Mriti Gyana
The study of Abhidharma (Tib. chos mngon pa)[1] in Tibetan Buddhism primarily relies on two significant Abhidharma texts: the Abhidharmasamuccaya (mngon pa kun btus) (Samuccaya, hereafter), attributed to Asaṅga (ca. fourth to fifth century CE), and the Abhidharmakośa (mngon pa mdzod; The Treasury of Abhidharma; Kośa, hereafter) composed by Vasubandhu (ca. fifth century CE), along with their commentaries.[2] Tibetans conceived these two Abhidharma texts as “Upper Abhidharma” (mngon pa gong ma[3]) and “Lower Abhidharma” (mngon pa ’og ma), corresponding respectively to Yogācāra and Sarvāstivāda school.[4] While Tibetans promote these Indian Abhidharma texts in their own way, they also claim that these two Abhidharma systems were originated from Indian Buddhism. The authenticity of these two Abhidharma traditions heavily relied on their historical accounts, which are not clear. An alternative way to testify their authenticity is by tracing their lineage transmissions in the Tibetan tradition. The study here found that, while the lineage transmission of the Samuccaya is well-documented and studied by both traditional and contemporary scholars,[5] the lineage transmission of the Kośa remains ambiguous. This essay delves into this very issue related to the history of the Kośa in Tibet.
Concerning the ambiguity around the Kośa’s lineage transmission, there tends to be multiple reasons behind it. One common reason is said to be the destruction of Buddhism during the reign of king Lang Darma[6] from 841 to 842 CE. Nyang Nyima Özer (ca. twelfth century CE) posits that the lineage transmission of the Kośa was lost at the end of the early dissemination period of Buddhism in Tibet and never fully restored. A new transmission lineage was reportedly established by Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna around the eleventh century CE, but no detailed documentation exists.[7] Gö Lotsāwa Shonu Pel (1392–1481)[8] agrees with Nyang and states that he was therefore failed to provide a detailed account of Kośa history in his famous religious history text the Blue Annals.[9] This essay attempts to fill the historical gap of the Kośa tradition in Tibetan Buddhism by examining its multiple gsan yig literature. The study here is organized into three sections: (1) gsan yig as an important literary genre in Tibetan Buddhism, (2) arrival of the Kośa and its system in Tibet, and lasty, (3) the comparative analysis of the three selected Kośa gsan yig.
Given the ambiguities surrounding the history the Kośa, this essay examines three gsan yig of the Kośa to explore its lineage transmission and the historiographic role of these documents in Tibetan Buddhism. The three selected gsan yig are: (1) the Thob yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Losang Gyatso (1617–1682),[10] (2) the Gsan yig of Jamgon Amé Zhap Ngawang Kunga Sönam (1597–1659),[11] and (3) the Brgyud rim of the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorjé (1507–1554). This study aims to address the significant historical gap in the lineage transmission of the Kośa and filling it through its gsan yig documents. This section sets the theoretical framework of this essay through gsan yig literature as follows.
Tibetan Buddhism placed great emphasis on verifying the authenticity of its vast array of Buddhist texts from the eleventh century onwards. This need arose because the texts were introduced to Tibet in a disorganized manner, lacking centralized doctrinal or institutional oversight. As a result, Tibetan scholars made deliberate efforts to trace each text’s origin to a trustworthy Indic source—such as the historical Buddha—leading to the development of specific literary genres like gsan yig,[12] “records of texts heard,” and thob yig, “records of texts obtained” that documented these transmission of lineages.[13] Other scholars have literally translated gsan yig as “records of teaching received,”[14] but yig as “document”[15] may be linguistically closer to the original full term yig as in yi ge, which signifies an unbroken lineage of transmission of Buddhist teachings in Tibetan Buddhism. Other similar terms used for these documents in Tibetan is brgyud rim, or “list of lineages (masters).” Given their basic connotation, gsan yig, thob yig, and brgyud rim all serve the same purpose of recording and exhibiting an unbroken lineage transmission of teachings or texts. Gsan yig will be used here as an umbrella term for the categorical representation of these terms. The first two terms literally emphasize the teaching that is received, while the latter stresses the person from whom one received the teaching.
The Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC), previously known as Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center (TBRC), has been developing a comprehensive meta-database of the lineage transmission of Buddhist knowledge systems within the Tibetan tradition for its library. They recognized the crucial contribution of gsan yig documents in Tibetan history, religion, and literature. They defined the gsan yig genre as serving “to register lines of transmission, tracing each successive line back to Indian origins, thereby operating as textual sources to legitimize hermeneutic efforts. In effect, these texts were authenticating the authority and canonicity of transmissions being received and negotiated in Tibet.”[16] The study of gsan yig literature is certainly challenging, and I am grateful to the scholars who first explored this genre and paved the way for my research. The most relevant contemporary research for our purpose is Dan Martin’s Gray Traces: Tracing the Tibetan Teaching Transmission of the mngon pa kun btus (Abhidharmasamuccaya) Through Early Period of Disunity.[17] A few other important works are Jowita Kramer’s The Gsan yig of A mes zhabs: Observations Regarding Its Stylistic and Formal Features,[18] Franz-Karl Ehrhard’s ‘Flow of the River Gangā’: The gsan yig of the Fifth Dalai Bla-ma and Its Literary Sources,[19] and Sangseraima Ujeed’s doctoral dissertation The Thob yig gsal ba’i me long by Dza-ya Paṇḍita Blo-bzang ‘phrin-las (1642–1715): An Enquiry into Biographies as Lineage History.[20]
The Abhidharmakośa is a seminal Abhidharma text that has been studied in Tibetan monastic colleges for over a thousand years. Around the twelfth century CE, Tibetans developed a systematic approach to Buddhist philosophical studies by organizing a monastic curriculum with five major philosophical disciplines, known as the Five Great Treatises (gzhung chen bka’ pod lnga): Buddhist Logic and Epistemology (pramāṇa, tshad ma), Perfection of Wisdom (prajñāpāramitā; phar phyin), Middle Way Philosophy (madhyamaka; dbu ma), Buddhist Metaphysics (abhidharma; mngon pa), and Buddhist Ethics and Discipline (vinaya; ’dul ba).[21]
Mastery of these five disciplines is a requirement for achieving the highest scholarly degree (dge bshes or mkhan po) in traditional Tibetan Buddhist monastic colleges. Initially, the Abhidharmasamuccaya served as the main textbook for Abhidharma studies in Tibet. However, in the fifteenth century, the focus of Abhidharma study was shifted to the Kośa.[22] Since then, Kośa has become synonymous with Abhidharma studies in Tibetan Buddhism.
