Fifth Dalai Lama:
Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (1617-1682)
The Fifth Dalai Lama was born in Stag rtse, located in 'Phyong rgyas in Southern Tibet (Lhoka) in the year 1617. From the moment he was born until he passed away, he continually taught the Dharma, thus showing that he intentionally took birth as an emanation body. He had many visions of Atisha, Jetsun Tsongkhapa, many deities and holy lamas. As illuminated in a prophecy in the Kadam Glegs bam, he was recognized as the reincarnation of Yonten Gyatso by Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen (1570-1662), in agreement with various Dharma Protectors.1
The famous Panchen Rinpoche also recognized the Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen as being the gzims khang gong ma reincarnation.2 This can be found in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s own autobiography, Du ku la'i gos bzang (section ka, folio 26a2-3). Panchen Rinpoche also wrote an enumeration of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen’s reincarnation lineage.3 Before this, he was a candidate for being recognized as the Fifth Dalai Lama.4 However, the issues with recognizing reincarnations are not ignorable, this case being no exception. Samten Karmay quotes the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography:5
The official Tsawa Kachu of the Ganden Palace showed me statues and rosaries (that belonged to the Fourth Dalai Lama and other lamas), but I was unable to distinguish between them! When he left the room I heard him tell the people outside that I had successfully passed the tests. Later, when he became my tutor, he would often admonish me and say: “You must work hard, since you were unable to recognize the objects!”
Thus, although Shugden detractors have raised doubts of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen’s authenticity due to being passed over as a candidate for the incarnation of the Fifth Dalai Lama, given the quotation above the same questions can be raised about the authenticity of Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso. It is commonplace to have multiple candidates, and many passed-over candidates have been recognized as another or their own appropriate reincarnation afterward. Thus, it was not by way of compensation that he was recognized as Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, as Dreyfus suggests, implying that he was recognized as a second-rate reincarnation.6 If one has any confidence in the reincarnation recognition system (and reincarnation itself), clearly it is not an award-based system; instead, due diligence must be observed to find the correct person who is the actual reincarnation.
Due to the issues of the Gelug sect being under the control of the gTsang empire, the Panchen Rinpoche made great diplomatic efforts with the gTsang pa governor to arrange the invitation of the Fifth Dalai Lama to Drepung monastery. He was enthroned at Ganden Phodrang at Drepung at the age of 6.7 The Fifth Dalai Lama later founded the Thirteen Great Monasteries of the Gelug (gling bcu gsum), including Dol Sungrab Ling and Ganden Phelgyeling.
Although there are variations in the account of how Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen died, this is most likely due to variations in oral tradition, and speculation filling in details withheld from those outside of the inner circle of the Fifth Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, Du ku la'i gos bzang, is one of the few chronological sources that document the state of affairs at the time. What is stated there regarding this matter has been examined before, yet not taken to heart by modern scholars investigating Dorje Shugden history. Although examination of this account is one of several needed in a complete cross examination to understand the full situation, it provides many but not all details used in the origination story of Dorje Shugden. In fact, on many points it more or less concurs with much that has been written by Shugden proponents, in particular Trijang Rinpoche’s Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors.
In particular, one of the main points is the continual attempts of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s regent (who was previously his phyag mdzod) to undermine the status of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. One of the earliest of these attempts was in 1639, which is documented in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography:8
bKra-shis-rgya-mtsho, the senior monk (bdu mdzad) when the whole monastery assembles, said that he had finished writing a prayer to the successive predecessors of sprul sku gZims-khang-gong-ma, starting from Kashmir Pandita and Bu-ston Rin-po-che, whereupon the Venerable [phyag mdzod] said that because Pan-chen Rin-po-che and Gling-smad zhabs drung say that Bu-ston Rin-po-che was misunderstood in the colophon of one of pan-chen bSo-rnams-grags-pa’s treatises [these successive predecessors] are not appropriate, and so an ordinary prayer was used and the documents not wanted by him (viz. the phyag mdzod) were disposed of (VRN, Ka, f. 91b4-6).
