• 1 Research for this article was supported by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation, the Fulbright Scholar P (...)

2’Dan ma is sometimes referred to as a “Great Accomplished One” (grub chen) because of the decades he spent meditating in retreat and because of the esoteric transmissions he received from important Central Tibetan lamas. Synopses of his biography claim that he was “one of the four heart-sons of the Omniscient Paṇchen, accomplished ones who realized emptiness” (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, p. 683/26a.6). They further claim that he received from the Paṇchen Lama (Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1570-1662) the transmission of the esoteric teachings on the dGe’ ldan-bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā (Great Seal), including the extraordinary “Miraculous Scripture” that standard narratives usually say stopped with the Paṇchen Lama or even earlier (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, pp. 24b.3-25a.2). One luminary of the early dGe lugs school in Amdo, Shar sKal ldan rgya mtsho (1607-1677), referred to ’Dan ma alongside one other lama as “the sun and the moon” among the many practitioners of Amdo (Rong po grub chen I sKal ldan rgya mtsho 1999a, p. 343). As if his meditative accomplishments were not enough, synopses of his life also claim that he was the first lha rams pa dge bshes (a monastic scholarly title) from dGon lung Monastery (Per Nyi ma ’dzin Ngag dbang legs bshad rgya mtsho, n.d., pp. 137-139)¹ and that he was the unexcelled debater at the first dGe lugs debates to be held at the Lhasa Great Prayer Festival (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, pp. 670/19b.5-671/20a.5).

• 2 The earliest, as I explain below, is found in Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma’s dGon lung (...)
• 3 Gray Tuttle has created a periodization of the dGe lugs school in Amdo that includes an earlier per (...)

3The synopses of the life of ’Dan ma all date from a century or more after his time². This manuscript thus offered an opportunity to verify some of the claims made about this ostensibly important figure. More importantly, the manuscript promised to tell the story of a significant figure from the first generation of dGe lugs evangelists in Amdo³. Most of these expectations were met, even though the “autobiography” is actually a biography written by a disciple of ’Dan ma. Today, ’Dan ma is practically unknown outside of some narrow circles at dGon lung Monastery and a couple other monasteries in Amdo associated with ’Dan ma. Yet ’Dan ma was present for and participated in some key moments in the history of the dGe lugs school in the first half of the 17^th century. The fact that he is unknown has to do both with the paucity of materials for the early history of the dGe lugs school in Amdo (a paucity that this manuscript helps to redress) and with the emphasis on retreat and esoteric practices – the less public face of Tibetan Buddhism – that distinguishes this early generation from later generations of dGe lugs “institution men”.

• 4 I presume that the manuscript itself is stored away for safe keeping.

5The present manuscript is entitled ’Dan ma tshul khrims rgya mtsho’i rnam thar tsit+tar bcings pa [The complete liberation of ’Dan ma Tshul khrims rgya mtsho: [words that are] bound to the mind; hereafter Tsit+tar bcings ba). As I explained above, I first saw the photocopy of this manuscript⁴ at Kan chen Monastery in 2011, where I was able to photograph it. The manuscript comprises 71 double-sided folios. Each side of the folios usually contains seven lines written in dbu med script, resulting in a text of over 22 200 words.

• 5 Another example is “nged rnams la”, where the nged rnams (us) is referring to ’Dan ma’s disciples ( (...)

7In addition, in the final part of the biography in which the death of ’Dan ma is recounted, the author refers to himself in the first person and writes himself into the biography of ’Dan ma – “I also went to dGon lung Hermitage and bound myself to long-term retreat” (pp. 58a.7-58b.1)⁵ – additional evidence that the text was composed by a direct disciple of ’Dan ma and that the text indeed dates from that period. Unfortunately, whatever colophon the text might have had is illegible.

• 6 E.g. the use of the question particle “i” (otherwise written as “e”) (pp. 10b.2, 11b.5, passim).
• 7 Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out, as an anonymous reviewer reminded me, that Thu’u bkwan’s bi (...)

9Thu’u bkwan III is remarking on the fact that the Tsit+tar bcings ba records in an Amdo dialect the conversations that ’Dan ma had⁶ and, more specifically, on the fact that the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and spelling errors⁷. The later synopsis of ’Dan ma’s life found in the Mdo smad chos ’byung is based, in turn, on Thu’u bkwan III’s account.

• 8 The first is “the location of his birth”.
• 9 This is Sum pa the Elder (che ba) Dam chos rgya mtsho (fl. 1604-1650).

