Ar Byang chub ye shes
Published by Michael Sheehy on 12 Mar 2010
By David Rawson
A color plate of a lonely and austere st?pa on a bleak and stony plain greets the reader of the cycle of works of Ar Byang chub ye shes (11th cent.) (Ar byang chub ye shes kyi gsung chos skor), a publication of Paltsegs’ [Beijing, 2007]. Drawn to the caption below, the remains of Ar byang chub ye shes, one might wonder what kind of man and what kind of deeds were enshrined within this strikingly simple monument.
Since Ar is portrayed in the Blue Annals as the principal upholder of the tradition of Rngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), to locate the importance of Ar one must first find the impact of Rngog. In traditional accounts, the strong and vital tradition of Prajñ?p?ramit? scholarship that presently composes the core of the curriculum of the three seats of Dga’ ldan, Se ra and ‘Bras spungs presents its immediate origins in the tradition of Rngog and his monastery of Gsang phu neu thog. There Rngog instigated a commentarial tradition of the Prajñ?p?ramit? emphasizing the commentaries of Haribhadra as authoritative. This was brought about through Rngogs own teachings, and his two commentaries known as TIk chen and TIk chung, the former being rather difficult to find at this time and the latter was published recently by Drepung Gomang Library as well as by the Karma Kagyu Preservation Society, Varanasi.
The influence of Rngog in forming this tradition of study of the Prajñ?p?ramit? (and although it is beyond the scope of this essay, the study of pram??a) and reciprocally the wish of subsequent scholars to place Rngog as the founder of the tradition can be felt in the veneration afforded to Rngog. Throughout Tsong kha pas Golden Rosary (Legs bshad gser phreng) Rngog is addressed as a great being (bdag nyid chen po) and Rgyal tshab Dar ma rin chen, in his commentary on the Uttaratantra, bestows upon him the title of great charioteer (shing rta [pa] chen po), a praise imparted to few Indian panditas and even fewer Tibetan scholars. As Gung thang Blo gros rgya mtsho notes in his annotations, Rgyal tshabs Rnam bshad snying po rgyan which was destined to become the primary focus of study at the three Geluk monastic seats is primarily based on Rngogs two commentaries (as opposed to the Legs bshad gser phreng which is based on Bu ston Rin chen grubs Lung gi snye ma and Nya dbon Kun dga dpals Yid kyi mun sel).
With such an undeniably important contemporary, and with Ars own principal teacher, ‘Bre Shes rab ‘bar being a disciple of Rngog, one would expect Ars role to be that of one continuing the latters lineage of explanation. This certainly seems to be the opinion of Gos Lo ts? b? in his Blue Annals and Sh?kya Mchog ldan, after stating there is no system of explanation of the Five Treatises of Maitreya that does not depend on Rngog’s, they each assert a single lineage of explanation of the same from Rngog through ‘Bre and Ar. Two important examples of records of lineages heard (gsan yig) also seem to suggest this: Mkhas Grub rjes Gsan yig and the 5th Dalai Lama Ngag dbang Blo bzang rgya mtshos Gang+gAi chu rgyun both have Rngog, followed by ‘Bre, followed by Ar in the succession of gurus for the lineage of the explanation of the Mngon rtogs rgyan.
Here, meticulous scholarship in the introduction of this new Paltseg edition by Karma Bde legs reveals an unapparent subtlety. Although Bre was a student of Rngog, it seems that he only made a connection with Rngog when at an advanced age when most of his explanation of the Prajñ?p?ramit?, including his teaching of Ar, had already been written. Long before he met Rngog, Bre had studied the Prajñ?p?ramit? under Se btsun Gzhon nu dbang phyug, a teacher who had traveled to Nepal and relied on various Indian and Nepali pandits including Sm?tijñ?nak?rti. During the 70 or so years when the Buddhist teachings were nearly absent in Central Tibet, Se btsun taught in the Dan khog region of Kham along with his students including Brom ston Rgyal bai byung gnas, Rngog, and Bre. With Bre teaching the Prajñ?p?ramit? independently of Rngog, and founding a school of Prajñ?p?ramit? scholarship at Nyang stod Gnas rnying.