Then, after gaining power when Gushri Khan overthrew the gTsang empire, the regent continued pushing down the eminence of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. According to the Fifth Dalai Lama, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen had been demoted in rank, due to the manipulation of the Regent Sonam Rabten:9
Until then [his] seating and so forth were accorded the respect due to a great lama, but since the water-horse [year] (1642) he had been downgraded to the third rank by the decision of the Regent himself.
However, the personal relation between Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and the Fifth Dalai Lama does not seem to have suffered. Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, specifically listed by the name gZims-khang-gong-ma by the Fifth, attended transmission by the Fifth Dalai Lama on works by the Second Dalai Lama Gendun Gyatso for 23 days in 1656 and invited him to drink tea in the same month. Moreover, when Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen became ill shortly afterwards, the Regent Sonam Rabten tried to keep the Fifth Dalai Lama from visiting him. From the Fifth’s autobiography:10
The reincarnation of the gZims-khang-gong-ma having been stricken with a sudden fever from the 25th day [of the fourth month], I was preparing to set out because I had been asked to come to perform an empowerment [rite] to ward off evil when the Regent [sent a message] from Lhasa saying that because it appeared to be a contagious disease for which there were no exceptions, it was inappropriate [to go] now. He had also notified the gZims-khang-gong, and because with something like a contagious disease there is no means of protection, I was compelled to follow the [Regent’s] instructions in postponing [my visit]. (ibid., 248a-2-4).
As shown by the terminology, the Fifth Dalai Lama does recognize him here and elsewhere in his autobiography as a reincarnation of the gZims-khang-gong-ma. Continuing with this state of affairs, the Fifth’s autobiography states that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen recovered due to the Gling-stod chos-rje and Byang-ngas nursing him (which casts doubt on the fact that it was contagious), offered tea to the assembly at Drepung monastery and made a request to the oracle at gNas-chung temple.11 The Fifth Dalai Lama then went to gZims-khang-gong and gave the empowerment, but this was not successful as Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen lost consciousness and passed away soon afterwards.12 These entries do not seem to indicate contention between these two lamas as claimed by Dreyfus.13 Thus, it seems that the rivalry was not between these two lamas themselves, but an issue with the regent.
As can be found in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, not long after Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's death (one folio later in the autobiography) the Great Protector (Nechung) possessed a Vajra master doing the Palden Remati (Lhamo) ritual and told the Fifth Dalai Lama that there were disturbances in the tea house. The Fifth Dalai Lama had visions of a monkey about eight years old.14 Then, the Great Protector told him not to stay nearby when the Tulku’s body was being cremated, and so he went to stay in the Potala where he persisted in virtuous practices. He was hoping for a sign that some obscuration (las sgrib) would be lifted but had a dream of a monk who became an animal, and other inauspicious occurrences.15 If Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen passed away from natural causes or suicide, would the Fifth Dalai Lama need to be concerned about karmic obscuration (las sgrib)? This may indicate that he was becoming aware of foul play by the regent and may have felt guilty by association. Finally, action was required as the regent subsequently became sick, apparently in connection with his mishandling of the cover-up, as stated by the Fifth Dalai Lama:16
Whereas the great tutelary god [gNas-chung] had informed the Regent through two monastic supervisors the previous year when he [the chos rjes] was setting out to take the baths at sTod-lung that the stupas and so forth at the gZims-khang-gong, which were possessed by demons, must be moved elsewhere, and this led to [the Regent’s] being taken ill. When he said that [the building of] the gZims-khang-gong must be moved now that ill omens and inconveniences had increased... But, true or otherwise, if the eight great stupas were not destroyed, [popular] understanding, expressed along the lines that noises and moaning could be heard from inside the stupa, would err, and therefore, without any conclusion having been reached, his relics and so forth were transported to [the Gad-kha-sa family home in] sTod-lung-mda’ and his furniture and other effects were transported to Chu-sbug in the east (VRN, Ka, ff. 264b4-265a1).
