Reception history is a method for studying historical events and figures by examining how they've been perceived and interpreted throughout history. It shifts the focus from a straightforward chronological telling of events to analyzing how those events have been understood by different people in different times.
Markus Vinzent (Resetting the Origins of Christianity, A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings) applies reception history to the study of Early Christianity, and retrospectively. Traditionally, scholars have studied this period by analyzing historical documents at face value. Markus Vinzent argues for a "retrospective" approach. He examines how later Christians interpreted earlier figures and writings. This allows him to challenge traditional assumptions and shed new light on the development of Christianity.
With this method one might look at how a writing from the 2nd century AD was understood by someone in the 10th century. By seeing how the meaning changed over time, one can gain new insights into both the original text and the later reader's perspective. Instead of going straight back to the ”original text” and its “initial reception” and then following their evolution throughout history, Vinzent's method looks at its receptions nearer to our times and then goes gradually back into history, to see where and how changes occurred.
“6:09 It occurred to me that when we take the movement backwards, we cannot have it as a continuous movement. All we can do is choose sections. Let's take [Bishop] Ignatius [of Antioch 35 AD to 108/110 AD]. We can take that section, and as soon as we reflect about that particular section, we have to give a chronological explanation. We think writing history is a continuous process, as we almost emulate when we say we write from the year zero to the year 100, as if we have a continuity. But when we reflect backwards, it is anything but continuous. It is always a choice of sections, and within those sections we then establish a pseudo continuity. So that was the rough framework”
“7:43 I've chosen to slice the history by those sections where the new consensus was created, slice by slice like an archaeologist, who traces back the findings in the ground. From today backwards, a few sections where a new kind of discourse had been established.” (Youtube Channel, New Books Network Book of the Day).
When we apply this sort of “retrospective reception history” to Tibetan Buddhism and more specifically to “Maitrīpa”/Advayavajra/Avadhūtipa, it could give us insights into how Maitrīpa and his role were perceived at different times. We have to be aware of the added difficulty that manuscript texts were hardly ever fixed, and were continuously recopied, with the possibility of later later amendments, interpolations, additions, “prophesies”, deletions etc. This needs to be looked into properly, with the proper means… and especially time. Below I will do a quick and dirty “reception history” (not really “retrospective”), to illustrate how it could be done. In what follows the selected authors and their opinions on Maitrīpa are simply those that come to mind first. I ought to have started with Jamgön Kongtrül for the retrospective method, but I went for Tsangnyön Heruka first.
Maitrīpa is firstly known through the texts that are attributed to him (Amanasikāra t. yid la mi byed pa’i skor), and through texts and commentaries attributed to those considered to have been his students. This scriptural “Maitrīpa” appears to have been a respected all-round scholar, and his “scholarship” was not a problem at the beginning of the second millennium, on the contrary. With the “Tibetan Renaissance” (Davidson), and the freshly imported “new” Tantras (gsar ma), things changed very quickly. Yogis became a very competitive new model, and tensions between monastic and yogic communities were the norm. When the new Tantras were generally accepted, mainly through their gradual canonization (e.g. Bu-ston Rinchen Grub 1290-1364), often based on an authentic Indic pedigree, their further evolution and continuing success became dependent on the so called “aural transmissions” (t. snyan rgyud), rediscovered revelations (t. gter ma), etc., allowing for new interpretations and updated doctrines and practices.
These new inputs, that did not necessarily come from an Indic cultural sphere, were often composed in Nepal or Tibet, needed to be authentified by attributing their origin to known Indian masters, and for yogic materials, very often to Indian mahāsiddhas, their direct disciples (fictional or not), and by establishing their Transmission lineages. Narratives were developed in order to authenticate the new transmissions, and hagiographies became the most popular genre. Approximately at the same time as the picaresque novels appeared in Europe.
The new canonized Tantras already came with their transmission lineages, sometimes including teachers that could not have received the newly appeared “aural transmissions”, but were important to authenticate the general transmissions of the more recently formed major Tibetan schools. If a new “aural transmission” had been integrated later in such a school, how could an important earlier teacher of that school have received and transmitted it? It was the job of hagiographists and chroniclers to explain this, and they used all the means they had, before all their creativity, to succeed in their missions.
