[page 470] Tibetan texts dealing with art may be grouped under the following headings: iconographic sources found in religious literature; iconometric sources found in literature dealing with arts and crafts or astrology; handbooks for artists; and art historical sources found in literature dealing with the rise of Buddhism in India and its diffusion in Tibet (see van der Kuijp, in this volume). The first three categories may be regarded as both descriptive and prescriptive, whereas the fourth is merely descriptive.

Religious literature is the basis of Tibetan iconography, and the so-called Tibetan pantheons published in the West are in fact collections of drawings illustrating sādhanas (Lo Bue, 1990: 185-187), that is, short texts invoking individual deities (see Cozort, in this volume). Sādhanas are in turn based upon the vast literature of sūtras, tantras and related commentaries that were translated into Tibetan, mostly from Sanskrit, during the second half of the eighth century and in the early ninth century, as well as during the three centuries following the renaissance of Buddhist studies in western Tibet after the year 1000. The descriptions of individual deities in tantras and sūtras are generally meant for the purpose of conjuring up a specific god, goddess or maṇḍala by piecing them together through a process of visual assemblage, and thus contain[page 471] useful iconographic information, though they are of little use to artists for everyday practical purposes. The Hevajra Tantra, for example, provides iconographic details on the image of Hevajra (Snellgrove, 1976, I: 110), but its advice on how it should be executed is scarcely practicable:

by a painter who belongs to our tradition, by a yogin of our tradition, this fearful painting should be done, and it should be painted with the five colours reposing in a human skull and with a brush made from the hair of a corpse (....) in a lonely spot at noon on the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, in a ferocious state of mind from the drinking of some wine, with the body naked and adorned with the bone accoutrements: one should eat the sacrament in its foul and impure form, having placed one’s own mudrā at one’s left side, she who is beautiful, compassionate, well endowed with youth and beauty, adorned with flowers and beloved of her master. (1976, I: 114-115)

Such a description obviously belongs to the world of tantric literature rather than to the practice of art. However, a similar kind of visionary attitude can be observed in iconographic practice when a master decides to have a certain deity represented according to his own visions or dreams. Thus Tsong kha pa (1357-1419) had the wall paintings of a temple restored in conformity with the way the gods represented used to appear to him during meditation (Tucci, 1980: 41). Yongs dge Mi ’gyur rdo rje, an eastern Tibetan master (b. 1628), painted the images of deities exactly as they appeared to him in meditation (Stein, 1981: 246). The fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682), who devoted a section of his treatise on astrology to images and iconography (Tucci, 1980: 136-137), had his rather orthodox visions painted in a beautiful manuscript, which was started in 1674 and completed eleven years after his death. One of the texts included in it gives instructions on how to draw the various cakras of the four goddesses of action (Karmay: 69, 134-135, pl. 31; 228-229, text IX).

The role of scholars has always been paramount in the choice and interpretation of the religious texts describing the deities to be represented by artists. Tāranātha (1575-1634), for example, explained the iconography and meaning of deities and symbols belonging to complex tantric cycles as portrayed in maṇḍalas (Tucci, 1980: 129-130). But before him, Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364) played a crucial role in accelerating the process of standardization of iconography by sifting the contents of a vast mass of religious[page 472] literature, following historical criteria and exegetical methods. His contribution to iconographic literature is invaluable, considering the huge editorial work which he undertook on all available collections of Buddhist texts in Tibet, whose final outcome was the compilation of the Buddhist canon, first of the bKa’ ’gyur (see Harrison, in this volume), and later of the bsTan ’gyur. Furthermore, his history of Buddhism in India and Tibet (1347), the first chos ’byung (see van der Kuijp, in this volume) to be written in Tibet, which includes the description of the lineages of kings as well as of religious masters belonging to different schools, not only was a model for subsequent history writers (Tucci, 1980: 142), but also provided a useful chronological frame for generations of artists to come. In particular Bu ston drew and gave all the necessary instructions to paint, carve and cast images of masters, maṇḍalas and cycles of deities in the temples on the upper stories at the monastery of Zhwa lu, southern Tibet (Ruegg: 21a-22a; see also Tucci, 1980: 660; Vitali, 1990: 110). He prepared the lha ’bums (“one hundred thousand deities”), namely the iconographic descriptions of the maṇḍalas belonging to different tantric cycles (see Ruegg: 21b-22a) and a whole volume of his Collected Works is devoted to the description of the maṇḍalas painted on the walls of those temples. Bu ston is portrayed and mentioned in several inscriptions in the temples and chapels distributed on the eight floors of one of the most important artistic monuments in Tibet, the Great Stūpa erected during the second quarter of the fifteenth century at rGyal rtse. These inscriptions contain specific references to Bu ston’s lha ’bums as well as the names of the scholars who personally planned, directed and surveyed the work of the teams of painters and sculptors that decorated the more than seventy chapels and temples of the Great Stūpa (Tucci, 1941, IV/2: 72-73, 96, 102, 109; see also 200, 216, 240, 246, 252). Their constant references to specific texts, including a detailed discussion drawn from Bu ston’s guide to Zhwa lu in order to account for the choice of one iconographic source to the exclusion of others (92-93; see also 235-237), well illustrate the important role played by that great scholar in shaping the iconographic literature of Tibet.

