“As for the Blessing of Vajravārāhī, Marpa Lhodrakpa does not have it.

by Sarah Harding

In the beginning, my work translating the Pakmo Namshe[1] by the 2nd Pawo Rinpoche

Tsuklak Trengwa (dPa’ bo gtsug lag Phreng ba, 1504-1566) presented several surprises. I

had always believed that this was a commentary about the secret practice of Vajravārāhı

based on the sādhana by the Sixth Karmapa Tongwa Dönden (mThong ba don ldan, 1416-

1453) that we had all practiced in three-year retreat. I had certainly used it as such. But as

soon as I came across the actual words of the sādhana within the text, it was clearly not that.

Tsuklak Trengwa gives the title of the sādhana as simply dPal rdo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang

ba’i grub thab, or Srı Vajrayoginı Guhya Sādhana, authored by Nāropa and translated by

Marpa. Well that’s easy, I thought, because there’s a three-folia verse text in the Peking

Tengyur by Nāropa, or rather Mahā Nāḍapāda, with just that Sanskrit name.[2] Great—only

that was not it. Then I actually opened and looked at every single text attributed to Nāropa

in the Tengyur, and could not find a match. Then for weeks there were random feverish

searches on TBRC under every conceivable word, like “yoginī,” “secret,” “vajra,” “pig,”

and so on. Finally one fine day brought up the Miscellaneous Works (gsung thor bu) of the

First Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa (Dus gsum mkhyen pa, 1110-1193), and there I found it

among several other secret Vajrayoginī practices, 29 folios and with no author, under the

title dPal rdo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang bsgrub [rdo?] rje btsun mo lhan skyes.[3] That was

what I call a researcher’s moment of glory. It’s been all down hill from there.

The second big surprise was the nature of the text. I was looking forward to translating

Pakmo Namshe because I understood it to be a practice commentary. Pawo Tsuklak

Trengwa even says, “It is this sādhana exactly as presented by the bhagavatī herself that will

be expounded here.” But after the first fifty pages I realized that it’s really a rebuttal, a giant

  1 
polemic in defense of Kagyu practices. I’ve since found that many if not most Kagyu

commentaries on Vajrayoginī written during this period, the 15th-16th centuries, are

similarly on the defensive. At first I thought that if I could make it through the history

section, just fourteen folios, then finally there would be the Dharma. But that naiveté was

again shattered when a few pages into the so-called “actual instructions,” even in the section

on the location in which to practice, (Mountain peaks and charnel grounds/ Lone tree trunks

and empty caves/ Hermitages and isolated places,… ) the narrative bends around to start

sections with that red warning flag of “mkhas pa kha chig gis,” and somehow launches into

another tirade. The one most shocking for me was the quote early on that is the title of this

paper, “As for the blessing of Vajravārāhı, Marpa Lhodrakpa does not have it.” I mean,

what? There’s been great controversy about mahāmudrā and maybe some suspicious

creative innovations by lineage masters, such as evidenced by the accusations leveled at

Gampopa. But Marpa? And he doesn’t even have the blessing? As I figure it, we’re

screwed. So I decided to jump right in to the fray and try to figure out what’s going on here.

Truly it is a can of worms, and I barely got the lid off. In order to make some use of the

considerable time and energy that I already spent on Pakmo Namshe, although my work on

it has now been set aside, I will present excerpts primarily from my translation of that, and

some from other researches, especially Sakya Paṇḍita, Gorampa, Padma Karpo, Tashi

Namgyal, and Lowo Khenchen. I’ll also make available a polished translation of the history

section. What follows is basically a travelogue of my confusions, or my ‘khrul pa’i thob yig.

Separating the issues

To get right to the sore point here, Tsuklak Trengwa’s shocking quotes are drawn from

Sakya Paṇḍita’s sDom gsum rab dbye, written around 1232, when he was about fifty. It has

been translated by Jared Rhoton as A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes, which

  2 
includes the Tibetan. You probably know that this text is a scathing assessment of the state

of Buddhism and particularly Vajrayāna in Tibet, barely disguised as a discussion of the

three levels of vows. Sapaṇ’s primary motivation is certainly to clearly differentiate those

three levels and to point out absolutely every incident and indiscretion of crossing-over,

inaccuracy, hybridity, and misapplication. But the polemic goes far beyond just that, and

with his searing logic, Sapaṇ calls into question many issues of lineage, appropriation, false

advertising, false gurus, false empowerments and everything else false about particularly the

Kagyu, though of course he is unbiased. (So “Keepin’ the Dharma pure.”) The two quotes

that Tsuklak Trengwa references are as follows, taking the whole verses from sDom gsum

rab dbye for context:

As for the blessing of Vajravārāhı, Marpa Lhodrakpa does not have it. For a holder of

Marpa’s lineage to open the Dharma door using Vārāhı contravenes even their own

tradition, not to mention that of tantra.

The second verse reads,

Later on, Vajravārāhı’s blessing, a dream-based [tradition of] bodhichitta, instantaneous

creation in meditation of the yidam, the white single sufficient remedy, and many such

perverse teachings that contravene the buddhadharma are spreading around these days.

First we have to briefly consider the mahāmudrā controversy within Kagyu which forms the

background and overall picture of the Vajravārāhı issue. This in itself is a huge subject and

there is considerable research already in English, so I refer the reader to those books and

articles. There is of course the biggest bugaboo in Tibetan history constantly recurring here:

the legend of debates held at Samyeling during the imperial period where the Chinese Chan

monk referred to as Hvashang (upadhyaya) Moheyan and his perverse ideas of instant

enlightenment were soundly, roundly, and forever defeated by the Indian scholar

  3 
Kamalashīla (fl. 713-763), ensuring that Tibet would forever more be a gradualist Buddhist

country and indebted only to India for the Dharma. But the pesky little idea keeps trying to

resurface, especially in systems such as dzogchen and mahāmudrā. This post-debate debate

that has never ended is too big of a topic for this paper so I will not indulge it, especially

because it would actually be a substantive topic. (Okay well maybe just a little, so I can

refer back to it with irony.) Moheyan’s main argument focused on the idea of mental

nonengagement or inaction (yid la mi byed pa, Skt. amanasi) as the only way to directly

experience ultimate reality, which, being inconceivable, cannot be approached conceptually

or through any other method. Although officially trumped by the gradual path perspective of

Kamalashīla, the language of the Hvashang’s argument is close, and occasionally identical,

to that used in systems such as mahāmudrā. While no Kagyu would ever admit to being in

league with the “instantaneanists”, they have often had to defend themselves against just

such accusations. A special target was Gampopa, since he appeared to develop something

like his own system of mahāmudrā teachings, and promoted the idea that mahāmudrā

realization was in itself sufficient, sometimes calling it the dkar po chig thub—the single

white remedy—or, as in David Jackson’s book where you can read all about it,

Enlightenment by a Single Means. Worse yet, Gampopa even used the “mental

nonengagement” word, and was known to have directly quoted known terrorists—I mean

Hvashang Moheyanists.

