A Painting of Pañjaranātha Mahākāla Commissioned for Ensuring Ngorchen’s Health and Longevity

The main figure of the painting is Pañjaranātha Mahākāla, depicted in a squatting posture with one face and two hands. He holds a curved knife and a skull cup to his heart, and supports a wooden gaṇḍi beam across his bent elbows. Pañjaranātha is surrounded by the painting’s commissioning patron, five lamas, twelve deities, as well as three garuda birds, two crows, two jackals, and two dogs (Fig. 1). The deities include the retinue from the “Eight Deity Pañjaranātha” (Gur gyi mgon po lha brgyad), consisting of Pañjaranātha, Ekajaṭā, Śrīdevī, and the Five Rākṣasas. Thus, it is apparently this form of Pañjaranātha that the painting depicts. The painting’s dimensions are 53 x 43 cm and 82 x 48 cm including the mount. It is part of the collection of Ulrich von Schroeder (1986-20),¹ and I am grateful to him for allowing me to use it for my description.

My interest in this painting was raised by the golden inscription (in dbu can script) on the red strip at the bottom, the patron depicted in the bottom left corner (Fig. 2), and the five eminent Tibetan lamas in the top left and right corners. All these features closely link the painting with Ngorchen Künga Zangpo (Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, 1382–1456), and shall therefore be discussed in this blog post.   

Inscription

The inscription reveals that the painting was commissioned to ensure the health and longevity (sku rim) of Ngorchen, who was presumably unwell or in thread of some kind. It also mentions the name of the patron, Pöntsang Nyene Druppa Yönten (dPon tshang Nye gnas Grub pa yon tan, b. 1356). With the help of external evidence, he can be identified as Ngorchen’s social, though not biological, father. The Tibetan artist who painted the work in the Newari-influenced style known in Tibetan as belri (bal ris) is also mentioned by name: Sönam Lodrö (bSod nams blo gros).

དཔལ་ལྡན་མ་ཧཱ་ཀ་ལའི་ཞིང་ཁམས་འདི།། དཔལ་ལྡན་བླ་མ་ཀུན་དགའ་བཟང་པོ་པའི།། སྐུ་རིམ་དག་ལ་ལེགས་པར་བཞེངས་པ་འདི་།། དཔོན་ཚང་ཉེ་གནས་གྲུབ་པ་ཡོན་ཏན་པའི།། བཞེངས་པའི་རི་མོ་བསོད་ནམས་བློ་གྲོས་ལགས།། འདི་ལས་བྱུང་བའི་བསོད་ནམས་སྟོབས་ཆེན་འདིས།། མཁའ་མཉམ་བར་ཆད་ཞི་ནས་ཀུན་མཁྱེན་མྱུར་ཐོབ་ཤོག། མཾགལཾབྷཝཏུ།།

dpal ldan ma hā ka la’i zhing khams ’di|| dpal ldan bla ma kun dga’ bzang po pa’i|| sku rim dag la legs par bzhengs pa ’di|| dpon tshang nye gnas grub pa yon tan pa’i|| bzhengs pa’i ri mo bsod nams blo gros lags|| ’di las byung ba’i bsod nams stobs chen ’dis|| mkha’ mnyam bar chad zhi nas kun mkhyen myur thob shog| maṃgalaṃbhawatu||

This pure land of glorious Mahākāla was commissioned for promoting the health and longevity of the glorious Lama Künga Zangpo. This is a commission of Pöntsang Nyene Druppa Yönten, and its painter is Sönam Lodrö. By the great force of merit arising from this, may all obstacles, as vast as the sky, be pacified, and may omniscience quickly be attained. May it be auspicious!²

The patron commissioning the painting, Druppa Yönten, Ngorchen’s social father

With the help of Ngorchen’s biographies, it can be confirmed that although Ngorchen was the son of Druppa Yönten’s wife, Sönam Peldren (bSod nams dpal ’dren, b. 1358), Druppa Yönten was not his biological father. Initially, the identity of his true father seems to have been deliberately concealed by his contemporary biographer and close disciple, Müchen Könchok Gyeltsen (Mus chen dKon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1388–1469), the 2nd abbot of Ngor. However, his later biography compiled by Sanggye Püntsok (Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, 1649–1705), the 25th abbot of Ngor, who quoted earlier biographies of Ngorchen by other of his disciples, reveals that his true father was Tawen Künga Rinchen (Ta dben Kun dga’ rin chen, 1339–1399). Künga Rinchen was the 16th throne-holder of Sakya (tenure: 1364–1399) and Ngorchen his illegitimate son, born from an affair he had with Sönam Peldren, the wife of Druppa Yönten, his valet (gsol ja ba). Further indirect evidence of Künga Rinchen’s paternity can also be found such as in the biography of Ngakchang Künga Rinchen (sNgags ’chang Kun dga’ rin chen, 1517–1584), the 23rd throne-holder of Sakya (tenure: 1534–1584), in which Ngorchen is recognised as a member of the Khön (’Khon) family line of Sakya.³

