Fifteenth Century Tibet:

Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest

Proceedings of a Conference
Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2015

Edited by
Volker Caumanns and Marta Sernesi

Lumbini International Research Institute

Lumbini 2017
 227

DID MKHAS GRUB RJE CHALLENGE THE AUTHENTICITY

OF THE SA SKYA LAM ’BRAS TRADITION?*

YAEL BENTOR
(The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Introduction

Tibetologists have taken some note of the dispute between mKhas grub rje and Ngor
chen concerning the body maṇḍala of Hevajra. In 1985, van der Kuijp1 wrote that
mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzang (1385–1438) and Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po
(1382–1456) “had a tremendous fall-out over the interpretation of the lus-dkyil of
Hevajra.”2
The autobiography of Glo bo mKhan chen bSod nams lhun grub (1456–1532),
translated into English by Jowita Kramer,3 provides crucial information concerning
this issue. There, we read that when Ngor chen was invited to Glo bo, he replied that
he could not leave central Tibet4 “because of a work by mKhas grub rje which says
that the body maṇḍala of Hevajra is not an authentic teaching.” Heimbel studied a
later biography of Ngor chen, written by mNga’ ris pa Sangs rgyas phun tshogs
(1649–1705). In this work, the problem was framed in the following way: Ngor chen
could not travel because of a dispute in which it was claimed that,5 “the body maṇḍala

* This research was supported by The Israel Science Foundation, grant no. 401/13. I would like
to thank Jörg Heimbel for his valuable comments on a draft of this paper.
1 Van der Kuijp 1985a: 51.
2 In another paper written the same year van der Kuijp described the compositions of Ngor chen
on this topic, the sMra ba ngan ’joms and the lTa ba ngan sel: “Written during the first half of
1426, these are two prints of the same text, with some interesting variant readings. It is a
polemical work dealing with the maṇḍala of Hevajra, conceived as a reply to and criticism of
Mkhas-grub-rje’s aside on the same in his Rgyud thams-cad-kyi rgyal-po dpal-gsang-ba ’dus-
pa’i bskyed-rim dngos-grub rgya-mtsho. The latter wrote a reply to Ngor-chen’s work which,
in the later literature, is usually referred to as the Ngor-lan.” Van der Kuijp 1985b: 88. The
Ngor lan is the gNam lcags ’khor lo, or in its complete title: Phyin ci log gi gtam gyi sbyor ba
la zhugs pa’i smra ba ngan pa rnam par ’thag pa’i bstan bcos gnam lcags ’khor lo.
3 Kramer 2008. The Tibetan text is found on pp. 116–117, and the English translation on p. 146.
See also Heimbel 2014: 304–305.
4 Tib.: lcang ra bka’ bcu pas kye rdor lus dkyil chos rnam dag ma yin zer ba’i yi ge mdzad pa la
brten nas, my translation.
5 Tib.: sa skya pa’i lus dkyil rgyud gzhung nas ma bshad zer ba, my translation. For the Tibetan
text and an English translation see Heimbel 2014: 300–301.
228

of the Sa skya pa was not explained in the Tantra and treatises.” David Jackson, for
his part, describes the events thus:6
A few years before founding Ngor, while in his early forties, Ngorchen was
forced to assume much responsibility for the Sakya School. In 1425, when
Thekchen Chöje passed away, that school and the Sakya Khön family lost
their most eminent representative, who had been honored as the Ming
emperor’s preceptor. The same year, when the learned tantric expert within
Tsongkhapa’s new Geluk Order, Khedrupje, wrote his anti-Sakya tantric
polemics, it fell to Ngorchen to reply.7
On this basis we may conclude that mKhas grub rje’s bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya
mtsho was written as an anti-Sa skya attack that challenged the authenticity of the
body maṇḍala of Hevajra practiced by this school. Achieving its goal, this polemical
writing provoked such a commotion in Sa skya that Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po
could not travel until he responded to the criticism of mKhas grub rje. Moreover,
though he had no part in this dispute, Ngor chen was chosen for the task of countering
the opinion of mKhas grub rje. This seems to be indeed the common oral tradition
among members of the Sa skya school.
Inspired by Elijah Ary, who probes the oral tradition of the dGe lugs pa school
through a chronological scrutiny of biographies,8 we shall take a close look at these
accounts. In fact, much work has already been done in this direction. In his recent
study of the life of Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po,9 Heimbel pointed out the difficulty
in establishing a time frame for the travel ban that delayed Ngor chen’s visit to Glo
bo. Our two above-cited sources pertaining to Ngor chen and travel do not agree on
the specific event, and in any case neither speaks of the period before 1426, the year
Ngor chen composed his replies to mKhas grub rje.10

6 Jackson 2010: 178.

7 In another publication Jackson described the unrest caused by mKhas grub rje’s criticism in
these words: “mKhas grub rje’s polemical writings concerning the Hevajra body-maṇḍala
stirred up the emotions of monks in gTsang to such an extent that the religious scholars at Sa
skya were temporarily forbidden to travel until the outstanding tantric expert Ngor chen Kun
dga’ bzang po (1382–1456) had written his two replies in 1426.” Jackson 2007: 354–355.
8 Ary 2015.
9 Heimbel 2014: 356.
10 As Heimbel notes, neither [auto]-biography was written during the lifetime of Ngor chen, still,
Glo bo mKhan chen was not only closer to the events, he had access to some of the letters that
Ngor chen sent in reply to his invitation by the Glo bo ruler A ma dpal (1388–ca. 1456) to visit
Glo bo. This correspondence specifically refers to Ngor chen’s second visit to Glo bo during
1436–1437, which took place about ten years after he wrote his two replies to mKhas grub rje.
While Ngor chen wrote his two replies in the third day of the first half of the third month of
1426, the earliest letter from Ngor chen that Glo bo mKhan chen cites is from the tenth month
of that year. See Kramer 2008: 145–146. The Tibetan text is found on pp. 116–117. See also
Heimbel 2014: 347–348 & 571.
 229

In his biography of Ngor chen, Sangs rgyas phun tshogs links the controversy
over the Hevajra body maṇḍala not only to the travel ban, but also to Ngor chen’s
defense of the Sa skya tantric tradition against the claim that its theoretical basis is
Mind-only, written in 1406.11 But already in 1991 Davidson cautions us:12
Modern Tibetan religious folklore often reifies all Sa-skya-pa critics into dGe-
lugs-pa monks and, in the case of Ngor-chen, into mKhas-grub dge-legs dpal-
bzang-po (1385–1438). Certainly, mKhas-grub-rje was one of Ngor-chen’s
critics in his later life… However, the circumstances were more complex than
reification into a single antagonist. For example, the dates themselves are
difficult—in 1404,13 mKhas-grub-rje turned 19 years of age and was still a
good Sa-skya-pa monk studying with Red-mda’-ba; he did not even visit
Tsong-kha-pa until 1407.

Ngor chen, Tsong kha pa and mKhas grub rje

The early fifteenth century, the floruit of these three scholars, was important for the
systematization of Buddhist thought and practice in Tibet, and especially for the
crystallization of tantric traditions, with various polemical compositions appearing.
In an early article, Davidson introduced Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po by comparing
his attempt to formulate a coherent system to that of Tsong kha pa,14 and in another
study the author characterizes Ngor chen as a scholar who:15 “displayed his penchant
for harmonizing the exegesis of all his available sources,” a description that equally
portrays Tsong kha pa, who sought a comprehensive Buddhist system of both Sūtra
and Tantra. For him the slightest internal contradiction could invalidate the complex
system of both Sūtra and Tantra. Yet a perfectly systematized presentation required
that these two scholars include in their works multiple disputations and distance
themselves from the methods of several of their Indian and Tibetan predecessors.
Still these two polymaths had different methods for creating uniform structures of
tantric practices.16
On the other hand, mKhas grub rje, a great scholar in his own right, did not
produce a new complete system. An admirer of Tsong kha pa’s comprehensive
overview, in his own works he reproduced and elaborated on it. Thus, in the main,
the arguments mKhas grub rje presents in his bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho do
not originate with him. Taken as a whole, mKhas grub rje’s work contains explanations

11 rGyud gsum gnod ’joms kyi ’grel pa.

