Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (1509–1579) on the Controversy of the Indian Origin of the rGyud bzhi

Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (1509-1579) on the Controversyof the Indian Origin of the rGyud bzhi

Olaf Czaja

Since Karmay’s illuminating article, the Tibetan controversy regarding the origin ofthe famous rGyud bzhi had become also well-known to the Western audience.1 Hereit will be attempted to make some addition to this long standing discussion based onthe view of Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo, 1509-1579), one ofthe main exponents of the zur lugs medical tradition. Recently some of his writingswere published which allow a precious insight into this issue. This paper will give ashort biography of him and outline his standpoint in this controversy.

HIS BIOGRAPHYZurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo was one of the most celebrated physicians of the 16thcentury. He was renowned for his erudition and his fervent endeavour to discusscontroversial issues publicly.2

He was born in 1509. The documents do not give the place of birth and the namesof his parents. They also stay silent on what happened during the two first decadesof his life. At first he bore the name Tshe brtan rgyal. When he was ordained byKarma ’phrin las pa (1456-1539), he received the name dPal ldan Don grub rnam rgyal.Later he was given the name Legs bshad ’tshol by the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyodrdo rje (1507-1554). Still another name, Lodro Gyalpo, was given to him by the Zhvadmar ba.3

It is obvious that he was closely affiliated to the Karma pa school. Between 1532and 1539 he studied at the Karma pa college for higher philosophical studies (bshadgrva) and became particularly well-versed in prosody and reasoning.4 The formersubject was taught to him by Rin chen bkra shis (b.15th cent.) alias sKyogs Lo tsa ba.It is not clearly stated in the sources, when he began to learn medicine. He wasrelated to the celebrated physician Zurkharwa Nyamnyi Dorje (Zurkharwa mNyamnyid rdo rje, 1439-1475), who initiated a particular medical tradition known as zurlugs. Therefore one can assume that because of his family background Lodro Gyalpohad already a basic medical knowledge at an early age.5

As already noted Lodro Gyalpo himself held the view that he was an reincarnationof Nyamnyi Dorje. He was assured in this by the Zhva dmar ba.6

During his stay at the Karma pa monastic settlement, or perhaps at the end of it, hewas urged by his lama to thoroughly study medicine. He composed his first datedwork, a biography on Zurkharwa Nyamnyi Dorje, at Chos kyi sde gnyug, whichbelonged to the Sakyapa school, during the second half of the ninth month in 1539.7

Then Lodro Gyalpo studied for three months with Glang phu Chos rje.8 He was apupil of Tsomed Khenchen (mTsho smad mkhan chen) who in turn had relied onKong po Phrag dbon, a famous disciple of Nyamnyi Dorje. From Glang phu Chos rjehe received the initiation and the reading transmission of the g.Yu thog snying thig,and the reading transmission of the rGyud bzhi, Bye ba ring bsrel, Pad ma gcesphreng, and bDud rtsi bum pa.9 This was followed by an extensive study with manyfamous doctors of his time regardless to which medical school they were affiliated.10

Despite this he felt the necessity to search for the original writings of Yuthok Yonten

132 TIBET JOURNAL

Gonpo and set off to his birth region at upper and lower Myang.11 There his endeavourswere crowned with success and he found the personal copies of the rGyud bzhi thathad golden explanatory notes.12 In the coming years he remained in this region andbegan to compose commentaries on the rGyud bzhi known as the Mes po’i zhal lung.In 1542 he completed his commentary on the rTsa rgyud, the first part of the rGyudbzhi.13 He was supported in this endeavour by Chos rgyal rGyal dbang rdo rje gragspa rgyal mtshan. Three years later, in 1545 he finished the commentary on the bShadrgyud in the vicinity of Pa snam Lhun grub rtse sponsored by the same patron. At theend of 1545 he was stricken with smallpox, but he recovered. The following year heseems to have stayed for a while at the so-called medical town of Sakya (Sa skyasman grong). There he met the provost (zhal ngo) of Brang ti, father and sons.14 Inabout that time he also went to Lhasa. On a stone pillar, he put up his famous pamphletcontaining questions about several medical issues.15 In the same year of 1546 thefamous Gra thang rGyud bzhi was carved in blockprints, based on a revision made byLodro Gyalpo.16 Moreover at this time he went as an attendant of sGar chen to Zurphu.17 Of the following years nothing is recorded until the spring of 1554 when he metthe famous ’Brug pa scholar Padma dkar po (1527-1592) in rGyal chen gling.18 In 1566he wrote a commentary on the first chapter of the Phyi ma rgyud that deals with pulsediagnosis.19 Obviously this work was planned to cover the entire Phyi ma rgyud buthe did not succeed in this. During all this time the thoughts of Lodro Gyalpo revolvedaround the medical issues raised by him on the Lhasa pillar. Eventually in 1570 hewrote an treatise in which he gathered all questions and replies so far together withcommentarial notes.20 Two years later in 1572 he composed a short treatise thatinvestigates the origin of the rGyud bzhi. In 1573 he made a new edition of the Bye baring bsrel of Nyamnyi Dorje and wrote a table of contents for it.21 In the last years ofhis life he began to compose a khog dbubs that remained unfinished probably becauseof his death.22 The year when he passed away is not certain.23

HIS TREATISE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE RGYUD BZHIAs noted above, in 1572 he wrote his short treatise, “The Thorough Distinction (of)the Four Tantras (between) Authentic words and Treatise, The Torch that DispelsDarkness (rGyud bzhi bka’ dang bstan bcos rnam par dbye ba mun sel sgron me).24

This discussion whether the rGyud bzhi was expounded by Buddha or composedby a Tibetan author played out over centuries of Tibetan medical thinking. Theearliest ‘medical history’ known to us, the Khog dbug khyung chen lding ba whichhad been written by Yuthok Yonten Gonpo and is preserved in the compilation calledthe ‘Eighteen Parts’ (Cha lag bco brgyad), had already dealt with this point.25

Reviewing other medical histories it seems that it formed indeed an indispensible partof the medical discourse.26 One gets the impression that, right from the beginning,medical writings concerning the rGyud bzhi had to takes sides in the discourse aboutwhether it was the authentic words of Buddha, Indian works or medical compositionsof indigenous origin. In this it shares this proceedure with textual sources of ritual ormeditational purpose as well, but it appears that it centered on the rGyud bzhi insofaras medicine was concerned.

Lodro Gyalpo was a fervent follower of the bka’ ma thesis. In his works he frequentlyexpounded his view on this and he was lavish in his critique, which included well-founded arguments and pedantic polemics, as well as crude insults.27

ZURKHARWA LODRO GYALPO (1509-1579) ... 133

He structures his composition ‘The Torch that Dispels Darkness’ into three topics:(1) that explains the rGyud bzhi outwardly as the word (bka’) of Buddha, (2) inwardlyas a treatise (bstan bcos) of a Pandita and (3) secretly as a Tibetan treatise.

At the beginning Lodro Gyalpo gives an introduction on what words of Buddhaand treatises are and ends this paragraph by a citation from the Prajnaparamita inEight-Thousand Verses (brGyad stong). This says that whatever the pious laymen ofthe Buddha say, talk, explain and teach is not in contradiction to the Dharmata (chosnyid). Also those who explain that Dharmata are not in contradiction to the Dharmata.This is in accord with the cause that Buddha expounded the Dharma. Then LodroGyalpo launches into the first topic.

ON HOW THE BUDDHA EXPOUNDED THE RGYUD BZHI

THE VIEW OF THE OTHERS THAT IS WRONG AND OBSTRUCTEDZurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo continues to say how it was expounded by Buddha. Hestates that what is explained by the rGyud bzhi’i rnam thar bka’ rgya ma is of specialintent (dgongs pa can) and does not fit with the basic meaning (don).28 Although inthis very source it is maintained that it was taught at O rgyan, this is not to beunderstood as the true meaning (don). There are no accounts that bring it togetherwith reliable sources and trustworthy reasons but just accounts that take an unseenO rgyan as the basis, he explains. Then he introduces the different notions that existregarding the place where this teaching was given. They are indeed abundant as theauthor himself sadly remarks.29 In his opinion, these are not even as much as onesingle little hair related to reliable sources and reasons, epistomological explanationsand reasoning. Then he starts to express what in his view should be seen as truthful.

THE OWN VIEW THAT IS CORRECTHe begins this new paragraph by quoting the Bye brag tu bshad pa written byVasubandhu. According to this work, Buddha stayed for four years in the Forest ofMedicinal Herbs (sman gyi nags su lo bzhi).30 Then he continues by saying that thisforest or grove of medicinal herbs is the place where Buddha turned the wheel of theFour Noble Truths, his first authentic words. In the centre of this forest is a hugemountain with medicinal herbs. On the summit, there is a city of medical herbs calledPleasing to See (lTa sna sdug). Thus it is stated by the rTsa rgyud, the first part of therGyud bzhi. On the four side of this very mountain are special herbs which areendowed with the power of sun and moon and are hot and cooling as indicated bytheir four names of these sides, namely Piercing (’Bigs byed), Aromatic (sPos ngadldan), Having Snow (Gangs can) and Ma la ya.

The intention of Lodro Gyalpo is appearantly twofold. He argues against O rgyanas the locality where the rGyud bzhi was taught and tries to relate the narration of therGyud bzhi to authorative sources that are linked with Buddha.

He continues by saying that in short the place as described by the rTsa rgyud isexplained in the bShad rgyud. The mountain still exists nowadays but because thecity was a magical creation, Rig pa’i ye shes together with a group of attendantswithdrew their magical creation (sprul ba bsdus pa) and the city does not existanymore.31 Up to now there is an oral tradition among doctors (lha rje) maintainingthat this city exists but this is not reliable, according to Lodro Gyalpo.

134 TIBET JOURNAL

At that place the one who expounded the tantras was the real Sakyamuni. It is thetrue and authentic word that was spoken by him, because Rig pa’i ye shes togetherwith the four families and Yid las skyes had had a dialogue. Therefore these Rig pa’iye shes are the true Buddha.32

Perhaps it might be helpful to insert at this point the statement of someone whobelongs to the opponent’s party in order to illustrate what their arguments were andto indicate the background of Lodro Gyalpo’s composition.

