In his ‘Mythologie des Buddhismus,’ Grünwedel gives on p. 59 the
figures of a triad of famous reformers of lamaism; Rje Rin po chʽe,
better known as Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and his two pupils, Rgyal tsʽab rje and
Mkʽas grub rje. On pp. 70–72 he gives biographical notes concerning the
three, and indicates their place and historical importance in lamaism.
Günther Schulemann, in ‘Die Geschichte der Dalailamas,’ gives in
chapters II and III a complete compilation of what is known about these
three.
In the modern Dge lugs pa sect their historical importance has never
been lost sight of and their memory is kept green by a universal prayer
or invocation, still in daily use, opening and closing every ceremony
in a Dge lugs pa monastery. In preceding a ceremony it runs as
follows:—
གངས་ཅན་ཤིང་རྟའི་སྲོལ་འབྱེད་ཙོང་ཁ་པ ༎
དངོས་སྟོབས་རིག་པའི་དབང་ཕྱུག་རྒྱལ་ཚབ་རྗེ ༎
མདོ་སྔགས་བསྟན་པའི་བདག་པོ་མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེ ༎
རྒྱལ་བ་ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ ༎
To the repairer of the Tibetan vehicle, Tsoṅ kʽa pa (the
Onionlander),
To the true, strong, wise Lord Rgyal tsʽab rje (Noble
Throne-prince),
To the sūtra and mantra teaching master Mkʽas grub rje (Noble
Cleverness-perfection)
To these three victorious (illustrious) Father and Sons (Family of
three), obeisance!
In closing the ceremony the words ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ་ are changed into གྱི་བཀྲ་ཤིས་
ཤོག་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’
When the monks meet for གསོལ་ཇ་, collective or communal tea drinking,
the last three words are changed into མཆོད་པ་འབུལ་, ‘we give our
offering,’ said before drinking the first cup and whilst sprinkling a
few drops in libation with two fingers, the thumb and fourth finger of
the right hand. At the termination of tea drinking nothing is said at
all. Except for these changes the formula remains the same for all
occasions.
Another pupil of Tsoṅ kʽa pa was his own nephew Dge ḥdun grub, about
whom further particulars are given in the same passages of the two
works cited above, and who may be called the first Dalai Lama, though
not known by that title but by that of Rgyal ba, or conqueror. Yet it
will be seen from the above formula that the three who are together
called ཡབ་སྲས་ ‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two
spiritual sons or pupils, are all three called རྒྱལ་བ་. The expression
ཡབ་སྲས་ has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’
‘family,’ just like ཕ་མ་ means ‘parents.’
From this དགེ་འདུན་གྲུབ་ a small poem in praise of his teachers, the ཡབ་
སྲས་, has come to us, which we now publish. Of མཁས་གྲུབ་རྗེ་ it is said that
he founded a formal cult of his teacher Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and it may be that
his devotional attitude found a reflection in this poem, showing the
attitude taken by his own pupil towards him and his two other teachers
in his turn.
This poem occurs in a miscellaneous collection of religious matter
(said to comprise about 150 leaves), in a work ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ (‘Religious
Practice’), leaves 59, 60. I have not been able to see a complete copy
of this work. In this edition the text is fairly correct and clearly
legible. A small edition, complete in itself, of which I possess two
copies (not quite so legible), offers several different readings which
nearly all seem quite as good, and some decidedly better, than those of
the larger edition. The differences shown by the two texts are,
relatively to the size of the poem, so numerous and of such a nature as
to preclude the idea that mere copying can have led to them. One is led
to the conclusion that one of the two texts was produced from memory
and not by actual copying. We shall note the variants furnished by the
larger edition, marking them B., whilst following for our own text,
with one exception, duly noted, the smaller edition A. My two copies of
the smaller edition would seem to be prints from the same blocks but
for some difference in the last page. Whether the other pages are
printed from the same blocks, whilst only this one last block has been,
for one reason or another, renewed (and changed in the process) may be
left undiscussed for the moment. Enough to make the general statement
that great care should always be exercised before pronouncing Tibetan
prints as made or not made from the same blocks, and that, indeed,
interesting observations may be made on Tibetan typographical
practices.
