Reading section 43

[Footnote 938: Schmidt's edition, p. 115.]

[Footnote 939: It is given in Isaac Taylor's _The Alphabet_, vol. II. p. 336. See also _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 1208-1214.]

[Footnote 940: _E.g._ see the Tisastvustik, a sûtra in a Turkish dialect and Uigur characters found at Turfan and published in _Bibliotheca Buddhica_, XII.]

[Footnote 941: See Kokka, No. 311, 1916, _Tibetan Art in China_.]

[Footnote 942: _Sanang Setsen_, p. 121. The succession of the Sakya abbots is not clear but the primacy continued in the family. See Köppen, II. p. 105.]

[Footnote 943: Strictly speaking a place-name.]

[Footnote 944: The Tibetan orthography is bTsoṇ (or Tsoṇ)-kha-pa. He was called rJe-rin-po-che bLo-bzaṇ-grags-pa in Tibetan and Arya-mahâratna Sumatikîrti in Sanskrit. The Tibetan orthography of the monastery is sKu-ḥbum or hundred thousand pictures. See, for accounts of his life, Sarat Chandra Das in _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 53-57 and 127. Huth, _Buddhismus in der Mongolei_, ii. pp. 175 ff.]

[Footnote 945: There is some difference of statement as to whether these markings are images of Tsong-kha-pa or Tibetan characters. Hue, though no Buddhist, thought them miraculous. See his _Travels in Tartary_, vol. ii. chap. ii. See also Rockhill, _Land of the Lamas_, p. 67, and Filchner, _Das Kloster Kumbum_, chap. vi.]

[Footnote 946: But the tradition mentioned by Hue that he was instructed by a long-nosed stranger from the west, has not been found in any Tibetan biography.]

[Footnote 947: Tibetan orthography writes dGaḥ-ldan, Se-ra, hBras-spuns and bKra-śis-Lhun-po. dGaḥ-ldan, the happy, is a translation of the Sanskrit Tushita or Paradise. Tsong-kha-pa's reformed sect was originally called dGaḥ-lugs-pa or those who follow the way of dGa[.]-ldan. But this possibly suggested those who pursue pleasure and the name was changed to dGe-lugs-pa or those of the virtuous order.]

[Footnote 948: dGe-'dun grub.]

[Footnote 949: He was not the same as Ha-li-ma (see p. 277) of whom more is heard in Chinese accounts. Ha-li-ma or Karma was fifth head of the Karma-pa school and was invited on his own merits to China where he died in 1426 or 1414. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 109 and vol. II. p. 171. Also Köppen, _die Rel. des Buddha_, II. 107. Byams-chen-chos-rje was invited as the representative of Tsong-ka-pa. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 120, vol. II. p. 129.]

[Footnote 950: See for a list of the Lamas of Tashilhunpo and their lives _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 15-52. The third incarnation was Abhayakara Gupta, a celebrated Bengali Pandit who flourished in the reign of Râmapâla. This appears to have been about 1075-1115, but there is considerable discrepancy in the dates given.]

[Footnote 951: See for his life _J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 24.]

[Footnote 952: Tsong-kha-pa is not reckoned in this series of incarnations, for firstly he was regarded as an incarnation of Mañjuśrî and secondly Geden-dub was born before his death and hence could not represent the spirit which dwelt in him.]

[Footnote 953: Tibetan sPrul-pa, Mongol Khubilghan. Both are translations of the Sanskrit Nirmâna and the root idea is not incarnation but transformation in an illusive form.]

[Footnote 954: The following list of Grand Lamas is taken from Grünwedel's _Mythologie_, p. 206. Their names are followed by the title rGya-mThso and in many cases the first part of the name is a title.

1. dGe-ḥdun-dub, 1391-1478. 2. dGe-ḥdun, 1479-1541. 3. bSod-nams, 1543-1586. 4. Yon-tan, 1587-1614. 5. Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-bzaṇ, 1617-1680. 6. Rin-chen Thsaṇs-dbyaṇs, 1693-1703. 7. bLo-bzaṇ sKal-dan, 1705-1758. 8. bLo-bzaṇ ḥJam-dpal, 1759-1805. 9. bLo-bzaṇ Luṇ-rtogs, 1806-1815. 10. bLo-bzaṇ Thsul-khrims, 1817-1837. 11. bLo-bzaṇ dGe-dmu, 1838-1855. 12. bLo-bzaṇ Phrin-las, 1856-1874. 13. Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-bzaṇ Thub-ldam, 1875. ]

[Footnote 955: See for an account of his doings Sanang Setsen, chap. IX. Huth, _Geschichte_, II. pp. 200 ff. Köppen, II. pp. 134 ff. It would appear that about 1545 northwestern Tibet was devastated by Mohammedans from Kashgar. See Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 583.]

[Footnote 956: Also known as Yenta or Anda. See, for some particulars about him, Parker in N. China Branch of _R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 92 ff.]

[Footnote 957: Naturally the narrative is not told without miraculous embellishment, including the singular story that Altan who suffered from the gout used to put his feet every month into the ripped up body of a man or horse and bathe them in the warm blood. Avalokita appeared to him when engaged in this inhuman cure and bade him desist and atone for his sins.]

[Footnote 958: In Tibetan rGya-mThso. Compare the Chinese expression hai liang (sea measure) meaning capacious or broad minded. The Khagan received the title of lHai thsaṇs-pa chen-po equivalent to Divyamahâbrahmâ.]

[Footnote 959: The correct Mongol names of this place seem to be Örgö and Kürä. The Lama's name was bSam-pa rGya-mThso.]

[Footnote 960: He finished his history in 1608 and lived some time longer so that bSam-pa rGya-mThso cannot have been an incarnation of him.]

[Footnote 961: This is an accepted abbreviation of his full name Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-zaṇ rGya-mThso. Ṅag-dbaṇ is an epithet meaning eloquent.]

[Footnote 962: The name is variously written Gushi, Gushri, Gus'ri, etc., and is said to stand for Guruśrî. The name of the tribe also varies: Oirad and Oegeled are both found.]

[Footnote 963: So called from the sacred hill in India on which Avalokita lives. The origin of the name is doubtful but before the time of Hsüan Chuang it had come to be applied to a mountain in South India.]

[Footnote 964: Some European authorities consider that Lo-zang invented this system of incarnations. Native evidence seems to me to point the other way, but it must be admitted that if he was the first to claim for himself this dignity it would be natural for him to claim it for his predecessors also and cause ecclesiastical history to be written accordingly.]

[Footnote 965: sDe-srid.]

[Footnote 966: It is said that all Ambans were Manchus.]

[Footnote 967: See E. Ludwig, _The visit of the Teshoo Lama to Peking_, Tientsin Press, 1904. See also _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 29-52.]

[Footnote 968: See the curious edict of Chia Ch'ing translated by Waddell in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 69 ff. The Chinese Government were disposed to discredit the sixth, seventh and eighth incarnations and to pass straight from the fifth Grand Lama to the ninth.]

[Footnote 969: See for a translation of this curious decree, _North China Herald_ of March 4th, 1910.]

[Footnote 970: In the List of the Bhutan Hierarchs given by Waddell (_Buddhism_, p. 242) it is said that the first was contemporary with the third Grand Lama, 1543-1580.]

[Footnote 971: According to Waddell (_Buddhism_, p. 242) he appears to be a rebirth of Dupgani Sheptun, a Lama greatly respected by the Tibetan invaders of Bhutan. For some account of the religion of Bhutan in the early 19th century, see the article by Davis in _T.R.A.S._ vol. II. 1830, p. 491.]

[Footnote 972: The fullest account of Sikhimese Buddhism is given by Waddell in the _Gazetteer of Sikhim_, 1894. See also Rémy, _Pèlerinage au Monastère de Pemmiontsi_, 1880; Silacara "Buddhism in Sikkim," _Buddhist Review_, 1916, p. 97.]

CHAPTER LI

TIBET _(continued)_

THE CANON

Tibet is so remote and rude a land that it is a surprise to learn that it has a voluminous literature and further that much of this literature, though not all, is learned and scholastic. The explanation is that the national life was most vigorous in the great monasteries which were in close touch with Indian learning. Moreover Tibetan became to some extent the Latin of the surrounding countries, the language of learning and religion.

