lettering sometime between 1332 and 1344.48 According to Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje, in the winter of 1335 Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339) donated the materials for, commissioned, and consecrated a “golden Bstan ‘gyur” (gser gyi bstan ‘gyur)— presumably a manuscript with gold lettering— at Tshal.49 This would have been just one year after Bu ston completed the Bstan ‘gyur at Zhwa lu. Between 1314 and 1334 the ninth abbot of ‘Bri gung mthil monastery, Rdo rje rgyal po (1284-1351), is said to have produced many sutra and vinaya collections in gold ink on blue-black paper.50 During a three-month period in 1389 the tenth abbot of ‘Bri gung, Chos kyi rgyal po, completed a Bstan ‘gyur and a set of Bka’ brgyud pa hagiographies written in black ink on white paper.51 A colophon from the Tshal pa Bka f ‘gyur (as preserved in the Li thang B ka ’ ‘gyur), completed in 1349, just fourteen years after Bu ston’s Bstan ‘gyur, provides a brief vivid description of the materials used; the paper was soft and white like the base of a conch, and the bright and clear ink from China was the color of a blue lotus.52 Finally, in the verse catalog of the B ka* ‘gyur completed in 1431 at Rgyal rtse under the sponsorship of Si tu Rab brtan Kun bzang ‘phags (1389-1442), we are told that Kun bzang ‘phags commissioned black-on-white and gold-on- black B ka’ ‘gyurs as well as a black-on-white Bstan ‘g y u r 53 Clearly the aesthetic qualities of such volumes were important to their makers and patrons, as well as to later historians who saw fit to include such details in accounts of their Buddhist past.

Although it is difficult to trace the specific influence of this letter on later editors, a few examples from biographical literature will suffice to show that the influence of Bu ston as a model textual scholar and bibliophile was great. We may look, for example, to Bo dong Pan chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375-1451), who is said to have received a visionary exhortation by Bu ston to compose his massive Compendium o f Knowledge (De kho na nyid ‘dus pa).54 Two sections of the Compendium , the “Introduction for Novices” (Byis pa ‘jug pa 'i sgo) and the “Explanation on Creating the Three Supports [of the Dharma] according

47. See Bstan ‘dzin padma’i rgyal mtshan, Nges, p. 134: yig mkhan bzhi brgya lhag nges ky is / rgyal ba'i bka '

'gyur ro cog gi glegs bam bzhengs nas / rab tu gnas p a ’i d g a ’ ston rgya chen po dang / yig rig pa mams la zang

zing gi yon gyis tshim par mdzad /.

48. SeeRuegg 1966: 318.

49. Kun dga’ rdo rje, Deb, p. 103.13.

50. Bstan ‘dzin pad ma’i rgyal mtshan, Nges, p. I30.1-.3: mthing shog la gser gyi bris pa ‘dul ba mdo sde sogs

bde bar gshegs pa'i gsung rab mang du bzhengs. A century later, between 1435 and 1468, the thirteenth abbot of

‘Bri gung mthil, Rin chen dpal bzang (1421-69), commissioned a gold-on-black Bka’ 'gyur, which was completed

in three months. See Bstan ‘dzin pad ma’i rgyal mtshan, Nges, p. 150.10-. 14.

51. See Bstan ‘dzin pad ma’i rgyal mtshan, Nges, pp. 135-36.

52. See Samten 1987: 30: gzhi dung gi sa gzhi Itar dkar zhing ‘jam la mkhregs pa 'i steng rgyal po lha khang

gi sho gu la dam che zhing mdangs gsal ba utpala sngon po Ita bu 7 rgya nag chen po las *ong pa 7 snag tshas ‘bur

dkyus tshugs la. . . . /.53. See ‘Jigs med grags pa, Rgyal, pp. 169 and 181. This biographical work on the rulers of Rgyal rtse is rich

with details on the making of manuscripts during the fifteenth century. I hope to return to it for a full treatment in

the near future.

54. See ‘Jigs med ‘bangs, Dpal, p. 223.

S ch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o f Bu ston Rin chen grub 275

to the Sastras” (Rten gsum bzhengs tshul bstan bcos lugs bshad pa ), contain brief but detailed descriptions of the scribe’s craft and his materials.55

