315
BU STON, POLITICS AND RELIGION
By M. Nihom, Leiden
As is well known, there is a lack of available Sanskrit texts of the litera¬
ture of the Buddhist tantra. Because of this it has become the custom to
negociate the subject by reliance on the indigenous Tibetan exegetical lit¬
erature which spans the contents of originally Sanskrit tantras and their
Indian commentaries. In practice, this has resulted in the abstraction of
the native Tibetan literature from the conditions of its times in order to
establish 'facts' about texts which are themselves of Indian origin. I intend
to indicate that in at least one instance this procedure ofthe use of Tibetan
sources for Indological purposes is dubious.
What follows is a brief investigation ofthe kinship ofthe Samputatantra
to two text cycles: that ofthe Hevajratantra and that ofthe Sanivaratantra.
After this, attention will be given to the profane history of central Tibet in
the middle of the fourteenth century. Our purpose is to show that the opin¬
ion of the renowned scholar Bu ston with reference to the classification of
the Sarfipufatantra was interwoven with the politics of central Tibet.
First, we can assert that Tson k'a pa, 1347-1419, holds the Samputa¬
tantra to be an explanatory tantra of the Sanivaratantra. For this, he
invokes the authority of the Indian author Dutjayacandra. On the other
hand, while accounting the Samputa to the Sarnvara cycle, Bu ston consid¬
ers the Samputatantra be an explanatory tantra on more towiraz than just
the Sarßvara. In fact, the modern Japanese scholar Tsuda deduces that in
its treatment of various topics the Samputatantra is certainly to be distin¬
guished from other acknowledged explanatory tantras of the Sarnvara
cycle. He suggests that a reversal of the order of the fifth and sixth bodhi-
sattvabhümis and the occurence of the place of pilgramage {pitfia) pullira-
malaya in initial position are diagnostic of the cycle of the Sanivaratantra.
From this perspective, since the Samputa answers to both criteria its arro¬
gation to the Sarnvara cycle does seem assurred. There are, however, some
facts which lead us not to nonchalantly assign the Samputa to this cycle.
First, a casual look at the Sanskrit quotations available from the unpublish¬
ed manuscripts shows that most of these conform to passages in the Hevaj¬
ratantra. Moreover, even a superficial glance in the Tibetan Sarriputatantra
provides additional verses: in total almost 10% ofthe verses ofthe Hevajra¬
tantra can easily be traced to the Sarnputa. By itself this need not prove that
the Sarnputa is dependant on the Hevajra: these verses might also be found
in one or other tantra of ihe Sanivara cycle. They are absent, however, from
the fundamental tantra ofthe cycle, the Laghusarßvaratardra. Further, it is
possible to show that in its hsts of places of pilgramage the Hevajratantra
too is capable of an interpretation by which pulliramalaya is in initial posi¬
tion. From all these data one may conclude that the Sarriputatantra could
just as easily be registered in the cycle ofthe Hevajratantra as in that ofthe
Sarfivara.
This has, in truth, been done by the early, 1147-1216, sas%apa scholar
Grags pa rgyal mis'an. In his commentary to the Hevajratantra he says that
"The explanatory tantra(s of the Hevajratantra) may to some extant be
understood (to be) in the sections ofthe Vajrapanjara and Sarnputa (tan¬
tras)." In another place when speaking ofthe non-dual tantra, the same
writer notes the fundamental tantrato be the Hevajra. There follows a list of
fifteen tantras,. He then adds that the Sarriputatantra is "the explanatory
tantra otaW the previous (mentioned tantras)." Because the Samvara is not
included in the list, one concludes that Grags pa rgyal mts'an understood
the Sarnputa to be an explanatory tantra of great compass in the cycle of
Hevajra while excluding it from the Sarnvara cycle.