The Kośa and its Indian commentaries were introduced and studied in Tibet for the first time in the second half of the eighth century CE, following the establishment of the Samyé (bsam yas) Monastic institute. The arrival of the Kośa in Tibet can be dated based on its colophon, which states:
The text of the Abhidharmakośakārikā, written by Vasubandhu, a Buddhist monk (dge slong), is completed. It was translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian abbot Jinamitra and Bande dpal brtsegs, the general editor and translator.[23]
The same translators—Paṇḍita Jinamitra and Lotsāwa Kawa Paltsek—were also responsible for the translation of its auto-commentary, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, spanning two volumes included in the Tengyur Pedurma (bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma).[24] The colophon of the Kośa is similar to the Samuccaya, but with different translators. While the Kośa was translated by Kawa Paltsék, Samuccaya was translated by Zhang Yeshe De, another senior translator of the time. This distinction is significant as it laid the foundation for two primary transmission lines of abhidharma teachings in Tibetan Buddhism that were later known as Upper and Lower Abhidharma traditions.
There are a total of ten Indian Kośa commentaries in the Abhidharma (mngon pa) section of the Tengyur Pedurma.[25] Among those, two commentaries are overlapping as they were both ascribed to the Indian author Pūrṇvardhana. One commentary is in Volume 81/3, but the latter is in the Volume 82/1311. The title of the commentaries, and the translator are identical on their colophons, but the sizes are greatly different. The title of the commentaries is Abhidharmakośaṭīkālakṣanānusāriṇīnāma, and both are translated into Tibetan by Lotsāwa Patsab Nyima Drak (eleventh century CE). However, the former contains 1730 pages, while the latter contains only fifty-seven. It is said that the latter was extracted from the former commentary[26] by Chim (mchims).
Besides the ten commentaries, there is another commentary named Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṭīkārthanāma in the Tengyur Pedurma (volumes 118 and 119), composed by Sthiramati and translated into Tibetan by Zhalu Lotsāwa Dharmapālabhadra (1441–1527). This commentary is included in the sna tshogs (Miscellaneous) section of the Tengyur, the final part of the Tengyur, probably due to its late entry into the Tengyur collection. Among the three major abhidharma literary categories, early Tibetan scholars only translated the Yogācāra and Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, leaving out the Theravāda Abhidhamma. Among the former two, Sarvāstivāda treatises were introduced as a general Abhidharma in the Tengyur collection.
The translation of the Kośa and its Indian commentaries into Tibetan strongly show that the study of the Lower Abhidharma tradition was well established in the early diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet. However, that tradition was lost between the early and later diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet. Although historical accounts alluded to Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna for reviving the Kośa tradition in Tibet in the eleventh century CE, none of these Kośa commentaries supports it. Therefore, the gsan yig literature of the Kośa provides vital evidence to solidify how Smṛti revived the Kośa tradition in Tibet as I will argue in the following section.
Compared to the Abhidharmasamuccaya, the historical account of the Kośa in Tibet is short and ambiguous. This is a blank space in most Tibetan religious historical texts, with the exception of Gölo’s Blue Annals, a prominent Buddhist history text that provides a few sentences about it as follows:
Abhidharmakośa, along with its multiple commentaries, was translated [into Tibetan] during the Early Diffusion period. For its study, it is said that the teaching tradition [of the Kośa] came from Paṇḍita Smṛti and was widely spread in the Ü and Tsang regions [of Tibet]. However, I could not find any document detailing its lineage transmission.[27]
Gölo’s account of the Kośa’s history is better than a complete silence but also raises a question about the authenticity and continuity of the Kośa tradition in Tibet. However, multiple gsan yig documents of the Kośa persistently assert its transmission existence in Tibet. For this reason, I turn to gsan yig literature to fill the historical gap of the Kośa.
As discussed in detail in the preceding section, gsan yig, thob yig, and brgyud rim documents serve to record teaching transmissions in Tibetan Buddhism. Three Kośa transmission documents are chosen here to study the lineage transmission of the Kośa in Tibet up to the sixteenth century. These three gsan yig are (1) the Fifth Dalai Lama’s thob yig of the Kośa, (2) Jamgon Amé Zhap’s gsan yig of the Kośa, and (3) the Eighth Karmapa’s brgyud rim of the Kośa. A comparative name list of the Kośa lineage holders within the works of these three masters is provided in the table in the appendix. As one can observe in the table, there are overlapping transmission holder names as well as names unique to each source. Among the three, the most extensive name list was provided by the Fifth Dalai Lama, which will be analyzed first, followed by Amé Zhap and then the Karmapa.
In his thob yig document, the Fifth Dalai Lama records that he received three distinct lineage transmissions of Kośa.[28] All three lineages share the same Indian lineage holders from the Buddha up to Sthiramati, then diverge into three different lines. Among the three, the first lineage transmission was from Indian Pandita Jinamitra to Tibetan Lotsāwa Kawa Paltsek, who we can consider the Tibetan founder of the Kośa lineage in Tibet. In total, there are ten Indian members in the first lineage: (1) the Buddha, (2) Mahākāśyapa, (3) Ānanda, (4) Ghoṣakaḥ (dbyang sgrogs), (5) Saṁghabhadraḥ, (6) Vasubandhu, (7) Sthiramati, (8) Pūrṇavardhana, (9) Dānaśīla, and (10) Jinamitra.[29]
As we have seen earlier in the colophon, Kawa Paltsek translated the Kośa and its auto-commentary under the supervision of Jinamitra. Jinamitra was also the main supervisor for translating Upper Abhidharma texts such as the Abhidharmasamuccaya, but its chief translator was Yeshé De. Hence, Jinamitra was rightly accredited for founding both the Upper and the Lower Abhidharma traditions in Tibet.[30] It is therefore presumable that Jinamitra gave the lineage transmission of the Kośa to Kawa Paltsek alongside translating the text and its auto-commentary together, making Paltsek the first Tibetan lineage holder of it.
From Kawa Paltsek, there are twenty-eight Tibetan lineage holders up to Gyaltsap Je Darma Rinchen on the list as follows: (1) Kawa Paltsek, (2) Cokro Lui Gyaltsen, (3) Zhang Nanam Yeshé De, (4) Nanam Dawai Dorjé, (5) Lhalung Palgyi Dorjé, (6) Bé Gyalwa Yeshé (7) Cokdru Gyalwai Yeshé, (8) Chokdru Chokgyi Yeshé, (9) Sétsun Wangchuk Shonu (10) Garmi Yonten Yungdrung, (11) Khuton Tshondru Yungdrung, (12) Ra Trisang bar, (13) Gya Tsuli, (14) Liton Chödrak, (15) Drangti Darma Nyingpo, (16) Kowo Yeshé Jungné, (17) Ben Kongchok Dorjé (18) Tho Kunga Dorjé, (19) Jépa Lopon Tonkyab (20) Jepa Shonu Jangchub, (21) Zhang Dring Tshampa, (22) Bodong Rinchen Tsemo, (23) Takde Senge Gyaltsen, (24) Pang Lotsāwa Lodro Tenpa, (25) Lochen Jangchub Tsemo, (26) Rendawa Shonu Lodrö, (27) Gyalwas Nyipa Losang Drakpa, and (28) Gyaltsap Thamché Khyenpa Darma Rinchen. There are nine more names leading up to the Fifth Dalai Lama.
A noteworthy point is the Dalai Lama’s clarification of the confusing lineage transmission of Dānaśīla and Jinamitra on the Indian side and Ka-Chok-Shang (ska lcog zhang)[31] on the Tibetan side. In support of Gongkarwa, the Dalai Lama states that any one of the two—Dānaśīla or Jinamitra—and one of the three—Ka-Chok-Shang—would be sufficient to carry on the lineage transmission of the Kośa, as contended (by gong dkar ba).[32] Thus, Dānaśīla, Chokro Lui Gyaltsen, and Zhang Yeshé De can be removed from the transmission list of the Kośa. It is logical to keep Kawa Paltsek alone because he translated Kośa with Jinamitra. That said, there is a major problem in this part of the Kośa’s lineage of transmission because the lineage holder list from Vasubandhu onwards is identical to the Samuccaya lineage.[33] This is a proposition that both the transmission of the Samuccaya and the Kośa were carried on by the same lineage holders uninterruptedly.
Some additional notes of observation are useful here. First, accepting this as a genuine lineage transmission of the Kośa allows one to establish that the lineage transmission was continued from the Early Diffusion into the Later Diffusion. Second, the Tibetan members of this list match the transmission lineage of the Samuccaya provided by Gyaltsap Je.[34] Unfortunately, the Fifth Dalai Lama did not include his lineage transmission record of the Samuccaya in his Thob yig, so we do not know his take on the lineage transmission of the Samuccaya. Lastly, the Fifth Dalai Lama begins his lineage with the Buddha as the origin of transmission, while the other two sources start with Vasubandhu as the origin of the Kośa transmission, as shown in the Table in the Appendix. The Fifth Dalai Lama, being a great scholar, may have intended to show the origin of abhidharma teachings in general while restoring the Kośa transmission. Otherwise, this listing makes little sense since the Kośa was composed by Vasubandhu, who should logically be the origin of this specific teaching. This may be what Ehrhard meant by “with interesting histories of their own to tell.”[35]
The second transmission lineage of the Kośa of the Fifth Dalai Lama originated from Indian Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna and (G)yé Chenpo Shérap Drak. Most early traditional Tibetan historians credited Smṛti Jñāna as the founder of the Kośa tradition in the Later Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet.[36] Similarly, most Tibetan historical sources, including the Blue Annals, posit that Smṛti Jñāna played a crucial role in reviving the teaching of Kośa in Tibet. It is, therefore, crucial for us to understand his life. That said, information related to the life of Smṛti Jñāna is limited and fragmented in pieces in Tibetan historical texts.
According to Buton, Smṛti Jñāna came to Tibet during the time of Yeshé Wö (947–1019/1024), who was then the ruler of the Gugé (Ngari) region of Tibet.[37] Buton further adds that Smṛti travelled with Indian Paṇḍita Trala Ringwa (phra la ring ba) to Tibet via Nepal, where their Tibetan translator died. They continued their journey by themselves and reached central Tibet where Smṛti’s travel companion Paṇḍita also died and believed he transmigrated his consciousness (pho ba grong ’jug) into Rongsom Chökyi Zangpo (mid 11th century to early 12th century). Meanwhile, Smṛti did shepherd work in Tanak area of Tsang, since he initially failed to communicate with Tibetans. He eventually reached Den Longthang (’dan klong thang) in the Kham region of Tibet, where he translated and taught the Kośa. This tradition was later brought to central Tibet. Thus, Smṛti Jñāna was an equally important figure in the Tibetan history of the Kośa in the Later Diffusion as that of Jinamitra for the Early Diffusion.
Geshe Shérap Gyatso also supports this narrative and adds that Chim Tsondrü Sengé was the first Tibetan scholar to compose a Tibetan commentary of the Kośa.[38] Examining the Smṛti Jñāna’s lineage of transmission of the Kośa, as mentioned earlier, the Indian members up to (7) Sthiramati are the same as the other two transmission lists of the Dalai Lama. The lineage was then diverged as it was transmitted to (8) Vimala Gupta, (9) Kashmiri Paṇḍita Drimé Bepa (dri med sbas pa) to (10) Smṛti Jñāna. Unlike Sthiramati, Vimala Gupta was little known in the Tibetan Buddhist history. That being said, we can still ensure through contemporary research that Vimala Gupta was indeed a Buddhist master who was not only contemporary to Sthiramati but also closely associated to him.[39] Their names alongside the royal patronage were inscribed as founders of some monastery complexes. With this, counting from the Buddha to Smṛti Jñāna, this Kośa lineage contains ten Indian members.
The first Tibetan name to bear the lineage was Gyé Chenpo Shérap Drak, who received the Kośa teaching from Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna. The Fifth Dalai Lama provides fourteen Tibetan lineage holders’ names beginning with Gyé and ending with Marton Gyatso Rinchen. Among them, there are seven Chim (mchims) sur names on the list, as they were famous for being Kośa experts and curating its scholastic tradition. That said, surprisingly, Chim Jampai Yang’s name was not listed here, despite having written a, if not the most, prominent Kośa commentary, the Mzod ’grel mngon pa’i rgyan.[40] The fourteen Tibetan lineage holders are (1) Gyé Chenpo Shérap Drak, (2) Razhak Dawa, (3) Chim Zhangtsun, (4) Chim Lhaje Gocha, (5) Chim Tsondrü Sénge, (6) Chim Dondrub Gyaltshen, (7) Chim Tsondrü Gyaltshen, (8) Chim Lodrö Tenpa, (9) Chim Namkha Drak, (10) Khépa Yonten Wözer, (11) Shényén Chögonpa, (12) Kyorlungpa Lodrö Zangpo, (13) Marton Paldhen Rinchen, and (14) Marton Gyatso Rinchen.
Another significant old and historical document about the family lineage of the Chim clan, recently discovered, tells us a slightly different transmission list of the Kośa.[41] According to this source, among these Chim members, Chim Zhangtsun was the first person to receive the Kośa’s teaching transmission of Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna from Khampa Shérap Drak. His nephew Chim Tsondrü Sénge, biological son of Chim Lhajé Gocha, gained the highest Buddhist philosophical scholarship including the Kośa, and hence was regarded as Chim Thamché Khyenpa (“Chim, the Omniscient One”).[42] Yet, another twist is that Dungkar Lobsang Trinley states (9) Chim Namkha Drak and Chim Jampai Yang, author of the famous Chim dzö (mchims mdzod) commentary, are the same person.[43] This proposition was denied by Thupten Jinpa, stating that Chim Jampai Yang was a student of both Chim Namkha Drak and Chomdhen Rikral.[44] Tsering Namgyal also agrees with Jinpa and contends that Chim Namkha Drak (b. 1210–d. 1285/1289) was the Seventh Throne Holder of Narthang monastery, and teacher to Chomdhen Rikral (1227–1305). Given the fact that it is commonly accepted narrative in the Tibetan religious history that the Chim Jampai Yang was a student of Chodhen Rikral, it is very unlikely that Chim Namkha Drak and Chim Jampai Yang were the same person. That said, this requires further study because the relationship between Chomdhen Rikral and Chim Jampai Yang is nebulous in Tibetan history.
A major issue, however, in this transmission list in general is the chronological gap between the members because there is a gap of around two and half centuries (700 to 950 CE) between Vimala Gupta and Smṛti Jñāna. While Vimala Gupta lived around the eighth century, Smṛti came to Tibet around the eleventh century. Otherwise, this transmission account is a great help of filling the historical lacuna of the Kośa in Tibetan Buddhism. This lineage is also unique to the Fifth Dalai Lama because it was not found in other lineage transmission records that I studied so far.
The third Kośa lineage transmission of the Fifth Dalai Lama originated from Kashmiri Paṇḍita Śākyaśrī Bhadra (Khache Panchen). This lineage transmission has been primarily adopted and preserved by the Sakya masters. Besides the Dalai Lama’s, Gsan yig of this lineage was found in the second volume of the collected works of Jamgon Amé Zhap,[46] who was the 27th Sakya Trizin. According to this source, the lineage transmission of the Kośa started with (1) Vasubandhu and was transmitted to his student (2) Sthiramati, to (3) Pūrṇavardhana, and then to (4) Khache Panchen, who brought it to Tibet and gave the teaching to Sakya Paṇḍita (1182–1251). There are nine Tibetan masters in this lineage up to Rongton Shéja Kunrik (1367–1449).
The nine Tibetan members in this lineage are: (1) Sapaṇ, (2) Phakpa Rinpoche, (3) Zhang Dodhe Pal, (4) Nyammé Drakgyal, (5) Donri Drakgyal, (6) Lama Dampa (Sonam Gyaltsen), (7) Nyawon Kunga Pal, (8) Kunkhyen Yakpa, and (9) Rongton. This is a good example of how a lineage transmission can be passed through many members within a short period of time. Between Sapaṇ and Rongton, there is just over a one-hundred-year gap, but the transmission of the Kośa has been passed through seven individuals. On the contrary, it is more difficult to explain the large time gap between the Indian members of the lineage transmission here that was similar to the previous lineage transmission of the Fifth Dalai Lama.
There are only four Indian masters who carried the transmission over seven hundred years. Specifically, there is a gap of around five hundred years between Pūrṇavardhana and Khache Paṇchen, which is difficult to comprehend. It is possible that the names of some Indian masters are missing either from the beginning or because there was no proper record of the lineage transmission until it came to Tibet. The author, Jamgon Amé, sensed this confusion and addressed it in his writing, stating, “through/via Pūrṇavardhana, it went to Khache Panchen (gang spel nas brgyud de kha che pan chen).”[47] The Tibetan phrase brgyud de (“via”) suggests an indirect transmission, but it fails to name the other masters through whom the lineage was transmitted. The Fifth Dalai Lama, in his writings, uses a similar phrase to express this uncertainty. He uses the term rim par, meaning “gradually” (gang ba spel nas rim par/ kha che pan chen).[48]
It is important to identify the missing intermediate masters in this transmission so the lineage can be more scientifically comprehensible, but it is beyond the reach of this essay. Let us now examine the final lineage transmission documents of the Kośa to see how the Eighth Karmapa documents his lineage of transmission of the Kośa.
In addition to the three transmission lineages recorded by the Fifth Dalai Lama and Amnye Zhab, there is another lineage transmission of the Kośa found in the commentary of the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje.[49] Indian Paṇḍita Puṇyaśīla and Tibetan Ngok Lotsāwa were credited for bringing this lineage to Tibet. The Karmapa traces the lineage transmission beginning with (1) Vasubandhu, (2) Sthiramati, (3) Pūrṇavardhana, (4) Śantipa, and (5) Puṇyaśīla on the Indian side. Puṇyaśīla transmitted it to Ngok Lotsāwa, and therefore they were considered the founders of this teaching lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. That said, the Karmapa mentions only the name Ngoklo (rngog blo), which causes confusion, as there are two prominent figures named Ngoklo in Tibet: Ngok Lekpai Shérap (rngog legs pa’i shes rab) and Ngok Loden Shérap (rngog blo ldan shes rab, 1059–1109). These two Ngoklos were not only teacher and student but also related by blood, as Ngok Lekpai Shérap was the paternal uncle of Loden Shérap.[50] This Kośa lineage transmission is distinct from the three other transmissions because none of them mentioned Puṇyaśīla and Ngoklo as a lineage holder of the Kośa teachings.