12 Davidson 1991: 221.
13 Davidson refers here to Ngor chen’s Log rtog ngan sel, written in 1404 as well as to his rGyud
gsum gnod ’joms kyi ’grel pa, written in 1406.
14 Davidson 1981: 79.
15 Davidson 1991: 211.
16 See Bentor, forthcoming.
230

and rebuttals which Tsong kha pa provided in multiple writings on the creation stage
of the Guhyasamāja. mKhas grub rje arranges them according to the steps of the
Guhyasamāja sādhana, and presents them in his polemical style. mKhas grub rje
drew no attention to the instances in which he did not agree with Tsong kha pa or
improved on his design.17 However, even among the dGe lugs pa he is known for his
hot temper and sharp tongue. Without a doubt, mKhas grub rje’s personality played
a role in the disputes.
The strife between mKhas grub rje and Ngor chen was no mere scholarly debate.
Political considerations certainly figured in the contestation. However, my aim is to
investigate the disagreements themselves rather than their political and historical
circumstances. Toward this purpose, I propose that we carefully consider the actual
words of these three Tibetan scholars.

Disagreements in the early 1420s

Though Tsong kha pa and Ngor chen both strived to create consistent and coherent
traditions, their choices were not always the same. In 1420, the year following Tsong
kha pa’s death, Ngor chen wrote two works on the Kriyā and Caryā Tantras,18
objecting to Tsong kha pa’s position in the sNgags rim chen mo penned in 1405.19
For Tsong kha pa, deity yoga20 is the characteristic of the Mantra Vehicle that
distinguishes it from the Perfection Vehicle, and thus is practiced in all four tantra
classes.21 For his part Ngor chen maintains that:22
Nowhere in any Kriyā Tantra was it taught to meditate on divine identification
in which you have the appearance of being endowed with the major and minor
marks of the Buddha’s form body.23

17 For a contrary example see, Bentor 2015a.

18 sPyod pa’i rgyud spyi’i rnam gzhag, and Bya rgyud spyi’i rnam bshad.
19 Tse tan zhabs drung 1982: 211.
20 Deity yoga is the tantric visualization of oneself in the pure appearance of the deity while
maintaining divine identification with this deity.
21 sNgags rim chen mo, 21 & 54–62, translated by Hopkins 1977: 116 and Hopkins 1981: 47–62.
22 sPyod pa’i rgyud spyi’i rnam gzhag, folio 69b, p. 249.4.4-5, see also Bya rgyud spyi’i rnam
bshad, folios 105b–106a, pp. 267.4.6–268.1.1. On this matter see, Khenpo Sonam Gyatso and
Wayne Verrill 2012: 200–219. For Sangs rgyas phun tshogs’s narration on Ngor chen efforts
to revive the Lower Tantras, see Davidson 1981: 84–86. The account is translated by Heimbel
2014: 294.
23 In his rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par bzhag pa rgyas par bshad pa, folios 47b–50a, pp. 536.5–
541.6, mKhas grub rje as well partook in this discussion (translated in Lessing and Wayman
1968: 162–171). Clearly mKhas grub rje wrote against Kun dga’ snying po’s rGyud sde spyi’i
rnam gzhag, folio 11a, p. 6.1.2-6 (translated in Wilkinson 214: 27). Whether mKhas grub rje
alludes to Ngor chen as well remains an open question.
 231

In 1423, Ngor chen criticized Tsong kha pa once more in his Guhyasamāja sādhana
entitled dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dkyil ’khor gyi sgrub pa’i thabs dngos grub rgya
mtsho. We should note that dNgos grub rgya mtsho is also the poetic title of mKhas
grub rje’s work on the Guhyasamāja, which as we saw is regarded as an attack on the
Sa skya practice of the body maṇḍala of Hevajra. In the appendix to this sādhana,24
Ngor chen points out that the two sādhanas composed by Nāgārjuna, the Piṇḍīkrama-
sādhana and the Sūtra-melāpaka, describe two slightly different methods for the
atiyoga, the third of the four yogas within the creation stage. After discussing the
dissimilarities, Ngor chen concludes:25
Therefore, it seems that the later lamas (phyis kyi bla ma rnams) who wrote
many inadequate explanations by only taking into account one method of the
atiyoga, did not investigate this matter in detail.
Tsong kha pa is unquestionably one of these ‘later lamas.’ Tsong kha pa took
Nāgārjuna’s Piṇḍīkrama-sādhana as the basic scriptural authority for his own
sādhana, while in the Sūtra-melāpaka he found passages from the Guhyasamāja
Tantra in support of his sādhana.26
In a similar fashion the commentary of Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po on the body
maṇḍala of Cakrasaṃvara Vajraghaṇṭa, titled Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa, is
a polemical work that uses the common Sa skya method of argument consisting of
three steps dgag, bzhag, and spang. One of these rounds is highly critical of Tsong
kha pa. Though this work is undated, it cites verbatim Tsong kha pa’s sNgags rim
chen mo written in 1405, and his commentary on the practice of Cakrasaṃvara, which
may have been written in 1415.27
We may note that the secret biography of mKhas grub rje, penned by Se ra rJe
btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1469–1544/56), faults Ngor chen for slandering Tsong
kha pa, who taught him tantric teachings.28
Possibly mKhas grub rje neither spent much time in Tsong kha pa’s presence nor
was one of Tsong kha pa’s two closest disciples,29 yet, mKhas grub rje’s admiration
for Tsong kha pa’s wisdom and research shines through in his bsKyed rim dngos grub
rgya mtsho, composed a few years after Tsong kha pa passed away. The intense

24 Shin tu rnal ’byor gyi khyad par sgrub thabs kyi yan lag tu bris pa. This is an appendix to the
sādhana dedicated to differences in the step of atiyoga, hence its title.
25 Ibid., 102.4.5.
26 See Bentor 2015b: 177.
27 More on this below. The ’Dod ’jo, a lengthy commentary on the practice of Cakrasaṃvara
according to Lūyipā, may have been composed late in Tsong kha pa’s life, perhaps in 1415. See
Tshe tan zhabs drung, 1982: 213.
28 mKhas grub thams cad mkhyen pa’i gsang ba’i rnam thar, folio 7b, p. 434.4, translated in Ary,
2015: 128 and in Heimbel 2014: 310.
29 See Ary, 2015: 39–66.
232

polemics we read in mKhas grub rje’s bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho were likely
prompted, at least in part, by Ngor chen’s criticism of Tsong kha pa.

Disagreements in relation to tathāgata-garbha theory

Among the many points of disagreement in the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho,
over one hundred and twenty in all, those that relate to the body maṇḍala have proven
the most perplexing. The bulk of criticism in the fifteen folios of mKhas grub rje’s
chapter on the body maṇḍala seems unrelated to the famous debate with Ngor chen.
Nor is this larger part of mKhas grub rje’s discussion in this chapter referred to in the
two compositions by Ngor chen written in 1426, or the Ngor lan, which mKhas grub
rje wrote in response to it while in dGa’ ldan. Nonetheless, mKhas grub rje, who was
seldom kind in his appraisals, used exceedingly harsh words to attack his opponents
in the context of the body maṇḍala:30
Therefore, if those deprived of the transmitted instruction of the lamas, who
have not studied much the Tantras and the works of the Great Charioteers, and
who lack the capacity to analyze the scriptures using pure reason, should rest
a while in their investigation of the two stages of the path of Vajradhara, this
would be of great advantage for them, for their followers who strive to out-do
each other in the boldness of their explanations of the teachings, for those who
are content merely to watch the mouths of these followers, and likewise, for
the teachings of the Victorious One.
mKhas grub rje wrote the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho while still residing in
gTsang, in the monastery dPal ’khor chos sde, sometime in the early years of the
1420s.31 Whom was, mKhas grub rje referring to at that time and on what theoretical
grounds? mKhas grub rje opens his chapter on the body maṇḍala by saying:32
Some Tibetan lamas say the master Vajraghaṇṭa taught that33 “sentient beings
are naturally present non-dual maṇḍalas,” and “the body maṇḍala is an
unconstructed maṇḍala,” and therefore, while the bodies of all beings have

30 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 124b, p. 250.2-4.