It would be felicitous indeed if links were now to be found among the
views of Grags pa rgyal mts'an, Bu ston and Tson k'apa. I propose that such
indications can be found in the biography of Bu ston written by his succes¬
sor as abbot at za lu, Sgra ts'ad rin e'en mam rgyal. This work-which has
been copiously annotated by Prof Ruegg ^alls into two parts: the first and
lengthier written in 1355 and the second in 1366 after Bu ston's death. In a
passage treating of 1332, the biography recounts that-after having been
asked by the two brothers who were at the time the leading members of the
rin c 'en sgan branch of the ml ing sa .skya pa, Don yod Rgyal mis 'an and Bsod
nanus rgyal mts'an to write a commentary on the Hevajratantra, to the pro¬
spective author Bu ston, Grags pa rgyal mts'an twice appeared in a dream
and instmcted him to compose a commentary on the Hevajratantra.
If the narrative in the biography ended here, the conclusion would suffice
that Bu ston would probably have been acquainted with Grags pa rgyal
mts'an's text on the cycle ofthe Hevajra. But it doesn't stop there. Instead
Bsod nams rgyal mts'an-the biography continues-urged Bu ston also to
vmte a commentary on the Sarnputa. The statement then follows that Bu
ston also composed this commentary - and indeed it is to be located in the
Collected Works hard by the commentary on the Hevajratantra (vol. na).
What is notable at this juncture is that the biography now immediately
refers to several works of Bu ston which indubitably belong to the cycle of
the Sanivaratantra. This fact will be very useful.
To recapitulate: the mention ofthe Sarnputa vmtings of Bu ston directly
upon that of the Hevajra sub-commentary on Grags pa rgyal mts'an's anno¬
tation demonstrates that the biographer knew that the latter saw the Sarri¬
putatantra as related to the Hevajra. Further, the insertion of the names of
texts ofthe Sarnvara cycle would appear to imply that the biographer-as
Bu ston himself - regarded the Sarriputatantra as more properly belonging to
the Sanivara cycle. Hence, slipping in the names of Samvara texts is no co¬
incidence. Moreover, on the basis of some phrasings Bu ston too may be
shown to have been acquainted with the opinion of Grags pa rgyal mts'an.
Nonetheless, the biographer makes much of the authoritativeness of Bu
ston's interpretation of sa skya pa doctrines as set forth by Grags pa rgyal
mts'an. In the present context this confluence would appear to demonstrate
on the part of the biographer a conscious knowledge of the discrepancy in
classification of the Sarriputatantra. Therefore, the report of Bu ston's
Bu ston, Politics and Religion 317
visions of Grags pa rgyal mts'an is to be regarded as an attempt to resolve
this dissonance by means of a hermeneutic deus ex machina.
A progression of views chronologically ordered may thus be discerned
among the three Tibetan scholars. The earliest, Grags pa rgyal mts'an, for-
thrightly places the Sarnputa with the Hevajra. Bu ston, supposedly his
interpreter, hesitates, but decides on adherence to the Sarnvara. The last,
Tson k'apa, firmly fastens the Sarnputa to the Samvara cycle. Reckoned
apart from its actual position, these differing opinions instance a progres¬
sion which need not hark back to any Sanskritic 'fact'. Therefore, because
the real affiliation of the Sarnputa must be regarded as open, one supposes
that the history of the arrogation of the Sarriputatantra to two text cycles
might require its explication to be inherent in indigenously Tibetan consid¬
erations, despite that given the obsession with authority of a text and the
authoritativeness of textual exegesis, such is perhaps necessarily concom¬
itant with one or other Indian tradition. I suggest, therefore, that a Tibe¬
tan opinion on the placement of a text ought be seen as a mirror to local fac¬
tors, although in the light ofthe existence of a hermeneutics such would, as
far as practible, attempt to present itself as a reflection of a Sanskritic tra¬
dition.
Applying this, observe that Tson k'a pa, is said to have received initiation
into the body mandala of Cakrasarnvara in the presence of that very Bsod
nams rgyal mis 'an whose request to Bu ston to write a Sarnputa commentary
led to the mention of Sanivara cycle texts. Moreover, Tson k'a pa in 1391 -2
is said to have received extensive instruction at za lu, Bu ston's institution.
Consequently it is not unlikely that Tson k'a pa's views on the texts ofthe
cycle were influenced by the za lu masters.
In examining possible connections among the mentioned opinions it
quickly becomes apparent that the name of Bsod nams rgyal mts'an conti¬
nually crops up. So far, he has been found to have asked Bu stow to write the
Sarnputa commentary and we have also seen him as a Sarn vara cycle teach¬
er of Tson k'a pa. In fact he pervades both parts of Bu ston's biography.
Since he is regarded as a leading disciple of Bu ston I should like now to
treat in some detail of one other mention of hira in the biography. With this,
data will be available which will permit correllations ofthe shift in the clas¬
sification of the Sarriputatantra with religious and political considerations.
In 1351, the biography reports, Bu ston went to the province of dbus in
order to mediate in the dispute between g'ya and p'ag, two ofthe thirteen
myriarchies of central Tibet. It is not recorded that Bu ston was even tem¬
porarily successful in amelioration of the feud between the two myriar¬
chies. This had existed ever since the future tai si tu, Byanc'ub rgyal mts'an,
had replaced his uncle as myriarch in sne gdon, the political center of the
p 'ag mo gru pa. At this point the biography brings Bu ston to 'olk'a where he
is said to have instructed the tai si tu. Immediately joined to this, the text
says that "thereafter Bu ston, having travelled to ston sde lun, ba, went into
the presence of the bia ma Bsod nams rgyal mts'an who was in dwags po."
The incident raises several questions. While at all other occasions in the
biography one speaks of instruction, a request, or notes the performance of
ritual when Bsod nams rgyal mts'an is mentioned, this is uniquely terse.
Nothing is supplied save that he was met by Bu ston. By its piquant silence,
one infers that Bsod nams rgyal mts'an was not in dwags po by chance. One
therefore asks why he was there and what the connection between the visit
of Bu ston with the rebellious myriarch Byan c'ub rgyal mts'an and the sa
skya pa monk who was possibly the representative ofthe central see. Some
light may be shed on this by reference to Tucci's translation of the suitable portion of the chronicles of the fifth Dalai Lama. "Then the Si Tu, having
taken command of the army took most of the land, fortresses and feuds of
the South. . . . Then the holy Lama ordered the dpon e'en, the commander-
in-chief, to gather the troops, and then, though there were various attempts
to reach an agreement, the dpon e'en, letting others influence him, would
not come to an agreement. . ."
Because Tucci identifies the holy Lama with Bsod nams rgyal mts'an,
and recalling Bu ston's mediation efforts, the double visit of Bu ston to the
p'ag mo gru pa and sa skya pa bia mas was likely one of those "various
attempts" which failed.
Therefore, the mission of Bu ston is now clearly to be understood to be
embedded in the general political conflict between the rebel of p'ag and the
disintegrating central authority of sa skya. This last would appear to be
embodied by Bsod nams rgyal mts'an who must have been empowered to
order the dpon e'en to marshall his troops. Moreover, Bu ston as mentor of
both hla mas was admirably suited as mediator, the more as Bsod mams
rgyal mts'an was himself born at za lu. Note here that the Dalai Lama does
not say that Bsod nams rgyal mts'an refused the attempt made, I aver, by Bu
ston, but that, to repeat, "although there were various attempts to reach an agreement" it was "the dpon e'en, letting others influence him, who would not come to an agreement."
To continue with the report of the Dalai Lama: after battle with the
forces ofthe dpon c'enin which Byari c'ub rgyal mts'an was successful, the
latter obtained the silver seal conferring the office of myriarch. This irritat¬
ed the 'hri gun pa, whom the p'ag mo gm pa defeated whereby the forces of
g'ya fled. Their armies then reassembled. Here the chronicles state: "On
that occasion the Lord of the Law, the holy Lama, acted as go-between,
and a meeting was arranged between the Si Tu and the dpon e'en Rgyal
bzan." This time, with Bsod nams rgyal mts'an as intermediary, the com¬
mander-in-chief was induced to join forces wdth Byan c'ub rgyal mts'an. This
development may be rendered plausible if one postulates that Bsod nams
rgyal mts'an had been won over on the prior occasion of Bu ston's visit. The¬
refore, 1 reconstruct the chain of events as follows: 1) Bsod nams rgyal
mts'an directs the dpon e'en to gather the army. 2) The former is visited by
Bu ston who, coming from his meeting with the tai si tu, brings an 'offer'
which is accepted. 3) Attempts are made to include the dpon e'en which, for
unknown reasons, fail. 4) Several battles ensue whose resolutions are not
sanguine for sa skya. 5) The commander-in-chief realizes this and being
approached by Bsod nams rgyal mts'an accepts the proposal of a meeting
with Byan c'ub rgyal mts'an. 6) At this meeting the dpon e'en ofthe sa skya
Bu ston, Politics and Religion 319
armies and the p'ag mo grupa rebel make up their differences and join for¬
ces.