This transmission becomes more interesting when examining the Tibetan name list. The list shows that Ngoklo transmitted the lineage to Chim Lhaje Gocha, who then transmitted it to Chim Lozang Drak. There are total of seven Chim members in the lineage, as follows: (1) Chim Lhaje Gocha, (2) Chim Tsondru Sengé, (3) Chim Dongyalwa, (4) Chim Tsondru Gyaltsen, (5) Chim Loten, (6) Chim Namkha Drak, and (7) Chim Lozang Drak. The list continues with eight other members, starting from Rongpa Chogyam and ending with the Eighth Karmapa. In total, there are sixteen Tibetan lineage holders in this lineage transmission. In contrast, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s lists include Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna as one of the transmission holders of the Kośa that was also continued by these Chim members. As discussed earlier, this is also the view most Tibetan historians hold regarding the Kośa lineage transmission, but it is difficult to find any other sources that support the lineage transmission of the Eighth Karmapa.
The Karmapa begins his account of the lineage transmission by acknowledging that he also bears the Kośa transmission from Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna. However, due to a lack of written sources, he chose to record the Ngoklo lineage instead. This apologetic statement is almost ubiquitous in Tibetan Buddhist historical texts and gsan yig literature of the Kośa. It reflects the fact that Tibetans have generally failed to record the Kośa transmission from Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna, except for the Fifth Dalai Lama, who documented it. However, there is a challenge for the Fifth Dalai Lama to prove the authenticity of the multiple lineage transmissions of the Kośa he recorded in his Thob yig, as nearly all early Tibetan Buddhist historians stated that they failed to secure the detailed account of the lineage transmission of the Kośa due to lack of sources related to it.
The study of the Kośa lineage transmission documents here concludes that four distinct lineage transmissions of the Kośa existed in Tibet. The first lineage was transmitted from the Indian master Jinamitra to Tibetan translator Kawa Paltsek. The second lineage was passed from Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna to Gyé Chenpo Sherap Drak. The third lineage originated from Paṇchen Śākyaśrī Bhadra and was transmitted to Sakya Paṇḍita. The final lineage was Puṇyaśīla to Ngok Lotsāwa. The first, second, and third lineage transmissions were recorded by the Fifth Dalai Lama, with the third lineage was also recorded by Jamgon Amé Zhap. The fourth lineage was recorded by the Eighth Karmapa in his Rgyud rim document. Among the four lineages, it is challenging to determine which have survived to the present day and which have not. This question may be answered by ethnographers in the future through field research in major Tibetan monastic colleges.
Comparative analysis of these gsan yig allows me to presume that the Kośa lineage of Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna and Śākyaśrī Bhadra have prevailed to this day in Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan historians particularly recognized Smṛti Jñāna as a pioneer of the Kośa teaching during the Later Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet. Similarly, Śākyaśrī Bhadra’s lineage may have persisted due to the efforts of Sakya Paṇḍita and his successors. In contrast, the Fifth Dalai Lama noted that Jinamitra’s lineage of the Kośa was the same as that of the Abhidharmasamuccaya. However, there is no clear explanation on how this overlap occurred in his Thob yig. Likewise, the Eighth Karmapa’s lineage source for the Kośa, attributed to the Indian master Puṇyaśīla and Ngok Lotsāwa, remains obscure in Tibetan Buddhist history. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the lineage transmission documents of the Kośa, these gsan yig definitely serve as evidence that the lineage transmission of the Kośa has survived in Tibetan Buddhism. Although not necessary to maintain the idea of uninterrupted transmission of the Kośa from the Early Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet, these documents help bridge the historical gap of the Kośa tradition that was brought to Tibet by Paṇḍita Smṛti Jñāna.
That said, a significant challenge for this paper has been to find other Kośa lineage documents for Jinamitra, Smṛti Jñāna, and Puṇyaśīla, aside from the records provided by the scholars here. This might be a good point of study for future researchers on the history of the Kośa tradition in Tibetan Buddhism.
|
Names |
Wylie Transliteration |
|
Bén Könchok Dörjé |
’ban dkon mchog rdo rje |
|
Bodong Rinchén Tsé |
