When a colleague and friend of mine recently asked me about the book The Album of the Tibetan Art Collections (Collected by Pt. Rahula Samkrityayana from the Ṅor, Zhalu and other monasteries in 1928-29 and 1934), I myself picked it up for the first time in a long time, having completely forgotten the numerous plates of thangkas depicting Sakya lamas, the photographs of which Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana had apparently taken while at Ngor monastery.
As the note by the general editor of the book, P. N. Ojiha, suggests, although Sāṅkṛtyāyana collected thangkas and brought them to India, the plates of the book reproduce photographs he took while in Tibet (Pathak 1986: General Editor’s Note):
Rahula Samkrityayana visited Tibet four times for collecting manuscripts, Xylographs, books, thaṅ-kas etc. in 1929, 1934, 1936 and 1938. He took the photographs of more than eighty important works. He also photographed a good number of Tibetan painted scrolls and icons preserved in temples and monasteries in Tibet, which Rahulji could not bring in original, and deposited them in the Bihar Research Society, Patna. Besides these photographs, a large number of thaṅ-kas, specimen of wooden block printed designs of the Xylographs, musical instruments, Vajra, ḍamaru, ghaṇṭās, prayer wheels, magic dagger, ornaments, different types of Tibetan dress, small icons made of bronze and brass, wood and bones, models of architecture of temples and monasteries on wood have also been brought by Rahula Samkrityayan from Tibet and are being preserved in Patna Museum. The present edition is based on the photographs under the title ‘Picture and Manuscripts’ deposited in the Bihar Research Society.
Looking through the plates, I realised that five plates show thangkas belonging to a series of paintings (although not identified as such by Pathak 1986) and that they complement two other known paintings from the series, one showing Drupchen (Grub chen) Buddhaśrī (1339–1420) surrounded by the Yogācāra lineage masters of the bodhisattva vow (Fig. 1) and the other Könchok Lhündrup (dKon mchog lhun grub, 1497–1557), the 10th abbot of Ngor (tenure: 1534–1557), surrounded by masters of the Commentarial System (’Grel pa lugs) of the Lamdre (Lam ’bras) (Fig. 2). This post aims to partially piece together this set of paintings.
The two paintings of Buddhaśrī and Könchok Lhündrup bear important inscriptions on the front (in dbu can) and back (in dbu med) that help to clarify the historical background of their production. The inscription in the red strip at the bottom of the front of Buddhaśrī identifies him as the painting’s main figure, the lineage represented by the minor figures as the Yogācāra lineage of the bodhisattva vow, the commissioner of the painting as Lhachok Sengge (lHa mchog seng ge, 1486–1535), the 9th abbot of Ngor (tenure: 1516–1534), and also the artist as the Lord of Brush Holders Dorje Tseten (Pir ’dzin dbang po rDo rje tshe brtan).
Inscription (front side, bottom centre):
࿓། ། གྲུབ་པའི་དབང་ཕྱུག་བུདྷཱ་ཤྲཱི་སེམས་ཙམ་ལུགས་ཀྱི་བརྒྱུད་པ་དང་བཅས་པའི་ཞབས་ཀྱི་པདྨོ་ལ། བདག་ཤཱཀྱའི་དགེ་སློང་ལྷ་མཆོག་སེང་གེ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ཞིང་སྐྱབས་སུ་འཆིའོ། སྐྱེ་བ་དང་ཚེ་རབ་ཀུན་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་བཟུང་དུ་གསོལ། པིར་འཛིན་དབང་པོ་རྡོ་རྗེ་ཚེ་བརྟན་ཡིན། མཾགལཾ།
@| | grub pa’i dbang phyug budhā shrī sems tsam lugs kyi brgyud pa dang bcas pa’i zhabs kyi padmo la| bdag shākya’i dge slong lha mchog seng ge phyag ‘tshal zhing skyabs su ‘chi’o| skye ba dang tshe rab kun du rjes su bzung du gsol| pir ‘dzin dbang po rdo rje tshe brtan yin| maṃgalaṃ|
The inscription in the bottom strip of the painting depicting Könchok Lhündrup is similarly structured. It identifies him as the main figure, the lineage represented by the masters surrounding him as the Commentarial System (’Grel pa lugs) of the Lamdre (Lam ’bras), and the commissioner of the painting as Drangti Penchen Namkha Pelzang (Brang ti Paṇ chen Nam mkha’ dpal bzang, 1535–1602), the 13th abbot of Ngor (two tenures: 1579–1582/83 and 1590–1595). Although it does not identify the artist, the inscription adds the important detail that the painting was made as a supplement (kha skong) to an existing set or series of paintings of masters representing the lineage of the Profound Path Guruyoga (Lam zab bla ma’i rnal ’byor), a Hevajra guruyoga meditation practice used in the Lamdre. Furthermore, as I understand the inscription, it makes clear that the original set or series to which this painting was added was an object of the spiritual practice (thugs dam) of Lhachok Sengge, the commissioner of the painting of Buddhaśrī. Since there are no photographs of the inscription available, I have recorded here a version combining the available transliterations prepared by Essen and Thingo (1989: vol. 2, 105–106, no. II-228) and Repo (2014: 67).