The issue of the Vajravārāhı blessing and empowerment emerged within this greater context,

and while we can avoid investigating the whole mahāmudrā controversy, there is one issue

that is directly relevant to our subject: where do the mahāmudrā teachings fall in the three-

tiered scheme of sdom gsum, because if they are Vajrayāna in nature, then they must be

preceded by a highest yoga tantra empowerment, which would then render any mere

blessing insufficient. From our late nineteenth-century perspective, that is Jamgön

  4 
Kongtrul’s perspective, mahāmudrā is classified into three: sūtra tradition, mantra tradition,

and essence tradition. This view has seemingly prevailed these days and been accepted

without question, as taught, for example, at Nitartha and other canonizing institutions. But

even Kongtrul could not assert this classification without admitting its controversial nature,

quoting, again, Sakya Paṇḍita, who said, “Mahāmudrā is not designated in the tradition of

the perfections. The pristine awareness of mahāmudrā only arises from empowerment.” The

assertion is that mahāmudrā, as the highest in the set of four mudras, is revealed only in the

fourth empowerment of a highest yoga tantra empowerment, as the experience of bliss-

emptiness. The claim, which supposedly started with Gampopa, that the term mahāmudrā is

basically synonymous with perfection of wisdom, and that even beginners can practice it

without empowerment, is considered totally misguided. Essence mahāmudrā presents even

more issues, which I won’t develop here. We can see that, true to form, Sakya Paṇḍita and

his supporters are still primarily concerned with not mixing up apples and oranges. There

has been a multiple-defense strategy developed by the Kagyus, from which I’d like to

mention just three tactics.

First is to try to provide Indic sources for mahāmudrā teachings in non-tantric form. This is

really not too difficult, since the tradition of Indian mahāsiddhas is replete with such

teachings. Such pursuits were followed by Tibetans and currently by westerners alike. In

one article, Klaus-Dieter Mathes concludes, “…it should be noted that sūtra-based

mahāmudrā teachings have Indian roots which can be clearly identified. To sum up, the

blending of the Sūtras with the Tantras is something that definitely started in India and not

in Tibet.”

That notwithstanding, the Kagyu lineages holders felt the need to present further lines of

defense, sometimes redundant or even contradictory. A second favorite is to defend

  5 
Gampopa’s choices based on his omniscient skillfulness and compassion. Thus, for instance,

Tashi Namgyal (whichever one wrote Phyag chen zla ba’i ‘od zer—not going there!) says,

The teachers of this meditational lineage up to Milarepa meditated mainly on the key

instructions of the Mantrayāna mysticism while at various times incorporating vital

instructions on mahāmudrā from the discourses on the yogas of inner heat and lucid

awareness. Yet, the great master Gampopa, having been moved by immeasurable

compassion, expounded mainly on the quintessential instructions on mahāmudrā. As a result

it became widely known as the single path for all predestined seekers. In connection with

this there appeared to be a special causal link established in the past, which may be briefly

mentioned.

The last is a reference to another sub-strategy, which I’ll call the prophecy-proof, also

employed by Tsuklak Trengwa. That is to cite Gampopa’s previous life as the healer

Candraprabha Kumarabhuta and his special connection with the Samādhirāja Sūtra, wherein

is also found a prophecy of the future life of Gampopa. The Samādhirāja Sūtra is claimed as

a major source of the Kagyu mahāmudrā tradition, so since it was a sūtra, and since

Gampopa is in it, it is proved!

Another version is more based on lineage, perhaps a bit sectarian. Kongtrul says:

[Gampopa] taught his regular disciples the Kadampa stages of the path and the meditative

absorption from the sūtra tradition that is adorned with the name mahāmudrā. He taught the

uncommon mahāmudrā of the mantra connected to Lama Mila’s path of methods to his

extraordinary disciples.

and

  6 
Dakpo Rinpoché induced the realization of mahāmudrā even in beginners who had not

received empowerment. Therefore this is the tradition of the perfections. These are

instructions arising primarily from the Kadampa tradition.

So, blame the Kadampas! Mikyö Dorje attempts to clarify:

The authentic spiritual power of mahāmudrā in the Kagyu, the lineage of the great Nāropa

that began with Vajradhara, is only attained by actualizing the example and authentic

ultimate pristine awareness by means of the higher three supreme empowerments. The

system of guidance in calm abiding and higher insight taught these days that is shared with

the causal vehicle of the perfections comes from the lineage of Lord AtıŸa. It is the esoteric

instruction of The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. Lord Gampopa and the protector

Pakmo Drupa have given this the name of “joined coemergent mahāmudrā” (phyag chen

lhan cig skyes sbyor) just for the sake of those disciples in the degenerate age who would

like a “really high” vehicle.

What I love about this second defense of sūtra mahāmudrā is that it is based on the claim

that Gampopa, in his infinite wisdom and compassion, was able to determine the level and

capacity of the disciples and employ appropriate stages to guide them. In other words, it is a

gradualist excuse for teaching supposedly instantaneous mahāmudrā. Kamalashila and

Hvashang Mohayen united at last. It makes me wonder if this line of reasoning worked on

the very reasonable Sakyas?

Finally, I would like to return to Tashi Namgyal for what he says is Gampopa’s own

version. He recounts from Gampopa’s works three different lists of three approaches. In all

three, mahāmudrā constitutes a separate and autonomous path, standing outside both sūtra or

tantra. Therefore, Tashi Namgyal concludes, ” [Gampopa] considers mahāmudrā to be a

separate path and independent of the sūtras and tantras.” He goes on to say, “According to

  7 
the practice of Lord Gampopa himself, the ripening empowerment conferral is unnecessary.”

On that, the case could be closed, since any empowerment requirement would be vitiated.

But then, Tashi Namgyal continues, the problem is that:

In recent times meditators of mahāmudrā sought to make adjustments according to both the

sūtras and the tantras. They have incorporated [in the mahāmudrā tradition] many practices

that require preparations such as the…empowerment that sows the seed of a spiritual

blossom, devotion to preliminary exercises, and methods of enhancing experiences. It is for

that reason that it is not contradictory to regard mahāmudrā as identical with the common

and profound path of the sūtras and tantras, due to the fact that many superior and inferior

minds are going to benefit from it.

That’s our so-called “phyag chen mngon ‘gro” we’re talking about. So, yes, even if

mahāmudrā is proved to be Indian and sūtra-based, or proved to be autonomous, now we

need empowerment because some mashuguna affixed preliminaries. So back at square one,

what kind of empowerment, and from whence?

Lineage

I’ll take the whence first, since much of my research proved totally inconclusive. To me it

seems that part of the problem of sources must certainly stem back to the fact that there is

no Vajrayoginī cycle of tantra per se. That is, all Vajrayoginī material ultimately derives

from Chakrasa˙vara tantras. Vajrayoginī was literally snatched out of his arms—one can

easily imagine why. The lack of sources is often mentioned in these debates. Thus, for

instance, Sakya Paṇḍita argues:

“But,” some contend, “the Sow-Head

and other initiations are also found here.”

  8 
Rites like these, however, are not exactly initiations.

They have not been expounded in any tantra,

and even if, perchance, they could be found there,

they are still not initiations but authorizations.

There are plenty of rejoinders. In the Pakmo Namshe, Tsuklak Trengwa, while admitting

that not all the sources made it to Tibet, responds as follows:

Many Tibetan scholars refute [Vajravārāhı practices] and claim that they are not based on all

the tantras, just because they [personally] have not even seen the parts of the tantra that do

exist now in Tibet and merely because they are not compatible with their own interests. This

is not a scholarly attitude.