The title ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, like
མདོ་མང་ (as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXI a), a religious
miscellany. The particular ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ from which our poem is taken is said
to be one of the text-books which the Tashilhunpo tapas are required to
learn by heart. The book with the same title which Laufer (Verzeichniss
der Tib. Handschr. etc. zu Dresden, Z.D.M.G., 1901, p. 123, n. 135)
mentions, might or might not be the same. As I have not been able to
examine the title pages and final pages of the book, I cannot give any
further information about it. ཆོས་སྤྱོད་ is the marginal short title.
Another Gelukpa prayer of almost equal popularity and frequency as
those of the one quoted above, is the following which may be used as an
alternative to the former one. It is distinguished from it in that not
the ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་, but Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone is invoked in it. It runs:—
དམིགས་མེད་བརྩེ་བའི་གཏེར་ཆེན་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས ༎
དྲི་མེད་མཁྱེན་པའི་དབང་པོ་འཇམ་པའི་དབྱངས ༎
བདུད་དཔུང་མ་ལུས་འཇོམས་མཛད་གསང་བའི་བདག །
གངས་ཅན་མཁས་པའི་གཙུག་རྒྱན་ཙོང་ཁ་པ ༎
བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པའི་ཞབས་ལ་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས ༎
To the unfathomable great treasury of love, the Down-Looking-One
(Chenresi, Avalokiteshvara),
To the immaculate Lord of knowledge, Sweet-voice (Jamyang,
Mañjughosha),
To the subduer of the hosts of devils without exception, the Master
of Mysteries (Chanadorje, Vajrapāṇi),
To that crown-jewel of Tibetan sages, Tsoṅ kʽa pa,
To the feet of that (or: thee, o!) Famous Goodheart (Lozangtakpa,
Sumatikīrti), we pray.
The chief difference between the use of the two prayers is that the
latter is more in private use, whilst the former is more favoured in
what may be called official meetings and collective acts of worship.
The latter prayer is often used in a manner like the ‘Oṃ maṇi padme
hūṃ’ formula, and cases in which a devotee vowed to recite this prayer
once or more times a 100,000 times are known. The practical purpose of
the latter prayer was thus defined by a Tibetan: ཚེ་འདི་ལ་གཟུགས་པོ་སྐྱིད་པོ་ན་
ཚ་མི་ཡོང་བ་ཚེ་རིང་པོ་ཡོང་བ་དང་ ། ཤི་བའི་དུས་ལ་ཡིད་དགའ་ཆོས་འཛིན་ལ་འཁྲིད་རོགས་གནང༌ ༎ To
ensure (bring, ask for) in (this present, earthly) life: health,
happiness, absence of sickness, and longevity—and at the time of death
a happy mind and a firm hold on (grasp of) religion.
The above form of the prayer is the printed one which is used by the
monks to read aloud, mechanically and repeatedly, as a sort of
prayer-litany, together with other similar matter, for the benefit of
their clients, or also to ensure their own salvation. It is said to
occur in a prayer-book called དགའ་ལྡན་ལྷ་བརྒྱ་མ་, which I have not seen
myself and about which I have no further details.
This prayer has also some variations in its final line (after the words
གྲགས་པའི་) according to circumstances. This line ends, when:
Opening a ceremony : ཞབས་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ །
Closing ,, ,, : ཞབས་ཀྱི་བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཤོག །
Before tea : ཞལ་ལ་ (or དུ་) མཆོད་པ་འབུལ །
After ,, : nothing at all is said.
It is interesting to note that one of my informants interprets the
above formula as indicating that Tsoṅ kʽa pa is the simultaneous
incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, Mañjughosha and Vajrapāṇi, and that
these persons invoked in the prayer are not referred to as a
consecutive series of separate entities, but as all embodied in the one
Tsoṅ kʽa pa. My informant was very insistent about it that this is the
general and orthodox interpretation of this prayer. The other two names
of Tsoṅ kʽa pa are འཇམ་མགོན་བླ་མ་ and བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པ་.