Clearly, what we have found is a conspiracy. However, what is not trans¬
parent is the role of Bsod nams rgyal mts'an. Why was he in dwags po and
was he a representative of the central authority of sa skya that he was
empowered to order the commander-in-chief to collect his troops ? Apart
from the possibility that Bsod nams rgyal mts'an might have been fortui¬
tously present for reasons of religious practice, it is certainly also possible
that as a member of the rin e'en sgan branch ofthe sa skya pa he was invest¬
ed with authority in order to make sure that he was at some distance from
sa skya. Belief in either-that Bsod nams rgyal mts'an was dispatched as
trouble shooter or as exile-are dependent on identification of the ruling sa
skya pa hla ma in 1351.
After the death ofthe ruling blama Nams mk'asin 1343 this is not simple.
According to one chronicle, for the years 1343-46 no other than Bsod nams
rgyal mts'an held the see. He was succeeded-no reasons are given for a
resignation-by Blo gros rgyal mts'an, member of the lha A;'a?i branch of the
sa skya pa and son ofthe ti sri Kun dga' rgyal mts'an. For his rule we possess
no conclusive end date. Although he might have been in the see in 1351,
Shakabpa, basing himself on the autobiography of the tai si tu, holds that
the ruling bia ma in 1350 was Bsod nams rgyal mts'an, while the Red Annals
mention that in 1349 "It might have been that for a little while the ti sri Kun
dga' rgyal mts'an wais in the see. . ." Therefore, whosoever may have been
chief abbot at sa skya in 1351, the data does appear to affirm the existence
of internal strife. Specificly, there seems to have been some discord
between the lha k'an and rin e'en sgan branches of the sa skya pa. The rin
e'en sganpa Bsod nams rgyal mts'an was replaced in 1346 by the lhak'anpa
Blo gros rgyal mts'an and the latter perhaps briefly by his own father in
1349. Lastly, if 1346-49 is a period of ascendancy for the lha k'aripa, these
would have suffered a set-back under a nw e'ens^awrestauration. Neverthe¬
less, because of these revolving-door procedures, it seems unlikely that if
ruling bia, ma in 1351 Bsod nams rgyal mts 'an would have left the home front
unattended.
Fortunately, there is another approach to the problem. After fighting
had again erupted between g'ya and p'ag'in 1345, the tai si tuin his autobio¬
graphy states that "A personal aide of the Saskya ruling lama appeared on
the scene of intrigue and claimed that he, Sonam Gyaltsen, was a relative of
the former governor of Nedong. At this point the Saskya lama and his
minister ordered Chang C'ub dismissed as governor and a letter of investi¬
ture as governor was given to Sonam Gyaltsen." Byan c'ub rgyal mts'an
refused to accept his replacement. Meeting with a sa skya minister and
being asked "why he had not handed over the governorship to Bsod nams
rgyal mts'an" he replied: "Tt was the first time that I had heard that Bsod nams rgyal mts'an w&s a relative of mine. . . Since Bsod nams rgyal mts'an
has achieved nothing of merit, to give him the governorship would be like
asking a leg to do the work of a head.'"
Especially because he is said to be a personal aide of the ruling sa skya
bia ma, this Bsod nams rgyal mts'an is to be identified with the one who has
figured here so far. As rehnquishing the office of ruhng bia ma in 1346 sub¬
sequent to and because ofthe resurgence of fighting between g'ya a,nd p'ag,
without office but a son ofthe grand bia ma Bdag nid c'enpo, he may have
wanted to take up some administrative responsibility; this the more as
after the death ofhis elder brother in 1344, he became the senior member of
the rin e'en sgari pa. As the senior rin e'en sgan pa presumptively deposed
from the see by the Ilia A;'aMbranch, he would have had an interest in trying
to dress the running sore of the sa skya polity in dbus. If he had been suc¬
cessful, this would have obviously contributed towards a revival of the
standing of the rin e'en sgan. Further, resignation from the see resulting
from the renewed skirmishes and dynastic factors explains that he had
"achieved nothing of merit", that is, had not been able to })revent the re¬
crudescence of troubles in dbus, nor even to have held on to the see at sa
skya.