14The second section of the Tsit+tar bcings ba⁸ is entitled “His virtues in listening, thinking, and meditating”. ’Dan ma ultimately went to dGon lung Monastery at the time of its founding in 1604. His primary teacher became Master (dpon slob) Sum bu⁹, who would be designated the first abbot of dGon lung when the monastery’s founder, rGyal sras Don yod chos kyi rgya mtsho, returned to Central Tibet. The biography provides rare insight into the early days of the monastery. Discipline was said to be very strict, with no monks eating food after noon (p. 6b.5). At first there were only ten or so monk quarters (gshegs chung) at the monastery (p. 7a.2-3). rGyal sras Rin po che decided to give each monk a horse and other gifts, at which point boys and men turned out in droves (three hundred monks were added, we are told). All the monks reportedly stayed on after that (p. 7a.3-6). rGyal sras also established the practices and procedures for the study of philosophy (’chad nyan), including “recitation lessons” (rtsi bzhag), an introduction to logic and debate, and “dharma sessions” (chos thogs) (p. 7a-b).

• 11 The Tsit+tar bcings ba tells us that rGyal sras Rin po che only taught the dGon lung monks “for abo (...)
• 12 The Fourth Dalai Lama was said to have been the abbot of both ’Bras spungs and Se ra Monasteries at (...)

17Some time after rGyal sras had departed (i.e. in 1609)¹¹, ’Dan ma decided that he wished to continue his studies in Central Tibet. Master Sum bu granted him leave (pp. 9b-10a). ’Dan ma decided he would not be able to faithfully maintain all the monastic vows on his journey, and so he returned them (pp. 10a-11a). His destination upon arriving in Central Tibet was ’Bras spungs Monastery’s sGo mang College (p. 12b)¹². After securing the requisite gifts (tea) for his regional house teachers (kham tshan gyi dge rgan tsho), he settled in and applied himself to his studies. However, for three years he suffered from a lung illness, which kept him from attending all but the assemblies that pertained to scholasticism and debate, thus preventing him from partaking of the “mass teas” (mang ja) and “monastery teas” (grwa ja) that were disseminated to assist the hungry monks (pp. 13a.7-13b.1). The master (or “abbot”, slob dpon) of sGo mang, Gung ru Sangs rgyas bkra shis, gave him instructions for how to cure himself, which ’Dan ma succeeded in doing (pp. 13b-14a; see also p. 18b.6 and Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, 2000, pp. 669/19a.4-5). This allowed him to return to sGo mang and partake of the mass teas and monastery teas available to the registered monks there.

• 13 See the biography of Lab pa rab ’byams pa bSod nams grags pa found in bsTan pa bstan ’dzin 2003, p. (...)
• 14 lCags mkhar; ’Jigs byed grags po'i gtor chen drug cu ba; and, lCags mkhar gtor chen drug cu pa. For (...)
• 15 Cuevas 2017, p. 13. The biography of the Fourth Dalai Lama also refers to the ritual practices of t (...)
• 16 This is the implication of the rhetorical remark regarding the rite found in biography of the Fourt (...)
• 17 It was introduced at dGon lung byams pa gling and mChod rten thang in far northeastern Amdo. Cuevas (...)

18The next episode in ’Dan ma’s life is an important one for understanding the form of dGe lugs teachings that first spread into Amdo. The text is partially damaged here, but the general meaning can be deduced: the ritual of the “Fortress of the Sixty” (drug cu pa’i mkhar thabs pa) was performed. The text tells us that “prior to this, not even the name of the Fortress of the Sixty was known” (p. 15b.2-3), the implication being that this was a momentous occasion for the popularity of this ritual, a fact corroborated elsewhere¹³. So what was this ritual? The Fortress of the Sixty, otherwise known as The Iron Fortress and Sixty Ritual Cake Offering to Vajrabhairava¹⁴, is associated with dBen sa rje drung Sang rgyas ye shes (1525-1591), although it was his disciple, the Fourth Paṇchen Lama, who popularized it¹⁵. It was a particularly fearsome rite that was used to ensnare or defeat enemies¹⁶, and, significantly, it appears to have been an important component of the early dissemination of the dGe lugs school in Amdo¹⁷.

• 18 The year, ’gal byed, is given in the biography of the Fourth Dalai Lama, which itself is citing a w (...)
• 19 Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho 2007, pp. 307/42a.6-308/42b.2. The Chinese translation (...)

