[page 393] The locus classicus for the Indian Buddhist classification of the five domains of knowledge (vidyāsthāna, rig gnas), or sciences, is the quatrain of the chapter of the fifth century Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra XI, 60 (a taxonomy of scientific fields of endeavor already found in the probably earlier Yogācārabhūmi) in which a total of five are enumerated:

1. (1) Science of language
2. (2) Science of medicine
3. (3) Technology
4. (4) Logic and epistemology
5. (5) Inner science (Buddhism proper)

The first of these, the so-called śabdavidyā (sgra rig pa), includes not only (Sanskrit) grammar, but also its ancillary sciences of poetics, prosody, lexicography and dramaturgy. Tibetan belles-lettres is preeminently based on the science of poetics.1 In this preliminary survey we shall mainly concern ourselves with the Tibetan transmissions of Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa (Tib. sNyan ngag me long), the treatise which formed the necessary precondition for the development of Tibetan ornate poetry, as well as with Kṣemendra's Bodhisattvāvadānakapalatā, a major collection of Indian poetry that,[page 394] upon its translation into Tibetan, exerted a profound influence on Tibetan poetry (and Tibetan Buddhist iconography). First, a few introductory remarks are in order.

Tibetan poetry and poetics are among the least developed areas in modern Tibetology which, so far, has been largely concentrated on the Tibetan counterparts of the Indian, and in some cases Chinese, Buddhist texts that found their way into the massive Tibetan Buddhist canon. In fact, this canon, of which the first prototypes can be dated to the beginning of the ninth century, and which achieved its most complete form only around the middle of the eighteenth century in the sDe dge edition of eastern Tibet, constitutes the cornerstone and model for virtually every genre of Tibetan literature as such. As the most authoritative corpus of texts, it formed a continuous source of inspiration for many of Tibet's finest men of letters, so that one may say that, by and large, the literary genres of India all have a Tibetan counterpart and that, as a consequence, Tibet's literature is, with a few very important exceptions, a continuation of that of India and as permeated with the religious sentiment that is so characteristic of much of India's traditional literature. While it is therefore undeniable that Tibetan literature depends to a large measure on that of India, much like Roman literature was inspired by the Greeks, this does not mean that we do not find indigenous forms.

Aside from inscriptions, the earliest witnesses of indigenous Tibetan writing were only unearthed during the beginning of this century in a cave-depot of the Buddhist cave monastery of Dunhuang in Gansu Province in the People's Republic of China. These include translations and adaptations from Indic and Chinese sources—the latter includes the classics of the Shangshu or Shujing (see Huang, Coblin), the Zhanguoce (see Imaeda) and the Shiji (see Takeuchi)—as well as independent compositions, including the very first specimen of heroic poetry. While most of these are religious in nature, a good portion of the manuscripts contain works that are more of a secular order. The Dunhuang cave also elicited several fragments of imaginative adaptations from the Rāmāyaṇa, the famous Indian epic of the story of Rāma and Sītā (see de Jong, 1989). A subsequent revival of interest in this tale may have been brought about through the eleventh-century translation of Prajñāvarman's commentary on the Viśeṣastava (where Rāma and Sītā are mentioned several times), the Rāmajātaka, and[page 395] foremost, by Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa ("The Mirror of Poetics"), the seventh-century Indian textbook on poetic theory, in which the author refers several times to their story in connection with the illustrations he provides for the poetic figures that are discussed.

Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa, "The Mirror of Poetics," a classic treatment of Indian poetic theory, was first made known to the Tibetan scholarly world by Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (1182-1251), who translated major portions of its first and second chapters in his unprecedented treatise on the principles of learned discourse, the mKhas pa rnams la 'jug pa'i sgo, the title of which can be paraphrased as "An Introduction to Scholarship," composed between ca. 1220 and 1230 (see Jackson). The text of the Kāvyādarśa is divided into three chapters, the first of which delineates the general characteristics of ornate poetry and the features that distinguish the so-called southern from the eastern schools of literary composition. The second chapter catalogues and discusses those poetic figures that are based on the semantic relationships within a verse, and the third does the same for the poetic figures that have their origin in the phonological relations within a verse. It became the model against which Tibetan literary critics, such as there were, measured the poetic accomplishments of their fellow writers, after it was translated into Tibetan by Shong ston lo tsā ba rDo rje rgyal mtshan and Lakṣmīkara under the patronage and support of 'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280), Sa skya Paṇḍita's nephew, and grand-governor (dpon chen) Shākya bzang po (d. 1270?), sometime between 1267 and 1270. In course of time, new Sanskrit manuscripts of Daṇḍin's work found their way into Tibet, which resulted in improvements on, or variations of, the earlier translations. An example of this already appears in the first stanza of the Kāvyādarśa, which reads in Sanskrit (Shastri and Potdar: 1) [reduplication of consonants has been elided]:

