Reading section 45

The latest phase of Lamaism was inaugurated by Tsong-kha-pa's reformation and is still vigorous. Politically and socially it was of capital importance, for it disciplined the priesthood and enabled the heads of the Church to rule Tibet. In doctrine it was not marked by the importation of new ideas, but it emphasized the worship of Avalokita as the patron of Tibet, it systematized the existing beliefs about reincarnation, thereby creating a powerful hierarchy, and it restricted Tantrism, without abolishing it. But many monasteries persistently refused to accept these reforms.

Tibetan mythology and ceremonial have been described in detail by Grünwedel, Waddell and others. The pantheon is probably the largest in the world. All heaven and hell seem to meet in it. The originals of the deities are nearly all to be found in Nepalese Buddhism[1032] and the perplexing multiplicity of Tibet is chiefly due to the habit of representing one deity in many forms and aspects, thus making him a dozen or more personages both for art and for popular worship. The adoration of saints and their images is also more developed than in Nepal and forms some counterpoise to the prevalent demonolatry.

I will not attempt to catalogue this fantastic host but will merely notice the principal elements in it.

The first of these may be called early Buddhist. The figure of Śâkyamuni is frequent in poses which illustrate the familiar story of his life and the statue in the cathedral of Lhasa representing him as a young man is the most venerated image in all Tibet. The human Buddhas anterior to him also receive recognition together with Maitreya. The Pratimoksha is still known, the Uposatha days are observed and the details of the ordination services recall the prescriptions of the Pali Vinaya; formulæ such as the four truths, the eightfold path and the chain of causation are still in use and form the basis of ethics.

The later (but still not tantric) doctrines of Indian Mahayanism are naturally prominent. The three bodies of Buddha are well known and also the series of five Celestial Buddhas with corresponding Bodhisattvas and other manifestations. I feel doubtful whether the table given by Waddell[1033] can be accepted as a compendium of the Lamaist creed. The symmetry is spoiled by the existence of other groups such as the Thirty Buddhas, the Thousand Buddhas, and the Buddhas of Healing, and also by the habit just mentioned of representing deities in various forms. For instance Amoghapâśa, theoretically a form of Avalokita, is in practice distinct. The fact is that Lamaism accepted the whole host of Indian Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, with additions of its own. The classifications made by various sûtras and tantras were not sufficiently dogmatic to become articles of faith: chance and fancy determined the prominence and popularity of a given figure. Among the Buddhas those most worshipped are Amitâbha, Śâkya and Bhaishajyaguru or the Buddha of Healing: among the Bodhisattvas, Avalokita, Maitreya and Mañjuśrî.

There is nothing in the above differing materially from Chinese or Japanese Buddhism. The peculiarities of Tibet are brought out by the tantric phase which those countries eschewed. Three characteristics of Tibetan Tantrism, which are all more or less Indian, may be mentioned. Firstly, all deities, even the most august, become familiar spirits, who are not so much worshipped as coerced by spells. The neophyte is initiated into their mysteries by a special ceremonial[1034]: the adept can summon them, assume their attributes and attain union with them. Secondly, great prominence is given to goddesses, either as the counterparts of male deities or as independent. Thirdly, deities appear in various forms, described as mild, angry or fiendish. It is specially characteristic of Lamaism that naturally benevolent deities are represented as raging in furious frenzy.

Whether the superhuman beings of Tantrism are Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, or Hindu gods like Mahâkala, it is correct to describe them as deities, for they behave and are treated like Indian Devas. Besides the relatively old and simple forms of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, there are many others which are usually accommodated to the system by being described as protecting spirits, that is virtuous and religious fiends who expend their ferocity on the enemies of the Church.

Of these Protectors there are two classes, which are not mutually exclusive, namely, the tutelary deities of individuals, and the defenders of the faith or tutelaries of the whole Church. The former, who are extremely important in the religious life of the Lamas, are called Yi-dam and may be compared with the Ishṭa-devatâs of the Hindus: the latter or Chos Skyoṇ correspond to the Dharmapâlas. Every Lama selects a Yi-dam either for life or for a period. His choice must remain a secret but he himself has no doubts, as after fasting and meditation the deity will appear to him[1035]. Henceforth he every morning repeats formulæ which are supposed to give him the appearance of his tutelary and thus scare away hostile demons. The most efficacious tutelaries are tantric forms of the Dhyâni Buddhas, especially Vajrasattva, Vajradhara and Amitâyus. The deity is represented not in the guise of a Buddha but crowned, robed, and holding a thunderbolt, and his attributes appear to be derived from those of Indra[1036]. In his arms he always clasps a Śakti.