19From the text we are able to discern the name Rab ’byams pa bSam nams grags pa, which allows us to tentatively date this episode in ’Dan ma’s life to 1611¹⁸. According to the biography of the Fourth Dalai Lama, this Lab pa rab ’byams pa bSod nams grags pa (fl. early 17^th century) was asked to orchestrate a massive collective ritual that included restoration offering rituals to protector deities and the Sixty Ritual Cake Offerings to Vajrabhairava (drug cu ma). This was done in behalf of the dGe lugs school in gTsang, which was suffering losses in its war with the King of gTsang and his allies¹⁹. It was requested by the Fourth Paṇchen Lama, who, being based in gTsang and subject to whims of the King of gTsang, could not conduct the ritual himself.

• 20 The name and title of this individual are obscured in ’Dan ma’s biography. Thu’u bkwan provides the (...)
• 21 These are the dGe ldan bka' brgyud rin po che'i phyag chen rtsa ba rgyal ba'i gzhung lam and the dG (...)
• 22 sprul pa’I glegs bam rin po che.

21This would not be ’Dan ma’s last encounter with teachings of the dBen sa tradition and the Paṇchen Lama. Several years later (after 1625), on one of ’Dan ma’s many visits with the Paṇchen Lama, the Rapjam Scholar of the Ten Subjects dGe ’dun rgyal mtshan (dates unknown) came to request teachings from the Paṇchen Lama, after which the guru gave him “unique instructions not found in our dGe lugs pa and called the Mahāmudrā” (p. 44a)²⁰. ’Dan ma went to ask the Paṇchen Lama about these extraordinary teachings. These were the bKa’ brgyud-dGe lugs Mahāmudrā teachings that the Paṇchen Lama either developed or popularized (Jackson 2001). Mahāmudrā (phyag rgya chen po), literally “Great Seal”, refers to a system of radical meditative practices and to the goal of those practices, namely, the direct experience of the natural mind free of all distinctions and conceptualizations (Jackson 2001, pp. 155-156; Sujata 2005, p. 60ff.). The Paṇchen Lama gave ’Dan ma the transmission of the root verses and auto-commentary on Mahāmudrā that he had composed²¹. ’Dan ma then explained that he also wished to practise these teachings, to which the Paṇchen Lama replied, “you don’t need to do that. There is nothing in the world that surpasses the view of Madhyamaka” (44a.7), suggesting that the philosophical insight into emptiness attained through ’Dan ma’s studies and debate experience was sufficient. The Paṇchen Lama was either being disingenuous or testing ’Dan ma’s resolve, for Roger Jackson’s research on Mahāmudrā has shown that the Paṇchen Lama certainly considered the practice of “Tantric Mahāmudrā” to be essential to enlightenment. The Paṇchen Lama later changed his mind, however, when he took the “Precious miraculous scripture”²², elsewhere described as being of the nature of clear light, and placed it on ’Dan ma’s head, thereby blessing him.

• 23 Gung ru Sangs rgyas bkra shis, the twenty-third dpon slob of sGo mang College.
• 24 I have not identified who this was.
• 25 The Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography gives his title as ’Bur ltag pa.
• 26 The Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography gives his title as Dam bsnyag (Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bza (...)

24Back at sGo mang College, ’Dan ma progressed swiftly through the curriculum (p. 15b). During this time he also went to visit dGon lung Monastery’s founder, rGyal sras Rin po che, at Dwags po College and entered the dharma classes there for a time (p. 17b). When he returned to sGo mang, the Paṇchen Lama, who had served as abbot of ’Bras spungs since 1617, decided to establish formal debates at the new year’s Great Prayer Festival in Lhasa. The year was 1625 (Paṇchen Lama IV Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan 1969, pp. 134/67b-135/68a). The problem, according to ’Dan ma’s biography, was that the event had to be kept secret lest the King of gTsang intervene and stop it (p. 17a). gTsang forces had invaded dBus in 1618, looted both ’Bras spungs and Se ra Monasteries, and confiscated the estates of the principal dGe lugs patron, the sKyid shod family. Three years later, Tümed Mongols from Kökenuur assisted the sKyid shod Governor bSod nams rgyal mtshan (1586-1636) in defeating the gTsang forces in Lhasa, although they failed to recover all the sKyid shod estates. Thus, in 1625 tensions still ran high, and ’Dan ma’s biography tells us that utmost secrecy regarding the debates was maintained. The candidates were advised not to talk about the debates and to pretend they were instead studying for regular dharma classes (chos grwa) (p. 19b). They were also not permitted to go to monasteries other than ’Bras spungs for study retreats (dpe mtshams) lest they raise suspicions. The sGo mang master²³ selected Chu bzang ba dKon mchog chos bzang (dates unknown) and ’Dan ma to participate in the debates. The master of ’Bras spungs’ Blo gsal gling College²⁴ chose ’Brug ltag pa Ngag dbang dpal bzang²⁵ (dates unknown) and Do dam nyag pa bSod nams chos bzang (dates unknown)²⁶ (p. 18b).

• 27 He also says that Dom nyag pa was from sGo mang College and that Dom nyag pa and ’Brug ltag pa earn (...)
• 28 The sGo mang gi chos ’byung could be drawing on the later dGon lung gi dkar chag by Thu’u bkwan, wh (...)
• 29 The Great Prayer Festival is not mentioned by the Paṇchen Lama in his autobiography under any of th (...)

25rGyal sras Rin po che is said to have been present at the debates and to have remarked to ’Dan ma, “it is good that [one] from where I established philosophical teachings in [mDo] smad participate at the first Lhasa debates” (p. 21a.4-5). He is referring to the claims that these were the first dGe lugs formal debates held at the Great Prayer Festival in Lhasa. From that time forward, the biography explains, “the custom of the debate circuit of Lhasa flourished like this” (p. 23a.5). It is not clear who came out on top. Thu’u bkwan III would later write that ’Dan ma “debated amongst ten million scholars, and since he arose as the debater without peer, his renown spread around the world” (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, p. 671/20a.4). The modern scholar Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las instead writes that “the fame of Dom [i.e. Do dam nyag pa] and ’Brug [ltag pa] grew without limit” after the debates²⁷. ’Dan ma’s own biography is unclear due in part to damage to the text or modesty or both. The Fifth Dalai Lama simply recounts who participated, naming the four above (he refers to ’Dan ma as bSam blo lDan ma) and adding a fifth, Dwags po dka’ bcu (Dalai Lama V Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho 2014, p. 62, 2009, p. 56). The modern-day sGo mang gi chos ’byung [History of the dharma at sGo mang college] does the same (bsTan pa bstan ’dzin 2003, pp. 43-44)²⁸. In any case, it does appear that these were the first dGe lugs formal debates in Lhasa over which the Paṇchen Lama presided²⁹. In addition, the Paṇchen Lama writes that the event entailed a “great assembly of 5000” and that “everyone agreed it was done as if the past had come back to life” (Paṇchen Lama IV Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan 1969, pp. 134/67b.5-6). Thus, sources contemporary with this momentous occasion assure us of ’Dan ma’s high-level participation.

• 30 The text merely states that he served as a “college’s disciplinarian at ’Bras spungs”, but we may s (...)
• 31 My interpretation of this event is assisted by Thu’u bkwan’s summary (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang cho (...)
• 32 The Bsam blo dge rgan rnams gave him saffron cloth for his ordination robes, suggesting his affilia (...)
• 33 That the King of gTsang ruled in favour of the Bsam blo house is based on my reading of the followi (...)
• 34 The Tsit+tar bcings ba merely states that “the common wealth was wasted” (gzhung gis phyag sdzas ph (...)

26’Dan ma was not finished with his institutional life at sGo mang. He served as disciplinarian (dge skos) of sGo mang for six months (p. 24b)³⁰. However, this was all cut short due to a barrage of “magical displays” or paranormal activity (cho ’phrul) that would harm his physical and psychological health for years to come. This was precipitated by his involvement in a conflict that arose between two regional houses (kham tshan [sic]) at ’Bras spungs, which spiraled into a dBus-gTsang conflict. The dispute involved some monks and the house teacher (dge rgan) from the Bsam blo regional house, on the one hand, and the Har sdong (“Ha ldung”) regional house, on the other hand. The treasurer of the Dalai Lamas, Dpon bSod nams chos ’phel (1595?-1657/58), was approached, and he ruled in favor of the Har sdong house³¹. The monks from the bSam blo house, with which ’Dan ma was affiliated³², approached ’Dan ma for assistance. Together they then went to the King of gTsang, who found that bSod nams rab brtan had been biased in his ruling and thus overturned it, ruling instead in favor of the bSam blo house (pp. 23b-24b)³³. bSod nams chos ’phel was fined, which meant that the wealth of ’Bras spungs was penalized³⁴. This troubled ’Dan ma (p. 24b.6-7), and, more siginificantly, he angered the dGe lugs protector deity gNas chung, who launched a years-long campaign of spiritual attacks (usually in his dreams) against ’Dan ma.