Among religious texts, an important source of inspiration traditionally has been provided by the legendary accounts of the Buddha’s past lives. In particular, the Avadānakalpalatā (by the eleventh-century Kashmiri poet Kṣemendra), translated into Tibetan[page 473] in the thirteenth century and accessible to artists in a simplified prose version (see Tucci, 1980: 441), was illustrated in sets of painted scrolls and xylographs. Also the mDo mdzangs blun (“The Sūtra of the Wise and the Fool”), a popular collection of tales translated from Chinese into Tibetan by the Chinese scholar Facheng (known in Tibetan as Chos grub; fl. 770-858), was represented in wall paintings. In general, the hagiographic literature on Indian and Tibetan saints (see Robinson, in this volume), describing the more or less legendary lives of tantric adepts (siddhas) and other religious teachers, has traditionally provided unique sources to the painters and woodcutters entrusted to illustrate the lives of greater and smaller masters, as is shown by the captions that are often painted under each episode in biographical scrolls (see, for example, Tucci, 1980: 418-437; Snellgrove, 1967: pls. 49-45; Dollfus, 1991: 50-71).

The bsTan ’gyur includes four Indian works specifically devoted to iconometry, but, in practice, the theory of the proportions of the image of the Buddha in Tibet is based upon three religious texts found in the Buddhist canon: chapter 30 of the Mahāsaṃvarodaya Tantra; chapter 5 of the Kālacakra Tantra; and the Pratimālakṣaṇa Sūtra, generally known in Tibet as Sha ri’i bus zhus pa’i mdo, of which four different versions have been known to Tibetan artists (Tucci, 1980: 291-292). The Mahāsaṃvarodaya Tantra states that the figure of the standing Buddha measures 120 digits (aṅgula, sor mo). However, the Kālacakra Tantra asserts that the figure of the Buddha measures a few more digits than 120, which led commentators to interpret this as meaning 125 digits (Peterson: 241-242, 246, table I; Jackson: 144-147). This prompted Ratnarakṣita, one of the last Indian scholars to find shelter in the Nepal Valley in the first half of the thirteenth century and the author of a commentary on the Mahāsaṃvarodaya Tantra, to amend the measurements of the Buddha figure contained therein, by stating that they amounted to 125 digits (Jackson: 145, 147, n. 14), thus implying that the Tantra was in error and should conform with the Kālacakra Tantra tradition. The lack of clarity of the Kālacakra Tantra on this point aroused discussions which lasted for centuries, but generally the theory of the five extra digits prevailed, being accepted by the great scholar and painter Padma dkar po (1526-1592) (BKNS: 310) and by other[page 474] artists down to this century. One of the greatest scholars in Tibet, the regent Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653-1705), wrote a text recording the proportions of the eight different types of stūpa (Tucci, 1980: 136-137) and attempting to solve the discrepancy between the Kālacakra Tantra and the Mahāsaṃvarodaya Tantra. In that text, which is part of the Vaiḍūrya g.ya sel, an encyclopedic work devoted to astrology, chronology and history, Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho tried to reconcile the two traditions by suggesting that the measurement of 120 digits ought to apply to painted figures and that of 125 to statues, thus allowing for the additional depth of three-dimensional images (Jackson: 144; Peterson: 243). The regent’s suggestion was rejected by the famous artist and scholar Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen (1697-1769), who found out that it was the consequence of a spurious interlinear note added by a scribe or editor in a treatise written by the religious artist ’Phreng kha ba dPal blo bzang po (1543-1588) (Jackson: 145). Tshul khrims rin chen followed the tradition of allowing 125 digits to the Buddha figure, 120 to peaceful bodhisattvas, and so forth, with a decreasing number of digits for each of the four other categories of figures, according to the sixfold classification he adopted (Jackson: 50).