One should refer to a contemporary of Lodro Gyalpo, namely the learned KempaTsewang (sKyem pa Tshe dbang, b.1514?). He is one of the few physicians whowrote commentaries on all four parts of the rGyud bzhi. His commentary on the Manngag rgyud formed for a long while the best-known analysis of this third part.33 Hereceived his medical education from Kempa Tshe ’bum rdo rje, one of the fourcelebrated disciples of Zurkharwa Nyamnyi Dorje. Both doctors knew each othervery well. In fact Lodro Gyalpo had written his first part of the Mes po’i zhal lung in1542 at the behest of the Kempa Tsewang.34 Later he was one of the doctors who sentreplies to the questions that Lodro Gyalpo put up on a stone pillar at Lhasa. Butobviously they did not agree on the Buddhist nature of the rGyud bzhi. KempaTsewang treats this issue from his point of view very briefly in his commentary on therTsa rgyud composed in 1538. Here he rather straightforwardly disregards in sevenarguments any claim that it could have been expounded by Buddha.35

(1) According to him what the Medicine Buddha and his emanation Rig pa’i yeshes have expounded cannot be regarded as an authoritative text, because it iscertain that for one teaching two teachers cannot emerge. (2) Moreover the medicalcity Pleasant to See and the groves of the mountain in all four directions are notmentioned in other sutras and tantras. Surely Kempa Tsewang was not the only onewho held this argument.36 (3) The following argument of Kempa Tsewang is that onecannot establish a correct (rnam par dag) authoritative reading transmission andlogic (lung rig) for the rGyud bzhi. (4) His next point focuses on the particular timewhen the rGyud bzhi have been taught and on the teachings itself. Kempa Tsewangstates that because Buddha taught during his life-time, he let (his listeners) understandthrough the fourfold (turning of) the wheel in the mode of a teacher, each for onespeech. In the colophon of the rGyud bzhi it is stated:

(Buddha taught) the gSo dpyad ’bum pa’i rgyud to the group of gods (lha), the Tsa ra kasde brgyad to the group of seers (drang srong), the dBang phyug chen po’i skor to thegroup of non-Buddhists (mu stegs / phyi pa) and the Rigs gsum mgon po’i skor to thegroup of Buddhists (nang pa).37

Kempa Tsewang continues to discuss this issue. (5) He says, if it is necessary tomaintain the so-called tradition of drang srong as being the Tsa ra ka sde brgyad,then it is demonstrated that everything is compiled (thams cad ’dus pa) in this gSodpyad rgyud (i.e. the rGyud bzhi), because the Tsa ra ka sde brgyad is known tohave been composed by the eight pupils of Indra (brGya byin). Certainly this is anoteworthy point made by Kempa Tsewang. Indeed, if one follows the view of Buddhahaving expounded a drang srong-version of the rGyud bzhi, than one should expectthat Tsa ra ka sde brgyad has not been compiled in the way which is widely accepted.38

Untiringly Kempa Tsewang is pressing on this track of arguments. He states that ifthis is the case one has to consider the following scenarios. (6) He says that if it wastaught after the main tenets of the four medical tradition (of gods and so on) had been


compiled, the rGyud bzhi would have become a treatise. If it was taught earlier, thanit is necessary to assume that it was earlier than the gSo dpyad ’bum pa and the Tsara ka sde brgyad. Therefore one is not able to bring it in line with the attendantAnanda (’Khor Kun dga’ bo).39 If it was expounded at the same time, it will becomenecessary to assure it as both the drang srong tradition and the tradition whichstates that everything was compiled (thams cad ’dus pa).

Then he criticizes the framework of the rGyud bzhi as contradictory. (7) Thequestioner is Yid las skyes pa (i.e. born from the heart,) who thoroughly examines theparts that are fully comprehended by others. The dharma that is condensed in Buddhathrough his heart vanishes, being his own mind-continuum (rang rgyud), and becausehe is born (skyes pa) from (las) the heart (yid). Thus one regards him as ‘dead’(nongs). If it is truly similar to the mode of a questioner, than he can not give ananswer, in case one recognizes that he is dead.

These are some of the arguments that followers of the bstan bcos thesis bringforth.40 Surely, Lodro Gyalpo was familiar with them. The second topic he deals withconcerns the suggestion that it was composed by an Indian Pandit.

EXPLAINING THE RGYUD BZHI INWARDLY AS A TREATISE OF A PANDITHere he confines himself to a general exposition on what a treatise is. On the otherhand he just enumerates the varying opinions on the authorship of the rGyud bzhi.

For the first point, he refers to the rNam bshad rig pa, which distinguishes treatisesas follows. There exist treatises without real meaning, with wrong meaning and withreal meaning. The latter are valid (tshad) treatises. Then there are some that werewritten for selfish reasons, some that lack compassion and some that dispel suffering.The latter are correct (yang dag) treatises. Furthermore one can find treatises that aremainly concerned with learning or with argumentation but also with realization (sgrub).These treatises focusing on realization are correct and valid. The rGyud bzhi, however,is not a treatise that deals with realization. It is, however, a correct treatise that hastrue meaning and dispels suffering.

Secondly Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo gives in a very condensed form all views thatdiffer from the accepted authorship. Some maintain that it was composed by O rgyanPadmasambhava while some by O rgyan Padmasambhava, Kha che Zla dga’ andVairocana together. There are also some who say that it was collectively written byGrva pa mNgon shes, dBus pa Dar rgyas and sTon chen dKon mchog skyabs atTshar pa sna’i ri gdong in sKyid sman. Again some say that, immediately afterPadmasambhava and Vairocana had translated it, it was hidden as treasure in a vasein a pillar at bSam yas. Afterwards Grva ba mNgon shes discovered it. Some say thatit was not hidden as treasure. According to them, there exists a transmission line fromTrisong Deutsen to the present kings of mNga’ ris. Lodro Gyalpo concludes thisoverview by dryly remarking that all these are assumptions which lack a properunderstanding of the truth. He eventually gives his attention to the claim that it wascomposed by a Tibetan.

EXPLAINING THE RGYUD BZHI SECRETLY AS A TIBETAN TREATISEHe briefly lists those who hold this view and gives short quotations. Then he explainsthe main reasons for thinking of rGyud bzhi as a Tibetan treatise.

136 TIBET JOURNAL

DIFFERING NOTIONSAccording to him, Bo dong Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1376-1451) wrote that he studiedthe rGyud bzhi, which was composed by a skilled Tibetan doctor.41 Furthermore sTagtshang Lo tsa ba Shes rab rin chen (b.1405) said that, with regard to the diagnosis bymeans of taking the pulse and urine analysis there was no such explanation in India.It was made by a Tibetan doctor, a Bodhisattva.42 Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo says thatPan chen Shakya mchog ldan (1428-1507) agrees with both, being of the opinion thatit is a treatise composed by a Tibetan.43

ON THE TIBETAN COMPOSER OF THE RGYUD BZHIOur author starts this passage by saying that there existed those who were known asthe Nine Experts in Tibet (Bod du mkhas pa mi dgu) and the Nine Personal Physiciansof King Trisong Deutsen (chos rgyal Khri srong lde’u btsan gyi bla sman mi dgu).44

Those nine experts were the teachers of Zhang Ri bong gZi brjid ’bar and the pupilsof A tsa ra Phyag rdum.45 Among them was Yuthok rGya gar Badzra. His son is YuthokYonten Gonpo.46

Then Lodro Gyalpo explains how the name Yuthok originated. He tells that YuthokrGya gar Badzra practised as the doctor of the sDug ’dre of rGya brag ka ba ’phrangwho belonged to the ’Bre family of Myang stod, which had possession of the clansof ’Bre and Khyung. As a reward he obtained the corpse of a woman which waslavishly adorned with jewellery made of turquoises. When he spread this jewelleryon the roof terrace to dry it, a shepherd and his children saw it from a nearby mountain.They thought that the roof was made of turquoise. Henceforth the family becameknown as ‘the one of the turquoise roof’ (g.Yu thog pa).47

Then Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo continues to explain how Yuthok composed therGyud bzhi. If one says that, because Yuthok took the authentic words of Buddha asthe base, there can not be any mistakes at all, then one should explain it as follows.

If it is not composed as though it were an authoritative text (bka’), than it is hard totrust all those Tibetans who are wise, stupid and who are of medium intellect. If it isnot composed as though it were an authoritative text in the face of those who do notinvestigate the meaning but just comprehend the words, than it is not just collected.

Otherwise it is very clear that on the issue of medicinal tea (na ja), porcelain (dkaryol) and examination of pulse and urine (rtsa chu brtag pa) it is a basic textual sourceof Chinese astrology (nag rtsis kyi gzhung) and a Tibetan treatise like the one entitledthe Singing of the Cuckoo (Khu byug gi skad ’don).48 But it is necessary to recognizethis mode of explanation that rGyud bzhi is arranged like authentic words.

As the next step Lodro Gyalpo analyses the rGyud bzhi as a textual compositionby traditional means of reasoning.49 It is accomplished by a threefold approachconsisting of(1) the intentional subject (dgongs gzhi)(2) the necessity or motive for expounding it (dgos) and(3) the criterion that conflicts with the real state of things (dngos la gnod byed).50

Regarding the intentional subject (dgongs gzhi) Lodro Gyalpo writes that the birth-place of Yuthok Yonten Gonpo had the effect of hot and cooling and was endowedwith the power of sun and moon. By this statement he brings it close to the descriptionthe city of lTa na sdug where the rGyud bzhi was taught.51 The ensuing conversationbetween Rig pa’i ye shes and Yid las skyes as it is found in the rGyud bzhi correspondsto Yuthok Yonten Gonpo and his pupil Sum ston Ye shes gzungs. For this Lodro


Gyalpo cited the rNam thar bKa’ rgya ma written by Ye shes gzungs that states: “Ithink that (my) bla ma is the true Rig pa’i ye shes. I am Yid las skyes.”52 ThereforeYuthok Yonten Gonpo himself is Rig pa’i ye shes. Sum ston Ye shes gzungs is Yid lasskyes.

The motive (dgos pa) was that all people who have difficulties in being satisfiedshould be guided.

The contradicting criterion (dngos la gnod byed) is that the city lTa na sdug andthe mountains like Gangs can and ’Bigs byed are not real. One should imagine thattheir effective and beneficial qualities (nus pa yon tan) are equal. As already mentioned,Lodro Gyalpo had already broached this question concerning the real state of themedical city lTa na sdug, holding the view that this very city does not exist anymoresince it was a mere illusion (sprul pa). By this he dismisses the criterion that wouldhave been in conflict with the rGyud bzhi being the authentic word of Buddha.

Therefore Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo is obviously a follower of the tradition thatregards the rGyud bzhi as of Indian origin and ultimately expounded by Buddha. Heclearly rejects all views that claim its author as Yuthok Yonten Gonpo. But he cannotrefute all the arguments of his opponents who refer to passages and expressions thatcan hardly be of Indian origin. Nevertheless he attempts to solve contradictions inthe rGyud bzhi by means of reasoning. From his point of view he affirmed the claimthat the rGyud bzhi is bka’ instead of bstan bcos.