• 35 ’Dan ma was again fully ordained before setting off, this time under the Paṇchen Lama.
• 36 For one interested in the succession of attacks (cho ’phrul) and ’Dan ma’s triumph over them, see p (...)

27These spiritual attacks motivated ’Dan ma’s decision to leave ’Bras spungs and go into retreat³⁵. Much of his energy during the years that followed was focused on performing “Ego-Cutting” (gcod) meditation, and it was this practice that ultimately freed him from these debilitating attacks³⁶. Once, the attacks were so persistent and horrific that ’Dan ma became convinced that he would die and so traveled to the nomadic pastures of Byang to dispose of his own body “so that no one would see it” (p. 36b.6-7): “Taking a single bag of tsampa, I spent a few years in the uninhabited place, never encountering a person” (pp. 37b-37a).

• 37 This period is one in which he moved about and “resided above dBen dgon, sNar thang Byang chen, and (...)

28’Dan ma describes himself as a bKa’ brgyud-like ascetic during this period, roaming about aimlessly, with few provisions, with long, disheveled hair, and singing “herder songs”³⁷. Later in life he would sing “realization songs” (mgur) to his disciples, who failed, we are told, to record them all (p. 63b.1-6). A few verses made it into his biography, however:

• 39 “Dad pa” is slightly obscured in the text but is provided by Thu’u bkwan (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang (...)

30In one story he encounters a yogin practicing the “fierce” or “inner heat” (gtum mo) meditative practice incorrectly. Upon showing him the correct way to practice it, the yogin exclaims, “Who is your lama? Of what religious school are you? Your clothes [are tattered?], your hair long. Are you not a [bKa’ brgyud] realized yogin (rtogs ldan)?” After ’Dan ma gub chen explains that he is a dGe lugs pa, the other practitioner exclaims, “are there teachings such as this among the dGe lugs pa?” His faith (dad pa) in the dGe lugs pa is said to have grown tremendously (p. 37a.5-37b.3)³⁹.

• 40 This could be the Phar god Kun dga’ bzang po of the Shangs pa bKa’ brgyud, however, this identifica (...)

32These episodes suggest ’Dan ma possessed a tolerant and even ecumenical approach to Buddhist learning and practice. His performance of realization songs, of which only fragments are found in the Tsit+tar bcings ba, is comparable to that of his later disciple, Shar sKal ldan rgya mtsho, and, of course, the saint Mi la ras pa (1028/40/52-1111/23) (Sujata 2005). He practised in remote places, explicitly identifying himself with the characteristics and practices of earlier bKa’ brgyud masters, and purposefully visited places associated with other schools and traditions such as Yol dkar (said to be the place where the Zhi byed practitioner Pha rgod Kun bzang⁴⁰ realized emptiness) (p. 35a-b). This predilection for bKa’ brgyud sites and practices is not surprising when we consider the strength and influence of the bKa’ brgyud pa at that time. In addition, his principal guru, the Paṇchen Lama, is also recognized for his “syncretist” and “ecumenical” approach to Buddhist thought and practice (Jackson 2001, p. 182), notwithstanding the above statement regarding Tāranātha attributed to him. Finally, one must not forget that ’Dan ma’s own father was a Rnying ma pa (p. 2b).

• 41 See especially pp. 27b, 38b, 29a, 39b-40a, 43b-44a, and 44a-b.

37’Dan ma’s two principal lamas throughout his life were rGyal sras Rin po che Don yod chos (kyi) rgya mtsho and the Paṇchen Lama Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. The biography records numerous interactions with the Paṇchen Lama while in Central Tibet⁴¹. ’Dan ma’s interactions with rGyal sras are fewer, but he does go out of his way to pay his respects to rGyal sras before returning to Amdo. rGyal sras had passed away the year before, and a nunnery had taken as its share of his remains the skull of rGyal sras. ’Dan ma insisted that they give it to him to take back to Amdo, which they did (p. 45b). An exceedingly clear image of the ten-syllable mantra of the Buddha Kālacakra and his maṇḍala (rnam bcu dbang ldan) is said to have appeared in relief on the skull (p. 45b.1-2). This relic would be the cause of much controversy back at dGon lung.

• 42 Joachim Karsten writes, “[thistupaa] is the centre of the whole monastic complex and the world of t (...)