Here “Chu-sbug” refers to a body of water, most likely a river, which is how wood was transported in Tibet. These accounts are the very experience and words of the Fifth Dalai Lama just before and after the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Yet, Dreyfus comments that “this story is striking” and suggests it is a later-created narrative that represents hostility toward the Dalai Lama.17 Interpretation was later added in texts such as Rosary of White Lotuses claiming that this was due to the Fifth Dalai Lama practicing Nyingma doctrine at the cost of the Gelug. However, interpretations aside, these experiences themselves are all rooted in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography and not a later-created narrative.
Yet, in comparison to these events, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s apology and recognition of Dolgyal, the reincarnation of the deceased Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, is not quite as clear in the chronological entries in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography. Instead, circumstantial evidence and logical considerations of development of Shugden practice will be considered later. However, one thing noticeable with these chronological entries is that they refer to steps made to control this situation, but only in retrospect. For example, in the journal entry quoted earlier it states that the regent was warned by Nechung earlier to move the stupas of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, yet this is only mentioned in retrospect after later circumstances force him to reveal these details. Likewise, in a later entry it states that in the earth bird year a shrine was built to placate Dolgyal, yet no biographical entry is found for this in the earth bird year; it is only mentioned in retrospect. Thus, it can be concluded that not all events are recorded in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, which seems to indicate a tendency to keep these matters somewhat concealed. The decision itself to move the relics of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen due to the haunting mentioned earlier was most likely to contain the situation and prevent widespread dissemination of information that would cause controversy and further complicate matters.
Contemporary “outsiders,” such as the Mongolian Jaya Pandita, have also written about the questions raised about this time. At the end of his biography of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, he writes that many began questioning along the lines that since he was a holy being with the power over life and death, he did not want to stay and went to a different land. He specifically states that although from the 25th of the fourth month Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was nursed to health by gLing-stod zhabs-drung and Byang-ngas, on the 13th of the following month he passed away, thus concluding that how he passed away is not certain. Yet, there is no mention of the destruction of the upper estate.18 Hence, the Fifth Dalai Lama was partially successful in suppressing the hauntings and widespread subsequent scandal that would have ensued from outsiders witnessing this.
The details of what follows after the removal of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen’s estate at Drepung Monastery by the Fifth Dalai Lama’s administration can be found in the second volume of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography as well. This is where Dolgyal or Dol chu mig dkar mo rgyal begins to emerge, and where the actual spirit of the deceased Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen begins to be recognized as an entity causing harm beyond what was described earlier. On folio 173b5-b6 in volume 2 of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, there is an entry stating that the power Dol chu mig dkar mo rgyal has increased and many disturbing manifestations have been observed. A fire ritual was conducted by Dranag Choje, and several other monasteries conducted various rites. This obviously was not a long-term solution, since in the same volume on folio 239a1 we find Dol chu mig dkar mo'i dam sri to be the target of more rituals, which had been claimed to be successful.
Finally, on folios 257a1-257b5, it states that from the fire bird year (1657-1658) harm from Dol chu mig dkar mo, born from distorted prayers, has increased. Note that the text says fire bird year, which is correctly decoded as 1657-1658, not 1636 as stated by Dreyfus. He argues that “there are other Shukden stories that present the spirit later connected with Drak-pa Gyel-tsen as being already active prior to the latter’s demise, even as early as 1636,” which he incorrectly uses as a reason for claiming that the connection between Dragpa Gyaltsen and Shugden is a myth.19 The Fifth’s autobiography states that in the earth bird year (1669-1670) a shrine at Dol chu mig dkar mo was constructed to placate the spirit. Yet, the harm increased and a decision was made to burn Dol chu mig dkar mo through yogic application (sbyin sreg gi las sbyor), and a group of practitioners was organized. This claims everyone was convinced that Dol chu mig dkar mo was destroyed due to the smell of burning flesh. The consequences of considering this a definitive statement are considered later.
