In l. 10 the ལ་ might also be understood as ‘with a view to, for the
purpose of, explaining, expounding.’ The translation should in that
case rather run: With a view to expounding the profound (Buddhist)
doctrine, they preached, explained, most fully, minutely, in full
detail, Yoga and the other teachings (or the various kinds of Yoga) of
the two stages of the road.... ལ་ has then the force of: with regard,
reference to; as far as ... is concerned.
In l. 17 the ‘till’ ought to be more emphatically rendered: until the
very moment that, i.e. I shall not cease a moment before. Or else: till
I reach the very heart of saintship. See J. s.v. བར་.
In l. 49 ‘May all those’ is more correct than ‘May all of you,’ for,
unlike in the three preceding verses which are addressed to his pupils,
the author now utters a universal prayer addressed to mankind in
general.
Note to p. 2. Waddell, Lāmaist Graces before Meat, J.R.A.S., 1894, p.
265, says that the libation is sprinkled with the tips of the fore and
middle fingers. This is denied by my informants who maintain their
statement as given on p. 2, above.
To p. 4. After the Introduction was in print I have seen a copy of the
དགའ་ལྡན་ལྷ་བརྒྱ་མ་, ‘The Galdan Century of Gods,’ and had it copied for me.
It is a small prayer-book to Tsoṅ kʽa pa, who manifests in a hundred
different forms, and it contains 18 four-lined stanzas of 9 syllables
each, with the single exception of the stanza quoted in the
Introduction, which contains five lines.
This little book is the one mentioned in the Hor chos byuṅ (Huth’s
translation, p. 387—see note 5—, and text p. 246). Huth gives as Sk.
equivalent for the title: Tushitadevaçatikā. Galdan (Tushita) is here
the heaven of that name, not the famous monastery. The stanza we are
discussing is also mentioned in the same passage. Its name is དམིགས་བརྩེ་
མ་ (The unfathomable love verse). This Dmigs brtse ma is of
considerable theological importance. I possess a commentary on it
written by བློ་བཟང་བསྐལ་བཟང་རྒྱ་མཚོ་, the seventh Dalai Lama. Grünwedel, in
the list of Dalai Lamas on p. 206 of his ‘Mythologie,’ etc., writes སྐལ་
ལྡན་ and Rockhill, in ‘Tibet, a ... sketch derived from Chinese
sources,’ J.R.A.S., Vol. XXIII, new series, 1891, p. 287, སྐལ་བཟང་.
Since, I have also found that this same stanza, with a modification,
occurs on the title page of Sarat Chandra Das’ edition of the དཔག་བསམ་
འཁྲི་ཤིང་ (Bibl. Ind.). The stanza as there given consists of six lines,
by the addition of an initial line to
དངོས་གྲུབ་ཀུན་འབྱུང་ཐུབ་དབང་རྡོ་རྗེ་འཆང་ །,
i.e. the Thunderbolt-bearer, Vajradhara.
In another little work, the སྤྱན་འདྲེན་ཁྲུས་གསོལ་ཕྱག་མཆོད་ཀྱི་རིམ་པ་སྒོ་གསུམ་མུན་སེལ་,
‘The illuminator of body, speech and mind concerning the order of
inviting, lustrating, making obeisance to and worshipping (Tsoṅ kʽa
pa),’ the stanza occurs once more, again in a different form.
There, p. 9b, the prayer is as in our Introduction, but lacks the third
line (བདུད་དཔུང་, etc.) and ends with དཔལ་ལ་ཕྱག་ཚལ་ལོ་. Also, instead of
འཇམ་པའི་དབྱངས་ in the second line, this text writes འཇམ་དཔལ་དབྱངས་.
I am informed that the prayer occurs also in many other books with
modifications, and that when it is used in connection with ཁྲུས་པ་ or
‘lustration’ rites the closing words after གྲགས་པའི་ཞབས་ལ་ are changed
into སྐུ་ཁྲུས་གསོལ་, ‘we baptise thee.’
To p. 17. S. Ch. D., p. 490 b, s.v. གཉན་ཐབ་པ་ mentions a medicinal root
used against the plague, called ལྕགས་ཀྱ་ (without zhabs-kyu), but
transcribed lcags kyu.
To p. 23. Huth, Hor chos byuṅ, trs., p.117, renders མཁའ་འགྲོ་ as ḍāka,
also on p. 118 (see note 4). On p. 231 (see note 1) he suggests that
མཁའ་འགྲོ་ should be understood as ḍākinī = མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་, not as Sk. ḍāka.