31 In the colophon, mKhas grub rje does not date his composition, but he specifies that it was
written in dPal ’khor sde chen [dPal ’khor chos sde]. According to Jackson 2007: 355, mKhas
grub rje served as the abbot of this monastery from 1421 to 1427. In 1426 Ngor chen wrote his
two works on Hevajra body maṇḍala, the sMra ba ngan ’joms and the lTa ba ngan sel in which
he cites at length passages from the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho on the body maṇḍala.
Hence mKhas grub rje completed this work between 1421 and 1426.
32 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 116b, p. 234.1-2.
33 Vajraghaṇṭa, rDo rje dril bu or Dril bu pa, Seka, Toh. 1431, D. vol. 21 [wa], D. folio 219b, p.
438.5-6. For the Skt., see Finot 1934: 62. Elsewhere I have discussed certain Tibetan
interpretations of the opening verses of this work by Vajraghaṇṭa in more detail; see Bentor
forthcoming.
 233

existed from the very beginning as maṇḍalas, they themselves do not recognize
this; and in order to know it, they meditate by visualizing something that
already exists. Such a position is utterly wrong and entirely unsubstantiated.”
mKhas grub rje is here critiquing Tibetan lamas who interpret these lines of the Indian
Master Vajraghaṇṭa to mean that the purpose of the meditation on the body maṇḍala
is to recognize something of which they were previously unaware, namely, that all
sentient beings have always existed as maṇḍalas, and therefore that the yogi should
visualize something that already exists.
In general, the Sa skya pas were not proponents of the tathāgata-garbha theory;34
hence it seems more likely that the aspersions were aimed at followers of the Jo nang,
rNying ma or bKa’ brgyud schools. Thus the question is why this should have caused
such an upheaval among the Sa skyas. Moreover, the standpoint of Ngor chen Kun
dga’ bzang po in this matter seems surprisingly similar to that of mKhas grub rje.
Like mKhas grub rje, Ngor chen’s commentary on Vajraghaṇṭa’s Seka, entitled
Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa, attacks those who understand Vajraghaṇṭa as
saying that sentient beings are actual maṇḍalas:35
Other lamas maintain that dharmadhātu, suchness, or ‘Sugata essence’ abides
constantly and firmly in all sentient beings, and that this is the ultimate truth
maṇḍala of Cakrasaṃvara. They explain that ‘Sugata essence’ is synonymous
with the unconditioned, the profound truth of cessation and emptiness endowed
with all the supreme aspects. This is incorrect.
The terminology Ngor chen ascribes to those mistaken “other lamas” is even more
characteristic of adherents to the tathāgata-garbha theory, leading us to assume that
his target was the Jo nang pa school. Moreover, not only does Ngor chen side with
the dGa’ ldan pas in objecting to the position of the unnamed opponent, he also
criticizes the opponent on the same grounds as the dGa’ ldan pas. I specify “dGa’
ldan pas,” since Tsong kha pa too expresses a very similar opinion in both his sNgags
rim chen mo and in his ’Dod ’jo.
All three masters, Ngor chen, Tsong kha pa and mKhas grub rje, reject the position
that Vajraghaṇṭa regarded all sentient beings as embodiments of maṇḍalas. Indeed,
all three of them present the same alternative interpretation, which is neither the
literal meaning of the line nor an obvious option. Hence it is clear that these scholars
did not develop their interpretations independently but were familiar with each
other’s works.36

34 We know that Red mda’ ba gZhon nu blo gros (1348–1412) and Go rams pa rejected the
positions of Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361) as well. See Cabezón and Lobsang
Dargyay 2007: 71–77, 97–113, 281–306 and passim.
35 Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa, folio 370a, p. 399.3.1-3.
36 All three masters argue that the meaning of maṇḍalas naturally present in sentient beings is that
the basis for creating maṇḍalas is present, and therefore there is no need to create them anew.
234

Moreover, all three masters reject the literal reading of this line for the same
reason: If we were to understand Vajraghaṇṭa as saying that sentient beings are
naturally present maṇḍalas, it would contradict the following line in the same work,
in which Vajraghaṇṭa explains that the purpose of the initiation is to turn disciples
who do not know the nature of the maṇḍala into suitable vessels for the practice of
Cakrasaṃvara. Had a maṇḍala been present in the bodies of the initiates, they would
be all-knowing Buddhas, and therefore it would be impossible to refer to them as
“those who do not know the nature.”
Ngor chen explains the error of the “other lamas”:37
Because their position that the ultimate truth maṇḍala of Cakrasaṃvara
actually abides in the continuum of all sentient beings contradicts the lines of
Vajraghaṇṭa: “The intent of the initiation is to render into suitable vessels
those who do not know the nature of that.” Hence their standpoint that sentient
beings are the actual maṇḍala of Cakrasaṃvara likewise contradicts
Vajraghaṇṭa’s position that the disciples undergoing the initiation do not know
the nature of that and are not all-knowing Buddhas.
Along the same lines, in sNgags rim chen mo, Tsong kha pa says:38
If beings have existed from the very beginning as the deity Cakrasaṃvara, it
would be unreasonable for Vajraghaṇṭa to explain that “the intent of the
initiation is to render into suitable vessels those who do not know the nature of
that,” since this contradicts his position that the disciples undergoing the
initiation do not know their Cakrasaṃvara body maṇḍala.
Likewise, in ’Dod ’jo,39 Tsong kha pa explains that Vajraghaṇṭa’s statement:
“Sentient beings are naturally present non-dual maṇḍalas,” “does not mean that the
body’s channels, elements and so forth abide from the very beginning as the maṇḍala
of Heruka.” Tsong kha pa continues:
Because if this were so, it would internally contradict the following assertion,
found in the same work: “The intent of the initiation is to render into suitable
vessels those who do not know the nature of that,” since this contradicts his
position that the disciples undergoing the initiation do not know the essence of
the Cakrasaṃvara maṇḍala.
In his own commentary on Vajraghaṇṭa’s Seka, mKhas grub rje repeats this point and
concludes:40
Heruka—who does not know who he is—is most astonishing!

