Sakya Exhibition 2: Depictions of Sakya Masters and Associated Lineages

The objects chosen for the “Beyond Time: The History, Culture and Art of Sakya Monastery” exhibition at the Palace Museum in Beijing (February–May 2026, Fig. 1) also featured depictions of masters of the Sakya (Sa skya) school, including those of masters of associated lineages. The majority of these depictions were paintings, with a lesser number of sculptures.

In this post, I will provide an overview of these depictions and suggest that some paintings form part of sets representing the lineage masters of the Lamdre (Lam ’bras) instructions. I will also argue that two paintings from the exhibition belong to a set called “Tsodü Chenmo” (gTso bsdus chen mo), which was commissioned by Ame Zhap Ngawang Künga Sönam (A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, 1597–1659) in 1633. I have written a separate post about this set and I am working on a more detailed conference paper about it.

1. Sculptures

Among the most remarkable objects were four near life-size gilt-copper repoussé sculptures depicting Lamdre lineage masters from the renowned set attributed to Khyentse Chenmo (mKhyen rtse chen mo, fl. 15th cent.) or his atelier. Originally from the monastery of Dratang (Grwa thang) in Lhokha (lHo kha), the sculptures were relocated to the nearby Nyingma (rNying ma) monastery of Mindröl Ling (sMin grol gling) in about 1990, with their faces being repainted in the early 2000s.

It is assumed that the present set of twenty-one sculptures is incomplete with at least two lineage masters missing. The set represents the Lamdre tradition of Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi (Theg chen Chos Kun dga’ bkra shis, 1349–1425) as received and transmitted by Gongkar Dorje Denpa (Gong dkar rDo rje gdan pa, 1432–1496), the founder of the monastery of Gongkar (Gong dkar), where Khyentse Chenmo and his nephew worked as the chief artists from 1464 to 1476. The rulers of Yargyap (Yar rgyab), whose territory included Dratang, are believed to have commissioned the set.

Ten of the sculptures in the set had previously travelled to Germany as part of the 2006–2007 exhibition “Tibet: Klöster öffnen ihre Schatzkammern.”¹ Although only four of the set’s sculptures were exhibited in the Palace Museum, the four vividly illustrate why the set is considered one of the greatest masterpieces of Tibetan sculptural art, showcasing the expressive, figurative and portrait-like features of Khyentse Chenmo’s style.² The four exhibited sculptures represent the following lineage masters of the Lamdre (Figs. 3–6):

• Eastern Kāṇha (Shar phyogs Nag po pa), placed as the second sculpture to the right from the perspective of the central sculpture depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 4
• Ḍamarūpa, placed as the second sculpture to the left from the perspective of the central sculpture depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 5
• Sachen Künga Nyingpo (Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, 1092–1158), placed as the fifth sculpture to the left from the perspective of the central sculpture depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 11
• Jetsün Drakpa Gyeltsen (rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1147–1216), placed as the sixth sculpture to the left from the perspective of the central sculpture depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 13

The exhibition also featured four smaller-sized metal sculptures of Sakya masters. The first of these depicts Sachen Künga Nyingpo (Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, 1092–1158, Fig. 7), the first of the five founding fathers of the Sakya school. Although the sculpture is not inscribed, the depicted master can be identified as Sachen thanks to his distinctive iconographic features, such as his receding hairline, beard, and the garments of a Buddhist layman. While his right hand is extended in the gesture of generosity (varadamudrā), with the palm facing outwards and the fingers pointing downwards, his left hand is raised to heart level, performing the gesture of expounding the Dharma (vitarkamudrā). Similar depictions usually show Sachen holding the stem of a lotus flower between the thumb and index finger of his left hand, with the flower blossoming at the height of his left shoulder. This raises the question whether the flower has been lost in the present sculpture. 