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the great editor and textual scholar of Zhwa lu and Dpal ‘khor bde chen, Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba Chos skyong bzang po, carried on the tradition of Bu ston, both as abbot of Zhwa lu and as a well-known editor and translator of scripture. Writing in 1517 his student and biographer, Skyogs ston Lo tsa ba Rin chen bkra shis bio gros, tells us that he performed the duties of the abbatial see just as described in Bu ston’s Testament o f Instructions to Abbots {Mkhan po gdan sa pa la gdams p a 'i bka ‘chems). He frequently read Bu ston’s testaments (bka* chems) to the community at Zhwa lu.56 Though I have been able to find no reference to Bu ston’s letter to editors in Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba’s biography, these small testaments are located in Bu ston’s collected works very close to the letter to editors (at least in the Lhasa edition), suggesting that Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba in all likelihood knew of and read this letter as well. In a touching aside Rin chen bkra shis bio gros reveals that his master wept when reading of the death of Bu ston in Sgra tshad pa’s biography.57 It is thus clear that both the teachings and the life story of Bu ston had enormous impact on Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba’s development as both a scholar and religious leader.58

It is also clear that the letter at least caught the eye of later scholars such as Yongs ‘dzin Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713-93),59 who in 1779 made specific reference to the letter in his catalogue of the edition of Bu ston’s collected works kept at Bkra shis bsam gtan gling monastery in Skyid grong. The specific mention of the letter is significant, for Ye shes rgyal mtshan does not list the rest of Bu ston’s many letters separately. This suggests that Ye shes rgyal mtshan held the letter to be of particular importance in relation to the other letters in this section.60 The fact that he refers explicitly to this letter is all the more significant in light of the fact that earlier catalogs of Bu ston’s collected works by Sgra tshad pa and Bu ston himself do not mention the letter.61

We find further evidence that Ye shes rgyal mtshan relied explicitly upon Bu ston’s scholarly efforts in a fascinating passage from the biography of Ye shes rgyal mtshan by the Eighth Dalai Lama, ‘Jam dpal rgyal mtsho (1758-1804).62 In 1792, during his last year

55. See Phyogs las mam rgyal, Byis, pp. 128.5-132.7 and Phyogs las mam rgyal, Rten, pp. 333.3-342.6. I

think that the Rten gsum bzhengs tshul bstan bcos lugs bshad pa can be placed within Bo dong Pan chen’s Introduc

tion fo r Scholars (Mkhas pa Jug p a ’i sgo ). According to his biographer, ‘Jigs med ‘bangs (fifteenth century), the

De kho na nyid ‘dus pa was divided into four parts, or “introductions” ( Jug p a ’i sgo): (1) Byis pa Jug p a ’i sgo , (2) Mkhas pa Jug p a ’i sgo , 3) Mdo la Jug p a ’i sgo , 4) Sngags la Jug p a ’i sgo. Reading and writing are included

by ‘Jigs med ‘bangs in the Byis pa Jug p a ’i sgo , and practical arts (bzo rig pa) in the Mkhas pa Jug p a ’i sgo. The

Rten gsum bzhengs tshul bstan bcos lugs bshad pa certainly fits within this category. See, ‘Jigs med ‘bangs Dpal,

pp. 227.10-228.13. I am currently preparing a study of Bo dong Pan chen’s comments on manuscript production

and scribal craft.

56. See Rin chen bkra shis, Rje, f. 32a.2; also Bio gsal bstan skyong, Dpal, p. 236.2-.3. Bio gsal bstan skyong

uses Rin chen bkra shis’ biography of Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba in his work, as he tells us at Dpal, p. 241.1.

57. Rin chen bkra shis, Rje, f. 32b.4-.6.

58. I am currently preparing a study of Zhwa lu Lo tsa ba’s career as a textual scholar as portrayed in Rin chen

bkra shis, Rje.59. See Smith 2001: 171-76, for more on this important eighteenth-century scholar.

60. See Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Thams, p. 367.5, where the letter is referred to as yig mkhan mams la gdams pa ,

“instruction to scribes,” and is listed in volume Za (22) of the twenty-two volume edition of Bu ston’s works at Bkra

shis bsam gtan gling.

6 1. See Rin chen mam rygal, Kun, p. 3 4 1.5 -6 ; Rin chen mam rgyal, Bka ’, pp. 331-32; Rin chen grub, Bu, p. 654.

62. I paraphrase from ‘Jam dpal rgya mtsho, Dpal, pp. 298.3-300.1: gzhan yang dpal gsang ba ‘dus p a ’i rtsa

rgyud kyi ‘g re lp a sgron ma gsal b a ’i d k a ’ gnas m am s rje tsong kha pa chen p o ’i mchan gyi sgo nas ‘grol bar


as tutor to the Dalai Lama (and the last year of his life), Ye shes rgyal mtshan undertook the editing of Tsong kha pa Bio bzang grags pa’s (1357-1419) commentary on the difficult points in the Pradipodyotana commentary of the Guhyasamaja Tantra.63 According to ‘Jam dpal rgya mtsho, copies of Tsong kha pa’s commentary existed at both Bkra shis lhun po and ‘Bras spungs monasteries. Unfortunately, these copies had many orthographic errors introduced by bad practices. These errors included broken verses, commentarial annotations confused with lines of the basic text, faulty punctuation, and unclear word separation.

