Blue Annals (deb-ther sngon-po)

by George N. Roerich | 1949 | 382,646 words | ISBN-10: 8120804716 | ISBN-13: 9788120804715

This page relates ‘Disagreements in (Kalacakra) lineage accounts’ of the Blue Annals (deb-ther sngon-po)—An important historical book from the 15th century dealing with Tibetan Buddhism and details the spiritual doctrine and lineages of religious teachers in Tibet. This chapter belongs to Book 10 (The Kalacakra).

Chapter 12 - Disagreements in (Kālacakra) lineage accounts

< Previous

Next >

There exists a slight disagreement as to the origins of the Lineages of rwa and ‘bro between the accounts given by bu rin po che in his gces pa'i lde mig,^[1] by glan chos dbang, by the scholar bsod nams 'od zer ba, and in the account of the Lineage of gnyan lo tsā ba.

In particular, the one who was called Piṇḍo-ācārya was stated by some to have been the Teacher of Kālacakrapāda, the Senior, and again by others to have been the disciple of Kālacakrapāda. Some maintain that he (Piṇḍo) was identical with ngag gi dbang phyug grags pa. They seem to imply that he was ngag gi dbang phyug, one of the four gate-keepers (of Vikramaśīla), but this does not seem to be possible. Because in the treatise yan lag bdun ldan,^[2] composed by him,^[3] he expressed many different views on the fourth initiation, but never mentioned the system of Kālacakra.

On the other hand it can be said about the Kālacakra-sādhanagarbhālaṃkara,^[4] composed by the ācārya bsod snyoms pa (Piṇḍo) that the very name of the śāstra shows that it (6a) deals with the Kālacakra. Even if one were to accept as true the statement of the rwa pas (followers of rwa) that prior to Kālacakrapāda, the Great, there had existed two teachers of the Kālacakra, it would not be a contradiction to say that Kālacakrapāda had received a blessing from

Kulika (%ZMR buddhist diety?) himself, who taught him the Tantra. Because, as stated by nyi ma dpal, Vajradhara himself, assuming the form of Avadhūti-pa (%), had bestowed the precepts of the Sadaṅga-yoga (yan lag drug) on the ācārya Anupamarakṣita (dpe med 'tsho), and because others also maintained that Tilli-pa, a disciple of Vijayapāda (rnam rgyal zhabs), who was the last of a numerous Lineage of teachers of the Cakrasaṃvara Cycle, was a direct disciple of Vajradhara. The ācārya Anupamarakṣita could not be later than the ācārya Nā-ro-pa, since Nā-ro-pa in his Sekoddeśa-ṭikā^[5] quoted his teaching.

In general, even some of the accounts by Indian teachers, can be unreliable, for instance in the commentary on Śūnyaśrī’s Sadaṅga-yoga^[6] translated by dpang (blo gros brtan pa), Śūryaśrī (nyi ma dpal) is stated to have been a disciple of chos 'byung zhi ba,^[7] but, according to a statement of the Precious mahā-paṇḍita (Śākyasrìbhadra), Śūryaśrī (ni ma dpal) had been the teacher of Dharmākaraśānti (chos 'byung zhi ba). The Commentary on the

Sadaṅga-yoga though stated to have been the work of Śūryaśrī, seems to have contained, as indicated by the title, notes written down by one of his disciples. In two Indian books, consulted by me, the very same statement is made.

The statement that the concluding paragraphs of the Hevajra-Tantra (brtag gnyis) and of the Saṃvaraṭikā had been hidden away by ḍākinīs, is unreliable, because it is certain that the sizes of these books translated into Tibetan were the same as those of the original books composed by the Bodhisattva, for in the Vajragarbhatika^[8] the above commentary on the Saṃvara-Tantra is described as a conmmentary on the twelve and half ślokas (of the Mūla-Tantra), and the entire commentary on these ślokas is extant in Tibetan, and because in the Saṃvara commentary^[9] itself it instated that the Mūla-Tantra and the "topics of the Six Extremities",^[10] as expounded in the ṭippaṇī, composed by the Bodhisattva, should be studied by one proceeding to a country, situated South and North (since they have been lost in Madhyadeśa), and further, because in the Vajragarbhaṭīkā it is stated; (6b) by this the last chapters, such as the chapter on conduct,^[11] are meant.^[12]

Though there exist various accounts which agree and disagree, they all agree (in stating) that Abhaya, who belonged to the line of gnyan and se lo tsā ba, Mañjukīrti, who belonged to the line of rwa lo, and Somanātha, who belonged to the line of ‘bro pa, have been direct disciples of Kālacakrapāda, the Junior. They also agree in that Kālacakrapāda, the Junior, was a direct disciple of Kālacakrapāda, the Senior, and therefore one is not to be troubled by it.

It is somewhat difficult to accept the statement that the first^[13] of the "past" years ('das lo) of the period of 403 years (me kha rgya mtsho) corresponds to the year of the introduction of the Kālacakra in Madhyadeśa, for Abhaya had composed the Introduction to the Kālacakra^[14] which says that about 60 years must have elapsed since the appearance of the Kālacakra (when he was composing the book). In the account of chag lo tsā ba it is stated that Ratnarakṣita had said that not sixty years had passed, but 45 years. If we were to synchronize this date with the dates given by Tibetan teachers, (we would see) that it corresponds to the sixteenth year of mar pa and gra pa mngon shes, and that at that time the Kālacakra had already appeared in Tibet.

It seems to me that Śrī Bhadrabodhi, the father of Kālacakrapāda, the Junior, was the person who had translated the Kālacakra with gyi jo. It is also stated that one Nālandā-pa, a disciple of Kālacakrapāda, the Junior (dus zhabs pa chung ba), had on one occasion visited Tibet, etc.