37 Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa, folio 370a, p. 399.3.3-4.
38 sNgags rim chen mo, 303–304.
39 ’Dod ’jo, folio 122a-b, pp. 441.3–442.1.
40 bDe dril bskyed rim, folio 9b, p. 782.3.
 235

And in his bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, mKhas grub rje says:41
If one is a Buddha, but does not recognize this, then how could a Buddha who
does not know even who he is, know all phenomena? Therefore, such a stupid
Buddha, who does not know any knowable, would be most astonishing!
This is rather unpleasant on the part of mKhas grub rje, but it is not possible that his
vitriol is being directed at Ngor chen since he agrees with the dGa’ ldan pas that there
are no actual maṇḍalas in the continuum of all sentient beings. Yet we are left with
the question: What precisely was it that triggered the rage of the Sa skya pa in mKhas
grub rje’s writings on the body maṇḍala? A partial answer lies in the fact that the
first master criticized by both Tsong kha pa and mKhas grub rje in this context is a Sa
skya school founder.
About ten years after the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho had been completed,
and after his bitter dispute with the Sa skya masters and while residing in dGa’ ldan,42
mKhas grub rje composed his own commentary on Cakrasaṃvara initiation practice
according to Vajraghaṇṭa. In this work mKhas grub rje identifies the opponent Tsong
kha pa had apparently not wished to disclose. Such uncharacteristic behavior was
perhaps the result of his acrimony with the Sa skyas. mKhas grub rje says:43
In his commentary on the Sādhana by Vajraghaṇṭa, the master bSod nams rtse
mo teaches that the yogis visualize their bodies existing from the very
beginning as maṇḍalas.
Indeed, in the opening of his own commentary on Vajraghaṇṭa’s Seka, bSod nams
rtse mo (1142–1182) maintains that although people are not ordinarily aware of this,
maṇḍalas are present naturally in their bodies, and the purpose of the initiation is to
make the disciples aware of this presence:44
The purpose of the initiation is to turn [the disciples] into suitable vessels and
to arouse in their minds the notion that has not yet arisen—that maṇḍalas are
naturally present in their bodies… In essence, the sixty-two or thirty-seven
deities abide in all sentient beings in the three realms. The purpose of the
initiation is to cause to exist the notion of [the deities] abiding in this way—
which does not exist in their minds.45

41 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 116b, p. 234.6.

42 While the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho was written in dPal ’khor sde chen (dPal ’khor
chos sde), the bDe dril bskyed rim was written in dGa’ ldan. There are no dates in the colophons,
however from 1432 up to his death in 1438, mKhas grub rje was the abbot of dGa’ ldan. If he
completed his commentary on Vajraghaṇṭa in dGa’ ldan, it was after he had to leave dPal ’khor
chos sde, and about ten years after he wrote the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho.
43 bDe dril bskyed rim, folios 8a–9b, pp. 780.6–781.1. See also his dGe bshes kon ting gu[g] śrī
ba la phul ba, Zhol, folio 158a, p. 785.5.
44 bSod nams rtse mo, De’i dbang gi bya ba mdor bsdus, folio 118a1, p. 407.4.1-4.
45 In his Lus dkyil dbang chog, folio 1b, p. 386.3-5, Bu ston Rin chen grub provides a very similar
236

This is very similar to the position held by the opponents in mKhas grub rje’s
description, cited above:
While the bodies of all beings have existed from the very beginning as
maṇḍalas, they themselves do not recognize this; and in order to know it, they
must meditate by visualizing something that already exists.
In support of his argument, bSod nams rtse mo cites the Hevajra Tantra:46
Sentient beings are Buddhas,
but they are obscured by superficial taints.
Once these are removed they are Buddhas.
This verse is often cited in support of the theory of tathāgata-garbha and can indeed
be interpreted as expounding a theory resembling it. As we have noted, Ngor chen
did not accept the theory of Buddha essence as the theoretical basis for the meditation
on the body maṇḍala.
And here we come to the first crucial point. In his bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya
mtsho, mKhas grub rje ridicules the very uneasy position in which Ngor chen found
himself. On the one hand he agreed with Tsong kha pa while on the other he belonged
to the tradition attacked by Tsong kha pa. Ngor chen agrees with Tsong kha pa on
the issue of tathāgata-garbha, although he belongs to the same school as bSod nams
rtse mo. Thus in the following passage, mKhas grub rje criticizes unnamed Tibetans
who accept the position of bSod nams rtse mo regarding maṇḍalas naturally present
in the bodies of sentient beings, but who at the same time reject the theory of
tathāgata-garbha:47
Those who accept this [the tradition of bSod nams rtse mo] and at the same
time say that they cannot tolerate the position that in the continuum of sentient
beings there is an “essence body”48 endowed with all the qualities of
permanence, stability, freedom and the fruit, [must] wail loudly: we are unable
to analyze anything through any method that follows reasoning, yet nevertheless
everything we say is driven by desire, driven by hatred, driven by ignorance.
In the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, mKhas grub rje takes several full pages to
describe the errors of “some Tibetan lamas,” and why their premises lead them to
absurd consequences. Here is a short excerpt:49

explanation: “Although the maṇḍala–with its celestial mansion and deities–is present on its
own in their body, the ritual of initiation into the naturally present maṇḍala is intended to make
those who do not know that it is present into suitable vessels.”
46 II.iv.69: sattvā buddhā eva kiṃ tu āgantuka-malāvṛtāḥ | tasyāpakarṣaṇāt sattvā buddhā [eva na
saṃśayā].
47 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 118a-b, pp. 237.5–238.1.
48 Tib. ngo bo nyid sku, Skt. svābhāvika-kāya.
49 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 116b, p. 234.3-5.
 237

Such a position is utterly wrong and entirely unsubstantiated, for if this were
so, it would follow that there is no truth of suffering, according to which the
bodies of beings are born through karma and afflictive emotions, or that the
maṇḍala of Vajradhara is formed by karma and afflictive emotions. Moreover,
there would be a common basis here for being both real Vajradhara and a
saṃsāric being. And furthermore, sentient beings experiencing saṃsāric
suffering would necessarily be Vajradharas. No part of the body and mind
would then be omitted from the meditation of the maṇḍala, and all parts of the
body and mind would be true aspects of the maṇḍala.
In addition to this offensive on the position of bSod nams rtse mo, in this chapter of
the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, mKhas grub rje continues to subtly allude to
other works of Ngor chen that do not agree with bSod nams rtse mo50 and refutes the
reasoning of Red mda’ ba gZhon nu blo gros (1348–1412), one of his own teachers.51
It is no wonder, then, that the Sa skya pas were unhappy. But did this ignite the
crisis? The two refutations Ngor chen wrote in 1426 do not engage with the cycle of
Cakrasaṃvara and the theory of tathāgata-garbha, but with the Hevajra Tantra and
the Lam ’bras tradition. We shall now turn to the latter.

Disagreements in the context of correlations between

the body and the maṇḍala

We ought to bear in mind that mKhas grub rje’s bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho,
written sometime in the early 1420s did not initiate the debate as such, but contains
responses to one argument and gives rise to another. As we have noted, in the first
part of his chapter on the body maṇḍala, mKhas grub rje reacts against Ngor chen for
criticizing Tsong kha pa in his Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa. Towards the end
of the same chapter mKhas grub rje launches an attack that seems enigmatic to the
casual reader, though apparently it was quite comprehensible to Sa skya masters of
his time:52
In many [works on] the body maṇḍala of the Mother Tantra, Tibetans write
that: “The crown of the head is the crossed vajra, the soles of the feet — the
vajra-ground, the ribs — the vajra-fence, the skin — the vajra-tent and canopy,
the bodily hair — the net of the arrows, and the nails — the blazing fire
mountain,” and that: “the four channels at the heart are the four gates, the eyes

50 In the following paragraph of the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, mKhas grub rje alludes
to Ngor chen’s Log rtog ngan sel, folio 334b, p. 168.1-3.
51 See Roloff 2009.
52 mKhas grub rje, bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folios 126b–127a, pp. 254.6–255.1. My
translation of this passage is most tentative.
238