For our purpose the principal works are the two great collections of sacred and edifying literature translated into Tibetan and known as the Kanjur and Tanjur[973]. The first contains works esteemed as canonical, including Tantras. The second is composed of exegetical literature and also of many treatises on such subjects as medicine, astronomy and grammar[974]. The two together correspond roughly speaking to the Chinese Tripitaka, but are more bulky. The canonical part is smaller but the commentaries and miscellaneous writings more numerous. There are also other differences due to the fact that the great literary epoch of Tibet was in the ninth century, whereas nearly three-quarters of the Chinese Tripitaka had been translated before that date. Thus the Kanjur appears to contain none[975] of the Abhidhamma works of the Hînayâna and none of the great Nikâyas as such, though single sûtras are entered in the catalogues as separate books. Further there is only one version of the Vinaya whereas the Chinese Tripitaka has five, but there are several important Tantras which are wanting in Chinese. The Tibetan scriptures reflect the late Buddhism of Magadha when the great books of the Hinayanist Canon were neglected, though not wholly unknown, and a new tantric literature was flourishing exuberantly.

The contents of the Kanjur and Tanjur are chiefly known by analyses and indices[976], although several editions and translations of short treatises have been published[977]. The information obtained may be briefly summarized as follows.

The Kanjur in its different editions consists of one hundred or one hundred and eight volumes, most of which contain several treatises, although sometimes one work, for instance the Vinaya, may fill many volumes. The whole collection is commonly divided into seven parts[978].

I. The Dulva[979], equivalent to the Vinaya. It is stated to be the Mûla-sarvâstivâda Vinaya, and so far as any opinion can be formed from the small portions available for comparison, it agrees with the Chinese translation of Kumârajîva and also (though with some difference in the order of paragraphs) with the Sanskrit Prâtimoksha found at Kucha[980]. It is longer and more mixed with narrative than the corresponding Pali code.

II. The second division is known as Śer-chin[981], corresponding to the Prajñâ-pâramitâ and in the estimation of the Tibetans to the Abhidharma. It is said to have been first collected by Kâśyapa and to represent the teaching delivered by the Buddha in his fifty-first year. This section appears to contain nothing but versions, longer or shorter, of the Prajñâpâramitâ, the limit of concentration being reached by a text in which the Buddha explains that the whole of this teaching is comprised in the letter A. As in China and Japan, the Vajracchedikâ (rDo-rJe-gCod-pa) is very popular and has been printed in many editions.

III. The third division is called Phal-chen, equivalent to Avataṃsaka. Beckh treats it as one work in six volumes with out subdivisions. Feer gives forty-five subdivisions, some of which appear as separate treatises in the section of the Chinese Tripitaka called Hua Yen[982].

IV. The fourth division called dKon-brtsegs or Ratnakûṭa agrees closely with the similar section of the Chinese Tripitaka but consists of only forty-eight or forty-five sûtras, according to the edition[983].

V. The fifth section is called mDo, equivalent to Sûtra. In its narrower sense mDo means sûtras which are miscellaneous in so far as they do not fall into special classes, but it also comprises such important works as the Lalita-vistara, Lankâvatâra and Saddharma-puṇḍarîka. Of the 270 works contained in this section about 90 are _prima facie_ identical with works in the Ching division of the Chinese Tripitaka and probably the identity of many others is obscured by slight changes of title. An interesting point in the mDo is that it contains several sûtras translated from the Pali[984], viz. Nos. 13-25 of vol. XXX, nine of which are taken from the collection known as Paritta. The names and dates of the translators are not given but the existence of these translations probably indicates that a knowledge of Pali lingered on in Magadha later than is generally supposed. It will also be remembered that about A.D. 1000, Atîśa though a Tantrist, studied in Burma and presumably came in contact with Pali literature. Rockhill notes that the Tanjur contains a commentary on the Lotus Sûtra written by Prithivibandhu, a monk from Ceylon, and Pali manuscripts have been found in Nepal[985]. It is possible that Sinhalese may have brought Pali books to northern India and given them to Tibetans whom they met there.

