Page 149 - Tibetan Thangka Painting Methodsand Mat, Jackson

parts of Tibet (in fact, the tradition continues even such as the Sde-srid, attempted to reinforce their
today).4 However, the position set forth by the Sde-srid position by citing the Samvarodaya Tantra, thus lending
could not escape criticism indefi!1itely. Zhu-chen, who apparent textual support to what had become a wide-
1
helped proof-read the G.ya' sel during its printing in spread artistic practice. 3
Derge after the Sde-srid's death, questioned the 120-sor In Zhu-chen's opinion, however, a painted image
proportion in a text that he later wrote, making an of the Buddha could only measure 125 sor_ To paint one
appeal to both the Indian canonical tradition and the with proportions of 120 sor was foolish and erroneous,
early Tibetan authorities. It is worth summarizing he said, and to prove his point he turned to the basic
Zhu-chen's role in this exchange because it nicely Sanskrit commentary on the Samvarodaya Tantra in its
exemplifies the approach a great scholar of Tibet would Tibetan translation.
take to solve controversial points of this nature. The primary means for a Tibetan scholar to
interpret a tantra was the South Asian commentarial
tradition as preserved in the Tanjur. In this case the
The Iconometric Studies of Zhu-ehen commentary on the Samvarodaya explicitly stated that
the large unit of measure of a Buddha should measure
Zhu-chen was born in 1697 into an old family of artists twelve and one-half sor, whereas in all other figures it
in Khams. He was the great-great-(great?)-nephew of should measure only twelve. 14 Hence a ten-span Buddha
the outstanding 16th-century painter Sangs-rgyas-lha- image must measure 125 sor. To make the basis for this
dbang. 5 Zhu-chen's parents dedicated him to the monk- conclusion clear, Zhu-chen quoted at length the very
hood as a boy, but before· his advanced studies he words of the commentary.15
learned painting from his father. Thus he first learned Thus the position of the Sde-srid, although widely
the system of proportions that had been handed down followed in Zhu-chen's time, could not be justified as
within the family (a system perhaps influenced by the being a continuation- of South Asian Buddhist tantric
iconometric writings of the Eighth Karma-pa Mi-bskyod- scholarship. Indeed, a century before the Sde-srid lived,
rdo-rje). Later on in his studies he became keenly other great Tibetan scholars were already aware that the
interested in establishing the textual basis of the sacred somewhat misleading statements of the Samvarodaya
artistic proportions. He sought out a learned teacher, could not be taken at their face value_ As 'Brug-chen
Sangs-rgyas-chos-'phel, and studied with him the artistic Padma-dkar-po (1526-1592), an earlier authority
6
treatises of five great Tibetan authorities: unavailable to Zhu-chen, wrote, "The failure [of the
Samvarodaya] to mention the half sor [to be added to
1) Sman-thang-pa Sman-bla-don-grub (fl. mid-to- each span of the Buddha] should be understood as being
late 15th century)? merely a lack of clarity of expression on the part of the
2) 'Phreng-kha-ba Dpal-dlan-blo-gros-bzang-po tantra. In fact that [extra one-half sor] is required.,,16
(fl. mid-16th century).8
3) Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub (1290-1364)9
4) Stag-tshang lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab-rin-chen (fl.
15th century)l 0 .
5) Bla-ma Sangs-rgyas-lha-dbang (fl. mid-16th
century)11

Afterwards Zhu-chen also studied a sixth treatise, the
above-mentioned G.ya' sel of Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-
mtsho, a polemic that grew out of the Sde-srid's monu-
mental treatise on astrology and related topics, the
Baidurya dkar po.
Following a careful study of those texts with his
teacher, Zhu-chen concluded that one had to accept as
the fundamental treatise the work of Sman-thang-pa,
since it was in perfect accord with the Indian sources
accessible to him in Tibetan translation. He also found
the treatise of 'Phreng-kha-ba to be basically sound, as it
did not conflict with that of Sman-thang-pa. However, in
the work of 'Phreng-kna-ba there occurred an interlinear
note (mchan bu) that he took to be the careless insertion
of a later scribe or editor. The note stated that while
sculpted images of the Buddha should measure 125 sor,
painted images were to measure 120 sor. 12 According
to Zhu-chen, it was precisely this dubious note that gave
scho.1ars of subsequent generations their basis for
perpetuating this opinion. Some of the later scholars, 120-sor Buddha by Tshedor.

ICONOMETRIC CONTROVERSIES AND SOURCES 145