bo dong rin chen rtse |
|
Butön Rinchén Drup |
bu ston rin chen grub |
|
Chim Dondrup Gyaltsen |
mchims don grub rgyal mtshan |
|
Chim Lhajé Gocha |
mchims lha rje go cha |
|
Chim Lödro Tenpa |
mchims blo gros brtan pa |
|
Chim Lözang Drak |
mchims blo bzang drags |
|
Chim Namkha Drak |
mchims nam mkha’ grags |
|
Chim Tsöndru Sénge |
mchims brtson ’grus seng ge |
|
Chim Tsöngdru Gyaltsen |
mchims brtson ’grus rgyal mtshan |
|
Chim Zhangtsun |
mchims zhang btsun |
|
Chögyal Tenpa Tsering |
chos rgyal bstan pa tshe ring |
|
Chokro Lui Gyaltsen |
cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan |
|
Chopa Dondup |
co pa don grub |
|
Dawa Gyaltsen |
zla ba rgyal mtshan |
|
Dölpopa Shérap Gyaltsen |
dol po pa shes rab rgyal tshan |
|
Drangti Darma Nyingpo |
brang ti dar ma snying po |
|
Dring Tsampa Zhang Chikarba |
’bring mtshams pa zhang spyi dkar ba |
|
Dru Chökgi Dorjé |
dru mchog gi ye shes |
|
Dru Gyalwa Yeshé |
dru gyal ba ye shes |
|
Gampopa, Sonam Rinchen |
sgam po pa, bsod nams rin chen |
|
Garmi Yönten Yüngdrung |
gar mi yon tan gyung drung |
|
Gédhun Drup |
dge ’dun drub |
|
Gö Lotsāwa, Shonu Pal |
’gos lo tsā ba, gzhon nu dpal |
|
Gongsa Ngapa Ngawang Lözang Gyatso |
gong sa lnga pa ngag dbang blo zhang rgya mtsho |
|
Gya: Gyalbu Tsule |
rgya rgyal bu shul li |
|
Gyaltsap Je, Darma Rinchen |
rgyal tshab rje, darma rin chen |
|
Jamgon Amé Zhap, Ngawang Kunga Sönam |
’jam dbyangs a mye zhabs ngag dbang kun dga’ sod nam |
|
Jangchup Kyap |
byang chub skyabs |
|
Jangchup Tsemo |
byang chub rtse mo |
|
Jépa Shönu Jangchup |
’jad pa gzhon nu byang chub |
|
Karmapa Mikyö Dorjé |
karma pa mi bskyod rdo rje |
|
Kawa Paltsek |
ska ba dpal brtsegs |
|
Khépa Dhewu |
mkhas pa lde ’u |
|
Khépa Yonten Özer |
mkhas pa yon tan ’od zer |
|
Khu Lhadingpa Tsondru Yüngdrung |
khu lha sdings pa brtson ’grus gyung drung |
|
Konchok Chöphel |
dkon mchog chos ’phel |
|
Kongtrul Lödro Thayé |
kong sprul blo dros mtha’ yas |
|
Kou Yeshé Jungné |
ko’u ye she ’byung gnas |
|
Kyorlungpa Lödro Zangpo |
skyor lung pa blo gros bzang po |
|
Láng Darma, Darma Wudum Tsen |
glang dar ma dar ma ’u dum btsan |
|
Lhalung Palgyi Dörjé |
lha lung dpal gyi rdo rje |
|
Lotsāwa Rinchen Zangpo |
lo tsā ba rin chen bzang po |
|
Marton Gyatso Rinchen |
dmar ston rgya mtsho rin chen |
|
Marton Paldhen Rinchen |
dmar ston dpal ldan rin chen |
|
Namnang Dawai Dörjé |
nam nang zla ba’i rdo rje |
|
Ngok Lödhen Shërap |
rngog blo ldan shes rab |
|
Nyangral Nyima Özer |
myang ral nyi ma ’od zer |
|
Pa Gyalwa Yeshé |
dpa’ rgyal ba’i yes |
|
Pang Lotsāwa Lodrö Tenpa |
dpang lo tsā ba blo dros brtan pa |
|
Razhak Dawa |
rwa zhags zla ba |
|
Rendawa Shönu Lödrö |
red mda’ ba gzhon nu blo gros |
|
Rikpai Raldri Chomden Rikral |
rig (rigs) pa’i ral gri, bcom ldan rig ral |
|
Rongton Shéja Kunrig |
rong ston shes bya kun rig |
|
Rongsom Chökyi Zangpo |
rong zom chos kyi bzang po |
|
Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen |
sa skya paṇḍita kun dga’ rgyal mtshan |
|
Sazang Mati Paṇchen Lödro Gyaltsen |
sa bzang ma ti paṇ chen blo dros rgyal mtshan |
|
Setsun Shönu Wangchuk |
se btsun gzhon nu dbang phyug |
|
Shang Nanam Yeshé De |
zhang sna nam ye shes sde |
|
Shényen Chögonpa |
bshes gnyen chos mgon pa |
|
Takde Sénge Gyaltsen |
stag sde seng ge rgyal mtsham |
|
Tho Kunga Dörjé |
tho kun dga’ rdo rje |
|
Tride Tsongtsen |
khri sde srong btsan |
|
Trisong Detsen |
khri srong lde’u btsan |
|
Tritsuk Detsen, Tri Ralpachen |
khri gtsug lde btsan, khri ral pa can |
|
Tsonkhapa, Lözang Drakpa |
tshong kha pa blo bzang drags pa |
|
Üpa Lösel |
dbus pa blo gsal |
|
Walmang Könchök Gyaltsen |
dbyal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan |
|
Yakton Sangyé pal |
gyag ston sangs rgyas dpal |
|
(G)yé Chenpo Shérap Drak |
g.yas chen po shes rab grags |
|
Yongzin Yeshé Gyaltsen |
yongs ’zin ye shes rgyal mtshan |
|
Zépa Ringmo |
gzad pa ring mo |
|
Zhuchen Tsultrim Rinchen |
zhu chen tshul khrims rin chen |
|
ཀརྨ་པ་མི་བསྐྱོད་རྡོ་རྗེའི་མཛོད་འགྲེལ་དུ་འཁོད་པའི་བརྒྱུད་པ། |
ངག་དབང་བློ་བཟང་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
ངག་དབང་བློ་བཟང་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
འཇམ་དབྱངས་ཨམ་ཉེ་ཞབས་ངག་དབང་ཀུན་དགའ་བསོད་ནམས། |
|||
|
1. |
སྟོན་པ་ཐུབ་པའི་དབང་པོ། |
|||||
|
2. |
གནས་བརྟན་འོད་སྲུང་ཆེན་པོ། |
|||||
|
3. |
འཕགས་པ་ཀུན་དགའ་བོ། |
|||||
|
4. |
དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ་དབྱངས་སྒྲོག |
|||||
|
5. |
ཁ་ཆེ་འདུས་བཟང་། |
|||||
|
སློབ་དཔོན་དབྱིག་གཉེན། |
6. |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་གཉིས་པ་དབྱིག་གཉེན། |
དབྱིག་གཉེན། |
|||
|
པཎ་ཆེན་བློ་བརྟན |
7. |
བློ་གྲོས་བརྟན་པ། |
ཡང་ན་བློ་གྲོས་བརྟན་པ་ནས། |
བློ་བརྟན། |
||
|
སློབ་དཔོན་གང་སྤེལ། |
8. |
གང་བ་སྤེལ། |
ཁ་ཆེ་དྲི་མེད་སྦས་པ། |
གང་བ་སྤེལ་ནས་བརྒྱུད་དེ། |
||
|
པཎ་ཆེན་ཤཱནྟི་པ། |