Some Sanskrit manuscripts of the text have, in the third foot, the variant reading dirghaṃ, "long," for nityaṃ, "forever." The Tibetan translation of this stanza in each of the four canonical prints is:

It thus follows those Sanskrit texts that have dirghaṃ. However, the reading of nityaṃ is attested in the exegesis of sNar thang lo tsā ba of the year 1408 (see DGE: 25), for there the last two feet read:

To be noted also is the variant yid mtshor for yid la, which can to some extent also reflect Sanskrit mānase.

This process of successive reevaluation may be said to have culminated in the text-critical work on, and exegesis of, the text by the great linguist and Sanskritist Si tu Paṇ chen bsTan pa'i nyin byed (1699-1774) and his disciple the fourth Khams sprul bsTan 'dzin chos kyi nyi ma (1734-1779) of, respectively, 1772 and 1770 (see SI and KHAMS). In all, one can isolate some seven phases of its transmission in Tibet under the following Tibetan Sanskritists:

1. (1) Sa skya Paṇḍita
2. (2) Shong ston lo tsā ba / Lakṣmīkara
3. (3) dPang lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa (1276-1342)
4. (4) sNar thang lo tsā ba dGe 'dun dpal (ca. 1400), alias Saṃghaśrī
5. (5) sNye thang lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa (mid-fifteenth century)
6. (6) Zhwa lu lo tsā ba Rin chen chos skyong dpal bzang po (1441-1528)
7. (7) Si tu Paṇ chen and the fourth Khams sprul

Each of these phases is thus characterized by a renewed appraisal of earlier translations, one that was often undertaken in conjunction with the availability of new Sanskrit manuscripts. Not all of these ended up in subsequent editions of the canon, however. Of the four editions that are available, the Beijing and sNar thang recensions contain the text edited by dPang lo tsā ba, whereas the[page 397] sDe dge and Co ne have the edited text of sNye thang lo tsā ba. Moreover, the bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan version published in Bhutan is the one that resulted from Zhwa lu lo tsā ba's studies of the text (see ZHWA).

The Kāvyādarśa was also the object of numerous lengthy commentaries which, commencing with a series of glosses by Shong ston lo tsā ba himself, reached their zenith, from a philological point of view, in the magnificent commentary of the fourth Khams sprul. The earliest extant exegesis—the published manuscript is unfortunately incomplete—is owed to dPang lo tsā ba (see DPANG). The enormous impact of Daṇḍin's text on Tibetan letters in general is also apparent from the fourteenth century onward, where one can discern a conscious use of its poetic figures—these fall into two classes: poetic figures based on semantic considerations and those based on phonological ones—in virtually every literary genre, whether it be in eulogies, biographies, chronicles or dissertations on medicine, astrology and so on. Several important exegeses of the text were written during the present century, and we may mention here the one by Mi pham rNam rgyal rgya mtsho (1846-1912) of 1909, and those by the contemporary scholars bSe tshang Blo bzang dpal ldan and Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las (see MI, BSE and DUNG). All of the writers mentioned thus far are Buddhist, but this does not mean that only Tibetan Buddhist scholars were interested in poetry and poetics. An example of a Bon po writer on this subject is the late Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan (1898-?), although his work, virtually a précis of the Kāvyādarśa, is indistinguishable from its Buddhist counterparts (see TSHUL).

