Recently, Karl E. Ryavec introduced a single painting (Fig. 1) from a previously unknown set of the Ngor tradition. The painting shows three masters as its main figures, most likely representing the lineage of the Lamdre instructions. The painting would thus be from a set with the less common composition of arranging the lineage masters in groups of three, rather than the more common way of the Ngor tradition of depicting one, two, or four masters on a single painting.
Since I have discussed the painting and its inscription with Karl, and since the paper attributes to me the incomplete translation of my transliteration of the inscription, of which I had only tentatively translated one sentence without having seen the original inscription, I would like to briefly introduce the painting and its historical context, and offer a full translation of its most important inscription in order to reconstruct the historical context of its production.
As Ryavec (2024: 92–93) aptly points out:
This painting is both rare and important because the Ngor school […] was heretofore known for its memorial paintings of past teachers and intricate mandalas from the 15th and 16th centuries, painted in the Newari-influenced Beri style, which is characterized by decorative arches and detailed vegetal scrollwork, with an overall preponderance of red pigments. In contrast to the blue-green Chinese-inspired landscape style of this painting, the Beri style was rigid and two-dimensional, lacking much if any spatial perspective. There are many thangkas from the 1600s and later depicting Ngor figures in different styles, but this painting is so far the only documented memorial commission by a Ngor Abbot during the 1500s painted in a Chinese-inspired landscape style, and as such it merits close study.
The painting contains several types of inscriptions. All the major and minor figures have labelling inscriptions in Tibetan. Unfortunately, in the case of the three main figures, the inscriptions are largely obliterated and, in addition to iconographic clues, as Ryavec (2024: 93) points out, they “may be identified with certainty by their Sanskrit names in the mantras written for each in the shape of a chorten, or shrine, on the reverse of the thangka.” The three main figures can thus be identified as Drokmi Lotsāwa Shākya Yeshe (’Brog mi Lo tsā ba Shākya ye shes, 993–1060s/70s) in the centre, Setön Künrik (Se ston Kun rig, ca. 1025/29–1116/22) to his proper right, and Zhangtön Chöbar (Zhang ston Chos ’bar, 1053–1135) to his proper left.1
In the standard Ngor transmission of the Lamdre, these three masters successively occupy positions number 8–10. If the first painting in the set were to depict Vajradhara, the original teacher of the Lamdre, as a single main figure, and the other paintings had arranged the masters in groups of three, the present painting would be the fourth in the set. The two preceding paintings would then show Nairātmyā, Virūpa and Kāṇha on the second painting and Ḍāmarupa, Avadhūtīpa and Gayādhara (d. 1103) on the third.
The reverse side of the painting contains a long inscription at the bottom (Fig. 2), written in a type of the headless script (dbu med), which clarifies the historical context of the painting’s commission.
The inscription begins with a verse in praise of Könchok Penden, in which the individual syllables of his name are interwoven (emphasised in bold by the author).
Inscription (contractions in the original Tibetan are decoded):
࿓། དཀོན་མཆོག་བསྟན་པའི་ནམ་མཁའ་རབ་ཡངས་པར། །མཁྱེན་བརྩེ་དཔལ་འབྱོར་འོད་སྟོང་རབ་སྤྲོས་པས། །སྐལ་ལྡན་བློ་ཡི་མུན་པ་ཀུན་སེལ་བའི། །རྗེ་བཙུན་ཉིན་བྱེད་དབང་པོས་བདག་སྐྱོངས་ཤིག །རྗེ་བཙུན་ཨེ་ཝཾ་པ་ཆེན་པོ་དཀོན་མཆོག་དཔལ་ལྡན་གྱི་ཐུགས་ཀྱི་དགོངས་པ་ཁྱད་པར་ཅན་གོང་ནས་གོང་དུ་རྫོགས་པའི་ཕྱིར་དུ། རྡོ་རྗེའི་སློབ་མ་ཤཱཀྱའི་དགེ་སློང་ཤར་པ་བྱམས་པ་ཀུན་དགའ་བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཀྱིས། སྒོ་གསུམ་གུས་པའི་སྒོ་ནས་བཞེངས་པའི་དགེ་བས་བདག་སོགས་སྐྱེ་དགུ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་མྱུར་དུ་འཇུག་པར་གྱུར་ཅིག། མཾ་ག་ལཾ།།
