Issuu

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E ht R P yrig p o C

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Taklung Painting A S T U DY I N C H RO N O L O GY VOLUME I

JA N E C A SE Y with contributions by Gyurme Dorje and Liao Yang

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C Serindia Publications, Chicago

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

For Bruce

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Bruce Lee Miller and friends, examining photographs of themselves from the day’s shoot. Nagaland, March 2019.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in any part, in any form without permission from the publishers. Photographs of all paintings were provided by the institutions or individual owners of the works and are published with their permission. Their courtesy is gratefully acknowledged. Frontispieces: Volume I: Portrait of Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, c. 1236–1272 (Catalogue 24, detail) Volume II: Portrait of Sangye On, interim Fourth Abbot of Taklung and Founder and First Abbot of Riwoche, 1272–1296 (Catalogue 32, detail) Page 614: Taklung Monastery. Photography by Hugh Richardson, unknown date (c. 1936–1950). Endpapers: Photography by John Bigelow Taylor, New York. Published in 2023 by Serindia Publications Inc. Chicago, USA info@serindia.com www.serindia.com

ISBN 978-1-956165-02-9

Contents VOLUME I Dedication Preface Acknowledgements Quick Guide to Taklung and Riwoche Abbots Introduction Taklung Painting: Evidence for Chronology

5 9 16 18 22

CATA LOGUE OF PA IN TINGS Paintings commissioned outside of, or prior to the founding of Taklung Monastery in 1180 Paintings commissioned during the tenure of First Taklung Abbot Taklung Thangpa Chenpo (1180–1210), at Taklung Monastery Paintings commissioned during the tenure of Second Taklung Abbot Kuyalwa (1210–1236), at Taklung Monastery Paintings commissioned during the tenure of Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon (1236–1272), at Taklung Monastery Paintings commissioned during the tenure of interim Fourth Taklung Abbot Sangye On, at Taklung Monastery (1272–1273) or at Riwoche Monastery (1277–1296) Paintings commissioned during the tenures of the Third or interim Fourth Taklung Abbots (1236–1296), at Taklung or Riwoche monasteries Paintings that bear an inscription citing consecration by Sangye On (d. 1296), and other paintings that can be assigned a c. 13th-century date on the basis of style Paintings commissioned during the tenure of Second Riwoche Abbot Choku Urgyan Gonpo, at Riwoche Monastery (c. 1297–1366), and related c. 14th-century works Paintings likely produced during the tenure of Twelfth Taklung Abbot Ngawang Drakpa Pelzangpo (1461–1472), and that of Thirteenth Taklung Abbot Namgyal Drakpa Pelzangpo (1485–1501 and 1508–1530), probably at Riwoche Monastery Three closely related paintings dating to c. 1550, probably commissioned at Riwoche Monastery

126 166 226 245 308 370

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

434 496 576

588

VOLUME II

Transliteration of Painting Inscriptions by Liao Yang The Tsakli

ุ620 928

Appendix 1. Recurring Inscriptions on Taklung Paintings Appendix 2. Paintings with Personalized Inscriptions citing Sangye On Appendix 3. Visual Lineages Grouped by Type Appendix 4. Recurring Mantras, Dhāraṇī, and Prayers in the Taklung Inscriptions Appendix 5. Biographies of the Taklung and Riwoche Abbots

1042 1056 1064 1072 1086

Bibliography Index

1106 1116

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 1 Taklung Monastery, 1921, Sir Charles Bell, Copyright Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, 1998.286.165.

Preface the main purpose of this book is to establish a reliable foundation for assigning dates to Taklung

paintings. The term Taklung painting (or paintings) refers to a group of nearly one hundred paintings and approximately seventy small initiation paintings (tsakli) connected with Taklung Monastery.1 It includes paintings from Riwoche, a closely related monastic center in Eastern Tibet. These paintings are associated with the Taklung branch of the Tibetan Kagyu Buddhist tradition because of the inscriptions they bear, although iconographic and stylistic features also help to define the group. Taklung Monastery was founded in 1180 by Taklung Thangpa Chenpo (1142–1210), also known as Tashipel.2 Located 75 miles (120 km) north of Lhasa, it grew into the extensive monastic center seen in an early 20th-century photograph taken by the British Political Officer for Tibet, Sir Charles Alfred Bell (1870–1945). (Fig. 1) Riwoche Monastery was founded nearly a century later in 1277 in the Kham region of Eastern Tibet by Sangye On (1251–1296). Sangye On had acted as abbot of Taklung for one year in 1272–1273 while his elder cousin Maṅgalaguru (also Tashi Lama, Fourth Taklung Abbot) was in retreat.3 Riwoche belongs to the same religious tradition as the Taklung center in Ü-Tsang (Central Tibet). It is often referred to as “lower Taklung” (stag lung ma thang) while the mother monastery in Central Tibet is known as “upper Taklung” (stag lung ya thang). In this publication, the term Taklung painting refers to paintings made for both centers, although specific attributions to one center or the other will be made when the evidence allows. While some may disagree with the use of this term for paintings from both Taklung and Riwoche, it serves as a simple designation for the group, and reflects the two centers’ own recognition of their common historical roots.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

The impetus for this book arose in 2010 and again in 2011, with the publication of two essays on Taklung painting. The essays caught my attention particularly because the dates assigned by the authors were decades different—in some cases, as much as a century or more—from those assigned by one author and by myself, in an earlier publication. 4 One example is a portrait of Tashipel (Fig. 2) in this publication, where it is dated to the tenure of First Taklung Abbot Tashipel (1180–1210).

1 Ninety-five Taklung paintings are included in this study. Seven additional Taklung paintings were studied in the course of my research. The latter are not included because the works were too distressed, or the available photography was not sufficient for publication, and the works did not add critical data to this study. Two illuminated manuscripts with Taklung figures were also studied in the course of my research but are likewise excluded from this publication because they were insufficiently documented. In addition, several works that may have associations to Taklung and Riwoche are not included here because I was not able to establish secure ties with the tradition, but they may be of interest in future research.

2 The Taklung History states that the monastery was founded in 1180, “the last summer month (dbyar smad) of 1180 (male iron bird, kun ldan).” Stag lung Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, Stag lung chos 'byung (Taklung Dharma History), formally Brgyud pa Yid bzhin Nor bu'i Rtogs pa Brjod pa Ngo mtshar Rgya mtsho (Wondrous Ocean of Eloquence: Histories of the Taklung Kagyu Tradition), trans. Gyurme Dorje, (Lhasa: Bod-ljongs Bod-yig Dpe-rnying Dpe-skrun-khang [Tibetan Ancient Books Publishing House], December 1992), 218. 3 Or otherwise detained, see discussion below on Maṅgalaguru being held at the Yuan court, p. 29. 4 Steven Miles Kossak, “The ‘Taklung’ Thankas: Their History and Provenance Reconsidered,” in Painted Images of Enlightenment. (Mumbai: Marg Publications, 2010), 168–189; David P. Jackson, “Early Taklung Kagyu Paintings and Their Lineage Conventions,” in Mirror of the Buddha: Early Portraits from Tibet. (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2011), 104–131; Jane Casey Singer, “Taklung Painting,” in Casey Singer and Denwood, eds. Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1997), 52–67.

Figure 2 (Cat. 11) Portrait of Tashipel, c. 1180–1210.

Steven Kossak and David Jackson date it to the early 14th century.5 Christian Luczanits more recently dated the painting to the first decades of the 13th century.6 Another example is a portrait of Tashipel (Fig. 3), which is dated to the tenure of the Third Taklung Abbot (1236–1272) in this publication, by Kossak to c. 1250, and by Jackson to the last quarter of the 13th century.7 Another Tashipel portrait, herewith assigned to the tenure of the Third Taklung Abbot (1236–1272), is dated by Kossak to the last quarter of the 13th century, and by Jackson to the first half of the 13th century.8 (Fig. 4) Many similar examples of chronological disparities can be cited.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Colleagues were puzzled by the discrepancies between the various chronologies. In 2012, a private collector contacted me to discuss the contradictory dates assigned to the Taklung paintings in his collection. While formulating a response to his query, I read and re-read Mr. Kossak and Dr. Jackson’s essays, as well as my own. It became apparent that even more problematic than the significant differences in the dates assigned to Taklung paintings was the absence of a consensus as to how to establish a chronology. In assigning dates, the authors relied on different bodies of evidence. The same facts or pieces of evidence were often interpreted very differently. And no one used all of the available evidence for dating the paintings in a thorough and systematic manner. David Jackson,

5 Kossak, Painted Images, 82–83; Jackson, Mirror, no. 5.20, 146. 6 Christian Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha: An Early Tibetan Portrait,” in Elegant Gathering in a Scholar's Garden: Studies in East Asian Art in Honor of Jeong-hee Lee-Kalisch, ed. Bergmann, Annegret et al. (Kromsdorf: VDG Weimar Verlag, 2015), 56–62. 7 Kossak, Painted Images, 71; Jackson, Mirror, 114. 8 Kossak, Painted Images, 80–81; Jackson, Mirror, 118.

Figure 3 (Cat. 18) Portrait of Tashipel, c. 1236–1272.

Figure 4 (Cat. 19) Portrait of Tashipel, c. 1236–1272.

whose essay contains many valuable facts and observations, acknowledged that for many Taklung paintings, he was unable to “consult the works themselves or read all their inscriptions systematically” and that he “instead…concentrate[d] mainly on the readily observable structural and iconographic features.” 9

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

The most powerful tools for assigning dates in the Taklung corpus are: visual lineages (the succession of teachers represented in the top, side, and, occasionally, bottom registers of the painting); inscriptions (both obverse and verso); narrative scenes in which principal structures in the Taklung Monastery compound may be linked to specific events and dates (relevant only in most portraits of the Taklung founder Tashipel); and style. My method has been to assess each of these bodies of evidence, to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each as a chronological tool, and to apply them, when relevant, to each painting. Analysis of the first three of these chronological tools appears in the Introduction to the book, with the exception of style, which is addressed in the Catalogue discussion of each painting. The Taklung painting corpus lends itself to the task of building a chronology. Almost three-quarters of the paintings bear inscriptions with chronological implications. Many paintings are inscribed with more than one inscription of historical interest. Some inscriptions provide firm terminus dates, as with the thirty-nine paintings that bear inscriptions stating they were consecrated by Onpo Lama Rinpoche (Sangye On, interim abbot at Taklung 1272–1273), who died in 1296. Four

9 Jackson, Mirror, 108.

paintings have inscriptions recording consecrations by a series of Taklung teachers, ending with Sangye On. Twenty-five paintings have inscriptions invoking the names of a lineage of teachers (including Taklung and/or Riwoche abbots), the last of whom was the teacher of those who commissioned the painting. Twenty-three paintings bear inscriptions identifying the central figure of the painting. At least six paintings are inscribed with personalized inscriptions by Sangye On, indicating that they were part of his ritual aspiration to remain connected with his teacher, Sangye Yarjon; and six paintings record his profound connection with the thugs dam (“high aspiration” or “meditative commitment”) contained in the painting. This large corpus of inscriptions has proven to be crucial for establishing chronology within the Taklung paintings, and the significance of these inscriptions is made clearer by the context established by the group as a whole. Style analysis is also greatly enhanced by the opportunity to observe changes in specific stylistic elements in so many works commissioned for the same monastic institutions over several centuries. Occasionally, style analysis alone is sufficient to assign a painting to a particular abbot’s tenure, as with the portrait of Phagmodrupa (Cat. 16), which is so close in style to the portrait of Kuyalwa (Cat. 15), firmly assigned to the tenure of Second Abbot Kuyalwa (1210–1236), that it too can be assigned to the same period. In the Introduction, the evidence which underpins the chronology proffered in this book is presented, analyzed, tested, and its various interpretations examined. The core of the book is the Catalogue of the paintings, in which the various bodies of evidence used for assigning chronology—visual lineages, inscriptions, narrative scenes, style—are examined as they pertain to each painting. The many inscriptions in the Taklung corpus offer valuable evidence with which to investigate other areas of Tibetan studies, including the development of classical Tibetan language and epigraphy. Photographs of all the inscriptions are provided, along with transliterations and notes by Dr. Liao Yang of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Because the Taklung paintings were created between the late-12th and the middle of the 16th centuries, and because they were apparently created by itinerant artists who are likely to have worked for other monastic centers, a reliable chronology for Taklung painting may help to establish chronology for other Tibetan paintings as well.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

One may reasonably ask whether an accurate chronology for these paintings is important. What difference does it make if a painting is assigned to the early, middle, or late 13th century? Is it significant that a painting is said to be 13th century rather than 12th or 14th century? Quite simply, chronology is fundamental to all art historical investigations. Only when one accurately anchors an object in time can one begin to create an accurate historical context for it.10 A work of art is a tangible fact from the past, providing unique evidence of the material culture, the technical skill, the aesthetic sensitivity, and the values of the society that produced it. In the Taklung context, it is useful to know which, if any, teacher portraits were made during the lifetime of their subjects, and how these compare with portraits made in previous and subsequent periods. This can only be known once a reliable chronology is established. Similarly, a comparison of Taklung paintings with contemporary works from other traditions (e.g., Kadam, Sakya, Nyingma) requires reliable knowledge of when they were commissioned.

10 See for example recent efforts to establish chronology in Gandharan art in Wannaporn Rienjang and Peter Stewart, eds., Problems of Chronology in Gandharan Art (Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd, 2018).

An accurate chronology is fundamental not only to understanding an individual work of art. It can also be the foundation from which to investigate other important questions. Dr. Rob Linrothe noted in his 1999 study of Indian medieval Buddhist iconography, “[s]culpted and painted images are more accurate gauges than texts to identify the period when a substantial community of practitioners engaged in the ritual activity described in a text.”11 Dr. Christian Luczanits interprets a Taklung painting of Tashipel within the Mahābodhi Temple (Fig. 2) as evidence of a shift in Tibetan perceptions of their teachers towards the end of the 12th century. “Visual evidence indicates that there was a crucial shift in the emphasis and understanding of the Tibetan Buddhist teacher towards the end of the twelfth century, which becomes fully graspable in the thirteenth century. One feature of this shift is characterized by the public promotion of the Tibetan Buddhist teacher as an awakened being, a Buddha…”12 While notions of the teacher as an enlightened being are present in earlier Buddhist texts, the iconographic manifestation of this notion in Figure 2 and in other works of art makes clear that Tashipel’s community perceived him as an enlightened being, spiritual equal to the historical Buddha, during or near to his lifetime. The aspiration to establish an accurate chronology for Taklung painting invites the question: to what extent can this aspiration be achieved? How accurate can one be in assigning dates to these paintings? In brief, one can be as accurate as the evidence allows. Occasionally, one can confidently argue for a precise date, as with the portrait of Phagmodrupa and Drawings of his Feet (Fig. 5), which is here ascribed a date of c. 1168–1170.13

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 5 (Cat. 4) Phagmodrupa and Drawings of his Feet, c. 1168–1170.

In most cases, paintings can be assigned to the tenure of an abbot (or two abbots) with reasonable certainty. Some paintings can be assigned a firm terminus (e.g., 1296, the year Sangye On, who consecrated many of the Taklung paintings, died), or a firm starting point (e.g., the year an abbot who is the subject of a portrait assumed the abbot’s chair). Often, chronology is a matter of probabilities, not absolute certainties, as with the portrait of Sangye On, interim abbot at Taklung between 1272–1273 (Fig. 6). Inscriptional and iconographic evidence indicates the painting may have been made during his brief tenure as abbot at Taklung in 1272–1273, but it was certainly commissioned between 1272 and his death in 1296. The broader the range of dates one assigns to a painting, the more accurate one is likely to be, but also the less chronologically precise. In this study, I have attempted to strike a balance between precision and accuracy.

11 Rob Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion: Wrathful Deities in Early Indo-Tibetan Esoteric Buddhist Art (London: Serindia Publications, 1999), 327. 12 Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha,” 57. 13 See Catalogue pp. 156–159 for discussion and analysis.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 6 (Cat. 32) Portrait of Sangye On, 1272–1296.

Questions are sometimes raised about the last Tibetan provenance of these paintings.14 The more pertinent question for this study is where they were commissioned. Analysis of evidence intrinsic to the paintings provides the most reliable indication of their origin. Attributions to Taklung or Riwoche will be argued in the Catalogue when the evidence allows. In particular, paintings with inscriptions that invoke the names of teachers ending with the First, Second, or Third Taklung Abbots, commissioned during their tenures, are likely to have been commissioned at Taklung Monastery. Paintings with inscriptions that invoke the names of teachers ending with the Second Riwoche Abbot are likely to have been commissioned at Riwoche, as will be explained below. As a consequence of mid-20th-century geopolitics, the paintings that form the basis of this study can presently be found in approximately fifty private and public collections in Asia, North America, and Europe. Previously, when they were stored at Taklung, Riwoche, and their satellite centers in Tibet, they were an essential part of a living culture that regarded them as sacred icons. For Tibetans, these paintings embody revered ancestors, enlightened teachers, and powerful gods. A consecrated painting is a living presence. Though not the primary focus of this study, the ritual aspects of the paintings will be touched upon in the pages that follow, as these transcendent dimensions are woven into their very fabric. Indeed, the Taklung paintings invite many important questions that are not addressed in this publication. Questions of the relationship between painters and their patrons; the broader historical and cultural context within which these paintings were commissioned; the relationship between religious portraiture and its close variants (e.g., the many similar portraits of Tashipel); the ritual creation of paintings and their use within Buddhist practice—would all benefit from deeper, more nuanced studies. I leave these and many other important questions for others to pose in future studies of the Taklung paintings.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Jane Casey Blenheim, New Zealand May, 2023

14 Kossak, Painted Images, 114; Jackson, Mirror, 130.

Introduction

Taklung Painting: Evidence for Chronology four key bodies of evidence help to establish chronology in Taklung paintings: visual lineages

(the succession of teachers represented in the top, side, and occasionally, the bottom registers of the painting); inscriptions (both obverse and verso); narrative scenes in which principal structures in the Taklung Monastery compound may be linked to specific events and dates (relevant only in most portraits of the Taklung founder Tashipel); and style.24 Style analysis encompasses all observable features in the paintings—composition, line, volume, palette, motifs, textile designs, monastic costumes, throne elements, and the like. An assessment of style requires the practice of connoisseurship—the ability to see and assess the visual qualities of a work of art. In some cases, connoisseurship has enabled works by the same artist or artists to be identified. Connoisseurship has also been useful in assessing the relative date of paintings when the visual lineage, inscriptions, and/or narrative scenes are not present or not chronologically decisive. Visual lineages, inscriptions, and narrative scenes are examined in this essay; style will be addressed in the Catalogue discussion of each painting. This introduction affords the opportunity to assess these bodies of evidence, to examine their strengths and weaknesses, and therefore to determine their usefulness in building a chronology.

VISUAL LINEAGES

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

A lineage (or lineages) of teachers appears in the top, side, and, occasionally, the bottom registers of most Tibetan paintings. Essentially, such a lineage represents the celestial and historical figures who transmitted specific Buddhist teachings from one generation of practitioners to the next. The ancient tradition of paraṃparā, an unbroken lineage of spiritual teachers and disciples, was widespread in India.25 It continued into Tibetan Buddhist communities during the 12th and early 13th centuries.26 Taklung was one of many small Buddhist communities in Tibet at this time, each led by a charismatic leader. The early abbots established monasteries and harnessed resources to create and sustain their monastic communities. They adjudicated local disputes, dispensed food and material resources to the needy, and brokered power among the landed gentry. Above all, they mastered the practices necessary to achieve spiritual realization. Critically, they trained their disciples in the teachings and meditative techniques they inherited from their own teachers. As Phagmodrupa said to Taklung founder Tashipel when they were at Densatil: “These profound instructions of my oral lineage are unknown to other monks apart from me, even at Gampo. Here, too, I cannot teach them to anyone but you. You should be their owner. Do not give them to just anyone, but do

24 Nine Taklung paintings have undergone Carbon-14 analysis, with generally useful results. 25 Robert E. Bushwell and Donald S. Lopez Jr., The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 625. 26 On the history of early Buddhist communities in Tibet, see Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Ronald M. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement (New York: Columbia University Presss, 2002); Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

not let their transmission be interrupted! Do not put into writing [the pith instructions] of the oral lineage. Do not verbalize the symbolic lineage (brda brgyud)! Do not sing of your experiential cultivation in public! Do not indulge in the insane methods of virtuous asceticism (dge sbyor)! By acting in accordance with the words of the buddhas and your spiritual teacher, you will actualize the pristine cognition of the buddha body of reality.”27 And as the Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon said to his nephew and eventual successor, Maṅgalaguru, soon after his arrival at Taklung Monastery in c. 1255, “…you, my nephew, should take barley to the value of five zho from my household, and starting from tomorrow, you should stay in retreat. The study that you have already undertaken in Kham is sufficient. This lineage of ours is a lineage of spiritual attainment. So spiritual attainment is very important. It was dependent on their perfection of spiritual attainment that the teachers who were our predecessors acted for the benefit of themselves and others. You should be diligent in your spiritual attainment!”28 Taklung Monastery and its abbots belong to the Tibetan Kagyu Buddhist tradition. The name Kagyu is sometimes translated as “oral lineage” or “spoken transmission” (bka', “oral teachings,” brgyud “lineage”).29 The Kagyu tradition traces its origins to the Indian yogins Nāropa (Nāropāda, c. 956–c. 1040) and Maitripa (Maitrīpadā c. 1007–1085) through their Tibetan student Marpa Lotsawa (1012–1097). Marpa brought their teachings to Tibet and transmitted them to his chief disciple, Milarepa (1028/40–1111/23), who in turn passed them on to his disciple, Gampopa (1079–1153). These three—Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa—are often considered the founders of the Kagyu tradition in Tibet. Marpa and Milarepa had lived, respectively, as a married landowner, and as a hermit practitioner. Gampopa founded Gampo Monastery, in the Dakpo region, thereby establishing the tradition upon a monastic footing, inspired by Kadam monastic teachings. After Gampopa, Phagmodrupa (1110–1170) continued this lineage. Taklung Monastery was one of several branches of the Kagyu tradition inspired by Phagmodrupa’s teachings at the turn of the 13th century. Others include the Drigung (founded by Jigten Gonpo), the Drukpa (founded by Tsangpa Gyare), the Trophu (founded by Gyeltsa Rinchen Gon and Kunden Repa), the Yazang (founded by Sharawa Kalden Yeshe Sengge), and the Yelpa (founded by Druptop Yeshe Tsekpa). The Taklung Kagyu practice emphasized the study of Mahāmudrā (The Great Seal) taught by Marpa, and the yogic practices known as the Six Dharmas of Nāropa.30 Through Gampopa, the Kadam practice of Lamrim (Stages of the Path) was also incorporated into early Kagyu practice. The great majority (77 of 95) of the surviving paintings from Taklung-Riwoche are portraits of teachers, perhaps a reflection of their pivotal role within their communities.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

David Jackson in particular has written about the value of visual lineages for chronological assessments of Tibetan paintings. In a series of publications, he analyzed the structures of visual lineages in a variety of Tibetan paintings, including a portion of the Taklung-Riwoche corpus.31 Jackson

27 Taklung History, 211–212, Gyurme Dorje trans.

28 Taklung History, 305, Gyurme Dorje trans.; see also The Lhorong History, Tatsak Tsewang Gyal (rta tshag tshe dbang rgyal), Lho-rong Chos'byung (The Lhorong History), (Lhasa: Bod-ljongs Bod-yig Dpe-rnying Dpe-skrun-khang, 1994), 546–547; and George N. Roerich, trans. and ed., The Blue Annals, from Go Lotsawa, deb ther sngon po (Calcutta, 1949–53; rev. Delhi, 1976, R 1979, 1988), 630. 29 Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen, The Great Kagyu Masters: The Golden Lineage Treasury, ed. Victoria Huckenpahler (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1990), viii. 30 Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ed. Religions of Tibet in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 26–27. 31 The most critical publications are Jackson, Mirror, 104–131; and David P. Jackson, The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Art (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2010), 23–49.

Marpa (1012–1096), a lay Buddhist teacher, is always shown in lay robes and with long hair. (Fig. 9) Marpa’s disciple Milarepa (1028/40–1111/23) is typically shown wearing only a lightweight (often white) fabric, reflecting his famous ability to keep warm in winter through his meditation practice of generating heat (tummo, gtum mo). (Fig. 10) Milarepa’s student Gampopa (1079–1153) is often depicted with white hair, as with the early portrait in Figure 11. Jñānatapa, an Indian mahāsiddha who is described in the Taklung History as a teacher to interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On, appears as a seated figure wearing a short skirt and a helmet-like golden cap, holding a horn and a casket surmounted by a lion. (Fig. 12)

Figure 9 (Cat. 83) Portrait of Marpa, detail.

The Indian mahāsiddha Tilopa (fl. late-10th to early-11th century) sometimes holds the fish, symbol of his life as a fisherman, and he and Nāropa (c. 956–c. 1040) are sometimes distinguished by skin tone, with some inscriptions identifying Tilopa as the darker skinned figure and Nāropa as the lighter skinned. (Fig. 13)

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 10 (Cat. 93) Milarepa, detail.

Figure 11 (Cat. 2) Gampopa portrait, detail.

Figure 13 (Cat. 17) Portraits of Tilopa and Nāropa in visual lineage, as identified by inscriptions, detail.

Figure 14 (Cat. 46) Portrait of the Second Taklung Abbot Kuyalwa, detail (l); Portrait of the Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon (Cat. 48), detail (r).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 12 (Cat. 80) Portrait of Jñānatapa, detail.

Subsequent Taklung and Riwoche teachers are less reliably distinguished by physiognomy alone. Which is not to say that jawlines, hairlines, and other facial features do not vary, but such physiognomic conventions are not consistently observed. 42 For example, two portraits of the Second and Third Taklung Abbots [both created during the tenure of the Third Abbot (1236–1272) or the Third Abbot and interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On’s lifetime (1236–1296)], show essentially the same hairline, square jaw, and other features of physiognomy so as to make them virtually indistinguishable, yet they represent different abbots. (Fig. 14)

42 Steven Kossak states (but does not establish): “An examination of thankas that portray the first three abbots of Taklung Monastery and Onpo Rinpoche shows that each has a distinctive physiognomy.” His observation, for example, that the Second Taklung Abbot “has a square jaw, prominent cheekbones, a sloping forehead and ovoid head (back of skull), and hair receding at the temples” and that the Third Abbot “has softer features, with a less emphatic jawline, a forehead with a less marked slope, and a rounder head (dome)” can indeed be observed in a double portrait of the Second and Third Taklung Abbots (Cat. 49). Kossak, Painted Images, fig. 41. These physiognomic characteristics, however, are not consistently observed in the Taklung corpus, as shown for example in the comparative figures (Fig. 14) above. Kossak, Painted Images, 72.

�

��

Y �� ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V �� e E t h R g P yri p o C

Figure 20 (Cat. 17) Portrait of Kuyalwa, Second Taklung Abbot, 1210–1236, 27.5 × 20.7 cm.