VI. The sixth division is called Myaṇg-ḥdas or Nirvâṇa, meaning the description of the death of the Buddha which also forms a special section in the Chinese Tripitaka. Here it consists of only one work, apparently corresponding to Nanjio 113[986].

VII. The seventh and last section is called rGyud[987] or Tantra. It consists of twenty-two volumes containing about 300 treatises. Between thirty and forty are _prima facie_ identical with treatises comprised in the Chinese Tripitaka and perhaps further examination might greatly increase the number, for the titles of these books are often long and capable of modification. Still it is probable that the major part of this literature was either deliberately rejected by the Chinese or was composed at a period when religious intercourse had become languid between India and China but was still active between India and Tibet. From the titles it appears that many of these works are Brahmanic in spirit rather than Buddhist; thus we have the Mahâgaṇapati-tantra, the Mahâkâla-tantra, and many others. Among the better known Tantras may be mentioned the Arya-mañjuśrî-mûla-tantra and the Śrî-Guhya Samaja[988], both highly praised by Csoma de Körös: but perhaps more important is the Tantra on which the Kâlacakra system is founded. It is styled Paramâdibuddha-uddhṛita-śrî-kâlacakra and there is also a compendium giving its essence or Hṛidaya.

The Tanjur is a considerably larger collection than the Kanjur for it consists of 225 volumes but its contents are imperfectly known. A portion has been catalogued by Palmyr Cordier. It is known to contain a great deal of relatively late Indian theology such as the works of Aśvaghosha, Nâgârjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, and other Mahayanist doctors, and also secular literature such as the Meghadûta of Kâlidâsa, together with a multitude of works on logic, rhetoric, grammar and medicine[989]. Some treatises, such as the Udâna[990] occur in both collections but on the whole the Tanjur is clearly intended as a thesaurus of exegetical and scientific literature, science being considered, as in the middle ages of Europe, to be the handmaid of the Church. Grammar and lexicography help the understanding of scripture: medicine has been of great use in establishing the influence of the Lamas: secular law is or should be an amplification of the Church's code: history compiled by sound theologians shows how the true faith is progressive and triumphant: art and ritual are so near together that their boundaries can hardly be delimitated. Taking this view of the world, we find in the Tanjur all that a learned man need know[991].

It is divided into two parts, mDo (Sûtra) and rGyud (Tantra), besides a volume of hymns and an index. The same method of division is really applicable to the Kanjur, for the Tibetan Dulva is little more than a combination of Sûtras and Jâtakas and sections two, three, four and six of the Kanjur are collections of special sûtras. In both compilations the tantric section appears to consist of later books expounding ideas which are further from the teaching of Gotama than the Mahayanist sûtras.

To the great majority of works in both collections is prefixed a title which gives the Sanskrit name first in transcription and then in translation, for instance "In Sanskrit Citralakshana: in Tibetan Ri-moi-mthsan-ñid[992]." Hence there is usually no doubt as to what the Tibetan translations profess to be. Sometimes however the headings are regrettably brief. The Vinaya for instance appears to be introduced with that simple superscription and with no indication of the school or locality to which the text belonged.

Although the titles of books are given in Sanskrit, yet all Indian proper names which have a meaning (as most have) are translated. Thus the name Drona (signifying a measure and roughly equivalent to such an English name as Dr. Bushell) is rendered by Bre-bo, a similar measure in Tibetan. This habit greatly increases the difficulty of reading Tibetan texts. The translators apparently desired to give a Tibetan equivalent for every word and even for every part of a word, so as to make clear the etymology as well as the meaning of the sacred original. The learned language thus produced must have varied greatly from the vernacular of every period but its slavish fidelity makes it possible to reconstruct the original Sanskrit with tolerable certainty.

I have already mentioned the presence of translations from the Pali. There are also a few from the Chinese[993] which appear to be of no special importance. One work is translated from the Bruza language which was perhaps spoken in the modern Gilgit[994] and another from the language of Khotan[995]. Some works in the Kanjur have no Sanskrit titles and are perhaps original compositions in Tibetan. The Tanjur appears to contain many such.