Tibetan scholars could not agree on the number of the categories of figures either. Bu ston and the eighth Black Hat Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507-1554), for example, apparently divided them into eleven groups, but the Tibetan encyclopaedist Klong rdol bla ma (1719-1805) reduced them to four (Jackson: 50, 67, n. 4; Tucci, 1980: 299) and adopted the 120-digit measurement for the Buddha figure. Present-day artists, such as the eastern Tibetan painter dGe ’dun (18-19), are aware of the co-existence of two different traditions. Furthermore, later Tibetan writers on iconometry pointed out that several categories of figures could not be traced to canonical sources. In particular, Rong tha Blo bzang dam chos rgya mtsho (1863-1917) states that the measurements of the proportions of two classes of wrathful deities originated from an oral tradition which was based upon the correct measures of ancient Indian images (Jackson: 147).

Since Tibetan artists in practice resort to detailed drawing displaying the proportions of the various categories of figures rather than to textual sources (Lo Bue, 1990: 188-194), it may be suggested that iconometric texts are seldom more than displays of erudition by literati who are little concerned with their practical application[page 475] by artists. They are often incomplete and tend to take for granted a great deal of knowledge from the reader, in a manner that is characteristic of their Indian models. Padma dkar po (BKNS: 309, 312), for example, is very helpful when he explains the Indian numerical symbols used in the Śrīcaturpīṭha Tantra, where the “eyes of the sky” means 20 digits; the “king,” 16; the “sun,” 12; and the “water treasure,” namely the ocean, 4. However, his description of the measurements of the proportions of the stūpa of the Enlightenment type leaves out those of the discs making up the spire, and suffers even when compared with Klong rdol bla ma’s description, however incomplete (Padma dkar po, CTGK: 319-322; Klong rdol bla ma, ZDSB: 760-761). This kind of carelessness is typical of a scholarly literature that is chiefly aimed at the accumulation of religious merit rather than at the transmission of practical information.

In the Tibetan cultural context, where literary production tends to be a scholarly exercise meant to accumulate religious merit, one can hardly expect to come across handbooks especially aimed at artists, such as Cennino Cennini’s Il libro dell’arte, relating details of techniques and of the preparation of materials. Tantric Buddhist texts like Buddhaguhya’s Dharmamaṇḍala Sūtra, which is specifically devoted to the subject of maṇḍalas, contain very little information on materials (see for instance Lo Bue, 1987: 795, vv. 42-44) and techniques, being more concerned with problems of classification and the explanation of symbolic meanings. Even when such texts include information on the materials to be used for painting and modelling the images of tantric deities, this betrays a strong concern for their symbolic value. The passage in the Hevajra Tantra giving instructions on how to obtain the pigments to paint the maṇḍala of Hevajra is a case in point: “Black colouring is obtained from charcoal of the cemetery, white from ground human bones, yellow from ochre, red from cemetery bricks, green from caurya leaves and ground human bones, and dark blue from ground human bones and cemetery charcoal.”1 The advice given to sculptors in the Kṛṣṇa-Yamārī Tantra is not less significant: “The image of Yamārī, with one face and two arms, should be made from clay mixed with ashes from a funeral pyre of the flesh of a brahmin” (Pal: 14).[page 476]

Our first quotation from the Hevajra Tantra, with these two just cited, gives us the impression of facing here a tradition of tantric practitioners who were scarcely concerned with the actual practice of art. I have pointed out elsewhere how irrelevant that kind of tradition is to the artists’ practice (Lo Bue, 1990). Bearing this in mind, we shall now turn our attention to the few available sources dealing with materials and techniques.