Inscription (front side, bottom centre):
དཔལ་ལྡན་བླ་མ་དམ་པ་དཀོན་མཆོག་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ། ཀྱེ་རྡོར་འགྲེལ་པ་ལུགས་ཀྱི་བླ་མ་བརྒྱུད་པས་བསྐོར་བ་དང་བཅས་པའི་ཞབས་ཀྱི་པདྨོ་ལ་བདག་ཤཱཀྱའི་དགེ་སློང་ནམ་མཁའ་དཔལ་བཟང་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ཞིང་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས་སོ། སྐྱེ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་རྗེས་སུ་བཟུང་དུ་གསོལ། རྒྱལ་བ་ལྷ་མཆོག་སེང་གེའི་ཐུགས་དམ་ལམ་ཟབ་ཁ་སྐོངས་སུ་ལེགས་པར་བཞེངས། མཾགལཾ།
dpal ldan bla ma dam pa dkon mchog lhun grub la| rkye rdor ‘grel pa lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pas bskor ba dang bcas pa’i zhabs kyi padmo la bdag shākya’i dge slong nam mkha’ dpal bzang phyag ‘tshal zhing gsol ba ‘debs so| skye ba thams cad rjes su bzung du gsol| rgyal ba lha mchog seng ge’i thugs dam lam zab kha skongs su legs par bzhengs| maṃgalaṃ|
Read together, the two inscriptions suggest that there was an original set of paintings commissioned by Lhachok Sengge to which Namkha Pelzang added one or more paintings as supplements. Since his commission of Könchok Lhündrup is identified as a supplement to the Profound Path Guruyoga, Lhachok Sengge’s original set might have shown the beginning of this lineage, which was then continued or updated by Namkha Pelzang.
This line of thought is further supported by inscriptions on the back of both paintings. The inscription on the commission by Lhachok Sengge not only identifies the main figure and its surrounding lineage but also specifies the painting as number 11 in a series of small paintings depicting main lineage masters (gtso bsdus) commissioned successively by Lhakho Sengge, Sanggye Sengge (Sangs rgyas seng ge, 1504–1569), the 11th abbot of Ngor (1557–1569), and Namkha Pelzang, who had used them in their own spiritual practice. The inscription concludes by saying that the present painting has come into the possession of Sakyapa Ngawang Künnga Sönam (Sa skya pa Ngag dbang Kun dga’ bsod nams), who can be identified as Amezhap (A mes zhabs, 1597–1659), the 27th throne-holder of Sakya, who most likely had this inscription added to the painting after it came into his possession. A historian and bibliophile, Amezhap was himself a great patron of religious painting. It is said that he had no less than five painters working on his commissions at any one time.