Ye shes rgyal mtshan set about creating a corrected edition of Tsong kha pa’s work with methods comparable to those of Bu ston. First he collected a number of witnesses, including many old prints of both the Guhyasamaja Tantra itself as well as old xylograph prints of the Pradipodyotana from ‘Bras spungs, Bkra shis lhun po, Ri bo mdangs chen, and Snar thang. He utilized a number of Tibetan commentaries, including one by Bu ston.64 He also used a manuscript copy of the Guhyasamaja Tantra believed to be the actual manuscript of Tsong kha pa himself, as well as a manuscript belonging to the Seventh Dalai Lama, Skal bzang rgya mtsho (1708-57). To correct grammatical errors Ye shes rgyal mtshan used the Sum rtags and unidentified commentaries upon it. He “eliminated the orthographic errors that had been mixed in with and corrupted the Buddha’s teachings.” He also edited the tantra itself, as well as Tsong kha pa’s smaller commentary.65

As in the case of Bu ston’s efforts at Zhwa lu, the textual production of Ye shes rgyal mtshan went beyond purely editorial concerns to the physical qualities of the finished volume, though where Bu ston created finely crafted books for the nobleman of Zhwa lu, Ye

mdzad pa 7 legs bshad rmad du byung ba sgron gsal mchan gyi yang 'grel 'di bzhin bkras lhun dang 'bras spungs

gnyis kar bar du bzhugs kyang bris nor rgyun ‘byams kyis gzhung gi tshig rkang chad pa dang / mchan dkyus dang

dkyus mchan du shor ba dang / sbrul shad dang / gcod mtshams nor ba dang / yi ge 7 sdebs sbyor nor ba sogs ma

dag pa du ma zhig mchis pa mams dpal gsang ba ‘dus pa 7 rtsa rgyud dang / 'grel pa sgron gsal gyi dpe niying

mang po dang / sgron gsal ‘bras par dang / bkras par / ri bo mdangs chen gyi par mying / snar thang gi par ma

mams dang / chos rje bu ston rin chen grub kyis mdzad pa 7 sgron gsal gyi bshad sbyar mtha ’ drug gsal bar byed

pa 7 bsdus don zhes by a ba dang/kun mkhyen 'phags 'od kyis mdzad [299] pa 7 sgron gsal rnam nges / rgyud chen

sbyin pa dpal ba 7 rgyud fik / rgyud stod smad kyi rgyud tik sogs gzhung mang po dang / khyad par sgron gsal

mtshan ma 7 gzhung gi phyi mo Ita bu chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po'i phyag dpe ngo mar grags pa da Ita

dpal Idan smad rgyud grwa tshang gi nang rten du bzhugs pa 'di dang / rgyal mchog bio bzang bskal bzang rgya

mtsho 7 gzigs dpe sngon gyi yig rnying pod gnyis 'dug pa rnams la zhib par gzigs te zhus dag legs par mdzad cing

/ y i ge'i spebs nor ba rnams sum rtags rtsa 'grel dang / bod kyi b rda’i bye brag khungs ma mang po dang bstun te

bris nor rgyu 'byams kyis bstan pa la bsre bslad tshud pa mams legs par bsal nas dag pa 7’ phul du mdzad cing / de

mtshungs rtsa rgyud dang mtha ’ gcod bsdus don mams kyi tshig don la skyon 'jug pa 7 bri nor rnams kyang 'chos

par mdzad nas rje rang nyid kyi gzigs dpe thugs dam rten du gsang ba 'dus pa 7 rtsa rgyud / sgron gsal mtshan ma

/ m tha' gcod myu gu / bsdus don dang bcas pa mthing shog bzang po la gser btsom 'ba ' zhig gis bris pa zhig dang

/ skya pod gcig bcas gsar bzhengs mdzad de pod le tshan la mdzod gos tshos kha sum brtsegs kyi na bza ’ dang / gos

rgyu rnying gi gdong dar / rin chen dang po 7 khu bas bkra shis rtags brgyad sogs bris pa 7 shing gi glegs bu la

stong skud kyi glegs thag dngul gyi chab rise 'byar ba yi ge [300] gzabs bris khyad thon gsar bzheng mdzad cing

/ de la ma phyi byas te bdag cag gi blta dper yang rje ‘dis Ijags zhus kyi ‘grel pa bzhi sbrags kyi glegs bam byin

rlabs gzi 'od ‘bar ba zhig kyang yod do //.