Legend for Figure 20, with names of figures and transliterated inscriptions identifying them. 1. Vajradhāra: ci ti cri vajra 'dhṛg a hūṃ 2. Prajñāpāla (Tilopa): (ōṃ a na mo) ghu ru prad jña pha la hūṃ 3. Jñānasiddhi (Nāropa): (ōṃ a na mo) ghu ru jñā na sid 'dhi hūṃ 4. Dharmamati (Marpa): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru 'dhar rma ma ti hūṃ 5. Vajraketu (Milarepa): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru vajra ke tu hūṃ 6. Matikīrti (Gampopa): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru ma ti 'gir ti hūṃ 7. Vajrarāja (Phagmodrupa): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru vajra ra ja hūṃ 8. Maṅgalaśrī (Tashipel): ōṃ a na m(o) ghu ru maṃ gha la śri hūṃ 9. Second Taklung Abbot Ratnanātha (Kuyalwa): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na na tha hūṃ 10. Unidentified: ōṃ a hūṃ 11. Teacher whose name is now illegible: ōṃ a na mo 'ghu ru rad na … hūṃ 12. Unidentified teacher: ōṃ a hūṃ 13. Dharmaśīla (identity unknown): ōṃ a na mo ghu ru dha rma śī la hūṃ 14. ōṃ a ... hūṃ … (patron) 15. Atiśa Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna, the great Bengali mahāpaṇḍita: ōṃ a na mo ghu ru ti paṃ ka ra hūṃ Numbers 1–9 represent the visual lineage most often seen in the Taklung corpus and noted above. The lineage is arranged sequentially, except that Tashipel has been placed above the central figure to emphasize his role as teacher to the central figure; and Phagmodrupa, Tashipel’s teacher, is placed above the central figure’s right shoulder, mirroring the placement of Atiśa, above Kuyalwa’s left shoulder. These two towering figures represent the two currents of teachings that informed the early Taklung order—the Mahāmudrā teachings from Tilopa and Nāropa through Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa, and Phagmodrupa; and the Kadam teachings of Atiśa and his Tibetan disciples.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Verso inscriptions identify the central figure as Second Taklung Abbot Kuyalwa (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na na tha hūṃ), and a variety of inscriptions on the painting help to establish that it was commissioned during the Second Abbot’s tenure (1210–1236).51 Less certain are the identities of the three Tibetan monks at the bottom of the side registers. That on the viewer’s left side (12) is not specifically identified, only vivified with the mantra, ōṃ a hūṃ. The two on the viewer’s right side are (or were) identified. That just below Chakrasaṃvara is not entirely legible (11). The verso inscription reads ōṃ a na mo 'ghu ru rad na … hūṃ. (Fig. 21) The critical passage identifying the figure is illegible. A reasonable guess would be that he is Kuyalwa’s chief disciple and eventual successor, Sangye Yarjon, who is typically invoked in Taklung inscriptions as ōṃ a na mo 'ghu ru rad na prad jña 'ghu ru hūṃ. The gray-haired monk below him (13) is identified as Dharmaśīla (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru dha rma śī la hūṃ), but aside from his name, his identity is unknown. He is not a recognized Taklung lineage

Figure 21 (Cat. 17) Verso inscription behind Tibetan monk (11), possibly Third Abbot Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon), detail. 51 See discussion of Cat. 17 in the Catalogue and Introduction, pp. 60–105, below.

that tersely discloses the profound and vast meanings. On that occasion, Tashipel spoke as follows: If he prays to the spiritual teacher, That is the root of the Three Precious Jewels. If he practices from the heart, in accordance with the sacred doctrine, That is the teaching of the buddhas. If he cultivates the oral instructions of those who maintain the lineage, The meaning of all things will be understood.”103

INSCRIPTIONS the inscriptions on Taklung paintings are abundant and their content is unusually rich in histor-

ical information, making them especially valuable for building a chronology. This section provides an overview of the recurring inscriptions found on Taklung paintings, examining their chronological implications, as well as the challenges involved in their interpretation. The inscriptions fall into two main groups: pre-consecration inscriptions that were inscribed when a painting was completed, but just prior to the actual consecration ceremony, and inscriptions (even those citing consecration by specific teachers) that were later added to existing paintings.104

PRE-CONSECRATION INSCRIPTIONS THAT INVOKE THE NAME OF THE MAIN FIGURE(S) ON THE PAINTING OBVERSE. At least 23 Taklung paintings bear consecration inscriptions that include the name of the central figure or figures represented in the painting.105 A portrait of Taklung founder Tashipel flanked by drawings of his feet (Cat. 8), likely to have been commissioned during his tenure as abbot (1180– 1210), bears a verso inscription that includes an invocation of Tashipel’s name: ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṃ ga la śri huṃ//

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

103 Taklung History, 226, Gyurme Dorje trans.

104 See Appendix 1, Recurring Inscriptions on Taklung Paintings, for an overview of the inscriptions according to type, pp. 1042–1055. As is more fully explained below, pre-consecration inscriptions were written before the actual consecration (pratiṣṭhā, rab gnas) ceremony and may thus be described as “pre-consecration” according to the research of Yael Bentor and Dan Martin. See Yael Bentor, Consecration of Images and Stūpas in Indo-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Dan Martin, “Atiśa’s Ritual Methods for Making Buddhist Art Holy,” 7; and Martin, “Painters, Patrons,” Tiblical, 60. 105 Verso photographs of four of the 95 Taklung paintings included in this study were not available at the time of publication and the content of their inscriptions is thus unknown. The names are invoked once in these inscriptions, except for (Cat. 48) where the name is invoked three times.

Figure 55 (Cat. 8) Portrait of Tashipel, His Footprints, and Manifestations, c. 1180–1210, verso inscription, detail.

Cat. 8 Transliteration:

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

ŌṂ [1] ōṃ sa rva vyid [2] svā hā/ ye dha rmā he tu A [3] pra bha vā he tun te ṣān ta [thā] ga to [4] hya va dat/ HŪṂ [5] te ṣāñ ca yo [6] ni ro dha e vaṃ vā [7] dī ma hā śra ma ṇaḥ// ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṃ ga [8] la śri huṃ// bzod pa dka' thub dam pa bzod pa ni// mya ngan 'das [9] pa mchog ces sangs rgyas gsung// rab tu byung ba gzhan la gnod pa dang// [10] gzhan la 'tshe ba dge sbyong ma yin no// ōṃ su ti ṣṭa badzra svā hā// 106 [11] ōṃ vajra gar bhe svā hā/

106 See Transliteration 8 for identification of the mantras and dhāraṇī in the inscription.

The inscription on a portrait in The Kronos Collections (Fig. 56), created during the tenure/lifetime of the Third or interim Fourth Taklung Abbots (1236–1272 or 1272–1296) invokes three times the name of the Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon as part of a name mantra (mtshan sngags), indicating that he is the subject of the portrait: ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru hūṃ/

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 56 (Cat. 48) Portrait of Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon, 1236–1296, 32.4 × 25.4 cm.

Cat. 48 Transliteration:

ŌṂ [1] ōṃ vajra gar bhe [2] svā hā/ [3] ōṃ sa rva vyid svā hā// ōṃ su pra [4] ti ṣṭha vajra svā hā// ōṃ a na [5] mo ghu ru A rad na prad jña ghu [6] ru hūṃ/ ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru hūṃ// [7] ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad HŪṂ [na] prad jña ghu ru hūṃ// ye dha rmā [8] he du pra bha vā he dun te ṣān ta thā [9] ga to hya va dad te ṣaṇ ca yo ni ro dha [10] e vaṃ vā ti ma hā śra ma ṇaḥ// ōṃ ma ṇi pad me [11] hūṃ// bzod pa dka' thub bzod pa dam pa ni/ mya ngan 'das [12] pa mchog ces sangs rgyas gsung/ rab tu byung ba gzhan la gnod yin no// [13] pa dang/ gzhan la 'tshe ba dge' sbyong ma

The reader will note that in these inscriptions, the teacher’s name is in Sanskrit, rendered phonetically in Tibetan script. Dan Martin notes that these name mantras (mtshan sngags) are usually rendered using the Sanskrit form of the person’s name.107 Maṅgalaśrī is the Sanskrit equivalent of the first abbot’s Tibetan ordination name, Tashipel (bkra shis dpal); and Prajñāguru is the Sanskrit equivalent of Third Abbot Sangye Yarjon’s ordination name, Sherab Lama (shes rab bla ma), a practice that is further examined below. A 13th-century painting depicts the First, Second, and Third Taklung Abbots, each cited once in inscriptions on the verso. (Fig. 57)

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 57 (Cat. 53) Portrait of First, Second, and Third Taklung Abbots, c. 1236–1296, 38.5 × 31.5 cm.

107 Personal correspondence, February 2021.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Catalogue Key to the Visual Lineage categories: (these letters appear at the start of the Visual Lineage description in each painting discussion below). N = No lineage; U = Visual Lineage uncertain in critical passage/s; C = Lineage complete to the central figure; P = Lineage complete to the period of patron; O = Other (e.g., Vajrasattva to mahāsiddhas to central figure of Vajravārāhī);

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

C/P = Complete lineage both to central figure and to patron (meaning patron was a student of the central figure). All paintings are distemper on cloth.

See Appendix 3 for a compilation of all visual lineages in the Taklung paintings, grouped by type.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

catalogue �

Chemchok Heruka Mandala, c. 1150–1210 ��.� × ��.� cm., Michael J. and Beata McCormick Collection

a Nyingma commission

[U] Visual Lineage: Four historical figures appear outside the mandala circle: Padmasambhava [1], a Tibetan monk in a red cap [2], a tantric practitioner wearing a yellow cap and a yellow shortsleeved top and lower robe tied with a red sash [3], and the patron, holding a vajra and bell and wearing lay robes, his long hair drawn into a bun at the top of the head [4]. Key to interpreting the painting’s visual lineage is the history of Chemchok Heruka’s iconography in Tibet. Two texts are concerned with Chemchok Heruka, both tantras and Nyingma terma (gter ma).331 The first, bKa' brg� � yad bde gshegs 'dus pa'i rgyud (The Tantra of the � Gathering of the Sugatas of the Eight Transmitted Precepts), was discovered by the great Nyingma terton (gter ston), Nyima Ozer (Nyang ral Nyi ma'i od zer, 1136–1204). Following clues in an inventory list hidden within a statue given to him by a merchant, Nyima Ozer is said to have found King Trisong Detsen’s (khri srong sde btsan, r. 755–794) own copy of The Tantra of the Gathering of the Sugatas of the Eight Transmitted Precepts.332 The second text was discovered by another famous Nyingma terton, Guru Choki Wangchuk (Guru Chos kyi dbang � phyug, 1212–70). The terma he discovered is known as the bKa' brgyad gsang ba yongs rdzogs Plate 1.1 Visual Lineage Chart. (The Consummation of Secrets of the Eight Transmitted Precepts).333 He resided at Neshi Ritro (gnas zhi ri khrod), just a few kilometers below Tsemo (rtse mo), where Nyima Ozer resided. Both texts were translated from Sanskrit by the 8th-century Indian Buddhist master Padmasambhava [1]. Nyima Ozer’s text states it was translated in conjunction with the Tibetan translator Vairocana, perhaps the Tibetan monk in the red cap [2] directly across from Padmasambhava.334

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

331 Earlier interpretations of the painting can be found in Denise Patry Leidy and Robert A.F. Thurman, Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment (New York: Asia Society Galleries, 1997), 78–79; Jane Casey Singer, “A Tibetan Painting of Che mchog Heruka’s Mandala in the McCormick Collection.” In Erberto LoBue, ed. Tibet Journal 27 no. 3–4 (Fall/Winter 2002): 83–108; Jane Casey Singer, “A Tibetan Painting of Chemchok Heruka’s Mandala in the McCormick Collection, Revisited.” In Dating Tibetan Art: Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Chronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, ed. I. Kreide-Damani. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003: 113–35. 332 Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, trans., The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals and History, 2 vols. (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1991), 756. 333 See rin chen gter mzod, published by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, vols. 22–23. 334 rgya gar mkhan po slob dpon chen po padma 'byung gnas dang bod kyi lo tsa ba bdag bai ro tsa nas bsgyur/ (folio 190a).

139

Nyima Ozer’s text contains the most complete description of the Chemchok Heruka mandala. Both texts describe the iconography of the painting in its essential details, but neither perfectly describes all of the mandala’s deities as they appear in the Chemchok painting. Moreover, texts and image vary in the geographic distribution of a few of the deity clusters.335 The Nyingma tradition holds that although the Chemchok iconography was introduced by Padmasambhava in the 8th century, it was lost during the splintering of the monarchy beginning in the middle of the 9th century, until it was rediscovered by Nyima Ozer during the second half of the 12th century.336 Soon afterwards, Guru Chowang uncovered a related text. Barring an oral tradition that kept the tradition alive before Nyima Ozer found his text in the second half of the 12th century (a possibility not recognized by the Nyingmas themselves), textual evidence would suggest that this painting can be no earlier than the second half of the 12th century.337 The identity of the patron in the bottom right corner is less certain [4]. In previous publications, I attempted to determine whether the figure could be identified with either of the two tertons, but the evidence for their iconography only dates to c. 18th century, too far removed from the period of the painting’s commission to be considered reliable.338 The figure is presented as a tantric practitioner and it may be Nyima Ozer’s son, Namkhapel (nam mkha' dpal), as suggested by Dr. Bryan Phillips of the University of Virginia.339 Though not a terton himself, he was appointed lineal successor by his father, and served as a teacher to Guru Chowang. He was also known as a patron of arts, having commissioned statues, a gold script redaction of the bKa' brgyad, and other works. He was active during the last decade of the 12th century and the first three decades of the 13th century. It may be that the yellow capped figure below Vairocana is meant to represent the terton Nyima Ozer [3], and the patron [4], his son Namkhapel. Inscriptions: Inscriptions on the verso identify the painting’s central figures and the eight surrounding clusters of deities. They also identify the spiritual attainments to which the rig 'dzin (vidyādhara, “awareness holder”) will accede as he gradually completes the Chemchok Heruka meditation.340 Each cluster of deities represents a particular state of awareness.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

The painting verso also bears two inscriptions in gold dbu can script, composed by Sangye On, which were added later: *//chos rje rin po che nas (bla) ma rin po che dbon po dpa(l) yan chod yab sras bzhi'i rab gnas dpag du med pa bzhugs// “[In the painting] dwell the immeasurable consecrations of the four teachers and disciples from Choje Rinpoche through the illustrious Onpo Lama Rinpoche [Sangye On].” (Pl. 1.2)

335 See discussion of the iconography in both texts and their relationship to this painting in Casey Singer, “Che mchog Heruka Mandala,” 87; and Casey Singer, “Chemchok Heruka Revisited,” 115–118. 336 Dudjom Rinpoche’s account of Nyima Ozer’s biography states that during a retreat in the second half of the 12th century, he was led by Yeshe Tshogyel, famous adept and consort of Padmasambhava, to the Śītavana cremation grounds where he was initiated into the Chemchok teachings by Padmasambhava and other vidyādharas. Dudjom Rinpoche, Nyingma School, 757.

337 Regarding the absence of an oral tradition, Gyurme Dorje, translator of the Nyingma History, made this know to the author in private correspondence. 338 See Casey Singer, “Chemchok Heruka Revisited,” 122–125. 339 Personal correspondence May 2002. Dr. Phillips’s Ph.D. dissertation focused on Nyima Ozer and Guru Chowang. “Consummation and Compassion in Medieval Tibet: The Māṇi dKa’ bum Chen-mo of Guru Chos-dkyi dbang-phyug,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 2002/3. 340 See discussion in Casey Singer, “Chemchok Heruka Revisited,” 115–118; and Transliteration 1.

140

Plate 1.2 Verso inscription citing consecration by successive teachers.