@| dkon mchog bstan pa’i nam mkha’ rab yangs par| |mkhyen brtse dpal ’byor ’od stong rab spros pas| |skal ldan blo yi mun pa kun sel ba’i| |rje btsun nyin byed dbang pos bdag skyongs shig |rje btsun e waṃ pa chen po dkon mchog dpal ldan gyi thugs kyi dgongs pa khyad par can gong nas gong du rdzogs pa’i phyir du| rdo rje’i slob ma shākya’i dge slong shar pa byams pa kun dga’ bkra shis kyis| sgo gsum gus pa’i sgo nas bzhengs pa’i dge bas bdag sogs skye dgu rnams kyi rgyud la bla ma’i byin rlabs myur du ’jug par gyur cig| maṃ ga laṃ||
Translation of the inscription:
In the utterly vast space of the precious Doctrine,
By fully radiating thousands of rays of light of wisdom, loving-kindness, and prosperity,
May [he] who dispels all the mental darkness of the fortunate ones,
The Venerable Lord, Chief of the Sun, protect me.In order to fulfil more and more the extraordinary intentions of the Venerable Lord, the Great Master of [Ngor] Ewaṃ [Chöden], Könchok Penden, [I], his vajra disciple, Śākyabhikṣu Sharpa Jampa Künga Tashi, have commissioned [this thangka] with the devotion of [my] three doors [of body, speech, and mind]. Through the merit [of this commission], may the lama’s blessings swiftly enter the mind stream of all sentient beings, including myself.
The inscription makes it clear that the painting, and therefore also the set to which it belonged, was ordered by Sharchen Jampa Künga Tashi (Shar chen Byams pa Kun dga’ bkra shis, 1558–1615), the 14th abbot of Ngor (tenure: 1595–1615), as a funerary commission for his late teacher Könchok Penden (dKon mchog dpal ldan, 1526–1590), the 12th abbot of Ngor (two tenures: 1569–1579 and 1582/83–1590).
The phrase from the inscription, “In order to fulfil more and more the extraordinary intentions,” does not refer to any kind of wish-fulfilling, but is used specifically to refer to funerary commissions, which were commonly made after the death of a master as part of his funerary ceremonies, including thangkas, statues, stūpas, scriptures, etc. The painting and the set to which it belongs were therefore commissioned after the death of Könchok Penden, most likely in the early 1590s.
The biographical corpus of Ngor abbot biographies and the abbatial histories of the monastery inform us of some commissions made by Künga Tashi, but do not seem to mention the set to which the present painting belonged. Sanggye Püntsok (1649–1705), the 25th abbot, in his compilation of early biographies of the founder of Ngor, Ngorchen Künga Zangpo (Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, 1382–1456), mentions several Lamdre lineage sets at Ngor, including one commissioned by Künga Tashi:
The eleven Lamdre thangkas made as a means to fulfil the intentions of Drupchen Buddhawa, together with the supplement thangkas of subsequent lamas, are the thangkas that are displayed during the Hevajra path initiation of the Oral Instructions [i.e., the Lamdre], alternating each year with the set of golden thangkas commissioned by Lord Könchok Penden. The continuation of the golden thangkas has been commissioned by Jampa Künga Tashi.2
The first eleven paintings mentioned are the set commissioned by Ngorchen himself in honour of his late Lamdre master Buddhaśrī in the early 1420s, when he was still based at his home monastery of Sakya; after founding Ngor in 1429 he apparently took the set with him to his new monastic seat, where it was displayed during the annual bestowal of the Lamdre.3 The passage then mentions “supplement thangkas of subsequent lamas,” that is, paintings of the last generation of abbots who transmitted the lineage, that were commissioned to bring the old set by Ngorchen up to date.4 The passage goes on to mention a new set of “golden thangkas” (gser thang) commissioned by Könchok Penden and continued by Künga Tashi.