Among the scholars who wrote on the materials used in art, mention should be made of Des dmar dGe bshes bsTan ’dzin phun tshogs, an influential eighteenth-century writer.2 The accounts on statuary metals by Padma dkar po, ’Jigs med gling pa (1729-1798) and Klong rdol bla ma contain some information on the alloys, but very little on modelling, casting and embossing techniques (see Lo Bue, 1981). A long chapter on metals and one on bells are contained in a manuscript kept at the British Museum, London.3 Other scholars wrote on the materials used in painting, for instance Sum pa mKhan po (1704-1788), who dealt also with methods, and Mi pham rgya mtsho (1846-1912), who wrote on a number of crafts and techniques including metal casting, the preparation of gold powder for “cold”-gilding, “hot”-gilding by the mercury-evaporation process, as well as inlaying gold and silver in iron (Jackson: 7-8, 91-93). Bo dong Paṇ chen (1375-1451), along with the two last-mentioned scholars, also dealt with the theory of colors, but one of the best and most detailed accounts on pigments and their combinations was written by Rong tha Blo bzang dam chos rgya mtsho (Jackson: 92). Of late, also in connection with a renewed Western interest in Tibetan art, a few practical handbooks have been produced: Rong tha’s volume on the theory of proportions (TGLL), along with his three volumes devoted to the creation of maṇḍalas (1971-73); and two volumes by an outstanding eastern Tibetan painter, dGe dga’ bla ma (b. 1931),4 who based his work (1983) on several sources, particularly the Blo gsal dgyes pa’i rol mo by the eighth Zhwa nag Karma pa (1983: 7). Mention also should be made of a volume (BKRM) by the northeastern Tibetan painter ’Jam dbyangs blo gsal (b. ca. 1913).5

No image may be regarded as complete unless it has undergone the rab gnas ritual of consecration, which is meant to establish in it the grace and wisdom of the particular deity or master represented. Special texts explain how the consecration ceremony ought to be performed (see Bentor, in this volume). But first of all, various holy articles, such as sacred invocations written on strips of paper, relics, medicinal and precious substances, coins, grains, small stūpas and other offerings are lodged inside the hollows of[page 477] statues and sealed, while sacred invocations or the hand-prints of a master are drawn on the reverse side of painted scrolls. The holy contents of a statue must be placed not haphazardly, but following a special ceremony (gzungs ’bul gyi cho ga) as laid down in the relevant texts (Dagyab: 32-33). This kind of ritual literature may be regarded as related to art, too.

Most of the available information on the history of Tibetan art is scattered in historical and hagiographical literature, in guides to famous pilgrimage sites (gnas bshad), in accounts of religious pilgrimages (lam yig; see J. Newman, in this volume), as well as in the inscriptions found in temples or on images. There is very little literature specifically devoted to the history of art. References to foreign artists in Tibet during the monarchic period (seventh to ninth century) occur in the sBa bzhed, a historical account attributed to gSal snang, a minister of the sBa clan (second half of the eighth century), which underwent subsequent editing, possibly up to the thirteenth century (Stein, 1961: vi).6 Another useful source for the history of early artistic monuments in Tibet is the mKhas pa’i dga’ ston (1564) by dPa’ bo gTsug lag ’phreng ba (1504-1566),7 who made use of ancient records that were subsequently lost. Local histories often include detailed information on the construction and decoration of religious buildings. The history of the princes of rGyal rtse, for example, contains many references to the erection of a number of monasteries, temples, stūpas and images in the Myang (or Nyang) area of southern Tibet.8 Also the Myang chos ’byung, an important text recently attributed to Tāranātha (MYTM: Editor’s Foreword),9 gives a wealth of historical information on a number of monasteries in Myang, including details of the statues and paintings found in the temples at rGyal rtse, the dates of their foundation, completion and consecration, as well as the names of the donors and of the masters who performed the rab gnas ceremonies.