63. Rgyud thams cad kyi rgyal po dpal gsang ba ‘dus p a ’i rgya cher bshad pa sgron ma gsal ba 7 tshig don j i

bzhin 'byed p a ’i mchan gyi yang 'grel. 476fif. in vol. nga o f the eighteen-volume New Zhol Par khang edition of the

collected works of Tsong kha pa. Kanakura 1953, no. 5282.64. Sgron ma gsal bar byed p a ’i bshad sbyar mtha’ drug rab tu gsal bar byed pa. 2 7 1 ff. in vol. 9 of the Lha

sa Zhol Gsar print of Bu ston’s gsung 'bum. Kanakura 1953, no. 5077.

65. Rgyud kyi rgyal po dpal gsang ba 'dus pa 7 rgya cher bshad pa sgron ma gsal ba 7 d k a ' ba 7 gnas kyi mtha ’

gcod rin po che’i myu gu. 138ff. in vol. ca of the New Zhol Par khang edition. Kanakura 1953, no. 5284.

shes rgyal mtshan created them for his pupil and leader, the Eighth Dalai Lama. “As a visual aid and meditation support” for the Dalai Lama himself, Ye shes rgyal mtshan had the Tantra itself, the Pradlpodyotana, and Tsong kha pa’s two commentaries bound in a single ornate volume written in gold ink on good black paper This “specially produced” volume was covered in silk brocade, had a title flap of old material, book boards with the eight auspicious symbols written upon them in gold ink, and was bound by a silk strap with a silver buckle. In a clear link between editorial activity, book production, patronage, and the power attributed to finely crafted volumes of scripture, the Eighth Dalai Lama states that Ye shes rgyal mtshan’s finished volume is “a visual aid for us, aglow with the luster of blessings.” Ye shes rgyal mtshan’s choice to reproduce Tsong kha pa’s commentaries is interesting in light of the fact that the earliest known printed works in Central Tibet were prepared by Tsong kha pa himself between 1418 and 1419, and these were none other than the Guhyasamája Tantra and the Pradlpodyotana.66 Could these have been among the prints at ‘Bras spungs? And yet, even in the “golden age” of Tibetan xylograph printing during the eighteenth century, Ye shes rgyal mtshan produced a handwritten manuscript of his editions of these works. This four-part volume was not, after all, intended for mass dissemination, but as an ornate and unique offering to the Eighth Dalai Lama. Again we find the close link between the aesthetics of book production and patronage first encountered in Bu ston’s letter to editors.

Aside from the provocative picture of life in a scriptorium sketched out in this small letter to editors from the fourteenth century, what strikes the reader in this letter is the vehemence with which Bu ston imparts his rather technical instructions on the details of working with texts, a vehemence that is motivated by, among other things, the importance of such craftsmanship for the preservation and propagation of Buddhist literature, of Buddhist doctrine, in Tibet. The work of editing, proofreading, and copying was for Bu ston religious work, work that was as important as the painting of mandalas or the construction of stupas, both of which he was involved in as well. We can parallel his planning of murals with his instructions to editors; in both cases he appears to have been a sort of executive producer more than a hands-on craftsman.67 Manuscript production was a practical manifestation of the second of the triad of foundations for Buddhist religious life, the foundations for the enlightened body (sku rten), speech (gsung rten), and mind (thugs rten) of the Buddha himself, manifested in statues, scriptures, and stupas respectively, and for this reason, as Bu ston states at the close of his letter, in editing “care is vital for everyone, so very vital.” The zeal evinced by Bu ston for developing rules for scriptoria under the patronage of the Zhwa lu Ska zhang bears comparison with the emphatically prescriptive verses in praise of the early medieval European scriptorium by Alcuin (ca. 735-804), central figure of the Carolingian renaissance under Charlemagne: “May those who copy the pronouncements of the holy law and the hallowed sayings of the saintly Fathers sit here. Here let them take care not to insert their vain words, lest their hands make mistakes through such foolishness. Let them resolutely strive to produce emended texts and may their pens fly along the correct path.”68

In Bu ston’s letter we also see another, and perhaps more immediate reason, for careful work, which is that the manuscripts, indeed the whole venture, were in fact the property of the Lord of the Manor at Zhwa lu. At the close of the letter, just where one might expect a call for treating the sacred word of the Buddha with respect, we find instead a call to treat

66. See Jackson 1990: 106 and 114 n. 2.

67. See Jackson 1996: 76, 86, and nn. 169-70 for a clarification of Bu ston’s role as a planner in the production

of mandalas at Zhwa lu.68. Quoted in Ganz 1995: 791.