In this context, the question arises as to whether these “golden thangkas” (gser thang) were really paintings with a layer of gold paint as a background, or whether the term “golden thangkas” is used to refer to ordinary paintings in which gold was used extensively as a colour. The first set commissioned by Könchok Penden is not recorded in his own biography, but the second set commissioned by Künga Tashi is mentioned in both their biographies, although it is not referred to as continuing an earlier set. Moreover, the biography of Künga Tashi mentions it in a way that suggests the latter interpretation, stating that the set was “embellished with an abundance of gold outlining” (gser ris kyi gya nom pas sbras pa).5
However, there are several reasons against identifying the present painting as part of the seventeen paintings that continued Könchok Penden’s set mentioned by Sanggye Püntsok. Firstly, the three main figures in the painting occupy an early place in the lineage and would not be depicted as part of the continuation. Secondly, the arrangement of three lineage masters on each painting, with the probable exception of the first painting depicting Vajradhara as a single main figure, would not allow for such a pairing of masters over seventeen paintings. With an arrangement of groups of three masters per painting, only about ten paintings would be needed to bring the lineage down to Könchok Penden. Thirdly, there is no extensive outlining in gold.
Thus, unless Sanggye Püntsok is mistaken in his biography of Ngorchen, Künga Tashi may have commissioned two different sets of Lamdre lineage master paintings as a funerary commission for Könchok Penden, the continuation of Könchok Penden’s set and the set of which the present painting is a part. Moreover, if the continuation did indeed comprise seventeen paintings, it most likely depicted the lineage masters as single main figures, as the first part commissioned by Könchol Penden would have done.
If we speculate on the dating of the hypothetical scenario of commissioning these two sets, we read in Künga Tashi’s biography that in 1584 he was sent to Kham (Khams) in eastern Tibet by his teacher, Könchok Penden, to collect offerings in exchange for giving teachings and monastic ordinations. After five years in Kham, he was called back to Ngor by Könchok Penden, who had hoped that his disciple would take part in his funerary ceremonies, apparently foreseeing his own imminent death. As Künga Tashi prepared to return to Ngor, he learned that Könchok Penden had already passed away on the second day of the eighth month of 1590. He himself would not return to Ngor until late 1591 or early 1592.6 One might therefore speculate that Künga Tashi might have commissioned this painting and the set it belongs to while he was still in Kham, having heard of his teacher’s death. However, he makes no mention of this commission in the biography he himself wrote of Könchok Penden. He does mention, however, that on his return to Ngor he commissioned the seventeen Lamdre lineage master paintings in 1593.
A possible candidate for the successive commissions of Könchok Penden and Künga Tashi could be the well-known thirty-plus Lamdre set depicting its masters as individual figures, commissioned in the late 16th century in a late Newari-influenced Beri style (Bal ris), the last known painting of which portrays Drangti Penchen Namkha Pelzang (Brang ti Paṇ chen Nam mkha’ dpal bzang, 1535–1602), the 13th abbot and predecessor of Künga Tashi.
Several lineages surrounding the main figures of these paintings end with masters such as Könchok Lhündrup (dKon mchog lhun grub, 1497–1557), the 10th abbot, or Drangti Penchen, the 13th abbot, an observation that also allows for dating the paintings to the late 16th cenury. However, all the surviving paintings in the set would have to be carefully examined to determine who the last masters of the surrounding lineages were and whether they could shed any further light on the patron or patrons of the set. Fig. 3 shows Sanggye Sengge (1504–1569), the 11th abbot, as an example from this set.