Most mahāyāna sūtras had been taught by the Buddha in saṃbhogakāya settings. Most “aural transmissions” are said to have an Indian origin with often the following pattern. A saṃbhogakāya entity appears to an Indian (mahā)siddha and gives him an “aural transmission”. The (mahā)siddha passes it on to his Indic disciples, and at one point a Tibetan student (shing rta bgyad) that traveled to India or Nepal will receive it, bringing it back to Tibet. Or the Indic disciple of a (mahā)siddha travels to Tibet and passes it on to a Tibetan student. Often exclusively and in exchange for gold.
Later on, time passing as it always does, gaps could appear in these --let’s call them fictional lineages-- hagiographers used various solutions to fill up the gaps. One of the earlier solutions was an exclusive lineage (t. gcig brgyud) for lack of a better translation. A teacher would pass on the transmission to one student at the same time. That student would do the same, and this would last for several generations (five, seven). The teacher would indicate to the student for how many generations the transmission needed to be kept secret.
Theses and other procedures allowed for Tibetan Buddhism to develop in ways that fitted in best with Tibetan society and its particular needs in later times. Because of the requirements regarding “authenticity” and “transmission”, narratives were needed to explain why the early masters (Milarepa, Gampopa, …) of a lineage did not completely fit in with later forms of Tibetan Buddhism. Maitrīpa was one of them.
Famous hagiographers and chroniclers such as Tsangnyön Heruka (1452-1507), Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (1511, 1512, or 1513 – 1587), Padma Karpo (1527-1592), Tārānātha (1575-1634), Jamgön Kongtrül (1813–1899) showed and/or explained why Maitrīpa was a special case that didn’t fit in seamlessly, and yet was an important chain in the transmission.
Tsangnyön Heruka (1452-1507) is like Mary Poppins, he never explains anything. He simply tells things as he thinks they were/are. Nāropa and Maitrīpa are important chains in Rechungpa’s Tantric Yogic Kagyu lineage (pace Gampopa!), and there hardly is a difference between them. He has Marpa say so himself in the hagiography dedicated to this Tibetan lotsāva. The English translation team (with Chogyam Trungpa) of Tsangnyön Heruka’s Life of Marpa the Translator, write that Saraha wrote “three cycles of dohās”, and was “a teacher in the lineage of mahāmudrā, that Marpa received from Maitrīpa” (p. xliv). Marpa saw Saraha in a dream.
 |
| Saraha wearing a freshly flayed human skin (Tsadra website) For a Saraha with bone ornaments: here |
“In the cool shade of a grove of plakśa trees.
On a tira corpse seat
Sat Lord Saraha, the Great Brahman.
I had never before seen such majestic brilliance.
He was flanked by two queens.
His body was adorned with charnel ground ornaments.
His joyous face was beaming.” (Life of Marpa, p. 45)
 |
| Saraha/Śavaripa, illumination Nepalese Dohākośagīti manuscript |
In Life of Marpa, Marpa later remembers his gurus Nāropa and Maitrīpa with nostalgia. Marpa's hagiography author Tsangnyön Heruka seems to totally identify with Marpa, as he imagines him.
 |
| Maitrīpa doing tantra (detail HA 60674) |
“Lord Marpa thought,“If it were my gurus Nāropa and Maitrīpa, they would prefer to actually sit on a corpse and acquire human flesh in the charnel ground. If they could not acquire these, they would visualize them through samādhi, and so enjoy them. Even when rows of kśetrapala ḍākinīs lined up in person to receive torma, they would not be afraid. But tonight these people are afraid of the howls of the jackals in this empty valley and the natural sounds of the elements.” (Life of Marpa, p. 122)
 |
| Lakṣmīṅkārā (ལྕམ་ལཀྵྨཱི) as a mahāsiddha, the alleged authoress of the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. The sweeper Hāḍipa Jālandharanāth looking at her? (detail HA65204) |
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (1511, 1512, or 1513 – 1587), abbot of Gampo (t. dwags lha sgam po) tries to make a compromise between Gampopa’s contemplative “direct perception” approach and Tantric techniques (t. thab lam), nonetheless giving full priority to the latter. He is likely to have read Maitrīpa’s writings, and being aware of the gap, he could have been expected to have a more mitigated view of Maitrīpa. He was one of the teachers of the eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje, who was quite outspoken about his post-classic Mahāmudrā preferences.
