DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.575869
title: རྦ་ (2011.1). Transcription of རྦ་བཞེད་ manuscript (Ziling 2011) : version 1.0

description: This text is a transcription of the རྦ་བཞེད་ reproduced as a photo-lithograph facsimile in volume 36 of Bod gyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs gnyis pa, published from Ziling in 2011 (see TBRC W1PD153537). This text is closely related to dBa' (2000) in palaeographic terms; the narrative also corresponds up to folio 4v., after which the text breaks off and turns to events in the life of the Buddha without significant punctuation or a change in writing style. This shows that the exemplar already combined the text of the རྦ་བཞེད་ with the second text and that the subsequent parts of the narrative had already been lost in the exemplar. The present copy can be assigned to the circa fourteenth century. We refer to this as rBa (2011.1) in our publications.
description: The རྦ (2011.1) corresponds closely to dBa' bzhed (Vienna, 2000), in our referencing system དབའ་ (2000). The two texts run parallel, phrase by phrase, with རྦ (2011.1) extrapolating and extending content in only a few cases. See collation: WILLIS, Michael, & GONKATSANG, Tsering. (2017). དབའ་བཞེད་ collated with རྦ་བཞེད : version 1.0 [Data set]. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.574881. In some cases the annotations in དབའ་ (2000) have been taken up into the running text of རྦ (2011.1), indicating the dependence of the latter on the former (or possibly on a different version that carried the annotations; by no means does རྦ absorb many notations). A useful if difficult indication of the relationship of རྦ་ (2011.1) to དབའ་ (2000) is seen in the account of ministers sent to RA SA PE HAR to interrogate Śāntarakṣita in person. In རྦ་ (2011.1) it is one person (following Duhunang version of the story preserved in the fragment in the British Library for which JAOS 128 (3): 477–487. ISSN 0003-0279): ཞང་བློན་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱལ་སྦྲང་ལེགས་གཟིགས་ལ་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། བློན་ཆེན་པོ་ར་སའི་པེ་ཧར་དུ་སོང་ལ༴ (see folio 4, line 6). Below, following དབའ་ (2000) (but with the hyper-correction དབའ་ to འབའ་ which reveals its later date or a redaction at a later date), three ministers are mentioned: སྦྲང་ལེགས་གཟིགས་དང༴ སེང་མགོ་ལྷ་ལུང་ གཟིགས་དང༴ དབའ་སང་ཤེ་དང་༣་ར་སར་མཆིས་པ་ལས་། (see folio 4, lines 7-8). This shows that རྦ་ (2011.1) was compiled by an author who had a different exemplar than that behind དབའ་(2000). However, there is no indication that རྦ་ (2011.1) went to source texts of the dynastic period: all that is found in it is available already in དབའ་ (2000). What is notable with རྦ་ (2011.1) is that the language is simpler, Sanskrit is used over Tibetan for several terms (for example དྷ་རྨ་ for ཆོས; separately མཧཱ་བོ་དྷེ), and elevated titles are modified (བཙན་པོ་ some times replaced by རྒྱལ་པོ་). This is only a partial catalogue of the differences. The simple style is not indicative of an early date, as might first be assumed (and which the རྦ་བཞེད་ appears to want its readers to suppose), but rather of a fundamentalist redaction against the parent text. The later nature of the རྦ་ (2011.1) is poignantly illustrated in the initial summary which gives KHRI SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO against KHRI SRONG BTSAN in the དབའ་(2000). This reveals its necessary dependence on received tradition, rather than letting the epithet SGAM PO be explained in the narrative proper as it is in དབའ་ (2000): folio 2v.