This article could probably end here but there are some details which must beadded. They can be gathered from the khog ’bugs of Sangye Gyatso.53 At the end ofthe biographical sketch on Lodro Gyalpo, there is a list of his works. When it comesto the entry that concerns the present treatise, Sangye Gyatso gives a descriptionthat is undoubtedly a citation of the words of Lodro Gyalpo.54 The passage that isslightly paraphrased here goes:

With regard to removing contradictions of the ‘rGyud bzhi (as) Authentic Text (and)Treatise.’ (rGyud bzhi bka’ bstan) there are successively former masters of scholars whoregard (the rGyud bzhi) outwardly (as) an authentic text of Buddha, inwardly (as) atreatise of a Pandit and secretly (as) a Tibetan treatise. In particular there exist theremains from fragments of the sPyi don dngul dkar me long55 of the rJe Dharmasvaminof my own family and commentaries on the rGyud bzhi as the Pod shal khra mo56 and soon. In the fragment of the dNgul dkar me long that did not come to my sight earlier it isthat the unchanged (sor gnas) authentic words (bka’) of the rGyud bzhi are (in fact acomposition) fashioned inwardly as a tantra (rgyud) and in the writings of Bla rta Tshedbang the Bai durya’i chu rgyun of Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho of Gro sa in ’Phan yul iscriticized. Therefore I understood that even the Dharmasvamin Nyamnyi Dorje was inagreement with that thorough tradition and regarding the loud roar of disrespect in thevery clear khog ’bugs of the teacher of my lama, Tsomed Khenchen. Sa skya PanditaKunga Gyaltsen (1182-1252) wrote, “Those who go beyond modesty that is spoiled fromthe ground, carry their own bad rumours as response, some royal families of the countryof Kan tsa, beat the drum of victory having killed the father”, or in colloquial language(one says:) the head of one’s own medical tradition is crushed from inside of the helmet.57

This is his statement but what does it mean? Why does Lodro Gyalpo give suchrather unexpected comments on his own treatise? For this it is most helpful to turn tothe khog dbubs that Lodro Gyalpo had started to write but that he left unfinished.Here one gains an understanding as to what Lodro Gyalpo meant by this and it isunquestionably rather amazing. In short, he had completely changed sides. At the

138 TIBET JOURNAL

end of his life he is of the opinion that Yuthok Yonten Gonpo had written the rGyudbzhi and any claim that it was expounded by Buddha is dismissed. He clearly writesthat Yuthok had written the Lag len pod chung and the rGyud chung bdud rtsisnying po artificially designing it as it would have been composed by Kha che Zladga’. Later he expanded them to his rGyud bzhi.58 For the sake of his pupils, in orderto generate their devotion, he had composed it as though it were the authentic words(bka’) of Buddha. Lodro Gyalpo could not have been farther away from his previousconvictions. Furthermore as already said Lodro Gyalpo had made fieldwork in Myangfor his search of the rGyud bzhi and therefore it seems that he also came in contactwith the descendants of Yuthok. According to Lodro Gyalpo those held believes thatYuthok became the personal physician of the kings of China and India and he passedaway at the age of 74. Such notions are now seen by him in a rather unfavourablelight. He says that for all such beliefs the writings of Yuthok are responsible, in whichsuch legendary accounts are expressed.59 Although Lodro Gyalpo had trusted thesesources until the age of 63 or even later, by now he offers, however, a rather down-to-earth evaluation of the scholarly activities of Yuthok, which has been stripped of anylegends.

Moreover other treatises written by later generation in support of the bka’ maorigin of the rGyud bzhi were all rejected by now.60 One of the opinions he mentionedis of particular interest and should therefore be singled out. According to him thereare some doctors who maintain that this was taught by the Medicine Buddha. Theseers who put forward questions were embodiments of his body, speech, mind,qualities and deeds.

Clearly, one doctor who had expressed such a view was Tsomed Khenchen. Hewas a teacher of Glang bu Chos rje who in turn taught Lodro Gyalpo. When LodroGyalpo refers rather sarcastically to the very illuminating (shin tu gsal) khog ’bugs,he means ”The Khog bug of the Art of Healing, Fully Illuminated the Objects ofKnowledge” (gSo ba rig pa’i khog bug shes bya rab tu gsal ba) and “The Khog’bugs, the Mirror of Silver of Elegant Sayings” (Khog ’bugs legs bshad dngul dkarme long).61 It is obvious that he had completely broken with Tsomed Khenchen, eventhough he was part of his teacher and pupil lineage. It must be that the fragments ofthe khog ’bugs of Nyamnyi Dorje let him understand that the latter did not belong tothe party who regarded the rGyud bzhi as Buddha’s words. This was seeminglysomething that caused him serious trouble.

In all his former scholarly compositions he had strongly emphasized the bka’ mathesis. In the biography on Nyamnyi Dorje he duly reported that Yuthok YontenGonpo passed away in a mass of rainbow light.62 In his Mes po’i zhal lung, e.g. histwo commentaries of the rTsa rgyud and bShad rgyud written between 1542 and 1545,he firmly regarded the rGyud bzhi as bka’ ma and profoundly expressed this view.The pamphlet of the next year also dealt with this point.63 In his commentary on thePhyi ma rgyud of which he just finished the first chapter on pulse diagnosis he takesthis opinion as common sense and insults those who differ from this.64 Six years laterhe had composed this very treatise that defends the bka’ ma thesis.

Besides, he was a recognized reincarnation of Nyamnyi Dorje, the celebrated founderof the zur lugs tradition. For such a gifted logician as Lodro Gyalpo this wasunquestionably a kind of challenge, that he differed in such an essential point fromhis former existence. At the same time one has to stress that obviously this was notthe only reason, rather that he has been also affected by the arguments of Kempa


Tsewang. It speaks for this fascinating and strong personality that he had chosen away of completely reviewing his arguments and taking an entirely new stand insteadof simply questioning the authenticity of the fragments and explaining away thistroublesome issue as it can be found in intellectual history and in Tibetan as well.

But what did Lodro Gyalpo mean by maintaining that Tsomed Khenchen had showndisrespect to his own tradition and had betrayed zur tradition? As is known, one ofthe teachers of Tsomed Khenchen was Phrag dbon bSod nams bkra shis, who was apersonal disciple of Nyamnyi Dorje.65 Unfortunately, until now none of the writingsof Phrag dbon bSod nams bkra shis have come to light.

Therefore we must rely on the khog ’bugs of mNga’ ris ’Tsho byed Chos skyongdpal bzang (b.1479).66 With regard to the nature of the rGyud bzhi, he is of the opinionthat it is a treatise composed by Yuthok. In his own words he found himself inagreement with scholars like Sakya sMan grong pa, Dvags po Pandita, and mostsignificantly here, with Kong sman bSod nams bkra shis.67 Based on this, one mightconclude that Phrag dbon, alias Kong sman bSod nams bkra shis, one of the teachersof Tsomed Khenchen, was a follower of the bstan bcos thesis. Perhaps Lodro Gyalpomight have known this but, presumably, as long as he had not found a clear evidenceof the hands of Nyamnyi Dorje, he preferred to follow the bka’ ma thesis, most likelyalso due to the writings of Tsomed Khenchen. The situation changed completelywhen the above-mentioned fragments fell into his hands. Now he accused TsomedKhenchen of taking up a position that is entirely in contradiction to the zur tradition,as Lodro Gyalpo has suddenly realized. Certainly, he did not regard him as representingthe zur school of medical thinking anymore. Instead of this he compares the views ofTsomed Khenchen as being similar to killing his own parents.

Now the crisis Lodro Gyalpo underwent becomes clear. After he had written histreatise “The Thorough Distinction (of) the Four Tantras (between) Authentic Wordsand Treatise, The Torch that Dispels Darkness” (rGyud bzhi bka’ dang bstan bcosrnam par dbye ba mun sel sgron me) he had to experience that his torch was sheddingdarkness instead of dispelling it. The fragments of the khog ’bugs of his formerexistence, Nyamnyi Dorje, caused a sudden awakening on this. Tsomed Khenchen ismade responsible for the formerly erroneous views of Lodro Gyalpo.68

It would be of utmost interest to have now a closer look on the other part of thestatement of Lodro Gyalpo which in the writings of Bla rta Tshe dbang the Baidurya’i chu rgyun of Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho of Gro sa is criticized. As has beenoutlined above Bla rta Tshe dbang alias Kempa Tsewang does not follow the bka’ mathesis in his commentaries of the rGyud bzhi. But beyond this we do not know muchabout him and his views. It is known that Kempa Tsewang had composed a treatiseentitled sPyi don legs bshad ’dod ’jo, because Sangye Gyatso refers to it at the endof his khog ’bugs.69 Here he reviews several treatises and shortly states what thesehave to say on the nature of the rGyud bzhi. For the work of Kempa Tsewang henotes that he regarded it as outward, inward and secret tantra (rgyud).70 PossiblyLodro Gyalpo had this outline in mind when he wrote his treatise but naturally itcould be also the reverse, as we do not know the time of composition for KempaTsewang. Unfortunately concerning the Bai durya’i chu rgyun of Tshogs gnyis rgyamtsho of Gro sa nothing substantial can be said. It is just clear that in this text theview is expressed that the rGyud bzhi was spoken at O rgyan during the middleturning of wheel of teachings but he did not regard it as a gter ma.71

140 TIBET JOURNAL

This reorientation of Lodro Gyalpo marks a break in his life. How he had masteredit is surely noteworthy. His turn to the party that supported the thesis of the rGyudbzhi as an original Tibetan treatise had a strong influence on the zur tradition.According to the testimony of Sangye Gyatso, the works of this school which werecomposed later did follow Lodro Gyalpo’s convictions. His polemics against thisclearly show that Lodro Gyalpo’s khog ’bugs, although unfinished, still had atremendous impact.72 Sangye Gyatso who utilized all his political influence tostrengthen the bka’ ma thesis and the claim that it was hidden as gter ma was surelyfrustrated by this. In this regard he was certainly favourably inclined to the Byangschool that held a view corresponding to his own. It says something for SangyeGyatso that nevertheless he patronized the new edition of the Mes po’i zhal lung butit speaks for itself that he did not bring forth evidences against the opinion of LodroGyalpo, except for polemics. Nowadays Sangye Gyatso has asserted himself againstLodro Gyalpo but surely not by means of superior argumentation. His opinion becameaccepted as standard and is virtually regarded as the fundamental Tibetan notion onTibetan medicine in the majority of Western and Tibetan publications. Contrary tothis it seems that Lodro Gyalpo is largely forgotten today, although he was trulyoutstanding in his intellectual endeavours and his writings belong unquestionablyto the most fascinating and enduring works of Tibetan medicine.