9. |
དཱ་ན་ཤཱི་ལ། |
པཎྜི་ཏ་སྨྲྀ་ཏི་ཛྙཱ་ན་ཀཱིརྟི། |
ཁ་ཆེ་པཎ་ཆེན། |
||
|
ཇོ་བོ་པུ་ནྱ་ཤཱི་ལ། |
10. |
ཛི་ན་མི་ཏྲ། |
གཡས་ཆེན་པོ་ཤེས་རབ་གྲགས། |
ས་པཎ། |
||
|
རྔོག་ལོ། |
11. |
སྐ་བ་དཔལ་བརྩེགས་རཀྵི་ཏ། |
རྭ་ཞགས་ཟླ་བ། |
འཕགས་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ། |
||
|
མཆིམས་ལྷ་རྗེ་གོ་ཆ། |
12. |
ཅོག་གྲུ་ཀླུའི་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
མཆིམས་ཞང་བཙུན། |
ཞང་མདོ་སྡེ་དཔལ། |
||
|
མཆིམས་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་སེང་གེ། |
13. |
ཞང་སྣ་ནམ་ཡེ་ཤེས་སྡེ། |
མཆིམས་ལྷ་རྗེ་གོ་ཆ། |
མཉམ་མེད་གྲགས་རྒྱལ། |
||
|
མཆིམས་དོན་རྒྱལ་བ། |
14. |
སྣ་ནམ་ཟླ་བའི་རྡོ་རྗེ། |
མཆིམས་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་སེང་གེ ། |
|||
|
མཆིམས་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
15. |
ལྷ་ལུང་དཔལ་གྱི་རྡོ་རྗེ། |
།མཆིམས་དོན་གྲུབ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
དོན་རི་གྲགས་རྒྱལ། |
||
|
མཆིམས་བློ་བརྟན། |
16. |
དབས་༽ སྦས་རྒྱལ་བ་ཡེ་ཤེས། |
མཆིམས་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
བླ་མ་དམ་པ།༼ བསོད་ནམས་རྒྱལ་མཚན།༽ |
||
|
མཆིམས་ནམ་མཁའ་གྲགས། |
17. |
གསུམ་ག་ལ་ཅོག་གྲུ་རྒྱལ་བའི་ཡེ་ཤེས། |
མཆིམས་བློ་གྲོས་བརྟན་པ། |
ཉ་དབོན་ཀུན་དགའ་དཔལ། |
||
|
མཆིམས་བློ་བཟང་གྲགས། |
18. |
ཅོག་གྲུ་མཆོག་གི་ཡེ་ཤེས། |
མཆིམས་ནམ་མཁའ་གྲགས། |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་གཡག་པ། |
||
|
རོང་པ་ཆོས་རྒྱམ། |
19. |
སེ་བཙུན་དབང་ཕྱུག་གཞོན་ནུ། |
མཁས་པ་ཡོན་ཏན་འོད་ཟེར། |
རོང་སྟོན། |
||
|
ཉག་མ་བ་རིན་ཆེན། |
20. |
འགར་མི་ཡོན་ཏན་གཡུང་དྲུང་། |
བཤེས་གཉེན་ཆོས་མགོན་པ། |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་སངས་རྒྱས་འཕེལ། |
||
|
དམར་སྟོན་དཔལ་ལྡན་རིན་ཆེན། |
21. |
ཁུ་སྟོན་བརྩོན་འགྲུས་གཡུང་དྲུང་། |
སྐྱོར་ལུང་པ་བློ་གྲོས་བཟང་པོ། |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་བསོད་ནམས་སེང་གེ། |
||
|
17. |
རོང་སྟོན་ཤཱཀྱ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
22. |
ར་ཁྲི་བཟང་འབར། |
དམར་སྟོན་དཔལ་ལྡན་རིན་ཅེན། |
མུས་ཆེན། |
|
|
18. |
བཟོད་པ་བློ་རྒྱམ། |
23. |
རྒྱ་ཚུལ་ལི། |
དམར་སྟོན་རྒྱ་མཚོ་རིན་ཅེན་མན་འདྲ། |
ཐུགས་རྗེ་དཔལ་བཟང་། |
|
|
19. |
བྱམས་ཆེན་རབ་འབྱམས་པ། |
24. |
ལི་སྟོན་ཆོས་གྲགས། |
འཇམ་དབྱངས་གཞོན་ནུ། |
||
|
20. |
ཀརྨ་ཕྲིན་ལས་པ། |
25. |
བྲང་ཏི་དར་མ་སྙིང་པོ། |
ཡང་ན་སློབ་དཔོན་གང་བ་སྤེལ་ནས་རིམ་པར། |
འདར་བ་རབ་འབྱམས་པ་གྲགས་པ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
|
|
21. |
ཀརྨ་པ་མི་བསྐྱོད་རྡོ་རྗེ། |
26. |
ཀོ་ཡེ་འབྱུང་། |
ཁ་ཆེ་པཎ་ཆེན། |
མཁས་པའི་དབང་པོ་དཔལ་ལྡན་བཟང་པོ། |
|
|
27. |
འབན་དཀོན་མཆོག་རྡོ་རྗེ། |
ས་པཎྜི་ཏ། |
མཁན་ཆེན་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་དབང་ཕྱུག་དཔལ་བཟང་། |
|||
|
28. |
ཐོ་ཀུན་དགའ་རྡོ་རྗེ། |
འཕགས་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ། |
མཁན་ཆེན་ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པ་ངག་དབང་ཆོས་གྲགས། |
|||
|
29. |
འཇད་པ་སློབ་དཔོན་སྟོན་སྐྱབས། |
ཞང་མདོ་སྡེ་དཔལ། |
དེས་བདག་ས་སྐྱ་པ་ངག་དབང་ཀུན་དགའ་བསོད་ནམས་ལའོ། ། |
|||
|
30. |
འཇད་པ་གཞོན་བྱང་། |
མཉམ་མེད་གྲགས་པ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
||||
|
31. |
ཞང་འབྲིང་མཚམས་པ། |
དོན་རི་གྲགས་རྒྱལ། |
||||
|
32. |
བོ་དོང་རིན་ཆེན་རྩེ་མོ། |
བླ་མ་དམ་པ་(༢༤ན)བསོད་ནམས་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
||||
|
33. |
སེངྒེ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། |
ཉ་དབོན་ཀུན་དགའ་དཔལ། |
||||
|
34. |
དཔང་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་བློ་གྲོས་བརྟན་པ། |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་གཡག་པ། |
||||
|
35. |
ལོ་ཆེན་བྱང་ཆུབ་རྩེ་མོ། |
རོང་སྟོན་ཆེན་པོ། |
||||
|
36. |
རེད་མདའ་བ་གཞོན་ནུ་བློ་གྲོས། |
མཁྱེན་རབ་དབང་ཕྱུག་གྲགས་པ་བཟང་པོ། |
||||
|
37. |
རྒྱལ་བ་གཉིས་པ་བློ་བཟང་གྲགས་པ། |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
||||
|
38. |
རྒྱལ་ཚབ་ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པ་དར་མ་རིན་ཆེན། |
ཤངས་སྟོན་དྲི་མེད་བཤེས་གཉེན། |
||||
|
39. |
ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པ་དགེ་འདུན་གྲུབ་པ། |
འཇམ་དབྱངས་མཆོག་ལྷ་འོད་ཟེར། |
||||
|
40. |
ཀུན་མཁྱེན་བློ་གྲོས་རིན་ཆེན་སེངྒེ་། |
དྲུང་ཆེན་ལེགས་པ་བཟང་པོ། |
||||
|
41. |
གཉལ་སྟོན་དཔལ་འབྱོར་ལྷུན་གྲུབ། |
ཞལ་སྔ་ནས་ཆོས་ཀྱི་གྲགས་པ། |
||||
|
42. |
རྗེ་དོན་ཡོད་དཔལ་ལྡན། |
རྒྱལ་ཁང་རྩེ་པ་དཔལ་འབྱོར་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
||||
|
43. |
པཎ་ཆེན་བསོད་ནམས་གྲགས་པ། |
འཇམ་དབྱངས་སྟག་ལུང་བྲག་པ། |
||||
|
44. |
རྒྱལ་ཁང་རྩེ་པ་དཔལ་འབྱོར་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
སྨྲ་བའི་དབང་ཕྱུག་དཀོན་ཅོག་ཆོས་འཕེལ། |
||||
|
45. |
སྨྲ་བའི་ཉི་མ་སྟག་ལུང་བྲག་པ། |
དེས་བདག་ལའོ། (གོང་ས་ལྔ་བ་ཆེན་པོ།) |
||||
|
46. |
འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མ་དཀོན་མཆོག་ཆོས་འཕེལ། |
|||||
|
47. |
དེས་བདག་ཟ་ཧོར་བནྡེ་ལ་སྩལ་ཏོ། ཏཱ་ལའི་བླ་མ ༠༥་ངག་དབང་བློ་བཟང་རྒྱ་མཚོ། |
|||||
|
All the three gsan yig records are available online on BDRC, the following are the links for them. http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/L8LS13534 |
||||||
1. Wylie, “A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription.” This article follows the Turell Wylie’s English transliteration system of Tibetan spelling.