Inscription (back side, bottom; contractions in the original Tibetan are decoded; Fig. 3):
࿓࿔།། བྲིས་ཐང་གཙོ་བསྡུས་ཆུང་ངུ་གྲས་ཅིག་གི་བཅུ་གཅིག་པ་གྲུབ་ཆེན་བུདྡྷ་ཤྲི་ལ་སེམས་ཙམ་ལུགས་ཀྱི་སེམས་བསྐྱེད་ཀྱི་བླ་མ་བརྒྱུད་པས་བསྐོར་བ་འདི། རྗེ་ལྷ་མཆོག་སེང་གེ། རྗེ་སངས་རྒྱས་སེང་གེ། རྗེ་ནམ་མཁའ་དཔལ་བཟང་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་རིམ་པར་བཞེངས་ཤིང་། ཐུགས་དམ་རྟེན་ཕྱག་གནས་མ་བྱིན་རླབས་ཅན་འདི། ས་སྐྱ་པ་ངག་དབང་ཀུན་དགའ་བསོད་ནམས་ཀྱི་ལག་ཏུ་དད་པའི་དབང་གི་བབ་པའོ།།
@@|| bris thang gtso bsdus chung ngu gras cig gi bcu gcig pa grub chen buddha shri la sems tsam lugs kyi sems bskyed kyi bla ma brgyud pas bskor ba ‘di| rje lha mchog seng ge| rje sangs rgyas seng ge| rje nam mkha’ dpal bzang rnams kyis rim par bzhengs shing| thugs dam rten phyag gnas ma byin rlabs can ‘di| sa skya pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi lag tu dad pa’i dbang gi bab pa’o||
Moreover, the back features mantras written in red ink, and one passage written behind the depiction of Buddhaśrī also allowing for his identification (Figs. 4–5):
།།ཨོཾ་ཨཱ༔ བུདྡྷ་ཤྲཱི་ཧཱུཾ།། ཤྲཱི་མཾ་ག་ལཾ།།
||oṃ āḥ buddha shrī huṃ|| shrī maṃ ga laṃ||
The inscription on the back of Könchok Lhündrup is largely similar, except that it identifies the painting as number 19 in a series of small paintings of lineage masters. Unfortunately, neither inscription makes it clear which lineage the main figures in the painting represent. In the case of the Sakya school, and its Ngor branch in particular, the Lamdre lineage immediately comes to mind, of which we have numerous representations in painting. However, as mentioned above, the small piece of information in the inscription of Namkha Pelzang’s commission, that it was a supplement to the Profound Path Guruyoga, raises the question of whether the paintings did in fact portray the main lineage masters of this specific Lamdre practice as transmitted within the Ngor tradition.
Since there are again no photographs of the inscription available, I have recorded here a version combining the available transliterations prepared by Essen and Thingo (1989: vol. 2, 105–106, no. II-228) and Repo (2014: 67).
Inscription (back side):
࿓࿔།། བྲིས་ཐང་གཙོ་བསྡུས་ཆུང་ངུ་གྲས་ཅིག་གི་བཅུ་དགུ་པ་ངོར་ཆེན་དཀོན་མཆོག་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ་ཀྱེའི་རྡོར་འགྲེལ་པ་ལུགས་ཀྱི་དབང་གི་བླ་མ་བརྒྱུད་པའི་བསྐོར་བ་འདི། རྗེ་ལྷ་མཆོག་སེང་གེ། རྗེ་སངས་རྒྱས་སེང་གེ། རྗེ་ནམ་མཁའ་དཔལ་བཟང་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་རིམ་པར་བཞེངས་ཤིང་། ཐུགས་དམ་རྟེན་ཕྱག་གནས་མ་བྱིན་རླབས་ཅན་འདི། ས་སྐྱ་པ་ངག་དབང་ཀུན་དགའ་བསོད་ནམས་ཀྱི་ལག་ཏུ་དད་པའི་དབང་གི་བབ་པའོ།།
@@|| bris thang gtso bsdus chung ngu gras cig gi bcu dgu pa ngor chen dkon mchog lhun grub la kye’i rdor ‘grel pa lugs kyi dbang gi bla ma brgyud pa’i bskor ba ‘di| rje lha mchog seng ge| rje sangs rgyas seng ge| rje nam mkha’ dpal bzang rnams kyis rim par bzhengs shing| thugs dam rten phyag gnas ma byin rlabs can ‘di| sa skya pa ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams kyi lag tu dad pa’i dbang gi bab pa’o||
The inscriptions on the front and back of both paintings suggest that an original set of paintings of lineage masters was commissioned by Lhachok Sengge, to which later additions updating the lineage were successively added by his abbatial successors Sanggye Sengge and Namkha Pelzang. It appears that individual paintings from the set and its additions came into the possession of Amezhap during the 17th century and were transferred from Ngor to Sakya.
However, the five paintings documented by Sāṅkṛtyāyana were apparently still at Ngor when he visited there on several ocassions during his travels in the 1930s. The main figures in these five paintings are Vajradhara (Fig. 6) and four Tibetan lamas (Figs. 7–10), the latter all in partial profile gazing to their proper right. As with the other two paintings of Buddhaśrī and Könchok Lhündrup, all four Tibetan lamas would thus have been hung to the proper left of the central painting of Vajradhara.