44sKyid shod zhabs drung passed away at dGon lung in 1638. As abbot, ’Dan ma was asked to oversee the construction of a silver reliquary for sKyid shod’s remains, one that was to be “like the stūpa of sKu ’bum Monastery” (p. 48b.6-7). The reliquary at sKu ’bum is understood to contain the miraculous tree that sprung forth from the blood from the umbilical cord of the founder of the dGe lugs school, Tsong khapa, when he was born, and the stūpa is one of the major attractions of pilgrims from as far away as Mongolia and the Caucases (Karsten 1996, p. 80)⁴². ’Dan ma declined to take on the task, citing the need to first build a reliquary and shrine hall for the skull of rGyal sras Rin po che (pp. 48b.7-49a.2). According to ’Dan ma, the congregation of monks all understood and accepted this. However, a certain local ruler, Nang so dMar dmar, accused him of being remiss in his abbatial duties. He then added, “nowadays, who can tell if everyone who goes to Central Tibet and returns carrying bones, saying ‘this has divine writing on it,’ possesses human bones or dog bones?” (p. 49a.6-7) Clearly this was an attack on ’Dan ma and the authenticity of the relics he had carried back from Tibet.

• 43 He is described as “serving as the lama of the nine clans [tsho] of X”, where “X” is unclear but ma (...)

47Later, the issue of rGyal sras Rin po che’s skull and reliquary resurfaced. While ’Dan ma was residing at rTa rdzong (elsewhere written “sTa rdzong”), a certain Kyi kya Me rgan chos rje⁴³ dispatched a messenger to ask ’Dan ma to return to dGon lung to oversee the construction of the reliquary. The text is damaged in several parts of this crucial episode, but it appears that some of the monks who had previously opposed ’Dan ma were punished (pp. 51a.7-51b; Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, p. 683/26a.1). ’Dan ma agreed to return with the skull and began his journey to dGon lung. However, a faction of monks insisted that Me rgan chos rje take the skull from ’Dan ma and that ’Dan ma should not be permitted to return to the monastery. ’Dan ma refused to abide by these conditions and was on the verge of departing when Me rgan salvaged the deal by making offerings to ’Dan ma and spending the night with him, receiving transmissions and permission-blessings from ’Dan ma (pp. 51a-52a).

• 44 This was un ang dGe skos, “Disciplinarian un ang”, where un ang is also a local place name (sometim (...)

48When bTsan po “The Stern” Don grub rgya mtsho (1613-1665) became abbot of dGon lung (r. 1648-1650), he also tried to make amends by reproaching the congregation of monks and insisting that they apologize (p. 52a.5-7). bTsan po further tried to assuage ’Dan ma’s fears by explaining that all of the older monks who had led the attacks on ’Dan ma, apart from a certain Disciplinarian Hor dum⁴⁴, had passed away. ’Dan ma was skeptical and felt sure there was a conspiracy against him. Nonetheless, he trusted the abbot bTsan po’s sincerity and went to dGon lung where construction of the reliquary began (pp. 52a-53b).

• 45 “sDe un ang so” (more commonly spelled “bDe rgu” in other sources) in particular is mentioned.
• 46 Elsewhere it is said that the monastery was founded by sTong ’khor (also written as “sTong skor”) w (...)

49At this point in the story, however, ’Dan ma was invited by some local leaders⁴⁵ to help them found a new monastery. This was mChod rten thang, a large and important dGe lugs monastery on the northeastern fringe of the Tibetan Plateau. He then bequeathed this monastery to sTong ’khor zhabs drung mDo rgyud rgya mtsho, another important figure in the dGe lugs expansion into Amdo and beyond⁴⁶.

• 47 Dpon grags pa and rGyal ’bum rtse.
• 48 He mentions the principal patrons of the area as “Pa tsha gzung ’bum rgyal and so on”.

50’Dan ma was then invited by two local leaders⁴⁷ to the area of BA za (“Pa tsha”; Ch. Bazha 巴扎). There, he thought, “it makes no difference where one resides. I cannot not make a place for rGyal sras Rin po che’s skull to reside”. He therefore accepted the invitation and quickly rushed to the spot in question: Kan chen (pp. 53b-54a)⁴⁸. This is where rGyal sras’ relics would remain.

• 49 Part of the founding myth associated with dGon lung Monastery, for instance, recounts how Ba so spr (...)