Already the earliest Tibetan commentaries on the Kāvyādarśa provide evidence that two Indian commentaries, namely those by Ratnaśrī and Vāgīśvarakīrti, had penetrated into Tibet's literary consciousness (see van der Kuijp, 1986). It was in these glosses that further information on the fate of Rāma and Sītā came to be transmitted to Tibet. And it is essentially with this state of affairs in mind that we must view the first prose adaptation of a portion of their story by dMar ston Chos kyi rgyal po, a disciple of Sa skya Paṇḍita, in his commentary on a gnome (number 321) in the eighth chapter of his master's Legs bshad rin po che'i gter ("A Treasury of Elegant Sayings"), a work Sa skya Paṇḍita completed sometime[page 398] between 1215 and 1225 (see DMAR: 190-196).2 However, the most famous author of a Tibetan adaptation of this story is arguably Zhang zhung Chos dbang grags pa (1404-1469), whose work of 1438 is written in highly ornate poetry, using a great variety of Daṇḍin's poetic figures (see ZHANG). There is no doubt that Zhang zhung emulates the poetic style for which his master mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang po (1385-1438) has become notorious, for his diction is at times rather obscure and turgid, and always extremely intellectual. A commentary on this work, written by Ngag dbang bstan pa'i rgya mtsho of bKra shis 'khyil Monastery, was also recently published (see NGAG). It includes an identification of the poetic figures employed by Zhang zhung as well as a number of text-critical comments anent the corruptions that had crept into manuscripts and blockprints of Zhang zhung's work. To give an idea of the text and its exegesis, we have translated the first verse with which Zhang zhung begins his actual poem, together with Ngag dbang bstan pa'i rgya mtsho's comment (see NGAG: 90-91). It depicts rNga yab (Cāmara), the land of the demons, ruled by king Daśagriva, the abductor of Sītā, and contrasts it with 'Dzam gling (Jambudvīpa), the world as we know it.

The one following the goose *Jambudvīpa,

Is *Cāmara, the leader of gander[s].

Desiring the rising red one (dmar ba),

The one who followed it is Adi's [read: Ādi's] youngster.

The meaning: *Cāmara and *Dvicāmara (or: Paracāmara) are associate isles of *Jambudvīpa and, insofar as the demons live in Cāmara, the leader of gander[s] who follow after the goose *Jambudvīpa, the great continent, that is, chase after it, is *Cāmara, the associate isle which is the demon abode. That very item is likened to this [scenario]: For instance, [propelled] by the force of desiring the beauty of the red lustre of the rising sun, Adi's [read: Ādi's] youngster, that is, Adi's [read: Ādi's] son, who followed or follows it, has the same quality as the sun. "Aditya" [read: Āditya], that is, Mi sbyin skyes [in Tibetan] is said to be the name given to [his] mother. In this [verse, the author] set up *Jambudvīpa and *Cāmara as metaphors for a goose and gander, and then set up their corresponding similes, namely the rising red hue is a simile of the former and the sun a simile for the latter. In this fashion, the stanza is a comparison-metaphor (upamārūpaka, dpe'i gzugs can), because it is similar to the statement in the Kāvyādarśa [II: 89],[page 399]

This moon-like countenance suffused,

With a reddishness through intoxication,

Vies with the moon,

Rising and of excellent redness.

Although there is, in this [verse], no explicit word indicating similarity in the last foot, by implication [we] consider the reading [of the third foot] in the gTsang blockprint [= the bKra shis lhun po xylograph of Zhang zhung's work, see ZHANG: 2a] of his text,

Desiring the rising speech (smra ba),

to be corrupt.

Apart from Zhang zhung's epic poem, there are at least two pieces in prose that were equally inspired by the Rāmāyaṇa. Both of these date from the eighteenth century. The first is a work on the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu—Rāma is the sixth of this series—by the fourth Khams sprul (see KHAMS1: 709-715), composed after his commentary on the Kāvyādarśa. The second constitutes a brief chapter in the commentary on a versified autobiography of Ngag dbang brtson 'grus (1648-1722) which his subsequent reembodiment dKon mchog 'jigs med dbang po (1728-1791) completed in 1777 (see DKON: 641-648). Contrary to the prevailing opinion that the Rāmāyaṇa was translated into Tibetan by Tāranātha (1575-1635)—this was based on a misreading of a passage in his autobiography which merely relates that he had read the text with Paṇḍita Purṇānanda and Pryamānanda (sic) in the year 16033—the first complete Tibetan version is owed to the labors of dGe 'dun chos 'phel (1903-1951), whose manuscript copy in four volumes has survived and is currently being prepared for publication in Lhasa. Motifs from the Rāmāyaṇa sometimes turn up in the most unexpected places. A case in point is an occurrence in a work on epistemology and logic by gSer mdog Paṇ chen Shākya mchog ldan (1429-1507), where a philosophical issue is likened to the epic's twin brothers, Bha li (= Vālin) and mGrin bzangs (= Sugrīva) (GSER: 552). In connection with further influence exerted by the Indian epic literature on Tibetan belles-lettres, we should also mention the late reworking of the ordeal of the five Paṇḍava brothers of the Mahābhārata epic by Dza sag lHa smon Ye shes tshul khrims, who flourished during the second half of the nineteenth century (see DZA). His primary source (or sources) still need to be ascertained.[page 400]