Sch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o fB u ston Rin chert grub 277


the property of the one who is meting out the wages with all the respect that such an employer deserves! In broad terms, the importance Bu ston places on ownership resonates well with Kapstein’s recent insight that for the rulers of Tibet . . possession of the canon signified the incorporation into the monarch’s domain of the well-ordered empire of enlightened reason.”69 From this small letter we also learn that Bu ston did much more than add one thousand works to the emerging Bstan ‘gyur, the achievement for which he has been primarily known; he developed, or at the very least clearly articulated, an aesthetic for canonical volumes. Moreover, this drive for aesthetic sophistication and symmetry was, the letter suggests, directly related to patronage.70

Here we see that economic, religious, and, as we noted previously, personal concerns about his reputation as a scholar— all these facets of living and working in the monastery of Zhwa lu— played a role in Bu ston’s plea for fine and detailed work. In this fascinating undertaking of 1334, we thus find an interface between several spheres of Buddhist life: scholastic concerns, practical arts, devotional practice, and the economic and religious importance of the patron-patronized relationship. Beginning with the written letter on paper, and spiraling outward from there in expanding circles of religious practice and social life, Bu ston’s letter provides a rare glimpse into the realities of Buddhist book production in premodem Tibet, and more broadly into Buddhist literature in its most physical sense.

It is clear that the scribal craft was a continuing topic of concern for Tibetan scholars in the centuries following Bu ston, as evidenced by works such as Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho’s (1653-1705) work of 1681, the Clear Crystal Mirror: A Guideline fo r Clarifying Regulations and Prohibitions in Twenty-One [Chapters], which contains instructions to scribes of the Dga’ ldan pho brang government on the proper writing, editing, and rewriting of official documents.71 The task remains to collect references to scribal work and book production from all periods and institutional settings in order to develop a more general understanding of the role of books in Tibetan social and cultural life.

69. Kapstein 2000: 56. See McKitterick 1989: 157-64 for a relevant discussion of book ownership in Caro-

lingian Europe.

70. Harrison 1996: 85-86 touches on this issue.

71. See chapter seven of Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Blang, pp. 37.6-40.2.

B IB L IO G R A PH Y

Tibetan Works

Kun dga’ rdo rje, Tshal pa (1309-1364). Deb ther dm ar p o rnams kyi dang p o hu lan deb ther. Mi rigs

dpe skrun khang, Beijing, 1981.

Bkra shis don grub (16th c.). Chos grwa chen po dpal zha lu gser khang gi bdag p o jo bo Ice’i gdung

rabs. Unpublished manuscript, 55 fols.

Ngag dbang bio bzang, Klong rdol bla ma ( 1719- 1794). Rig gnas ehe ba sgra rig pa / snyan ngag [ /]

sdeb sbyor / zlos gar / mngon brjod / brda gsar rnying g i khyad p a r rnams las byung ba 7 ming gi

grangs. Klong rdol ngag dbang bio bzang gi gsung ‘bum. Bod Ijongs bod yig dpe mying dpe skrun

khang, Lhasa, 1991. Gangs can rig m dzod 20. Vol. 1, pp. 657- 86.

Bcom ldan ral gri (1227-1305). Sgra'i bstan bcos smra ba rgyan gyi me tog. Cultural Palace o f

Nationalities, Beijing. Ms. 22 fols.

Chos kyi ‘byung gnas, Si tu Pan chen (1699/1700-1774). Thon m i’i legs bshad sum cu p a ’i snying po

Ijon pa 7* dbang po. Sum rtags rtsa ba dang de 7 ‘grel pa si tu 7 zhal lung. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,

Beijing. Pp. 76-78 .

S c h a e f f e r : The Y ig mkhan m am s la gdams pa o f Bu ston Rin chert grub 279

Chos skyong bzang po, Zhwa lu Lo tsä ba (1441-1527). Bod kyi b r d a ’i bstan bcos legs p a r b sh a d p a

rin p o che'i za ma tog bkod p a (1514). Dag yig skor gyi dpe rgyun dkon po 4ga ' phyogs geig tu

bsgrigs pa mu tig tshom bu. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Xining, 1998. Pp. 39-92 .

‘Jam dpal rgya mtsho, Dalai Lama VIII (1758-1804). D pal Idan bla ma dam pa rigs dang dkyil 4khor

rgya mtsho 7 mnga ' bdag b k a ' drin gsurn Idan yongs 4dzin pandi ta chen po rje btsun ye shes rgyal

mtshan dpal bzang po 7 sku gsung thugs kyi rtogs pa brjod pa thub bstan padm o 4byed pa 7* nyin

byed. Biography o f Tshe-gling Yongs- 'dzin Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan by Dalai Lama VIII. Ngawang Gelek Demo, Delhi, 1969.

‘Jigs med grags pa (15th c.). Rgyal rise chos rgyal gyi rnam p a r thar pa d a d p a ' i lo thog dngos grub

kyi char ‘bebs (1479-1481). Bod Ijongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa, 1987.