Notes1. This article was originally published in Tibetan Medicine, Dharamsala: 1990, no.13, 19-

31. Many invaluable informations can also be found in Taube 1981: 31ff.2. The main source for his life is the account by Sangye Gyatso, KhB [349/8-355/9]. This is

the sole base for Jampa Thinley 2000: 226-229, Lama Kyab 1997: 237-240, PasangYonten 1988: 112-116, Kalsang Thinley 1997: 378-380, Gerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999. Itseems that Kalsang Thinley 1997 had also access to another source, the rGan po’i khachems (on this see below). Beside this none of them made use of the compositions ofLodro Gyalpo except Taube 1981: 63-66. Schaeffer 2003 gives a precious insight intosome aspects of this personality.

3. This is stated by Sangye Gyatso, KhB [349/11]. It is repeated by Jampa Thinley 2000:226, Lama Kyab 1997: 239, Kalsang Thinley 1997: 378. It is not sure which Zhva dmarpa is meant the 4th Zhva dmar ba Chos grags ye shes (1453-1524) or his successor the5th Zhva dmar ba dKon mchog yan lag (1525-1583). The name Lodro Gyalpo has to beseen in connection with his status of being an incarnation of Nyamnyi Dorje (see below).The colophons of the works of Lodro Gyalpo give a variety of names. In his earliest datedwork of 1539 he gives his name as dPal Don grub rnam rgyal dbang po’i sde ’jigs pa medpa phyogs kyi go cha. Although this composition makes mention of a prophecy thatNyamnyi Dorje will be reborn as Lodro Gyalpo, the author does not indicate that he isactually this very reincarnation. This is possibly a hint that at that time he was not yet therecognized incarnation of Nyamnyi Dorje. It becomes evident, however, in the colophonof commentary of the bShad rgyud of 1545. Here he styles himself as the second A poChos rje (i.e. Nyamnyi Dorje), MPZhL II [541/6]. Perhaps this can be regarded as a proofthat Lodro Gyalpo was recognized as an reincarnation between 1539 and 1545 and receivedthe name of Lodro Gyalpo. One can speculate that this can also be linked with his searchfor the rGyud bzhi of Yonten Gonpo, although admittedly other scenarios are also possible.Based on this one can be inclined to favour the 5th Zhva dmar ba dKon mchog yan lag(1525-1583) as the one who bestowed the name upon him. Based on chronologicalconsiderations Gerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999 suggest that it is the 4th Zhva dmar pa, ibid.


4. This detail comes from his own pen as some of following statements. They are at thebeginning of his rGan po’i kha chems, STsCT [10/7-]. His affiliation to the Karma paschool can also be seen in his writings. In his rGan po’i kha chems and his commentary onpulse diagnosis he discusses a particular issue related to pulse taking, namely the exactbeginning of the Tibetan year. There he refers to biographies of Karma pa personalities,STsCT [51/14], MPZhL IV [60/5]

5. Cf, KhB [349/13]6. KhB [354/10]. Cf. also n.1. In the biography of Nyamnyi Dorje a passage is included that

consists of a prophecy. A Mi bskyod rdo rje and a Lodro Gyalpo are named as futureincarnations, STsCT [91/9]. A similar but in some respects differing passage is also foundin a short treatise entitled Zur mkhar kun mkhyen ’tsho byed grub pa’i skyes rabs nyungngu contained in one version of the Bye ba ring bsrel, BBRS I [427/5-429/5].

7. It is dated to the white half of smin drug can in earth male pig year. It seems that he haddone much research for this. He based himself on the informations given by Karma ’phrinlas and drawn from the collected writings of Nyamnyi Dorje. He also made enquiries fromelderly people. This meticulous research method is certainly something that characterizeshim through his life. One may note here that in the colophon of this biography he gives hisname as dPal Don grub rnam rgyal dbang po’i sde ’jigs pa med pa phyogs kyi go cha. In hismedical writings of later date he preferred the name Legs bshad ’tshol.

8. There are alternative spellings: Glang bu Chos rje or Glang phu Chos rje. The first part ofthe name seems to be a toponym, because Lodro Gyalpo calls him Chos rje from Glangphu, glang phu nas chos rje STsCT [10/18]. Samten 1992: 91, Jampa Thinley 2000: 226give Glang bu Chos rje. At one instance one can find the spelling Gling bu Chos rje, KhB[353/16].

Glang phu Chos rje is otherwise unknown. There are no writings of his mentioned in anydocuments. One may assume that he was not so influential a doctor as the teachers LodroGyalpo attended to in later times. His report on him is rather laconic. Due to the order ofhis lama he was searching for a good teacher and regarded him as suitable in the currentsituation, STsCT [10/18].

9. STsCT [11/1-3]. Cf., also KhB [349/19].10. Namely the Byang pa brothers, dPon tshang Phan dar and his pupils, Sa skya sman grong

father and son, the nephew of Phyag sman Rin rgyal from mNga’ ris, ’A pha tshe ring fromGu ge, the nephew (dbon po) of Bi ji, the nephew (tsha bo) of ’Ug pa, the sTag rtse doctorfrom Byang, STsCT [11/3-10]. Cf. also Jampa Thinley 2000: 226. Sangye Gyatso identifiesthe Byang pa brothers as probably belonging to the generation of bKra shis dpal bzang,KhB [350/1-5].

11. Yonten Gonpo had lived at sGo bzhi re thang, near Ra lung in Upper Myang.12. This is the so-called Phyag dreg ma. In secondary sources it is always stated that he found

a copy of this text. But one must stress here that it were several versions of the same texthe came across. He explicitly says that this text came from sKyil khud and Lung dmar andso on. Therefore it were more than just one. Both places are situated in Myang, the homeregion of the Yuthok clan. The grand-father of Yonten Gonpo had three sons, namely brJidpo, Grags seng and Khyung po. The eldest took possession of sKyil khud and Yuthokproper. The middle took Lung dmar and the youngest, the father of Yonten Gonpo, gotsGo bzhi re thang, the birth-place of Yonten Gonpo, SBPKhB [314/3-5].

The version with golden explanatory notes is said to be made by Yuthok Yonten Gonpofor his sons. In later times there was obviously a need for manuscripts with the authenticwords of Yuthok Yonten Gonpo. Nyamnyi Dorje had already made a critic edition of therGyud bzhi that became known as the Zur mkhar ba’i rgyud bzhi rnam dag ma, STsCT[99/15].

13. Cf. Czaja 2003.

142 TIBET JOURNAL

14. This formulation leaves it open, if they were actually of the Brang ti line or not. Gerke /Bolsokhoeva 1999 interpret this phrase as the Zhalngo (Tib. zhal ngo) family, a father andson partnership, of Dangti, ibid. But this seems to me not convincing.

This famous family of doctors claims to go back as late as the Tibetan empire duringwhich personalities of this family served as personal physicians of the Tibetan kings. Formore details, see for instance KhB [291/17-], Taube 1981. Indeed, this claim is alsoaccepted by Ye shes gzungs, the disciple of Yuthok Gonpo, in his commentary of thebShad rgyud that forms part of the Cha lag bco brgyad, ChLCG [290/5-8]. Brang ti ’Jamdpal bzang po, brother of the famous Brang ti dPal ldan ’tsho byed, has met YuthokGonpo. Subsequently the rGyud bzhi together with minor works that follow it (cha lag)became an essential part of the medical knowledge of this family line. Nevertheless the Yanlag brgyad pa was still highlighted by them as well as by the Sakyapa. Their specialmedical treatises, however, were the so-called gSer bre and dNgul bre. It seems that inlater times the Brang ti were closely related to the Gong sman pa, cf. Taube 1981: 67ff. Itis known that Lodro Gyalpo was also in contact with the latter. He had written a letterwith questions known as Dri ba tsu ta’i ’khri shing to Gong sman dKon mchog phan dar(1511-1577), KhB [353/5], Samten 1992: 91, Jampa Thinley 2000: 227.

His stay at Sakya gave him the opportunity to extend significantly his medical studies.There he learned the Yan lag brgyad pa with its self commentary, the Zla zer, the rGyudbzhi, the Cha lag bco brgyad and a text that has the appearance of a dKar chag that islinked with both works (dkar chag gi nang bzhin), the reading transmission (lung) of thegSer bre and dNgul bre, STsCT [12/7-10]. Cf. also KhB [350/9-10]. In his khog dbubsLodro Gyalpo says that the gSer bre and dNgul bre were based on the Yan lag brgyad pa,BGGP-KhB [309/1-2]. Moreover he states that he got his precepts from Chos rgyal bKrashis kun dga’ don grub, ibid. [307/19].

15. Lodro Gyalpo calls it the ‘Medical Questions, the Embellishments of the Lhasa StonePillar, a Letter of Gold’ (sMan dpyad kyi dri ba lha sa’i rdo ring mdzes byed gser gyi patra), or shortly ‘Embellishment of the Stone Pillar’, STsCT [73/13]. For his own discipleshe wrote a commentary on it entitled Rin po che’i khra tshom, STsCT [73/15], gSer gyiphra tshoms, KhB [350/19]. Cf, also Czaja 2003. There it is said that it consists of 14versified questions. This was based on the reply to this work by Bod mkhas pa Mi phamdge legs (1618-1685), without having access to the newly edited collected writings ofLodro Gyalpo. Therefore one should note that the rGan po’i kha chems, however, haseight questions. Therefore it seems that one should correct this. An in-depth study ofthese works will shed more light on this discrepancy.

16. This rGyud bzhi is named after Gra thang where it was carved. He did not rediscover it asstated by Gerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999, Czaja 2003. Cf., also Jampa Thinley 2000: 227,Lama Kyab 1997: 240. Kalsang Thinley 1997 states that Lodro Gyalpo went to Lho khaDra thang but he gives no textual evidence for this, ibid.379. Sangye Gyatso reports thatat the beginning the Rin spungs pa promised to sponsor the carving, but then he did notkeep it. Instead of him the ruler of Yar rgyab became the patron, KhB [351/11-18], [354/18-355/3]. Pasang Yonten 1988 maintains that the carving started in 1566 and was completedin 1572, but he does not indicate on what these data are based, ibid.114. The Dra thangrGyud bzhi became a widely used version of the rGyud bzhi, cf. Czaja 2003.