“Maitripa, also, having been dissatisfied with his proficient knowledge of the sutras and tantras followed [the mystic teacher] Śavarivara and received the illuminating instructions on the quintessential great seal, which were not based on the tantric teachings[1].” (Lhalungpa, p. 101)
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal accepts the full heteroclite “Mahāmudrā” system as it was transmitted at his time, and defends non-tantric “Mahāmudrā” against the attacks of Sakya Paṇḍita (Lalungpa p. 109). Perhaps following the semi-fictional 12th century Par phu pa Blo gros seng ge and others, he establishes the “Mahāmudrā” lineage of the Kagyu schools as originally descending from Buddha Vajradhara (Lhalungpa, p. 116). In order to account for all the heteroclite “Mahāmudrā” materials, integrated in different ways and in different times, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal introduces or reaffirms a role for two saṃbhogakāya bodhisattvas, Mañjughoṣa and Avalokiteśvara, whom the Buddha, “at the city of Vidarbha” in the South of India, prophesied as being the future expounders of “this quintessential dharma”. These two bodhisattvas “reincarnated” as “Devaputra Ratnamati and Devaputra Sukhanatha” and are said to have transmitted this teaching to Saraha. “It was said that [Saraha] achieved liberation instantly”. “Ratnamati was the reincarnation of Buddha himself, and Sukhanātha that of Guhyapati [bodhisattvaVajrapāṇi].”
“Saraha transmitted it to [the Tantric] Nāgārjuna, who was renowned as the second Buddha. Both of them were the gurus of most of the great Indian saints. Nāgārjuna especially guided Śrī Śavariśvara toward his liberation.”
“According to certain traditions, Śavari later received the quintessential dharma from the two bodhisattvas and also from Saraha. They had achieved enlightenment through illusory form or the spacelike mystical form. It is said that these masters appeared before fortunate devotees at the mountain retreat of Śrī Parvata until recent times.” (Lhalungpa, p. 117)
In this transmission ("the quintessential dharma") Dakpo Tashi Namgyal includes “the Druppa Dedun [grub pa sde bdun] of mahāmudrā, the Nyingpo Kordruk [snying po skor drug], the twenty-four [sic] sections of [Advayavajra’s] Amanasi[kāra], and the extensive and concise texts of the Dohā [that] were known in India.” Or authored later in Nepal, Tibet or elsewhere… Maitrīpa is said to have seen “the spacelike mystical form” of Śavari in Śrī Parvata, and “received the instructions on "the quintessential dharma” from Śavari, implying he received the whole set.
As for the lineage of “Maitrīpa’s Mahāmudrā” mentioned above by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, some elements are found back in the Complete works (t. gsung ‘bum) attributed to the 12th century Tsalpa Zhang. These works are not all by his hand (often memos etc. by members of his school), and may have undergone modifications at various times. In one of his works (Phyag rgya chen po thog babs, translated in German[2]), we find a transmission lineage that follows Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s one: 1. Vajradhara 2. Ratnamati 3. Śavaripa 4. Avadhūtipa/Maitrīpa 5. Vajrapāṇi 6. Lha rje gtsang shod pa 7. Me lha khang pa 8. Yer pa ba 9. Zhang[3]. It is always possible that Zhang’s Tsalpa lineage had its own source. What source and when? What would be the origin of the Ratnamati narrative? Dakpo Tashi Namgyal continues:
“The fact that the mahāmudrā instructions, made known in Tibet by Maitrīpa's disciples such as the Indian Vajrapāṇi by way of the treatises like the Dohā, the Datsa [Brda-rtsa], and the Sangjor [Rgya-gar gsang-spyod[4]], were identical with those of Gampopa's affirmed the authenticity of the mahāmudrā system. This being so, some [teachers] asserted that any meditation on the perfect meaning of reality must be based only on the classical commentaries of the sūtras. They criticized the key instructions of the great saints [of the mahāmudrā lineage], which emphasized the attainment of insight from the beginning. Such criticism would imply their disregard for the exponents of the tantric instructions, especially their sources like Nyingpo Kordruk [snying po skor drug] and the Truppa Dedun [grub pa sde bdun].” (Lhalungpa, p. 144)
As Dakpo Tashi Namgyal wrote, Śavari was still saṃbhogakāyically hanging around in Śrī Parvata “until recent times”, because the Kagyu yogi Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel (lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal 1473–1557), Tsangnyön Heruka’s disciple is said to have received the “brDa-tsa” and the “Rgya-gar gsang-spyod” from Śavari himself in his “spacelike mystical form”, a vision actually. What Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel received at that time (15-16th century) was probably thought to be, at least essentially, the same set of instructions as the ones Maitrīpa received 500 years earlier, but hadn’t made public… A saṃbhogakāya is not a spatiotemporal dimension. And therefore a “lineage” isn’t either. For a full list of instructions received saṃbhogakāyically by Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel, see Michaela Clementes’ “The Literary Work of Lha bTsun Rin chen rNamrgyal”. The consequence of these extratemporal additions is that according to the tradition, Maitrīpa's transmisison of "the quintessential dharma” from Śavari can’t be reduced to the writings attributed to Maitrīpa in the 11th century. Do we want to rely on faith or on history? If history has some importance, then some important mahāsiddhas may not have existed, and if they did, they probably didn't look like their representations above. If faith prevails, then the sky, and beyond, is the limit.