The dge rgan understands all these three passages as referring to
(female) ḍākinīs. Though according to Grünwedel (‘Mythologie,’ p. 153)
in Sk. mythology a male ḍāka exists (a Tantra deity), in Tibet the མཁའ་
འགྲོ་ is always feminine, and a male species or individual does not exist
according to my informants. This statement needs testing of course.
Grünwedel (loc. cit.) thinks that these female ḍākinīs are original
Tibetan spirits or goddesses. The female ཡེ་ཤེས་མཁའ་འགྲོ་’s are mentioned
indifferently with or without the final མ་. Macdonell in his Sk. Dict.
only mentions the feminine form of the word. In the ritual book གཅོད་ཆ་
དྲུག་ “The six cut off pieces” (i.e. chapters, divisions, into which the
description of the torma offering is divided) we find the apostrophe:
ཀྱེ་མ་མི་མིན་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱི་མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་, “O, wisdom fairy, supernatural (= not-human)
mother,” so defining the sex. In Tibetan the form མཁའ་འགྲོ་ must
accordingly not be understood as a masculine form of མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་, but as
its abbreviated form only. This without prejudice to the question
whether in special Tantric texts a male god Ḍāka, མཁའ་འགྲོ་, does occur.
S. Ch. D. has for མཁའ་འགྲོ་ an entry giving the meanings ‘god, bird,
arrow.’ Here the word has a poetical or metaphorical meaning based on
its etymology, ‘sky-goer’, but no mythological value. He adds under
མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་ ‘a class, mainly of female spirits.’ But the form in མ་
cannot be masculine. In Tibet there is a class of people called ཆོས་རྗེ་,
both male and female, whose name may be translated as oracles, shamans
or mediums. They are deemed to be obsessed by ཆོས་སྐྱོང་’s who speak
through them whilst they themselves are in a state of trance or
obsession. Their name is ཆོས་རྗེ་ in Lhasa and other greater towns, and
amongst the more educated; but the country-people and the lower orders
have a special name for these mediums if they are women and call them
རྣལ་འབྱོར་མ་ or མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་. In Sikkhim the word མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་ is general in
this sense. In Sikkhim the designation for a male medium of this sort
is དཔའ་བོ་ and not ཆོས་རྗེ་ as in Tibet.
Whilst investigating the question of Khandomas from the standpoint of
colloquial Tibetan I stumbled unexpectedly on the following interesting
piece of information, throwing a vivid sidelight on some current
beliefs and practices of modern Tibet.
The abbot of the Saskya monastery is held to be the reincarnation of
Padmasambhava. As the latter was the great ‘binder,’ that is subduer,
of all spirits, witches, goblins and other creatures of that ilk, the
Saskya abbot has in some way become the official head and master of all
Tibetan witches. Belief in witches is rife all over Tibet, and any
woman is liable to be declared one. The process is very simple. If a
great Lama receives obeisance from the multitude he presents the
devotees in return with a ‘protection-knot’ (སྲུང་མདུད་), a narrow strip
of cloth which he puts round their necks. He ties a knot in it
muttering some mantram over it, hence the name. Ordinary laymen receive
a white strip, tapas or those who have their hair cut short (probably
because they look like tapas) get a yellow or red strip, but if a woman
approaches whom the Lama by his magic knowledge recognizes as a witch,
she receives a black strip. From that moment she is irrevocably a witch
and no protestation can help her out of the situation. In the Saskya
monastery an annual feast or ceremony is celebrated in which all
witches must appear personally, and the magic then displayed is so
tremendously powerful that all women who are secretly endowed with the
powers of witchcraft without the people knowing it, are irresistibly
compelled to attend the meeting. They simply cannot help it, and so
stories are told of witches working in the fields, milking cows, or
otherwise engaged, being drawn away from their work and appearing in
the assembly with their milk-pail, or spindle, or whatever utensil they
were using at the time at any work, when they were forced to quit it
and to come to Saskya. In the meeting they are then officially
proclaimed witches and forced to pledge allegiance and obedience to the
Saskya monastery and its head. Then the profitable and practical side
of the transaction becomes manifest, for henceforth they have to pay an
annual, heavy witch-tax, and in cases known to Karma himself, who came
across them when living in Tibet, this tax amounted to one རྡོ་ཚད་ (see
Bell, p. 104) or about Rs. 120 a year. On the other hand they are now
protected by the authority of the monastery as long as they pay the
