Blue Annals Summary Chapter 6
Chapter 6 traces the lineage of the disciples of the personal disciples of lo-tsa-ba of thb ka-gdams-pa school. It starts with a detailed listing of the Abbots of the dPal gSan-phu monastery in 958 A.D. The lineage continues in one line until a slip (between and upper and lower monastery?) at the time of Jam-dpal sen-ge. The exact year of this split is not determinable by the Blue Annals (329). The Prajnaparimita developed out of the teachings of Ses-rab-‘bar of ‘Bre (who according to the Blue Annals is the best of lo-tsa-bas disciples) and The Lineage teaching of Byan-shub yeses of Ar (330). Several commentaries were developed from their teaching.
The chapter continues to describe the development of commentaries written on the Sphutartha, the Pramanaviniscays, the Prajnaparamita, the Tantras, as well as the development of the Lam-rim (Degrees of the Path) and a bsTan-rim (Degrees of Teaching) (331).
The Madhyamaka system was greatly commented on and abridged by the Teacher Phya-pa as well as by gTsan-nag-pa (333). The Blue Annals mentions the acarya Phya-pa writing refutation of the Indian Candrakirti, showing a debate between Indian and Tibetan was alive and well at this time. Phya-pa is mentioned as to have mimicked Candrakirti’s methods when writing his abridged commentary on Madhyamaka. It is noted as well that rMa-bya Byan-chub brtson-‘grus preached Madhyamaka and preferred the system introduced by Candrakirti and had a liking for the schools of Jayananda who was an Indian pandita who stayed sometime in gSan-phu (334).
Kun-mKhyen Chos-sku ‘od-zer (a disciple of Jam-dbyans gsar-ma) funded a philosophic and meditative school and was a leading scholar amongst the Kalachakra. One of his disciples, Chims-chen-mo had advised sKyel-nag grags-sen to set up a monastic college, which was objected to bythe bKadgdams-pas. By way of a “loophole” which consisted of a tea ceremony, the two were able to circumvent a fine imposed by the opposing party and establish the school (335-336). An opponent of Kalachakra, bCom-Idan Rigs-pa’I zal gi of Pu-than studied under dbyar Ni-mabrtson-‘grus when leprosy developed. He suffered for 11 year but after recitation of the Pramanvinsaya in a ravine, his disease left him and he recited the Acala mantra 13,000,000,ooo times and became enlightened. He had many disciples. One of the more famous was Jam-dbyans who had once put on a mask and frightened his teacher. For this, he was banished from his teacher’s sight, but later became court chaplain of the Mongols of Buyantu-qun from 1311 to 1320 (337). Around this time, numerous texts were being organized, copied and collected in various regions of Tibet. Viharas were erected where the monks would congregate to study the doctrine (339).
There is a list of the teachings of many great masters and their disciples before the chapter moves from the origin of the teaching of Mahayana-Madhyamaka to the story of the origin of the basic texts of Mahayana-Madhyamaka by Candrakirti. The story starts out describing how s’Pa-tshab Ni-ma-gras (from ‘Phan yul) went to Kasmira as a youth and returns to Tibet after 23 years. He translated Abhidharma by Purnavardhana. He went to Pham-yul and studied Madhyamaka with disciples sent by the kalyana-mira Sar-ba-pa. While here he translated much of Chandrakirti (342). Much of Madhyamaka had been disseminated in pat due to the efforts of Ma-bya Byan-brtson who had many disciples and transferred his monastery out of dBus into upper and lower yar-luns (343). The chapter continues to describe how Zan Than-sag-pa taught and wrote many commentaries on Madhyamaka. He founded a monastery that had many kalyana-mitras studying there (344).
The next section of chapter 6 described sPa-tshab and his spiritual lineage. It describes the teaching and disciple dBas rGyal-ba Ye-ses and his flight from dBus to Khams due to a popular revolt (344-345).
The lineage of Abhidharma is also outlined in Chapter 6. There is an exploration into the great bLo-tsa-ba bLo-Idanses-rab and Kha-bo-che followed a similar teaching but their methods of “exposition” were different. There is a brief description of these differences, which finish up the chapter.