‘Jigs med ‘bangs (15th c.). Dpal Idan bla ma dam pa thams cad mkhyen pa phyogs thams cad las rnam

p a r rgyal ba 7* zhabs kyi rnam p a r thar p a ngo mtshar kyi dga ' ston. Bod Ijongs bod yig dpe mying

dpe skrun khang, Lhasa, 1991. Gangs can rig m dzod 15.

Täranätha (1575-1634) (Authorship uncertain). Myang yul stod sm ad bar gsum gyi ngo mtshar gtam

legs bshad m k h a sp a 'i 4jug ngogs. Bod Ijongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa, 1983.

Bstan ‘dzin padma’i rgyal mtshan, ‘Bri gung Che tshang IV (1770-1826). Nges don bstan p a 'i snying

p o mgon po 4bri gung pa chen p o 'i gdan rabs chos kyi byung tshul gser g y iph ren g ba. Bod Ijongs

bod yig dpe mying dpe skrun khang, Lhasa, 1989. Gangs can rig m dzod 8.

Dpa’ ris sangs rgyas. Dpe chos rna ba 'i bdud rtsi. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Xining,

1985.

Phyogs las mam rgyal, Bo don Pan chen (1375-1451). Rten gsum bzhengs tshul bstan bcos lugs bshad

pa. Encyclopedia Tibetica: The Collected Works o f Bo-dong pan-chen phyogs-las-m am -rgyal. Tibet

House, 1969. Vol. 2, pp. 265-342 .

_________ . Byis p a 4ju g p a ’i sgo. Encyclopedia Tibetica: The C ollected Works o f Bo-dong pan-chen

phyogs-las-rnam-rgyal. Tibet House, 1970. Vol. 9, pp. 12-188.

Bio gsal bstan skyong, Zhwa lu Ri phug Sprul sku (1804-c . 1874). D pal Idan zhwa lu p a ’i bstan pa la

bka' drin ehe ba 'i skyes bu dam pa m am s kyi rnam thar lo rgyus ngo mtshar dad p a ’i 4jug ngogs.

On the H istory o f the M onastery ofZhwa-lu. Tashi Yangphel Tashigang, Leh, 1971. Pp. 1-471.

Rin chen bkra shis, Skyogs ston Lo tsä ba (16th c.). Bod kyi skad las g sa r m ying gi brda'i k h ya d p a r

ston p a legs p a r bshad pa li shi 7 gur khang. Dag yig skor gyi dpe rgyun dkon p o 4ga ’ phyogs gcig

tu bsgrigs pa mu tig tshom bu. Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Xining, 1998. Pp. 3 9 7 -4 2 4 .

_________ . Rje btsun zhwa lu lo tsä ba 'i rnam p a r thar pa brjed byang nor b u ’i khri shing (1517). Un

published manuscript, 42 folios.

Rin chen grub, Bu ston (1290-1364). Bstan 4gyur gyi dkar chag yin bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal p o ’i

phreng ba. The C ollected Works o f Bu-ston. Edited by Lokesh Chandra. International Academy of

Indian Culture, New Delhi, 1971. Vol. 26, pp. 401-644 .

_________ . Bde b a r gsh egs p a ' i bstan p a ' i g sa l b yed chos kyi 4byung gnas gsung rab rin po c h e ’i

mdzod. Edited by Rdo rje rgyal po. Krung g o ’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing, 1981.

Pp. 1-317.

_________ . Bu ston rin p o che'i b k a ’ 4bum gyi dkar chag chos rje nyid kyis m dza d p a . The Collected

Works o f Bu-ston. Ed. Lokesh Chandra. International Academy o f Indian Culture, New Delhi, 1971.

Vol. 26, pp. 645-56 .

_________ . [Untitled, listed in table o f contents as “Directions to the editors and publishers o f the

Buddhist Scriptures”]. The Collected Works o f Bu-ston. Ed. Lokesh Chandra. International Acad

emy of Indian Culture, New Delhi, 1971. Vol. 26, pp. 3 4 4 -4 6 .

Rin chen mam rgyal, Sgra tshad pa (1318-88). Kun mkhyen bu ston gyi b k a ' 4bum dkar chag. The Col

lected Works o f Bu-ston. Ed. Lokesh Chandra. International Academy o f Indian Culture, New Delhi,

1971. Vol. 28, pp. 3 3 3 -4 2 .

_________ . Bka' 4 bum gyi dkar chag rin chen Ide mig. The C ollected Works o f Bu-ston. Ed. Lokesh

Chandra. International Academy o f Indian Culture, New Delhi, 1971. Vol. 28, pp. 319-32 .

_________ . Chos rje thams cad mkhyen pa bu ston lo tsä b a ’i rnam p a r thar pa snyim p a 'i me tog. In

Bde bar gshegs pa 7 bstan pa 7 gsal byed chos kyi 4byung gnas gsung rab rin p o ehe 7 mdzod. Ed.