51The attention that the biography gives to the relics of these deceased lamas, particularly those of rGyal sras Rin po che, and the infighting that erupts around them, point to the power and significance of relics and reliquaries during this period of dGe lugs expansion. The reliquary of sKyid shod zhabs drung was significant for the growth and influence of dGon lung Monastery. The reliquary of rGyal sras established at Kan chen might have served a similar function had it been established at a more centrally located institution (such as dGon lung) or had its reputation not been impugned by the local leader (who suggested the relics were fake). In any case, as important as scholasticism and philosophy would prove to be for dGe lugs institutions in Amdo, dGe lugs monasteries in the early years were equally or even more dependent upon the power of lamas and tantric adepts, dead and alive, for their protection and reputations⁴⁹.

• 50 According to the mDo smad chos ’byung, this is also the year that ’Dan ma built the reliquary for r (...)
• 51 Mention is also made of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s passage through the area – although that would have (...)
• 52 ’Dan ma “resided at the seat of the sNgo kho (sNgo khos [sic] sdad nas) and introduced these method (...)

52Beginning in 1654 (a Horse Year; one of the few years given in the entire biography), ’Dan ma dedicated himself to building up the infrastructure of mChod rten thang (pp. 54b.5-55a.5)⁵⁰. Donations were provided by rGyal ’bum rtse of BA za (“Pa tsha rgyal ’bum rtse”), and ’Dan ma himself drew up the designs⁵¹. He also spent time establishing philosophical scholastic methods at nearby religious centres⁵². Eventually he returned to nearby Kan chen, where much fundraising and building had taken place, and, although he had not intended to found a monastery there, that is precisely what ended up happening.

• 53 Tib. chab ril. Assistants to the disciplinarians.

54’Dan ma’s description of his institution-building there exemplifies the very hands-on instruction that was required to introduce dGe lugs monasticism to Amdo and from there into Mongolia. “I appointed disciplinarians, cantors, cooks, water-bearers⁵³, and so forth, and I explained to them ‘this one has to do this’” (p. 52a.2-3). He gave particular attention to the manner in which the disciplinarians were to solicit “mass teas” (mang ja) from the laity: “The monks do not need to ask for mass tea offerings. The responsibility for [getting] the mass teas to drink for the monks is that of the disciplinarians and such officers” (p. 56a.5-7). This was a typical dGe lugs instruction for ensuring that the prerogative to interact with lay patrons was that of the institution (the monastery) rather than the monks (Jansen 2018, pp. 128-129).

• 54 The later dGon lung dkar chag says that it was sixteen days (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi (...)

59The disciples explained to ’Dan ma that he had been “as if asleep” for twenty-three days⁵⁴, which pleased ’Dan ma to learn (66a.4-67b.1). Free of any ailments (skyon), signs of his impending death began to appear, after which he “dissolved into the expanse of reality”. That was followed by a week of indications that he had attained the dharma-body of clear light, although he is also said to have constructed a perfect reward body (long spyod rdzogs pa’i sku) while in the Bardo (p. 67b.2-4). His body was cremated, and the Master of Offerings (mchod dpon) Blo gros rgya mtsho took responsibility for his remains and possessions (pp. 68a.7-68b.7).

• 55 The text is quite damaged throughout, and so one cannot rule out the possibility that a significant (...)

60’Dan ma’s year of death is somewhat unclear. Mi nyag mgon po, in his important reference work Gangs can mkhas dbang rim byon gyi rnam thar mdor bsdus [Concise biographies of the succession of Tibetan scholars], says that ’Dan ma passed away early one morning in the Wood-Dragon year (1664). However, neither of the two sources that he cites provides a year of death for ’Dan ma (Mi nyag mgon po et al. 1996, p. 162). The present biography gives extremely few dates, although, significantly, it does give us his age at one point close to the end of his life. When his disciples are petitioning him to tell the story of his life, he concedes, citing his old age of 75 (p. 59a.5). That would be the year 1661 according to Tibetan and Monguor reckoning of age. The text then makes a few other significant references to dates (pp. 64a.6-7; 65a.2-3; and, 65b.3), culminating two years later “on the evening of the first day of the second month” when he passed away (pp. 67a.5-67b.2). This would place his death in 1663⁵⁵. However, a biography of Shar sKal ldan rgya mtsho records ’Dan ma’s death as occurring in 1665 (’Jigs med dam chos rgya mtsho 1997, p. 184). More research is needed, although 1663 and 1665 appear to be the most likely candidates.