Very common experimental writings among the educated elite were those in which each of the poetic figures relating to the semantic, and not the phonological, make-up of the Tibetan version of the Kāvyādarśa was given an illustration. A huge number of such compositions survive and these are representative of the best in Tibetan ornate poetry.4 Outstanding early published examples of this genre are the writings of Klong chen Rab 'byams pa Dri med 'od zer (1308-1364), the second Zhwa dmar mKha' spyod dbang po (1350-1405) and Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375-1451).5 Two of Klong chen pa's longish poems were recently translated into English (see Guenther), and both are inconceivable without Daṇḍin. Bo dong Paṇ chen, himself also a commentator on the Kāvyādarśa, was one of the greatest poets of his time, and the indigenous catalogues of his writings list a substantial number of original compositions, manuscripts of which the vast majority still remain to be located. The ones that have been published to date are his magnificent allegory entitled sNyan dngags gi bstan bcos yid kyi shing rta ("A Treatise of Ornate Poetry, A Vehicle of the Mind") (according to his biographer dKon mchog 'bangs, he wrote it in 1397 at the age of twenty-two), the dNgul dkar me long ("The White-Silver Mirror"), and the Phun tshogs bcwo brgyad ("The Eighteen Excellences"), an ornate eighteen-verse eulogy-cum-biography of his patron, Rab brtan kun bzang 'phags (1389-l442), the ruler of the principality of rGyal mkhar rtse in Central Tibet, located between Lhasa and gZhis ka rtse (see BO, BO1, BO2). This work later served as the poetic framework for the prose of the so-far anonymous biography of this enlightened ruler (see DNT). A biography written along mixed lines, stylistically speaking, was not the first of its kind, however. Already in 1387, Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1359-1419) wrote a poetically conceived, ornate biography of his patron and teacher sPyan snga Grags pa byang chub (1356-1386) that belongs to the so-called mixed literary genre in that was written in alternating poetry and prose (see TSONG). The all-pervasive influence of Daṇḍin's dicta is abundantly apparent in each and every one of these writings.

The genres Tibetan writers worked with in terms of compositional structure essentially fall into four separate categories: prose, verse, a mixture of prose and verse, and a unique type of continuous[page 401] poetry which, consisting of one enormous metric foot, is characterized by an absence of such Tibetan punctuation markers as the single or double shad (/, //) (see van der Kuijp, 1986a). This kind of composition does not have an Indian counterpart—it is possible that so-called hypermetric texts in Sanskrit may have stimulated it, however—and therefore seems indigenous to Tibetan literature. The first to experiment with the latter genre were rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) and his nephew Sa skya Paṇḍita; other exponents of this form of literature were, inter alia, 'Phags pa, dGe 'dun grub pa (1391-1474) (posthumously styled the first Dalai Lama), and gSer mdog Paṇ chen. Another form of poetry for which there are Indic parallels is what is variously called ka phreng, ka rtsom, or ka bshad. These compositions, of which the first known to me is attested in 'Phags pa's oeuvre (see 'PHAGS), consist of thirty lines, the first beginning with ka, the first letter of the Tibetan alphabet, and each subsequent line beginning with the next letter (a very useful collection of large number of these may be found in Wen). An Indian canonical example of such a text is Saraha's Kakhasyadohā, on which an autocommentary is also extant.