Padma Karpo (1527-1592) is pretty tough on Maitrīpa. He recognises his “full” heritage,
but for him something went wrong with Maitrīpa, no doubt due to his scholastic
patterns (t. mtshan nyid pa) and past training. Padma Karpo gives a full
account of Maitrīpa’s encounter with the “spacelike mystical form” of Śavari[5], and
repeatedly insists on the fact that Maitrīpa had doubts about his teacher. In
order to show the reader how Maitrīpa ought to have behaved, he introduced
another character, prince Sakara, a fellow traveler of Maitrīpa, who behaves
like a model student and complies with all the requirements in this regard, as
known in the 16th century, especially faith. It is because of Maitrīpa's deficiency that Padma Karpo has Śavari say: “Since you had doubts about me, you
won’t receive the ultimate accomplishment in this life. When you die Vajrayoginī
will come and meet you and you will receive the ultimate accomplishment[6].”
After delivering this prophecy the mystical form of Śavari disappeared.
What is the reason behind this consistent hagiographic defiency of Maitrīpa?
In his Seven Instruction Lineages[7] (t. bka’ babs bdun ldan), Tārānātha (1575-1634) follows Padma Karpo’s line, including the incomplete spiritual career of Maitrīpa and his students, due to lack of faith. See my blog Maitripa et ses disciples vus par Tārānātha (01/10/2010).
Jamgön Kongtrül (1813–1899) probably follows up on the 8th Karmapa’s division between what later what be called sūtra mahāmudrā and tantra mahāmudrā[8], and creates a three-fold mahāmudrā.
“Kon sprul Blo gros mtha' yas (1813-1899) thus distinguishes in his Shes bya kun khyab mdzod (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khan 1982 vol. 3, 375f.) besides the generally accepted mantra mahāmudrā, a sūtra mahāmudrā and an essence mahāmudrā. Mantra mahāmudrā is transmitted according to the methods taught by the Mantrayāna, and this involves Tantric empowerment. Essence mahāmudrā leads to the sudden or instantaneous realization of one's natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa)[9].” (Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Can Sūtra mahamudra be justified on the basis of Maitrīpa's Apratiṣṭhānavāda?, 2007)
Kongtrül specifies:
“This means that at a time when a degenerated understanding was widespread, people with great potential (skal) and extraordinary dispositions for the Vajrayāna were very rare, but that in spite of this, people of lesser potential and mediocre faculties could follow the gradual path of the three individuals and eventually further their potential, become fit to receive the instructions of the Mantrayāna and [SKK III. p. 388] obtain liberation in one lifetime. Even failing that, as many people were to glimpse the meaning of the Mahāmudrā by this means, they were thus setting out on an irreversible path. At least that is what [Gampopa] must have thought[10].”
Obviously “Essence Mahāmudrā” can only occur “suddenly” after a long preparation in Mantrayāna, at least according to Kongtrül:
“This is the direct and powerful path to the sudden (t. btsan thabs su) realisation of the deep heart (t. zab mo’i snying po), even deeper and more wonderful than the previous two. It is the grace (adhiśṭhāna; byin rlabs) of consecration (abhiśeka; dbang) of indestructible gnosis, conferred by a realised lama, which descends upon a highly predisposed disciple and awakens ordinary knowledge in the heart centre, simultaneously producing realisation and liberation without artificial technique or learning process. This happened frequently in the hagiographies of the siddhas of the four great and eight small schools of the Kagyupa lineage.[11]”
There is no mention of Gampopa’s third path of direct perception, beyond sūtra and tantra. According to Kongtrül, the path of direct perception does not correspond to “Essence Mahāmudrā”, since “Essence Mahāmudrā” requires a “consecration (abhiśeka; dbang) [ ] by a realised lama”. Consecrations are not beyond tantra.