• 56 Or Lu’u kyA, Lu’u gyA, etc. The Tsit+tar bcings ba mistakenly has Li kyA.
• 57 The Tsit+tar bcings ba calls him the thirteenth dpon slob.
• 58 This figure is apparently to be distinguished from ’Dan ma’s friend, Lu gyA dge slong dGe ’dun dar (...)
• 59 Thu’u gon has a dream in which he is told to offer a long-life prayer (brtan bzhugs) to ’Dan ma. He (...)

61His disciples include mostly figures from the dPa’ ris region in far northeastern Amdo. Dka’u (Dka’ bcu?) dGe ’dun blo gros, also known as Sgom zhis grub chen dGe ba bzang po (b. 1631), would go on to found Stong shags bkra shis chos gling in neighboring Ledu County. Lu’u kya⁵⁶ chos rje Don yod chos grags served as the fifteenth abbot⁵⁷ of dGon lung (r. 1661-1665). A certain Offering Master Hor skyong (Hor skyong ’bul dpon) avoided ’Dan ma at first, as he was upset with ’Dan ma for having taken rGyal sras Rin po che’s relics elsewhere. Later, however, while in Central Tibet, the Paṇchen Lama reprimanded him, after which Hor skyong sought out ’Dan ma and his teachings (pp. 59b-60a). Incidentally, Hor skyong ’bul dpon was also charged with greeting the Fifth Dalai Lama when the latter passed by dGon lung Monastery in 1653 (Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma 2000, p. 694/31b.2). Other, unidentified disciples include Li kyA rab ’byams pa, Lu’u gyA dka’ bcu⁵⁸, and Thu’u gon Tshul khrims rin chen⁵⁹. Perhaps his most famous disciple is bTsan po (“The Stern”) Don grub rgya mtsho, who studied under ’Dan ma at sGo mang College.

• 60 The exact meeting spot is said to be Cabciyal Monastery, which corresponds to what is today Chab ch (...)

62The spread of the dGe lugs school of Tibetan Buddhism from Central Tibet to the northeastern corner of the Tibetan Plateau – Kökenuur and Amdo – and from there on to Mongolia, usually begins with the famous meeting between the Third Dalai Lama and the leader of the Western Tümed Mongols Altan Khan in 1578 beside Lake Kökenuur⁶⁰. Often the narrative then jumps forward in time to the founding of Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil by the First ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa in 1709. Still precious little is known about the roles of other dGe lugs lamas and institutions in the dissemination of the dGe lugs school in Amdo in the intervening years.

• 61 A confusing typo was introduced into the title of their article, providing the dates for the life o (...)
• 62 Its full name is Thang ring bshad grub gling or Thang ring dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling. Located in (...)
• 63 Kung Ling-wei also utilizes archival materials from the early Qing to offer some important and nove (...)
• 64 Bryan Cuevas’s study of the First Brag dkar sngags ram pa (2017) looks at a slightly later figure a (...)

63Contemporary evidence for this crucial period in the growth of the dGe lugs school is not as abundant as it is for later centuries. One is often forced to rely upon biographies of eminent lamas from the period or Mongol-, Manchu-, or Chinese-language Qing imperial archives. Gray Tuttle and Leonard van der Kuijp have utilized biographical sources to reveal the active role played by the sixteenth abbot of sTag lung Monastery, Kun dga’ bkra shis (1536-1605) in Tibetan-Mongol-Chinese relations in the late 16^th century⁶¹. Tuttle has also published several articles in which he utilizes later sources to carefully describe some of the early dGe lugs institutions in Amdo or to construct a synoptic view of the development of dGe lugs institutions across time and space (see, for example, Tuttle 2016, 2012, 2010, and 2017). Ikejiri Yōko, utilizing Mongol-language archives from the early Qing, has recently shown how Thang ring Monastery⁶² (founded in 1619) along with Gro tshang dgon (better known by its Chinese name, Qutan si 瞿曇寺; founded in 1392 and lavishly supported by the Ming Dynasty) were networked with dGon lung Monastery and provided the latter with much of its first generation of administrative and scholastic leadership (IkejiriYōko 2018, pp. 55-56)⁶³. Recent scholarship on sKyid shod zhabs drung has discussed the influence of this scion of the most important aristocratic family of dBus in promoting the dGe lugs school in Amdo (Ban Shinichiro 2017; Schwieger 2013; Sullivan 2019). And Victoria Sujata’s study of the First Shar Lama sKal ldan rgya mtsho (2005) has demonstrated the connections that sKal ldan rgya mtsho’s meditative practices and enlightenment songs (mgur) had with Central Tibetan predecessors and how he was instrumental in the expansion of dGe lugs teachings and institutions in Amdo⁶⁴.