Below, also in gold dbu can script: *//mtshungs med bla ma dam pa pradznya 'ghu ru dang// bdag 'ghir ti shri ra smri bha tra '(bral me)d ci gsung bka' bsgrub cing/ rangs sems 'khrul pa dag pa dang// 'gro 'ba'i 'dren pa nus par shog// “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.” (Pl. 1.3)

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

These inscriptions appear in a number of Taklung paintings and have been discussed at length in the Introduction (pp. 60-105).341 In the context of this painting, the first gold inscription indicates that the painting was consecrated by the first four Taklung abbots, beginning with Tashipel (tenure 1180– 1210) through Sangye On, interim Fourth Taklung Abbot (1272–1273). The second gold inscription is a prayer recording Sangye On’s aspiration to remain connected with his teacher, Prajñāguru. How and when this Nyingma painting came into the Taklung sphere is not entirely clear, but the first gold inscription indicates it was at Taklung during Tashipel’s tenure, for he is said to have consecrated it. The Taklung History sometimes describes the history and provenance of objects, recording who they had belonged to, when they entered the monastery, and occasionally, who had consecrated them. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this inscription should be accepted as an accurate expression of the scribe’s understanding when the inscription was written, probably sometime between the start of Sangye On’s tenure at Taklung in 1272 and his death at Riwoche in 1296. Style: The history of the iconography represented in the painting, and the inscriptions it bears, indicate the painting was commissioned between c. 1150–1210. This range of dates corresponds well to the period indicated by style analysis. An unusual feature in the painting is the manner in which the central pair embrace. Dhātīśvarī stands behind Chemchok Heruka, drawing her right arm around his neck, her torso emerging under his lower left arm, which encircles her waist. In this

341 See also Appendices 1, 2.

141

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 1.3 Verso inscription in gold of prayer to remain in contact with the teacher.

142

stance, she resembles the consort in a c. second-half of the 11th-century painting of Vajrasattva and Vajradhātīśvarī in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (Pl. 1.4). John Huntington has established both the Nyingma context and the early date of this painting.342 The style of the Chemchok Heruka painting may also be compared with a Vairocana mandala in a private collection that has been ascribed a date of c. 1050–1150 on the basis of style (Fig. 105).343 If one masks the top and bottom registers of the McCormick painting, one sees that both paintings emphasize broad color fields, rendered in a similar palate. (Pl. 1.5) The mandala palace is divided into four quadrants, each beautifully colored in a bold field of savory orange/red, yellow, green, and white or dark blue. In the Vairocana mandala, the color fields extend beyond the palace walls, bound only at the very edges of the painting by a thin circle of fire. The color field in the Chemchok Heruka mandala palace is somewhat truncated when compared to the Vairocana mandala, ending at the palace walls except for the continuity of color provided by the ends of the double thunderbolt (vajra), which enclose the four gates. A tree outside the mandala circle in the Vairocana painting is rendered in a similarly naïve style to that of a flower outside the mandala circle in the Chemchok Heruka painting (Pl. 1.6). The patron in the lower right corner of the Chemchok Heruka painting and his trilobed throne back are commonly seen in paintings before the 13th century.344 The convention of depicting a monk in a robe with wide cuffs and borders in contrasting colors (as one sees in the Chemchok Heruka donor), together with a yellow outer robe, likewise appears most commonly in pre-13th century works, such as the Vairocana mandala and a Mañjuśrī in a private collection (Pl. 1.7).345 Early sources, including the sBa bzhed, The Blue Annals, and Pawo Tsukla Trengwa’s chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga 'ston all mention that during the period of Buddhist persecutions and neglect preceding the 11th century, Buddhist monks lived as laymen but distinguished themselves by a border on their robes.346

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Thus, style analysis suggests a temporal scope of c. 1150 to the early-13th century. Recall that the Nyingma tradition holds that Chemchok iconography (introduced to Tibet in the 8th century) was lost until re-discovered by Nyima Ozer in the second half of the 12th century. They do not recognise an oral tradition that may have kept the tradition alive during the interim, so textual evidence indicates the painting can be no earlier than the second-half of the 12th century. An inscription on the painting provides a terminus ante quem of 1210 (year of death of the First Taklung Abbot Tashipel, who consecrated the painting). This painting, commissioned sometime in the last-half of the 12th or first decade of the 13th century in a Nyingma community, was brought into the Taklung community during the tenure of Tashipel, and consecrated by him before his death in 1210.

342 The date is based upon the identity of the patron, glang shakya byang chub, act. 1065–1085, in the lower corner. Susan Huntington and John C. Huntington. Leaves from the Bodhi Tree: The Art of Pāla India (8th–12th centuries) and Its International Legacy. Dayton: Dayton Art Institute, and Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990: 309–13.

343 For a discussion of the date of this painting, see Casey Singer “Early Painting in Central Tibet”, pp. 110–112.

344 See for example patrons in three c. 11th-century paintings published in Sacred Visions, nos. 1–3; and a c. 12th-century Double Portrait published in Sacred Visions, no. 11; see also a c. 11th-century Achala and a Portrait of Nyo Master, nos. 39 and 74, in Kossak, Painted Images of Enlightenment. 345 Published in Kossak and Casey Singer, Sacred Visions, no. 7. See also figures in the c. late-11th-century murals of Drathang, published in Vitali, Early Temples of Central Tibet, pls. 29–34. 346 See R. A. Stein, Une Chronique Ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bzhed, Paris, 1961: 61; gtsug lag phreng ba, chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston (Second Pawo Rinpoche, Scholar's Feast of Religious History), vol. ja, fol. 139b; Roerich, The Blue Annals, 60–69.

143

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C Plate 1.4 Comparison of embracing central figures, Chemchok Heruka Mandala, detail (top) and Vajrasattva (below), the latter detail from Vajrasattva and Vajradhātvīśvarī, c. 1065–1085, 60.32 × 35.6 cm., Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, The Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck Collection, Gift of Paul Mellon (68.8.115), detail.

144

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 1.5 Comparison of mandala palace, Chemchok Heruka Mandala (top) and Vairocana Mandala (bottom), the latter detail of Fig. 105.

145

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 1.6 Comparison of flower and tree outside mandala circle in Chemchok Heruka Mandala (left) and Vairocana Mandala (right), detail.

Published: Leidy, Denise Patry and Robert A.F. Thurman. Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment, New York: Asia Society Galleries and Tibet House (1997), 78; Casey Singer, “A Tibetan Painting of Che mchog Heruka’s Mandala,” 83–108; Casey Singer, “A Tibetan Painting of Chemchok Heruka’s Mandala, Revisited,” 113–135; Casey, “The goddess as Divine Lover: Maithuna imagery in Himalayan art.” In Goddess: Divine Energy, ed. Jackie Menzies, (Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2006): fig. 161, 259; Rhie and Thurman, Wisdom and Compassion (Taiwan edition, 1998), 81; and Wisdom and Compassion 1998a (smaller version of Taiwan edition), 11; Casey, “Taklung Painting Revisited,” fig. 10; Casey, Jane, “A Brief Overview of Taklung Inscriptions,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tibetan Archaeology & Arts (forthcoming), Figs. 23, 24; HAR 89981.

146

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 1.7 Comparison of patrons, Chemchok Heruka Mandala (top) and Vairocana Mandala (bottom), detail.

147

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

catalogue �

Kapāladhara Hevajra and Nairātmya, c. 12th century ��.� × ��.� cm., Robert and Lois Baylis Collection

possibly Indian origin

[N] Visual Lineage: No visual lineage per se is presented. Outside the fiery halo of the central couple are gruesome cremation grounds. In the upper left corner of the painting, a bodhisattva is seated on a flayed animal skin, adjacent to a decapitated human head. In the upper right corner, a large bird of prey perches next to a dancing male who treads on a human corpse. Outside the lotus support near the bottom right of the painting, a jackal or dog bares his teeth at a man, adjacent to a dismembered human foot. Near the left of the lotus support appears a dismembered human hand and perhaps a corpse. The lowest register of the painting is worn but contains a ritual vase with foliage, a covered jar, and other unidentified instruments of ritual worship. Inscriptions: On the verso is one inscription stating that the painting was consecrated by Sangye On (“Onpo Lama Rinpoche of Taklung”).355 (Pl. 3.1) Whether there were earlier, pre-consecration inscriptions, now illegible, is uncertain.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 3.1 Verso inscription, detail recording consecration by Sangye On.

Style: Despite wear, the power and beauty of the painting are apparent. The hand of the artist is unusually skillful and assured. The central figures possess a vitality and a fleshiness that is rarely encountered in early Tibetan paintings, seen especially in the long-limbed Nairātmya (Pl. 3.2). Their hands and feet, painted henna-red on the palms and soles, grasp and move with delicacy. (Pl. 3.3) The flaming hair of Nairātmya resembles the shape of that in the c. 12th-century Chemchok Heruka painting. (Pl. 3.4) The halo of irregular fiery tendrils can be compared with similar treatment in an eastern Indian manuscript illumination dated c. 1114.356 Further considerations: The strongest evidence for dating the painting is stylistic, and a c. 12thcentury date can be argued with some confidence. The artist may have been Indian, for the painting closely observes eastern Indian traditions, and the painting makes no reference to Tibet. The painting entered the Taklung-Riwoche monastic collection at some point before Sangye On’s death in 1296, on the evidence of the verso inscription stating that he consecrated it.

Published: HAR 90344.

355 *//stag lung pa'i dbon po bla ma rin po che dpal gyi rab gnas bzhugs 356 Musée Guimet mss. (MA5161), c. 1114. Beguin, Art ésotérique de l'Himâlaya, 18–20.

153

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 3.2 Detail of limbs of central figures

154

Plate 3.3 Detail of central figures

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 3.4 Details comparing face and flaming hair of female deities, Kapāladhara Hevajra and Nairātmya (l) and Chemchok Heruka Mandala (r).

155

Paintings commissioned during the tenure of First Taklung Abbot Taklung Thangpa Chenpo (1180–1210), at Taklung Monastery

Prior to the founding of Taklung Monastery in 1180, Tibetans with an interest in Buddhism were able to immerse themselves in the thriving Buddhist communities of eastern India, despite the enormous costs and tremendous efforts involved.377 Tashipel aspired to travel to India but was prevented from doing so by familial concerns.378 The opportunity to study in the great Buddhist monastic universities of India essentially came to an end around 1200 with the late-12th-century Muslim conquest of north India. The armies of Bakhtiyar Khaliji effectively eradicated the massive, wealthy mahāvihāras of eastern India, centers that had been beacons of higher learning for Buddhists in India and abroad. Tibetans were largely silent about this seismic shift in their Buddhist world. However, an early account of Atiśa’s journey to Tibet, attributed to his main disciple Dromton, recounts a conversation between Ratnākara, the abbot of Vikramaśīla, and the Tibetan Nagtso who had come to India to persuade Atiśa to return to Tibet with him to teach, possibly for just three years. “Ayusma, please understand: in the absence of Atiśa, there is going to be darkness gathering over India. If you ask me how come: many dharma centers have been destroyed, many vihara complexes are becoming desolate, and many more are the Turuska armies that will come. Keeping all this in mind I beseech you, master and entourage, all of you: in order not to bring about such harm, proceed well aware of the transmigrating beings [and safely bring him back to India].”379

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

After the destruction of Buddhist centers in India, Taklung and other monastic centers in Tibet subsequently came to be referred to as Vajrāsana (“The adamantine seat”), a reference to Bodhgayā in eastern India where the historical Buddha experienced enlightenment. “…Tashipel, [emanation of] the lord-protector Akṣobhya—the blessed one, tathāgata, arhat, genuinely perfect buddha, infinitely turned the profound and vast doctrinal wheel of perfect realization of the definitive meaning at Taklung, this focal point of enlightenment, the adamantine seat (rdo rje'i gdan stag lung) at the center of Tibet…”380 Indian teachers came to Tibet, perhaps in larger numbers than previously acknowledged. Dan Martin recounts the observation made to Nagtso by an elder monk at Vikramaśīla Monastery in Bihar, around 1042. “Nagtso discusses a possible replacement for Atiśa if he can’t come to Tibet, with an elder at Vikramaśīla, who says: ‘some twenty panditas have gone there

377 See Hubert Decleer’s translation of an account describing the extraordinary efforts to bring Atiśa to Tibet, “Atiśa’s Journey to Tibet.” In Lopez, Religions of Tibet in Practice, 157–177. 378 Taklung History, 202, Gyurme Dorje trans. 379 The Dromton Itinerary ('brom ston lam yig), translated by Hubert Decleer, “Atiśa’s Journey to Tibet” in Lopez, Religions of Tibet in Practice, p. 177. 380 Taklung History, 7, Gyurme Dorje trans. Several leading monasteries associated themselves with the Vajrāsana of Bodhgayā. See Sorensen and Hazod, Rulers on the Celestial Plain, p. 455, n. 96.