Once more, this is not about the name of a method/realization, in this case “Mahāmudrā”, a tantric term, but about the unifying method (t. zung ‘jug s. yuganaddha), thought to have been taught by Maitrīpa/Advayavajra, inspired or not by Saraha’s Dohākośagīti, the first one, not the other two dohākośa that were written later. A method beyond “sūtrayāna” and “mantrayāna”, but that certainly can be combined with “sūtrayāna” and “mantrayāna” practice, or not… It is considered as a liberation (s. mokṣa), it is compatible with the Apratiṣṭhānavāda view, and it is accessible through an Introduction (t. ngo sprod) by a teacher who realized “yuganaddha” himself. It is also called “Mahāmudrā” by some, perhaps to imply its realization is similar. Could this be how this method is compatible with mantrayāna (t. sngags kyi lugs kyi rjes su mthun pa)? On the level of the result, on the level of liberation?
Mantrayāna wants to go further than simple liberation. It goes for “full Buddhahood”, with three fully realized Buddhakāyas, especially the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya. As a bodhisattva, the follower of mantrayāna wants to have all possible powers of a Buddha to save all sentient beings and to empty saṃsāra to the best of their ability. Salvation happens through liberation (s. mokṣa t. grol ba), and on the level of dharmakāya. The other two form bodies (rūpakāyas) allow a Buddha to act as a Buddha. Some believe an enlightened activity (t. phrin las) is the natural natural outflow of liberation. Others think that to be a powerful Buddha, a bodhisattva needs to work real hard, follow mantrayāna, accumulate merit, wisdom and siddhis, rely on a guru, on the most powerful mantric expedients (upāya) and to identify with a deity, sometimes, as in the case of Tsangnyön Heruka, theopathically.
Mantrayāna’s project is in fact a transexistential career, consisting of
liberating (t. grol ba s. mokṣa) but also and foremost “ripening” (t. smin pa) those to be saved, together in short “smin
grol”. Liberation for their own benefit, and “ripening” for
the benefit of others. “Ripening” is done through giving empowerments and
entering mantrayāna. Such is the theory. Liberation requires a teacher who
realizes direct perception, who knows the nature of mind, and who can guide
others in this regard. “Ripening” requires a whole religious set-up and everything required for the survival thereof.
[1] Mahāmudrā, The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, Takpo Tashi Namgyal, Translated & Annotated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, Foreword by Chogyam Trungpa, Shambala, 1987
[2] Andrea Prax, Edition und Übersetzung von Lama Zhangs Blitzschlag[gleicher] Mahāmudrā, Wien 2013, Adviser Klaus-Dieter Mathes
[3] Andrea Prax, Edition und Übersetzung von Lama Zhangs Blitzschlag[gleicher] Mahāmudrā, Wien 2013
[4] “The oral instructions of the essential meaning of rGya gar gsang spyod’ (rGya gar gsang spyod kyi don bsdu’i man ngag rnams) was composed by Rin chen rNam rgyal after a vision of Mar pa.” Clemente, M. (2015), "The Literary Work of lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal". In: From Bhakti to Bon. Festschrift for Per Kvaerne, edited by H. Havnevik and C. Ramble, Oslo: Novus Forlag, pp. 185-200
[5] In Padma Karpo’s Brug pa’i chos ‘byung, xylography of Dodedrak Monastery, starting on page 87.