And again:

Without even seeing the explanation in the Vajrayāna, not seeing even these few tantras

extant these days in Tibet, they proclaim that there is no explanation that is based on all the

tantras. [Darmakīrti's] expression “Just because it is not seen does not [mean] it doesn’t

exist” is germane here.

Tsuklak Trengwa goes on to describe the lineage of the transmission, which started with

Telopa receiving it directly from the Æākinī in Uḍḍiyāna. Telopa fully transmitted it to

Nāropa, who also received it again directly from Vajrayoginī. Then it passed to Marpa, as

Tsuklak Trengwa explains it:

[Marpa] went to the charnel ground of Sosadvıpa and met the glorious Innate Mother in

person. She conferred the four empowerments by means of symbols, and opened her heart

with a crystal hooked knife to display the mantra wheel. She bestowed all the creation and

completion [practices] just as the guru had foretold. Then she prophesied, saying, “Go to the

  9 
Vajra Seat [in Bodhgaya] to see our Teacher’s eye-tooth and go to Tibet.” After seeing the

tooth at Vajra Seat, Marpa found and brought out the esoteric instructions of creation and

completion, just as the guru and the dakini had revealed, written in Singhalese letters in

vermilion on Palmyra leaves.

I think this is interesting in its specificity. My confusion here is that there are two

transmission situations in these discussions, always. On the one hand, there is the pressure to

prove that it is in the original Indic tantric sources originating from the Buddha. On the

other hand, Vajradhara or, in this case, Vajrayoginī herself is a good enough proxy to the

buddha and that is the lineage that must be continued. If, in that case, it stands outside of the

tantric literature, why then must we prove tantric origins? Tsuklak Trengwa even says, in

this same section:

In short, one does not gain spiritual powers from tantras without the esoteric instructions.

[On the other hand], accomplished adepts who extract the essence of the esoteric

instructions and practice them without relying on the tantras are beyond count.

In Marpa’s rnam thar, it states clearly that he received Chakras˙avara empowerments and

then fifteen, seven, and five-deity Vajrayoginī separately through a sindura mandala, then a

symbol empowerment by means of the mandala of the guru’s body, speech, and mind. But

this is perhaps one source of the problem.

Another rebuttal comes from the omniscient Padma Karpo (1527-1592) in his commentary

to the Vajrayoginī practice called the Formless or Bodyless Æākinī. Refuting the

misconceptions of sDom gsum rab dbye was one of the two reasons that Padma Karpo gives

for writing this commentary, since, he says, they were tiring him out. His response to the

our chosen verse about Marpa is as follows:

  10 
Worrying about the reasons for [Marpa] having it or not is like [worrying about] whether a

rabbit’s horns are sharp or dull. Although suspicions arose, they were entirely based on

thinking that this kind of fourfold empowerment of symbols was untenable. Therefore he

made out that the sources were not clear in the Chakrasa˙vara root and explanatory tantras.

In this, no matter what Vajravārāhı explains, the rebuttal (rtsod spong) [shows] a lack of

understanding. Whatever has been presented of the opponents’ position in this debate

(phyogs snga ma) has not sunk in (things pa). Therefore, [just] this empowerment of four

symbols is the rebuttal. He himself said, “It is said ‘this has the activities of empowerment

of the Sow-Headed (Vārāhīshīr˝ha) and so forth.’” [He] also said “if it is in accordance with

the tantra, it is appropriate to accept it.” Since it cannot be stated definitively whether it is in

accordance or not in accordance, the opponent falls into the position of defeating himself.

I’ll return to Padma Karpo later. Meantime, one more happy quote for good measure,

attributed to Tsurbu Gukshrıwa (mTshur bu Gug shrı ba):

Ananda was familiar (rgyus) with Shakyamuni, you Sakyapas are familiar with Virūpa, and

we Dvagpo Kagyus are familiar with Nāropa and Marpa. Therefore whether or not there

existed the Six Dharmas after Mila and whether Marpa had an initiation rite for Vajravārāhı

is known by us, but not by you…”

It is important to remember that most of the rebuttals to sDom gsum rab dbye come way

after the fact. Jared Rhoton put the first documented written reply to a few passages as

coming from the fourth Zhamar, Chökyi Drakpa (1453-1524) some two and a half centuries

later. So it may often be the case that they are responding not to Sakya Paṇḍita per se but to

some later commentators. I believe such is the case with one major lineage issue that

Tsuklak Trengwa takes by the horns, that of a character called Kor Nirūpa (sKor Ni rū pa).

Yet this person is not mentioned by name in sDom gsum rab dbye. It is only in the

  11 
commentaries, such as the one by Gorampa Sönam Senge (1429-1489) composed in 1463,

that we learn that it was he, Kor Nirūpa, who is to blame for Sapaṇ’s accusation concerning

Marpa. Gorampa explains that the custom of granting uninitiated beginners access to tantric

practice by conferring the Sow-head blessing (Vārāhīshīr˝ha or phag mgo’i byin rlabs),

“originated in the time of Gampopa Dakpo Lhaje Sönam Rinchen (1079-1153). He sent his

pupils to request initiations of other teachers. Most of them did not return but settled

[elsewhere], and because Dakpo had urged that every group [of students] must have its own

bestower of initiations, he consented when Kong Neruwa inquired of him, ‘What if I were to

perform the Sow-Head initiation?’ [The latter] conferred the Sow-Head blessing and then

expounded the Six Doctrines of Nāro[pa], the Great Seal, and other precepts. From that time

onward, [the custom] developed of winning access to the doctrine through instructions

expounded by a master from whom initiation had been requested, i.e., the door to the Six

Doctrines being opened merely by a conferral of the Vajra Sow-Head blessing, even though

the initiation of Chakrasmvara had not been [previously] obtained.”

So who is this guy? Actually, he is two guys. A disciple of Karopa, who in turn was a

disciple of Maitrīpa, he was known as Nirūpata Naljorpa. This person’s dates are given as

1008-1081. In 1081, in his seventy-fourth year, Karopa told him to go to Tibet, while some

ḍākinıs prophesied his journey to Nepal. While in Nepal, he met a young Tibetan named

Korchungwa (sKor chung ba, also known as Dampa sKor), and decided to “take up

residence” (grongs ‘jug ‘pho ba) in this better body. Leaving his old body to be cremated,

he then went to Tibet as a nineteen year-old. He met Karopa and his wife, who were briefly

visiting Tibet, and one might imagine that it was on this occasion that he was “recognized”

as his old disciple. In any case, he became known as Kor Nirūpa, and would sometimes

wear Indian clothes and sometimes Tibetan. He taught in Tibet for twenty-one years, dying

  12 
in 1102. In the Blue Annals, Gö Lotsāwa equates him with Prajñāshrījñānakīrti, the author

of a major commentary on Saraha’s dohas. This also brings up the questionable authorship

of the latter two of Saraha’s doha trilogy and the suspicion that Kor Nirūpa was somehow

associated with their forgery. In any case, this name is definitely tarnished in some circles

through association with the suspect mahāmudrā lineage of Maitrīpa, even without the

Vajravārāhı blessing issue. This must be why Tsuklak Trengwa launches unexpectedly into a

the following full-scale defense of him that follows directly on the quote about Marpa:

Also certain of [Sakya Paṇḍita's] followers say, “The Dharma-perverter called Kor Nirūpa

made a fake empowerment called Vārāhı Empowerment of Four Symbols (Phag mo brda

bzhi’i dbang). That is refuted.” They rush to utter such meaningless chatter. The great Kor

Nirūpa was a direct disciple of the mighty master Maitrıpa and was a great lotsāwa. From

Lord Maitrıpa he received and brought out Chanting the Names, Unpolluted, the root tantra

Completely Nondwelling, the explanatory tantra Unimaginable, and Secret Nondual Tantra.