— the wall with five lines, the nose — the jeweled bricks, the teeth — the
hanging jeweled nets and nets with half loops, the tongue and lips — the
offering ledge,” and so on.53
In these lines on Mother Tantra mKhas grub rje disapproves of certain correlations
“Tibetans” made between parts of the body and elements of the celestial mansion of
the maṇḍala. It is precisely in response to these highly perplexing comments that
Ngor chen wrote his refutation in two versions in 1426.
We may recall that Ngor chen could not leave central Tibet “because of a work by
mKhas grub rje that says that the body maṇḍala of Hevajra is not an authentic
teaching.” Were these terse and apparently obscure statements in mKhas grub rje’s
bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho understood by adherents of the Sa skya tradition
to invalidate their understanding of the body maṇḍala of Hevajra? Thus we recall the
title of this paper: Did mKhas grub rje indeed refute in these lines the authenticity of
the body maṇḍala of Hevajra as practiced by the Sa skya school?
Notably, the bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho is mostly composed of arguments
that had already been raised by Tsong kha pa, beginning with his sNgags rim chen
mo, written in 1405, until his death in 1419. How then might we explain the timing
of the Sa skya crisis, which took place in the mid-1420s? In an attempt to address
these questions, let us look at Tsong kha pa’s commentary:54
Some Tibetans maintain: “The eyes are the wall with five lines,” and so on.
With regard to this position, scholars say: The Saṃvaravyākhyā teaches:55
“When the body is generated in due order, the vajra stakes arise simultaneously.
With the binder of chalk string, you should bind most tightly without any gaps.
The tent is a string of bones.” Other than this I have not seen any other
[explanation] in the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara.” So say [the scholars]. It seems
to be like this. Regarding the explanation of the [some] Tibetans, it appears
that there are many such fanciful statements about the meditation on the body
maṇḍala.
Tsong kha pa speaks here about “scholars” who criticize “some Tibetans”. The
“scholars”, with whom Tsong kha pa sides, cite the Saṃvaravyākhyā by Nag po pa,
and conclude: “Other than this I did not see any other in the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara.”
mKhas grub rje reproduces Tsong kha pa’s argument, but whereas Tsong kha pa
presents only a very few words of the opponent, mKhas grub rje cites the entire
passage, thus enabling us to identify the criticized Tibetan scholar.

53 mKhas grub rje continues: Furthermore, they say: “Even though there are only nine deities in
the outer maṇḍala, in the body maṇḍala they set hundred fifty-seven and more deities.” They
also say: “Among the deities of the body maṇḍala there is not a single one in common with
those set in the outer maṇḍala, and so on.”
54 ’Dod ’jo, folio 124a, p. 445.2-4.
55 Kṛṣṇa, Nag po pa, Saṃvaravyākhyā, sDom pa bshad pa. Toh. 1460, on folio 7a, p. 13.4.
 239

Indeed, having read early Sa skya compositions on this subject, we can see that in
his Sādhana of Hevajra Body Maṇḍala, ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235–
1280) draws the same correlations between the body of the yogi and the maṇḍala that
Tsong kha pa and mKhas grub rje criticized. In his Sādhana of Hevajra Body
Maṇḍala ’Phags pa writes:56
The crown of the head is the crossed vajra, the soles of the feet — the vajra-
ground, the ribs — the vajra-fence, the skin — the vajra-tent and canopy, the
bodily hair —the net of the arrows, and the hair and nails — the blazing fire of
wisdom [mountain]. This is the protection wheel…
The winds of the four elements that arise from the dharma wheel at the
heart are the four gates, the eyes — the wall with five lines, the nose — the
jeweled bricks, the teeth — the hanging jeweled nets and nets with half loops,
the tongue and lips — the offering ledge, the ears the portals, the eight bones
— the eight columns. This is the celestial mansion.57
In Sa skya works on the Hevajra body maṇḍala these correlations are standard. Mus
chen dKon mchog rgyal mtshan (1388–1469),58 sTag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin
chen (b. 1405)59 and Ngor chen dKon mchog lhun grub (1497–1557),60 among others,
follow ’Phags pa. Ngor chen as well makes the same analogies in his own work written
in 1410 on the body maṇḍala of Hevajra according to the tradition of ’Phags pa.61

56 Kyai rdo rje lus dkyil gyi sgrub thabs, folios 263b–264a, p. 130.4.6–131.1.2. mKhas grub rje
omits the “hair”, and has “fire mountain” for “fire of wisdom” and “the four channels at the
heart” for “the winds of the four elements that arise from the dharma wheel at the heart.”
57 bSod nams rtse mo points to similar parallels with the protection wheel — although not with the
celestial mansion — in his commentary on Cakrasaṃvara Sādhana according to the system of
Vajraghaṇṭa: “Then visualize the protection wheel: The crown of the head is the crossed vajra,
the soles of the feet — the vajra-ground, the ribs — the vajra-fence, the skin — the vajra-tent,
the bodily hair — the net of the arrows, the nails are the blazing fire mountain.” However the
correlations bSod nams rtse mo draws with the celestial mansion are somewhat different:
“Then visualize your body as a maṇḍala: Your legs in the shape of a bow are the wind disk,
your triangular crotch/groin — the fire disk, your round belly —the water disk, your square heart
[chest] — the earth disk, your spine in the form of a stick — Mt. Meru, [your body] one span
long equally on [four] sides is the square [celestial mansion], and the four channels at your heart
— the four gates. Your eyes, ears, teeth, nose and so forth are respectively, the toraṇa, the
hanging jeweled nets and nets with half loops, the jeweled bricks and so forth.” bSod nams rtse
mo’s commentary on Cakrasaṃvara Sādhana according to the system of Vajraghaṇṭa, ’Khor lo
bde mchog dril bu pa’i gzhung gi mngon par rtogs pa, folio 113a, p. 405.2.3-6. This is his
commentary on Vajraghaṇṭa’s Cakrasaṃvara-sādhana, Toh. 1432.
58 dPal kye rdo rje’i lus dkyil lam dus kyi dbang chog dang bcas pa bya bral mar grags pa, p. 64.
59 Kyai rdo rje’i lam dus kyi dbang ’bring du bya ba, pp. 127–128.
60 dPal kye rdo rje’i lus dkyil mdzes rgyan, p. 239.
61 I would like to thank Jörg Heimbel for drawing my attention to this matter and for providing me
with a copy of this work. dPal kye rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor gyi sgrub pa’i thabs rnal ’byor
snying po, p. 298.
240

Not only does mKhas grub rje enable us to verify the identity of the opponent, he
also identifies the scholar who criticized those “some Tibetans” not named by Tsong
kha pa:62
In this regard the All Knowing Bu ston Rinpoche says:
The Saṃvaravyākhyā teaches: “When the body is generated in due order,
the vajra stakes arise simultaneously. With the binder of chalk string, you
should bind most tightly without any gaps. The tent is a string of bones.”
No other Indian treatise explains it in this way.
It is very true, because it accords with the method of visualizing the body as a
celestial mansion.
This “scholar” is Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1364).63 However, and this is crucial,
whereas according to Tsong kha pa, the scholar said: “Other than this I have not seen
any other [explanation] in the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara,” mKhas grub rje cites him as
saying: “No other Indian treatise explains it in this way.” When consulting Bu
ston’s own writing,64 we see that Tsong kha pa is accurate here, whereas mKhas grub
rje uses a great deal of hyperbole in his rhetoric. Notably, in the bsKyed rim dngos
grub rgya mtsho mKhas grub rje seldom distorts the position of his opponent in such
a way. In this instance, mKhas grub rje is clearly led by his passion. In partly
following Tsong kha pa, mKhas grub rje concludes:65
No authentic Tantra or Indian treatise ever explains this, and there is nothing
in what they explain from which anyone could derive such a meaning. Still
they fancy in their minds that there are no distinctions whatsoever between the
body maṇḍala and merely setting the deities on the body. In manuals on the
practice of the body maṇḍala written by Tibetans numerous foolish talks that