According to the partly legible inscription, the second sculpture depicts Lowo Khenchen Sönam Lhündrup (Glo bo mKhan chen bSod nams lhun grub, 1456–1532, Fig. 8), the royal Sakya scholar-monk from Mustang (Glo bo). His iconographic features are less distinct than in other portraits, but he is apparently depicted at a younger age, before he became as corpulent as in later portraits. He is wearing a red paṇḍita hat of a scholar. He is usually depicted holding the stem of a flower in each hand, with the blossoms at shoulder height, supporting a sword and a book. In this case, however, his hands are performing the teaching gesture (dharmacakramudrā), with the stems emerging not only from the top of the pedestal to his left and right, but the blossoms also supporting a vajra and ghaṇṭa, which highlight his role as a tantric master. Stylistic features of the lotus pedestal suggest that the sculpture might have been cast in Mustang. Unfortunately, the inscription contains several errors, with its visible part reading: oṃ swa sti rje btsun ’byams pa’i g.yangs bsod nam lhun grub gyi (…).

The identity of the Tibetan master depicted in the third sculpture is yet to be confirmed (Fig. 9). He is depicted wearing monk’s robes and performing the earth-touching gesture (bhūmisparśamudrā) with his right hand and the meditation gesture (dhyanamudrā) with his left. According to the Chinese exhibition description, the sculpture’s eyes are inlaid with silver, and the lips are made of copper. The lama is shown sitting on a cushion on top of a stepped, indented throne. Two lions are depicted as part of the throne, and a standing vajra is positioned at the centre front. The upper edge of the throne is decorated with a repeating horizontal pattern of diamond shapes. 

The last and fourth sculpture is a gilded depiction of Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi (Theg chen Chos rje Kun dga’ bkra shis, 1349–1425, Fig. 10), of whom two further depictions in painting were part of the exhibition (see below). On top of the lotus pedestal a Chinese reign mark is inscribed, clarifying that the sculpture was bestowed during the reign of the Yongle emperor (1403–1424) of the Ming dynasty. This commission can directly be linked to Tekchen Chöje’s visit to the Ming court, which has been described by Mathias Fermer as follows:

Upon the invitation of the third Ming emperor Cheng Tsu (Ta’i ming gong ma, 1360–1424), also known as the Yongle emperor, Thekchen Choeje travelled to the imperial courts at Nanjing (rNam thas) and Peking (Ta’i tu) at the age of 64 (i.e. 63). During his two-year sojourn in China in the years 1413–1414 Thekchen Choeje acted as preceptor to the Ming Yongle emperor and his sons. He is reported to have initiated the emperor into the maṇḍala of Hevajra and was granted abundant gifts and the respectful title “King of the Mahāyāna Doctrine” (Theg chen chos kyi rgyal po; Ch. Dàchéng fǎwáng). Among the gifts he received was a special ornamented, red-coloured hat […], similar to those received by other eminent Tibetan lamas during their visits to the Ming court.³

Tekchen Chöje is depicted wearing that special ceremonial hat with trimmed petals, a double vajra at the forefront, and what might possibly be the Five Buddhas arranged in a circle in the hat’s middle, four buddha images surrounding the central one, which appears to be bent sideways. Tekchen Chöje is depicted performing the teaching gesture (dharmacakramudrā) and holding the stem of a flower in each hand, with the blossoms at shoulder height, supporting a sword and a book. This sculpture is currently the only known depiction of Thekchen Chöje as a court commission from the Yongle period of the Ming dynasty. However, that there was at least one further court commission is attested by Ame Zhap Ngawang Künga Sönam (A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, 1597–1659) in his register (dkar chag) of the sacred fillings that were included into the “supports” or “receptacles” (rten) made as a funerary commission for his elder brother, Tutop Wangchuk (mThu stobs dbang phyug, 1588–1646). Among the fillings for the silver reliquary stūpa, Ame Zhap provides a list of paintings, headed by a painted image of Thekchen Chöje that was commissioned by the Ming emperor and blessed by Thekchen Chöje himself (theg chen rin po che’i bris sku ta ming rgyal pos bzhengs pa phyag nas ma|).⁴

2. Paintings

Most of the paintings chosen for the exhibition date from after the 15th century, with the earlier Newar-inspired Belri (Bal ris) style mainly omitted in favour of styles with a blue-green, Chinese-style landscape adorned with various decorative elements. Surprisingly, numerous exhibited paintings were in the Khyenluk (mKhyen lugs) style of Khyentse Chenmo, which Sakya might have favoured over the Menri (sMan ris) and Mensar (sMan gsar) styles.