Thus, Kor Nirūpa’s Five Tantras are well-known and all of them, moreover, are

commentaries on the view and meditation of mahāmudrā without mental engagement (yid la

mi byed pa).

Furthermore, the Seven Texts of Accomplishments, the Six Cycles of Essence, and the

Twenty-four Dharma Cycles of Amanasi-kara, were all brought out by him. Since he taught

primarily on those, he became known as “Amanasi Man.” The scholar-adept Khyungpo

Naljor requested them all from him. That is why it is explained that [Nirūpa] told him, “I

currently have disciples in number equal to three measures of white mustard seeds, but in

terms of perfecting all the teachings there is no one better than you, Khyungpo Naljor.” [He

also] certainly brought out many cycles of Vārāhı, however [this is not] the tradition of

Vārāhı’s Empowerment of Four Symbols.

  13 
One minor point here is that in the biography of Khyungpo Naljor, the similar statement is

what makes Khyungpo doubt Kor Nirūpa, and thus all the teachers in Tibet, and causes him

to leave for India. But Tsuklak Trengwa leaves out that part, and so I will too. There’s a

much bigger problem here with all this character-assassination and counter-commendation.

While Tsuklak Trengwa claims Kor Nirūpa as a disciple of Maitrīpa, and even if he is at the

very least a disciple of Maitrīpa’s disciple Korapa, how can he also be a disciple of

Gampopa? Even if the event under discussion, that is, requesting Gampopa’s permission to

bestow the Vajravārāhı blessing, happened in the very last year of Kor Nirūpa’s life in 1102,

that would make Gampopa twenty-three years old (if the dates 1079-1153 are correct for

him). The chances of ordering around a 40-year old disciple of Maitrīpa some quarter

century before the founding of Dakpo Kagyu seems remote. That’s why the ever-omniscient

Padma Karpo had this to say, after first pointing out that the discussion originating from

sDom gsum rab dbye did not even concern the correct Vārāhı transmission:

The Small Red Lady (dMar chung ma) was by Tri Saraha. Then it passed to Kor Nirūpa.

One of his disciple’s brought it to Tibet. But this lineage is not this tradition, because this

does not teach the four symbols. Therefore, [when] it says in the great commentary to the

sDom gsum of dGa’ sdod (?) “Dakpo Rinpoche did not give his disciples the

empowerments, so he was losing disciples to others. At that time included among the

disciples was Kong Niruwa, and he said ‘I have something like this” and that’s how the

four-symbol empowerment came to be,” one can not determine that it is Kong Niruwa. And

no one has ever heard such talk as this from him. You can go ahead and ascribe such talk to

Dakpo, [but] it’s a lie [because the empowerment] was given to Rechungpa and the other

disciples of Mila. You should know that the old man damaged his prāna [saying such

things].

  14 
But maybe it was not old man Sapaṇ, but his faithful commentator Gorampa who was

confused. But for sure I’m confused. If it were somehow proved that Kor Nirūpa, the

disciple of Maitrıpa and Korapa, had a flawed lineage, then maybe one could say Marpa did

not have Vajravārāhı’s proper blessing. But in Gorampa’s direct commentary on our name-

sake verse here, he again makes out that, “Opening the door of doctrine with the

Vajravārāhı blessing originated with Kong Neruwa and, since it was not extant until then, it

is contradictory to consider it Marpa’s transmission.” If Kor Nirūpa postdates Marpa (which

we’re pretty sure is not true anyway) then he basically has nothing to do with Marpa. And

finally, why can’t Gorampa even spell his name correctly? (And yes, I searched in vain

among many lists of Gampopa’s disciples for a “Kong Neruwa”).

It seems to me that while there are still some doctrinal issues remaining on what constitutes

empowerment, the questions of lineage can now be gingerly laid aside.

Meaning

Aside from the question of lineage, there are many, many more objections and defenses

concerning the Vajravārāhı empowerment question, ranging from the most abstract

theoretical issues of what empowerment means, to bickering over the exact shape of the

mandala. I’ll try to only address to what I believe to be the most substantive.

What is the Four Symbol empowerment?

The focus of the objection by Sakya Paṇḍita is specifically aimed at something called

“Vārāhı Empowerment of Four Symbols (phag mo brda’ bzhi’i dbang). Tsuklak Trengwa

follows a path of investigation that mentions some possibilities, including Kor Nirūpa’s

system as quoted above as well as that of Saraha’s dohas. But these, he says, are not the

Vārāhı empowerment in question. The only one not so dismissed he calls sKu gsung thugs

  15 
kyi rgyud mdzad ma, and mentions that this name is also applied to the Two-face Yoginī

(Zhal gnyis ma) Blessing. Without really defending it, he explains the great benefits:

These empowerments of four symbols, then, have the ability to tame those of sharp

faculties. It is explained that a vajra master who accomplishes awareness and knows the

constitution and mindstream of those to be tamed and teaches them, accomplishes the goal.

This is not advising that “you should just confer [empowerment] on as many listeners as

you can get.” The mere droplets of the sophists cause great bloating. Don’t give credence to

the arrogant bastards who make [droplets] into great oceans of Dharma.

The difference between blessing and empowerment

It seems fair to give time to another Sakya lama, Lowo Khenchen Sonam Lundrup (Glo bo

mkhan-chen bSod nams lhun grub, 1456-1532), who in 1489 wrote a commentary on sDom

gsum rab dbye addressing just these issues. I quote at length because this unusual version

seems quite interesting:

[Sakya Paṇḍita made statements such as] “The guidance called Nāropa’s Six Dharmas were

nothing but that until after Mila did not exist” (vs. 505) and “The blessing of Vajravārāhı,

Marpa of Lhodrak does not have it.” (vs. 504) and ” [if there is] the blessing, it is not the

empowerment”.