Not a lot of information is readily available about the shrine at Dol, but there a few references. Per K. Sorensen refers to the Fifth Dalai Lama’s biography as a source in Rulers on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet A Study of Tshal Gung-thang:
The Dol-rgyal temple (to-day no more extant) was located in the western side-valley of lower Dol. Probably in the same period the dGa'-ldan gSung-rab-gling of Dol was founded; it counts among the thirteen great monasteries (gling bcu gsum) of the dGa'-ldan-pa, the greater part of which goes back to the period of the 5th. Dalai Lama (see App. II), who e.g. also visited a Dol gNas-gsar in 1656 (DL5 I 2776b).
The Geography of Tibet According to the ’Dzam-gling-rgyas- bshad states that it is one of several Gelug monasteries near the Nyingma monastery Dorje Drag, on the southeast bank of the Gtsang-chu river.20 Also, Pabongkha Rinpoche’s biography mentions that he visited Dol gSung-rab-gling in approximately 1920. On the tenth day of the tenth lunar month, he went to Dol chu mig dkar mo where a reliquary of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen’s remains was kept. An offering was made in front of this, and a fulfillment ritual was performed.21 Thus, the Dolgyal temple was most likely destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
The account of the Fifth Dalai Lama attempting to subdue Dorje Shugden through ritual is undisputed by both Shugden detractors and proponents. However, the true outcome and subsequent events are disputed. Such rituals are known as mnan sreg 'phangs gsum—suppression, burning, hurling. For burning, which is mentioned as the final attempted procedure in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography, this entails the entity it is directed against being “sent to a pure land.” The claim in the autobiography is that ritual was successful, which means that Dolgyal would have been annihilated. However, if this is taken as definitive, then this is not consistent with arguments given by detractors of Shugden who quote this yet still claim that the current ontological status of Dolgyal is that of a spirit or ghost. If one was to take this autobiography entry as definitive, then the only valid argument that concurs with such a view is that Dorje Shugden followers worship a non-existent entity, which is clearly an argument that has not been consistently maintained by anybody, contemporary or historical. Moreover, the subsequent historical development of Dorje Shugden/Dolgyal, particularly with the Sakyas, clearly refutes the possibility of this claim of annihilation being definitive.
According to the White Conch Dictionary, Trode Khangsar, on the south side of old Lhasa was founded in the 17th century as a Dorje Shugden shrine (rten mkhar) by the Fifth Dalai Lama for gZim khang Tulku Dragpa who took the form of a dregs. Custody was given to Dondrub Gyatso of Riwo Choling, monastery in Lhoka in Southern Tibet. There was a caretaker from Riwo Choling, with regular propitiation service and a Dorje Shugden oracle. On the east side near the outer gate of Trode Khangsar was sMon skyid khang gsar, also maintained by Riwo Choling, where the btsan rgod Khache Marpo was invoked.22 Morchen Kunga Lhundrup, who contributed to the first major Dorje Shugden rituals, mentions Trode Khangsar in his autobiography. Thus, although there is a period of little documented activity from the 1670s to the early 1700s, at some time in this period Trode Khangsar was created. Therefore, there is not much reason to doubt the claim that the Fifth Dalai Lama created it, given that there are no purported major Dorje Shugden proponents known of in that time period.
The Fifth Dalai Lama’s collected works also contains a short propitiation to the Yaksha Khache Marpo, in volume Da folios 147a5-149a5, written at his request. The description of Khache Marpo closely matches the attendant deity found in Dorje Shugden rituals. Also, this writing mentions Tsi'u Marpo, the Seven Blazing Brothers, etc.; therefore, Khache Marpo is most likely an individual form derived from the Tsi'u Marpo pantheon.
