The Transmission Of Sanskrit Manuscripts 83
transmission of individual manuscripts, and in the process to shed light on one
historical aspect of Indo-Tibetan cross-cultural exchanges.
In the following, I shall (1) sketch the challenges faced by explorers trying to
access the manuscript collection of Retreng monastery in the early 20th cen-
tury, and then try to (2) trace the origin of the collection in Tibetan historical
sources, (3) collect references to the manuscripts belonging to the collection,
(4) draw up a title list of scriptural texts contained in it, (5) trace and identify
its current location, and finally (6) evaluate the historicity of Atiśa’s ownership
of the manuscripts.
1 Challenges to Accessing the Manuscript Collection of Retreng
in the Early 20th Century
In the early 20th century Ekai Kawaguchi (河口慧海, 1866–1945) heard of a
Sanskrit manuscript collection once in the possession of Joboje (Tib. Jo bo
rje) Atiśa2 Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982–1054), the founder of Kadampa (Tib. bka’
gdams pa) tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, that had come to be preserved
at Retreng monastery, and later Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana and Gendün chöpel
(Tib. dGe ’dun chos ’phel, 1903–1951) stumbled across the same information.
On 12 October 1914 Kawaguchi, having made great efforts to access the col-
lection, managed to conduct research in three of the monastery’s libraries;
and on 5 August 1934 Sāṅkṛtyāyana and Gendün chöpel, after careful prepa-
rations, together visited the monastery with a letter of introduction from the
head lama of the monastery and regent of Tibet Thubten jampel yeshe tenpe
gyaltsen (Tib. Thub bstan ’jam dpal ye shes bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, 1911–1947).
2 Harunaga and Sferra (Isaacson, Harunaga, and Sferra, Francesco, The Sekanirdeśa of
Maitreyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla, (Napoli: Universita
degli Studi di Napoli l’Orientale, 2014), 70–71 n. 51) discuss problems of the word form Atiśa
and state “[t]he corruption (or ‘transformation’) of Adhīśa to Atiśa seems to us not really
more improbable than that of Atiśaya to Atiśa; and Adhīśa has the merit over both alterna-
tives of being attested as a name or epithet.” His name is indeed attested in a similar form
“a dhe śa” (or a rhe śa) in an interlinear gloss in a Tibetan manuscript of the unpublished
Tanjur Catalogue (bsTan bcos kyi dkar chags) by Üpa losel (dBus pa Blo gsal, ca. 1270–ca. 1355):
jo bo rjes (a dhe [or rhe] śa: interlinear gloss) mdzad pa’i kye’i rdo rje’i ’byung po thams cad kyi
gtor chog (fol. 11b4–5; this item in the catalogue corresponds to Derge Tōhoku no. 1295; I am
grateful for the permission to refer to this passage from Prof. Mimaki and Prof. van der Kuijp).
It is possible that various spellings of his name had been gradually standardised as “Atiśa” in
the course of time, probably in a rather earlier period.