62 mKhas grub rje, bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 127a, p. 255.1-3.
63 Obviously Bu ston could not have written against Ngor chen, Mus chen and sTag tshang Lo tsā
ba. His criticism was aimed at ’Phags pa.
64 In his commentary on the Yoginī-sañcaryā Tantra, Toh. 375, entitled Kun spyod rgyud ’grel,
Bu ston writes, folio 39a, p. 795.1-4:
Some say: “The crown of the head is the crossed vajra, the soles of the feet — the vajra-ground,
the ribs —the vajra-fence, the skin — the vajra-tent and canopy, the bodily hair — the net of the
arrows, the hair and nails — the blazing fire of wisdom. These are the protection wheel. The
eyes are [the wall with] five lines, the nose — the jeweled bricks, the tongue and lips — the
offering ledge, the teeth — the hanging jeweled nets and nets with half loops, and the nose — the
portal [toraṇa].”
While the Saṃvaravyākhyā teaches: “When the body is generated in due order, the vajra stakes
arise simultaneously. With the binder of chalk string, you should bind most tightly without any
gaps. The tent is a string of bones.” Other than this I have not seen any other [explanation] in
the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara.
[Underline denotes the differences between the texts of Bu ston and mKhas grub rje.]
65 bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, folio 127a, p. 255.4-5.
 241

received the title ‘supreme transmitted instructions’ have appeared. I shall not
go into detail refuting or accepting them here.
Is this where mKhas grub rje’s criticism of the authenticity of the Sa skya Hevajra
body maṇḍala is found? Under discussion here are certain specific correlations
between parts of the body and elements of the maṇḍala and not the body maṇḍala of
Hevajra as such.
As we know, Ngor chen wrote two responses, namely, the sMra ba ngan ’joms66
and the lTa ba ngan sel.67 Both of these texts open with a direct quotation of the
passages by mKhas grub rje on correlating parts of the body with elements of the
maṇḍala cited above,68 and continue with a point-for-point refutation of his positions.
In sMra ba ngan ’joms, Ngor chen defends the transmitted instruction of the Sa skya
pa-s criticized by mKhas grub rje:69
And even if it were not taught explicitly, ‘those who understand the meaning’
explained that it is necessary to meditate after completing what is missing
according to the transmitted instructions of the lineage of the lamas. Although
there is much variation in the instructions of the different lineages of lamas
with regard to the means of completing what has been missing, the venerable
Sa skya lamas, endowed with the Dharma eyes, hold this position that has
arisen from the transmitted instruction, and accords with the position of the
master Jitāri.
Ngor chen then cites the Catur-mudrā-sādhana,70 a work by Jitāri belonging to the
cycle of Hevajra that describes the correlation between the body and the celestial
mansion of the maṇḍala in a similar way to that of ’Phags pa. According to Ngor chen,
’Phags pa completed the correlations between parts of the body and elements of the
maṇḍala that were missing in the tradition of Cakrasaṃvara by relying on this work on
Hevajra by Jitāri. In his lTa ba ngan sel, Ngor chen repeats this and then asks:71
What contradiction is there in completing what is missing in the case of
Cakrasaṃvara in accordance with the work on Hevajra by the master Jitāri?

66 dPal kyai rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba smra ba ngan ’joms, Sa skya pa’i
bka’ ’bum, vol. 9, work 49, folios 270a–287b, pp. 135.4.1–144.3.6.
67 dPal kyai rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba lta ba ngan sel, ibid., work 50, folios
287b–310a, pp. 144.3.6–155.4.3.
68 sMra ba ngan ’joms, folios 271b–272a, pp. 136.3.1–4.1, and the lTa ba ngan sel, folios
288b–289a, pp. 145.1.3–2.3.
69 sMra ba ngan ’joms, folio 273a, p. 137.2.1-3.
70 Jitāri, dGra las rnam rgyal, Catur-mudrā-sādhana, Phyag rgya bzhi yi sgrub thabs, Narthang
Tengyur, vol. 76 [phu] folios 143b5–144a2, pp. 286.5–287.2; and in the Peking Tengyur, no.
4690, vol. 82, [phu], folios 144b7–147a4, pp. 162–163.
71 lTa ba ngan sel, folio 290a, p. 145.4.3-4.
242

Ngor chen is aware of the fact that Bu ston criticized a Sa skya founder:72
In his commentaries on the Kun tu spyod pa73 and on the Sādhana of Nag po
pa,74 All Knowing Bu ston employs similar language; however he says “other
than merely ‘the tent is a string of bones,’ I have not seen another [such
explanation] in any cycle of Cakrasaṃvara.” But he says nothing like: “no
other Indian treatise explains it in this way.” This is an obvious lie; therefore,
what need is there for proof?
Still in this passage Ngor chen does not write against Bu ston, but rather objects to
mKhas grub rje’s misrepresentation of Bu ston’s last lines, using the laden term “lie.”
mKhas grub rje certainly raises graver charges than does Bu ston, as the former
denies any Indian scriptural authority for the specific correlations between the yogi’s
body and [the protection wheel of] the maṇḍala. However, taking these charges
against specific correlations as a total refutation of the authenticity of the Sa skya
tradition of Hevajra body maṇḍala — as the Sa skya oral tradition upholds — is
something that could have taken place only in the context of very high tensions.
Yet Ngor chen’s reply to mKhas grub rje did not put the matter to rest. Still other
Sa skya masters wrote against mKhas grub rje in their works on the Hevajra body
maṇḍala. These include Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429–1489),75 dPal ldan
Chos skyong bzang po (15th c.),76 and gTsang byams pa rDo rje rgyal mtshan (1424–
1498).77
mKhas grub rje was quite aware of the charges that had been lodged against him.
In his reply to another Sa skya master known as Kon ting Gu śrī,78 mKhas grub rje
protested against those who claimed that he refuted the Lam ’bras teachings — whose
foundation is the Hevajra cycle:79
Those who say that I refuted the Lam ’bras should examine carefully: Where
did I refute the Lam ’bras? When did I refute it? How did I refute it? In the

72 Ngor chen, sMra ba ngan ’joms, folio 272a, p. 136.4.3-4. In his lTa ba ngan sel, folio 289b, p.
145.3.1, the other version of his reply to mKhas grub rje, Ngor chen repeats his words and
concludes: “Do not speak such obvious lies!”
73 Bu ston’s commentary on the Yoginī-sañcaryā Tantra, Toh. 375, entitled Kun spyod rgyud
’grel, cited above.
74 Bu ston, Nag po pa’i sgrub thabs, vol. 7 [ja], 18 folios, pp. 143–177.
75 dPal kyai rdo rje’i lus dkyil gyi rnam par bshad pa bde chen bcud kyi snying po. See van der
Kuijp 1985b: 87.
76 Or dPal chos pa, a disciple of rDzong pa kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1382–1446), dPal kyai rdo
rje’i mngon par rtogs pa man ngag gi gter mdzod gsal bar byed pa’i bka’ ’grel rgyud don gnad
kyi lde mig gi rgyas bshad ’khrul ’joms nyi ma’i ’od zer.
77 dBang chu’i rtsod spong.
78 He is identified by Heimbel 2014: 305, note 97 as Nam mkha’ dpal bzang.
79 dGe bshes kon ting gu[g] śrī ba la phul ba, Zhol, folio 153a, p. 775.4-5. See also Davidson
1991: 221–222 and Heimbel 2014: 305–306.
 243

presence of whom did I refute it? In what writing of mine did I refute it? They
should search for the source that would not ultimately vanish like a rainbow in
the sky.
I, for my part, have indeed found no evidence to support the contention that mKhas
grub rje refuted the authenticity of the Sa skya Hevajra cycle.