A second class of tutelaries is composed of so-called Buddhas, accompanied by Śaktis and terrific in aspect, who are manifestations of the Buddhahood for special purposes. I do not know if this description is theologically correct, for these fantastic figures have no relation to anything deserving the name of Buddhism, but Grünwedel[1037] has shown that they are comparable with the various forms of Śiva. This god does not become incarnate like Vishnu but manifests himself from time to time in many shapes accompanied by a retinue who are sometimes merely attendants and sometimes alternative forms of the Lord. Vîrabhadra, the terrible being created by Śiva from himself in order to confound Daksha's sacrifice, is a close parallel to the demoniac Buddhas of Lamaism. Some of them, such as Mahâkâla and Samvara, show their origin in their names and the rest, such as Hevajra, Buddhakapâla and Yamântaka, are similar. This last is a common subject for art, a many headed and many limbed minotaur, convulsed by a paroxysm of devilish passion. Among his heads the most conspicuous is the face of an ox, yet this grotesque demon is regarded as a manifestation of the benign and intellectual Mañjuśri whose images in other lands are among the most gracious products of Buddhist sculpture.

Most tutelary deities of this class act as defenders of the faith and each sect has one or two as its special guardians[1038]. The idea is ancient for even in the Pitakas, Sakka and other spirits respectfully protect the Buddha's disciples, and the Dharmapâlas of Gandharan art are the ancestors of the Chos Skyoṇ. But in Tibet these assume monstrous and manifold disguises. The oldest is Vajrapâṇi and nearly all the others are forms of Śiva (such as Acala or Mi-gyo-ba who reappears in Japan as Fudo) or personages of his retinue. Eight of them are often adored collectively under the name of the Eight Terrible Ones. Several of these are well-known figures in Hindu mythology, for though the Lamas usually give Buddhist titles to their principal deities, yet they also venerate Hindu gods, without any explanation of their status. Thus hJigs-med-nam-mkha says that he composed his history with the help of Śiva[1039]. The members of this group vary in different enumerations but the following usually form part of it.

(_a_) Hayagrîva[1040], the horse-necked god. In India he appears to be connected with Vishnu rather than Śiva. The magic dagger with which Lamas believe they can stab demons is said to be a form of him. The Mongols regard him as the protector of horses. (_b_) Yama, the Indian god of the dead, accompanied by a hellish retinue including living skeletons. (_c_) Mahâkâla, the form of Śiva already mentioned. It was by his inspiration that Pagspa was able to convert Khubilai Khan. (_d_) Lha-mo, the goddess, that is Devî, the spouse of Śiva. (_e_) lCam-sraṇ, a war god of somewhat uncertain origin but perhaps a Tibetan form of Kârtikeya. Other deities frequently included in this group are Yamântaka, mentioned above, Kubera or Vaiśravana, the Hindu god of wealth, and a deity called the White Brahmâ (Thsangspa dKarpo). This last is an ordinary human figure riding on a white horse and brandishing a sword. He wears white clothes and a crown or turban. He is perhaps Kalkî who, as suggested above, had some connection with the Kâlacakra. The Eight Terrible Ones and their attendants are represented by grotesquely masked figures in the dances and mystery plays enacted by Lamas. These performances are said to be still known among the vulgar as dances of the Red Tiger Devil, but in the hands of the Yellow Church have become a historical drama representing the persecution of Buddhism under King Lang-dar-ma and its ultimate triumph after he has been slain by the help of these ghostly champions.

Lamaist books mention numerous other Indian divinities, such as Brahmâ, the thirty-three Devas, the Kings of the four quarters, etc. These have no particular place in the system but their appearance in art and literature is natural, since they are decorative though not essential parts of early Buddhism. The same may be said of all the host of Nâgas, Yakshas, Rakshasas, etc. But though these multitudinous spirits have been rearranged and classified in conformity with Hindu ideas they are not an importation but rather part of the old folklore of Tibet, in many ways identical with the same stratum of thought in India. Thus the snake demigods or Nâgas[1041] occupy in both countries a large place in the popular imagination. In the higher ranks of the Lamaist pantheon all the figures seem to be imported, but some indigenous godlings have retained a place in the lower classes. Such are rDo-rje-legs, at first an opponent of Buddhism as preached by Padma-Sambhava but honoured as a deity after making due submission, and the Five Kings[1042], a group of fierce spirits, under the presidency of dPe-dkar.