Druppa Yönten’s family line belonged to the Chokro (Cog ro) lineage of Dringtsam (’Bring mtshams), whose members had moved to the area of Sakya, where they lived as nomads in such places as Gara (Ga ra). Over time, they rose to become personal valets (gsol ja ba) to Sakya’s Khön (’Khon) lineage masters, including the Dakchen Zhitokpa (bDag chen bZhi thog pa), a title given to the grand-abbot of Sakya, the position held by Tawen Künga Rinchen.⁴ Moreover, according to Ame Zhap (A mes zhabs, 1597–1659), Druppa Yönten belonged to the Chikhung Gopa (gCi khung sgo pa) lineage from which the valets of Sakya originated. Members of Druppa Yönten’s family also served at the Labrang Shar (Bla brang Shar), the residence of the prominent Shar family who were aligned with Sakya but did not descend from the Sakya Khön lineage.⁵ It was Drungchen Delek (Drung chen bDe legs), a brother of Druppa Yönten and the father of Künga Wangchuk (Kun dga’ dbang phyug, 1424–1478), the 4th abbot of Ngor, who served during the same period in the Labrang Shar as personal attendant (gsol dpon) of Ngorchen’s teacher Sharchen Yeshe Gyeltsen (Shar chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan, 1359–1406). By that time, more than ten generations had passed since members of Druppa Yönten’s family had begun working at Sakya.⁶

Druppa Yönten was a “complete layman” who upheld all five upāsaka vows (yongs rdzogs dge bsnyen) and also held the position of “great attendant” (nye gnas chen po) of the Sakya Tsok (Sa skya tshogs). The Sakya Tsok was a large courtyard situated directly south of the Zhithok Podrang (bZhi thog pho brang), Sakya’s administrative centre (Figs. 3–4). It was used as a gathering place for important monastic functions, such as intronisations. Druppa Yönten is also mentioned in the painting’s inscription with the title “attendant” (nye gnas), which most likely refers to his position as great attendant of the Sakya Tsok.⁷ 

Fig. 3 shows the northern part of the Sakya monastery, with the Zhitok Podrang visible in the lower centre and the Sakya Tsok located at its foot (Tucci Expedition,1939; MNAO, neg. Dep. IsIAO 6117/20; Photo by Felice Boffa Ballaran). Fig. 4 shows the Zhitok Podrang in the centre, with the Sakya Tsok located at the bottom left (Tucci Expedition, 1939; MNAO, neg. Dep. IsIAO 6145/37; Photo by Felice Boffa Ballaran).

Druppa Yönten and Sönam Peldren—who was the daughter of Mapön Sengge (Ma dpon Seng ge) from the lower Shap district (Shab smad) who served as lay official (dpon skya) in Sakya’s Rinchen Gang Labrang (Rin chen sgang bla brang)—had at least two more sons, both younger than Ngorchen. One of them was Pönne Sönam Pel (dPon ne bSod nams dpal), who pursued the family’s traditional career as valet. Another more prominent son was the Sakya scholar Zhönnu Sengge (gZhon nu seng ge), who was active at Sakya, and later also at Ngor, and had authored a commentary on the sDom gsum rab dbye of Sakya Paṇḍita (1182–1251).⁸

Along with Zhönnu Sengge, numerous other eminent Sakya masters emerged among the family line of Druppa Yönten. For instance, six of the first twelve Ngor abbots can directly be linked with that family:

• Künga Wangchuk (Kun dga’ dbang phyug,1424–1478), the 4th abbot of Ngor, was the son of Drungchen Delek (Drung chen bDe legs), the brother of Druppa Yönten and personal attendant of Sharchen. 
• Könchok Pel (dKon mchog ’phel, 1445–1514), the 7th abbot of Ngor, was the son of Pönne Tashi Lekpa (dPon ne bKra shis legs pa), the son of Ngorchen’s younger half-brother Pönne Sönam Pel (dPon ne bSod nams dpal). He was born at Gura Deden Teng (Gu ra bDe ldan steng) of Sakya.
• Lhachok Sengge (lHa mchog seng ge,1468–1535), the 9th abbot of Ngor, was born into the family line of Druppa Yönten as son of Pönne Künga Gyeltsen (dPon ne Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan).
• Könchok Lhündrup (dKon mchog lhun grub. 1497–1557), the 10th abbot of Ngor, was the son of Kündrup Dar (Kun grub dar) and Lhamo Budren (lHa mo bu ’dren), the niece of Könchok Pel. He was born at the Zimkhang (gZims khang) called Nyenok (gNyan ’og) of Sakya’s Nyen Labrang (gNyan bla brang).
• Sanggye Sengge (Sangs rgyas seng ge, 1504–1569), the 11th abbot of Ngor, was born into the lineage of Druppa Yönten as the son of Pönne Tsewang Penjor (dPon ne Tshe dbang dpal ’byor). He was born at Gura Deden Teng.
• Könchok Penden (dKon mchog dpal ldan, 1526–1590), the 12th abbot of Ngor, was the son of Lhamo Dar (lHa mo dar), the younger brother of Könchok Lhündrup, and Penden Buga (dPal ldan bu dga’), the daughter of Pönne Tsewang Penjor. He was born at Nyen Khangsar (gNyan Khang gsar).

From this list, it is apparent that most fathers bore the title pönne (dpon ne). Druppa Yönten, is given with the likely similar title pöntsang (dpon tshang), under which he also appears in the painting’s inscription. Further research is needed to establish whether these titles referred to a specific position or rank within Sakya held by members of Druppa Yönten’s family.⁹

Attempting to date the painting and establish the context in which it was commissioned

Although the exact date on which Druppa Yönten commissioned the painting cannot be determined, it is my expectation that it was created in the 1420s, while Ngorchen was still based at Sakya and prior to his founding of Ngor in 1429. Although Druppa Yönten is depicted as a young layman in the bottom left corner of the painting, if it was indeed commissioned in the 1420s, he would have been in his sixties or seventies by that time. According to Ngorchen’s biography, he was born in a male fire-monkey year (me pho sprel lo) and was twenty-seven years old when Ngorchen was conceived. Therefore, his year of birth can be dated to 1356.¹⁰

To determine the earliest possible date of the painting’s commission, the five teachers of Ngorchen depicted in the top left and right corners must be identified, their life dates established, and the period during which Ngorchen studied under them ascertained.

Fortunately, all lamas are inscribed, so their identity can easily be established. Depictions of Penden Tsültrim (dPal ldan tshul khrims, 1333–1399) and Tsongkhapa Lozang Drakpa (Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa, 1357–1419) can be found in the top left corner (Fig. 5), while Sharchen Yeshe Gyeltsen (Shar chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan, 1359–1406), Sabzang Pakpa Zhönnu Lodrö (Sa bzang ’Phags pa gZhon nu blo gros, 1346–1412), and Buddhaśrī (1339–1420) can be found in the top right corner (Fig. 6). According to his biographies, Ngorchen had completed his studies with four of these five masters by around 1411. He met the fifth master, Tsongkhapa, during his first visit to the central Tibetan province of Ü (dBus) from 1414–1417, when he also travelled to Ganden (dGa’ ldan) to gain Tsongkhapa’s support for his project to revive the two lower tantric systems of Kriyā and Caryā. While at Ganden, Ngorchen also received some reading transmissions from Tsongkhapa for the Lam rim gnyis (Tsongkhapa’s two main treatises on the path: the Lam rim chen mo and sNgags rim chen mo), the gSang ’dus kyi bshad rgyud gsum gyi ṭīk, Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra, and Dhyānottarapaṭalaṭīkā. The painting was thus most likely commissioned after Ngorchen returned to Sakya from Ü.¹¹

Another approach to date it more precisely is to see if the purpose of commissioning the painting can be linked to a specific event mentioned in Ngorchen’s biographies. Given the ages of Druppa Yönten and Ngorchen, the only possible match relates to an incident involving sorcery or a scourging act (byad kha) directed at Ngorchen.