Hagiographies are equally useful sources for art historians to the extent that they record the works of art commissioned by religious masters or restored on their behalf, although they hardly ever mention the names of the artists who were involved in those undertakings. The biography of Tsong kha pa and the autobiography of Tāranātha give details of the restoration work which they[page 478] carried out on various old temples and stūpas (Tucci, 1980: 164, 190, 197, 200) and of the decoration they undertook in newly constructed buildings. In this connection, mention should be made of Bu ston’s biography for remarks concerning Zhwa lu, of the biography of Kun dga’ rin chen (1517-1584) for Sa skya (this is a very useful complement to the guide to Sa skya attributed to that master; see Tucci, 1980: 156), of the biography of the second Paṇ chen Lama (1663-1737) for bKra shis lhun po (Tucci, 1980: 133, 161), and of the fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, where the Great Fifth recorded even the names of some artists who decorated the Potala Palace (Tucci, 1980: 278). In three volumes of his Collected Works, the fifth Dalai Lama also reported the inscriptions which he dictated on the occasion of the consecration of religious buildings and objects. These volumes constitute a precious document for the history of Tibetan art, since they mention the names of artists and donors (Tucci, 1980: 135). Interesting information relevant to art history also may be gathered from the fifth Dalai Lama’s history of Tibet (BKGR, 1643), dealing with its princely clans, partially translated by Tucci (1980: 625-656).

A most important source for art historians is provided by the inscriptions sometimes found on images and paintings. They are generally written in the ornate style (alaṃkāra) based on the Indian kāvya, with dedicatory verses explaining the occasion for which the images were executed and giving the names of their donors. The inscriptions painted on the walls of the temples and chapels of the Great Stūpa and of the main temple at rGyal rtse give us a wealth of information on the paintings and statues, including their iconographic sources, the names and occupations of their donors, the names and places of origin of the artists, as well as the names of the scholars who supervised their work (Tucci, 1941, IV/1: passim). Similar detailed information may be gathered from the guides to monasteries listing religious items and holy relics, boasting of their miraculous powers, and recording the stays of particularly famous masters. These guides, generally called dkar chag (“list,” “catalogue”; see Martin, in this volume) are, in fact, eulogies extolling the virtues of the institutions for which they were composed. Also, the accounts of travels and pilgrimages by famous masters can provide useful information on religious art. An interesting lam yig (GJBT) was compiled by Kaḥ thog Si tu Chos kyi rgya mtsho (1880-1925), a student of ’Jam [page 479] dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po (1820-1892), the author of a famous guide to the holy places of central and southern Tibet (HDSB), where mention is made of the chief art works contained in the monasteries.10 Kaḥ thog Si tu traveled in the same regions from 1918 to 1920, and described the monastic foundations he visited, including the religious enclave at rGyal rtse (GJBT: 392-401), to which his master devotes only a few lines (Ferrari: ff. 16b-17a; HDSB: 35-36).

At least three short texts may be regarded as truly art-historical, not only because they provide the names of artists and art schools in a chronological sequence, but also on account of their attempts to differentiate them on stylistic grounds. That is particularly true of two related texts dealing with Buddhist statuary in India and Tibet up to the fifteenth century. One was written in verse by Padma dkar po (LMTP), while the other is anonymous and, in the main, a transcription of the former with a few alterations in the wording (Tucci, 1959: 180). The anonymous manuscript is incomplete, and deals with more or less related subjects: musical instruments, silk, cups, tea, weapons. It is interesting also from a linguistic point of view, being greatly influenced by the spoken language of southern Tibet and, in the section dealing with statuary, by the Bhutanese dialect (Tucci, 1959: 179). Thus, it is a precious document of the colloquial language of those regions, which seldom finds its way into texts and dictionaries. The third text is a passage in the autocommentary written by ’Jam mgon Kong sprul (1811-1899) for the few, cryptic, ambiguous and altogether too compact verses he devotes to the origin of religious art in Tibet, with particular reference to the schools of painting. The verses and their commentary make up the fourth chapter in the fourth section of his encyclopaedic work Shes bya kun khyab (1970, I-III: 570-573; 1982, I; 38-39, 575-578), dealing with the origin of arts and sciences. Although Kong sprul is not a remarkable writer from a stylistic point of view, the prose of his autocommentary is usually lucid and literary in style (Smith: 37).