Another major event in the history of Tibetan poetry and poetics was the monumental translation of Kṣemendra's Bodhisattvā-vadānakalpalatā (eleventh century) by Shong ston lo tsā ba and Lakṣmīkara, again under the patronage of 'Phags pa and grand-governor Shākya bzang po (see de Jong, 1979 and Mejor). As with Daṇḍin's text, this translation would therefore also date from around 1267 to 1270. This work, in which Kṣemendra recreated in elegant and highly stylized poetic form the lives of various bodhisattvas, played a vital role in the literary and artistic life of Tibet, for not only did it give rise to an enormous number of literary recreations, but its motifs soon began to appear as frescoes in monasteries and homes of the landed aristocracy. It was included in the Tibetan canon both in a bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan version and its Tibetan rendition alone. One recension of the latter was based on a manuscript of the text that was prepared with the financial support of Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan (1302-1364) (see van der Kuijp, 1994). The original translation underwent a series of revisions of which the bilingual Sanskrit-Tibetan edition that was issued under the patronage of the fifth Dalai Lama Ngag[page 402] dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-1682) in the year 1665 is but one instance. We learn from his autobiography that the fifth Dalai Lama, an outstanding poet in his own right, was himself in part responsible for this revision and he writes that the finished manuscript, accompanied with a printer's colophon, was sent to his residence in the beginning of March of that year. Apart from the fifth Dalai Lama's own glosses on certain passages, the first to attempt a revision of the earlier translation was dPang lo tsā ba, who also ventured to write some comments on those places in the text which he thought presented particular difficulties. Other revisions that followed were those initiated by So ston 'Jigs med grags pa (fourteenth century) and the ruler of the house of Rin spungs, Ngag dbang 'jig rten dbang phyug grags pa (1542-?1625), himself also the author of an excellent commentary on the Kāvyādarśa (completed in 1586) and a host of other pieces of ornate poetry. These are known respectively as the black and red annotations, presumably because of the color of the ink used. Kṣemendra's work inspired the latter to write a series of poems each of which summarized one chapter of the text. The sixth Zhwa dmar Gar dbang chos kyi dbang phyug (1584-1630), too, is recorded as having written a poetic composition taking the Kalpalatā as his model (see SI-'BE: 266). And, lastly, Lo chen Chos dpal (1654-1718), alias Dharmaśrī, another excellent poet and linguist, also composed a series of one-hundred-and-eight verses, each of which deals with one chapter.

The Tibetan translation of this work continued to be studied from a philological point of view, however, at least until well into the eighteenth century. For example, dBal mang dKon mchog rgyal mtshan (1764-1853) relates an oral account in his biography of his teacher and friend Gung thang pa dKon mchog bstan pa'i sgron me (1762-1823) of 1831 to the effect that the latter had made corrections to the Tibetan version of the text (DBAL: 71).6 It is sometimes held that the scion of the house of Rin spungs was also responsible for a prose version of the Kalpalatā, but this appears to be incorrect, for the colophon of the only published prose rendition refers to the fifth Dalai Lama's bilingual edition (for various prose versions, see Mejor: 29-31).[page 403]

We have seen that ornate poetry and the Kāvyādarśa occupy an important place in Tibetan literature. Some of the poems written according to Daṇḍin's canon were so abstruse as to elicit exegetical remarks which, at times, could be very elaborate indeed. A case in point would be the enormous commentary written by Yongs 'dzin Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1713-1791) on the opening verses of one of mKhas grub's treatises on epistemology and logic (see YE).7 In spite of the large volume of Tibetan poetry, when reading through Tibet's rich literary legacy, one cannot help but be struck by the virtually complete absence of literary criticism; that is to say, there is really no evidence of a conscious reflection on the creative process in literature by means of a fully articulated and explicit set of criteria. Though the earliest guidelines as to what constitutes literature were to some extent provided by Sa skya Paṇḍita in the first chapter of his mKhas pa rnams la 'jug pa'i sgo ("Introduction to Scholarship")—this section of the text deals with grammar and the principles of literary composition—his remarks remained a relatively isolated phenomenon and evidently fell dead from his pen. Literary criticism in Tibet, such as it was, appears to have been by and large confined to the making of text-critical and philological remarks, including commenting on unusual diction, and to identify the kind of poetic figure from Daṇḍin's treatise used by a given author. It is only rarely that Tibetan authors of the pre-modern period, that is before the 1950s, give critical appraisals of the literary merit of the writings of their predecessors or contemporaries, and when they do, these are usually unsupported by an explicit mention of the criteria with which they are working.