1. Lamdre Lineage Master Set 1

Of these paintings, three depict masters in the Khyenluk style that form part of a larger set representing the lineage masters of the Lamdre instructions. However, the three paintings were not identified as such, nor were they displayed together. But a comparison of their style, size, and mounting makes it clear that they belong to the same set. Each painting portrays a single main figure within a natural landscape setting beneath a distinctively painted tree, a recurring theme in Khyenluk-style portraits of lineage masters. The main figures are positioned to the right or left of the central axis and are shown in partial profile. They face either to the right or left of the set’s central painting, which can be assumed to depict Vajradhara, the original teacher of the Lamdre (Figs. 11–13).

This composition, in which the lineage masters are depicted as single main figures in partial profile, was typical of the Khyenluk style when depicting the Lamdre lineage of Gongkar, as opposed to the Lamdre tradition of Ngor, which usually depicted two, three or four lineage masters as main figures in each painting, and rarely individual masters. In the few known Ngorpa examples depicting individual masters, they were also not depicted in partial profile but facing straight ahead. Moreover, the Ngor tradition usually commissioned paintings in the Newar-inspired Belri style until about the 17th century and not in then Khyenluk.

The three exhibited paintings from the set, particularly the third one depicting Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi, allow the set to be attributed to either the Lamdre tradition of Gongkar or the Lamdre tradition of Sakya’s Khön family (Zhal ngo nang brgyud), since Tekchen Chöje is a lineage master in both traditions.

The main figures of the three paintings, of which the second and third have been dated by Himalayan Art Resources to the 15th century,⁵ depict the following Lamdre lineage masters (Figs. 14–16):

• Virūpa; to be hung as the first painting to the right from the perspective of the central painting depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 3
• Gayādhara (d. 1103); to be hung as the third painting to the left from the perspective of the central painting depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 7
• Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi (Theg chen Chos rje Kun dga’ bkra shis, 1349–1425); to be hung as the tenth painting to the right from the perspective of the central painting depicting Vajradhara; Lamdre lineage position no. 21

2. Lamdre Lineage Master Set 2

The exhibition also displayed two other Khyenluk-style paintings from another set depicting the masters of the Lamdre lineage in large size. The first of these paintings depicts Nairātmyā, the second lineage master of the Lamdre. The fact that her eyes gaze to the left suggests that the painting was originally hung first to the right of the central painting of the set, which shows Vajradhara (Figs. 17–19).

The second painting portrays Setön Künrik (Se ston Kun rig, ca. 1025/29–1116/22) with long hair and wearing the robes of a Tibetan Buddhist layman (Figs. 20–22). He is depicted sitting under a distinctively painted tree in a natural landscape, positioned to the left of the central axis in partial profile and facing right towards the central painting of the set. As lineage master number 9, this composition reflects Setön’s position within the Lamdre lineage of Sakya and its branches, with his painting appearing fourth from the left of the central painting of the set. Himalayan Art Resources dates both paintings to the 16th century,⁶ a century later than the previous paintings from the Lamdre Lineage Master Set 1 mentioned above.

Both paintings have a very distinctive brocade mount made up of three framing strips in different colours, from red to blue to green, running from the inside out. There is also a rectangular red patch containing the maṇi mantra of Avalokiteśvara in Lantsa (Rañjanā) script located along the bottom centre. As these appear to be the original mountings, they might serve as an additional clue to identify further paintings from the same set.

3. Lamdre Lineage Master Set 3

Continuing my discussion of Lamdre lineage master paintings, the exhibition also featured a Newar-inspired Belri-style painting in which the main figures are four lineage masters, surrounded by minor figures representing a different lineage. Iconographic clues used to portray the four main figures allow them to be identified as follows (Fig. 23):

• Setön Künrik (Se ston Kun rig, ca. 1025/29–1116/22); Lamdre lineage position no. 9
• Zhangtön Chöbar (Zhang ston Chos ’bar, 1053–1135); Lamdre lineage position no. 10
• Sachen Künga Nyingpo (Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, 1092–1158); Lamdre lineage position no. 11
• Loppön Sönam Tsemo (Slob dpon bSod nams rtse mo, 1142–1182); Lamdre lineage position no. 12

This type of composition is commonly found in depictions of the Lamdre lineage within the Ngor tradition. By contrast, Khyenluk-style depictions of the Gongkar tradition, as discussed before, show only one main figure and do not include minor figures representing a secondary lineage. However, without examples of paintings depicting subsequent lineage masters, it is difficult to attribute the painting to a particular Sakya branch. Thus, the possibility remains that it could depict the Lamdre tradition of Sakya’s Khön family (Zhal ngo nang brgyud).

As indicated by the image of Cakrasaṃvara in the centre of the painting and the first four lineage masters in the top-right corner, the minor figures depict a Cakrasaṃvara lineage, belonging either to the Kṛṣṇācārya or Lūhipa tradition. Unfortunately, the quality of my photos does not permit identification of the colours of the four faces of Cakrasaṃvara, which would enable distinction between the two traditions. The total number of the minor lineage masters suggests that the painting, and thus also the set to which it belongs, dates to the 16th century. Moreover, assuming that each painting in the set depicts four lineage masters as main figures, this painting would be the third in the set.

4. Two Paintings from the “Tsodü Chenmo” Set Commissioned by Ame Zhap

The exhibition also featured two large Khyenluk-style paintings, depicting Virūpa and Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi as main figures. I consider both paintings to belong to a set commissioned by Ame Zhap Ngawang Künga Sönam (A mes zhabs Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, 1597–1659). He himself wrote a detailed catalogue of his commission, which allows for such an attribution, the Sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa spyi dang bye brag dpal ldan sa skya pa’i lta grub la bka’ drin che ba’i skyes mchog dam pa rnams kyi bris sku gtso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag yid bzhin rin po che’i ’phreng mdzes.⁷ As mentioned above, I have written a separate post about this set and I am working on a more detailed conference paper about it.

From Ame Zhap’s description, we learn that the main figures of the set’s individual paintings were Buddhist masters who, in India and Tibet, were very beneficial for the teachings of the Buddha in general and for the teachings of the Sakyapa in particular. As minor figures, he explains that he had depicted the lineage masters of the most important types of teachings—such as empowerments (dbang), guiding instructions (khrid), and esoteric instructions (man ngag)—out of the vast amount of teachings contained within the sūtras, tantras, and esoteric instructions, which he himself had received from his own principal teachers. Moreover, among the minor figures he also included depictions of buddhas, bodhisattvas, tutelary deities, peaceful and wrathful deities, protectors, and wealth deities.

In addition, Ame Zhap had depicted the same four minor figures in each painting: his grandfather and his three principal teachers:

• Ngakchang Chökyi Gyelpo Ngakwang Künga Rinchen (sNgags ’chang Chos kyi rgyal po Ngag dbang kun dga’ rin chen, 1517–1584), Ame Zhap’s grandfather and 23rd throne holder of Sakya
• Jamyang Sönam Wangpo (’Jam dbyangs bSod nams dbang po, 1559–1621), Ame Zhap’s uncle and 24th throne holder of Sakya
• Nagkchang Drakpa Lodrö (sNgags ’chang Grags pa blo gros, 1563–1617), Ame Zhap’s father and 25th throne holder of Sakya
• Müchen Sanggye Gyeltsen (Mus chen Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan, 1542–1618), his principal teacher

Ame Zhap named the set “Tsodü Chenmo” (gTso bsdus chen mo), meaning possibly something like “The Great Set Consolidating the Principal Teachers.”