[6] “khyod nga la the tsom zos pas tshe ‘di la mchog gi dngos grub mi thob/ ‘chi kar rdo rje rnal ‘byor mas bsus ste bar dor mchog gi dngos grub thob par ‘gyur ro/ p. 89
[7] Templeman, David, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (1983)
[8] “Ce n'est pas le siddhi authentique de la Mahāmudrā de la lignée Kagyupa, transmis du Dharmakāya Vajradhara jusqu'au grand Nāropa, qui est présent dans les intuitions analogique et réelle (dpe don gyi ye shes) authentiques[14], qui ne sont pas manifestes (ngon sum) avant les trois initiations supérieures des quatre initiations (mchog dbang gong ma gsum) mais ce sont le Parāmitāyāna causal[15] de nos jours et la tradition des instructions communes de Samātha-Vipassana qui viennent d’Atisha et font partie du chemin graduel de l’éveil, enseignés par Gampopa et Pamodroupa (1110-1170) pour répondre à la demande des étudiants de l’époque dégénérée, friands des enseignements les plus élevés, et qui l'ont appelés pour cette raison la mahāmudrā intégrée naturellement (phyag-chen skyes-sbyor). Dans la pratique de la plupart des étudiants de Gampopa, les instructions de la Mahāmudrā furent données avant l'initiation, ce qui est appelé la Tradition commune du Sūtrayāna et du Mantrayāna." Quoted in Shes bya kun khyab mdzod (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khan 1982 vol. 3, See Déclassement de la mahamudra de Maitrīpa 27/06/2011
'Di la dgongs nas rje mi bskyod zhabs kyis/ chos sku rdo rje 'chang chen po nas brgyud pa'i nA ro chen po'i bka' brgyud kyi phyag rgya chen po'i dngos grub mtshan nyid pa ni mchog dbang gong ma gsum gyi dpe don gyi ye shes mtshan nyid pa mngon sum du ma gyur pa la yod pa ma yin la/ deng sang gi rgyu phar phyin theg pa dang thun mong ba'i zhi lhag gi khrid srol mgon po a ti sha nas brgyud pa/ byang chub lam sgron gyi man ngag rje btsun sgam po pa dang mgon po phag mo gru pas/ snyigs ma'i gdul bya theg pa mtho mtho la dga' ba'i ngor phyag chen lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi ming btags par mdzad pa zhes gsungs la/ dwags po'i thugs sras phal mo che rnams kyi phyag bzhes su dbang bskur sngon song la phyag chen gyi gdams ngag bstan te mdo sngags thun mong gi lam srol du bzhed pa yin no//
[9] Essence Mahāmudrā may have been inspired by this observation:
“The meditational system of the Takpo Kagyupa order consists of two systems. The first system, which meets the needs of seekers inclined toward an instantaneous illumination, directs them, at the outset, to master the vision of reality by clearing doubts and distortions concerning the natural foundation of existence and then settle the mind [in a nondual] state. The second system, which meets the demands of seekers of gradual illumination, directs them first to achieve tranquility of mind and then gradually strive toward insight. The former method would be more suitable for highly intelligent and passionate persons. Nevertheless, I shall elucidate the latter at this stage because it is widely known in the country.” (Lhalungpa, p. 144)
[10] [SKK III. p. 388] de dag gi don ni snyigs ma shas cher bdo ba'i dus su son pas rdo rje theg pa'i thun mong min pa'i skal ldan ches nyung bar gyur kyang*/ dbang rtul skal ba dman pa'i gdul bya rnams la skyes bu gsum gyi lam rim gyi khrid pas/ mthar skal ba rab tu 'phos pas sngags kyi thun mong min pa'i snod du gyur te tshe gcig la grol ba thob pa'am/_de ltar ma yin kyang thabs des mang dag cig phyag rgya chen po'i don mthong nas/ phyir mi ldog pa'i lam la bkod pa la dgongs pa yin pa'i phyir ro//
[11] [SKK III. p. 389] snying po'i lugs ni/snying po rdo rje'i ye shes 'bebs pa yis// dbang rab smin grol dus gcig 'byung ba'o// snga ma gnyis ka las zab cing ngo mtshar la khyad par rmad du byung ba zab mo'i snying po btsan thabs su rtogs pa'i lam ni/ rtogs ldan gyi bla mas skal ldan gyi slob ma ches dbang rnon du gyur pa la rdo rje ye shes kyi dbang gi byin rlabs 'bebs pa tsam gyis/ tha mal shes pa snying dbus su sad nas rtogs grol dus mnyam du 'gyur bas spros bcas kyi thabs dang sbyangs pa'i rtsol ba la ma ltos pa'i phyir/ bka' brgyud che bzhi chung brgyad kyi grub thob sa chen po'i rdul tsam byon pa'i rnam thar dang lag rjes mngon sum snang ba 'di nyid yin cing*/