Tibet, too, knew of the power of the pen, for one of the alleged causes of the outbreak of the civil war of 1614 was an ambiguous poem written by the sixth Zhwa dmar at the occasion of the formal installation on the throne of 'Bras spungs Monastery of the fourth Dalai Lama Yon tan rgya mtsho (1588-1616). The poem is quoted in the fourth Dalai Lama's biography by the fifth Dalai Lama (see DAL: 276-278).8 In an allusion to Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra XI, 60, one of its quatrains begins:[page 404]

The fourth Dalai Lama, the great-grandson of Altan Khan (1505/07-1582/83) of the Tümed Mongols, had been living away from Tibet until the year 1614. The point made in this quatrain was that his scholarship and learning left something to be desired, an observation that may very well have contained a kernel of truth. The sixth Zhwa dmar himself was the first son of the head of the 'Bri gung pa sect of the bKa' brgyud pa, and, some twenty-five years earlier, his younger brother dKon mchog rin chen (1590-1655), later the twenty-third abbot of 'Bri gung Monastery, had been the primary (and only Tibetan) candidate for the reembodiment of the third Dalai Lama bSod nams rgya mtsho (1543-1588). After some deliberation, he was passed over by Seng ge, the financial secretary (phyag mdzod) of the recently deceased third Dalai Lama, who then with the support of the Tümed Mongols was able to determine his master's successor to be Yon tan rgya mtsho. The poem and its tenor should be read with this in mind, as well as with the militant rivalry that existed between the financial supporters of the dGe lugs pa in dBus and the house of the gTsang pa, which mainly supported the bKa' brgyud pa and the Sa skya pa (including the Jo nang pa) schools. No friend of the bKa' brgyud pa, the fifth Dalai Lama characterizes the sixth Zhwa dmar's poem as not being very successful when compared with compositions of other poets, which he styles as "mellifluous and forceful," but it is interesting that he does not even attempt to come to the defense of the fourth Dalai Lama's scholarly abilities, because, basically, there were none. Lastly, in 1647, the fifth Dalai Lama composed his own commentary on the Kāvyādarśa which he used inter alia as a vehicle to make a number of political, philosophical and religious statements. One example of this should suffice. Illustrating the so-called poetic figure of corroboration (arthāntaranyāsa, don gzhan bkod pa) of what is unsuitable and suitable from the Kāvyādarśa II, 176, he writes (see DAL1: 125):[page 405]

Blo bzang chos grags and bSod nams rtse mo, eds.

1989Gangs ljongs mkhas dbang rim byon gyi rtsom yig gser gyi sbram bu. 3 vols. Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe.

Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal

BOGrub pa'i slob dpon dpal dbyangs can dga' ba'i zhabs kyis mdzad pa'i snyan ngag gi bstan bcos yid kyi shing rta. In Kāvya Texts from Bhutan, pp. 597-687. Thimphu, 1976

BO1dNgul dkar gyi me long. In The Literary Arts in Ladakh, vol. 1, pp. 41-56. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1972.

BO2Phun tshogs bcwo brgyad. In The Literary Arts in Ladakh, vol. 1, pp. 91-106. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1972.

bSe tshang Blo bzang dpal ldan

BSETshangs sras bzhad pa'i sgra dbyangs. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1984.

Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs and Nor brang O rgyan

1990Bod kyi lo rgyus rags rim g.yu yi phreng ba, bar cha. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang.

Coblin, W.S.

1991A Study of the Old Tibetan Shangshu Paraphrase, pt. I.Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/2: 303-322; A Study of the Old Tibetan Shangshu Paraphrase, pt. 2.Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/3: 523-539.

Dalai Lama V, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho

DAL'Jig rten dbang phyug thams cad mkhyen pa yon tan rgya mtsho dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa nor bu'i 'phreng ba. [Biographies of the third and fourth Dalai Lamas.] Solon, 1982.