The presence of Bsod nams rgyal mts 'an at ston sde lun bain 1351 and his
directive to the dpon e'en in this year can now be regarded as representing a
reiterated attempt to establish himself as myriarch in p'ag. If this had been
successful, then, from the perspective ofthe central see, the obstreperous
myriarchy of p'ag would have been feudally bound with ties of kinship to sa
skya and simultaneously the senior, childless but not nephewless paragon
of one of the four branches of the sa skya pa would have been effectively
exiled as myriarch to sne gdon,. Moreover, with respect to the conspiratorial
agreement, from the viewpoint of Byan „ c'ub rgyal mts'an, because ofthe
position of Bsod nams rgyal mts'an among the sa skya pa, some legitimation
would have accrued to his own actions, albeit after the fact and whatever
the attitude of the central see.
After conclusion of the agreement in gon dkar, the commander-in-chief
upon returning to sa skya in 1354 was imprisoned. Because the dpon e'en
was released after sa skya had been intimidated by the approaching armies
of Byan, c'ub rgyal mts'an, we may deduce, again from the perspective ofthe
central see, that the agreement among the tai si tu, the dpon e'en and Bsod
nams rgyal mts'an was subversive. This must especially have seemed so
with the inclusion of the commander-in-chief, since thereby such was not
only the manoevering of a family member out of favour, but also an effort
to preempt the military and administrative apparatus of the state. Nor is
that only the dpon e'en and not also Bsod nams rgyal mts'an was confined
surprizing, since the latter as senior rin e'en sganpa and former ruling bia
ma could hardly have been easily detained. As for Bu ston, he was evidently
not present in sa skya: his biography records that he spent at least part of
1354 in his own see of 20 lu. However, as we shall see, the end ofhis career
was near.
As related by the Blue Annals, the dpon e'en was cast into prison by the
lha k'an bia branpa, that is, he ofthe lha A;'a?i branch ofthe sa skyapawhom
Ruegg identifies as the ti sri Kun dga' rgyal mts'an. However, the Red
Annals relate that "in 1354, the sa skya contending with each other" the
commander-in-chief was incarcerated "by the Eastern palace". On the
Bu ston. Politics and Religion 321
other hand, the chronicles ofthe iifth Dalai Lama aver that "the dpon e'en
having gone to sa skya he was imprisoned by the Lama Ti Sri's two sons".
The two sons of the ti sri are Blo gros rgyal mts'an met with before as ruling
bia ma, and his half-brother C'os kyi rgyal mts'an. I submit that the culprit
is in fact the last, C'os kyi rgyal mts'an. This imputation will be supported if
it is demonstrated that he advanced in importance at this time, 1354. The
data available shows that some increment in the solidity ofhis political sta¬
tus must have occured between a visit of Bu ston in 1353 or early 1354 and
the following occasion in 1355. In 1353 Bu ston had been invited to sa skya
by C'os kyi rgyal mts'an and his half-brother. The biographer refers to the
first as "great teacher" and the second merely as "teacher". Remark that
Blo gros rgyal mts'an is clearly subordinated to C'os kyi rgyal mts'an: he is
therefore not likely to have been in the abbatial seat at that time. While
these two invited Bu ston, among the "numberless" personnages who were
instructed on that occasion by Bu ston, only Bsod mams rgyal mts'an and
his nephew are singled out. In fact, while C'os kyi rgyal mts'an is only a
"great teacher", Bsod nams rgyal mts'an is the "unequalled" or "peerless"
dharmasvämin.
