The Contributed Introductions, Forewords & Preface

Prof. Lokesh Chandra has noted that Si-tu was the last of the great Tibetan lotsavas: "It is remarkable that when the art of the lotsava was a matter of history, yet there lingered in Si-tu the aura of the lotsava." In this volume of the Sata-pitaka he gives us the long-awaited facsimile edition of the autobiography and diaries of Si-tu.

Si-tu was unusual in that he sought to go back to the sources of Tibetan learning, the Sanskrit tradition of Bharat. While one can cite a number of isolated cases of Sanskrit pandits visiting Tibet and Tibetan scholars setting out from their native land in search of learning after the beginning of the 15th century, the impact of the Indic tradition had largely been spent by 1400. Tibetans seemed to have lost the motivation and persistence to master Sanskrit and its taxing scholastic discipline. By the beginning of the 15th century, the Tibetans were already in possession of an enormous corpus of translated scholarship and magic. The overwhelming majority of Tibetan scholars were content to study the existing translations and bilingual editions with the Sanskrit rendered into Tibetan letters. The ranjana, vartula and a few other Indian scripts continued to be studied; but the use of these scripts was largely confined to ornamentation of book titles and works of art. The systematic study of Sanskrit as a language had been replaced by drudging memorization of Tibetan commentaries of Tibetan commentaries. The glorious spark which contacts with Indian culture gives was absent. Prof. Tucci has examined some of the Sanskrit verses of the 5th Dalai Lama and has come to the conclusion that whatever other subjects the Great Fifth knew, Sanskrit was not one of them.

For the Indian pandits the period of the Muslim invasions with its chaos and persecution was largely over. There was no longer that compelling stimulus to flee from probable slaughter to an uncertain fate in the mountains of Tibet. The second and greatest transmission of Indic civilization to Tibet (11th–14th centuries) resulted from a coincidence. Hindu civilization was faced with a monumental crisis at a time when Tibet was at the beginning of a period of maximum cultural receptivity. It was this fortunate accident that produced modern Tibetan civilization.

During the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, there was a period of considerable stagnation in Indic studies in Tibet. In the 18th century, however, we find the obvious signs of a revival of interest in Sanskrit. The evidence that would enable us to explain this renewed interest is still insufficient. One factor might have been the Newar artisan-merchant community resident in Tibet.

The Sanskritization of Newar culture had been in process for several centuries. One of the more important developments had been the imposition of caste on Buddhist Newar society and the relegation of the artisan-merchant groups to a position in the hierarchy not only ritually but also socially inferior to that of their traditional family priests.

Certain members of these Uray castes with business interests in Tibet gradually were coming to favour the Tibetan forms of Buddhism, which gave them greater scope for religious activity than the more rigid Newar form. We find a number of cases in 18th century biographical materials where Uray Newars were ordained as Buddhist monks in Tibet. This would have been impossible in Nepal where the religious establishments and monasteries were the hereditary preserves of the upper castes, the Gubhajus and Bares. In Tibet, however, the Uray was often honoured and courted by great lamas as much for his talents as a craftsman as for his sometimes not inconsiderable wealth. Si-tu's relations with his Newar students and friends is a case in point. As such relationships developed, one notices a realization on the part of sensitive lamas that these Newar Buddhists with their older heritage of Sanskrit learning might have something more to offer. One of Si-tu's lifelong interests was silpasastra and the techniques of painting and casting, an area in which these Newar artisans, the Urays and Bares, were unrivalled. He probably quickly realized that these same Newars had something to offer him in the field of linguistic and literary studies. Si-tu gave as well as took: we find him encouraging a friend and student to translate some works from Tibetan into the language of Nepal.

Finally, we should note that when Si-tu and his contemporaries went outside Tibet for studies, they almost invariably went to the Kathmandu Valley where they found a considerable number of learned pandits. Si-tu, for all his interest in India, never fulfilled his dream of visiting India.

The diaries of Si-tu are one of the important sources for the intellectual history of the 18th century Lamaist world. While this work is certainly not unique, it is one of the clearest pieces of evidence for demonstrating the intricate intellectual relationships that existed between the important scholars who were Si-tu's close contemporaries. These thinkers gave birth to a splendid cultural renaissance that reached its fullest flower in 19th century Kham. Unlike their intellectual descendants who were largely from Eastern Tibet, the associates of Si-tu came from Mongolia and Bhutan, from Western Tibet and the farthest Tibetan villages of the East.