But the Kanjur and Tanjur as a whole represent the literature approved by the late Buddhism of Bengal and certain resemblances to the arrangement of the Chinese Tripitaka suggest that not only new sûtras but new classifications of sûtras had replaced the old Pitakas and Agamas. The Tibetan Canon being later than the Chinese has lost the Abhidharma and added a large section of Tantras. But both canons recognize the divisions known as Prajñâ-pâramitâ, Ratnakuṭa, Avatamsaka, and Mahâparinirvâṇa as separate sections. The Ratnakûta is clearly a collection of sûtras equivalent to a small Nikâya[996]. This is probably also true of the voluminous Prajñâ-pâramitâ in its various editions, but the divisions are not commonly treated as separate works except the Vajracchedikâ. The imperfectly known Avatamsaka Sûtra appears to be a similar collection, since it is described as discourses of the Buddha pronounced at eight assemblies. The Mahâparinirvâṇa Sûtra though not nominally a collection of sûtras (at least in its Pali form) is unique both in subject and structure, and it is easy to understand why it was put in a class by itself.

The translation of all this literature falls into three periods, (i) from the seventh century until the reign of Ralpachan in the ninth, (ii) the reign of Ralpachan, and (in) some decades following the arrival of Atîśa in 1038. In the first period work was sporadic and the translations made were not always those preserved in the Kanjur. Thonmi Sanbhota, the envoy sent to India in 616 is said to have made renderings of the Karaṇḍa Vyûha and other works (but not those now extant) and three items in the Tanjur are attributed to him[997]. The existence of early translations has been confirmed by Stein who discovered at Endere a Tibetan manuscript of the Śalistambhasûtra which is said not to be later than about 740 A.D.[998] The version now found in the Kanjur appears to be a revision and expansion of this earlier text.

A few translations from Chinese texts are attributed to the reign of Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan (705-755) and Rockhill calls attention to the interesting statement that he sent envoys to India who learned Sanskrit books by heart and on their return reproduced them in Tibetan. If this was a common habit, it may be one of the reasons why Tibetan translations sometimes show differences in length, arrangement and even subject matter when compared with Sanskrit and Chinese versions bearing the same name. During the reign of Khri-sroṇ-lde-btsan and the visit of Padma-Sambhava (which began in A.D. 747 according to the traditional chronology) the number of translations began to increase. Two works ascribed to the king and one to the saint are included in the canon, but the most prolific writer and translator of this period was Kamalaśîla. Seventeen of his original works are preserved in the Tanjur and he translated part of the Ratnakûta. The great period of translation--the Augustan age of Tibet as it is often called--was beginning and a solid foundation was laid by composing two dictionaries containing a collection of Sanskrit Buddhist terms[999].

The Augustus of Tibet was Ralpachan who ruled in the ninth century, though Tibetan and Chinese chronicles are not in accord as to his exact date. He summoned from Kashmir and India many celebrated doctors who with the help of native assistants took seriously in hand the business of rendering the canon into Tibetan. They revised the existing translations and added many more of their own. It is probable that at least half of the works now contained in the Kanjur and Tanjur were translated or revised at this time and that the additions made later were chiefly Tantras (rGyud). On the other hand it is also probable that many tantric translations ascribed to this epoch are really later[1000]. The most prolific of Ralpachan's translators was Jinamitra, a pandit of Kashmir described as belonging to the Vaibhâshika school, who translated a large part of the Vinaya and many sûtras[1001]. Among the many Tibetan assistants Ye'ses-sde and Dpal-brTsegs are perhaps those most frequently mentioned. These Tibetan translators are commonly described by the title of Lo-tsa-va. As in China the usual procedure seems to have been that an Indian pandit explained the sacred text to a native. The latter then wrote it down, but whereas in China he generally paraphrased whatever he understood, in Tibet he endeavoured to reproduce it with laborious fidelity.

The language of the translations, which is now the accepted form of literary Tibetan, appears to have been an archaic and classical dialect even in the early days of Tibetan Buddhism, for it is not the same as the language of the secular documents dating from the eighth century, which have been found in Turkestan, and it remains unchanged in the earliest and later translations. It may possibly have been the sacred language of the Bonpo[1002] priests.