Tibetan Renaissance Seminar > Participants > Ben Deitle > Reference Analysis Of Blue Annals Chapter 11

Reference Analysis Of Blue Annals Chapter 11 - Text Titles

by Ben Deitle

Analysis

Ambiguity of Referents

In the course of trying to compile a table of text titles from Chapter Eleven of the Blue Annals (and also during the mark-up of other chapters), I contuniually found myself confused as to how to classify a particular item. The Blue Annals is full of teaching lineages, and these can be presented in a variety of styles, from a narrative account of the travels and study of a particular figure, to simple lists of masters and disciples. But very often, I could not figure out exactly what was being taught/transmitted/“heard” (gsan). Is it a text, a ritual practice, oral instructions, or a combination of these things? To me it seems unclear what exactly is being transmitted, and I am left wondering whether Tibetans, reading the same text, would intuitively know what is being referenced in these cases, or if these are also vague or fluid conceptions and categories for Tibetans as well. Particularly confusing to me is the idea of “cycles” (skor). I think an analysis of this term within the Blue Annals would be insightful and help to determine what this term actually applies to in various contexts.

Looking for further insight into this subject, I began reading Schaeffer’s dissertation on the Tibetan traditions of Saraha and his songs. In that work, Schaeffer quotes Karma Tinlepa (karma ’phrin las pa) in his discussion of the meaning and authenticity of the Doha Trilogy. In this quote Karma Tinlepa seems to affirm that my confusion was not unfounded and that Tibetans have also argued over the meaning of such terms as “skor,” which have many layers of meaning. “Some despicable people alledge that the King and Queen [Dohās] are not actual works composed by Saraha, and that the so-called Dohā Trilogy should not be referred to as a group of three texts. What are they, then? ‘They are the cycle of empowerment for maturation, the cycle of textual explanation, and the cycle of experiential guidance; These constitute the Dohā Trilogy. Furthermore, the first is the empowerment of Vajravāvāhi, or the empowerment of the four symbols of the Dohā, the second is the explanation of the People Dohā utilizing the commentary by Maitripa, and the third is the instruction in the four symbols of the Dohā. Therefore the other two texts were made by forgers.’ So they alleged.” (Schaeffer, 151).

The Do ha

With eleven references to this work in the Mahamudra chapter of the Chengdu edition of the Blue Annals, the work seems to be intimately connected with the Mahamudra tradition and its dissemination in Tibet (if not in general, then at least in ’Gos lo tsa ba’s version of Mahamudra history). It is not clear whether all of these mentions of the Do ha are referring to the same thing. The most common way that ’gos lo tsa ba refers to the work is simply “do ha” (six times: Chengdu: 987, 988, 989, 1005, 1008, 1010). It is unclear whether these instances refer to a larger Dohā collection, including the King’s and Queen’s Dohā or other collections of songs, or simply to the People’s Dohā. ’gos lo tsa ba is at times more specific. He talks about the “do ha skor” (Chengdu: 987, 1010) and the “do ha skor sum ga” (Chengdu: 990). In a very explicit reference he lists all three of the main dohā-King’s, Queen’s, and People’s-under the heading of “The Essential” (“snying po ni/_rgyal po dang /_btsun mo dang /_dmangs do ha ste gsum mo/”, Chengdu: 1001). The “do ha skor sum ga” would obviously refer to the same three, and presumably the “do ha skor” does as well.

Roerich, in his translation, also identifyies what ’gos lo tsa ba calls the “snying po skor” (Chengdu: 986) as being the Cycle of Dohā, or Saraha’s Dohā (Roerich, 843). The later use of “snying po” (Chengdu: 1001) as a heading or description of the three main dohā seems to lend weight to his interpretation. Another possibility is that the “snying po skor” is the same as the “grub snying skor” (Roerich: 844, referred to as “grub snying” on 865). Schaeffer indicates that a teaching collection called the Sgrub snying skor includes within it the Treasury of Dohā Verses (Schaeffer, 127, 135-6). Schaeffer spells the title “sgrub snying,” and he cites the Blue Annals, but in both Roerich and the Chengdu edition I have found it spelled “grub snying.” Similarly, I find it confusing (if not contradictory) that at one point in the Blue Annals, ’Gos lo tsa ba mentions both the “grub snying gi skor” and the Do ha separately in a list of three things that were taught by Atiśa to ’Brom ston (Chengdu, 1011: do ha dang grub snying gi skor dang /_kun tu bzang po’i spyod pa byed tshul rnams ’brom la gsungs pa las/). If the Do ha is included in the Grub snying gi skor, why would ’Gos lo tsa ba need to list it separately in the list. Perhaps he did it to highlight the teaching of the Do ha over and above the other teachings in the Grub snying, but he could have said as much. Another possibility is that Atiśa taught ’Brom ston a different version of the Do ha than what is included in the Grub snying, or perhaps at the time of ’Gos lo tsa ba’s writing the Do ha was not yet an integral part of the Grub snying teachings.

From this simple inquiry, it became clear to me that a knowledge of the history of textual transmission, lineages, and editions is vital in the attempt to better understand how texts are being discussed, and in particular what texts are being discussed, in Tibetan histories such as the Blue Annals. Some references will probably always remain vague and imprecise (and may have been that way to begin with), but for others it may be possible to pinpoint exactly what text or teaching is being discussed. It would also prove helpful to begin to look more carefully at the terminology involved in the discussion of texts to determine what some of the general boundaries are in the definitions of terms such as “skor,” “gzhung,” “gsan,” “gsung,” and the like.

Sources

’Gos lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal. Deb ther sngon po. Chengdu: Sichuan Minorities Publishing House, 1984.

Roerich, George N. The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1949 (reprint: 1988).

Schaeffer, Kurtis. “Tales of the Great Brahmin.” Harvard, Ph.D. dissertation, 2000.