DAL1sNyan ngag me long gi dka' 'grel dbyangs can dgyes pa'i glu dbyang. Ed. by Khenpo Thupten Tshondu. Varanasi, 1966.[page 407]

dBal mang dKon mchog rgyal mtshan

DBAL'Jam dbyangs bla ma rje btsun dkon mchog bstan pa'i sgron me'i rnam par thar pa brjod pa'i gtam dad pa'i padmo bzhad pa'i nyin byed. In Collected Works, vol.7, pp. 1-407. New Delhi, 1974.

dKon mchog 'jigs med dbang po

DKONgSol 'debs kai ta ka'i 'phreng mdzes kyi rnam bshad tshig don rab gsal. In Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 625-675. New Delhi, 1972.

dMar ston Chos kyi rgyal po

DMARLegs par bshad pa rin po che'i gter dang 'grel pa. Lhasa, 1982.

Dharma Rā dza'i rnam thar

DNTDharma rā dza'i rnam thar dad pa'i lo thog rgyas byed dngos grub kyi char 'bebs. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1978.

dPang lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa

DPANGsNyan ngags me long gi rgya cher 'grel pa gzhung don gsal ba. In Rig gnas phyogs sdebs, a Collection of Miscellaneous Works on Tibetan Minor Sciences, pp. 281-502. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981.

Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las

DUNGsNyan ngag la 'jug tshul tshig rgyan rig pa'i sgo 'byed. Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1982.

Dza sag lHa smon Ye shes tshul khrims

DZAsKya seng bu lnga'i byung ba brjod pa blo ldan yi dbang 'dren byed rmad byung 'phrul gyi shing rta. Rare Tibetan Historical and Literary Texts from the Library of Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, series 1, pp. 209-227. New Delhi, 1974.

gSer mdog Paṇ chen Sākya mchog ldan

GSERTshad ma rigs gter gyi dgongs rgyan rigs pa'i 'khor los lugs ngan pham byed. In Collected Works, vol. 10. Thimphu, 1975.

Guenther, Herbert V.

1989A Visonary Journey. The Story of The Wildwood Delights, The Story of The Mount Potala Delights. Boston: Shambhala.

He Wenxuan

1987Zangzu geyen gushi xuan. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe.

Huang Bufan

1981'Shangshu' sipian gu zangwen yiwende chubu yanjiu.Yuyan yanjiu 1: 203-232.

Imaeda, Y.

1980L'identification de l'original chinois du Pelliot tibétain 1291—traduction du Zhanguoce.Acta Orientalia Hungarica 34: 53-68.[page 408]

Jackson, David P.

1987The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa-skya Paṇḍita on Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramāṇa and Philosophical Debate, vols.1-2. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismus-kunde, Heft 17, 1-2. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.

'Jam dbyangs 'phrin las

'JAMrNam 'grel gyi rnam bshad rigs pa'i rgya mtsho'i mgo mjug bar gsum gyi snyan ngag gi tshig 'grel rin po che'i sgron me. In The Collected Works of dKon mchog 'jigs med dbang po, vol. 7, pp. 533-569. New Delhi: 1972.

de Jong, J. W.

1979Textcritical Remarks on the Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series2. Tokyo: Reiyukai Library.

1989The Story of Rāma in Tibet. Text and Translation of the Tun-huang Manuscripts. Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, GMBH.

Khams sprul IV, bsTan 'dzin chos kyi nyi ma

KHAMSrGyan gyi bstan bcos me long pa chen bla ma'i gsung bzhin bkral ba dbyangs can ngag gi rol mtsho legs bshad nor bu'i 'byung khungs. Thimphu, 1976.

KHAMSaLha chen po khyab 'jug gi 'jug pa bcu'i gtam rgya bal mkhas pa'i ngag rgyun gangs can rna ba'i bdud rtsi. In Khams sprul snyan 'grel, vol. 2, pp. 705-722. Tashijong: The Sungrab nyamso junphel parkhang Tibetan Craft Community, 1969.

van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J.

1986Bhāmaha in Tibet.Indo-Iranian Journal 28: 31-39.

1986aSa-skya Paṇḍita on the Typology of Literary Genres.Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 11/12: 41-52.

1994Studies in Fourteenth-Century Tibetan Cultural History I: Ta'i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan as a Man of Religion.Indo-Iranian Journal 37: 139-149.

Mejor, M.

1992Kṣemendra's Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā. Studies and Materials. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series7. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

Mi pham rNam rgyal rgya mtsho

MIsNyan dngags me long gi 'grel pa dbyangs can dgyes pa'i rol mtsho. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1984.