17. STsCT [12/11]. At another occasion he speaks of sGar chen as sGar chen Thams cadmkhyen pa, STsCT [52/4]. Perhaps one can identify him as the Eighth Karma pa Mibskyod rdo rje (1507-1554). In 1545 the Eighth Karma pa visited the places of Ya ’broggshag rtse, dGa’ ri, Zul phu and Bu shang rdo. In 1546 he was again in the vicinity of Zulphu monastery, ’Jam dbyangs tshul khrims 1997: 166/1-6. Therefore it might be that oneshould read Zul phu instead of Zur phu.

18. PKP [230/2].19. The year of composition can be ascertained from a short remark in this very treatise.

Therefore he says that he had put forward a specific question on pulse taking in the rDo


ring mdzes byed. Even though twenty years have passed since then, he did not receive areply that answered this point, MPZhL IV [44/5]. Kalsang Thinley 1997 is of the opinionthat this commentary was written in Pa nam after those on the rTsa rgyud and bShadrgyud and then he proceed to dBus in order to put up his pamphlet, ibid.379. This is notthe case, I believe.

20. This is the rDo ring mdzes byed kyi dris lan rgan po’i kha chems mtshan mo mun nag giglog ’od, STsCT [10/1-]. He was about to turn 61 at that time. Because he was ill, he wasunable to write and needed the help of the nephew of ’Bri gung Kun spangs pa, Rin chenchos dbang, as a scribe, STsCT [73/18-74/10]. Perhaps the title of this work: “The Will ofan Old Man” (rGan po’i kha chems) reflects how serious he considered his illness.Regarding this work, the comment of Gerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999 confuses the facts. Theystate that he had written this work at his own expenses, because the sponsor Rin spungspa did not finance it, ibid. The latter fact, however, is only be applicable to the Dra thangrgyud bzhi.

21. This dKar chag is entitled Bye ba ring bsrel gyi dkar chag mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog gi lhanthabs dad ldan snyim ma’i me tog, BBRS II [3/1-7/2].

22. KhB [354/2], Samten 1992: 92. Sangye Gyatso names a title that slightly differs from thepublished one: Chos gyi chos ’byung gang dag byang chub sems dpa’i spyad pa spyod par’dod pa’i sman pa rnams kyi mi shes su mi rung ba’i phyi nang gzhan gsum gyis rnambzhag shes bya spyi’i khog dbub pa gtam pa med pa’i mchod sbyin gyi sgo ’phar yangspor phye ba. He gives an outline of its contents, KhB [566/1-18].

23. Pasang Yonten 1988 states that he lived approximately 69 years, ibid. 116. Gerke /Bolsokhoeva 1999 give the year 1579. The Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (People’sPublishing House, 1993) gives at the entry for Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo that he had livedfor more than 69 years. Schaeffer 2003 states that he lived until at least 1673, when hecomposed his treatise on bka’ ma and bstan bcos, ibid. 627. Samten 1992 gives the year1572, ibid.92. He relies on the assumption of Sangye Gyatso. Sangye Gyatso is of theopinion that he died not much later than the age of 61, KhB [355/5]. He cites the rGan po’ikha chems in support of this, although he was aware that Lodro Gyalpo wrote also therGyud bzhi bka’ bstan, the text that is in the centre of this paper, KhB [352/5]. Moreoveron should note that the fragmented but voluminous khog dbubs of Lodro Gyalpo iscertainly written some time after this treatise of 1672.

24. The colophon states that because some doctors who were at bShad sgrub gling did notagree whether the rGyud bzhi is authentic word (bka’) or a treatise (bstan bcos), he madehis mind up that it was necessary to make a thorough investigation of it. He wrote histreatise during a tea-break on the 13th of the ngos month, when he got 63 years old. In theconcluding remarks of his work, he says that one should thoroughly study his compositionbecause, if one carefully examines it, one will get a firm knowledge of the truth, MSGM[71/10-21].

25. On the Cha lag bco brgyad, see Taube 1981: 39ff. He already notes the difficulties toestablish the authorship of the Khog dbug khyung chen lding ba, ibid. 40. In the colophonof this text the author is Yuthok Yonten Gonpo, ChLCG, [33/6].

26. One should mention the khog ’bugs of Desi Sangye Gyatso, of Tsomed Khenchen KungaGyaltsen and of Zukharwa Lodro Gyalpo.

27. In his writings there are abundant examples for this. The statement by Gerke / Bolsokhoeva1999 that “Although he regards debate as one of the necessary actions of a scholar, heseemed to have kept a diplomatic policy in his talks, showing his great respect for otherscholars”, is an misunderstanding of a passage given by Jampa Thinley 2000: 228. ButGerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999 also acknowledge that “In his writings, however, he becamewell known for his critical approach”, ibid.

28. This source is contained in the Cha lag bco brgyad under the title of brGyud pa’i rnamthar med thabs med pa bzhugs, ChLCG [690/1-]. The title in its colophon is brGyud pa’irnam thar bka’ rgya ma dang bcas pa. Although a continuous text, its contents can be

144 TIBET JOURNAL

divided into two parts the transmission line of the rGyud bzhi (brGyud pa’i rnam thar)that is written in seven syllables and obviously authored by Ye she gzungs and the secretorder (bKa’ rgya ma) composed in nine syllables by ’Tsho byed gZhon nu ye shes. Thiswas already noted by Taube 1981: 40.

29. He names: (a) the land of O rgyan, (b) on the peak of Mt. Kailash, (c) in a palace inaccordance with what is said in the rNam dbye’i rgyud, (d) between Mt. Kailash and lakeMansarovar, (e) at Vajrasana etc. See also Meyer at al.1992 who refers to the khog ’bugsof Sangye Gyatso, ibid.4, and especially Taube 1981: 34.

Sangye Gyatso states that the Fifth Dalai Lama Blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-1682)favoured O rgyan, KhB [274/17], [562/17]. In his Vaidurya sngon po he took up this issueand treats it in some length giving also the names of those who held such an opinion, cf.VNg [11/9-]. It seems that in the eyes of Sangye Gyatso this issue was at the core of thediscussion. In the lengthy colophon of his khog ’bugs he distinguishes all other medicaltreatises he had used on the basis of their opinion about O rgyan as the place where therGyud bzhi was expounded.

30. This verse included in a longer quotation is found in the Mes po’i zhal lung and in theVaidurya sngon po by Sangye Gyatso, MPZhL I [43/2-4]. According to the latter he citesfrom the fragmentary reading transmission tradition (lung dum bu) of the Bye brag tubshad mdzod chen mo, VNg [12/20-13/4], [1448/12-18]. It is a condensed list on howmany years Buddha stayed at each place. ’Gos Lo tsa ba gZhon nu dpal reports in his BlueAnnals that sTengs pa Lo tsa ba Tshul khrims ’byung gnas (1107-1190) had studied thiswork in India and after his return started to translate it in co-operation with Alamkaradeva,but he passed away before he could complete this task. It is said that two-third of the textwere already finished, Roerich 1988: 1054. sTag tshang dPal ’byor bzang po too statesthat it was never completely translated into Tibetan, GBYTsh [70/14]. This citation givenby Lodro Gyalpo and Sangye Gyatso was used to provide textual evidence that, in theliterature related to Buddha, mention is made of a place that is or could be lTa na sdug, themedical city where the rGyud bzhi was expounded.

31. The four groups of attendants (rigs bzhi) are the gods (lha), the seers (drang srong), non-Buddhist (mu stegs) and the Buddhist (nang pa). It is said that the Medicine Buddhaimbodied in four siblings each called Rig pa’i ye shes. These four simultaneously taughtthe rGyud bzhi to each group. VNg [24/17-25/15], Cf. Meyer et al. 1992: 17.

32. One should note here that Rig pa’i ye shes has incarnated for four times: therefore he istreated by the Tibetan writers in the plural. See also ChLCG [37/3].

33. Cf. Czaja 2003, see also there for further references.34. Cf. Czaja 200335. KPTshB I [18/1-21].36. Indeed bKra shis dpal bzang critizes a similar position. He argues with those who point

out that this city Pleasant to See did not exist at all and cannot be seen. His arguments arenot dissimilar to those of Lodro Gyalpo. He stress the nature of this city as an illusion(sprul) and defends his position in detail but does not deal with the issue that there is noreference to this very city in sutra or tantra literature, KG [76/20-]

37. Cf., VNg [24/17-25/15]38. One should add that one must consequently regard the Tsa ra ka sde brgyad as bka’, if this

applies for the rGyud bzhi. A point that is taken up by Lodro Gyalpo in his Mes po’i zhallung, MPZhL I [91/5-6]. He says that others state that according to the bDud rtsi snyingpo the sMan gyi lung, gSer ’od dam pa and gSo dpyad ’bum pa are bka’. (The bDud rtsisnying po is the rGyud chung bdud rtsi snying po by Yonten Gonpo. For this citation, seeChLCG [755/11]). But the Tsa ra ka, mDo lnga and so on are treatises written byBuddhist, non-Buddhist and seers. For Lodro Gyalpo it is not problematic to regard theTsa ra ka as a treatise. Because of the work of different compilers for the eight sections ofthe Tsa ra ka sde brgyad it was called a treatise. As an example he gives the seven sections


of Abhidharma. Although it is bka’, it is a treatise, because it was compiled by sevenArhats.

39. Ananda belongs to the Buddhist group of listeners. He is also depicted in the series ofTibetan medical thangkas, Meyer et.al 1992: 173.

40. Perhaps one should emphasize that regardless if the rGyud bzhi is from Buddha or aTibetan treatise Kempa Tsewang always notes the full line of transmission that startswith the medicine Buddha, KPTshB I [23/21], KPTshB II [1/12-]. The line of transmissiongiven by him does also include the hiding of the rGyud bzhi and its rediscovering by Grvapa mNgon shes. Apparently this authorization of a valid, unbroken transmission line wasstill upheld, even though one would harbour doubts on its authenticity.

41. MSGM [69/16]. Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1376-1451), the famous Bo dong pa scholar, issaid to have composed seven treatises: (1) De nyid ’dus pa’i rgya mtsho la ’jug pa’i sgobzhi, (2) Le’u nyis khri chig stong, (3) (Man nga bdun khri nyis stong), (4) Chos kyitshoms brgyad khri bzhi stong yod pa’i rgyas pa glegs bam brgya dang bcu, (5) ’Bring bola nyi shu, (6) bsDus pa la glegs bam gnyis and (7) Shin tu bsdus pa snying bo la glegsbam gcig, Lama Kyab 1997: 178f., Jampa Thinley 2000: 181.

42. MSGM [69/17]. Naturally the phrase bod kyi sman pa byang chub sems dpas mdzad canmean both one doctor or doctors. Karmay 1988 gives the information that Sog zlog pa Blogros rgyal mtshan (1552-1624) in his treatise entitled rGyud bzhi bka’ sgrub nges donsnying po also groups both Bo dong Phyogs las rnam rgyal and sTag tshang Shes rab rinchen (b.1405) together as not accepting the thesis of its Indian origin, ibid.232.

sTag tshang Lo tsa ba Shes rab rin chen (b.1405) is said to have written four works: (1)gSo dpyad byng tshul gyi lo rgyus sman gyi spyi don dang bcas pa mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog,(2) sMan gyi lag len gces bsdus le’u bcu ba pa reg pas nad sel, (3) gSo rig ming tshig ’ga’zhig don gyi bzhin ras ston pa’i me long and (4) Rig gnas kun shes, Lama Kyab 1997: 126,Byam pa ’phrin las 2000: 205. Sangye Gyatso gives a khog ’bugs and the Lag len gcesbsdus of sTag lo, KhB [296/10].

43. MSGM [69/19]. The voluminous collected works of Shakya mchog ldan possibly containseveral references for this. The one I came across is a letter to rNam rgyal grags bzang(1395-1475), the celebrated founder of the Byang tradition in medical thinking, thatcontains questions on three different issues, Byang pa rnam rgyal grags bzang la dgegshegs snying po sman dpyad dus ’khor gsum gyi dri ba in his collected works, ShChP[325/1-329/1], the medical part, ShChP [325/6-326/4].

One of them is about medicine. In order to document the position of Shakya mchog ldanand also to give an idea what kind of opposition Byang bdag rNam rgyal grags bzang faced,the entire passage should be given here in translation.

Shakya mchog ldan writes: “If one seems to regard the rGyud sde bzhi po of medicalscience (sman dpyad) as the very words of Buddha (sangs rgyas kyi bka’), than the rGyudbzhi is just a general and different designation for the Yan lag brgyad pa’i snying po bsduspa written by sLob dpon dPa’ bo’i sde and its commentary composed by Zla ba la mngonpar dga’ ba and then how is it that there is not even a bit distinctive reading transmission(lung) that is cited as proof (khungs)?

If one discusses how medical science (sman dpyad) came into being at this and thattreatise that possess reliable sources (khungs), one explains how it was transmitted byBrahma to the seers of the non-Buddhist (phyi rol pa) like Prajapati and so on. What arethe reasons that it is not discussed even briefly, how the exposition of Buddha came intobeing?

If that Brahma of that time was Buddha himself, than it is necessary to accept thecomposer, however, of the ayurveda (tshe’i rig byed) that forms the major part of the veda(rig byed), as the Buddha himself. Therefore how does it count for that this our teacherhad expounded what the four veda are before he had turned the wheel of dharma?

Moreover while one is able to understand the words of Buddha (bka’) just by havingread them, one is not able to understand treatises without extensive commentaries. Therefore

146 TIBET JOURNAL

of what kind is that (rGyud bzhi) that it will not make revert the order of rank of the wordsof Buddha and treatises?

If one accepts that those very treatises are non-Buddhist, than what is the difference ofNon-Buddhist and Buddhist medical science? How many distinctions of elegant sayingsexist that do not exist anywhere?“.

44. MSGM [70/1]. The lists of both differs significantly, Taube 1981: 15f, Jampa Thinley2000: 71ff, see also, KhB [296/16], GBYTsh [197/12]. There have existed different listsat different times. Here Lodro Gyalpo distinguishes between the group of doctors duringthe reign of Trisong Deutsen and another one, although these are usually mixed up inTibetan writings. Apparently he did it in order to avoid chronological discrepancies.Jampa Thinley 2000 has noted that this group of nine doctors consists of personalitiesthat were not contemporaries. Some lived during Trisong Deutsen and some during mNga’bdag rTse lde (b.11th cent.), ibid.71. But this does not apply for Lodro Gyalpo. Accordingto him the so-called nine royal physicians of Trisong Deutsen were: (1) Shan ti garbhafrom India, (2) Gu hya badzra from Kashmir, (3) sTong gsum gang ba from China, (4) Hashang ba la and (5) Hang ti pa ta from China, (6) Ha la shan ta from sTag gigs, (7) Seng mdo’od chen from Gru gu, (8) Khyol ma ru rtse from Dol po, and (9) Dharma shi la from Balpo, BGGP-KhB [295/1-296/3], [299/4], Cf. KhB [169/10-]. The nine experts, however,comprised the lower group: g.Yo ru’i g.Ya’ gyong po, sTod lung gi Lha rje sum ston, dBuru’i mTha’ bzhi, the middle group: Yuthok rGya gar rdo rje, Mi nyag Zla grags and Brangti rGyal po, and the upper group: Bi ji Lhun ne, ’Ug pa Chos seng, and Che rje rTag (sic)la dga’, BGGP-KhB [304/10-17]. The royal physicians did not remain in Tibet but left fortheir own countries. At the end of the life of Trisong Deutsen, he fell ill and sTong gsumgang ba was invited from China. He stayed in Tibet and his family was granted the right toact as recognized royal physician. Lodro Gyalpo says that other families of doctors,namely the Bi ji, Brang ti, sTong and Zhang, claim this, BGGP-KhB [299/6-]. LodroGyalpo regards the foreign doctors only as the so-called nine royal physicians. The groupof the nine experts, however, flourished during the 11th century.

It is noteworthy that Sangye Gyatso even though making ample use of the khog dbubsof Lodro Gyalpo differs here in some respects. His list of nine royal physicians isidentical. The nine Tibetan experts or skilled doctors, however, differs. Even moresignificantly he places them during the reign of Trisong Deutsen. When the latter fell ill, hesays, the foreign doctors were again invited because of the requests of the ministers, eventhough there were also the nine Tibetan doctors, KhB [175/3]. sTong gsum gang ba onlyaccepted the invitation. Sangye Gyatso had obviously a particular interest in bringingforward the life-time of these nine skilled doctors. According to him these doctors were:the upper group: Cher rje Zhig po, ’Ug pa Chos seng and Be che (sic) Legs mgon, themiddle group: Yuthok Yonten Gon po, Mi nyag Rong rje, Brang ti rGyal bzang, and thelower group: gNya’ ba Chos bzang, mTha’ bzhi Dar po and sTong pa Grags rgyal, KhB[174/15-19]. Moreover he notes that the mTha’ bzhi family of doctors was grantedpermission to act as royal physicians and he suggests that this also applies to the remainingeight, KhB [175/15-18].

One might see this statement of Sangye Gyatso as an attempt to establish the superiorityof the rGyud bzhi and its author - the nine skilled doctors are said to be of the eighthcentury, one Yuthok Yonten Gonpo (the elder) is included and all these were granted royalpermission to practice as physicians.

One should note that this is even in contradiction to the writings of Sum ston Ye shesgzung, the pupil of Yonten Gonpo (the younger), that Sangye Gyatso had known. YontenGonpo gives in his rGyud bzhi a classification of doctors. One category are the doctorsthat were permitted by the Tibetan kings to practice as doctors and were a family line ofdoctors. Ye shes gzungs illustrated this in his commentary on the bShad rgyud by givingthe examples of sMan pa ’Tsho byed gzhon nu in India and Brang ti rGyal in Tibet.Yuthokpa is not named in this regard but he is just mentioned as an example of doctors


who studied with skilled doctors, ChLCG [290/6-]. Consequently in his Vaidurya sngonpo Sangye Gyatso does not examplify this statement of the rGyud bzhi, VNg [411/3-].Lodro Gyalpo did not feel tempted to construct history by such means. Therefore therewas no need for him to distinguish between a former and latter Yuthok Yonten Gonpo.

45. gZi brjid ’bar lived in the 11th cent. His life-story is told by Sangye Gyatso, KhB [180/3-]. This is the base for Jampa Thinley 2000: 101ff, Lama Kyab 1997: 231ff., PasangYonten 1987: 48f, Kalsang Thinley 1987: 273ff. Sangye Gyatso on his part had relied onthe khog dbubs of Lodro Gyalpo, BGGP-KhB [304/2-]. gZi brjid ’bar was born in Yarklungs. He studied successively under the doctors known as the nine experts (mkhas pami dgu) in dBus and gTsang. Later he went to India to study there. On the way he metrNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109). The names of the nine experts as told by LodroGyalpo were given in the preceding footnote. Sangye Gyatso gives the same list but putsthem apart from the one that flourished during Trisong Deutsen by stating that gZi brjid’bar relied on the lineages of the nine experts and not the nine experts themselves, KhB[180/9].

On A tsa ra Phyag rdum alias sKyes bu me lha, see the article on Tsomed Khenchen inthis issue.

46. This is not in agreement with all other sources on the life of Yuthok Yonten Gonpo. Hisfather was Khyung po rdo rje and his grand-father was rGya gar Ba dzra. This is reportedfor both Yuthok Yonten Gonpo the elder and the younger. (One should add here that theelder Yonten Gonpo is probably a later fabrication.) Obviously Lodro Gyalpo made anoversight. In his khog dbubs he gives the correct genealogical account, BGGP-KhB [313/12-].

47. Some Khyung and ’Bre alias ’Dre clans lived traditionally in this region. Unsurprisinglythere are different versions on how the appellation of Yuthok came into being. See, forinstance Taube 1981: 43. KhB [214/9-215/18], VNg [1451/20-1452/10].

48. bKra shis dpal bzang ye shes mchog ldan gives these two arguments regarding tea andporcelain. The Indians did not possess both items, Karmay 1988: 236. Not listed byKarmay 1988 but treated with by bKra shis dpal bzang is also the examination of urineand pulse, KG [74/1-5]

Sangye Gyatso encountered the same difficulties. Being a proponent of the party thatregarded the rGyud bzhi as Buddha’s words he says that such issues were added byYuthok Yonten Gonpo to adjust the rGyud bzhi to Tibetan conditions. Therefore headmits the following adjustments: with regard to the rTsa rgyud – the number of chapters,the bShad rgyud - tea, diet and so on, the Phyi rgyud – the examination of pulse and urineand the mother-son and friend-enemy relation, and porcelain for tea and so on, the Manngag rgyud – the issues that are in accordance with them, KhB [275/8-12]. Certainly, oneshould make mention here of the Chinese Tibetan Annals (rGya bod yig tshang chen mo)written by sTag tshang dPal ’byor bzang po in 1434. He devotes an entire chapter on theintroduction of tea and porcelain to Tibet, GBYTsh [172/5-176/17], cf.also [2401-244/7],[244/8-253/13]. According to him the initial point was that a Tibetan king fell ill and itsintroduction was partly for medicinal purposes. Beside this dPal ’byor bzang po offers arather unique approach on the character of the rGyud bzhi. In his opinion incarnations ofthe Buddhas (bDe gshegs pa) taught the preparation of medicine (sman gyi sbyor) in India,moxibustion (me btsa’) and cleansing of the channels (rtsa sbyongs), blood-letting (gtarkha) and examination of pulse and urine (rtsa chu’i brtags pa) in Tibet, ibid. [194/5-8]. Insuch an all-embracing attempt he did also describe the medical treatises of the earlytranslation period. Therefore during the reign of Trisong Deutsen several doctors translatedmedical works – the Indian Shinta gar pa all tantras (rgyud) expounded by sMan bla, theChinese Ha shang Ma ha ya na all tantras spoken by ’Jam dpal and so. For a full list, seeGBYTsh [191/16-192/7].