The contrast with the epithets for C'os kyi rgyal mts'an on the occasion
oi Bu ston's return to sa skya in 1355 is astonishing. At this time Bu ston is
recorded as having expounded on various tantras. Prior hereto the biogra¬
phy states: "Previously, he saw the countenance of him who had discrimi¬
native insight, compassion and matchless energy, who is without rivals,
the Lord, the emanation oiManjughosa, the lustrous Sa skya Pandita II, the
bia ma of (all) beings, C'os kyi rgyal mts'an dpal bzaripo." This is a mouthful
and rather fulsome even by local standards. Contrasting it with the prior
epithet "great teacher", it is reasonable to suppose that his star had risen in
the intervening period, to wit, between 1353 and 1355. This worthy oi sa
skya was patently not ungrateful to Bu ston for his efforts: C'os kyi rgyal
mts'an ordered a bejeweled mandala constructed within the main temple
whose description comprizes some 2'72% ofthe entire biography and is the
only mandala treated at any length. At the close ofthe passage dealing with
this virtual or verbal potlateh, the first part of the biography comes to an
abrupt end, after the author Sgra ts'ad pa has told us that it was written
"following the command ofthe illustrious Sa skya Pandita II, His Holiness
C'os kyi rgyal mts'an." It appears then that both the donor of the extrava¬
gant mandala whose description concludes the first part of the biography
and the sponsor ofthat part was C'os kyi rgyal mts'an. One might conclude
that this member of the Ifia k'an branch just wdshed to dignify Bu ston:
since, however, the biography does not accord him a very large role, one
need find an explanation for the sudden accolades and change of titles,
attributes such as "the 6iamaof(all)beings" andparticularily "SaskyaPan- dita II" not being strewn about lightly.
As Sa skya Pandita II, C'os kyi rgyal mts'an is linked with his famous
ancestor, the Sa skya Pandita, who together with his nephew 'P'agpa esta¬
blished the sa skya pa hegemony in Tibet. My hypothesis then is that a
postulated 'promotion' of C'os kyi rgyal mts'an upon imprisonment of the
dpon c'en and subsequent to the discovery ofthe agreement between him, the tai si tu and Bsod nams rgyal mts'an - as well as Bu stow in the role of in¬
termediary - motivates both Bu ston' renewed presence in sa skya in 1355
and the change of epithets for C'os kyi rgyal mts'an. In other words, Bu ston
was called on the carpet. In turn, this invites the insinuation that the con¬
struction of the nmndala and the composition of the first part of the bio¬
graphy were gestures by C'os kyi rgyal mts'an to cover the forced resigna¬
tion of Bu ston from his abbatial seat.
On his return to za lu-&s stated in the second part of the biography -5m
ston announced that on account of age and in order to procure unruffled
agreement in selection of a new abbot he was of a mind to resign from the
see. As reason he is reported to have said to his successor and biographer
Sgra ts'ad rin c'en mam rgyal: " Ts it not so that the father and children of dbus were not able to come to flower?' " I propose that Bu ston is referring
to the fact that Byan c'ub rgyal mts'an and his followers-the father and
children of dbus-, because their might had not yet come to complete frui¬
tion, were not able to interpose themselves between C'os kyi rgyal mts'an
and himself, Bu ston. Thereby it was assurred that Bu ston was prevailed
upon to abjure the see.
There remains the indication of how the above points connect to the
actual change of classification undertaken by Bu ston relative to the posi¬
tive assignation ofthe Sarnputatantra to the Hevajra cycle by Grags pa rgyal
mts'an. What is necessary is a reasoning which tenders the conclusion that
both Bu ston and Bsod nams rgyal mts'an had reason to imprecate, albeit
indirectly, the powers that were in the central see. It bears repetition that
'P'ags pa received the provinces of central Tibet as fief from the Mongol
rulers of China. Consequently, the saskya pa abhots were closely connected
ideologically, or better 'normatively' with the distant suzerain in Peking. In
these terms one may expect that rebelliousness against the authority of sa
skya would strive to undermine its ideological, and in Tibetan contexts
requisite theological basis. The sa skya pa received their suzerainty over
Tibet in exchange for 'P'ags pa having given tantric instruction and initia¬
tion into the Hevajratantra to the Mongol ruler Kublai Khan. Therefore,
because of the close connection of the sa skya pa to the Chinese emperor
through the medium oi Hevajra, an alteration as in the present instance in
the definition and compass of its cycle would necessarily reflect back on the
status of sa skya. This would especially bc the case since Bu ston was indu¬
bitably renowned as the greatest scholar ofhis time. The decision by him to
abrogate the connection ofthe useful Sarfiputatantra with the Hevajratantra
would as a matter of course have diminished the standing of the sectarian
interests of the central see of sa skya. It is not necessary to maintain that
the might ofthe army or the harvest of taxes would have decreased; it suf¬
fices to hold that, because this would have been a debacle for the religious
propaganda of the sa skya pa, it was manifestly political.