This means the following: the tantras teach both empowerment conferral (dbang bskur) and

blessing (byin rlabs). In particular, in the Sampuṭa [Tantra] it says “Having obtained the

empowerment and permission (bkas gnang)” and so on. So there are the authentic

empowerment conferral and the blessing permission (byin rlabs bkas gnang). Of those two,

the authentic empowerment conferral is a method to sow the seeds of fivefold awareness in

  16 
the unimpaired vajra body. The basis of refinement and that which refines is unmistakably

set up by means of the rites of outer, inner, and secret contingency…

As for blessing, once matured by the empowerment, in order to engender the qualities that

have not [yet] arisen in those individuals possessed of the sacred pledges, or for the sake of

maintaining and increasing [those qualities] that have already arisen, the method for imbuing

the blessings of Body, Speech and Mind are done according to the rites of the individual

lineages. In particular, in the Sarma tradition of the secret mantra of Tibet, there are many

[cases] concerning the blessing of Vajravārāhı: the greater and lesser Don grub ma, great

and lesser dBu bcad ma, Nāropa, Maitrī mkha’ spyod, the blessing of White Vārāhı and so

forth. [We] don’t know if Lord Marpa received these or not. The Vārāhı blessings of the

lineage of esoteric instructions of the Nāro tradition were received by Marpa, who gave

them to Mila and so on. But thinking that the tradition of the Nyingma mantra, this Blessing

of Four Symbols of Vārāhı, was not received by Marpa and not given to Mila and so on, [is

the reason for] saying that Marpa of Lhodrak does not have the Vajravārāhı blessing. As to

the question of whether there is a blessing of Vajravārāhı or not, the Chakrasa˙vara

explanatory tantra Abhidhāna explains the complete four empowerments of Vajravārāhı. In

that viewpoint, Khyab ‘jug gsang ba and Kurmpatra both [had] explained both the thirty-

seven and the thirteen-deity mandalas. The lineage from Tsami and Galo has both the

empowerment permission (dbang bka’) and explanation permission (bshad bka’) and so

forth that previously appeared in Tibet for sure. Now there is nothing but the manuals (yig

cha). It is said that there are many fourfold empowerments from the Garland and from

Kriya, so those also exist. The Dharma Lord Sapaṇ received the Three Cycles of Vārāhı that

are taught in the Garland from Shākya Shrī. Marpa Lotsāwa also presumably received the

four empowerments blessing of Vārāhı of Lord Nārotapa. Therefore, the Dharma Lord

Sakya Paṇḍita in no way could say that “there is no empowerment of Vajravārāhı.”

  17 
The sDom gsum rab dbye [is a reference to] the Nyingma tradition of the Sow-headed One

(Phag-mgo), the Archer (mda’ gzhu), Mirror (me long) and so forth that have a symbol

blessing attached. The taking of the vows of the five families and so on, the prelude (sta

gon), entering ritual, distributing the vase water upon entering the main part, and adding on

the concluding [auspicious verses] at the end were done by the old Dri[gungs] sentinels (‘gri

rgan gyi chos sgo ba). This does not constitute an authentic empowerment conferral, and it

is not the lineage coming from Marpa Lotsāwa. It is also not the true pure tradition of the

Nyingma. [Sakya Paṇḍita] was thinking that it was a shame to bestow the Sarma instructions

of Nāropa’s Six Dharmas through opening the door of a great counterfeit Dharma, and

[therefore] he refuted it.

Blame it on the Drigungpas. I can live with that.

While it appears to be true that officially the blessing is given only after the receipt of a full-

fledged authentic empowerment, Tsuklak Trengwa still insists that this is not true of those of

highest acumen, but only for those who need the gradual maturation that is affected in the

highest yoga tantra empowerment. He turns the argument around to gain the final moral

high ground:

A vajra master who has accomplished mahāmudrā will mature such a [disciple of highest

acumen] through blessing and teaching the path of creation and completion. When they

come to understand, then they will practice because of the desire to become enlightened in a

short time for the sake of sentient beings. In the case of disciples who would [only] later

become suitable recipients, who at present have many discursive thoughts, they should be

given the extensive ripening empowerments and guided gradually according to the three

guidance manuals (zin bris rnam gsum). In that way one won’t waste disciples.

  18 
As it is explained in such sayings as “the great medicine of the instantaneous [approach] is

great poison for a gradualist,” disciples must be guided according to the measure of their

being. Though [given] the maturing [empowerment], there are some with most excellent

faculties who will [anyway] become matured and liberated in the same instant just by seeing

the face of the master or by a blessing. Those of sharp faculties, in whom the awareness will

be born just by the blessings of meditative absorption such that they will have complete

confidence without any doubts—that’s what’s called maturing the being.

[Some] individuals are naturally characterized by great discursiveness or are [stuck] in the

mire pit of various views in this life, a pool filled with the waters of sophistry. After pouring

even the last droplet of the water that has washed a thousand times the vessel of the milk of

secret mantra, [they will think] this is the so-called “ocean of milk of Vajrayāna” and will

grasp on to this white, sweet essence as the milk. Those [people] spread this pile of

ignorance and make their living as masters. There are many [such as these] in Tibet. [When

those masters] guide people in that way, the disciples become disturbed. Maturing them

through wordy rituals with many elaborations to perform makes them happy. Therefore, in

the blessing from the oral instructions of Lord [Tongwa] Dönden, there is the generation of

elaborations such as entering into the mandala and the empowerments of five families. It is

to satisfy those self-proclaiming as dull or sharp faculties. The actual blessing which comes

from the oral instructions is talking about maturing those of sharp faculties.

Therefore, without any recourse to giving guidance according to the measure of a disciple’s

mind, many pseudo-masters practice Dharma with the hook of enticing material goods.

These pseudo-masters draw a picture of a nice house in the sand (i.e. mandala), and gather

beside it many wealthy brutes who would not produce even a tiny thought of the difficulty

of attaining this free and endowed [human life] even [if they] were to meet a thousand

  19 
buddhas. Limiting [the empowerment] to twenty-five [disciples] or whatever, [they] tie on

blindfolds and leave them there while they read through the mandala ritual, once in a while

beating the drum, ringing the bell, and flicking drops of water and such. By just this they

gather disciples and make a living. They do not see whether or not [the disciples] are

maturing. [But] it is obvious that those disciples do not manifest any difference at all before

and after. These days here in Tibet it appears that [people] are howling like the wind about

whether such [empowerments] cause maturation or not. But the only result that will manifest

for those masters is that, if they happen to have mantra vows, they will accrue the downfall

of proclaiming secrets along with some material goods.

Tsuklak Trengwa continues:

Of course it is wonderful that you all hold empowerment to be so highly valuable. But if

you don’t recognize the empowerment itself, what it is and what actually happens when one

is matured by it and so forth, then it’s like the story in the sūtra: A man was singing the

praises of sandalwood for making a living. Later someone asks “do you have some

sandalwood?”, and the man replies, “I’ve never seen any sandalwood.” [When it is] said

that in the future there will be those who praise the Dharma as a livelihood but don’t

practice the Dharma—there is danger that it could happen here. So please take care.

So who is mature?

So what exactly is smin byed as in smin byed kyi dbang? Personally I prefer to translate the

term as “maturing,” I guess because I myself would rather be described as “mature” rather

than “ripe”. The last discussion concerns a description of a proper empowerment and how it

really should mature the disciple. This seems to me to be the only really meaningful subject.

However, some quirky devil on my shoulder couldn’t help whispering that it does sound an

awful lot like the maturing process for, say, an American fifth-grader (maybe not so

  20 
different than a monk). Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa describes each stage of maturing in response

to the attacks:

If you hold that position, then you don’t even understand the meaning of maturation. In the

Highest [Yoga Tantra], when there is only maturing [through] extensive elaborations, at first

the disciple’s fortune is examined by the preparatory “tagön” (lta gon). If [the disciple] is

known to be suitable, he or she is allowed in. Bound by the vows of the common five

families and the arousing of the vajra mind of awakening, they are brought into the colored

sand mandala and the sacred pledges are proclaimed. Once their mindstream is stabilized,

the descent of the timeless awareness [being] bestows the deity’s blessing on their being.

Even the least of them gets a little [experience] of the timeless awareness of bliss-emptiness.