It remains to say a word of the numerous goddesses who play an important part in Tibetan Buddhism, as in Hindu Tantrism. They are usually represented as the female counterparts or better halves of male deities, but some are self-sufficient. The greatest of these goddesses is Târâ[1043]. Though Lamaist theology describes her as the spouse of Avalokita she is not a single personality but a generic name applied to a whole class of female deities and, as in many other cases, no clear distinction is drawn between her attendants and the forms which she herself assumes. Originally benevolent and depicted with the attributes of Lakshmî she is transformed by a turn of Tibetan imagination, with which the reader is now familiar, into various terrible shapes and is practically the same as the spouse of Śiva, celebrated in the Tantras under countless names. Twenty-one Târâs are often enumerated in a list said to be well known even to the laity[1044] and there are others. Among them are (_a_) the Green Târâ, the commonest form in Tibet. (_b_) The White Târâ, much worshipped by Mongols and supposed to be incarnate in the Tsar of Russia, (_c_) Bhrikutî, a dark blue, angry, frowning form, (_d_) Ushṇîshavijayâ[1045], a graceful and benevolent form known to the Japanese. She is mentioned in the Horiuji palm-leaf manuscript which dates from at least 609 A.D. (_e_) Parṇaśavarî, represented as wearing a girdle of leaves and also called Gandhârî, Piśâcî and Sarva-Śavarâṇâm Bhagavatî[1046]. She is apparently the goddess of an aboriginal tribe in India. (_f_) Kurukullâ, a goddess of riches, inhabiting caves. She is said to have given great wealth to the fifth Grand Lama, and though she might be suspected of being a native deity was known in Nepal and India[1047].

The Goddess Marîcî, often depicted with Târâ, appears to be distinct and in one form is represented with a sow's head and known as Vajravarâhî. As such she is incarnate in the abbesses of several monasteries, particularly Samding on lake Yamdok[1048].

A notice of Tibetan Buddhism can hardly avoid referring to the use of praying wheels and the celebrated formula Om maṇi padme hum. Though these are among the most conspicuous and ubiquitous features of Lamaism their origin is strangely obscure[1049]. Attempts to connect the praying wheel with the wheel of the law, the cakravartin and other uses of the wheel in Indian symbolism, are irrelevant, for the object to be explained is not really a wheel but a barrel, large or small, containing written prayers, or even a whole library. Those who turn the barrel acquire all the merit arising from repeating the prayers or reading the books. In Tibet this form of devotion is a national mania. People carry small prayer wheels in their hands as they walk and place large ones in rivers to be turned by the current. In China, Japan and Korea we find revolving libraries and occasional praying machines, though not of quite the same form as in Tibet[1050], but, so far as I know, there is nothing to show that these were not introduced from Tibet into China and thence found their way further East. The hypothesis that they were known in India and thence exported to Tibet on one side and China on the other naturally suggests itself, but the total absence of praying machines in India as well as in the ruined cities of Central Asia and the general Hindu habit of regarding scriptures and spells as words rather than written documents lend it no support. It may be that when the illiterate Tibetans first became acquainted with written prayers, they invented this singular method of utilizing them without reading them.