tax, though they have to pledge themselves not to use their powers for
evil. Then they receive the official title of ས་སྐྱ་མཁའ་འགྲོ་, though they
are known to the people as འབའ་མོ་, witch. But this latter word is a
term of abuse or contempt. The meaning of the two terms, however, is
the same. The entries in the dicts. s.v. འབའ་མོ་ and པོ་ (and other
spellings) need proper testing in the light of the above. These witches
are supposed not to live up to a great age but to die young, because
the monastery calls them out of life to become protecting spirits of
the monastery in the invisible spheres. When a bamo dies, her daughter,
if she has any, inherits the office or quality of the mother. These
bamos, during life, follow the ordinary occupations of women: buying,
selling, working or marrying, and their bamo-hood seems to be no
drawback, in itself, to their matrimonial prospects. I heard of the
case of a bamo who was the wife of a very wealthy man. But the tax, far
in excess of any levied on ordinary people, must be regularly paid. If
the bamo does not pay her tax, the monastery calls her soul and she
dies. In the gompa for every accredited འབའ་མོ་ there is a སོབ་ or
stuffed effigy, puppet, of which I have not been able to get a full
description. Probably a stuffed doll or body, with a mask and garment,
perhaps only a stick to hold the mask and garment up, like in a
puppet-show. Each such puppet becomes the dwelling-place of the soul of
a dead bamo when she dies, and in order to see to it that after death
she may not do harm whilst roaming about, the puppet is bound in
chains. Horrible to say, however, sometimes these chains are found
broken by the guardians, and this is a sure sign that the imprisoned
soul has escaped from the puppet which was its dwelling-place and that
it may have started on a pilgrimage of evil works. As soon as it is
found that such an imprisoned witch-soul has escaped, solemn notice is
at once sent out to all Tibet to the effect that a bamo-soul has broken
loose from Saskya, and the various local Lamas all through the country
warn their flocks that a bamo is at large and enjoin them to be careful
not to fall a victim to the wandering witch. So, for instance, they are
told not to go about alone after dark, not to entertain strangers, and
the like, for the bamo may assume any disguise, and any man may fall a
prey to the snares of a beautiful strange woman, as any woman might be
allured by an unknown man. The late Lama Sherabgyamtsho in Ghoom, whose
name is so well known to all students of Tibetan, used very often to
make solemn announcements of this nature and warn the Ghoom people that
a bamo had escaped from Saskya.
A most fitting ending to this story is perhaps to be made by quoting
the old Buddhist formula “Thus I have heard,” but there is no doubt
that the word མཁའ་འགྲོ་མ་ acquires an interesting new meaning through
this curious tale.
There is a belief prevalent in Tibet that in every woman a touch of
bamo-hood is latent (some philosophers, also outside Tibet, seem to
think the same!), but in the night of the 29th day of the twelfth
Tibetan month, this seed of evil will manifest most fully. The male
Tibetans, however, seem not to take any precautions or perform any
rites to counteract the sinister influence of this date. Evidently it
is a male Tibetan who first set up this theory, and it might be the
same fellow who is the author of the following proverb which bears on
our subject and on the words we are dealing with. It runs:
སྐྱེས་དམན་བརྒྱ་ལ་མཁའ་འགྲོ་གཅིག་
ཁྱོ་ག་བརྒྱ་ལ་འབའ་པོ་གཅིག་
Amongst a hundred women (at most) one khando!
Amongst a hundred men (at most) one sorcerer!
That is—khando being here used in the good sense of fairy—: Amongst
many women there is scarcely one extremely good, but amongst many men
there is scarcely one extremely bad. In fact, in Tibet, all women are
suspected of having just a little seed of evil (of the witch) in them.
And so the term of reproach is not as in Europe ‘Old Adam’ but rather
‘Old Eve.’
As far as the above story is concerned, it should not be forgotten that
it is only a popular version of an interesting phase of religious
practice, but Tibetan casuistry and theology are as a rule so subtle
and well-systematised that a more theoretical exposition of the
doctrines and practices alluded to might throw considerably more, if
not other and new, light on the subject.
To p. 25. The quotation, s.v. ཁྲེལ་བ༌, l. 16: ཆོས་ཐོས་པས་, etc., is from a
little tract, a prayer to Padmasambhava, entitled བསམ་པ་མྱུར་འགྲུབ་མ་, ‘the
quick mind-fulfiller.’
To p. 25. Cf. Lewin, pp. 133–134, no. 97–10, གཞད་གད་ (རྒྱུ་), ridiculous;
zhed-ked, laughter, ridicule.
To p. 26. ངོ་ཚ་བ་ Bell, voc., to blush; Lewin, p. 77 (64–5), ridiculous.
See his example.