In his description, Ame Zhap specifies that his commission comprised thirty-five paintings with the size of one storey (thog tshad) and that it was consecrated in the first half of the sixth month (chu stod zla ba) of 1633, his thirty-seventh (i.e., thirty six) year. However, the colophon dates the catalogue describing the set to the twenty-seventh day of the fifth month (snron gyi zla ba) of that year, which would predate the consecration.⁸ Nevertheless, Ame Zhap’s biography also states that the consecration was performed in the sixth month (chu stod zla ba) of 1633, adding that a group of thirty monks, including Ame Zhap, performed the consecration, based on Hevajra. The biography also states that work on the set began around 1629, when Ame Zhap was thirty-three (i.e., thirty-two) years old and was completed in 1633, when he was thirty-seven (i.e., thirty-six).⁹

Ame Zhap also provides various purposes for commissioning the set:

• to fulfil the intentions of his late principal teachers and lineage masters who have entered the dharmadhātu
• to fulfil the intentions of his late mother, Sönam Gyelmo (bSod nams rgyal mo, 1567–1613)
• for the flourishing and longevity of the Buddha’s teachings in general and of the Sakya school and its family line in particular
• to set all beings on the path of liberation¹⁰

The middle section of the catalogue is the most important for identifying individual paintings of the set. Here, Ame Zhap provides a list of all thirty-five paintings, identifying the master he had depicted as the main figure in each one, as well as some of the surrounding minor figures and the lineages they represent. He also specifies the spatial position of each painting within the set and notes whether it should be hung to the proper right or left of the central painting (gtso thang). He concludes this section with a summary of the number of figures depicted in the entire set, including buddhas (around 89), tutelary deities (22), long-life deities (just over 39), bodhisattvas (12), protectors (around 15), wealth deities (7 classes or kinds), and lineage masters (1151). Ame Zhap then describes how the paintings were mounted, including the brocade frame, the bottom wooden rod with knobs, the top wooden slat, and the cover cloth, as well as the materials used in their making. As shown below, the description of the brocade frame is another important element in identifying individual paintings of the set.

Let us now first examine the two paintings before considering Ame Zhap’s description of them.

Virūpa
The first painting depicts Virūpa as the main figure in full profile within a landscape setting, with his hands forming the teaching gesture (dharmacakramudrā) while gazing to his proper left (Figs. 24–26).

Surrounding his principal image are six additional representations of Virūpa as minor figures that correspond to his six forms practiced in the Sakya tradition (Fig. 27).¹¹ One appears in the upper proper right corner of the composition, partially concealed by a mountain slope, where Virūpa is depicted as the Dharma Expounder (chos ’chad pa), mirroring the iconography of the central figure. The remaining five forms are arranged beneath the main figure along the lower register of the painting. From the viewer’s left to right, these are: the Image Splitter (lha rten dgas pa), the Subduer of Non-Buddhist Deities (mu stegs kyi lha mnan pa), the Reverser of the Gaṅgā (ganggā bzlog pa), the Ransomer of the Sun (nyi ma gteng par ’dzud pa), and the Gold Transformer (gser ’gyur).

Other minor figures include the Buddhas of the Three Times in the top centre, depictions of Buddha Śākyamuni in each of the top left and right corners, and Uṣṇīṣavijayā below the Buddhas of the Three Times. Moreover, four Sakya lamas are depicted, three as layman and one as a monk, who might possibly be identified as the four masters mentioned above that Ame Zhap had depicted on each painting. In addition, a smaller Sakya layman is depicted right next to the minor figure of Virūpa as the Dharma Expounder, who might possibly be identified as Sachen Künga Nyingpo (Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po, 1092–1158).

Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi
The second painting depicts Tekchen Chöje Künga Tashi (Theg chen Chos rje Kun dga’ bkra shis, 1349–1425), sitting on a throne against a landscape setting with his two hands crossed at the heart holding a vajra and a bell (Figs. 28–30). He is shown in partial profile positioned to the right of the central axis and facing to his proper left. Tekchen Chöje is depicted wearing the special red-coloured hat with trimmed petals and a double vajra at the forefront that, as mentioned above, had been gifted to him by the Yongle Emperor. To the proper left of Tekchen Chöje are two minor figures in Chinese attire who appear to depict Ming officials making an offering.

The lineage masters depicted in the upper half of the painting represent a lineage of Pañjaranātha Mahākāla, who is also depicted at the bottom right of the painting, as seen from the viewer’s perspective. The lineage begins with Vajradhara in the centre of the top row and continues by alternating to his proper right and left with Ḍākinīvajrapañjara, Vararuci, Sukhavajra, and Śraddhākaravarman.

There are also three Sakya masters depicted in the bottom row: one monk and two laymen. Another Sakya layman master appears above the Ming officials and is depicted slightly larger than the other lineage masters. Could these four masters be the ones that Ame Zhap mentions as having been depicted in each painting?

According to Ame Zhap’s description, in the Tsodü Chenmo set, the painting of Virūpa is number 6 and hung third from the right, as viewed from the perspective of the central painting depicting Vajradhara as its main figure. Ame Zhap briefly describes it as follows: “The third on the right of the Tsodü is the Lord of Yogins [i.e., Virūpa], surrounded by Virūpa’s six physical appearances and other [minor figures].”¹²

The painting of Tekchen Chöje is number 16 of the set and hung eighth from the right. Ame Zhap describes it as follows: “The eighth on the right of the Tsodü is Tekchen Rinpoche, surrounded by the lineage masters of the empowerment, ritual permission, guiding instruction, and esoteric instruction of the Glorious Vajramahākāla Pañjaranātha and other [minor figures].”¹³

Both descriptions align with the actual paintings. The depiction of Tekchen Chöje shown in partial profile, positioned to the right of the central axis and gazing to his left, corresponds with the position of his painting in the set, which is to be hung to the proper right of the central painting. Although Virūpa is positioned on the central axis and facing straight ahead, the fact that he is gazing to his proper left may be related to the fact that his painting is also hung to the proper right of the central painting.

The Brocade Mounting
Both paintings are still mounted in their original brocade frames, as can be seen when comparing them with the description given by Ame Zhap. According to it, the brocade mounting (gong gsham) is made of fine Tibetan fabric in tones of sapphire blue, golden yellow, and ruby red. The fabric is entirely adorned with gold embroidered designs. These intricate designs include the maṇi mantra of Avalokiteśvara in Lantsa (Rañjanā) script, coiling dragons, lotus stalks, and the eight auspicious symbols. Moreover, the brocade has a threefold rainbow design.¹⁴

As Figs. 31–33 of Virūpa’s painting demonstrate, the gold embroidered designs are visible on the brocade mounting. The mantra of Avalokiteśvara in Lantsa (Rañjanā) script appears twice, once at the top and once at the bottom centre (Fig. 31). Coiling dragons adorn the lower part (Fig. 32), lotuses and the eight auspicious symbols decorate the left and right outer blue borders (Fig. 33), and lotuses adorn the yellow and red borders of the brocade’s threefold rainbow design.