Also in volume Da of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s collected works is a collection of propitiations to various protectors. It appears to have been redacted at some time. In particular, the authenticity of the alleged proclamation of the burning of Dolgyal is questioned. In volume 3 of Jaya Pandita’s collected works, there is a biography of the Fifth Dalai Lama and a catalog of his collected works. Each of the propitiations in volume Da is listed. The propitiation to Khache Marpo is listed with the following two propitiations for comparison:23
- zur mkhar mdo sngags gling gi srung ma gnod sbyin kha che dmar pos rang nyid kyi gsol mchod cig rtsom shig par bskul ba'i ngor gnang ba'i bde ba can zhig zhes ba'i dbu can
- dbu mdzad blo bzang yon tan gyis zhus pa legs ldan phyag drugs ces ba'i dbu can
- btsan rgod dgangs la nyi shar gyi mchod bstod bskang ba
Yet, in the collected works of the Dalai Lama by the Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology (1991-1994), in Volume Da after work #1 there appears the alleged proclamation, not #2 listed above. This proclamation starts with this verse (quoted by Dreyfus):
Due to the magic of a spirit (?), the son of noble family Ge-kha-sa turned into a false reincarnation of Ngak-wang So-nam Ge-lek and became a spirit [motivated by] mistaken prayers (smon lam log pa'i dam srid).
Dreyfus cites it as being volume Ha 423-4 in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s collected works, but it is actually volume Da. What stands out in this quotation is the claim that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a false reincarnation, which clearly contradicts what is stated in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s collected works. What follows this quote is the claim that Dolgyal was annihilated, with the verses to protectors starting with legs ldan phyag drugs to annihilate Dolgyal. Yet in Jaya Pandita’s collected works, in place of this whole entry is a legs ldan phyag drugs propitiation requested by Lobsang Yontan (listed above). This is clearly unrelated to this entry. Instead, after this propitiation is a different propitiation in which it states that it was requested by Lobsang Yontan. This is a clear indicator that the entry related to the statement about the false reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and to the witness statement that Dolgyal was destroyed is a later addition made after Jaya Pandita’s cataloging. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote this as it contradicts his earlier statements recognizing the authenticity of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.
Apocrypha has been a long-standing issue in Tibetan Buddhism. One particular ironic case is an apocryphal text containing polemics about apocrypha. In this case, it is Thuken Dharmavajra’s Cleansing of the Purificatory Gem that is a critique of (his own master) Sumpa Khenpo’s Purificatory Gem. Thuken Dharmavajra argues in favor of apocryphal traditions, while Sumpa Khenpo critiques the validity of the apocryphal traditions. The Cleansing of the Purificatory Gem is not found in Thuken Dharmavajra’s collected works and contains the unprecedented taboo of writing against one’s own master. Yet Kapstein argues in terms of circumstantial evidence that this text can be attributed to Thuken Dharmavajra although it is not found in his collected works.24
Likewise, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s short propitiation to Shugden is not found in his collected works. However, his liberal recognition of many various protectors and subsequent ritual compositions are unprecedented. Pabongkha Rinpoche makes a short reference to this propitiation in a letter and refers to it as the Fifth Dalai’s bshags bstod 'phin bcol mdor bsdud in a compendium of questions and answers in his collected works.25 The first modern publication of the actual text was in Trijang Rinpoche’s Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors (Dam can rgya mtsho dgyes pa'i rol mo) published in 1967 in Gangthog, Sikkim.26 It should be noted that this publication included the propitiation and the colophon that explains the context in which it was written. It seems that this only began to be contested in 1996. Thus it appears that claims of apocrypha regarding this particular ritual are rather unprecedented, nor does it appear that the 13th Dalai Lama make any such proclamation regarding the matter.
Moreover, in terms of gradual ritual development, it fits well and is difficult to ignore. Typically, ritual texts become longer as time passes and new expressions begin to be used. This ritual is quite short in comparison. Nor does it contain any anachronisms in terms of epithets and descriptions that evolved later. As the colophon states, it clearly represents the claim that the burning ritual mentioned earlier was not successful:
Although undisputed great Tantric masters tried to subdue him by burning him in the fire through their rituals, his display of miraculous power only grew greater.