Conclusions

I shall conclude by noting that it is easy to see how the claim that mKhas grub rje
questioned the validity of the Hevajra Tantra or Lam ’bras tradition of the Sa skya
pas snowballed as it did. We have inquired into writings that predated mKhas grub
rje’s criticism of Sa skya pas, beginning in 1404 when Ngor chen composed his Log
rtog ngan sel and 1405 the year Tsong kha pa penned his sNgags rim chen mo. We
noted that since both Ngor chen and Tsong kha pa aspired to create a systematized
tantric tradition in Tibet, it was inevitable that they did not concur with earlier lamas.
Moreover, they also disagreed with each other, which was reflected in the fact that
the structures they created were not identical. We provided several examples of Ngor
chen’s critique of Tsong kha pa in works written in the early 1420s. We pointed out
the difficulty in dating the travel ban to the period before 1426 when Ngor chen
composed his replies to mKhas grub rje’s bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho. Still
the Sa skya tradition maintains that it was this work by mKhas grub rje that triggered
the turmoil and the travel ban.
Undoubtedly the conflict was highly political, with the hot temper and provocative
writing style of mKhas grub rje playing a vital role. In the bsKyed rim dngos grub
rgya mtsho, Ngor chen, who concurred with the position of Tsong kha pa but belonged
to the same school as bSod nams rtse mo, was roundly ridiculed. Yet we have seen
that the real problem concerned the controversy on seemingly obscure correlations
between parts of the yogi’s body and elements of the maṇḍala that we have traced to
’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan. mKhas grub rje indeed distorted Bu ston’s criticism
of ’Phags pa. Nonetheless, it took heated spirits to light the fire. While mKhas grub
rje may indeed have been the ‘liar’ Ngor chen claimed he was, there is no evidence
that he refuted outright the authenticity of the Sa skya tradition of the Hevajra body
maṇḍala.
244

Bibliography

Tantras
Saṃpuṭa-nāma-mahā-tantra, Yang dag par sbyor ba zhes bya ba’i rgyud chen po,
Toh. 381, D. vol. 79 [ga], folios 73b1–158b7, pp. 146.1–316.7.
Yoginī-sañcāra, rNal ’byor ma’i kun tu spyod pa, Toh. 375, D. vol. 79 [ga], folios
34a1–44b5, pp. 67.1–88.5.

bsTan ’gyur
Jitāri, dGra las rnam rgyal, Catur-mudrā-sādhana, Phyag rgya bzhi yi sgrub thabs,
not found in the Derge, see Narthang Tengyur, vol. 76 [phu] folios 142b5–144b6,
pp. 284–288; and Peking Tengyur, no. 4690, vol. 82, [phu], folios 144b7–147a4,
pp. 162–163.
Kṛṣṇa, Nag po pa, Saṃvaravyākhyā, sDom pa bshad pa. Toh. 1460, D. vol. 22 [zha],
folios 6a3–10b7, pp. 11.3–20.7.
Vajraghaṇṭa, rDo rje dril bu or Dril bu pa, Seka = Cakrasaṃvara-ṣeka-prakriyopadeśa,
dPal ’khor lo sdom pa’i dbang gi bya ba mdor bsdus pa. Toh. 1431, D. vol. 21
[wa], folios 219b–222b, pp. 438.3–444.5. For a Sanskrit edition and French
translation of the first few verses, see, Louis Finot 1934.
___ Cakrasaṃvara-sādhana, dPal ’khor lo sdom pa’i sgrub pa’i thabs. Toh. 1432,
D. vol. 21 [wa], folios 222b–224b, pp. 444.5–448.5.

Tibetan sources
bSod nams rtse mo (1142–1182). Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,
1968, vol. 2:
___ ’Khor lo bde mchog dril bu pa’i gzhung gi mngon par rtogs pa, folios 112a–117b,
pp. 404.4.1–407.3.1.
___ De’i dbang gi bya ba mdor bsdus, folios 117b–140a, pp. 407.3.1–418.4.6.
Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1364), Collected Works. New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1967:
___ Nag po pa’i sgrub thabs = dPal bde mchog nag po pa’i sgrub thabs ’khrul ba’i
dri bral, vol. 7 [ja], 18 folios, pp. 143–177.
___ Lus dkyil dbang chog = dPal ’khor lo sdom pa’i rang bzhin gyis grub pa’i dkyil
’khor du dbang bskur ba’i cho ga zab don gsal ba, vol. 7 [ja], 20 folios, pp.
385–424.
___ rNal ’byor ma’i kun tu spyod pa’i rgyud kyi bshad pa bde mchog gi don rab tu
gsal ba, vol. 6 [cha], 76 folios. pp. 719–869.
Chos kyi rgyal mtshan, rJe btsun (1469–1544/56). Mkhas grub thams cad mkhyen
pa’i gsang ba’i rnam thar. In Collected Works of mKhas grub dge legs dpal. New
Delhi: Gurudeva, 1983, vol. 12, pp. 421–470.
 245

dPal ldan Chos skyong bzang po (15th century). dPal kyai rdo rje’i mngon par rtogs
pa man ngag gi gter mdzod gsal bar byed pa’i bka’ ’grel rgyud don gnad kyi lde
mig gi rgyas bshad ’khrul ’joms nyi ma’i ’od zer. In sNgon byon sa skya pa’i
mkhas pa rnams kyi rgyud ’grel skor. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab
slob gnyer khang, 2007, 4 vols, vol. 2, 185 folios, pp. 1–370.
Kun dga’ snying po (1092–1158), rGyud sde spyi’i rnam gzhag. In Sa skya pa’i bka’
’bum. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968, vol. 1, work 3, folios 4a–14b, pp. 2.3.4–
75.4.6.
Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429–1489). In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum. Tokyo: The
Toyo Bunko, 1969, vol. 15:
___ dPal kyai rdo rje’i sgrub pa’i thabs kyi rgya cher bshad pa bskyed rim gnad kyi
zla zer la rtsod pa spong ba gnad kyi gsal byed, work 108, folios 285a–353a, pp.
281.4.1–315.4.6.
gTsang byams pa rDo rje rgyal mtshan (1424–1498). dBang chu’i rtsod spong. In
sNgon byon sa skya pa’i mkhas pa rnams kyi rgyud ’grel skor. Kathmandu: Sa
skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007, 4 vols., vol. 2, 101 folios, pp.
636–855.
mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzang po (1385–1438). Collected Works. New Delhi:
Gurudeva, 1982, reproduced from the 1897 Old Zhol blocks:
___ gNam lcags ’khor lo = Phyin ci log gi gtam gyi sbyor ba la zhugs pa’i smra ba
ngan pa rnam par ’thag pa’i bstan bcos gnam lcags ’khor lo, vol. 2, 47 folios, pp.
3–95.
___ bDe dril bskyed rim = bDe mchog dril bu lus dkyil gyi dbang du byas pa’i bskyed
rim gyi dka’ gnas, vol. 6, 11 folios, pp. 765–787.
___ bsKyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho = rGyud thams cad kyi rgyal po dpal gsang
ba ’dus pa’i bskyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, vol. 7, 190 folios, pp. 3–381.
___ rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par bzhag pa rgyas par bshad pa, vol. 8, 94 folios, pp.
443–630, translated by Lessing and Wayman 1968.
___ dGe bshes kon ting gug śrī ba la phul ba, work no. 43 in the gSung thor bu, vol.
9, folios 153a–169b, pp. 775.1–808.1.
mNga’ ris pa Sangs rgyas phun tshogs (1649–1705). rGyal ba rdo rje ’chang kun
dga’ bzang po’i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo ’dus pa’i rgya mtsho yon tan
yid bzhin nor bu’i ’byung gnas. Published by Yab chen Tshe dbang rdo rje rig
dzin. New Delhi: Trayang and Jamyang Samten, 1976, pp. 135–315. TBRC
Work W18115.
Mus chen dKon mchog rgyal mtshan (1388–1469). dPal kye rdo rje’i lus dkyil lam
dus kyi dbang chog dang bcas pa bya bral mar grags pa. In E waṃ bka’ ’bum:
Collection of writings by Sakya masters of the Ngor order. 20 vols. Pe cin: Krung
go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009–2010, vol. 10, pp. 63–83. Also included
in the Lam ’bras slob bshad, Dehra Dun, 1983–85, vol. 13, pp. 516–538.
Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1382–1456). Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Tokyo: The
Toyo Bunko, 1968–69, vols. 9–10:
246