Further Paintings of the Set
I was able to identify a further four paintings from the set: two that have been published (though not identified as part of the set) and two that remain unpublished for the time being.¹⁵ Ame Zhap’s descriptions of all four paintings are consistent with their actual appearance. These four paintings are:

• the first and central painting of the set depicting Vajradhara
• the twenty-ninth painting of the set depicting Ngakchang Chökyi Gyelpo Ngakwang Künga Rinchen (sNgags ’chang Chos kyi rgyal po Ngag dbang kun dga’ rin chen, 1517–1584)
• the thirty-third painting of the set depicting Nagkchang Drakpa Lodrö (sNgags ’chang Grags pa blo gros, 1563–1617)
• the thirty-fifth and final painting of the set depicting the patron, Ame Zhap

5. A Painting of Jamchen Rabjampa Sanggye Pel (1411–1485)

Another painting depicted the Sakya scholar Jamchen Rabjampa Sanggye Pel (Byams chen Rab ’byams pa Sangs rgyas ’phel, 1411–1485, Figs. 34–35), who established the monastery of Dreyül Kyemotsel (’Bras yul sKyed mos tshal) in Tsang (gTsang) province in 1448. To my knowledge, this is the only painting depicting Jamchen Rabjampa currently available. He is shown sitting on a rock formation in a natural landscape setting under a tree, positioned to the right of the central axis in partial profile and facing left. This composition suggests that the painting was most likely part of a set of lineage masters.

The identification of Jamchen Rabjampa is made possible by an inscription written over four lines on the blueish upper part of the rock formation between the trunk of the tree and Jamchen Rabjampa’s proper right side (Fig. 36):

བསྟན་པའི་བདག་པོ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྗེ་བྱམས་ཆེན་རབ་འབྱམས་པ་སངས་རྒྱས་འཕེལ་ལ་ན་མོ་

bstan pa’i bdag po chos kyi rje byams chen rab ’byams pa sangs rgyas ’phel ba la na mo

Above Jamchen Rabjampa are depictions of five minor figures arranged in a semi-circle and floating in the sky. Identifiable by labelling inscriptions, the figures are most likely lineage masters and form part of an iconographic programme that begins on the previous painting of the set and continues through the following ones. The lineage begins at the top centre and alternates to proper right and left:

• Centre: Avadhūtipa
• First to the right: Gayādhara (d. 1103)
• First to the left: Drokmi Lotsāwa Śākya Yeshe (’Brog mi Lo tsā ba Shākya Ye shes, 993–1060s/70s)
• Second to the right: Setön Künrik (Se ston Kun rig, ca. 1025/29–1116/22)
• Second to the left: Zhangtön Chöbar (Zhang ston Chos ’bar, 1053–1135)

Below Jamchen Rabjampa, at the bottom, there are three more minor figures. In the centre is Yellow Jambhala, with Black Jambhala to his proper right and Vasudhārā to his proper left.

6. Paintings of Sakya Paṇḍita and Chögyel Pakpa

The exhibition also featured large-scale paintings of Sakya Paṇḍita Künga Gyeltsen (Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, 1182–1251, Figs. 37–38) and Chögyel Pakpa Lodrö Gyeltsen (Chos rgyal ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, 1235–1280, Fig. 39).

However, due to its fragile condition, the original painting of Sakya Paṇḍita could not be exhibited. Instead, a high-quality print was displayed. The entire space surrounding Sakya Paṇḍita is filled with depictions of a vast number of minor figures, including numerous Indian and Tibetan masters. As each figure appears to be inscribed, the painting will be important for future research, which will hopefully be possible once proper documentation becomes available. The same is true of the painting of Chögyel Pakpa, except that it is an actual painted copy of the original from the Tibet/Xizang Museum in Lhasa (Fig. 40), as the original is so badly damaged that it cannot be displayed anymore.