Equally obscure is the origin of the formula Om maṇi padme[1051] hum, which permeates Tibet, uttered by every human voice, revolved in countless machines, graven on the rocks, printed on flags. It is obviously a Dhâraṇî[1052] and there is no reason to doubt that it came to Tibet with the first introduction of Buddhism, but also no record. The earliest passage hitherto quoted for its occurrence is a Chinese translation made between 980 and 1001 A.D.[1053] and said to correspond with the Kanjur and the earliest historical mention of its use is found in Willelm de Rubruk (1254) and in the writings of Bu-ston[1054]. The first legend of its origin is contained in the Manikambum, a work of doubtful age and authorship but perhaps as old as the fifteenth century[1055]. The popularity of the prayer may date from the time when the pontiffs of Lhasa were recognized as incarnations of Avalokita. The first and last words are mystic syllables such as often occur in these formulæ. Maṇi padme is generally interpreted to mean the jewel in the lotus[1056], but Thomas has pointed out that it is more consonant with grammar and usage to regard the syllables as one word and the vocative of a feminine title similar to Padmapâṇi, one of Avalokita's many names. The analogy of similar spells supports this interpretation and it seems probable that the formula was originally an invocation of the Śakti under the title of Maṇipadmâ, although so far as I know it is now regarded by the Tibetans as an address to the male Avalokita. It has also been suggested that the prominence of this prayer may be due to Manichæan influence and the idea that it contained the name of Mani. The suggestion is not absurd for in many instances Manichæism and Buddhism were mixed together, but if it were true we should expect to find the formula frequently used in the Tarim basin, but of such use there is no proof.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1012: The Shingon sect in Japan depict benevolent deities in a raging form, Funnu. See Kokka, No. 292, p. 58. The idea goes back to India where the canons of sacred art recognize that deities can be represented in a pacific (śânta or saumya) or in a terrific (ugra or raudra) form. See Gopinath Rao, _Hindu Iconography_, vol. I. p. 19, and vol. II of the same for a lengthy description of the aspects of Śiva.]

[Footnote 1013: _E.g._ Grünwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, fig. 149, _id. Mythologie_, fig. 54.]

[Footnote 1014: But there is still a hereditary incarnation of Ganeśa near Poona, which began in the seventeenth century. See _Asiatic Researches_, VII. 381.]

[Footnote 1015: See Waddell in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 941.]

[Footnote 1016: See _e.g. J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 41. The Svayambhû Purâna also states that Mañjuśrî lives in China. See _J. Buddhist Text Society_, 1894, vol. II. part II. p. 33.]

[Footnote 1017: See _T'oung Pao_, 1908, p. 13. For the Bön generally see also _J.A.S. Bengal_, 1881, p. 187; Rockhill, _Land of the Lamas_, pp. 217-218; and _T'oung Pao_, 1901, pp. 24-44.]

[Footnote 1018: The Lamas offer burnt sacrifices but it is not quite clear whether these are derived from the Indian _homa_ adopted by Tantric Buddhism or from Tibetan and Mongol ceremonies. See, for a description of this ceremony, _My Life in Mongolia_, by the Bishop of Norwich, pp. 108-114.]

[Footnote 1019: _Mythologie des Buddhismus_, p. 40.]

[Footnote 1020: In Tibetan Dus-kyi-hkhor-lo. Mongol, Tsagun kürdün.]

[Footnote 1021: Announced in the _Bibliotheca Buddhica_.]

[Footnote 1022: See Pelliot, _Quelques transcriptions apparentées à Cambhala dans les textes Chinois_ (in _T'oung Pao_, vol. XX. 1920, p. 73) for some conjectures. Kulika is translated into Tibetan as Rigs-Ldan. Tibetan texts speak of books coming from Śambhala, see Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1913, p. 596.]

[Footnote 1023: See Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 402. In Sumpa's chronology, _J.A.S. Beng._ p. 46, the reign of a Kulika Emperor seems to be simply a designation for a century.]

[Footnote 1024: See _J.A.S.B._ 82, p. 225. The king is also (but apparently incorrectly) called Candra-Bhadra.]

[Footnote 1025: See Grünwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 41. Sarat Chandra Das in _J.A.S. Beng_. 1882, p. 15, and _J.A.S. Beng_. 1912, p. 21, being reprints of earlier articles by Csoma de Körös.]

[Footnote 1026: See Kalkî Purâna. Vishnu Purâna, IV. XXIV, Bhâg. Pur. XII. ii. 18, and Norman in _Trans. III, Int. Congress Religions_, vol. II. p. 85. Also Aufrecht, _Cat. Cod. Sansk._ 73A, 84B.]

[Footnote 1027: See Schrader, _Introd. to the Pâncarâtra_, pp. 100-106 and 96.]

[Footnote 1028: See the article "Adi Buddha" by De la Vallée Poussin in Hastings' _Encyc. of Religion and Ethics_.]