___ sMra ba ngan ’joms = dPal kyai rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba
smra ba ngan ’joms, vol. 9. work 49, folios 270a–287b, pp. 135.4.1–144.3.6.
___ lTa ba ngan sel = dPal kyai rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba lta
ba ngan sel, vol. 9, work 50, folios 287b–310a, pp. 144.3.6–155.4.3.
___ rGyud gsum gnod ’joms kyi ’grel pa, vol. 9, work 52, folios 312b–327a, pp.
157.1.2–164.2.5.
___ Log rtog ngan sel = Zung ’jug rdo rje ’chang chen po’i sa mtshams rnam par
bshad pa log rtog ngan sel, vol. 9, work 53, folios 327a–343a, pp. 164.2.5–
172.2.6.
___ dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dkyil ’khor gyi sgrub pa’i thabs dngos grub rgya mtsho,
vol. 10, work 106, folios 184a–204b, pp. 91.4.1–102.1.2.
___ Shin tu rnal ’byor gyi khyad par sgrub thabs kyi yan lag tu bris pa., vol. 10, work
107, folios 204b–206a, pp. 102.1.2–4.5.
___ sPyod pa’i rgyud spyi’i rnam gzhag = sPyod pa’i rgyud spyi’i rnam par gzhag
pa legs par bshad pa’i sgron me, vol. 10, work 134, folios, 67a–101b, pp. 248.3.1–
265.4.2.
___ Bya rgyud spyi’i rnam bshad = Bya rgyud spyi’i rnam par bshad pa legs par
bshad pa’i rgya mtsho, vol. 10, work 135, folios 101b–208a, pp. 265.4.2–319.1.6.
___ Dril bu pa’i lus dkyil gyi bshad pa, vol. 10, work 184, folios 367a–382b, pp.
398.1.1–405.4.1.
___ dPal kye rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor gyi sgrub pa’i thabs rnal ’byor snying po.
In Sa skya’i chos mdzod chen mo, Si khron bod yig dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu rtsom
sgrig khang, 2013, vol. 28, pp. 296–312.
Ngor chen dKon mchog lhun grub (1497–1557). dPal kye rdo rje’i lus dkyil mdzes
rgyan. In E waṃ bka’ ’bum: Collection of writings by Sakya masters of the Ngor
order. 20 vols. Pe cin: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009–2010, vol.
14, pp. 239–255. Also included in the rGyud sde kun btus, in 32 vols., Kathmandu:
Sachen international, vol. 18, pp. 35–54.
[Chos rgyal] ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235–1280). Kyai rdo rje lus dkyil gyi
sgrub thabs. In Sa skya pa’i bka’ ’bum, Tokyo, The Toyo Bunko, 1968, vol. 6,
work 51, folios 263b–265b, pp. 130.4.4–131.4.3.
Se ra rje btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1469–1544/56). mKhas grub thams cad
mkhyen pa dge legs dpal bzang po’i rnam thar rje btsun chos kyi rgyal mtshan
gyis bsgrigs pa dad pa’i rol mtsho. In Collected Works of Mkhas grub rje, Zhol,
vol. 12, pp. 425–498.
sTag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen (b. 1405). Kyai rdo rje’i lam dus kyi dbang
’bring du bya ba. In Collected Works. Pe cin: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun
khang, 2007, vol. 4, pp. 127–133. Published in the series Mes po’i shul bzhag,
vols. 29–35.
Tshe tan zhabs drung, bsTan rtsis kun las btus pa, Xining: Qinghai People’s Publishing
House, 1982.
 247

Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). Collected Works. New Delhi:
Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1975–1979. 27 vols., Old bKra shis lhun po redaction.
___ sNgags rim chen mo = rGyal ba khyab bdag rdo rje ’chang chen po’i lam gyi rim
pa gsang ba kun gyi gnad rnam par phye ba, vol. 4, 512 folios, pp. 1–494 and vol.
5, pp. 1–530. My notes refers to the edition published in Xining: mTsho sngon mi
rigs dpe skrun khang, 1995.
___ ’Dod ’jo = bCom ldan ’das dpal ’khor lo bde mchog gi mngon par rtogs pa’i
rgya cher bshad pa ’dod pa ’jo ba, vol. 14, 195 folios, pp. 72–460.

Secondary Literature
Ary, Elijah Sacvan. 2015. Authorized Lives: Biography and the Early Formation of
Geluk Identity. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Bentor, Yael. 2015a. “Interpreting the Body Maṇḍala: Tsongkhapa versus Later
Gelug Scholars.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 31: 63–74. Reprinted in: Roberto
Vitali et al. (eds.). Trails of the Tibetan Tradition: Papers for Elliot Sperling.
Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 63–74.
___ 2015b. “Tsong-kha-pa’s Guhyasamāja Sādhana and the Ārya Tradition.” In
Christian K. Wedemeyer, John D. Dunne, and Thomas F. Yarnall (eds.).
Vimalakīrti’s House: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert A. F. Thurman on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday. The American Institute of Buddhist Studies at
Columbia University in New York with Columbia University’s Center for
Buddhist Studies and Tibet House US, 165–192.
___ forthcoming. “Tibetan Interpretations of the Opening Verses of Vajraghaṇṭa on
the Body Maṇḍala.” In: Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar (eds.). Chinese and Tibetan
Esoteric Buddhism, Leiden: Brill.
Cabezón, José Ignacio, and Geshe Lobsang Dargyay. 2007. Freedom from Extremes:
Gorampa’s “Distinguishing the Views” and the Polemics of Emptiness. Boston:
Wisdom Publications.
Davidson, Ronald M. 1981. “The Ṅor-pa Tradition.” Wind Horse 1: 79–98.
___ 1991. “Reflections on the Maheśvara Subjugation Myth: Indic Materials, Sa-
skya-pa apologetics, and the birth of Heruka.” The Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 14/2: 197–235.
Finot, Louis 1934. “Manuscrits Sanskrits de sādhana’s retrouvés en Chine.” Journal
Asiatique 225 (Jul-Sep): 1–85.
Heimbel, Jörg. 2014. “Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1382–1456): An Investigation
into the Life and Times of the Founder of the Ngor Sub-school of the Sa skya
Order.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hamburg.
Hopkins. Jeffrey. 1977. Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra —
Volume 1. London: Allen & Unwin.
___ 1981. The Yoga of Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra — 2 and 3.
London: Allen & Unwin.
248

Jackson, David. 2007. “Rong ston bKa’ bcu pa: Notes on the title and travels of a
great Tibetan scholastic.” In: Birgit Kellner et al. (eds.), Pramāṇkīrtiḥ: Papers
Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Wien:
Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 345–
360.
___ 2010. The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Painting. From the Masterworks of
Tibetan Painting Series, New York: Rubin Museum of Art.
Khenpo Sonam Gyatso and Wayne Verrill 2012. The Yogini’s Eye: Comprehensive
Introduction to Buddhist Tantra, vol. 1, Xlibris Corporation.
Kramer, Jowita. 2008. A Noble Abbot from Mustang: Life and Works of Glo-bo
mKhan-chen (1456–1532). Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien, Universität Wien.
van der Kuijp, Leonard. 1985a. “Apropos of a Recent Contribution to the History of
Central Way Philosophy in Tibet: Tsong Khapa’s Speech of Gold.” Berliner
Indologische Studien 1: 47–74.
___ 1985b. “A Text-Historical Note on Hevajratantra II:v:1-2.” The Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 8/1: 83–89.
Lessing, Ferdinand, D. and Alex Wayman. 1968. Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric
systems. The Hague: Mouton.
Roloff, Carola. 2009. Red mda’ ba: Buddhist Yogi-Scholar of the Fourteenth Century.
Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Wilkinson, Christopher. 2014. An Overview of Tantra and Related Works. Concord:
MA Suvarna Bhasa Publishing.