During the winter teaching session at the end of 1425 or the beginning of 1426, many monks had dreams that a misfortune (sku chag) would befall Ngorchen, and divinations also confirmed this impending threat. Consequently, several senior monks approached Ngorchen, requesting that he perform a pongdak (spong dag) offering, consisting of the distribution of one’s personal belongings, and enter a strict retreat. Although he questioned the certainty of the divinations, Ngorchen complied and distributed his possessions in the Labrang Shar to the monastic community of Sakya. He then secluded himself in a strict retreat in the Shākzang Kubum (Shāk bzang sKu ’bum) until around the sixth month of 1426, performing tantric practices devoted to Uṣṇīṣavijayā and Pañjaranātha in order to repel the impending threat. As a positive outcome, he had a prophetic dream in which he was told that he would live for another thirty-nine years. In the evening two days prior to the conclusion of his retreat, he called his disciples Ngaripa Könchok Özer (mNga’ ris pa dKon mchog ’od zer) and Müchen, describing to them the imminent threat he had just overcome (sku chag or chag sgo) as follows: 

Apart from performing a few refutations and proofs of our doctrine, I have not done anything that turned out to be harmful to anybody. Nevertheless, some have performed a kind of sorcery based on the Six-armed [Mahākāla] in an attempt to cause harm. The magical display of this was supposed to manifest itself last year, but because the practice of the Dharma by me, the master, and my disciples was flawless, I have not been harmed by it. The agitated dream I had some days ago also seems to be for me like a magical display for a positive outcome. Had I entered retreat half a month later, it would have turned out harmful. In that regard, even if it had been harmful, there is no moral responsibility on the part of other people at all. 

During his retreat, Ngorchen composed one praise of Uṣṇīṣavijayā and a compilation of praises of Pañjaranātha Mahākāla, Śrīdevī (Kāmadhātviśvari), Caturmukha Mahākāla, Yakṣa and Yakṣī, and the three siblings known as Putra Mingsing (Pu tra ming sring: Pu tra, Bha tra, and Sring mo), asking them for their help in overcoming his obstacles. The praise he wrote of Uṣṇīṣavijayā, one of the three deities associated with long-life practices (Tshe lha rnam gsum), is directly linked to his dream. In the dream, he found himself at Sabzang (Sa bzang) holding a text of The Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish (mDzangs blun gyi mdo) in his hand. No matter where he started counting its folios, he always reached the number thirty-nine. This number was revealed to him as the number of years he would continue to live. Thirty-nine was also the total number of ślokas in his praise.

Ngorchen wrote all of these praises between the first month and fifteenth day of the second month of 1426. Regarding the praise of Uṣṇīṣavijayā, he wrote one śloka each day for thirty-nine days. The colophons of both texts confirm that they were finalised on the fifteenth day of the first half of the second month of 1426. Ngorchen wrote the first praise for the fulfilment of his own wishes (rang gis [= gi] ’dod don zhu ba’i phyir du) and the second to request the activities of the dharmapālas for his own ends (rang gi ’dod pa’i phrin las zhu ba’i phyir du). These two statements in the colophons can be directly be linked to the aforementioned account in Ngorchen’s biographies of the sorcery that affected him and the tantric practices he engaged in during the subsequent retreat.¹²   

If we look closer at the period of time when Ngorchen was in retreat engaging in tantric practices aimed at repelling the effects of the sorcery and writing his praises, it is interesting to note that it coincides with the time when he also wrote important texts  in sectarian controversies that were in full swing by that time. As I wrote in a previous post: These

[…] controversies positioned Tsongkhapa (Tsong kha pa, 1357–1419) and his followers, mainly Khedrup Je (mKhas grub rJe, 1385–1438), on one side, with Ngorchen and his disciples on the other.

As Tsongkhapa and Ngorchen each attempted to formulate their own coherent systems of Buddhist thought and practice […] they and their respective followers had disagreements and disputes on multiple fronts, including over points of tantric practice of […] deities such as Cakrasaṃvara, Guhyasamāja, and Hevajra. What began as more intrasectarian debates gradually hardened into more rigid sectarian divisions, ultimately cementing the divide between followers of Tsongkhapa’s emerging Gandenpa (dGa’ ldan pa; later known as dGe lugs pa) and the established Sakya (Sa skya) tradition.