It is interesting to note that the majority of the great savants of Si-tu's time were born within the space of a little more than a decade at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century: zhu chen tshul khrims rin-chen and mdo-mkhar tshe-ring-dbang-rgyal in 1697, kah-thog tshe-dbang-nor-bu in 1698, Si-tu and bstan-’dzin chos-rgyal in 1700, dpal ldan-chos skyong in 1702, gnas gsar kun-legs in 1704 and the Seventh Dalai Lama in 1708. The dates for mgon-po-skyabs of the UJumujin and zhe-chen drun-yig are as yet unknown, but it would appear that they too were born during this period.

There was considerable contact between these great scholars. We find Si-tu completing his famous treatise of Tibetan grammar at the behest of mdo-mkhar zhabs-drung and mgon-po-skyabs dispatching to Tibet a manuscript of his rgya nag chos ’byung for criticism by Si-tu and Kah-thog. There was not yet that degree of scholarly collaboration that would in time make possible the great compilations like the rnying ma’i rgyud ’bum, the rin chen gter mdzod, the sgrub thabs kun btus and the rgyud sde kun btus; but one can already detect the beginnings.

Si-tu remained for almost fifty years at the centre of the scholastic life of the lamaist world. His influence on the following three or four generations was enormous. kong sprul, mkhyen brtse, dpal sprul and mi pham were all, in some way, Si-tu’s heirs.

Because Si-tu was converted to the gzhan-stong doctrine of the Jo-nail-pa through the efforts of Kah-thog tshe-dbang-nor-bu, that teaching spread throughout Eastern Tibet. The trend of the previous century was effectively reversed. The gzhan-stong position had been branded as heresy, the great monasteries of the jo-nang-pa confiscated and turned into dge lugs pa establishments, books by gzhan-stong philosophers prohibited and placed under government seal by the Fifth Dalai Lama; now the gzhan-stong took a new lease of life because Si-tu espoused the position. The prohibition against the copying and printing of the Jo-nan-pa books would continue for just a hundred years after Si-tu’s death, yet the doctrine spread and its following increased.

Si-tu’s monastery at dpal-spungs produced a whole school of philosophers. It produced a generation of talented physicians who would dominate the medical field in Tibet for a generation to come. The renewed interest in the grammatic sciences, in history, in technology and in Chinese and Indian systems of astronomy and astrology is one of Si-tu’s most important legacies to Tibet.

What made Si-tu so influential? Besides his innate genius, one of the factors was his birth in Derge during the “Golden Age” of that principality. A second factor was the death of both the zhwa-nag and zhwa-dmar lamas in the same year, 1732; this left Si-tu the ranking and most influential lama of the Karma-pa sect.

Si-tu was born on the 17th day of the 11th month of the Earth-Hare Year, a date which probably corresponds to 1700. He was recognized as the Si-tu incarnation by the 8th zhwa-dmar, dpal-chen-chos-kyi-don-’grub (1695–1732), who bestowed upon him the name chos-kyi-’byung-gnas-phrin-las-kun-khyab-ye-ses-dpal-bzang-po. When Si-tu received the vows of an upasaka from the zhwa-dmar, he was given the name karma-bstan-pa’i-nyin-byed-gtsug-lag-chos-kyi-snang-ba. In his literary works he uses these names or detachable parts with seemingly little method. This could result in confusion in the attribution of his literary works.

In 1712, he left Derge for studies in Central Tibet and did not return to Kham until 1715. Si-tu continued his studies in Kham during the period 1715–1721. In 1720, Si-tu and Kah-thog tshe-dbang-nor-bu first met. This event was the beginning of a fruitful friendship that would continue until Kah-thog’s death.

Si-tu returned to Central Tibet in 1721 and spent the year 1722 travelling there. The following year, he accompanied the zhwa-nag and zhwa-dmar to Nepal. The zhwa-dmar had been born in Helambu in Nepal. En route to Nepal, Si-tu visited the former seat of Taranatha, rtag-brtan-phun-tshogs-gling and jo nang. This visit was obviously a formative experience for the young Si-tu’s intellectual development. He returned to Tibet in 1724 via Western Tibet.

After his return to Kham, he enjoyed the favour of the King of Derge, bstan-pa-tshe-ring (1678–1738), who built for him the monastery of dpal-spungs, which became the new seat (gdan-sa) of the Si-tu line.

The years 1731–33 were taken up with the enormous task of editing and correcting the sheets for carving the Derge edition of the Kanjur. The reputation that this edition enjoys for critical work is a testament to Si-tu’s careful scholarship. He completed the dkar-chag to this edition in 1733 and the first copies were printed.