166

Biography of Tashipel Tashipel was born in Kham in 1142 and expressed a keen interest in spiritual training at an early age.387 His paternal clan was Gazi (ga zi). The Gazi clan had settled in Yangsho Bongra Teng (g.yang shod bon ra steng), in the Markham region of Kham.388 He was ordained at the age of 18 and received the name Tashipel (bkra shis dpal). He aspired to study Buddhism in India and tried three times to travel there, but was “turned back by his relatives.”389 He left Kham and first visited Phagmodrupa in 1165 when he was 23. The Taklung History describes their first encounter. “From lower On ('on mda') he travelled alone through the narrow gorge of Jang to Tsarong and after he had covered the rough road (rtsibs lam), he glimpsed the white earthen walls of [Densatil] monastery. At that moment it was as if he had been sprinkled with nectar. As he was about to enter into [Phagmodrupa’s] grass hermitage (gzims spyil), an attendant placed him beside the door saying, ‘Stay there for a while!’ At the command of lord [Phagmodrupa], Sengton brought him a leftover wad of butter, a ball of roasted barley and an excellent brew of tea, which were the ingredients of an easy meal (skyen gang rnams). Tashipel consumed them with faith, arranging the auspicious circumstance through which he would become a lineage holder and worthy recipient of all the oral instructions without exception. In the late afternoon he met [Phagmodrupa] who enquired, ‘Are you not tired?’ Immediately on hearing these words he experienced a joy that he had not previously known, similar to that of a monk who has attained the third meditative concentration. He replied in general terms and specifically mentioned that he had been slightly carried away by water at the ford, whereupon the lama said, ‘At that time I too was there! Even when I was in Vajrāsana, I had to come wherever you were. I am the teacher who facilitates the development of your meditative experience and realization in all respects, not merely in this life alone.’” 390 The Taklung History records another early audience with Phagmodrupa: “…he [Tashipel] went into the presence of [Phagmodrupa] and presented a golden maṇḍala, saying, ‘I request spiritual accomplishment. I do not request any doctrine other than the teachings on union with the spiritual teacher. May my experiential cultivation also be exclusively of devotion!’ ‘To serve the spiritual teacher and act with devotion—that is my oral instruction. Realization arises from within—that is my pith instruction…’ Henceforth, even when his teacher uttered a single quatrain of oral instruction, Taklungpa would write it down to facilitate memorization (bsnyel bar 'phangs).”391 Tashipel stayed with Phagmodrupa at Densatil from this time until Phagmodrupa’s death in 1170, acting as his scribe and close attendant.392 “[S]tarting from that time onwards, according to an injunction of Phagmodrupa, lord of living beings himself, it was as when he, Phagmodrupa, had formerly been the Great Sage [Śākyamuni] and Rinpoche Taklungwa had been the sublime Ᾱnanda. From that time they pleased each other with acts of service which were not in the slightest distinguishable, so that throughout the whole country the saying ‘like Lama Phagmodrupa and like the attendant Tak-

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

387 This biographical sketch is drawn from the Taklung History, 195–248, Gyurme Dorje trans. See also the biography of Tashipel by Dan Martin in Treasury of Lives: https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Taklungtangpa-Tashi-Pel/4368 388 Dan Martin, biography of Tashipel: https://treasuryoflives.org/zh/biographies/view/Taklungtangpa-Tashi-Pel/4368 389 Taklung History, 202, Gyurme Dorje trans. 390 Taklung History, 206–207, Gyurme Dorje trans. 391 Taklung History, 208, Gyurme Dorje trans. 392 Martin notes that Tashipel’s name appears on some early texts by Phagmodrupa as the transcriber and disciple (nye gnas), bkra shis dpal. Martin, “The Book-Moving Incident,” 207, n. 45.

168

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

catalogue ��

Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, within the Mahābodhi Temple, c. 1180–1210 �� × �� cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery

Private Collection

[C/P] Visual Lineage: Seven Buddhas of the Past and Maitreya Buddha in the top register. In the temple spire is Tashipel’s teacher, Phagmodrupa [1]. Towards the base of the spire are two Tibetan monks [2, 3] whose identities are uncertain but both exhibit physiognomy identical to that of Phagmodrupa, as shown in the spire. An alternative interpretation is that they are manifestations of the central figure, Tashipel. 470 Tashipel [4] is enthroned within the Mahābodhi Temple of Bodhgayā, site of the historical Buddha’s enlightenment. A patron [5] holds an incense burner in the lower left corner, seated before a table with two fly-whisks crossed at its base. A book wrapped in cloth is surmounted by three stūpas. Two conch shells appear just below. Inscriptions: Verso inscriptions in dbu med script in the shape of a stūpa include the mantra of All Knowledge, the mantra of consecration, the ye dharmā verse, the Tibetan precept verse of patience. A later inscription along the top of the verso in dbu can script states that the painting was consecrated by Sangye On, thus establishing a firm terminus date for the painting prior to his death in 1296. 471

� �

�

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Style: Luczanits considers this to be among the earliest Taklung paintings. He cites several elements of style to support this view. The treatment of Tashipel’s robe, with a clearly marked flap of cloth surrounding the folded knees, resembles that in a c. 1180–1210 painting of Vajravārāhī in the Musée Guimet. (Cat. 14) “Along with a few other criteria, this curious detail allows us to safely attribute the painting to the first decades of the thirteenth century.”472 (Pl. 11.2) He also cites the flower pattern on Tashipel’s robe as evidence of an early date,

Plate 11.1 Visual Lineage Chart.

470 Luczanits ascribes to this view in “Mirror of the Buddha,” 58. 471 stag lung pa'i dbon po bla ma rin po che dpal gyi rab gnas bzhugs “[In the painting] dwells the consecration of the honorable Onpo Lama Rinpoche of Taklung.” See Transliteration 11 for full transliteration of the verso. 472 Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha,” 60.

201

Plate 11.2 Comparison of fold in robe in Cat. 11 (top) and that in another painting attributed to the period of Tashipel, Cat. 14 (bottom).

although he does not establish why this may be a reliable indicator of date. 473 Because this flower pattern is also used by Steven Kossak as evidence of chronology in early Tibetan painting, it may be worth considering it within the context of this painting. 474 The profile flower pattern on Tashipel’s robe is found in other Taklung paintings (e.g., Cats. 18, 23), assigned to the tenure of the Third Taklung Abbot (1236–1272). (Pls. 11.3, 11.4) They are not particularly similar. The textile pattern in this painting is no more like that in the c. 1236–1272 paintings noted above than it is like the textile pattern in the c. late-11th-century portrait in The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Pl. 11.5). An assessment of this textile pattern throughout the Taklung corpus suggests it is not a particularly reliable measure of chronology in Taklung paintings.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

If one compares the architecture in this painting with other Māravijaya paintings in the Taklung group, this work appears to be among the earliest. The structure is closely related to that in the c. 12th–13th-century Śākyamuni Māravijaya (Cat. 62), but the latter structure is less clearly articulated, and less detailed (Pl. 11.6). Similar observations can be made for a Śākyamuni Māravijaya (Cat. 28), which is dated c. 1236–1272, and two others (Cats. 37 and 65), which date before 1297. (Pls. 11.7, 11.8) The blue and red inset gems on the throne may be compared with those in other 13th-century paintings in the Taklung corpus. The inset gems appear most like those in another painting ascribed to the tenure of First Abbot Tashipel (Cat. 12), and one ascribed to the tenure of the Second Abbot (Cat. 15). (Pl. 11.9)

473 Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha,” 62, note 15. 474 Kossak, Painted Images, 114–129.

202

Plate 11.3 Comparison of profile flower in textile pattern of Cat. 11 (left) and that in a painting assigned to the period of Third Taklung Abbot (1236–1272) (Cat. 23, right).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 11.4 Comparison of profile flower in textile pattern of Cat. 11 (left) and that in a painting assigned to the period of Third Taklung Abbot (1236–1272) (Cat. 18, right).

Plate 11.5 Comparison of profile flower in textile pattern of Cat. 11 (left) and that in a portrait in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, assigned to the c. late-11th century (right).

203

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 11.6 Comparison of temple architecture in Māravijaya paintings, that of Cat. 11 (left) and Cat. 62, assigned to the c. 12th–13th century (right).

204

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 11.7 Comparison of temple architecture in Māravijaya paintings, that of Cat. 11 (left) and Cat. 28, ascribed a date of c. 1236–1272 (right).

205

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 11.8 Comparison of temple architecture in Māravijaya paintings, that of Cat. 37 (left) and Cat. 65 (right), ascribed dates of 1272–1296 and c. 13th century (before 1297), respectively.

Further Points for consideration. Steven Kossak and David Jackson date the painting to the 14th century. 475 The presentation of Tashipel within the site of the historical Buddha’s awakening at

475 Kossak ascribes an early-14th century date because “depictions of deities or lamas seated within like temples do not occur until the 14th century and the textile pattern on Tashipel’s outer robe is clearly related to those from Yuan China.” (Kossak, Painted Images, 83–84.) At least six other pre-14th-century Tibetan paintings represent teachers or deities within the Mahābodhi Temple. [E.g., in this publication, Cat. nos. 62, 11, 28 (c. 1236–1296), 37 (1272–1296), 65 (c. 13th century, and dated by Pal to the 12th century, Pal, Aesthetic Adventure no. 121); and an unpublished, c. 12th-century portrait of a teacher within the Mahābodhi Temple.] As noted above, the textile pattern of a profile flower, as seen in firmly dated works, does not provide reliable chronological evidence for this painting. Jackson ascribes an early-14th-century date for the painting but does not articulate the reasons for this assertion. Mirror, 146, 154.

206

Plate 11.9 Comparison of gem-encrusted thrones, in Cat. 11 (left), and in a painting ascribed to the tenure of Tashipel (1180–1210) (Cat. 12, top right), and a painting assigned to the tenure of Second Taklung Abbot (1210–1236) (Cat. 15, bottom right).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Bodhgayā is a powerful statement of the community’s belief that their abbot and founder was fully enlightened, considered the highest Buddhist attainment. In the painting, Tashipel takes the place of the Buddha sculpture that served as the main icon of the Mahābodhi Temple during the medieval period. 476 As seen in a variety of paintings and sculptures of the period, this medieval icon had broad shoulders and a short neck, shown here in the lower register of the painting, next to the patron. 477 The surrounding iconography in the painting—the presence of the Seven Past Buddhas and Maitreya Buddha, the flanking bodhisattvas, and the deities in the bottom register—all support the interpretation of Tashipel as a fully awakened Buddha, a spiritual state that was ascribed to him during his lifetime. 478 The Taklung History mentions one of Tashipel’s close disciples, Lama Mutowa, who perceived Tashipel in the guise of Śākyamuni in the form of Mahābodhi, perhaps what was intended in this iconography. 479 Published: Kossak, Painted Images, fig. 56; Jackson, Mirror, fig. 5.20; Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha,” 56; Casey, “Taklung Painting Revisited,” fig. 8.

476 As noted by Luczanits, “Mirror of the Buddha,” 59. 477 On this eastern Indian medieval icon, see Woodward, “The Indian Roots;” Weldon and Casey Singer, Sculptural Heritage of Tibet, 61–66; Casey Singer, “Tibetan Homage,” 44–51; von Schroeder, Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet, vol. 1, 219–220. 478 As noted in the discussion above, pp. 172–173. 479 Taklung History, 241, Gyurme Dorje trans.

207

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

catalogue ��

Portraits of the First Three Taklung Abbots, c. 1272–1296 �� × ��.� cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery

Stephen and Sharon Davies Collection

[C/P] Visual lineage: The Taklung Kagyu visual lineage begins with Śākyamuni Buddha [1], flanked by a bodhisattva [2] and a mahāsiddha [3]; Vajradhāra [4], flanked by Tilopa and Nāropa [5, 6]; Marpa [7], flanked by Milarepa [8] and Gampopa [9]. Phagmodrupa [10] is directly above the central figure of Tashipel [11]. The central figure of Tashipel is flanked by Second Abbot Kuyalwa [12] and Third Abbot Sangye Yarjon [13]. Three mahāsiddhas [14–16] and three monks dressed in Indian robes [17–19] also appear in the top register, their specific identities unknown. Atiśa in a yellow peaked cap [20] flanks the image of Ṣaḍakṣarī Lokeśvara [21], along with a dark-skinned, white robed figure, perhaps Padampa Sangye [22]. The adjacent group of figures includes Uṣṇīṣavijayā, the Medicine Buddha, and a mahāsiddha holding a skullcup. Represented on the throne cloth below Tashipel is a Tibetan monk [23], perhaps the Śīlaketu mentioned in the verso inscription, for whom purifying prayers are offered. (Pl. 34.2) The patron [24] appears in the lower left.663

�

��

�

��

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C ��

��

Plate 34.1 Visual Lineage Chart.

663 HAR identifies the deities in the bottom two registers as: a donor figure wearing monastic attire, followed by both meditation deities and protector deities, Chaturbhuja Mahākāla, Hayagrīva, Mahāchakra Vajrapāṇi, Ushnisha Chakravartin, Nila Achala, Vaiśravaṇa Riding a lion, and Kurukullā. In the bottom register, starting on the left side, are Vajrabhairava, Chakrasaṃvara (Krishnacharin), Chakrasaṃvara (Maitripa), Yogambhara, Mahamaya, Varahimukha Yoginī, and Shri Devi Dorje Rabtenma.

327

Plate 34.2 Tibetan monk on throne cloth beneath Tashipel throne, Cat. 34 detail.

The repetition of triads in the painting, both in the arrangement of the central figures and in the visual lineage, is unusual. The triads bring to mind the three large reliquary stūpas housing the remains of the first three abbots at Taklung, which dominated the site and appear in most narrative scenes in Tashipel portraits. The painting verso, with a large stūpa behind each of the three main figures, is inscribed with the most comprehensive pre-consecration inscriptions in the Taklung corpus (Pl. 34.3). No teacher beyond the Third Abbot appears in the visual lineage. Whether he was alive when it was commissioned is unclear. But the absence of a teacher after the Third Abbot in the inscriptions suggests the patron was connected with these three or the last of these three, or he would have invoked a subsequent teacher—either Sangye On (d. 1296) or his cousin Maṅgalaguru (d. 1297).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Inscriptions: The verso inscriptions are the most comprehensive pre-consecration inscriptions in the Taklung corpus. See Liao Yang’s full transliteration and commentary, pp. 712–722 below. Within a stūpa outline, behind Tashipel, the figure in the center: Salutation to Vajrarāja (Phagmodrupa, Tashipel’s teacher, ōṃ a vajra ra jā na mo hūṃ); mantras for the central pole of a stūpa from the Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhā-dhāraṇī; salutation to Maṅgalaśrī (Tashipel); the three-syllable mantra; salutation to Maṅgalaśrī; three-syllable mantra; mantras of All Knowledge and consecration; (third) salutation to Maṅgalaśrī (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṃ ga la śrī hūṃ); the ye dharmā verse, the Tibetan precept verse of patience, Sanskrit verses “King of dhāraṇī;” vigilance dhāraṇī from the Maṇivipulavimāna-dhāraṇī; a second vigilance dhāraṇī from the Maṇivipulavimāna-dhāraṇī; the mūla-dhāraṇī of Maṇivipulavimāna-dhāraṇī, the heart mantra of the of Maṇivipulavimāna-dhāraṇī, the near-heart mantra of the Maṇivipulavimāna-dhāraṇī; the mantra of purification and emptiness;664 another, unidentified mantra; the ten-syllable mantra of Amoghapāśa and the

664 Liao Yang notes that these mantras belong to the most common formulae which are selected to recite as the initial act of tantric practices such as meditation or vision. See Gay Watson, The Resonance of Emptiness: A Buddhist Inspiration for a Contemporary Psychotherapy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2001, p. 216 and en. 89 on p. 287. According to a fasting practice followed by the Kagyupa tradition, the practitioner should meditate on the Four Limitless Meditations and then recite these two mantras. See “The Mahayana Practice of the Keeping of the Eight Precepts,” in Bulletin of Tibetology vol. 11, no. 1, p. 23.

