Blue Annals (deb-ther sngon-po)

by George N. Roerich | 1949 | 382,646 words | ISBN-10: 8120804716 | ISBN-13: 9788120804715

This page relates ‘Untitled responses to questions regarding the Blue Annals’ of the Blue Annals (deb-ther sngon-po)—An important historical book from the 15th century dealing with Tibetan Buddhism and details the spiritual doctrine and lineages of religious teachers in Tibet. This chapter belongs to Book 15 (Monastic Systems).

Chapter 4a - Untitled responses to questions regarding the Blue Annals

[Full title: Untitled responses to questions regarding the Blue Annals (Chandra 962; Chengdu 1263; Roerich 1084).]

Now I shall reply to questions put in connection with the "Blue Annals". There exists a disagreement between the (different) accounts of the "Later" Propagation of the Doctrine. I also find it difficult to make up my mind. I have compiled this chapter basing myself on ancient accounts.

In regard to the teacher from whom klu mes received ordination, and the story of his labours in dbus and gtsang, I believe (the account) composed by pa shi gnas brtan to be (nearest to truth). I followed exclusively on his version, because the author was a direct disciple of klu mes. In that chapter I have mentioned his name.

As regards the story that these two had different preceptors, I have merely repeated his (pa shi gnas brtan) words. The two (preceptors) seem to have been sba and rag, since they belong to one group. I have written about the (group) of the "Ten men of dbus and gtsang" (dbus gtsang mi bcu) basing myself on accounts by bu ston and others. (In this question) it is difficult for me to express my own opinion. According to bu ston these "Ten Men" were: from dbus -the Five: klu mes, sum pa, rag shi, sba and 'bring; from gtsang: the Two - lo and tshong, the two brothers 'o brgyad and u pa de dkar. Again according to others there have been eight only: from dbus klu mes, sum pa; from gtsang lo and tshong; from mnga' ris pa shi rdzi dkar ba -six in all; then sba and rag.

Again there are some who are of the opinion that 'bring has been 'bri rdzi dkar ba because of the absence of any mention of the existence of written works by 'bri rdzi dkar ba in mnga' ris. Thus I have based my account on statements made by others, and I do not give them as my own opinion. It is a fact that in dbus, klu mes, sum pa and 'bring have founded monasteries, and monastic communities. Ka ba Śākya dban phyug was an able disciple of sba and rag, who were mentioned in a group. It is also true that in gtsang the number of monasteries increased thanks to lo and tshong. (These facts) I accept.

Having compiled numerous accounts, I have mentioned the authors' names, for the sake of investigation. The story that the lo tsa ba rin chen bzang po, aged 13, had been ordained by the upādhyāya ye shes bzang po in mnga' ris proper, is found in the biography (rnam thar) of the lo tsa ba composed by one named khri thang Jñāna. According to it, the lo tsa ba had been ordained in the year Iron Male Horse (lcags pho rta—970 A.D.). The third year after this event, the Water Female Hen (chu mo bya 973 A.D.) is the first year of the Period of the "Later" Propagation of the Doctrine, as stated in the History of the Doctrine by bu ston rin po che who based (his occount) on a story told by an old woman.[1]

The year Earth Male Tiger (sa pho stag 978 A.D.), which was the fifth year after the Water Female Hen year (chu mo bya 973 A.D.), is the first year of the Period of the "Later" Propagation (of the Doctrine) according to 'brom ston pa. Again in later times Atīśa became the Master of the Doctrine, and all bka' gdams pas agree that the year of Atīśa’s coming was a Horse year (rta lo), but there exists a disagreement as to the element (dban than) of the year. After thoroughly examining the biographies of rgya ma pa, uncle and nephew, sne'u zur pa, spyan snga and spu to pa, one can state that Atīśa came (to Tibet) in the year Water Male Horse (chu pho rta 1042 A.D.). This was the 61st year of Atīśa. After a minute examination of ancient chronicles, I consider the above account, as well as the history of the Lineage from rje mar pa to rngog, and that of mid la to sgam po pa, to be reliable accounts.

Similarly there is no mistake in the number of years after mkhon dkon mchog rgyal po in the Lineage of the sa skya pas. There exist also many other (accounts) in which there are no mistakes in the number of years. Further, some of the other accounts were narrated by me according to the statements of other (authors). Again there are other accounts written by me without investigating them, basing myself on statements made by others. In short, I consider the date of the religious king srong btsan sgam po, and the dates of Atīśa, 'brom, and others, as well as that of rngog, Master of the Doctrine, to be correct. This must be kept in mind.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

bu ston chos 'byung, gsung 'bum. vol XXIV. /Ya/, fol. 136a; "History of Buddhism," translated by E, Obermiller, II, p. 221 (R).

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: