110 Kano
folio: “Jobo’s sacred object; Indic Aṣṭasāhasrikā [manuscript] from Vajrāsana”
(Tib. jo bo’i thugs dam / rgya gar brgyad stong pa / rdo rje gdan nas byon pa).83
6 Evaluating the Historicity of Atiśa’s Ownership
In this section I shall briefly discuss whether or not the Sanskrit manuscripts
actually ever belonged to Atiśa.
The belief had no doubt arisen by the 12th century that the collection of
Sanskrit manuscripts had indeed once belonged to Atiśa, as can be gathered
from accounts by Butön, Lechen (in Sangye wöntön’s story), and Tāranātha
(see section 3, [6]–[8]). These references confirm the existence of such a belief
after Atiśa’s death, but do not answer the question whether or not it was based
on historical fact.
Concerning the historicity of Atiśa’s ownership, we can classify the relevant
materials utilised in the present paper into three groups of varying reliability:
(a) statements in Tibetan historical sources (e.g. biographies of Atiśa) that
describe individual events (e.g. Dromtön’s coming into possession of
Atiśa’s manuscripts, the prophecy received by Dromtön in a dream);
(b) marginal notes written on Sanskrit manuscripts that mention Atiśa’s
ownership of them; and
(c) colophons of Sanskrit manuscripts that certify Atiśa’s ownership.
With regard to group (a), covering passages quoted in sections 2.1; 2.2; 3,
[1]–[4], we have—for all the sense of truth Tibetan authors of historical litera-
ture are able to convey from their individual subjective viewpoints or religious
persuasion—hardly any external supporting evidence that would verify the
historicity of the claims. I myself shall tentatively accept these statements as
reflecting (or linking to) historical fact (sometimes mixed up with inventions)
as long as no convincing counter-evidence emerges. Of the three groups, group
(a) comprises the weakest witnesses.
(b) Notes attached to Sanskrit manuscripts are probably more reliable evi-
dence supporting Atiśa’s possession of the manuscripts: The Sanskrit manu-
script of Ratnākaraśānti’s Hevajrapañjikā (see section 2, [a] and section 3, [8]),
the *Parikathā (see section 3, [9]; cf. section 4, 25), and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā (see
section 5, the last item) respectively have respective notes: bhaṅgalapaṇḍitabhi-
kṣudīpaṃkaraśrījñānasya pustakam, bhikṣudīpaṃkarasya pustakaṃ, and jo bo’i
83 Luo Zhao, Budala gong, 73.