2. Jinpa, mngon pa gon ma dang ‘brel ba’i sems Khams rig pa’i gzung lugs, 2010, xv.
3. Dalai Lama et al., The Mind, vol. 2. The Tibetan term “gong ma” in this context has been translated into both “upper” and “higher” interchangeably
4. Skilling, 1997, 120.
5. Martin, 2002.
6. Personal names of Tibetans here are written only in phonetic format standardized by The Library of Tibetan Classics, their Wylie transliterations are included in the Appendix 1.
7. Buton, 1988, 472.
8. Unless specifically mentioned, the dates of Tibetan scholars mentioned are taken from The Treasury of Lives https://treasuryoflives.org/bo/people.
9. ‘Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal, 1949, 421.
10. The Fifth Dalai Lama, “zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig gang+ga’i chu rgyun las glegs bam dang po/.”
11. Mikyo Dorje, “Cho Mngon Pa Mdzod Kyi ’grel Pa Rgyas Par Spros Pa Grub Bde’i Dpyid ’Jo Zhes Bya Ba Gles Bam Dang Po,” 9.
12. I have kept here “gsan yig” in lowercase when referring to it as literary genre and capitalized when referring to a text title.
13. Kujip, “Fourteenth century Tibetan cultural history VI : the transmission of Indian Buddhist pramānavāda according to early Tibetan gsan yig-s,” 919.
14. Martin, 2002, 344.
15. Harrison, “A Brief History of the Tibetan bKa’ ’gyur”, 1996, 48.
16. https://www.bdrc.io/blog/2014/09/09/the-lineage-transmission-knowledge-model/?
17. Martin 2002, 344.
18. Kramer, 2008.
19. Ehrhard, 2012.
20. This section (modified) has been published in my dissertation (Chapter One) under the gsan yig study of Abhidharmasamuccaya. Kindly check for its detailed analysis there.
21. Jinpa 2019.
22. Tulku 2000, 11.
23. chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi tshig le’ur byas pa slob dpon Śākya’i dge slong dbyig gnyen gyis mdzad pa rdzogs so//_//rgya gar gyi mkhan po dzi na mi tra dang /zhu chen gyi lots+tsha ba ban+de dpal brtsegs kyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa’o//// Vol. 79, 59.
24. Vasubandhu, “Abhidharmakośabhāṣyā (chos mgon pa’i mzod kyi bshad pa),” 79, 65.
25. Mngon pa Vol. 79, 83.
26. “འདི་འགྲེལ་པ་ཆེན་མོ་ལས་མཆིམས་ཀྱིས་དཀོལ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་ཀྱང་གྲག་གོ། །” Tshul khrims rin chen, sde dge bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag, Vol. śrī (213) Eng. 362. There were some famous Tibetan Abhidharma scholars with this clan or family name, Mchims, so we do not know the individual scholar whom he was referring to here.
27. ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal 1949, 420.
28. The Fifth Dalai Lama 1991, 46.
29. Check Appendix 2 at the end for three complete name lists of the Kośa lineage holders in Tibetan.
30. Skilling 1997, 160.
31. Abbreviated names of the three prominent early Tibetan Lotsāwa/translators are Ska ba dpal brtsegs, Cog ro klhu’i rgyal mtshan, and Zhang ye shes sde (Ka-Chok-Zhang).
32. dā zi gnyis dang ska cog zhang gsum gang rung res chog par mngon gsung par ’thad do. The Fifth Dalai Lama 1991, 47.
33. Ehrhard 2012, 82.
34. Rgyal tshab dar ma rin chen 1997, 877.
35. Ehrhard 2012, 82.
36. Bu ston 1988, 202.
37. Bu ston 1988, 202.
38. Lokesh tsandra 1963, 534.
39. Schmiedchen 2023, 59.
40. Mchims ’jam pa’i dbyangs 2009, vol. 23.
41. Btsun pa ze’u. 2019, 541.
42. Btsun pa ze’u. 2019, 541.
43. dung dkar bod rig pa‘i tshig mdzod chen mo. https://mandala.library.virginia.edu/terms/230257/overview/nojs.
44. “རིག་རལ་དང་ནམ་མཁའ་གྲགས་གཉིས་ཀའི་སློབ་མ་མཆིམས་འཇམ་པའི་དབྱངས་ཀྱིས་་་་།” Jinpa 2009, xxvii.
45. Multiple similar names (synonyms) exist for this scholar; two most commonly seen are ’jam gon a mes zhabs and ’jam dbyangs amyes zhabs.
46. ’jam mgon a mes zhabs 2000, 487.
47. ’Jam mgon a mes zhab 2000, 487.
48. Vol. 1, p. 31-32, https://library.bdrc.io/show/bdr:MW1PD107937
49. Mi bskyod rdo rje 2013, 9.
50. Jinpa 2019, 37.