49. MSGM [70/20-71/9]. In section three of the mKhas pa ’jug pa’i sgo of Sakya PanditaKunga Gyaltsen (1182-1251) on debate based on scriptures one can read in the translation

148 TIBET JOURNAL

of David P. Jackson a passage that neatly fits into this context here: “Furthermore, othertexts [of one’s own school] that contradict ones [position] will become acceptable if oneknows how to establish one’s own tenets as being of ascertained meaning or as of directintent, after establishing through the force of reasoning that [the contradictory text] is ofinterpretable meaning ... or [was taught] with special intent. But if one does not knowhow to establish in that way [that the text one follows is of definitive meaning, etc.] bymeans of reasoning, one cannot escape a contradiction of scripture.”, (additions in squarebrackets made by David P. Jackson), ibid. 339.

Furthermore one should take this occasion to stress once more the formal educationLodro Gyalpo has received. He employed this skill also in his commentary on the rTsargyud by the threefold analysis, MPZhL I [6/4-].

50. dgongs gzhi dgos pa dngos la gnod byed kyi sgo nas bshad dgos te MSGM [70/20]. Theinterpretation of these terms is based on, Jackson 1987: 393,n.83.

51. Cf, also Taube 1981: 33.52. Karmay 1988 notes that there are two texts of the same name that should not be confused.

One is the biography of the earlier Yuthok Yonten Gonpo written by Jo bo Lhun grub bkrashis. The other work is also called sKu lnga lhun grub ma and rNam thar med thabs medpa which was composed by Sum ston Ye shes gzungs, ibid. 229,n.5. The biography ofLhun grub bkra shis is known today in form of an edition prepared during the 17th centuryby the celebrated doctor Dar mo sMan rams pa Blo bzang chos grags (1638-1710) togetherwith two of his pupils, La ra ba Blo bzang don ldan and Mer mo Blo gros chos ’phel.Obviously they had some difficulties to obtain a complete and correct original of thiswork but eventually they succeeded and obtained it from one who belonged to the familyof Yuthok. These two pupils faithfully copied this work. Then they made the proof-reading, YThNTh [312/1-14]. Cf. also Taube 1981: 48,n.199, Czaja 2003. The biographyentitled sKu lnga lhun grub ma or g.Yu thog pa’i rnam thar bka’ rgya ma was composedby Ye shes gzungs, a pupil of Yuthok Yonten Gonpo, KhB [289/10], Taube 1981: 44,n.188,It seems that this work is identical with the rNam thar med thabs med pa or brGyud pa’irnam thar bka’ rgya ma, although it is certainly not a biography about Yonten Gonpo butan account how the rGyud bzhi was transmitted. The first verses of this treatise are skulnga lhun grub las byung ba’i / gso ba rig pa’i rgyud chen ’di, ChLCG [690/3-4]. Mostlikely the title sKu lnga lhun grub ma derives from this. The citation from this very workgiven by Sangye Gyatso shows that the sKu lnga lhun grub ma and the rNam thar medthabs med pa are identical, KhB [286/18]. For the opinion of Sangye Gyatso on itsauthorship, see KhB [278/14-].

53. KhB [352/5-353/2]. Although Pasang Yonten 1987, Lama Kyab 1997 and Jampa Thinley2000 exclusively rely on the khog ’bugs of Sangye Gyatso with regard to Lodro Gyalpo,they all cut off this passage for reasons unknown to me.

54. One of the argument for his view is the phrase: Tsomed Khenchen, teacher of my lama,KhB [352/15].

55. Lama Kyab 1997 gives the work gSo rig skor dri tshig dngul dkar me long for NyamnyiDorje, ibid.109. Jampa Thinley 2000 writes that he composed two works on the generaltopics of difficult points of the rGyud bzhi, namely the Dri tshig dngul dkar me long andthe Legs bshad nyi zer, ibdi. 216, see also KhB [345/12].

56. Jampa Thinley 2000 dPal ldan rgyud bzhi’i ’grel chen pod shel phra mo, 216. Lama Kyab1997 bDud rtis snying bo yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud kyi ’grel chenpod shel phra mo, ibid.109. Sangye Gyatso lists the dPal ldan rgyud bzhi’i ’grel chen podshal khra mo as one of Nyamnyi Dorje’s works, KhB [345/12].

57. ’phral skad gso dpyad rang lugs kyi mgo rmog nang nas bcag pa, KhB [353/1]. Cüppers/ Sörensen 1998 offer three sayings that provide a better understanding of this phrase.One saying goes “the head is broken by the helmet, the deity is smashed by the steward”,mgo rmog gis bcag / lha dkon gnyer gyis brdungs, ibid.57. Or another example would be:The head is not broken by soldiers, the head is broken from the inside of the helmet; the


feet are not broken by clay, they are broken from the inside of the shoes, mgo dmag nangnas ma chag / rmog nang nas chag / rkang rdza nang nas ma chag / lham nang nas chag,ibid.

58. Both these works form part of the Cha lag bco brgyad. Obviously Sangye Gyatso omitsthis point that these treatises were modelled on Kha che Zla dga’, (for his section on theCha lag bco brgyad, KhB [277/-]). But it was taken up by Jaya Pandita Blo bzang phrinlas, although naturally the rGyud bzhi is not regarded by him as the extended version ofthe rGyud chung, Cf. Taube 1981: 47. This opinion of Lodro Gyalpo, however, seems tobe justified. The rGyud chung represents a condensed version of the rGyud bzhi in whichimportant parts are missing. It cannot be seen as a commentary on the rGyud bzhi or itspart, Man ngag gi rgyud as it is the standard view by Tibetan writers. For example on thetreatment of kidney diseases the rGyud bzhi distinguishes between four kinds of renaldisorders and gives short instructions of curing them. These are all found in the rGyudbzhi. They are explained in more detail and more significantly other renal disorders too areexplained that form an integral part of healing kidney diseases.

59. Namely the colophon of the Shog dril skor gsum, the g.Yu thog snying thig gi lo rgyusnges shes ’dren byed, the gSung mgur and the bKa’ rgya ma rnam thar, BGGP-KhB[315/9-]. On these works, cf. Taube 1981.

60. On this new approach to discuss bka’ ma and bstan bcos with regard to the rGyud bzhi,see BGGP-KhB [309/3-].

61. Because of the plural particle one can conclude that both are meant, shin tu gsal rnams,KhB [352/16]. For the former treatise, see the article in this issue. The other work is notextent anymore, it seems. Sangye Gyatso gives a short overview of this work by namingits main tenets. Therefore the rGyud bzhi was expounded by Buddha (ston pa) at O rgyan.He handed it over to Drang srong Yid las skyes. Later when he was about to die just in anillusory way (rdzu ’phrul gyis) at Mt. Kailash, beams of light emanated from the face ofthe Buddha. Because of this Yid las skyes came. He expounded the rGyud bzhi to ’Tshobyed gZhon nu. The son of Vaishravana, rGyal ba khyu mchog, or Zhang blon rDo rjebdud ’dul was appointed as guardian of the rGyud bzhi and so on, KhB [563/18-564/7].

62. STsCT [113/15]63. STsCT [18/15], [22/4] etc.64. He shortly remarks that the opinion that the rGyud bzhi was translated from Sanskrit is

the basis of marvellous and flawless detailed commentaries. Those who do not knowanything, however, state that Yuthok Yonten Gonpo composed the rGyud bzhi as his ownfabrication. They pass off material that is an indecent hallucination as detailedcommentaries, MPZhL IV [17/1-2].

65. Jampa Thinley 2000 cites from the Khog ’bugs legs bshad dngul dkar me long by TsomedKhenchen. It seems that Phrag dbon Bsod nams bkra shis commissioned a print of thePhyi rgyud, ibid. 219. See, also KhB [347/12], [348/10].

66. Jampa Thinley 2000: 268ff. According to him it is entitled gSo ba rig pa’i chos ’byungbdud rtsis chu rgyun, but he calls it also gSo ba rig pa’i khog ’bugs bdud rtsi chu rgyun.Jampa Thinley found a manuscript of this text at the library of Norbulingka. He summarizesits contents and gives most interesting quotations. Therefore Chos skyong dpal bzang ismuch concerned on the controversy regarding bka’ ma or bstan bcos and discusses it insome detail. One should note that in the entry of Lama Kyab 1997 two personalities aremixed up. The name and the title of the medical treatise are of mNga’ ris ’Tsho byed Chosskyong dpal bzang but the biography given is that of bDe chos sman pa Ratna’i ming can,ibid.73.

67. ibid.68. Sangye Gyatso’s view on this is rather ambiguous. For him Lodro Gyalpo was one of the

most celebrated doctors who wrote medical treatise that were indispensable for dealingwith Tibetan medicine. Therefore he also patronized a new edition of the Mes po’i zhallung.

150 TIBET JOURNAL

Otherwise he did not agree with the view that Lodro Gyalpo has expounded in his khogdbubs. He openly challenged the quality of this work by maintaining that it is somehowconfused and remembered on a Chos ’byung. He fully disapproved, in his critique, ofTsomed Khenchen, whom Sangye Gyatso held in high esteem. One should note thatSangye Gyatso had also learned the most important work of Tsomed Khenchen, the Manngag snying po bsdus pa, and therefore he is included in its transmission line.