To p. 30. S. Ch. D., Dict., has ཀོ་ཀོ་ (hidden on p. 34, out of
alphabetical order) as ‘a Tibetan of mixed breed, i.e. born of a
Chinese father and a Tibetan mother.’ Waddell, Lhasa and its Mysteries,
p. 214, the same explanation. A special enquiry into this point,
however, yielded a different result. One of my informants was a Tibetan
woman from Lhasa who had herself married a Chinaman there, and so ought
to know. The half-breeds referred to by S. Ch. D. and Waddell are
called ‘baizhin,’ spelling uncertain, given as བལ་བཞིན་ and བའི་ཞིན་, said
to be a Chinese word. However, another explanation of that same word
was given, as a man not in the pay of, not taking wages from, another.
Not necessarily rich or of high position, but independent. Perhaps
something like crofter. This latter explanation is, however,
contradicted by Karma who has relations amongst the baizhins in Tibet.
In a Tibetan mixed marriage such as we are here considering the custom
is to call the elder son ཀོ་ཀོ་ after the Chinese manner, instead of
using the Tibetan word. This is ཨ་ཇོ་ in Tsang and ཇོ་ཇོ་ in Lhasa. The
latter is pronounced, and sometimes written, ཅོ་ཅོ་ and even sometimes
pronounced chö-cho, as if written ཅོས་ཅོ་. But in the above case ཀོ་ཀོ་
means really ‘elder brother.’ A girl, born in such a marriage, is
similarly called མི་མི་, Chinese, instead of ཨ་ཆེ་, Tibetan. These terms
do not mean half-blood. Whether མི་མི་ is used for the eldest daughter
alone or for all the daughters of the marriage I could not ascertain.
It is said that every Chinaman, however humble, becomes at once a
personage of importance when in Tibet, and demands to be addressed at
least as དཔོན་པོ་, Mister, Sir (as every European becomes automatically a
Sahib in India), and feels quite insulted if addressed by the more
familiar ཀོ་ཀོ་ as a liberty taken with his dignity. A Chinaman from
Tibet, however, denied this. I remember once travelling in the Sunda
country with my Javanese writer who met several people on the road whom
he knew and whom he saluted as ‘little brother’ or ‘elder brother.’ I
was puzzled at his belonging to so big a family, but found the solution
of the riddle when I understood that this fraternity was not one of
consanguinity at all. So ‘elder sister’ amongst Tibetans means only
Madam, Lady, or a polite word of address to any woman of more than low
status in life. In German Mütterchen for any old woman of simple
status.
To pp. 35–37. The expression ཀུན་ཏུ་བཟང་པོས་བརྒྱན་པའི་ཞིང་ occurring in the
little prayer-book བཟང་སྤྱོད་ can hardly mean ‘a field (= heaven, world)
which Kuntuzangpo has adorned’ (beautified, decorated, embellished), in
the sense in which one may decorate a house or room, with beautiful
pictures, furniture, etc. It must surely be understood as ‘the heaven
blazing with the glory of Kuntuzangpo’s presence in it,’ a heaven
resplendent with his glory. In other words, he adorns it by his mere
being there, but not as the result of some activity expressed by a
transitive verb. The world is adorned, but has not been decorated or
beautified. I wonder if the agentive case པོས་ may be understood as in
English expressions like: ‘happy through him,’ ‘blazing with diamonds,’
‘laughing for joy,’ and the like.
To p. 40. See the unusual explanation of ཅེས་པ་ in S. Ch. D., s.v. ག་
III, where he translates ཅེས་པའོ་ as ‘it may be said.’ The dge rgan,
however, paraphrases the expression here as ལབ་པ་རེད་ or ལབ་གི་འདུག་, or
ཅེས་སྨྲས་སོ་, which gives it another meaning, namely: ‘so it has been
said,’ ‘so is the teaching,’ ‘that is what has been taught.’ In this
sense the previous words are a direct quotation and the ཅེས་པའོ་ cannot
be translated as ‘it may be said that.’
To p. 40. In the note to ཆགས་སྡང་, for འདོད་ཆགས་དང་ཞེ་སྡང་, non-attachment
and indifference only in connection with a negative.
To p. 44. ལྟ་བ་. See Graham Sandberg, Tibet and the Tibetans, p. 268,
who renders this word, as a technical term denoting the first of the
four stages of meditation, according to Milaraspa, as ‘contemplation’
or ‘concentration.’ The second word, denoting a mental action
unconnected with visual experience, does not seem appropriate. As in
English ‘view’ has both a physical and a mental meaning, so in Tibetan
ལྟ་བ་, as a verb, has mental connotations. J. has the word as sbst.