With the exception of seven paintings, twenty-seven have been located by David Jackson in private and museum collections. Those that have not been located are indicated in italics in the following list, kindly shared with me by David, which also indicates their positions within the set, if it includes all abbots of Ngor sequentially:
(1) Vajradhara (middle)
(2) Nairātmyā (1st to the right)
(3) Virūpa (1st to the left)
(4) Kāṇha (2nd to the right)
(5) Ḍamarupāda (2nd to the left)
(6) Avadhūti (3rd to the right)
(7) Gayādhara (d. 1103), (3rd to the left)
(8) Drokmi Lotsāwa Shākya Yeshe (‘Brog mi Lo tsā ba Shākya ye shes, 993–1060s/70s) (4th to the right)
(9) Setön Künrik (Se ston Kun rig, ca. 1025/29–1116/22) (4th to the left)
(10) Zhangtön Chöbar (Zhang ston Chos ‘bar, 1053–1135) (5th to the right)
(11) Sachen Künga Nyingpo (Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, 1092–1158) (5th to the left)
(12) Loppön Sönam Tsemo (Slob dpon bSod nams rtse mo, 1142–1182) (6th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: … g.yas drug pa bsod nams rtse mo|)
(13) Jetsün Drakpa Gyeltsen (rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1147–1216) (6th to the left; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: pa g.yon drug pa grags pa rgyal mtshan|)
(14) Sakya Paṇḍita Künga Gyeltsen (Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, 1182–1251) (7th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: pha g.yas bdun pa sa paṇ|)
(15) Chögyel Pakpa Lodrö Gyeltsen (Chos rgyal ‘Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, 1235–1280) (7th to the left)
(16) Zhang Könchok Pel (Zhang dKon mchog dpal, 1240/50–1307/17) (8th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: ma g.yas brgyad pa dkon dpal|)
(17) Nabza Drakpukpa Sönam Pel (Na bza’ Brag phug pa bSod nams dpal, 1277–1350) (8th to the left)
(18) Lama Dampa Sönam Gyeltsen (Bla ma dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan, 1312–1375) (9th to the right)
(19) Penden Tsültrim (dPal ldan tshul khrims, 1333–1399) (9th to the left)
(20) Buddhashrī (1339–1419) (tenth to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: la g.yas bcu pa buddha shrī|)
(21) Ngorchen Künga Zangpo (Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, 1382–1456), the first abbot (tenth to the left; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: … g.yon bcu pa kun dga’ bzang po|)
(22) Müchen Könchok Gyeltsen (Mus chen dKon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1388–1469), the 2nd abbot (11th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: za g.yas bcu gcig pa dkon rgyal mshan pa|)
(23) Sherap Gyatso (Shes rab rgya mtsho, 1396–1474), the 3rd abbot (11th to the left)
(24) Künga Wangchuk (Kun dga’ dbang phyug, 1424–1478), the 4th abbot (12th to the right)
(25) Penden Dorje (dPal ldan rdo rje, 1411–1482), the 5th abbot (12th to the left)
(26) Gorampa Sönam Sengge (Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge, 1429–1489), the 6th abbot (13th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: la g.yas bcu gsum pa bsod nams seng ge|)
(27) Könchok Pel (dKon mchog ‘phel, 1445–1514), the 7th abbot (13th to the left; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: sha g.yon bcu gsum pa dkon mchog ‘phel ba|)
(28) Sanggye Rinchen (Sangs rgyas rin chen, 1453–1524), the 8th abbot (14th to the right; inscription on mount, back side, upper left: sa g.yas bcu bzhi pa sangs rgyas rin chen pa|)
(29) Lhachok Sengge (lHa mchog seng ge, 1468–1535), the 9th abbot (14th to the left)
(30) Könchok Lhündrup (dKon mchog lhun grub, 1497–1557), the 10th abbot (15th to the right)
(31) Sanggye Sengge (Sangs rgyas seng ge, 1504–1569), the 11th abbot (15th to the left)
(32) Könchok Penden (dKon mchog dpal ldan, 1526–1590), the 12th abbot (16th to the right)
(33) Sherap Gyeltsen (Shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1505–1573; Fig. 4) (16th to the left)7
(34) Drangti Penchen Namkha Pelzang (Brang ti Paṇ chen Nam mkha’ dpal bzang, 1535–1602), the 13th abbot (17th to the right?)
At present, however, although these paintings are rich in several types of inscription, none of them provide details of the historical background to the commission of the paintings. Moreover, the paintings seem to lack the rich gold outline mentioned in the sources for the set by Könchok Penden and its continutation by Künga Tashi.
There is also a possible other painting from the same set (Fig. 5), showing three Tibetan lineage masters in a similarly arranged landscape setting, including the placement of minor figures. Unfortunately, the clearly visible two-line inscription below the central figure is neither legible nor recorded in the published version of the painting, and there is no image of the reverse side available to check whether the painting has a commission inscription.
Regarding the style of the painting in question, Ryavec (2024: 97–98) makes some careful observations:
On stylistic grounds, it is far more difficult to place this painting into one of the main traditions or styles of Tibetan painting.
In conclusion, there are clear similarities that one could use to tentatively identify the style of this painting as the Khyenri style, but there are also enough elements lacking to argue it is in a different Central or Eastern Tibetan style.
In his study of the Khyenri style (mKhyen ris), Jackson (2016: 182, 184–185, fig. 7.36) briefly discussed the painting, which I mentioned above as a possible second example from the set, and suggested to identify its three central figures as “probably Drakphukpa [Brag phug pa bSod nams dpal, 1277–1350], Lama Dampa [Bla ma dam pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan, 1312–1375], and Mati Panchen [Ma ti Paṇ chen Blo gros rgyal mtshan, 1294–1376], his main disciple in the Thekchen tradition of the Lamdre (gurus 18, 19, and 20).”