After the tedium of the editing of the Kanjur was finished, Si-tu turned to a project that was to occupy him for the rest of his life: the reexamination and revision of all existing translations of the Sanskrit grammatical, lexicographical and poetical sastras that constitute the basis for Tibetan philological studies. It was an ambitious project and one fraught with considerable difficulties. The fact that Si-tu accomplished as much as he did is truly remarkable. His diaries are filled with his quest for Sanskrit manuscripts. The results of his philological work fill the majority of the volumes of his gsung-’bum. His interests in Sanskrit translation were not confined only to the philological works; he tried his skill at translating or revising a few important tantric works.

Meanwhile, the great publication project of the House of Derge continued; but of the chief editorship honor had fallen into other hands. The edition of the sa skya bka’ ’bum was completed in 1737. In 1744, the first copies of the new edition of the Tanjur were printed. Zhu-chen tshul-khrims-rin-chen was responsible for editing and correcting the sheets for printing; he wrote the dkar-chag which remains one of the finest treatments of the contents of Tanjur ever produced.

It must have been Si-tu’s intention that the awkward and often erroneous translations of the philological and literary works of the Tanjur should ultimately be replaced by his new translations which demonstrate a profounder knowledge of Sanskrit and a critical use of later commentaries not available to the translators of times past.

Alas, the great design of Si-tu was not to be realized. Most of his gsung ’bum which contains the new translations, editions and inter lineal annotations is marred by the careless editing and checking of the sheets from which the blocks would be carved. Si-tu’s numerous nephews who came to power at dpal-spungs after his death allowed the sheets to be passed on to the printer without even a superficial reading. The result is that much of Si-tu’s work has been negated by the carelessness of his heirs. This is one of the famous ironical stories of the Tibetan tradition. The sgra mdo section of the Derge Tanjur that Si-tu had hoped to correct and to replace contains in some cases better readings than one finds in Si-tu.

In 1735–36, Si-tu visited Lhasa to examine some Sanskrit manuscripts and was received cordially by pho-lha-nas and mdo-mkhar zhabs-drung. After his return to the East, we find him very much on the move. He had gained a considerable reputation as a successful physician and was in great demand at the courts of the princes and clerics of the Khampa States.

He had become interested in Chinese traditions of astronomy and astrology and he seems to have attempted some translations. Had Si-tu learned Chinese? Si-tu also appears to have been an accomplished painter; his thankas were highly prized by his disciples and patrons.

In 1748, Si-tu had the opportunity to pay another visit to Nepal. It is possible that he went entrusted with some official commission from the Tibetan Government. He was received warmly by Jayaprakasamalla of Kathmandu (1736–1768). Ranajitamalla of Bhatgaon (1722–1769) presented him with a manuscript Amarakosa commentary. His account of his meetings with Prthvinarayana Saha at the Gorkha Fortress is fascinating yet distressing because of its brevity. During this stay in Nepal, he was able to complete a translation of a short Sovayambhurana. In 1750, he returned to Kham via Tibet.

He again visited Lhasa for the last time in 1762; the following year he set out for home. The last decade of his life was spent in travels in Eastern Tibet. He visited mi-nyag, rgyal-mo-rong and even ’jang sa-tham. He was constantly busy with his literary and scholarly activities. We find him writing in 1769 the postfaces (par-byang) for the new Derge editions of the sman gzhung cha lag bco brgyad of g.yu-thog yon-tan-mgon-po, the bye ba ring bsre/ of zur-mkhar a-pho chos rje and the bka’ gdams glegs bam. These last years are the most detailed in their treatment.

On the 24th of the 2nd Tibetan month of the Wood-Sheep Year (1774), Si-tu passed away. His life had been extraordinarily rich and the list of his students contains many of the greatest minds of the next generation.

No list of the contents of the gsung-’bum of Si-tu has yet become available. Separate prints of some of his more important works are available. In addition to the Tibetan translations of the Amarakosa and its commentary, the Kamadhenu by Subhuticandra, I have seen a bilingual edition of the Amarakosa, a Pepung edition of the famous sum rtags commentary, a critical edition of the sa mtha’i rnam dbye of ’phreng-po gter-ston shes-rab-’od-zer (1518–1584), an edition with explanatory notes of the dag yig nag sgron of dpal-khang lo-tsa-ba nag-dbang-chos-kyi-rgya-mtsho (16th century), an important history of the Karma-pa sect and the dkar-chag to the Derge Kanjur.