328

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 34.3 Verso Cat. 34.

329

mantra of the Diamond Womb; the Guhyadhātu-dhāraṇī, near the middle of which appears Śīlargyal-kasya'i sarvakarmā-avaraṇani (all the misdeeds and obstacles of Śīla-rgyal), which suggests this person may be the commissioner of this thangka or the person for whom it was made; the Vimaloṣṇīṣahṛdaya, which mentions … ji na(?) du ka(?) sya'i sa rva pā paṃ (all the misfortune of …jinadu); mantra of Sarvavid Vairocana, which mentions śilaketukasya'i sarvakarmā (all the deeds of Śīla rgyal [mtshan]);665 mantra of the Guardians of the Ten Directions. Within a stūpa outline, behind Kuyalwa, the figure on the left: Salutations to Maṅgalaśrī (Tashipel, teacher of Second Abbot Kuyalwa, ōṃ a na mo rad na maṃ ga la śri hūṃ); mantra for empowerment of the central pole and the surroundings of a stūpa, from the Raśmivimalaprabhadhāraṇī; salutation to Ratnanātha (Kuyalwa) (ghu ru rad na na thā na mo svā (ha/); the three-syllable mantra; salutation to Ratnanātha (Kuyalwa) (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na rad na na thā hūṃ//); the three-syllable mantra; mantras of All Knowledge and consecration; salutation to Ratnanātha (Kuyalwa) (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru rad na na thā (hūṃ); the ye dharmā verse; Tibetan version of the complete precept verses taught by the Seven Past Buddhas.666 Some of these verses are commonly seen on the back of early paintings, e.g., the Tibetan precept verse of patience, while this thangka includes all the verses.667 Uṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī; the six-syllable mantra of Avalokiteśvara. Within a stūpa outline, behind Sangye Yarjon, the figure on the right: Salutations to Ratnanātha (Kuyalwa, Teacher of Third Abbot Sangye Yarjon ōṃ a na mo rad na na thā hūṃ/); mantra for the construction of a stūpa, from the Raśmivimalaviśuddhaprabhādhāraṇī; salutations to Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot ghu ru prad ña ghu ru ka sya'i na mo); three-syllable mantra (repeated twice); salutations to Prajñāguru (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru prad ña ghu ru hūṃ:); three-syllable mantra; mantras of All Knowledge and consecration; another invocation of Prajñāguru’s name (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru hūṃ); ye dharmā verse; the Tibetan precept verses taught by the Seven Past Buddhas; the root, heart, and near-heart mantras of Bodhimaṇḍa-dhāraṇī, mentioning the commissioner Śīlaketu in line 46; longevity mantra for Śīlaketu, with mama śīlaketukasya'i rakṣa rakṣa (Protect, Protect me – Śīlaketu) at the end; homage to the Three Jewels; mantra of rebirth in Sukhāvatī, at the end of which Śīlaketu’s name appears again; six-syllable mantra of Avalokiteśvara; five-syllable mantra of Mañjuśrī (ending with his seed syllable) (invoked twice); prayer for good luck, salutations to all the Buddhas and short mantras related to the seed syllables (for example, hūṃ is the seed syllable of the vajra family; bhrūṃ is the seed syllable of all the uṣṇīṣas, such as Uṣṇīṣavijayā); verses similar to the dhāraṇī of the King of Samādhi Sūtra, with a different ending.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

These three groups of inscriptions share three lines at the bottom as a common plinth for the three stūpas, including mantras of Mahākala (in various incarnations) and Vaiśravaṇa, along with their retinues. These deities appear on the painting obverse. Further mantras corresponding to the lower row of deities on the obverse also appear.

665 See Liao Yang’s extensive transliteration and explanation in Transliteration 34. 666 See Appendix 4. Recurring Mantras, Dhāraṇī, and Prayers in the Taklung Inscriptions. 667 Liao Yang notes, “Another example including the six verses is the portrait of Jigten Gonpo (1143–1217) (private collection, Zurich, Switzerland) examined by Dr. Amy Heller. See Amy Heller, “A thangka portrait of ’Bri gung Rin chen dpal, Jig rten gsum mgon,” Journal of the International Association for Tibetan studies no. 1 (2005), pp. 1–10.

330

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 34.4 Verso inscription showing 13 umbrellas on top of the stūpa behind figure of Third Abbot Sangye Yarjon, Cat. 34 detail.

331

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 34.5 Comparison of central figures, Cat. 32 (top), attributed to the tenure/lifetime of interim Fourth Taklung Abbot (1272–1296) and Cat. 34 (bottom), figure of Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon.

332

Aspects of the significance of these inscriptions have already been discussed in the Introduction (pp. 79–86). The inscriptions are part of a ritual whereby “dharma relics” are inserted into the stūpa drawing in order to sanctify the painting by infusing it with the presence of the Buddha or other enlightened beings. The Taklung community participated in sacred rituals involving the invocation of the spiritual presence of the lineage of teachers and installed this presence in the paintings. In so doing, they took part in ancient rituals with roots in Indian practices, some of which were even then (in the 13th century) over 500 years old. Even the number of umbrellas in the stūpa was a matter of significance, with 13 being the number of umbrellas for a stūpa containing a Buddha, as Bentor’s research has shown.668 (Pl. 34.4) Style: The closest style similarities are with works dated to the period of interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On, e.g., the Portrait of Sangye On produced during his tenure or lifetime (1272–1296; Pl. 32). Both paintings present red lowlights in the green scrollwork fabric of the throne back cushions (Pl. 34.5). Further considerations: According to verso inscriptions, the painting was commissioned to cleanse the deeds and ensure a successful rebirth in Sukhāvatī Heaven for Śīlaketu (Tib., tshul khrims rgyal mtshan), perhaps the monk shown on the throne cloth below Tashipel’s seat (Pl. 34.2). He was intended to benefit from the sacred rites involved in invoking the first three Taklung abbots according to ancient Sanskrit practices recorded in the verso inscriptions. Although the identity of this figure is by no means established, it is noteworthy that someone named Gangchung Repa Tshultrim Gyaltsen (gangs chung ras pa tshul khrims rgyal mtshan) is cited in the Taklung History as one of Sangye On’s disciples.669 One is tempted to imagine that the first three abbots were deceased at the time of this petition, and that Śīlaketu’s invocation was directed at their reliquaries in the Kumbum at Taklung. The verso inscription certainly appears to enshrine the three central figures on the front of the painting. It is notable that Sangye On is not invoked in the inscriptions, nor his cousin Maṅgalaguru, who assumed the abbot’s chair in 1273 after Sangye On’s departure from Taklung. Published: HAR 7847.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

668 Bentor, “In Praise of stūpas,” 44. 669 Taklung History, 620, Gyurme Dorje trans.; Sørensen and Hazod, Rulers on the Celestial Plain, 752, note 58.

333

catalogue ��

Māravijaya Buddha in the Mahābodhi Temple, 1272–1296 ��.� × ��.� cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery

Riwoche Monastery Collection, Kham

[N] Visual lineage: No visual lineage.678 Inscriptions: Verso inscriptions in dbu med script within the yellow outline of a stūpa: akṣara oṃ, the set of three mantras for consecration (mantras of All Knowledge, Consecration, and Diamond Womb) with insertion of the three-syllable mantra after the first of these, mantra of Buddha Śākyamuni, Three-syllable mantra, the ye dharmā verse repeated three times, the Tibetan precept verse of patience. At the top of the verso in black dbu can script, a later inscription (the top portion of which is obscured by the cropping of the top edge of the photograph): stag lung pa'i dbo n po bla ma rin po che dpal gyi rab gnas bzhugs “[In the painting] dwells the consecration of the honorable Onpo Lama Rinpoche of Taklung.” Style: Buddha figures (Pl. 37.1), lions and elephants in the thrones (Pl. 37.2), and textile patterns in the throne back cushions (Pl. 37.3) are so similar to those in Cat. 36 as to suggest they were made by the same artist or group of artists. Likewise, the composition and epigraphy of the verso inscription is very similar to that of Cat. 36, a painting commissioned during the tenure and lifetime of Sangye On (1272–1296) (Pl. 37.4).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Further considerations: The presence of the Sangye On consecration inscription along the top of the verso allows an attribution to before his death in 1296, and close stylistic similarities with Cat. 36 (attributed to the period 1272–1296) supports an attribution to the same period. Published: The Archive of Thangka Culture in China: Chamdo Volume (2016): 222–23; (2015): 80.

Plate 37.1 Comparison of Buddha figures, Cat. 37 (left) and Cat. 36, the latter attributed to the tenure/lifetime of interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On (1272–1296).

678 For discussion of narrative scenes, see Cat. 65.

341

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 37.2 Comparison of throne animals, Cat. 37 (top) and Cat. 36 (bottom), the latter attributed to the tenure/ lifetime of interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On (1272–1296).

342

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Plate 37.3 Comparison of textile design in throne back cushions, Cat. 37 (left) and Cat. 36, the latter attributed to the tenure/lifetime of interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On (1272–1296).

343

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Taklung Painting A STUDY IN CHRONOLOGY

Taklung Painting A S T U DY I N C H RO N O L O GY VOLUME II

JA N E C A SE Y with contributions by Gyurme Dorje and Liao Yang

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C Serindia Publications, Chicago

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

ISBN 978-1-956165-02-9

Contents VOLUME I Dedication Preface Acknowledgements Quick Guide to Taklung and Riwoche Abbots Introduction Taklung Painting: Evidence for Chronology

5 9 16 18 22

126 166 226 245 308 370

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

434 496 576

588

VOLUME II

Transliteration of Painting Inscriptions by Liao Yang The Tsakli

ุ620 928

1042 1056 1064 1072 1086

Bibliography Index

1106 1116

Transliteration of

Painting Inscriptions by

Liao Yang

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Transliteration Scheme The majority of inscriptions in the Taklung paintings were written in Tibetan script, dbu med (“headless” / cursive) or dbu can (“headed” / printed). The broadly accepted Wylie scheme to transliterate Tibetan syllables: ཀ

ཁ

kha

ག

ང

nga

ཅ

ཆ

cha

ཇ

ཉ

nya

ཏ

ཐ

tha

ད

ན

པ

ཕ

pha

བ

མ

ཙ

tsa

ཚ

tsha

ཛ

dza

ཝ

ཞ

zha

ཟ

འ

ཡ

ར

ལ

ཤ

sha

ས

ཧ

ཨ

ཨི

ཨུ

ཨེ

ཨོ

Punctuation marks: ་

tsheg

༔

gter tsheg

(space)

།

༄

chig shad

༎

yig mgo

༄༅

gnyis shad

yig mgo

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

A special period (.) is used to indicate a ga prefixed to a root letter ya. For example, g.yu for གཡུ.

Mantras constitute the largest part of the verso inscriptions on the Taklung paintings. They are Sanskrit expressions transliterated into Tibetan script, following a fairly fixed scheme so that it is possible to restore them in a manner consistent with the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). Compared with badzra and pra dznyā / dz+nyā transliterated directly under the Wylie scheme, vajra and pra jñā render the Sanskrit words -- वज ्र and प ्रज ्ञा -- much closer to their correct pronunciation and usual transliteration, vajra and prajñā. We have therefore adapted the Wylie system to allow this rendering for passages in the inscriptions containing Sanskrit verses.

Additionally, characters in capital letters correspond to vertically arranged syllables, usually larger than the horizontal letters written in the same group.

621

Scheme to transliterate Sanskrit syllables written in Tibetan script

Devanāgarī

IAST

Tibetan

vowels and codas

Devanāgarī

IAST

Tibetan

ज

ཛ

अ

ཨ

झ

jha

ཛྷ

आ

ཨཱ

ञ

ña

ཉ

इ

ཨི

ड

ḍa

ཌ

ई

ཨཱི

ढ

ḍha

ཌྷ

उ

ཨུ

ण

ṇa

ཎ

ऊ

ཨཱུ

ट

ṭa

ཊ

ऋ

ṛ

རྀ / རི

ठ

ṭha

ཋ

ॠ

ṝ

རཱི

त

ཏ

ऌ

ḷ

ལི

थ

tha

ཐ

ॡ

ḹ

ལཱི

द

ད

ཨེ

ध

dha

དྷ

ཨཱེ

न

ན

ཨཻ

प

པ

āī

ཨཱེ

फ

pha

ཕ

ཨོ

ब

བ

ō*

ཨཱོ

भ

bha

བྷ

ཨོོ

म

མ

āū

ཨཱོ

य

ཡ

ंँ

ṃ (anusvāra)

ཾྂ

र

ར

ः

ḥ** (visarga)

ཿ

ल

ལ

व

བ / ཝ***

ए

ऐ

ओ

औ

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

consonants क

ཀ

श

śa

ཤ

ख

kha

ཁ

ष

ṣa

ཥ

ग

ག

स

ས

gha

གྷ

ह

ཧ

ṅa

ང

क्ष

kṣa

ཀྵ

ཙ

cha

ཚ

घ ङ च छ

punctuation mark ।॥

622

/ // (daṇḍa)

།༎

* In a considerable number of cases, 'a/འ was used to emphasize that o is a long vowel. For example, Skt. oṃ could be transliterated in this way, ōṃ/ཨཱོཾ instead of oṃ/ཨོཾ. Similarly but more rarely, there exist ē, āī, and āū. ** Sometimes when it appears at the end of a sentence, it acts also as an end sign just like a gter tsheg (༔). The recurring ye dharmā verses, ending with mahāśramaṇaḥ, provide the opportunity to observe such conditions. Additionally, the last syllable of this verse appearing in the verso inscriptions of Cats. 29, 49, 56, and 63, is ṇa ḥ (ཎ་ཿ). *** Generally speaking, Skt. va was transliterated with Tib. ba/བ more often than with wa/ཝ, which might be more obvious in the early period. It is also observed that in more than twenty cases (e.g. Cats. 70, 85, 88, etc.) both appeared as the counterpart of Skt. va. The default Tibetan transliteration is ba in this book, while a footnote will be added to indicate that wa was used in the original text. An exception: wa usually appears as a subscript letter to transliterate Skt. va, which results in, for example, swā hā corresponding to Skt. svāhā.