They toss the flowers and their special deity is identified. By those [rites], they are matured

appropriately to be shown the mandala. Otherwise, if they see the manifestation of the male

and female deities [in union], there is the danger of losing faith. Rather, by doing it in those

stages, [they will] fear failing the sacred pledges and the blessings will change their

mindstream. [Then] lack of faith will not arise upon seeing the male and female deities.

By presenting and explaining the mandala to someone matured in that way, they gain

confidence and faith in both the guru and the mandala; then they are suitable to receive the

vase empowerment.

In the [vase empowerment], the conferral of the five awareness empowerments refines away

the impure five aggregates and introduces the five aggregates as the five families. Giving the

blessing of Vajrasattva’s yogic conduct (brtul zhugs), the empowerment of the mantra, and

the empowerment of a [vajra] master all make [the disciple] temporarily suitable to be a

master. Understanding the environment and its contents as the five families frees them from

an ordinary outlook and is the attainment of the vase empowerment.

  21 
Since the viewing of the body mandala and the secret substance taken from the “secret sky”

and so forth no longer give rise to concepts concerning [ordinary] characteristics, [the

disciple] has been matured as a suitable recipient of the secret empowerment. The conferral

of that secret empowerment blesses the three doors, like adding yeast to grain, so that the

timeless awareness of clarity-emptiness enhanced by joy and happiness arises in their

mindstream. Free of attachment to [mere] shapes as deities, this is the attainment of the

secret empowerment.

Thoughts of desire have no power to bind, and the concepts concerning characteristics of

path and no path are diminished. Then when there are no concepts concerning characteristics

about engaging the yogic conduct of a wisdom consort [according] to the guru’s orders, [the

disciple] has been matured as a suitable recipient of the third empowerment. By the

conferral of the third empowerment, the eighty natural conceptions are blessed by bliss and

then all phenomena are known as a single flavor in the essence of one’s own intrinsic

awareness, bliss-emptiness. This is the attainment of the third empowerment.

In the revelation of all phenomena as primordially pure, to thoroughly integrate it without

anxiety [indicates that the disciple] is matured as a suitable recipient of the fourth

empowerment. The conferral of the fourth empowerment purifies fixation on one’s own

intrinsic awareness and bliss-emptiness. The nature of all phenomena is seen as the ultimate

reality, like a maiden’s divination [powers]. Then the fetters of doubt are severed and the

fourth empowerment is attained.

I assume that this little foray into what were once critically important issues has left you just

about where you were to begin with. Same here. However it has given me a new perspective

on our current situation. If we look around at what’s going on now, maybe even with some

of our own friends and colleagues, we might be horrified with what seems to be a corruption

  22 
of traditional forms of Buddhism that we have learned. Perhaps most of all with regards to

Tibetan Buddhism and its tantric ritual forms, which had a level of complexity that is hard

to maintain. But now we could just think of such people, “oh, he’s just pulling a Gampopa,

or “she’s cool as Marpa,” and try not to be a Sapan Stick-in-the-mud.

  23 
Footnotes:

1. dPal rje btsun rdo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang ba’i sgrub thabs kyi rnam par bshad pa zab mo rnam

‘gyed, known as Phag mo’i rnam bshad or Phag mo’i rnam bshad for short.

2. Peking 4668, rgyud ‘grel, phu 11a4-13b5. It bears a clear colophon which reads, “The Secret

Sādhana of Glorious Coemergent Yoginī that remains extremely hidden, was exquisitely acquired

from the mouths of Vajradhara and the ḍākinī, arriving in the heart of Guru Telopa. The Great

Learned Nāropa, Lord of Yogins, composed it.”

3. In vol. 2 of Selected Writings of the first zwa-nag karma-pa dus-gsum-mkhyen pa, TBRC W2365,

ff. 175-232, Gangtok: dzongsar chhentse labrang, 1980. (Reproduced from rare manuscripts from the

library of zwa-dmar rin-po-che). The title page in Tibetan reads dPal rdo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang

bsgrub [rdo?] rje btsun mo lhan skyes. This title does not appear again within the text. There is no

real colophon, and no reason it couldn’t be by Naropa.

4. Phag mo’i rnam bshad, p. 19. (All page numbers of this text refer to the English numbered pages

in Rumtek edition, 1975.

5. Naropa, Secret Sādhana, f. 1b4-5.

6. rdo rje phag mo’i byin rlab ni/ mar pa lho brag pa la med/ mar pa’i bryud pa ‘dzin bzhin du/ phag

mos chos sgo ‘byed pa ni/ rgyud dang ‘gal ba lta ci smos/ rang lugs dang yang ‘gal ba yin. Sakya

Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen 2002. Verse 504, pages 162 and 321 (for the Tibetan).

7. phyi nas phag mo’i byin rlabs dang/ sems bskyed rmi lam ma la sogs/ yi dam bsgom pa dkrongs

bskyed dang/ dkar po chig thub la sogs pa/ sangs rgyas bstan dang ‘gal ba yi/chos log du ma deng

sang ‘phel/ Ibid., verse 610, p. 175 and 326.

8. Jackson 1994; Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen 2002; Mathes 2003; Brunnhölzl 2007; Jamgön

Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé 2007; Toni Huber 2003.

9. David Jackson 1994.

10. Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé 2007, p. 212.

11. Klaus-Dieter Mathes 2003, p. 225.

  24 
12. Zla ‘od gzhon nu (“Youthful Moonlight”) in Tibetan. See Takpo Tashi Namgyal 1986, p. 119.

Tibetan xylograph edition, Rumtek, ff. 108b-110b.

13. Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé 2007, p. 138-139.

14. Ibid., 212

15. Ibid., 213.

16. mdo sngags gnyis ka las logs su gyur pa’i gseng lam zhig yin par bzhed cing, Takpo Tashi

Namgyal 1986,. 112; f.101F.

17. Ibid, 114a3-4: rje sgam po pa nyid kyi phyag bzhes ltar smin byed kyi dbang bskur mi dgos

shing/

18. Ibid 112. (f. 101a2-6) īphyis kyi sgrub brgyud pa dag gis/ mdo snags gnyis ka dang sgo bstun

pa’i dbang du byas nas/ smin byed du dbang dgos pa dang sngon ‘gro’i skor dang.

19. English 2002, 6-7 in general and 109 in particular: “We will see how Vajravārāhī’s maṇḍala is

carefully adapted from the sixty-two-deity maṇḍala of Cakrasaṁvara, which appears in embryonic

form in the Cakrasaṁvaratantra (e.g., chs. 2-3) and in various presentations in its derivative

literature, such as the Yoginīsaṁcāratantra (e.g., paṭalas 6-8), the Saṁvarodayatantra (e.g., chs. 8 and

13), the Abhidhānottaratantra (e.g., chs. 9 and 14), and in exegetical literature, such as Lūyīpāda’s

Herukābhisamaya.”

20. Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen 2002, p. 96; vs.11.

21. Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa, Phag mo rnam bshad, p. 6.

22. Ibid., p. 96. This proverb can be found in Dharmakirti’s Tshad ma rnam ‘grel (ATG).

23. In Tsuklak Trengwa’s Condensed Essence (sNying po bsdus pa 149; f.2a2-3) it says “yi ge bris

pa’i dpe byang bu zhig rnyed de spyan drangs pas bskye rdzogs gnyis kyi dper snang.” dpe byang bu

can be “inscription written on a board, or label”. This would seem more like: “Marpa found a

labeled text written in Singhalese letters in vermilion on Palmyra leaves, and brought it out (to

Tibet). [This] is the basic text (dper) of creation and completion.”

24. Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa, Phag mo rnam bshad, pp. 6-7.

25. Tsang Nyön Heruka 1982, p. 90.

26. Lus med mkha’ ‘gro’i chos sde’i rnam par bshad pa chos kyi nying khu

  25 
27. Ibid. p. 4/ f.2b4: sdom gsum rab dbye’i spyi ti ga byed pa dag thang chad do… and p. 5/f.3a1: de

dar ba dgag par ‘dod pa

28. The quotation here is ‘di la phag mgo la sogs pa’i/ dbang bskur bya ba yod ces zer. It appears to

be taken off the verse in sDom gsum, but is slightly changed, perhaps to suit the argument. Quoted

on p. 96 (Tibetan p. 295. verse 11), with note 8 on p. 184 says Gorampa attributes this to Lama

Shang Tsalpa (1123-1193), who would predate Sapan (1182-1251).

29. de yang rgyud dang mthun na blang du rung Find in Sakyapa

30. This is dGe bshes kong ting Gug sri ba, quoted in sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu bye ba’i dris lan

lung gi tshad ma ‘khrul spong dgongs rgyan, by Glo bo mkhan-chen bsod nams lhun grub (1456-

1532) a Sakya master from Mustang, f. 52a2-3. Mentioned in Jackson 1994, p, 124.

31. Sakya Pandita 2002 , p. 27.

32. Gorampa, sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgong pa gsal

ba, f. 88a-b (p. 177), commenting on vs. 4. Translated by Jared Rhoton in Sakya Pandita 2002, p.

184, n. 5.

33. Nirūpata rNal ‘byor pa, Roerich 1976, p. 853.

34. Ibid. p. 851. Also see Schaeffer 2005, 66-67.

35. These are: (1) ‘Jam dpal mtshan brjod, Skt. MañjuŸrīnāmasamgīti, DgK. rgyud vol. ka 1b1-13b7

(Toh. 360) (2) rGyud kyi rgyal po dpal rnyog pa med pa, transmitted by Vajrapāṇi (11th cent.), vol.

1: 1-8 of the mahāmudrā collection Nges don phyag rgya chen po khrid mdzod (TBRC W23447), (3)

rtsa rgyud Rab tu mi gnas pa, Skt. Aprasahaprakāza, (4) bshad rgyud bSam gyis mi khyab pa), and

(5) gSang ba gnyis su med pa’i rgyud.

36. Grub pa sde bdun. Listed on page 7 and explained in detail on pages 7-28 in Padma dkar po,

Phag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, Vajra Vidya Institute Library,

2005. “Drub pa” does not seem to mean siddhas here. gZhon nu dpal (BA 856-57) identifies these

seven texts written by these figures as fundamental texts of Tantric Buddhist history; the seven are in

Derge Tengyur, Toh. 2217-23. These were among the teachings that Vajrapāṇi transmitted to Nepal

and Tibet.

37. sNying po skor drug, Padma dkar po, ibid. 28-37. Also see Deitle’s article (?)

  26 
38. See Padma dkar po, ibid. 37. According to BA, Roerich 845, the A-ma-na-si’i skor nyer drug is a

set of 26 texts (DgT. rgyud, Toh. nos. 2229-2254) most of which are attributed to Advayavajra

(gNyis med rdo rje). All of them apparently concern yid la mi byed pa. Padma Karpo says there are

25, all listed in rGyal ba’i gan mdzod, page 3 7-on. Six of them available in Sanskrit, according to

Khenpo Trashi (personal communication to ATG). Padma Karpo also explains three ways to

understand the term yid la mi byed pa or amanasi-kara, ibid. p. 38-42.

39. (Shangpa Texts, vol. 1, 67; f. 5a2-3). This was the statement that made Khyungpo Naljor decide

to finally go to India, since he wasn’t interested in common spiritual powers and because if he

himself was as good as the greatest siddhī in Tibet (i.e. Kor Nirūpa), then he should search for

something better in India. Since this was a cause for Khyungpo Naljor’s doubts, it is a strange

defense of Kor Nirūpa. However the story in the biography confirms the transmissions that were

passed on by Kor Nirupa, which seems to be the point here.

40. Padma Karpo is defending the Bodyless Vajravārāhī, while according to him Sakya Paṇḍita is

attacking the four-faced, twelve-armed manifestation.

41. Lus med mkha’ ‘gro’i chos sde’i rnam par bshad pa chos kyi nying khu, ff. 3b3-4a1.

42. To give you an idea of the range, here is a list of a section of Gorampa’s outline that is

superimposed on just a part of Sapaṇ’s verses in A Clear Differentiation: The Refutations of

misconceptions about the process of maturation: (1) That a mere blessing may serve as a maturative

rite, (2) that initiation in a defective mandala constitutes a maturative rite, (3) That the erroneous

initiation of an indefinite number of neophytes constitutes a maturative rite. (4) That initiation is

unnecessary for practice, (5)That oblational and meditation-initiatives may serve as maturative rites,

(6) That practice may precede initiation (7) That maturation may be obtained from the master’s

body-mandala, (8) That the three lower classes of tantra are also equipped with the four initiations,

(9) That doors to Vajrayāna doctrine other than initiation are available, (10) that four alternatives

obtain in initiation and (11) that initiatory pledges need not be kept. Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen

2002, p. 274.

43. Phag mo’i rnam bshad zab mo rnam ‘byed, 13.

44. Sampuṭanāmamahātantra, an explanatory tantra of Hevajra, Dg.K. rgyud ‘bum, vol. Ga, ff. 73b-

  27 
158b (Toh. 381).

45. Since this is mentioned as an explanatory tantra (bshad rgyud) it is probably

Abhidhānottaratantra, Dg. K., rGyud ‘bum, vol. Ka, ff. 247a-370a (Toh. 369). However the root

tantra is also known as Srīheruka-abhidhāna, and since some commentators reverse these two, it is

not definite.

46. Tsa mi (should be rTswa mi) Sangs rgyas grags pa, a Kālachakra master who composed the

Yogamālā (sByor ba’i phreng ba, Toh. 1376), abbot of Nālandā in the twelfth century, and Rong po

rGa lo (1203-1282?), in his immediate lineage. See Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé 2007, p. 290

47. Phreng ba, could refer to the Yogamālā mentioned above, or to theYogaratnamālā (Toh. 1183).

the most important commentary on the Hevajra tantra, written by Kāṇha, which passed through to

Nāropa and Marpa.

48. Shākya Shrībhadra or Kha che paṇ chen Shākya Shrī, 1127-1225.

49. sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu bye ba’i dris lan lung gi tshad ma ‘khrul spong dgongs rgyan 53b3-

55a1

50. Quoted in Takpo Tashi Namgyal 1986, p. 123 (Phyag chen zla ba’i ‘od zer, f.112b5) as being

from the earlier and later hapramāṇasamyak (“Kapey Sarnying” Ka dpe gsar rnying?) But that is

probably a mistake for jñasamyakpramāṇa (bKa’ yang dag pa’i tshad ma, Toh. 2331) and bKa’ dpe

phyi ma (Toh. 2332) by Telo and Nāro, respectively.

