A1chi and the Drigungpa School ofTibetan Buddhism: The Teacher Depiction in the Small Chorten at A1chi By Christian LuczanitsI When Roger Goepper first published the discove7 of an inscribed lineage depiction in the Three-storeyed Temple at A1chi, thereby establishing a connection between the temple and the Drigungpa ('Bri-gung-pa) School, it came as a surprise. This depiction, which is located at the entry wall of the lantern and is therefore not accessible and barely visible to visitors on the temple's ground floor, terminates with the founder of the Drigungpa School, Jigten Gonpo ('Jig-rten-mgon-po 1143-1217). Drigungpa, as he is called in the caption, was a prominent pupil of the eminent Kagytipa (bKa'-brgyud-pa) scholar Phagmodrupa (Phag-mo-gru-pa rDo-rje rgyal-po 1110-70). In addition, Drigungpa also founded the Drigung monastery in Central Tibet in 1179, and with it one of the eight lesser Kagytipa branches established by pupils of Phagmodrupa. This lineage thus provides an approximate date for the finishing ofthe temple, namely the early 13th century. 3 The surprise was two-fold. On the one hand, it was generally assumed that the Alchi Sumtsek (gSum-brtsegs), as the Three-storeyed Temple is commonly referred to, pre-dates the date implied by the depiction. On the other hand, 1 I am grateful to Roger Goepper and Jaroslav Poncar for providing all their documentation on Alchi for my research as well as to Amy HelIer for her continuous willingness to share some of her materials and ideas with me. The results, presented in this paper, were accumulated during a three-year research period, which was supported by a grant from the Austrian Academy ofSciences (APART), and during a six-months research period at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, which was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Art History Fellowship. APART also supported the last field research in the area in Summer 2003. In addition, the Austrian Research Funds (FWF) generously supported my research in Ladakh and other regions of the Westem Himalayas for more than a decade. Furthermore, an initial research trip to Alchi in spring 1994 was supported by a 'Stipendium flir eine kurzfristige wissenschaftliche Arbeit im Ausland,' awarded by the University of Vienna, while another one in 1998 was privately funded by Edoardo Zentner (Achi Association; www.achiassociation.org). Color pictures complementing this article are found on www.univie.ac.at/ITBN. 2 Roger Goepper, "Clues for a Dating of the Three-Storeyed Temple (Sumtsek) in Alchi, Ladakh," Asiatische Studien: Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Asienkunde / Etudes Asiatiques: Revue de la Societe Suisse d'Etudes Asiatiques 44, no. 2 (1990), 159-175. 3 The range ofpossible dates, which can be inferred from the lineage, depends on whether one assumes that Drigungpa was still alive when the painting was executed. In the case of many scroll-paintings (thangkas) it is more likely that they where executed posthumously, but there are definitely also cases where we can assume that the venerated was still alive, as in the case ofthe Rubin footprint drawing referred to below (note 15). 181 nobody expected that the temple would be connected to the Drigungpa School of Buddhism because none of the artifacts - including other inscriptions in the 4 Sumtsek itself or in the earlier Assembly Hall - provided any clues for such a connection. Consequently, the suggested date for the temple remained disputed and the connection to a Central Tibetan school a puzzling issue. This did not change when Roger Goepper and Jaroslav Poncar published their groundbreaking study of this templeS through which the unusual features of the lineage depiction within the corpus of the Alchi Sumtsek became even more apparent. The critique most often expressed assumes that the lineage depiction, or at least its captioning, is a later addition. 6 There is certainly some justification for thi~ presumption as the people depicted in the lineage are represented somewhat graceless in comparison to all other figures in the temple. However, since the quality of both, the drawings and the materials, in this depiction is consistent with that of the other decorations,7 the reason for the clumsy depiction must be searched for elsewhere. I have focused on this point in a previous articleS, where I have tried to demonstrate that the clumsiness ofthe depiction resulted from the painter's unfamiliarity with the depicted topic and its requirements. In general, it needs to be mentioned that a teaching lineage is a topic that has not been depicted earlier in Western Himalayan art. 9 4 The historically most important inscriptions of the main temples in Alchi are recorded and translated in Philip Denwood, "Temple and Rock Inscriptions of Alchi," in The Cultural Heritage ofLadakh, 2: Zangskar and the Cave Temples ofLadakh, ed. David L. Snellgrove and Tadeusz Skorupski (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1980). 5 Roger Goepper and Jaroslav Poncar, Alch i. Ladakh's Hidden Buddhist Sanctuary. The Sumtsek (London: Serindia, 1996). 6 Lionel Fournier has probably expressed the most outspoken critique in this regard. See Hwee Lie Blehaut, "An Interview with Lionel Fournier," Orientations 32, no. 1 (2001). 7 It needs to be noted here, that Goepper had the possibility to study the paintings in detail on the spot (see his remarks on the Alchi style Goepper and Poncar, Alchi. The Sumtsek, 265­ 68). Further, when the lantern was photographed, conservators were also able to examine it. For a contribution on the painting technology see Karl Ludwig Dasser, "Some Observations on the Technology ofthe Wall Paintings in the Sumtsek," in Alchi. Ladakh IS Hidden Buddhist Sanctuary. The Sumtsek, ed. Roger Goepper and Jaroslav Poncar (London: Serindia, 1996). 8 Christian Luczanits, "Art-Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art," in Dating Tibetan Art. Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities ofChronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, in Contributions to Tibetan Studies, ed. Ingrid Kreide-Damani. (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003), Example One. 9 I have noted this fact already in an earlier article. Christian Luczanits, "On an Unusual Painting Style in Ladakh," in The Inner Asian International Style 12th-14th Centuries. Papers Presented at a Panel ofthe 7th Seminar ofthe International Association for Tibetan Studies, 182 This initial unfamiliarity also partially explains why there is little in the decoration of the Alchi Sumtsek that resembles thirteenth-century Central Tibetan art and, thus, supports a Drigung-Kagyil association. Indeed, there are very few elements that may be attributed to the contact with Central Tibet, but the lineage is not the only one. Most noticeable, the topic of the 84 Mahasiddhas, represented on the dhoti of the Bodhisattva MafijusrI, has no regional predecessor and is, like the lineage depiction itself, an expression of new themes gaining imR0rtance in Tibetan Art in general and in the Western Himalayas in particular. 0 Soon after the lineage in the Sumtsek was painted, two chorten (mchod-rten) were erected within the sacred enclosure of Alchi monastery. Both chorten contain an identical group of four teachers on the interior walls of the interior 11 chorten ; a frontally depicted adept or siddha, two local teachers to his side, and a Central Tibetan teacher opposite the siddha. Roger Goepper has published a detailed study of the larger chorten (the Great Chorten).12 I in turn have utilized the depictions of the teachers in both chorten to demonstrate that by the time they were decorated, the painters of Alchi had already seen a visual model for the depiction of the Central Tibetan teacher and, thus, were able to depict him in a manner reminiscent ofCentral Tibetan scroll paintings (fig.l ).13 At that time, I hesitated to discuss the more elaborate surrounding of the teacher in the smaller chorten (henceforth called Small Chorten) and his identity in further detail, as I had too little conclusive evidence. In the meantime, I discovered iconographic markers that enable the identification ofa number ofearly paintings made in the context of the Drigungpa School.I4 Taking these as the main points of Graz 1995, ed. Deborah E. Klimburg-Salter and Eva Allinger. (Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998), 151-169. 10 The 84 Mahasiddhas are in general a fairly new topic and their depiction alone refutes the attribution of the Sumtsek to a date prior to the Ith century. Even with the Sumtsek being attributed to the early 13 th century, the depiction at Alchi remains the earliest example ofthis topic. In fact, it must be assumed that the notion of a group of 84 Mahasiddhas, representing the esoteric canon received in Tibet, only developed around 1100 (see Ronald M. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism : A Social History ofthe Tantric Movement [New York: Columbia University Press, 2002], 303-9). II For a plan of this type of chorten unique to Alchi and related monuments see Roger Goepper, "The 'Great Stiipa' at Alchi," Artibus Asiae LIII (1/2) (1993), 111-43. 12 Ibid. 13 Luczanits, "Art-Historical Aspects ofDating Tibetan Art," Example One. 14 Relevant paintings known to me so far are a number offootprint thangkas: one ofthem is in the Rubin Museum of Art, catalogued under the acc. #C2003.7.1 (Himalayan Art [website] (Shelly and Donald Rubin Foundation, 2004 [cited 30th September 2004]); available at 183 comparison, this tribute to Roger Goepper focuses on the composItIon and iconography of the depictions at Alchi and their relations as far as they are known to me to date. Composition Due to the unusual style and the open composition, one does not immediately recognize that the depiction in the Small Ch6rten at Alchi clearly derives from Central Tibetan scroll paintings, the so-called thangkas.15 Such compositions feature a central theme in this case the teacher flanked by bodhisattvas, deities and adepts a number of figures in the upper register who represent both the origin of the teaching as well as its authenticity, and a number of protective deities as well as deities of wealth at the bottom.