The identification of the four Tibetan lamas is difficult without access to the inscriptions. However, the iconography of the Tibetan lama in Fig. 7 suggests that he is Jetsün Drakpa Gyeltsen (rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1147–1216), the third of the five great founding fathers of the Sakya school. Pathak (1986: 44) tentatively identifies the four Tibetan lamas as follows:
Fig. 7 = “Za lu rin po che Grags pa rgyal mtshan” (Plate 38)
Fig. 8 = “’Gro mgon chos rgyal ’phags pa” (Plate 35)
Fig. 9 = “Bsod nams dpal Puṇyaśrī of India (?)” (Plate 40)
Fig. 10 = “(Dkon mchog) Bstan pa rgyal mtshan” (Plate 36)
If the identification is based on a correct reading of the inscriptions, Fig. 8 may indeed depict Pakpa Lodrö Gyeltsen (‘Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan, 1235–1280), the fifth of the five great founding fathers of the Sakya school.
The poor quality black and white reproduction of these five paintings does not allow for a detailed stylistic comparison with the other two paintings in the series described above. However, the general outline and the overall style of each painting is very similar. Both the main and minor figures are set against a monochrome background (probably also in dark blue) with simple floral decoration. The main figures are seated on thrones and a lotus seat with backrests of various designs, all of which are decorated with a border of jewels, as is the head nimbus of the main figures. All the main figures are surrounded on all sides by minor figures representing specific lineages. As in the other two paintings, the individual masters of these lineages are depicted sitting on lotus seats, surrounded by an aureola and with separate head and body nimbuses. As in the painting of Buddhaśrī, three of these five paintings also have two minor figures placed to the right and left of the main figure’s head nimbus, with an additional ornamented border around their aureola, which the other minor figures do not have.
In addition, all the paintings have a (red) border with the same floral ornamentation (Figs. 10–11).
The brocade mounting is also identical (Figs. 12–14).
As with the other two paintings, the plates show that all five paintings also have a long inscription in the lower strip at the front, which would identify the main figure, the lineage represented by the minor figures surrounding the main figure, and the name of the commissioning Ngor abbot as patron. Unfortunately, these inscriptions are illegible in the published plates. The only exception is a few syllables at the end of one painting (Fig. 8) which seem to give the name of the artist, Dorje Tseten, who would be the same artist who also painted Lhachok Sengge’s commission of Buddhaśrī.
Lhachok Sengge’s commission also seems to show the patron in the bottom row, supplicating Buddhaśrī, as the second figure from the left. Three of the five paintings also show a patron in the bottom row, either as the first figure on the left or the second from the left (Figs. 6–8). One of these also contains the legible part of the inscription identifying the artist as Dorje Tseten (Fig. 8). One might therefore speculate that these three paintings were part of the original set commissioned by Lhachok Sengge.
As no measurements are given for the paintings documented by Sāṅkṛtyāyana (if he measured them at all), a comparison based on size is not possible. Moreover, there seems to be some confusion in the sources about the dimensions of the painting depicting Buddhaśrī. According to Rhie and Thurman (1999: 291, no. 87), the painting measures 27 x 18 inches, 68.5 x 45.7 cm; Jackson (2010: 199, fig. 8.13) puts it at 36 x 23 inches, 91.44 x 58.42 cm; The Rubin (C2006.66.220) at 31 1/4 × 19 1/8 inches; and Repo (2014: 63, fig. 8) has a mistaken caption for the painting. The painting depicting Könchok Lhündrup measures 50 x 43 cm, according to Essen and Thingo (1989: vol. 2, 105, no. II-228), and Repo (2014: 63, fig. 9) also gives it as 19.69 x 16.93 inches, 50 x 43 cm.
On the two paintings depicting Buddhaśrī and Könchok Lhündrup, see also Essen and Thingo 1989: vol. 2, 105–106, no. II-228, HAR 269, HAR 3314523, Jackson 2010: 197–199, 8.13, Repo 2014: 66–70, figs. 8–9, The Rubin C2006.66.220.
Bibliography
Essen, Gerd-Wolfgang, and Tsering Tashi Thingo. 1989. Die Götter des Himalaya: Buddhistische Kunst Tibets. Die Sammlung Gerd-Wolfgang Essen. 2 vols. Munich: Prestel-Verlag.
HAR = Himalayan Art Resources. https://www.himalayanart.org
Jackson, David. P. 2010. The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetain Painting. Masterworks of Tibetan Painting Series. New York: Rubin Museum of Art.
Pathak, S. K. (ed.). 1986. The Album of the Tibetan Art Collections (Collected by Pt. Rahula Samkrityayana from the Ṅor, Zhalu and other monasteries in 1928-29 and 1934). Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series XXVII. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute.
Repo, Joona. 2014. “Distinguishing “Set” from “Series” in Tibetan Painting.” Archives of Asian Art 64/1: 59–73.
The Rubin = The Rubin Museum of Art. https://rubinmuseum.org