---

Endnotes

1. See Lee-Kalisch 2006: 118–151. ↩︎
2. For recent discissuons of the set, see Fermer et al. 2024: 60, Jackson 2016: 121–137, Jackson 2017: 173–194, Luczanits 2019. ↩︎
3. Fermer et al. 2024: 193. ↩︎
4. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, ’Jam dbyangs mthu stobs dbang phyug gi dgongs rdzogs kyi rten bzhengs dus kyi rten gyi gzungs bzhugs dkar chag (p. 169.5–6). ↩︎
5. See HAR (205201, 205200). ↩︎
6. See HAR (205211, 205216). ↩︎
7. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, A mes zhabs bka’ ’bum (dPal sa skya pa chen po sngags ’chang bla ma thams cad mkhyen pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi gsung ’bum) (vol. 27 (sha), pp. 138.5–149.3). ↩︎
8. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag (pp. 139.6–140.1, 148.3–149.1). ↩︎
9. See Byams pa bSam gtan rgya mtsho, rTogs pa brjod pa (pp. 576.6–577.2). ↩︎
10. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag (pp. 139.6–140.1, 148.3–149.1). ↩︎
11. On the depiction of Virūpa, see Jackson 2016: 139–140. ↩︎
12. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag (p. 142.3). ↩︎
13. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag (p. 143.2–3). ↩︎
14. See A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag (p. 146.4–6). ↩︎
15. For the two published paintings, see ’Jad pa dPal ldan tshe ring 2025: 126, 129, Heimbel 2026: Figs. 11–12. ↩︎

---

Bibliography

Works in Tibetan
’Jad pa dPal ldan tshe ring. Krung go’i bod brgyud nang bstan gyi sku ’dra snying bsdus rab gsal me long. lHa sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrung khang, 2025. In Chinese and Tibetan.

Byams pa bSam gtan rgya mtsho (fl. 17th century). rTogs pa brjod pa = dPal sa skya pa sngags ’chang bla ma thams cad mkhyen pa chen po ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rtogs pa brjod pa ngo mtshar yon tan rin po che ’dus pa’i rgya mtsho. In A mes zhabs bka’ ’bum, vol. 28 (sa), pp. 127–708.

A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams (1597–1659). ’Jam dbyangs mthu stobs dbang phyug gi dgongs rdzogs kyi rten bzhengs dus kyi rten gyi gzungs bzhugs dkar chag (p. 169.5–6). In A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, A mes zhabs bka’ ’bum, vol. 27 (sha), pp. 168.3–174.5.

A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams (1597–1659). gTso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag = Sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa spyi dang bye brag dpal ldan sa skya pa’i lta grub la bka’ drin che ba’i skyes mchog dam pa rnams kyi bris sku gtso bsdus chen mo’i dkar chag yid bzhin rin po che’i ’phreng mdzes. In A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, A mes zhabs bka’ ’bum, vol. 27 (sha), pp. 138.5–149.3.

A mes zhaps Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams (1597–1659). A mes zhabs bka’ ’bum = dPal sa skya pa chen po sngags ’chang bla ma thams cad mkhyen pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi gsung ’bum. 29 vols. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2000.

Works in European Languages
Fermer, Mathias et al. 2024. The Gongkar Lamdre: Masters in Khyenluk Style. Dehradun: Gongkar Choede.

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

Heimbel, Jörg. 2026. “Reconstructing the “Tsodü Chenmo” Painting Set Commissioned by Ame Zhap: Literary Evidence and Extant Paintings.” Notes on Buddhist Art from the Himalayas and Related Topics. https://artnotes.ngorpa.org/2122.

Jackson, David P. 2016. A Revolutionary Artist of Tibet: Khyentse Chenmo of Gongkar. New York, NY: Rubin Museum of Art.

Jackson, David P. 2017. “The sMin grol gling Lamdre Sculptures Reconsidered.” In Caumanns, Volker and Marta Sernesi (eds.), Fifteenth Century Tibet: Cultural Blossoming and Political Unrest. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 173–194.

Lee-Kalisch, Jeong-hee et al. 2006. Tibet: Klöster öffnen ihre Schatzkammern. München: Hirmer Verlag.

Luczanits, Christian. 2019. “A Crucial Link in 15th-Century Tibetan Art.” In Clemente, Michela, Oscar Nalesini, and Federica Venturi (eds.), Perspectives on Tibetan Culture: A Small Garland of Forget-me-nots Offered to Elena De Rossi Filibeck. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 51: 203–226.