During that retreat, on the first day of the first part of the second month of 1426 (zil gnon = me pho rta), Ngorchen completed his exposition on the generation stage of Vajrabhairava, Establishing the Generation Stage of Glorious Vajrabhairava: The Essential Meaning of the Vajra Sprout (dPal rdo rje ’ jigs byed kyi bskyed pa’i rim pa gtan la dbab par bya ba rdo rje myu gu’i gzhung don). The disagreements about Vajrabhairava concerned the authenticity of the thirteen-deity maṇḍala and whether Vajrabhairava had a consort (and thus whether the practice had a completion stage and could lead to awakening). One month later, Ngorchen finished working on his two refutations in the controversy over the body maṇḍala of Hevajra, in which he and Khedrup Je were engaged between the years 1410 and the late 1430s. Ngorchen completed his two refutations on the third day of the first half of the third month of 1426 (dPal kye’i rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba smra ba ngan ’joms and dPal kye rdo rje’i lus kyi dkyil ’khor la rtsod pa spong ba lta ba ngan sel.¹³

In Ngorchen’s biographies, the sorcery that affected him and his subsequent retreat are set against the backdrop of the controversies between the emerging Ganden school and the established Sakya school. As Druppa Yönten commissioned the painting to ensure Ngorchen’s health and longevity (sku rim), it is not unlikely that this was an additional means of repelling the effects of the sorcery, which would date the painting to around 1426. However, it is more speculative to suggest that depicting Tsongkhapa as one of Ngorchen’s masters was an attempt to ease sectarian tensions through the visual expression of their master-disciple relationship. Nevertheless, it is still worth noting that Tsongkhapa was chosen for depiction over any of Ngorchen’s other Sakya teachers, such as g.Yag ston Sangs rgyas dpal (1348–1414), despite the fact that he received more teachings from the latter masters than the few reading transmissions from Tsongkhapa.     

Having outlined a possible scenario for the painting’s commission, I am well aware of the possibility that it originates from a different context. However, based on my observations regarding the identity of the teachers depicted, I would still date its commission to the 1420s.

Identification of the minor figures

Although the main figure in the painting, Pañjaranātha Mahākāla, and the commissioning patron are not labelled, inscriptions have been placed directly below or to the side of all the other figures. The following diagram (Fig. 7) and two tables provide these inscriptions and identify the depicted lamas (whose inscriptions consist of lines of homage) and deities (Vajradhara’s inscription also consists of a line of homage).

Abbreviations: “D” stands for “deity,” “L” for “lama,” “MF” for “main figure,” and “P” is short for “patron.”

---

Endnotes

1. See Sotheby’s London 1986: 70–71. ↩︎
2. With some revisions, the translation follows to the unpublished version by the late David. P. Jackson. ↩︎
3. See Heimbel 2017: 75–78 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
4. On the office of zhitok (bzhi thog), the Zhitok Podrang (bZhi thog pho brang), and the difference between the Zhitok Podrang and the Zhitok Labrang (bZhi thog bla brang), see Heimbel 2017: 83–91. ↩︎
5. On the Shar family, see Heimbel 2017: 112–118. ↩︎
6. See Heimbel 2017: 75–76 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
7. See Heimbel 2017: 75–78 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
8. See Heimbel 2017: 78–79 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
9. See Heimbel 2017: 79–80 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
10. See Heimbel 2017: 80 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
11. For Ngorchen’s studies under these masters, see Heimbel 2017: 109–209 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
12. See Heimbel 2017: 226–227 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
13. See Heimbel 2025 and the references listed therein. ↩︎
14. The inscription identifies the figure as “the Mahākāla of the Mūla[tantra],” most likely referring to the Mahākāla form of the Vajrapañjaratantra. This would suggest that the figure depicts Pañjaranātha without the wooden gaṇḍi beam; see HAR 87227 or HAR 30523 (with Ngorchen’s disciple and biographer, Guge Paṇḍita Drakpa Gyeltsen (Gu ge Paṇḍita Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1415–1486), in the top centre). However, the iconography suggests that it is actually Kartarīdhara Mahākāla (Gri gug mgon po). ↩︎

---

Bibliography

HAR = “Himalayan Art Resources.” https://www.himalayanart.org.

Heimbel, Jörg. 2025. “Textual Treasure Unearthed: Ngorchen’s Lost Exposition on Vajrabhairava’s Generation Stage.” Notes on Buddhist Art from the Himalayas and Related Topics. https://artnotes.ngorpa.org/1681.
———. 2017. Vajradhara in Human Form: The Life and Times of Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute.

Sotheby’s London. 1986. “Mahakala (Gur-gyi mGon-po), Ngor, circa 17th century.” In Khmer, Thai, Indian and Himalayan Works of Art. Monday 7th July 1986. London: Sotheby’s London, 70–71.