Other Notes in the transliteration of Sanskrit mantras There are some fairly common practices that do not fit the “standard” transliteration scheme above. For example, in our inscriptions rad na always should be read Skt. ratna “jewel.” It is common to find a redundant ha as a subscript letter, a redundant 'a as a prefix or postfix letter. For example, there are 'ghu ru, 'gu ru, or ghu ru corresponding to Skt. guru “teacher;” occasionally two different forms appear in the same inscription. Another common example is 'ghir ti or ghir ti, transliteration of Skt. kīrti “fame” with redundant letter ha and 'a. It is also noticeable that ka was substituted with gha in this case; rāja was substituted with raca, in Cats. 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 45, and 47.

Editorial signs + ... [] () <>

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

one blotted, damaged, missing or illegible syllable blotted, damaged, missing or illegible syllable(s) with the number undefinable added syllable(s) restored syllable(s) or part(s) of a syllable deleted syllable(s) which were improperly repeated or redundant

623

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

transliteration catalogue �

Along the top of the verso, an inscription recording consecrations in gold dbu can script: *//chos rje rin po che nas (bla) ma rin po che dbon po dpa(l) yan chod yab sras bzhi'i rab gnas dpag du med pa bzhugs // “[Here] dwell the immeasurable consecrations of the four teachers and disciples from Choje Rinpoche through the illustrious Onpo Lama Rinpoche.” The central cluster of deities: The main group of inscriptions are in the center, in dbu med script, red and black alternatively, except lines 15–16 which are in gold dbu can script: OṂ [1] ōṃ vajra kro ta 1 [2] ma (hā) he ru ka [3] hūṃ phaṭ : A ma ha kro ti [4] śo ri stam: ōṃ ru lu ru lu hūṃ bhyo 2 [5] phaṭ// ōṃ ye HŪṂ dhar ma he du pra bha va [6] he dun te śaṇ ta tha ga to hya va dad te [7] śan ca yo ni ro dha e vaṃ va to ma ha śra ma na ye [8] svāhā // ōṃ va gi ś[v]a ri muṃ svāhā// ōṃ s<v>a rva [9] v<h>yid svāhā// ōṃ bruṃ svā hā / bkra shis par gyur cig // ōṃ a hūṃ hriḥ [10] hūṃ vajra 'dṛg: mum (dhā tvī) [11] ś(v)a (ri)/ ōṃ 'ji na 'jig 3 4 [12] laṃ ta śa ra ti/ sa rad na 'jig [13] maṃ mo ha ra ti/ ōṃ a ro li(k)/ (paṃ) ra ga ra ti/ ha prad [j]ña 'dhṛg [14] taṃ vajra ra ti / ōṃ a hūṃ.... / ōṃ sā a vajra hasa hā/ ōṃ a hūṃ OṂ [15] *//mtshungs med bla ma dam pa pradznya'ghu ru A dang/ /bdag 'ghir ti shri ra smri bha tra [16] '(bral me)d ci gsung bka' bsgrub cing/ rang sems HŪṂ 'khrul pa dag pa dang// 'gro ba'i 'dren pa nus par shog// Identification: Lines 1–5:

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

mantra of [mahottara-]Heruka.

Lines 5–8: mantrarized ye dharmā verse. Line 8:

mantra of Mañjuśrī.

Lines 8–9: mantra of All Knowledge.

1 Beside the end of this line there are traces of handwriting difficult to read from the photo, likely che mchog he ru ka to indicate the identity of the main figure. For a similar example, see the south cluster. 2 At the end of this line a syllable, maybe he, was written but is smeared. 3 Read: dve. 4 Read: svā.

625

Line 9:

seed syllable of Uṣṇīṣavijayā (and some other Uṣṇīṣa deities) between oṃ and svāhā.

Line 9:

Tibetan prayer of auspiciousness.

Line 9:

Essence of all the tathāgatas (Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi snying po). Lines 1–9 correspond to the inner circle on the obverse.

Lines 10–14: mantras of the five Ādibuddha yab yums in the Nyingma tradition. Line 14:

three-syllable mantra, followed by an unidentified mantra,5 and the three-syllable mantra repeated.

Lines 15–16: Tibetan prayer not to be separated from the teacher, here personalized by citing Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra (Sangye On) and his teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon).6 The eight outer clusters of deities: Black and red alternatively, dbu med inscriptions correspond to the eight outer clusters of deities on the obverse, who represent eight sets of Nyingma Mahāyoga teachings (Skt. aṣṭamahāsādhana, Tib. sgrub pa bka' brgyad, Ch. 八大法行), each including Sanskrit mantras and Tibetan descriptions of the deities (lha tshogs).

(pad ma gsung) D: Hayagrīvarāja and Ekajaṭī W

I: Padmasambhava and consort (rig 'dzin 'dus pa)

C: Yamāntaka and Ekajatī ('jam dpal sku)

G: (dmod pa drag sngags)

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C N

E: Vajrakīlaya and Tṛptacakra (phur pa phrin las)

H: (ma mo 'bod gtong)

F: ('jig rten mchod stod)

B: Vajra Heruka and Krodeśvarī (yang dag thugs)

5 It is somewhat reminiscent of oṃ vajrahāsa hā/, the mantra of Vajrahāsa (lit. Diamond laughter), ending with the seed syllable hā used in some maṇḍala rituals. 6 “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.”

626

B. Inscriptions corresponding to the eastern cluster of deities on the obverse to evoke Vajraheruka (or Viśuddhaheruka, i.e. yang dag ~): oṃ OṂ ru lu ru [lu] A hūṃ byo hūṃ HŪṂ phaṭ yang dag thug(s) badzra he ru ka/ C. Inscriptions corresponding to the southern cluster to evoke Yamāntaka, whose Tibetan name – gshin rje gshed – was written beside the end of the second line: oṃ ŌṂ a kro te ka A ya man te HŪṂ ka ha na ma tha ban ja hūṃ phaṭ 'jam dpal sku'i lha: D. Inscriptions corresponding to the western cluster, first four lines nearly illegible, to evoke Hayagrīva:7 ōṃ ŌṂ pad ma ta kr(i)d va A jra ma hā kro dha ha ya HŪṂ ghr(i va)/ hu lu hu lu (hūṃ phaṭ): pad ma dam chen pad ma gsung gi lha tshogs ōṃ[ ]pat ma kro ta ha ya 'ghri va hu lu hu lu (hūṃ phaṭ)8

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

E. Inscriptions corresponding to the northern cluster, to evoke Vajrakīla:

OṂ ōṃ vajra kiliki la A ya sa rva vig[h] HŪṂ nan hūṃ[ ]phaṭ phur pa 'phrin las kyi lha

7 Hayagrīva’s mantra appears twice, in red. There exist some minor differences: for example, at the beginning padmantakṛt, “lotus terminator,” was mentioned the previous time while padmakrodha, “lotus angry,” was mentioned the next time. 8 The available photographs do not show the end of the last line.

627

The Tsakli Seventy-nine tsakli (tsa ka li), small paintings on paper, can be associated with the Taklung tradition.1 Of these, at least 45 bear verso inscriptions in which Sangye On expressed his aspiration to remain in contact with his teacher, Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon.2 Other tsakli inscriptions invoke the name of the deity or the historical figure portrayed on the obverse (e.g., Atiśa, Tashipel, or Sangye Yarjon), but no further historical information can be gleaned. Dr. Amy Heller made the pioneering attempt to establish an historical context for the Taklung tsakli when she published three images from the Newark Museum and two from a private collection.3 In 1997 she wrote, “In 1263, Mongol hordes threatening to invade Tibet were appeased by his [Sangye Yarjon’s] sumptuous offerings… To celebrate the repulsion of the Mongol attack, every year thereafter, on the fourteenth day of the fourth month, until Sangye Yarjon’s death, thousands of tsakali were offered, all inscribed with prayers.”4 Although Heller did not state so explicitly, the implication of this historical citation is that the Taklung tsakli she published (tsakli nos. 18, 48, 50, 53, 63 in this publication) were among those created by Sangye Yarjon between 1263 and his death in 1272. The source of Heller’s information about Sangye Yarjon creating tsakli is an Indian edition of the Taklung History.5 The passage in question reads: lo re zhin hor zla lnga pa'i bcu bzhi bco lda la hor bzlog sogs la dmigs pa'i tsha tsha snying po can 'bum phrag nyi shu rtsa gsum las mi nyung ba/ nyi ma'i ris kyi tsha tsha dang lha chung mang po/. The Lhasa edition of the Taklung History (the edition translated by Gyurme Dorje and used throughout this publication) includes the same passage, with a few spelling variations. Gyurme Dorje has translated this passage: “Each year on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the fifth lunar month, he [Sangye Yarjon] made no less than twenty-three hundred thousand small terracotta icons (tsha tsha) with their mantra cores (snying po can), which had the objective of warding off the Hor and so forth; and each day he newly made many terracotta icons.”6

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

The text in both editions actually specifies tsha tsha, small clay sculptures created from molds, not tsakli. In translating this passage, Heller was guided by the interpretation of a Tibetan teacher who presumed the text was referring to tsakli because “tsha tsha are mixed with ashes of the deceased and it would not have been possible to create so many.”7 The Blue Annals also refers to Sangye

1 In addition to the 73 published here, an additional six were studied in the course of this research. Four are published in Zhang Xiaowei, ed., Zagali [Tsa ka li], 2 vols. (Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe [Cultural Relics Press], 2015). The four tsakli represent the Buddhas Ratnaketu and Kanakamuni, and two representations of a four-armed Tārā. In addition, two more tsakli (a Jambhala and a Tārā) were excluded because of poor photography.

2 Note that verso photographs were not available for six of the tsakli studied.

3 Amy Heller, “A Set of Thirteenth Century Tsakali,” Orientations vol. 28, no. 10 (November 1997): 48–52. 4 Heller, “Tsakali,” 52.

5 Ngawang Namgyal, Chos 'byung ngo mtshar rgya mtsho vol. 1, ed. Khamtrul Don Gyungyima (Palampur: Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel Parkhang, 1972): 388. Available online at BDRC. 6 lo re bzhin hor zla lnga pa'i bcu bzhi bco lnga la hor bzlogs la dmigs pa'i tsha tsha snying po can 'bum phrag nyi shu rtsa gsum las mi nyung ba/ nyi ma'i res kyi tsha tsha dang lha chung mang po/. Taklung History, 277, Gyurme Dorje trans. Bold highlights differences in the two texts. 7 I am grateful to Dr. Heller for sharing her notes with me and engaging in dialogue about this point in personal correspondence, June 2020.

928

Yarjon making many clay images from molds, describing them as “numberless votive offerings (sa tsa).”8 It appears most likely that the text was indeed referring to clay images, not small painted images (tsakli). The reference cited from the Taklung History therefore does not appear to have relevance to the Taklung tsakli, nor their chronology. Mention is made in the Taklung History to tsakli produced during the tenure of Sangye Yarjon: “At the very least, the saintly persons who were present at that time unimaginably perceived the letters inscribed on the reverse side of each large painted scroll, and even the drawn tsakli icons that had been inserted within each of the small images.”9 Moreover, it states that Sangye Yarjon sent his uncle with offerings to appease the Mongols: “On one occasion when the large army of Hor Dumur arrived in Tibet, he sent his venerable uncle (zhang btsun) bearing gifts to the place where the Hor [were encamped]. By resorting exclusively to prayer, Dumur’s inimical thoughts were calmed and he became a disciple. At the time when he reached the place where the Hor [were encamped], a band of travellers (lam 'grul) saw Mahākāruṇika seated above the head of the man bearing [those gifts] within a tent, and they prostrated.”10 Gyurme Dorje interprets this event to be the 1240 invasion of Tibet by Dorta Nagpo [Doorda Darkhan] and Leje, as described by the Tibetan historian Shakabpa.11 The verso inscriptions on 45 of the tsakli do closely associate Sangye On and possibly Sangye Yarjon with their creation. The recurring inscription in these 45 tsakli invokes interim Fourth Abbot Sangye On in the first person (bdag), “I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra,” and expresses a desire to remain in contact with his teacher Sangye Yarjon. “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.”12 The same inscription appears in the verso inscriptions of six or seven Taklung paintings.13

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

One can reasonably conclude that Sangye On was alive when this prayer was recorded on the verso of the tsakli. His death in 1296 can therefore provide a terminus date for the tsakli in which these inscriptions appear. Whether Sangye Yarjon was alive when the prayer was inscribed is open to interpretation.14 At this stage of research, it is best to allow both possibilities. Thus, the chronological parameters of the tsakli which bear this inscription are likely to be between 1266, when Sangye On arrived at Taklung and met Sangye Yarjon, and 1296, the year that he died. The other tsakli, more or less similar in style to those with the Sangye On inscriptions, can be confidently dated to c. 13th century.

8 Roerich, The Blue Annals, 628.

9 Taklung History, 280, Gyurme Dorje trans.

10 Taklung History, 276, Gyurme Dorje trans.

11 Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New York: Potala Publications, 1984) (reissued from first printing Yale University Press, 1967): 61. 12 mtshungs myed bla ma dam pa prajnya 'ghu ru dang // bdag 'ghir ti shri ra smī bha tra 'bral med ci gsung bka' bsgrub cing // rang sems 'khrul pa dag pa dang // 'gro ba'i 'dren pa nus par gshog / 13 See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 in this volume. 14 Heller has suggested that the phrase ci gsung, “as spoken,” indicates Sangye Yarjon was alive at the time the inscription was recorded. Personal correspondence, 26 July 1996. If one accepts this premise, then the terminus date for these tsakli would be 1272, the year Sangye Yarjon died.

929

The tsakli fall into various style groups. The majority are painted in red pigment on a deep coral or red ground, with gold used to define the bodies of saintly and divine figures. Black and white pigments highlight facial features and halos. Yellow pigment is sometimes used in coiffures. Atiśa (Fig. 109), Tashipel (Fig. 110), and Kṛṣṇajambhala (Fig. 111) are superb examples of this genre.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 109 Atiśa (Tsakli 15), 1266–1296.

Figure 110 Tashipel (Tsakli 16), 1266–1296.

Figure 111 Kṛṣṇajambhala (Tsakli 58), c. 13th century. 930

Other iconography represented include many (17) representations of a wrathful form of Tārā, two examples of eleven-headed Avalokiteśvara (Tsakli 23, 24), and examples of Mahākālī, a Jambhala, Aparājitā, Mahākāla, Vaiśravaṇa, and various Buddhas. The verso inscriptions are written in cursive red ink on paper. They appear to have been written quickly. In some inscriptions, ink was spilled or smeared. At least once, a correction was made in black ink over a smeared coral ground (Fig. 112). Even figures of the same iconography are unique expressions of the artist’s or artists’ hand (e.g., the 17 paintings of Wrathful Tārā).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 112 Wrathful Tārā (Tsakli 33), 1266–1296.