But what were the connections between Bu ston and the p'ag mo gm pa as
embodied by Byanc'ub rgyal mts'an and his nephew-successor Säkya rgyal
mts'an'i The nephew was repeatedly taught by Bu ston and is said to have
Bu ston, Politics and Religion 323
been complimented by him. On the occasion of his final ordination at the
age of 19, Bsod nams rgyal mts'an acted as mk'an po and Bu ston was evi¬
dently present on the occasion ofhis elevation to the rtse fan see in p'ag.
Moreover, not only was he given the fundamental tantra of the Sarßvara
cycle by Bu ston, but, most interestingly, he is to be found in the lineage of
an important commentary on the Sarriputatantra, the Amnayamanjari, with
as immediate predessesor no other than Dharmasri, who had been Bu ston's
second choice for his own replacement as abbot at za lu. Further, the tai si
tu is recorded as having built both Bsod nams rgyal mts'an and Bu ston indi¬
vidual dwellings at bsam gtan glin.. It is hence feasible that the construction of these retreats be seen as a provisional 'pay-ofT, or more circumspectly,
recompense, for the support given in 1351. There only remains to mention
that even as a juvenile Byari c'ub rgyal mts'an is said to have harboured a
certain propensity for the Samvara cycle: the Red Annals declare that "He
made great worship to bde mc'og and it is said that a corn was produced in
his thumb (by the rosary used in worship)". The evidence for a particular
reverence for the Sarfivara cycle - and the collateral fact of the absence of
any mention ofthe Hevajra cycle with respect to these two p'ag mo grupa,
indicates that the p'ag mo gru pa, at least in the middle of the fourteenth
century, displayed a preference for the cycle of Sarfivara.
At long last, attention may be redirected to the context of Bsod nams
rgyal mts'an's request to Bu ston wo write on the Sarfiputatantra. As noted,
the biography does not state that the Sarfipufatanlra commentary and the
appended Sarfivara cycle texts were composed simultaneously with the
sub-commentary on the Hevajratantra in 1332. Not only then is the story of
the Hevajra sub-commentary too abruptly-there is no phrase in the text
such as 'at that time' or 'thereafter' - followed by the request oi Bsod nams
rgyal mts'an for the Sarfiputatantra commentary, but in a passage dealing
with 1353 the biographer has Bu ston ordered by Bsod nams rgyal mts'an
write his commentary on the Samvaratardra and some other short works of
this cycle. These other, short texts written by Bu ston are the ones appen¬
ded to the passage on 1332 where the request for the Sarfiputa commentary
was related. Therefore, despite that it is mentioned in the passage on 1332,
the Sarfiputa conunentary may also have been written in 1353. One must
remember that in 1355 with C'os kyi rgyal mts'an the donor of the biogra¬
phy and the instigator to be of Bu ston's resignation, the biographer and
future abbot of za lu probably had but little choice but to obfuscate matters
such as Bu ston's mediation attempt in 1351 which resulted in an ad¬
vantage to the tai si tu and the date of composition of the Sarfiputatantra
commentary. Indeed, the second part of the biography provides paralle¬
lisms which appear to purposefully rectify some ofthe misleading passages
in the first part.