[Footnote 1029: See, for a modern example of this, the Ganeśâtharvaśirshopanishad (Anândâ srama edition, pp. 11 and 16) Tvam eva sarvam khalvidam Brahmâsi ... Tvam Brahmâ Tvam Vishnus Tvam Rudras Tvam Indras Tvam Agnis Tvam Vâyus Tvam Sûryas Tvam Candramâs Tvam _Brahma_. Here Gaṇeśa includes all the deities and the Pantheos. There is also a book called Gaṇeśadarśanam in which the Vedanta sûtras are rewritten and Gaṇeśa made equivalent to Brahma. See Madras, _Cat. of Sk. MSS_. 1910-1913, p. 1030.]

[Footnote 1030: It is just mentioned in S. Lévi's _Nepal II_, p. 385, but is not in Rajendralal Mitra's _Catalogue_.]

[Footnote 1031: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 131. Pander, _Pantheon_, p. 59, No. 56.]

[Footnote 1032: Nepalese Buddhism knows not only the Dhyâni Buddhas, Śaktis and Bodhisattvas including Vajrasattva and Vajradhara, but also deities like Hayagrîva, Yamântaka, Bhrikutî, Marîcî, Kurukullâ. In both Nepal and Tibet are found pictures called Thsogs-śiṇ in which the deities of the Pantheon (or at least the principal of them) are grouped according to rank. See for an example containing 138 deities the frontispiece of Getty's _Gods of Northern Buddhism_.]

[Footnote 1033: _Buddhism_, pp. 350-1.]

[Footnote 1034: For an outline of the method followed by Tibetans in studying the Tantras, see _Journal Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, vol. I. part III. pp. 25-6.]

[Footnote 1035: The deity may appear in an unusual form, so the worshipper can easily persuade himself that he has received the desired revelation.]

[Footnote 1036: A figure identified with Indra or Vajrapâni is found in Gandhara sculptures.]

[Footnote 1037: _Mythologie_, p. 97.]

[Footnote 1038: The Dhyâni Buddhas however seem to be the Yi-dam of individuals only.]

[Footnote 1039: Huth's edition, p. 1.]

[Footnote 1040: See _Buddhist Text Society_, vol. II. part II. appendix II. 1904, p. 6.]

[Footnote 1041: See Laufer, "Hundert Tausend Nâgas" in _Memoirs of Finno-Ugrian Society_, 1898.]

[Footnote 1042: Or Five Bodies, sKu-Lṇa. dPe-dKar or Pe-har is by some authorities identified with the Chinese deity Wei-to. This latter is represented in the outer court of most Chinese temples.]

[Footnote 1043: In Tibetan sGrol-ma, in Mongol Dara äkä. For the early history of Târâ see Blonay, _Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire de ... Târâ_, 1895.]

[Footnote 1044: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 360.]

[Footnote 1045: Tibetan gTsug-tor-rnam-par-rgyal-ma.]

[Footnote 1046: Cf. Whitehead's statement (_Village Gods of S. India_, p. 79) that women worshipping certain goddesses are clad only in the twigs of the mimosa tree.]

[Footnote 1047: See Foucher, _Icon. Bouddhique_, 1900, p. 142, and Târanâtha tr. Schiefner, p. 102.]

[Footnote 1048: See Waddell. Grünwedel seems to regard Vajra-Varâhî as distinct from Marîcî.]

[Footnote 1049: As for instance is also the origin of Linga worship in India.]

[Footnote 1050: See Steiner in _Mitth. der Deutsch. Gesellsch. Natur-u. Völkerkunde Ost-Asiens_, 1909-10, p. 35.]

[Footnote 1051: Padme is said to be commonly pronounced peme.]

[Footnote 1052: Waddell quotes a similar spell known in both Tibet and Japan, but addressed to Vairocana. Om Amogha Vairocanamahâmudra mani padma jvalapravarthtaya hūm. _Buddhism_, p. 149.]

[Footnote 1053: _Divyâvadâna_ (Cowell and Neil), pp. 613-4, and Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Bud. Lit._ p. 98. See also the learned note of Chavannes and Pelliot, based on Japanese sources in _J.A._ 1913, I. 314. The text referred to is Nanjio, No. 782. It is not plain if it is the same as earlier translations with similar titles. A mantra of six syllables not further defined is extolled in the Divyâvadâna and the Guṇakâraṇḍavyûha.]

[Footnote 1054: Bu-ston was born in 1288 and the summary of his writings contained in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Society_, vol. I. 1893, represents the formula as used in the times of Atîśa, _c_. 1030.]