The study of Tibetan literature dealing with art is still in its infancy and a comprehensive book on the history of Tibetan art is still to be written. Tibetan literature specifically devoted to the arts[page 480] and crafts is relatively scarce, and relevant information is generally scattered in texts often untranslated and belonging to different literary genres. As a rule, technical information on art is handed down in workshops from master to pupil, and it may be suggested that the bulk of Tibetan literature dealing with art is oral. Research in this particular area requires knowledge both of the Tibetan language and of the various disciplines making up the body of the culture and civilization of Tibet.

Bu ston Rin chen grub

ZLTIZha lu’i gtsug lag khang gi gzhal yas khang nub ma byang ma shar ma lho ma rnams na bzhugs pa’i dkyil ’khor sogs kyi dkar chag. In his gSung ’bum (Collected Works). New Delhi reprint reproduced by Lokesh Chandra: The Collected Works of Bu-ston, 1969, part 17 (vol. tsa).

Dagyab, Loden Sherap

1977Tibetan Religious Art, part I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Dalai Lama V, Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho

BKGRBod kyi rgyal rabs rdzogs ldan gzhon nu’i dga’ ston. Early History of Tibet. Ed. by Ngawang Gelek Demo. Delhi: 1967.

Des dmar dGe bshes bsTan ’dzin phun tshogs

RPZYRig pa bzo yi gnas kyi las tshogs phran tshegs ’dod rgur bsgyur ba spra phab ’od kyi snang brnyan. Unpublished manuscript. School of Oriental and African Studies Library, University of London.

Dollfus, Pascale

1991Peintures tibétaines de la vie de Mi-la-ras-pa.Arts asiatiques 47: pp. 50-71.

dPa’ bo gTsug lag ’phreng ba

KPGTChos ’byung mKhas pa’i dga’ ston, part 4 (ja). Reproduced by Lokesh Chandra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1962.

CBKGDam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byung ba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. 2 vols. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1986.

Ferrari, Alfonsa, ed.

1985mK’yen brtse’s Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Gega Lama (dGe dga’ bla ma)

1983Principles of Tibetan Art, vol. 1. Darjeeling.

Jackson, David P. and Janice A.

1984Tibetan Thangka Painting: Methods and Materials. London: Serindia Publications.[page 482]

‘Jam mgon kong sprul Yon tan rgya mtsho

RNZBRig gnas zhar byung dang bcas brjod pa’i skabs. In his Shes byung kun khyab. New Delhi reprint reproduced by Lokesh Chandra, with an introduction by E. Gene Smith: Kongtrul’s Encyclopaedia of Indo-Tibetan Culture (1970), parts I-III, ff. 17a-20a and 198a-224b. In the Beijing edition (1982), vol. stod, pp. 36-42 and 556-608.

Jamyang (‘Jam dbyangs blo gsal)

BKRMBod kyi ri mo ’bri tshul deb gsar kun phan nyi ma. New Self-Learning Book on the Art of Tibetan Painting. Dharamsala.

‘Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po

HDSBlHa ldan sogs dbus ’gyur chos sde khag dang yar lung lho rgyud gtsang stod byang rwa sgreng rgyal ba’i ’byung gnas sogs kyi rten gnas po’i gnas yig ngo mtshar lung ston me long. Dharamsala: Tibetan Cultural Printing Press, 1979.

‘Jigs med grags pa

DPLTDad pa’i lo thog rgyas byed dngos grub kyi char ’bebs. Unpublished manuscript (see note 8).

DRDNDharma ra dza’i rnam thar dad pa’i lho thog.... Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1978.

GTCGrGyal rtse chos rgyal gyi rnam par thar pa dad pa’i lo thog dngos grub kyi char ’bebs. Unpublished manuscript at the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome.

RTKZRab brtan kun bzang ’phags kyi rnam thar. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Kaḥ thog Si tu chos kyi rgya mtsho

GJBTAn Account of a Pilgrimage to Central Tibet during the Years 1918 to 1920, being the text of Gangs ljongs dbus gtsang gnas bskor lam yig nor bu zla shel gyi se mo do. Palampur reprint reproduced from the original Tibetan xylograph by Khams sprul Don brgyud nyi ma, 1972.

Karmay, Samten

1988Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama, The Gold Manuscript of the Fournier Collection. London: Serindia.