To sum up: because the Sarfiputa as the Sanivara commentary may have
been written in 1353, because both Byari c'ub rgyal mts'an and his nephew
evinced a clear interest in the Sarfivara cycle and were taught by Bu ston,
because Bsod nams rgyal mts'an requested both commentaries oi Bu ston,
because the tai si tu may have rewarded both Bu ston and Bsod nams rgyal
mts'an with the gift of separate residences, in short, because the evidence
from the biography displays an excellent fit and interlock with the histori¬
cal events ofthe time, 1 conclude that Bu ston in confederation with his dis¬
ciple Bsod nams rgyal mts'an not only did change, but also and more impor¬
tantly found it convenient to change the accepted sa skya pa classification ofthe Sarriputatantra. Accordingly, it is difficult to escape the corollary that
the sectarian predelictions of the founder of the rising p'ag mo grupa he¬
gemony were responsible for the change in classification of the Sarriputa¬
tantra.
325
ZUR TIBETISCHEN ÜBERSETZUNG DES UDÄNAVARGA
(Resümee)
Von Michael Balk, Bonn
Unter der sog. Dhammapada-Udänavarga-Literatur werden Sammlun¬
gen von Strophen verstanden, die der indischen Tradition zufolge von Gau¬
tama Buddha selbst stammen. Die literarische Gattung liegt in den vier
Parallelversionen des Dhammapada, Patna-Dharmapada, Gändhäri-Dhar¬
mapada und Udänavarga vor. Diese vier Fassungen unterscheiden sich in
Umfang, Anordnung und Sprache. Sie sind verschiedenen buddhistischen
Schulen zuzuordnen.
Der Udänavarga (UV) ist der einzige Text, dessen Strophen vom Mittel¬
indischen ins Sanskrit umgesetzt wurden. Nach Schmithausens Untersu¬
chungen (Lambert Schmithausen: Zu den Rezensionen des Udänavargah.
In: WZKSO 14 (1970), S. 47-124) lassen sich die erhaltenen Handschrif¬
ten des UV auf zwei Rezensionen verteilen, deren erste durch die Haupt¬
masse der Manuskripte repräsentiert wird. Die zweite Rezension ist dage¬
gen schwächer vertreten, liegt aber der tibetischen Übersetzung des UV
zugrunde.
Wenig beachtet wurde bislang das Udänavargavivarana (UW), ein von
Prajnävarman im achten Jhdt. verfaßter Kommentar zum UV, der in einer
tibetischen Übersetzung aus dem elften Jhdt. erhalten ist. Das tibetische
UVV ist ein weit zuverlässigeres Instrument zur Rekonstruktion im Wort¬
laut der zweiten Rezension nicht erhaltener UV-Passagen als der tibe¬
tische UV. Auch in seinem tibetischen Gewand folgt der Kommentar dem
Sanskrittext in Wortfolge und inhaltlichen Bezügen.
Eine mit dem uns vorliegenden Text des UV nicht übereinstimmende
tibetische Übersetzung läßt nicht immer auf einen abweichenden Sanskrit¬
text schließen. Ein Vergleich der ersten 150 UV-Strophen mit tibetischer
Übersetzung und tibetischem Kommentar hat ergeben, daß der Übersetzer
des UV das im Original nicht erhaltene UVV des Prajnävarman benutzt
haben muß. Die Abhängigkeit der Übersetzung vom Kommentar läßt sich
an zwei Phänomenen beobachten:
1. Der Übersetzer hat einzelne Worte des UV nicht durch die ihnen
zukommenden tibetischen Äquivalente vriedergegeben, sondern durch die
Äquivalente ihrer Paraphrasen im Kommentar. So wird dhyänarata in UV
45 durch tin ne 'dzin la dga' ha, das einem samädhirata entspricht, über¬
setzt. Dies liegt daran, daß das UW dhyänarata durch samädhirata erklärt
hat. Da das tibetische UW sich in der Diktion der Zitate grundsätzlich
nach dem tibetischen UV richtet, mußten bei der Übersetzung des Kom¬
mentars das zu Erklärende und dessen Umschreibung vertauscht werden.
Im tibetischen Kommentar wird tin 'dzin la dga' ha durch hsam gtan la dga'
ha (= dhyänarata) umschrieben. Fälle dieser Art sind sehr häufig.
2. Im tibetischen UV finden sich Begriffe, die nicht im Sanskrittext enthal¬
ten sind. Solche Zusätze sind zum Teil so spezifisch, daß sie sich rücht aus
dem Kontext ergeben, sondern nur dem Kommentar entnommen sein kön-