The Fifth Dalai Lama’s own biography entry (257a1-a2) at the time of the burning mentions Dolgyal with the adjective mthu rtsal shin tu che ba, which means “extremely great magical, powerful strength.” This ritual propagates with the descriptive adjective, namely mthu rtsal. This adjective has been one consistent factor in various derivations throughout the history. As mentioned later Sonam Rinchen’s ritual, the first one written by a Sakya Throne Holder, rgyal gsol log 'dren tshar gcod, contains the epithet rdo rje shugs ldan mthu rtsal. Also in the same ritual, and in the autobiography of his son Kunga Lodro, the title rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal is found, which is probably the most common title, even in the 20th century.
In the Fifth Dalai Lama’s ritual, Dorje Shugden is mentioned wearing a monk’s attire and a leather hat (bse thebs). Ironically, one of the few descriptions of the bse theb is found in René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz’s introduction to a 'Chams yig written by the Fifth Dalai Lama: “This hat is a characteristic attribute of many aboriginal Tibetan deities belonging to the dharmapala group.”27 Of course, both the monk’s attire and leather hat became characteristics by which Shugden is still identified. The right hand is holding a club (be con) as opposed to the sword found more commonly in later rituals. The club is also found in the Sakya’s rgyal gsol log 'dren tshar gcod. The right hand holds a human heart, obviously a constant icon. Ambiguity is found behind the underlying mount of what is assumed to be a single figure. It mentions riding various mounts such as a naga or snake (lto 'gro) and garuda (khyung). In this sense, it only bears similarity to next ritual described here.
The ritual attributed to Drubwang Dre'u Lhas also contains such ambiguity with only one central figure described. It mentions the various mounts as a lion, horse, elephant, garuda, and naga (seng ge rta glang khyung dang lto 'gro sogs gzhon). In addition it is the only other ritual mentioning a naga (lto 'gro), as this is not found among those mounts in the five forms that subsequently became commonplace. For these and other reasons stated, the proposed ritual development of Shugden proceeds from the Fifth Dalai Lama to Dre'u Lhas, through a series of figures about whom little is known, yet all of whom seem to have left his mark in the Dorje Shugden history book.
1 Sangpo, Khetsun. (1973). Biographical Dictionary of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. Dharamsala, H. P., Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, p. 316.
2 Dung dkar blo bzang ’phrin las (2002), p. 1820.
3 Mongolian Lama Gurudeva (1973). Collected writings of the 1st Panchen Lama Lozang Chokyi Gyaltsen (1570-1662), vol. ca, pp 81-83.
4 Dung dkar blo bzang ’phrin las (2002), p. 1820.
6 Dreyfus (1998), p. 229.
7 Sangpo, Khetsun (1973), pp. 316-317.
8 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), pp. 12-13.
9 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), p. 15.
10 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), p. 15.
11 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), pp. 15-16.
12 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), p. 16.
13 Dreyfus (1998), p. 229.
14 Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, f. 249b2-4.
15 Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, f. 250a5-6.
16 Yamaguchi, Zuiho (1994), pp. 17-18.
17 Dreyfus (1998), p. 232.
18 blo bzang 'phrin las (Jaya Pandita) (1981), vol. 4, f. 29b, p. 60.
19 Dreyfus (1998), p. 270.
20 Wylie (1962), p. 89.
21 Denma Lobsang Dorje (2001), pp. 371-372.
22 Dung dkar blo bzang 'phrin las (2002), p. 1312.
23 blo bzang 'phrin las (Jaya Pandita) (1981), vol. 3, f. 301b, p. 604.
24 Kapstein, Matthew (2000). The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford University Press US, p. 129.
25 De chen snying po (1972-1974). mdo sngags skor gyi dris lan sna tshogs phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa, vol. cha, f. 95b.
27 Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1976), p. 95.