Rdo rje rgyal po. Krung g o ’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, Beijing, 1981. Pp. 318-74 .


Säkya mchog ldan (1428-1507). Dpal Idem a ti sha sras dang brgyud bar bcas p a ’i ngo mtshar m dzad

p a 'ip h ren g ba spel legs. The Complete Works (gsuh 'bum) o f Gser-mdog Pan-chen Säkya-mchog-

Idan. Kunzang Tobgey, Thimphu, 1975. Vol. 16, pp. 538.3-550.2 .

Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Sde srid (1653-1705). Blang dor gsal bar ston p a 'i drang thig dwangs shel

me long nyer gcig pa (1681). Blah dor gsa l bar ston p a 'i dran thig dwahs sei me loh: A Treatise

on the Sixteen Fundamental Principles o f Tibetan Administrative Law. Tibetan Bonpo Monastic

Center, Dolanji, 1979. Pp. 1-83.

Bsam gtan bzang po. Bcom ldan ral g ri' i m am thar Id a d p a 'i Ijong shing. Unpublished manuscript,

26 fols.

Bsod nams dpal bzang po; Säkya ‘od; Byang chub rgyal mtshan. Bstan bcos 'gyur ro ‘tshal gyi dkar

chag y id bzhin nor bu rin po ehe 'i za ma tog. The Collected Works o f Bu-ston. Ed. Lokesh Chandra.

International Academy o f Indian Culture, N ew Delhi, 1971. Vol. 28, pp. 3 4 3 -5 7 4 . (Incorrectly

attributed to Sgra tshad pa Rin chen mam rgyal.)

Ye shes rgyal mtshan, Tshe mchog gling yongs ‘dzin (1713-1793). Thams cad mkhyen pa bu ston rin

chen grub kyi gsung ‘bum gyi dkar chag bstan p a rin po che'i mdzes rgyan phul byung g ser gyi

phreng ba (1779). The Collected Works (Gsuh-'bum) o f Tshe-mchog-glih yohs-'dzin ye-ses-rgyal-

mtshan. Tibet House, New Delhi, 1975. Vol. 5, pp. 261-735 .

Secondary Works

Ahmad, Z. 1995. A History o f Tibet by Nag-dBah Blo-bZah rGya-mTSHo, Fifth Dalai Lama o f Tibet.

Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana Univ.

Briggs, Charles. 2000. Historiographical Essay: Literacy, Reading, and Writing in the Medieval West.

Journal o f M edieval History 26: 39 7 -4 2 0 .

Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 2000. The Oldest Block Print o f Klong-chen R a b - 'byams-pa 's Theg mchog mdzod:

Facsimile Edition o f Early Tibetan Block Prints. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute.

Eimer, H. 1992. Ein Jahrzehnt Studien zur Überlieferung des tibetischen Kanjur. Wiener Studien zur

Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 28. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische

Studien Universität Wien.

Ganz, David. 1995. Book Production in the Carolingian Empire and the Spread o f the Caroline Minis

cule. In The New Cambridge M edieval History , vol. 2: c. 700-c. 900 , ed. Rosamond McKitterick.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Pp. 786-807 .

Gronbold, Giinter. 1982. De Schrift- und Buchkultur Tibets. In D er Weg zum Dach der Welt, ed. Clau

dius C. Müller and Walter Raunig. Innsbruck: Pinguin-Verlag. Pp. 363-80 .

Gsang bdag. 1993. Skad gsar bead mam pa gsum gyi dus rim gyi dbye ba dang de’i dgos don skor

bshad pa. Krung g o 'i bod kyi shes rig , 2: 3 3 -4 0 .

Harrison, P. 1994. In Search o f the Tibetan Bka’ ‘gyur: A Reconnaissance Report. In Tibetan Studies:

Proceedings o f the 6th Seminar o f the International Association fo r Tibetan Studies, ed. P. Kvaeme.

Oslo: The Institute o f Comparative Research in Human Culture. Vol. 1: 295-317 .

_________ . 1996. A Brief History o f the Tibetan bKa’ ’gyur. In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre ,

ed. R. R. Jackson and J. I. Cabezon. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Pp. 70-94 .

Heller, Amy. 1999. Tibetan Art: Tracing the Development o f Spiritual Ideals and Art in Tibet 6 0 0 -

2000 a .d . Milan: Jaca Book.

Ishikawa Mie. 1990. A Critical Edition o f the Sgra sbyor bam p o gnyis spa: An O ld and Basic Com

m entary on the Mahävyutpatti. Tokyo: Töyö Bunko.

Jackson, David P. 1990. The Earliest Printings o f Tsong-kha-pa’s Works: The Old D ga’-ldan Editions.

In Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in M em ory ofTurrell V. Wylie , ed. Lawrence Epstein and

Richard F. Sherboume. Lewiston, Maine: Edwin Mellen Press. Pp. 107-16.

_________ . 1996. A H is tory o f Tibetan Painting: The G reat Tibetan P ain ters and Their Traditions.

Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kanakura Ensho, ed. 1953. A C ata logue o f the Tohoku U niversity C ollection o f Tibetan Works on

Buddhism. Sendai: Seminary o f Indology, Tohoku Univ.

Kapstein, Matthew T. 2000. The Tibetan Assim ilation o f Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and

Memory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Sch aeffer: The Yig mkhan mams la gdams pa o f Bu ston Rin chen grub 281

Martin, Dan. 1997. Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography ofTibetan-Language Historical Works. London:

Serindia Publications.

McKitterick, Rosamond. 1989. The Carolingians and the Written Word. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press.

Nishioka Soshu. Index to the Catalogue Section o f Bu-ston’s “History o f Buddhism.” Annual Report

o f the Institute f o r the Study o f C ultural Exchange , The U niversity o f Tokyo. (I) No. 4, 1980,

pp. 61-92; (II) No. 5, 1981. pp. 43-94; (III) No. 6, 1983, pp. 47 -200 .

Obermiller, E. 1932. The H istory o f Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-Ston. Heidelberg: Harrassowitz.

Ruegg, D. S. 1966. The Life o f Bu ston Rin p o ehe. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il M edio ed Estremo

Oriente.

Samten, J. S. 1987. Notes on the Lithang Edition o f the Tibetan bKa’- ’gyur. Tibet Journal 12: 17-40.

Sangs rgyas bstan dar, and Tsepak Rigzin. 1994. Bod dbyin shan sbyar gyi tshig tshogs dang gtam

dpe: Tibetan Quadrisyllabics, Phrases and Idioms. Lhasa: Library o f Tibetan Works and Archives.

Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 1999. Printing the Words o f the Master: Tibetan Editorial Practice in the Collected

Works o f ‘Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I (1648-1721). Acta Orientalia 60: 159-77.

_________ . Forthcoming. Editorial Perfection and Spiritual Failure: Creating the Bka’ ‘gyur and Bstan

‘gyur at Sde dge. In Proceedings o f the 8th Seminar o f the International Association o f Tibetan

Studies. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana Univ.

Simonsson, Nils. 1957. Indo-Tibetische Studien: Die Methoden der Tibetischen Übersetzer, untersucht

im Hinblink auf die Bedeutung ihrer Übersetzungen fü r die Sanskritphilologie. Uppsala: Almqvist

& Wiksells Boktryckeri AB.

Skilling, P. 1997. From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur. In Transmission o f the Tibetan

Canon: Proceedings o f the 7th Seminar o f the International Association f o r Tibetan Studies, Graz

1995 , ed. H. Eimer. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. 3:

87-111 .

Smith, E. Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts: H istory and Literature o f the Himalayan Plateau , ed.

Kurtis R. Schaeffer. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Snellgrove, David. 1987. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors.

Boston: Shambala Publications.

Stein, Rolf Alfred. 1983. Tibetica Antiqua I. Bulletin de T École française d ’Extrême-Orient 72: 149—

236.

Ui Hakuji et al. 1934. A Catalogue-Index o f the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Sendai: Töhuko Imperial

Univ.

Uray, Géza. 1989. Contributions to the Date o f the VyM/pcm-Treatises. Acta Orientalia Academ iae

Scientarium Hungaricae 43: 3 -21 .

Ur kho. 1995. Rkyen gyi yi ge dang de’i ‘jug tshul la rdo tsam dpyad pa. Krung g o ’i bod kyi shes rig ,

1: 136-41 .

van der Kuijp, L. W. J. 1994. Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History I: Ta’i-si-tu Byang-chub

rgyal-mtshan as a Man o f Religion. Indo-Iranian Journal 37: 139-49 .Verhagen, Pieter C. 1994. A H istory o f Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet, vol. I: Transmission

o f the Canonical Literature. Leiden: Brill.

_________ . 1996. Tibetan Expertise in Sanskrit Grammar: Ideology, Status, and Other Extra-Linguistic

Factors. In Ideology and Status o f Sanskrit: Contributions to the H istory o f the Sanskrit Language ,

ed. Jan E. M. Houben. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 275-87 .

Vitali, R. 1990. Early Temples o f Central Tibet. London: Serindia.

Kurtis R. Schaeffer - A Letter to the Editors of the Buddhist Canon in Fourteenth-Century Tibet -...

Documents

Transcript of Kurtis R. Schaeffer - A Letter to the Editors of the Buddhist Canon in Fourteenth-Century Tibet -...