To the repairer of the Tibetan vehicle, Tsoṅ kʽa pa (the Onionlander),
To the true, strong, wise Lord Rgyal tsʽab rje (Noble Throne-prince),
To the sūtra and mantra teaching master Mkʽas grub rje (Noble Cleverness-perfection)
To these three victorious (illustrious) Father and Sons (Family of three), obeisance!
In closing the ceremony the words ལ་ are changed into གྱི་, ‘may their blessing be on us,’ ‘may they bless us.’ [[2]]
When the monks meet for གསོལ་, collective or communal tea drinking, the last three words are changed into མཆོད་, ‘we give our offering,’ said before drinking the first cup and whilst sprinkling a few drops in libation with two fingers, the thumb and fourth finger of the right hand. At the termination of tea drinking nothing is said at all. Except for these changes the formula remains the same for all occasions.
Another pupil of Tsoṅ kʽa pa was his own nephew Dge ḥdun grub, about whom further particulars are given in the same passages of the two works cited above, and who may be called the first Dalai Lama, though not known by that title but by that of Rgyal ba, or conqueror. Yet it will be seen from the above formula that the three who are together called ཡབ་ ‘father and sons,’ that is Tsoṅ kʽa pa and his two spiritual sons or pupils, are all three called རྒྱལ་. The expression ཡབ་ has no doubt to be understood as a collective word like ‘group,’ ‘family,’ just like ཕ་ means ‘parents.’
From this དགེ་ a small poem in praise of his teachers, the ཡབ་, has come to us, which we now publish. Of མཁས་ it is said that he founded a formal cult of his teacher Tsoṅ kʽa pa, and it may be that his devotional attitude found a reflection in this poem, showing the attitude taken by his own pupil towards him and his two other teachers in his turn.
This poem occurs in a miscellaneous collection of religious matter (said to comprise about 150 leaves), in a work ཆོས་ (‘Religious Practice’), leaves 59, 60. I have not been able to see a complete copy of this work. In this edition the text is fairly correct and clearly legible. A small edition, complete in itself, of which I possess two copies (not quite so legible), offers several different readings which nearly all seem quite as good, and some decidedly better, than those of the larger edition. The differences shown by the two texts are, relatively to the size of the poem, so numerous and of such a nature as to preclude the idea that mere copying can have led to them. One is led to the conclusion that one of the two texts was produced [[3]]from memory and not by actual copying. We shall note the variants furnished by the larger edition, marking them B., whilst following for our own text, with one exception, duly noted, the smaller edition A. My two copies of the smaller edition would seem to be prints from the same blocks but for some difference in the last page. Whether the other pages are printed from the same blocks, whilst only this one last block has been, for one reason or another, renewed (and changed in the process) may be left undiscussed for the moment. Enough to make the general statement that great care should always be exercised before pronouncing Tibetan prints as made or not made from the same blocks, and that, indeed, interesting observations may be made on Tibetan typographical practices.
The title ཆོས་ is a very frequent one in Tibet, and indicates, like མདོ་ (as in J. Dict., p. 273b, but not as on p. XXI a), a religious miscellany. The particular ཆོས་ from which our poem is taken is said to be one of the text-books which the Tashilhunpo tapas are required to learn by heart. The book with the same title which Laufer (Verzeichniss der Tib. Handschr. etc. zu Dresden, Z.D.M.G., 1901, p. 123, n. 135) mentions, might or might not be the same. As I have not been able to examine the title pages and final pages of the book, I cannot give any further information about it. ཆོས་ is the marginal short title.