931

A second group features a gold ground, figures drawn in a red line, with black and white used to define facial features and hair. Chandra (Tsakli 7), a Mahāsiddha couple (Tsakli 8), and Rahu (Tsakli 13) are outstanding examples of this genre. (Figs. 113-115)

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 113 Chandra (Tsakli 7), c. 13th century.

Figure 114 Mahāsiddha couple (Tsakli 8), c. 13th century.

Figure 115 Rahu (Tsakli 13), c. 13th century.

932

Three portraits of Sangye Yarjon (Tsakli 1, 2, 3) include verso inscriptions composed by Sangye On, paying homage to his teacher, and expressing his aspiration not to be separated from his teacher. Six tsakli present colored paintings of the early lineage holders in the Taklung tradition: Tilopa (Fig. 116), Nāropa (Tsakli 69), and the early Tibetan lineage holders Marpa (Tsakli 70), Milarepa (Tsakli 73), Gampopa (Tsakli 72), and Phagmodrupa (Tsakli 71). No verso photographs were available at the time of publication, but the figures are identified by inscriptions beneath their lotus seats.

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Figure 116 Tilopa (Tsakli 68), c. 13th century.

A few tsakli have creased corners, which suggest they were once folded, probably to enclose them within a smaller sculpture or stūpa (e.g., Tārā (Tsakli 49), Mahākālī (Tsakli 55), Rahu (Tsakli 31), as mentioned in the Taklung History, above.15 As such, tsakli served to sanctify the objects (rten) containing them, empowered by the mantras, dhāraṇī, and prayers inscribed on their versos. Tsakli were also used in private ceremonies, their small size facilitating their use by a teacher to initiate a disciple into particular teachings. More generally, they were used in ritual settings that required small painted images of the Buddhist pantheon.16

15 See footnote 9 above. 16 Alex Wayman, The Buddhist Tantras (New York: S. Weiser, 1973), 56–59.

933

Tsakli �

Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, 1266–1296 �� × �.� cm. approx. Michael J. and Beata McCormick Collection

Verso inscription in red dbu med script: */ oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru pra jña [2] 'ghu ru hūṃ / OṂ bla ma rin po che [3] sangs rgyas yar byon la phyag 'tshal lo / [4] ye dharmā he du pra bha vā he dun te ṣān ta thā A [5] ga to hya va dad/ te ṣān ca yo ni ro dha [6] e vaṃ vā di ma hā śra ma ṇaḥ oṃ su pra ti [7] ṣtā vajra yāī svā hā/ HŪṂ oṃ sarva vyid svā hā [8] oṃ vajra gar bhe svā hā// mtshungs myed [9] bla ma dam <sa> pa pradznya 'ghu ru dang // bdag [10] 'ghir ti shri ra smī bha tra 'bral med ci [11] gsung bka' bsgrub cing // rang sems 'khrul [12] pa dag pa dang // 'gro ba'i 'dren pa nus par shog // [13]

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C [1]

Identification:

Lines 1–2: salutation to the precious teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon). Lines 2–3: Tibetan salutation to the precious teacher Sangye Yarjon. Lines 4–6: ye dharmā verse. Lines 6–8: mantra set for consecration. Lines 8–13: Tibetan prayer not to be separated from the teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon), expressed in the name of Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra (Sangye On). “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.”

934

Tsakli �

Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, 1266–1296 �� × �.� cm. Private Collection

Verso inscription in red dbu med script: */ oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru prajña 'ghu ru hūṃ / OṂ bla ma dam (pa) rin 1 [3] <praja> po che sangs ryas yar byon la [4] phyag 'tshal lo A ye dharmā he du pra [5] bha vā he dun te ṣān ta thā ga to hya va [6] dad / te ṣān ca yo ni ro dha e vaṃ vā [7] dī ma hā śra ma HŪṂ ṇaḥ oṃ su pra ti [8] ṣthā vajra yāī svā hā / oṃ sarva vyid svā [9] hā // oṃ vajra gar bhe sva hā // [10] mtshungs myed bla ma dam pa pradznya [11] 'ghu ru dang // bdag 'ghir ti shri ra smī [12] bha tra 'bral med ci gsung bka' bsgrub [13] cing // rang sems 'khul pa dag pa dang // 'gro ba'i 'dren pa nus par shog // [14]

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C [1]

[2]

Identification:

Lines 1–2: salutation to the precious teacher Prajñāguru. Lines 2–4: Tibetan salutation to the precious teacher Sangye Yarjon. Lines 4–7: ye dharmā verse. Lines 7–9: mantra set for consecration. Lines 10–14: Tibetan prayer not to be separated from the teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon), expressed in the name of Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra (Sangye On). “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.” 1 This syllable has been intentionally erased.

935

Tsakli �

Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, 1266–1296

�.� × �.� cm. Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Gift of Ruth and Bruce Dayton 2000.209.8.3

Verso inscription in red dbu med script: */ oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru prajña [2] 'ghu ru hūṃ / bla ma OṂ rin po che sangs rgyas [3] yar byon la phyag 'tshal lo // ye dharmā [4] he du pra bha vā he A dun te ṣān ta thā [5] ga to hya va dad / te ṣān ca yo ni ro dha e [6] vaṃ vā dī ma hā śra ma ṇaḥ oṃ su pra ti ṣṭhā [7] vajra yāī svā hā / HŪṂ oṃ sarva vyid svā hā / [8] oṃ vajra gar bhe svā hā // mtshungs myed bla [9] ma dam pa pradznya 'ghu ru dang // bdag 'ghir [10] ti shri ra smī bha tra 'bral med ci gsung bka' [11] bsgrub cing // rang sems 'khrul pa dag pa [12] dang // 'gro ba'i 'dren pa nus par shog //

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C [1]

Identification:

Lines 1–2: salutation to the precious teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon). Lines 2–3: Tibetan salutation to the precious teacher Sangye Yarjon. Lines 3–6: ye dharmā verse. Lines 6–8: mantra set for consecration. Lines 8–12: Tibetan prayer not to be separated from the teacher Prajñāguru (Sangye Yarjon), expressed in the name of Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra (Sangye On). “May I, Kīrtiśrīraśmibhadra, being inseparable from the incomparable holy lama Prajñāguru, achieve whatever he commands, and may I have the power to purify the bewilderment of my own mind and act as a guide for living beings.”

936

appendix �

Recurring Inscriptions on Taklung Paintings Seventy-three paintings bear inscriptions with chronological implications. 1. Pre-consecration inscriptions that invoke the name of the main figure/s on the painting obverse. (23) See Introduction, pp. 60–66, for discussion of this group of inscriptions.

Cat. 8. Portrait of Tashipel, His Footprints and Manifestations, c. 1180–1210, 52.5 × 34 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Musée national des arts asiatiques-Guimet, Paris MA5176, Collection Lionel Fournier. (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṃ ga la śri huṃ). Cat. 12. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, c. 1180–1210, 72.2 × 57.2 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private Collection. (ōṃ a bla ma rin po che bkra shis dpal hūṃ) The only invocation of Tashipel in Tibetan rather than Sanskrit language. Cat. 18. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Taklung Abbot, c. 1236–1272, 47 × 37 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private Collection. (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṃ ga la śri hūṃ). Cat. 24. Portrait of Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, c. 1236–1272, 82 × 63 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private Collection. (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru prad jña ghu ru hūṃ).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Cat. 25. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, c. 1236–1272, 28 × 21.6 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Asian Art Museum, San Francisco. (ōṃ a na mo rad na 'ghu ru ma[ṃ] gha la śrī hūṃ). Cat. 26. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, c. 1236–1272, Third Abbot’s tenure, 37.5 × 29.2 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private Collection. (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na maṅ gha la śri huṃ). Cat. 27. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Taklung Abbot, c. 1236–1272, 37 × 28.5 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private French Collection. (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru maṃ gha la śri hūṃ). Cat. 31. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, c. 1236–1272, 22.1 × 17.2 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Riwoche Monastery Collection, Kham. (oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru maṃ gha la śri hūṃ).

Cat. 45. Portrait of Phagmodrupa, end of the tenure of Third Abbot (1236–1272) or early interim Fourth Abbot (1272–1296), 21.7 × 15.9 cm., probably commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Riwoche Monastery Collection, Kham. (oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru vajra ra ca hūṃ). Cat. 46. Portrait of Kuyalwa, Second Abbot of Taklung, commissioned during the late tenure of

1042

the Third Abbot (1236–72) or early in the tenure of interim Fourth Abbot (1272–96), 23 × 18 cm., probably commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Private Collection. (oṃ a na mō rad na 'ghu ru rad na na thā hūṃ). Cat. 48. Portrait of Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, 1236–1296, 32.4 × 25.4 cm., Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, The Kronos Collections, New York. (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru hūṃ) × 3. Cat. 49. Portraits of Second and Third Abbots of Taklung, 1236–1296, 27 × 19.5 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Private Collection. Kuyalwa (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru rad na na thā hūṃ); and Sangye Yarjon (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru prad jña ghu ru hūṃ). Cat. 52. Portrait of Sangye Yarjon, Third Abbot of Taklung, 1236–1296, 39 × 27 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Barbara and Walter Frey Collection. (ōṃ a rad na prad j[ñ] a 'ghu ru hūṃ). Cat. 53. Portrait of First, Second, and Third Taklung Abbots, c. 1236–1296, 38.5 × 31.5 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Yixi Pingcuo Collection. Kuyalwa (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru rad na [na] thā huṃ), Sangye Yarjon (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru huṃ), and Tashipel (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru rad na maṃ ga la śri huṃ). Cat. 54. Portrait of Third Abbot Sangye Yarjon, 1236–1296, c. 45 × 38 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Shelley and Donald Rubin Collection. (rad na 'ghu ru prad jña ['gh] u [r]u hūṃ). Cat. 55. Portraits of Second and Third Taklung Abbots, c. 1236–1296, 33.02 × 27.31 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Rubin Museum of Art (C2006.66.3510), Gift of Shelley and Donald Rubin. Kuyalwa (ōṃ a rad na 'ghu ru rad na na thā hūṃ) and Sangye Yarjon (ōṃ a na mo 'ghu ru prad [j]ña ghu ru hūṃ).

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

Cat. 56. Portrait of Sangye Yarjon, Third Taklung Abbot, c. 1236–1296, 36 × 23 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Riwoche Monastery Collection, Kham. (ōṃ a na mo ghu ru rad na prad jña ghu ru hūṃ). Cat. 57. Portrait of Third Taklung Abbot Sangye Yarjon, c. 1236–1296, 66.5 × 47 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, The Kronos Collections, New York. (ōṃ a [na mo] ra[d] na pra[d jñ]ā ghu ru huṃ//). Cat. 61. Portrait of Taklung Thangpa Chenpo, First Abbot of Taklung, c. 1180–1296 (possibly 1180–1210), 33.2 × 24.2 cm., probably commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Yang Zi Collection, Beijing. (ōṃ a na mo rad na 'ghu ru maṅ ga la śrī huṃ). Cat. 64. Phagmodrupa and Tashipel, surrounded by scenes from the Life of Phagmodrupa, c. 1210–1296, 29 × 23.5 cm., commissioned for Taklung or Riwoche Monastery, Catherine and Ralph Benkaim Collection. Phagmodrupa (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru vajra ra ja hūṃ) and Tashipel (ōṃ a na mo rad na ghu ru maṅ ga la śri hūṃ).

Cat. 72. Portrait of Phagmodrupa, c. 13th century (Second or Third Abbots’ tenures, and before 1297), 66 × 47 cm., probably commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Ron Lawrence and Julie Goodhale Collection. (oṃ a vajra raja hūṃ).

1043

Cat. 17. Portrait of Kuyalwa, Second Abbot of Taklung, 1210–1236, 27.5 × 20.7 cm., commissioned for Taklung Monastery, Alain Bordier Foundation (AB 36). *//(bla) ma rin (po che) sku yal ba (dpal yar chod…dang bla)2 ma rin po che dbon po dpal gyi rab (gnas) dpag du med pa bzhugs // “[Here] dwell the immeasurable consecrations of Lama Kuyalwa to the honorable Onpo Lama Rinpoche.”

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

2 Within parentheses a possible reading for this nearly illegible passage, based on other examples of this inscription.

1055

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

A seminal book on dating and identification of Tibetan paintings

Taklung Painting A S T U DY I N C H RO N O L O GY JA N E C A S E Y

with contributions by Gyurme Dorje and Liao Yang

in � VOLUMES eautif ully presented in t wo volumes , Taklung Painting: A Study in Chronology establishes a reliable

foundation for assigning dates to nearly one hundred paintings associated with Taklung Monastery in central Tibet

and its sister monastery, Riwoche in eastern Tibet. Using visual lineages (the succession of teachers represented in the

top, side, and, occasionally, the bottom registers of paintings), inscriptions, narrative scenes (in which principal structures in the Taklung Monastery compound may be linked to specific dates), and style analysis, the author identifies fundamental parameters that help to create firm chronological designations for these c. twelfth to mid-sixteenth century paintings. This essential two-volume set includes more than 800 images,

Y ls L a N i r O te a W m E I d V e E t h R P yrig p o C

illustrating Taklung paintings in vivid detail, pointing out key visual comparisons and deciphering their many inscriptions.

JANE CASEY is an art historian specializing in Himalayan art. Educated in the History of Science (A.B.) and in Fine Arts (A.M. and Ph.D.) at Harvard University, since 1991 she has worked as an independent art historian, curating

exhibitions at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and at Casa Asia, Barcelona. She is a Guest Professor at the Zhejiang University Center for Buddhist Art in Hangzhou and a Research Fellow in Tibetan Art at the Palace Museum in Beijing.

24.8 × 32.4 cm / 9.8 × 12.8 in Volume I & II: 1134 pages 800+ color illustrations 2-VOLUME SET IN HARDCOVER & SLIPCASE

SCAN HERE TO ORDER >>> EXCLUSIVELY AT WWW.SERINDIA.COM

AVAILABLE & SHIPPING END OF NOVEMBER 2023

TAKLUNG PAINTING: A Study in Chronology by Jane Casey / PREVIEW