Jackson thus seems to link the style he ascribes to the painting directly to the Lamdre tradition of the monastic tradition that predominantly sponsored the Khyenri, the tradition of Gongkar (Gong dkar) based at the monastery of Gongkar Chöde (Gong dkar Chos sde). This interpretation is also crucial to Jackson’s identification of the third master as Mati Panchen. If it turns out that the painting is indeed part of the same set commissioned by Künga Tashi, this identification will have to be revised, as Mati Panchen is not part of the Lamdre transmission of the Ngor tradition.
As a final note, I would like to add that after showing both paintings to two Tibetan scholar-painters, both these experts identified the style of the paintings as Menri (sMan ris) and not Khyenri. This shows that we still know too little about the early development of the two indigenous Tibetan styles and their characteristic features to make stylistic attributions, especially for the early Menri.
Endnotes
- On these three masters, see Fermer et al. 2024: 90–105. ↩︎
- Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor chen gyi rnam thar (fol. 38a2–4): grub chen buddha ba’i dgongs rdzogs thabs lam ’bras thang ka bcu gcig| bla ma phyi ma’i kha skong dang bcas| gsung ngag gi lam dbang skabs su| rje dkon mchog dpal ldan pas bzhengs pa’i gser thang rnams dang res mos su ’grems pa ’di yin| gser thang ’phros rnams byams pa kun dga’ bkra shis kyis bzhengs par ’dug| bzhugs sa sngar gyi gzims chung ka gnyis ma da lta lam zab lha khang du grags par bzhugs| […]. ↩︎
- For a detailed study of the whole set, see Heimbel and Jackson 2023. ↩︎
- On these supplements, see Heimbel forthcoming. ↩︎
- See Kun dga’ bkra shis, dKon mchog dpal ldan gyi rnam thar (fol. 451b3): lam ’bras bla ma brgyud pa’i bris sku bcu bdun yang de skabs bzhengs shing|; Ngag dbang brtan pa’i rdo rje, Kun dga’ bkra shis kyi rnam thar (fol. 46b4): de dang stabs bstun lam ’bras chos kyi brgyud pa’i bris sku bcu bdun| gser ris kyi gya nom pas sbras pa bzhengs te|. In his abbatial history of Ngor, Sanggye Püntsok also records only the seventeen paintings by Künga Tashi, and identifies them as paintings in or painted with gold (gser ris); see Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor gyi gdan rabs (fol. 20a4–6): […] lam ’bras brgyud pa’i gser ris bcu bdun|. ↩︎
- See Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor gyi gdan rabs (fols. 19a2–20a2), Ngag dbang brtan pa’i rdo rje, Kun dga’ bkra shis kyi rnam thar (fols. 42a6–46a1). ↩︎
- Although Sherap Gyeltsen never served as abbot of Ngor, he was a very important and influential master at Ngor. Before Könchok Penden was installed as the 12th abbot on the third day of the fifth month of 1569, the abbacy had first been offered to him, but he declined. Afterwards, he did, however, function as acting abbot (mkhan tshab) in 1570, giving the annual Lamdre teachings, and also taught on other occasions when the incumbent abbot was not residing at Ngor. The fact that Sherap Gyeltsen gave the Lamdre as acting abbot might explain why his portrait was included in the set as a lineage master. Sherap Gyeltsen had also previously held various positions in Ngor: until 1541 he served as dbu mdzad (appointed by the order of Lhachog Sengge, the 9th abbot, in 1529), tshogs dpon (appointed by the order of Könchok Lhündrup, the 10th abbot), and zur chad pa. After a teaching tour in Khams, he returned to Ngor in 1549 and served as zur chos pa, taking up residence in the Zimkhang Sharkhang (gZims khang Shar khang). For references to Tibetan texts of these details, see Heimbel 2017: 520, n. 18. ↩︎
Bibliography
Works in Tibetan
Kun dga’ bkra shis, Shar chen Byams pa (1558–1615); the 14th abbot of Ngor. dKon mchog dpal ldan gyi rnam thar = dPal chos kyi rje rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa dkon mchog dpal ldan gyi rnam par thar pa dngos grub kyi gter chen. In Tshogs bshad bla ma’i rnam thar, vol. 2 (kha), fols. 393a–455a6.