In addition to the fact that Ar was already teaching Prajñ?p?ramit? extensively in the years that Rngog was studying in Kashmir, it seems Ar was not a student of Rngog and the lineage of explanation that is exemplified in this newly published volume evolved independently of Rngog. It is classified as a lineage of the former propagation since it ultimately descended uninterruptedly from the translators Ska ba Dpal brtsegs, Cog ro Klui rgyal mtshan, and Zhang Ye shes sde (ska cog zhang gsum) through their student Dbas Rgyal ba ye shes, his student Se btsun, then to Bre and finally to Ar. In this context, these commentaries by Ar contain refutations of Rngogs positions and take the explanations of Bre as authoritative. The interesting conclusion is that the later propagation of the teachings of the Prajñ?p?ramit? was not completely disconnected from the former propagation, and given the influence of Ar and Bre, it undoubtedly survives in some form today.
To illustrate, Ar is credited with a system of classifying the s?tras of which Abhisamay?la?k?ra is a commentary called the cycle of nine mothers (Yum skor dgu). The Prajñ?p?ramit? s?tras are divided into extensive, middling, and condensed and each of those again into three, meaning that the Prajñ?p?ramit? in 500 sections (said to reside in the realms of the gods) is the extensive of the extensive and the Verse Summary of the Prajñ?p?ramit? (Yon tan rin po che sdud pa) is the condensed of the condensed. Both Mkhas grub and Rgyal tshab as well as Jam dbyangs Bzhad pa use this system when enumerating these s?tras.
Although biographical entries for Ar appear in the Ming mdzod chen mo and the Dung dkar tshig mdzod, both seem to have confused Dbus pa Blo gsal, a student of Bcom ldan Rig ral, with Ar. Drawing attention to this mistake, a well written biography of Ar in the Paltseg edition summarizes thus: Ars date of birth is uncertain but it is recorded that he was invited to teach in Mnga ris in 1076 and by that time was already renowned as a scholar (dge bshes). He was the hidden preceptor (gsang ston) for Phag gru Rdo rje rgyal pos full ordination in 1134, and in 1144 was installed as abbot in Rgyal Lha khang. He established traditions of explanation of the Prajñ?p?ramit? at Gzhu Kun dga ra ba, Gnam Rdzing kha and at Gnam Rtse ldeng where his st?pa currently resides. It seems that Ar gave a great number of lectures on the Prajñ?p?ramit? and in fact passed away on the dharma throne during the middle of one of these. Thus it is moving when another great Tibetan Prajñ?p?ramit? scholar, Rong ston Shes bya kun rig makes a prayer to be able to enact the same, as recorded in the Blue Annals.
In conclusion, it seems that the new steel of Rngogs explanations, wrought in extensive study under Indian pandits, was tempered by an already existant lineage of explanation of which Bre and Ar were the foremost exponents and through their widespread teaching and significant commentaries they both helped popularize the study of the Prajñ?p?ramit? in Tibet.
The recent publication of Ars three surviving works on the Prajñ?p?ramit? by Paltseg is the second volume in the series entitled Important Rare Texts of the Kadam (Bka gdams dpe dkon gces btus), the fruit of an arduous search throughout Tibet for rare texts led by Thub bstan Nyi ma Rinpoche. Comprising commentaries on the Heart S?tra, the Verse Summary of the Prajñ?p?ramit? and on Abhisamay?la?k?ra, it is exquisitely presented with excellent introductory essays and table of contents, signalling that this series, which will gradually be published over the subsequent years will be very exciting and meaningful for those interested in the profound and vast.
David Rawson is a monk from New Zealand studying the Prajñ?p?ramit? at Sera Jey Monastery in South India.