Ngag dbang bstan pa'i rgya mtsho

NGAGrGyal po rā ma ṇa'i gtam rgyud las brtsams pa'i snyan ngag gi bstan[page 409] bcos dri za'i bu mo rgyud mang gi sgra sbyangs kyi rnam bshad dri med shel gyi 'bab stegs. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1981.

'Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan

'PHAGSKa sogs sum cu la spel ba. In Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum, vol. 7, p. 231/2/4-3/5. Ed. by BSod nams rgya mtsho. Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko, 1968.

Rag ra Ngag dbang bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan

RAGrGyal rabs chos 'byung shel dkar me long mkhas pa'i mgul rgyan. Ed. Bre srang. Gangs can rig mdzod9, pp. 195-397. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1990.

Roerich, George

1963The Story of Rāma in Tibet. In XXIV Int. Congress of Orientalists. Papers presented by the delegation of the USSR, pp. 184-189. Moscow.

Sa skya Paṇḍita kun dga' rgyal mtshan

mKhas pa rnams la 'jug pa'i sgo. In Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum, vol. 5, pp. 81/1-111/3. Ed. by BSod nams rgya mtsho. Tokyo: The Tōyō Bunko, 1968.

Shastri, Vidyabhusana Pandit Rangacharya Raddi and K. R. Potdar

1979Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍin. Government Oriental Series Class A, no. 4. Poona: Shandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Si tu Paṇ chen bsTan pa'i nyin byed, ed.

SISlob dpon dbyug pa can gyis mdzad pa'i snyan ngag me long zhes bya ba skad gnyis shan sbyar. In Collected Works, vol. 6, pp. 629-731/732. Sansal: Palpung sungrab nyamso khang sherab ling Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990.

Si tu Paṇ chen bsTan pa'i nyin byed and 'Be lo Tshe dbang kun khyab

SI-'BEsGrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i rnam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba, vol. 2. New Delhi, 1972.

sNar thang lo tsā ba dGe 'dun dpal

DGEsNyan ngag me long gi rgya cher 'grel pa, 2 vols. Thimphu, 1976.

Takeuchi, T.

1985A Passage from the Shih Chi in the Old Tibetan Chronicle. In Soundings in Tibetan Civilization, pp. 135-145. Ed. by Barbara N. Aziz and Matthew Kapstein.New Delhi: Manohar.

Tāranātha

TARrGyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges brjod pa'i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa'i rtogs brjod. In Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 1-654. Leh, 1982.[page 410]

Thub bstan nyi ma, ed.

1987Khams khul mkhas dbang rnams kyi snyan ngag dper brjod phyogs sgrig. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.

Tshul khrims rgyal mtshan

TSHULsNyan ngag gi bstan bcos rin chen lde mig. Bon po'i dag yig skor, pp. 631-744. Solan, 1985.

Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa

TSONGByang chub sems dpa' sems dpa' chen po grags pa byang chub dpal bzang po'i rtogs pa brjod pa'i snyan dngags byin rlabs kyi lhun po. In Collected Works (Bkra shis lhun po print), vol. 3, pp. 288-335. New Delhi, 1976.

Wen Guogen, ed.

1986Ka bshad gces sgrig me tog phreng mdzes. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.

Yongs 'dzin Ye shes rgyal mtshan

YETik chen rigs pa'i rgya mtsho'i mchod brjod dang rtsom par dam bca'i don rnam par bshad pa rigs lam gsal byed. In Collected Works, vol. 21, pp. 1-213. New Delhi: Tibet House, 1976.

Zhang zhung Chos dbang grags pa

ZHANGrGyal po rā ma ṇa'i gtam rgyud las brtsams pa'i snyan ngag gi bstan bcos dri za'i bu mo'i rgyud mang gi sgra dbyangs. In Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, reel no. L 30/29: 16 folios.

Zhou Jiesheng and Luo Runcang, eds.

1985Zangzu wenxue shi. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.

Zhwa lu lo tsā ba Rin chen chos skyong bzang po

ZHWAsLob dpon dbyug pa can gyis mdzad pa'i snyan dngags me long. In Kāvya Texts from Bhutan, pp. 1-98. Thimphu, 1976.

Back To Top