Ngag dbang brtan pa’i rdo rje, rTa nag mKhan chen (b. 1584). Kun dga’ bkra shis kyi rnam thar = dPal chos kyi rje ’jig rten gsum gyi yongs su ’dren pa shar chen chos kyi rgyal po’i yon tan rgya mtsho gsal bar byed pa’i rnam par thar pa ye shes chen po’i glu dbyangs. In Tshogs bshad bla ma’i rnam thar, vol. 3 (ga), fols. 28b1a–64a6.
Lam ’bras tshogs bshad = Lam ’bras tshogs bśad: The Sa-skya-pa teachings of the path and the fruit, according to the Ṅor-pa transmission. As arranged by ’Jam-dbyaṅs Blo-gter-dbaṅ-po and his successors and incorporating other texts transmitting the lineage through the present Ṅor and Sa-skya systems. Reproduced from prints from the Sde-dge blocks from the library of the Ven. Klu-sdiṅs Mkhan Rin-po-che of Ṅor. 6 vols. Sa-skya Lam ’bras Literature Series, vols. 22–27. Dehra Dun, U.P.: Sakya Centre, 1985.
Lam ’bras slob bshad = Lam ’bras slob bśad: The Sa-skya-pa teachings of the path and the fruit, according to the Tshar-pa transmission. As arranged by ’Jam-dbyaṅs-blo-gter-dbaṅ-po and supplemented by texts continuing the lineage through Khaṅ-gsar Dam-pa and Sga-ston Ṅag-dbaṅ-legs-pa Rin-po-ches. Reproduced from prints from the Sde-dge redaction from the library of the Ven. Klu-sdiṅs Mkhan Rin-po-che of Ṅor. 21 vols. Sa-skya Lam ’bras Literature Series, vols. 1–21. Dehra Dun, U.P.: Sakya Centre, 1983–1985.
Sangs rgyas phun tshogs (1649–1705), the 25th abbot of Ngor. Ngor gyi gdan rabs = dPal e waṃ chos ldan gyi gdan rabs nor bu’i phreng ba. In Lam ’bras tshogs bshad,vol. 4 (ya), fols. 1a–26b (pp. 1–52).
———. Ngor chen gyi rnam thar = rDo rje ’chang kun dga’ bzang po’i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo ’dus pa’i rgya mtsho. In Lam ’bras slob bshad, vol. 1 (ka), fols. 1a–53b6 (pp. 475–580.6).
Works in European Languages
DuMouchelles. 2023. “Lot 1277: Chinese Watercolor And Gouache on Silk Scroll, H 28.5″ W 18.5″.” DuMouchelles, Live Auction, The December 2023 Auctions: Day Two. https://live.dumoart.com/online-auctions/dumouchelles/chinese-watercolor-and-gouache-on-silk-scroll-h-28-5-w-18-5-5615781.
Fermer, Mathias et al. The Gongkar Lamdre: Masters in Khyenluk Style. Dehradun: Gongkar Choede, 2024.
HAR = “Himalayan Art Resources.” https://www.himalayanart.org.
Heimbel, Jörg. Forthcoming. “Classifying Funerary Commissions: Portraits of the Great Abbots of Ngor.”
Heimbel, Jörg and David P. Jackson. 2023. “Portraying the Lineage Masters of the Path with Its Fruit: Lowo Khenchen’s Description of Ngorchen’s Commission.” In Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Jue Liang, and William A. McGrath (eds.), Histories of Tibet: Essays in Honor of Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 55–93.
Jackson, David P. 2016. A Revolutionary Artist of Tibet: Khyentse Chenmo of Gongkar. Masterworks of Tibetan Painting Series. New York: Rubin Museum of Art.
Pal, Pratapaditya. 1984. Tibetan Paintings: A Study of Tibetan Thankas Eleventh to Nineteenth Centuries. Basel: Ravi Kumar.
Ryavec, Karl E. 2024. “A Previously Unknown Chinese Landscape Tradition of the Ngor School of Tibetan Painting.” Orientations 55/6: 92–98.
One thought on “Unveiling Sacred Lineage: A Newly Discovered Funerary Commission of the Ngorpa Lamdre Lineage Masters”
Comments are closed.