Klong rdol bla ma Nga dbang blo bzang

ZDSBbZo dang gso ba skar rtis rnams las byung ba’i ming gi grags. In his gSung ’bum (Collected Works). New Delhi reprint reproduced by Lokesh Chandra from the collections of Prof. Raghu Vira: The Collected Works of Longdol Lama, 1973, parts 1-2, vol. ma, pp. 744-792.

Lo Bue, Erberto F.

1981Statuary Metals in Tibet and the Himālayas: History, Tradition and Modern Use and Casting of Devotional Images in[page 483] the Himālayas: History, Tradition and Modern Techniques. In Aspects of Tibetan Metallurgy, pp. 33-86. Ed. by W. A. Oddy and W. Zwalf. British Museum Occasional Papers, No. 15.

1987The Dharmamaṇḍala-sūtra by Buddhaguhya. In Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, part 2, pp. 787-818. Ed. by G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

1990Iconographic Sources and Iconometric Literature in Tibetan and Himalayan Art. In Indo-Tibetan Studies. Ed. by T. Skorupski. Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies.

Lokesh Chandra

1981Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co.

mKhyen brtse

See Ferrari, Alfonsa.

Padma dkar po

BKNSBris sku’i rnam bshad mthong ba don ldan. In his Collected Works. Darjeeling reprint reproduced from the Byang chub gling blocks (1973), chapter VII (ja), pp. 307-317.

CTGKmChod rten brgyad kyi thig rtsa. In his Collected Works. Darjeeling reprint reproduced from the Byang chub glingblocks (1973), chapter VIII (nya), pp. 319-323.

LMTPLi ma brtag pa’i rab byed smra ’dod pa’i kha rgyan. In his Collected Works. Darjeeling reprint reproduced from the Byang chub gling blocks (1973), chapter VI (cha), pp. 293-306.

Pal, Pratapaditya

1974The Arts of Nepal, part I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Peterson, Kathleen

1980Sources of Variation in Tibetan Canons of Iconometry. In Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson. Ed. by M. Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Rong tha Blo bzang dam chos rgya mtsho

1971-73The Creation of Maṇḍalas: Tibetan Texts Detailing the Techniques for Laying Out and Executing Tantric Buddhist Psychocosmograms. 3 vols. New Delhi: Don ’grub rdo rje.

TGLLThig gi lag len du ma gsal bar bshad pa bzo rig mdzes pa’i kha rgyan. New Delhi: Byams pa chos rgyal, 1967(?).

Ruegg, David Seyfort

1966The Life of Bu ston Rin po che. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

sBa gSal snang

BZCBsBa bzhed ces bya ba las sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982.

TPKSbTsan po Khri srong lde btsan dang mKhan po slob dpon Padma’i dus[page 484] mdo sngags so sor mdzad pa’i sba bzhed gtags ma. Dharamsala: Tibetan Educational Printing Press, n.d.

sGa stod gNas bzang ba dGe ’dun

KZKTsKu gzugs kyi thig rtsa dam pa gong ma rnams kyi man ngag mngon du phyung ba blo dman ’jug bde ’dzam bu’i chu gser: Canonical Proportions for the Representation of the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Tutelary and Protective Deities. Paro: Ngodrup and Sherab Demy, 1978.

Smith, E. Gene

See ’Jam mgon Kong sprul

Snellgrove, David

1967Four Lamas of Dolpo, vol. I. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer.

1976The Hevajra Tantra, parts 1 and 2. London: Oxford University Press.

Stein, Rolf A, ed.

1961Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed. Paris: Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises.

1981La civilisation tibétaine. Paris: L’Asiathèque-Le Sycomore.

Tāranātha(?)

1983Myang yul stod smad bar gsum gyi ngo mtshar gtam gyi legs bshad mkhas pa’i ’jug ngogs. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang.

Tucci, Giuseppe

1932Indo-Tibetica, vol. I. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia.

1941Indo-Tibetica, vol. IV, parts 1 and 2. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia.

1959A Tibetan Classification of Buddhist Images, According to Their Style.Artibus Asiae 22: 179-187.

1980Tibetan Painted Scrolls. 2 vols. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co.

Vitali, Roberto

1990Early Temples of Central Tibet. London: Serindia.

Back To Top