At the end of his entry on Lodro Gyalpo, Sangye Gyatso sarcastically remarks that it isobvious that even Kempa Tsewang, let alone the heirs of the late Nyamnyi Dorje, does notexist apart from the bluish she-dragon that roars that she had easily learned prosody,reasoning, the mahamudra system, and other sciences, KhB [354/11-14]. The interpretationof Gerke / Bolsokhoeva 1999 seems to me problematic: “The Blue Turquoise Dragoness(Tib. g.yu ’brug sngon mo) reveals another glimpse on the personality of Lodro Gyalpo:It is like that on the mode of healing: Lodro Gyalpo was following the footsteps of theprevious Zurlug [might refer to the famous Zur lineage founder Nyamnyi Dorjee]. But heeven did not have a satisfactory life force. This short critical note is very interesting.Although an excellent physician and scholar, his personal physique and life force mustnot have been very strong, which for a person with so much medical knowledge, seemsstrange and inappropriate.”. (Brackets made by both authors. JT is the 1991 Dharamsalaedition of the work that is refered as Jampa Thinley 2000 in this present study), ibid.30Sangye Gyatso continues to say that Lodro Gyalpo fundamentally held in contempt hisown pupil affiliation (slob rgyun), the precious words (gsung) of Tsomed Khenchen. Heoffended other doctors (the exact phrase is that he wounded art of healing, gso rig la rma’byin) by using sophistry to attack the fundamental, standard traditions of earlier generationslike the Byang ba and through refutations of the standardized knowledge of prosody, KhB[354/14-18].

Moreover his disagreement can also be seen by his short, conclusive remark on TsomedKhenchen’s khog dbugs that was already introduced in this paper, see n.61. His outlineends with the phrase: ”the exceptional zur teachings”, zur khyad can KhB [564/7]. Thislabelling signifies most of the short treatises of Nyamnyi Dorje in his Bye ba ring bsreland were somehow used as an quality mark indicating the profound and original source ofteaching or method of treatment. In this sense it was also applied at this instance bySangye Gyatso.

69. KhB [565/18-], Lama Kyab 1997: 22 gives a work of the title bDud rtsi snying bo yan lagbrgyad pa gsang ba man ngag gi rgyud las gso dpyad kyi spyi don legs bshad ’dod ’jo. Cf.also Jampa Thinley 2000: 220.

70. It is not certain how to understand the term of rgyud in this context. It seems that SangyeGyatso abstains from labelling the rGyud bzhi a treatise (bstan bcos) even though he isciting proponents of this view.

71. KhB [563/1-5]. Tshogs gnyis rgya mtsho maintains that the rGyud bzhi is not a gter mabut belongs to the vinaya section of the tripitaka. Beside this he is known to have writtencommentaries on all four parts of the rGyud bzhi, Taube 1981: 37, n.156. The Bai durya’ichu rgyun was well-known to Lodro Gyalpo. In his Mes po’i zhal lung are severalattached notes that name this composition. He names it in his khog dbubs, BGGP-KhB[252/4].

72. He states that one pupil of Lodro Gyalpo named Ruddhananda wrote a khog ’bugs thatwas very similar to that of his teacher. All treatises that followed later in the zur traditionmaintained that Yuthok Yonten Gonpo has taught the rGyud bzhi. The place of expositionwas the Buddha field in the Eastern direction named Baidurya snang and so on. Accordingto Sangye Gyatso there exist many writings that were composed inappropriately like theupper jaw of a lion and the lower jaw of camel, KhB [567/6-568/2].

Some additions should be made to the abusive comments of Sangye Gyatso. One mustunderline that in his khog ’bubs Lodro Gyalpo did not only give up the bka’ ma thesis butmakes a fundamental revision of the medical historical knowledge of Tibet that include


also his own point of view that he had earlier. It took him certainly some years to composesuch a detailed khog ’bubs. In his chapter on how medical knowledge developed in Tibet,he first gives a description of the mistaken views (gzhan lugs) that are represented by theKhog dbug khyung chen lding ba and so on. Then he demonstrates contradictions in theseviews and eventually he gives a profound explanation that is based on reliable proof(khungs), BGGP-KhB [276/1-]. Actually a good part of this voluminous chapter isemployed to refute the legends that have grown up around the rGyud bzhi and its author.The khog ’bugs of Sangye Gyatso must be partly read as a response to Lodro Gyalpo’slast composition.

For example Lodro Gyalpo states that the notion of nine royal physicians that consistsof Bi ji and so on is just thoughtless talk. Even if one agrees that at that time some doctorslike Bi ji and Brang ti lived, the other names like Yuthok do occur only in later times.Moreover the appellation of Yuthok came into being during rGya gar badzra or YontenGonpo, he says. Furthermore if those five doctors were appointed as royal physicians,than why one should summon sTong gsum gang pa, when the king fell ill?, BGGP-KhB[285/4-]. Because of this Sangye Gyatso was compelled to create an alleged request madeby the minister’s side, that foreign doctors should be invited, although there were also thenine Tibetan doctors, KhB [175/3].

Primary Sources:BBRS IZurkharwa Nyamnyi Dorje. Bye ba ring bsrel. Instructions of the great Zur-mkhar-ba Mnyam-nyid-rdo-rje on medical treatment comprising the Ma yig, Bu yig, and Kha ’thor collections. Leh:S.W.Tashigangpa, 1974.BBRS IIZurkharwa Nyamnyi Dorje. Bye ba ring bsrel : A Collection of Instructions on the Practice ofTibetan Medicine. New Delhi: Tibet House, 1985.BGGP-KhBZurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo. Shes bya spyi’i khog dbub. (= Gang dag byang chub sems dpa’i spyadpa spyod par ’dod pa’i sman pa rnams kyi mi shes su mi rung ba’i phyi nang gzhan gsum gyisrnam bzhag shes bya spyi’i khog dbub pa gtam pa med pa’i mchod sbyin gyi sgo ’phar yangs po.).Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2001.ChLCGYuthok Yonten Gonpo. Cha lag bco brgyad. Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House, 1999.2 vols.GBYTshsTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po. Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo. (= rGya bod kyiyig tshang mkhas pa dga’ byed chen mo ’dzam gling gsal ba’i me long). Chengdu: SichuanPeople’s Publishing House, 1985.KGTashi Palsang. rGyud kyi bka’ bsgrub drang srong bkra shis dpal bzang gi mdzad pa. In Bod rangskyong ljongs sman rtsis khang (ed). Bod kyi sman rtsis ched rtsom phyogs bsdus. Lhasa: TibetPeople’s Publishing House, 1986. 72-116.KhBSangye Gyatso. dPal ldan gso ba rig pa’i khog ’bugs legs bshad baidurya’i me long drang srongdgyes pa’i dga’ ston bzhugs so. (=gSo rig sman gyi khog ’bugs). Gansu: People’s PublishingHouse, 1982.KPTshBKempa Tsewang. rGyud bzhi’i ’grel. Dharamsala: Tibetan Medical & Astro Institute. 3 vols.MSGMZurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo. rGyud bzhi bka’ dang bstan bcos rnam par dbye ba mun sel sgron me.In Bod rang skyong ljongs sman rtsis khang (ed). Bod kyi sman rtsis ched rtsom phyogs bsdus.Lhasa: Tibet People’s Publishing House, 1986. 64-71.

152 TIBET JOURNAL

PKPPadma Karpo. Sems dpa’ padma dkar po’i rnam thar thugs rje chen po’i zlas gar. In Rwa lungdkar brgyud gser ’phreng. vol.IV (khi through chi). From Ngag-dbang-grags-pa through Padma-dkar-po. Palampur: Tibetan Craft Community, 1978. 129-346.ShChDShakya Chogden. sMan bla’i mdo chog gi dri pa me tog mda’ ’joms dang byang pa bdag po la driba’i skor bzhugs. In Shakya mchog ldan. gSer mdog pan chen shakya mchog ldan gyi gsung ’bum:Legs bshad gser gyi bdud rtsi. Collected writings of gSer mdog Pan chen Shakya mchog ldan.Reproduced from the unique manuscript prepared in the 18th century at the order of rJe Sakya Rinchen the 9th rJe mKhan po of Bhutan preserved at the Monastery of Pha jo sdings ’og min gnyis pa.New Delhi: Ngawang Topgyal, 1988. - 24 vols., 17: 319-329STsCT’Bam kho and Dakpa (eds). Zur mkhar blo gros rgyal po’i gsung rtsom gces btus. Kunming:Yunnan People’s Publishing House, 2003.YThNThg.Yu thog gsar rnying gi rnam thar. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1982.VNgSangye Gyatso. gSo ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed baidurya sngon po’i malli ka zhes bya ba bzhugs so. 2 vols. Dharamsala: Tibetan Medical & AstroInstitute, 1994.

Secondary sources:Samten 1992. Bod kyi gso ba rig pa’i byung ’phel brjod pa, in Bod ljongs zhib ’jug, vol.1 87-99Cüppers, Christoph and Sørensen, Per K. 1998. A collection of Tibetan proverbs and sayings:gems of Tibetan wisdom and wit. Stuttgart: Steiner.Czaja, Olaf 2003. The Making of the Blue Beryl - Some Remarks on the Textual Sources of theFamous Commentary of Sangye Gyatso (1653-1705), in Mona Schrempf (ed.), Soundings inTibetan Medicine. Historical and Anthropological Perspectives. Proceedings of the 10th Seminarof the International Association for Tibetan Studies (PIATS), Oxford Sept. 06-12.2003, Leiden,Brill Publishers. (forthcoming).Gerke, Barbara and Bolsokhoeva, Natalia 1999. Namthar of Zurkha Lodo Rgyalpo (1509-1579).A Brief Biography of a Tibetan physician, in AyurVijnana vol.6, spring 1999.Jackson, David P. 1987. The Entrance Gate for the Wise (Section III). Sa-skya Pandita on Indianand Tibetan Traditions of Pramana and Philosophical Debate. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetischeund Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien. 2 vols.Jamyang Tsultrim 1997. dPal karma pa sku phreng rim byon gyi mdzad rnam bzhugs so. Gansu:People’s Publishing House.Jampa Thinley 2000. Gangs ljongs gso rig bstan pa’i nyin byed rim byon rnam thar phyogsbsgrigs. Beijing: People’s Publishing House.Karmay, Samten G. 1988. The Four Tibetan Medical Treatises and their Critics In Samten G.Karmay, The Arrow and the Spindle. Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet.Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998.Lama Kyab 1997. Bod kyi mkhas pa rim byon gyi gso rig gsung ’bum dkar chag mu tig phreng ba.Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House.Meyer, F., Dorje, G. and Parfionovitch, Y. (eds) 1992. Tibetan Medical Paintings. London: SerindiaPublications.Pasang Yonten 1987. Bod kyi gso ba rig pa’i lo rgyus kyi bang mdzod thog bla ma dran pa’i phonya. Leh: Yuthok Institute of Tibetan Medicine.Roerich, George N. 1988. The Blue Annals. Dehli: Motilal Banarsidass. Reprint.Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2003. Textual Scholarship, Medical Tradition, and Mahayana Buddhist Idealsin Tibet In Journal of Indian Philosophy. 31: 621-641.

Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (1509–1579) on the Controversy of the Indian Origin of the rGyud bzhi

Documents