The closing verse of our poem is also a prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. It is
also in use elsewhere than in connection with the present booklet and
occurs elsewhere in print as well. My informant ascribes it to
Gendundub himself and thinks that its wider use has spread from this
booklet, though he cannot definitely assure that Gendundub himself did
not appropriate it for the closing lines of his poem, taking an already
current prayer to Tsoṅ kʽa pa. The latter theory is plausible inasmuch
as the last verse is seven-footed as against the eight-footed lines of
the rest of the poem. Anyhow, the statement that this prayer also
refers to Tsoṅ kʽa pa alone, and is as such used and understood by all
Gelukpa monks, settles a doubt we might otherwise entertain as to
whether it is not addressed to the ཡབ་སྲས་གསུམ་, in which case its final
line would have to be translated in the plural.
As to the edition, in the original the verses are not marked; they are
evidently four-lined. The small edition has no divisions at all, except
marking the lines, but the larger edition has in addition a ༈ (སྦྲུལ་མགོ་ =
snake head) after lines 16 and 48. In my own text and translation I
have by typographical disposition and by the introduction of title
headings indicated my conception of the clever and very logical inner
structure of the poem.
The text is followed by a short discussion of the variants in it, next
by a translation, and then, my main business, by a full lexicographical
discussion, in alphabetical order. This embodies in the first place all
the new material, supplementing, amplifying, modifying, or even only
questioning, the data in Jäschke’s Dictionary, 3rd edition. For this
Dictionary is, as far as lexicographical method is concerned, still
superior to all other, even subsequent, Tibetan dictionaries, however
much valuable and additional matter may be contained in the two latter.
Jäschke’s dictionary is as yet the proper starting point for all future
lexicographical research. In this glossary I have also drawn special
attention to contradictions in these three current dictionaries, those
of Jäschke, Desgodins and Sarat Chandra Das, even to such points for
which I myself have not been able to suggest a solution or about which
I could not bring new material. For the good of future lexicographical
work in the Tibetan field, it is very necessary to point out as many as
possible of the numerous existing discrepancies and uncertainties
(especially relating to finer shades of discrimination and precision)
so as to focus the attention of investigators on them. It is
unavoidable that most of this work can only be suitably undertaken on
the spot in consultation with educated, intelligent Tibetans, and not
in European closets. The number of those in a position to undertake
such research will, for a long time to come, remain limited enough. As
indicated in the sub-title of this essay my own main object in writing
it is primarily a lexicographical one. For this reason I have also
incorporated in my glossary notes on side-issues and all sorts of
incidental idiomatic ‘catches’ which cropped up in the discussion of
our text, though not immediately connected with the poem itself.
As it seemed the handiest way to present all the results of my
investigation I have also embodied all commentatorial matter, the
philological notes as distinct from the lexicographical ones, under the
same alphabet. The few syntactical remarks have also been wedged in in
this list, though in their case the ‘Stichwort’ had to be chosen more
or less at haphazard.
In the matter of oral information and illustrative examples embodied in
this paper, my authorities are nearly exclusively my two Tibetan
teachers Skarma Bsam Gtan Paul and Pʽun Tsʽogs Lung Rtogs. The first is
a native of Ghoom, though of pure Tibetan extraction (Kʽams). He has
resided for nearly a year in Lhasa, for another 3 months in Tashilhunpo
(where he was Tibetan interpreter between the Tashi Lama and Capt. R.
Steen, I.M.S.), and for 4 years in Gyangtse. The second is a native of
Lhasa, where he resided till his 18th year, after which he spent 3
years in Tashilhunpo as a tapa. Then he wandered for 12 years through
Tibet, Sikkhim and Nepal, after which he settled in Ghoom since about
1914. Until recently he was there schoolmaster (dge rgan) in the local
Tibetan monastery.
Both these intelligent men have given me the greatest help in long,
patient and painstaking discussions concerning the lexicographical and
other problems presented by this present text, as well as by several
others, which I hope I will be able to publish and discuss from time to
time in the future.