‘mystical contemplation.’ The Sk. equivalent, दर्शन, is likewise both
physical and mental in meaning. Whereas J. and S. Ch. D. have a sbst.
ལྟ་བ་ ‘the act of looking,’ and ‘a look,’ Desg. has it as ‘sight’
(visus, vue, “etc.”).
To p. 58. See Jäschke’s note on maṇḍa and maṇḍala, s.v. དཀྱིལ་, p. 11 b.
His remark may have a bearing on the question of ḍāka and ḍākinī,
discussed above. See next note.
To pp. 59 and 60. My informants, though ignorant about the detail of
five and nine cushions, do know of a custom requiring the man of higher
social position, greater age, more prestige, to be seated on a higher
seat as a sign of respect. The difference of height, however, is in the
seat itself, not effected by the placing of a number of cushions on
seats of equal height.
To གདན་ still the two following words: རྟ་གདན་, saddle cloth, and ཁ་
གདན་, second sheet, upper sheet, covering sheet over the འབོལ་གདན་. The
འབོལ་གདན་ is usually thick and rough but the ཁ་གདན་ thin and of finer
texture, like in European beds the bed sheet over the mattress. The
འབོལ་གདན་ is for softness and the ཁ་གདན་ for cleanliness, like the loose
covers of armchairs and sofas in Western countries.
To p. 62. Huth, Hor chos byuṅ, trs. 117, note 4, reconstitutes the name
Blo bzaṅ grags pai dpal into Sk. Matibhadrakīrtiçrī. In Tibetan
mantrams, however, where Tsoṅ kʽa pa’s name is given in its Sk. form,
Sumati is used and not Matibhadra. See also p. 5 of the Introduction,
supra.
To p. 64. The word དམིགས་མེད་ (p. 3 and additional note to p. 4) should
have been discussed there. Desg. alone has the meaning of the word as
in our text: unthinkable, unimaginable. According to oral information,
synonymous with བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ་, l. 12, see p. 74, supra.
The elaborate entries in J. and S. Ch. D. under this word and under
དམིགས་པ་མེད་པ་ need investigation.
The word དམིགས་པ་ has also a special meaning, not in the dictionaries,
in connection with any action done ‘in thought,’ དམིགས་པ་བྱེད་པ་ (as in
English ‘I am with you in thought’). But Tibetans can not only be
present in thought but they can give presents ‘in thought,’ and do all
sorts of things ‘in thought,’ when there is no physical possibility of
doing so in the flesh. So the good story is told of a lazy Lama who, to
get rid of the crowd, said: “And now I give my hand-blessing to you all
‘in thought,’” whereupon a disappointed and angry pilgrim answered:
“Well, then I give you my butter-offerings, which I have brought with
me, also ‘in thought.’”
To p. 65. The dictionaries spelt པོ་ཏ་ལ་ but the dge rgan says that པོ་ཏཱ་
ལ་ also occurs. Desg. has an alternative spelling པོ་ཌ་ལ་, but this
seems a misprint for པོ་ཊ་ལ་. In Tibetan books I have only seen ཏ་ but
the dge rgan is sure that the two spellings, ཊ་ and ཏཱ་ (but not ཊཱ་),
occur as well.
To the text. When the larger part of this booklet was in print I
acquired an additional copy of the text, which proved to be different
from the two editions used by me. It is of the same size and style as
edition A, but printed from other blocks. We call it C. The copy is a
poor one, badly printed from worn-out blocks. A collation brought no
news of importance. The reading ངེས་སོ་ in l. 16, however, is confirmed
by this edition. Its only new reading is འཆིང་བར་ for འཆང་བར་ in l. 46.
This reading does not seem so satisfactory as the one we have followed.
The full result of the collation is given below. Indistinct readings
are marked with a note of interrogation.
C. l. 13. འཛིན་བའི་? for པའི་
l. 18. གཏོགས་བར་ ” པར་
l. 24. བརྩོན་པ་ ” པར་
l. 29. ཀུན་སླང་ ” སློང་
l. 30. མཆན་? ” མཚན་
l. 41. བཤེས་གཉེན་ང་? ” པ་
l. 44. འདུག་བའི་ ” པའི་
l. 46. འཆིང་ ” འཆང་
l. 50. རྔེས་ ” རྗེས་
l. 51. རྟོགས་ངའི་ ” པའི་
Colophon. གདུངས་ ” གདུང་
” བཀྲ་ཤིས་ ” desunt.
The variants of ll. 30, 41, 50 and 51 are evidently due to
deterioration of the blocks. There is no ༈ in this edition.