51. Phag mo’i rnam bshad, pp. 23-25 (ff.12a5-13a2)

52. This story is also referenced by Tsongkapa in The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to

Enlightenment (vol.1, 74), where it is attributed to the King of Absorption Sūtra.

53. Phag mo’i rnam bshad, p. 25 (f.13a4-6).

54. Ibid., pp. 26-28 (ff.13b5-14b1).

  28 
Bibliography

Gorampa Sönam Senge (Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge). sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam

bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgong pa gsal ba in vol. 9 of The Collected Works of Kun-mkyen

Go-rams-pa bsod-nams-seng-ge. Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1979. TBRC W11249-0439.

Lowo Khenchen Sonam Lhundrub (Glo bo mkhan-chen bsod nams lhun grub), sDom pa gsum gyi

rab tu bye ba’i dris lan lung gi tshad ma ‘khrul spong dgongs rgyan in vol. 7 of gsung ‘bum/ bsod

nams lhun grub. TBRC W00KG01660.

Mahā Nāḍapāda, rDo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang sgrub, or Srī Vajrayoginī Guhya Sādhanā, Peking

4668, rgyud ‘grel, phu 11a4-13b5. TBRC W23702.

Naropa, dPal rdo rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang bsgrub [rdo?] rje btsun mo lhan skyes, Skt. Srī

Vajrayoginī Guhya Sādhana (“Secret Sadhana”), in vol. 2 of Selected Writings of the first zwa-nag

karma-pa dus-gsum-mkhyen pa, TBRC W23651, ff. 175-232, Gangtok: dzongsar chhentse labrang,

1980. (Reproduced from rare manuscripts from the library of zwa-dmar rin-po-che).

Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa (dPa’ bo gtsug lag Phreng ba),

Phag mo’i rnam bshad /dPal rje btsun rto rje rnal ‘byor ma’i gsang ba’i sgrub thabs kyi rnam par

bshad pa zab mo rnam ‘gyed (“Revealing the Profound”)

1. Printed from 16th century central Tibetan blocks. Rumtek, Sikkim: Dharmacakra Center, 1975.

2. A manuscript transcription of an ancient blockprint in the library of Nam mkha’ rdo rje by

Kandro. Bir, Dist. Kangra, H.P.: Kandro, 1974. TBRC: W30282

3. Phag mo’i rnam bshad zab mo rnam ‘gyed. Seattle, WA: Nitartha International Publications, 2009.

_____ sNying po bsdus pa (rDo rje rnal ‘byor ma lhan cig skyes ma’i bsked rim gyi lha khrid rnam

bshad zab mo rnam ‘byed kyi snying po bsdus pa) (“Condensed Essence”). Xylograph copy, mtsur

phu’i grva chen po, N.D.

  29 
Padma Karpo (pad ma dkar po), Lus med mkha’ ‘gro’i chos sde’i rnam par bshad pa chos kyi nying

khu in vol. 20 (wa) of gsung ‘bum of kun-mkhyen padma-dkar-po. Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab

Nyamso Khang, 1973-1974. TBRC W10736

_____ Phag rgya chen po’i man ngag gi bshad sbyar rgyal ba’i gan mdzod, Vajra Vidya Institute

Library, 2005.

Sampuṭanāmamahātantra, Dg.K. rgyud ‘bum, vol. Ga, ff. 73b-158b (Toh. 381).

Tantrarāja-Śrīlaghusamvara-nāma. rgyud kyi rgyal po dpal bde mchog nyung ngu zhes bya ba.

Trans. by Padmākara and Rin chen bZang po. Toh 368, Dg.K. rgyud ‘bum, vol Ka, 213b- 246b.

Tsangnyon Heruka Rupa’i Gyenchen. Life of Milarepa. rNal ‘byor gyi dbang phyug dam pa rje

btsun mi la ras pa’i rnam thar thar pa dang thams cad mkhyen pa’i lam ston. xylo. Ku lu mun li ci ṭa

ri’I sgrub sde. n.d.

Takpo Tashi Namgyal. Phyag chen zla ba’i ‘od zer. Tibetan xylograph edition, Rumtek, ff. 108b-

110b.

ENGLISH

Brunnhöolzl, Karl. 2007. “On Maitrīpa and His Cycle of Twenty-five Works on Mental

Nonengagement, Including Sahajavajra’s Commentary on the Ten Stanzas on True Reality.” In

Straight from the Heart: Buddhist Pith Instructions. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications. pp.125-190.

Diemberger, Hildegard. 2007.When a Woman Becomes a Religious Dynasty: The Samding Dorje

Phagmo of Tibet. New York: Columbia University Press.

English, Elizabeth. 2002. Vajrayoginī: Her Visualizations, Rituals, and Forms. Boston: Wisdom

Publications.

Gray, David B. 2007. The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourse of ⁄rī Heruka): A Study and

Annotated Translation. New York: AIBS, CBS, THUS.

  30 
Huber, Toni. 2003. “Where Exactly Are Caritra, Devikota and Himavat? A Sacred Geography

Controversy and the Development of Tantric Buddhist Pilgrimage Sites in Tibet” in A. McKay (Hg.)

The History of Tibet. Volume II The Medieval period: c.850-1895. The Development of Buddhist

Paramountcy. London: RoutledgeCurzon, pp. 392-424.

Jackson, David. 1994. Enlightenment by a Single Means: Tibetan Controversies on the “Self-

Sufficient White Remedy” (dkar po chig thub). Wien: Verlag, Der Österreichischen Akaddemie der

Wissenschaften.

Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé. 2007. The Treasury of Knowledge, Book Eight Part Four, Esoteric

Instructions. Translated by Sarah Harding. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.

Lhalungpa, Lobsang P. 1992. The Life of Milarepa. New York: Arkana.

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter 2003, “Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and his

circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools,” in Tibetan Buddhist Literature

and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, 900-1400, PIATS 2003: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of

the Tenth seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Oxford: pp. 221-227.

Nālandā Translation Committee, trans. 1982. The Life of Marpa the Translator. Boulder: Prajñā

Press.

____1997. “The Life of Tilopa” in Religions of Tibet in Practice, 137-56. Edited by Donald S. Lopez,

Jr. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Roberts, Peter Alan. 2007. The Biographies of Rechungpa: The Evolution of a Tibetan Hagiography.

London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Roerich, George, trans. 1949/1976. The Blue Annals. 2nd. ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen. 2002. A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes: Essential

Disstinctions among the Individual Liberation, Great Vehicle, and Tantric Systems (sDom gsum rab

dbye). Translated by Jared Douglas Rhoton. New York: State University of New York Press.

  31 
Sakya Pandita. 2000. Ordinary Wisdom: Sakya Pandita’s Treasury of Good Advice. Translated by

John T. Davenport. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2005. Dreaming the Great Brahmin: Tibetan Traditions of the Buddhist Poet-

Saint Saraha. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stewart, Jampa Mackenzie. 1995. The Life of Gampopa: Incomparable Dharma Lord of Tibet.

Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.

Takpo Tashi Namgyal. 1986. Mahāmudrā: the Quintessence of Mind and Meditation. Translated by

Lobsang P. Lhalungpa. Boston & London: Shambhala. Tibetan xylograph edition, Rumtek.

  32