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.

As narrated in the historical section Buddhism suffered a severe reverse with the death of Ralpachan and it was nearly a century before a revival began. This revival was distinctly tantric and the most celebrated name connected with it is Atîśa. According to Csoma de Körös's chronology the Kâlacakra system was introduced in 1025 and the eminent translator bLo-ldan-shes-rab[1003], a follower of Atîśa, was born in 1057. It is thus easy to understand how during the eleventh century a great number of tantric works were translated and the published catalogues of the Kanjur and Tanjur confirm the fact, although the authors of the translations are not mentioned so often as in the other divisions. To Atîśa is ascribed the revision of many works in the Tantra section of the Kanjur and twenty others composed by him are found in the Tanjur[1004]. It is said that the definitive arrangement of the two collections as we know them was made by Bu-ston early in the thirteenth century[1005]. The Kanjur (but not the Tanjur) was translated into Mongol by order of Khutuktu Khagan (1604-1634) the last prince of the Chakhar Mongols but a printed edition was first published by the Emperor K'ang-Hsi. Though it is said that the Tanjur was translated and printed by order of Ch'ien-Lung, the statement is doubtful. If such a translation was made it was probably partial and in manuscript[1006].

Manuscripts are still extensively copied and used in Tibet but the Kanjur has been printed from wooden blocks for the last 200 years. There are said to be two printing presses, the older at Narthang near Tashilhunpo where an edition in 100 volumes is produced and another at Derge in the eastern province. This edition is in 108 volumes. An edition was also printed at Peking by order of K'ang-Hsi in red type and with a preface by the Emperor himself[1007].

Besides the canon the Tibetans possess many religious or edifying works composed in their own language[1008]. Such are the Padma-than-yig, or life of Padma-Sambhava, the works of Tsong-kha-pa, and several histories such as those of Bu-ston, Târanâtha, Sum-pa, and hJigs-med-nam-mkha[1009], biographies of Lamas without number, accounts of holy places, works of private devotion, medical treatises and grammars.

There are also numerous works called Terma which profess to be revelations composed by Padma-Sambhava. They are said to be popular, though apparently not accepted by the Yellow Church.

Although it hardly comes within the scope of the present study, I may mention that there is also some non-Buddhist literature in Tibet, sometimes described as scriptures of the Bön religion and sometimes as folklore. As samples may be cited Laufer's edition and translation of the _Hundred Thousand Nâgas_[1010] and Francke's of parts of the _Kesar-saga_[1011].

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 973: The Tibetan orthography is bKah-hgyur (the translated command) and bsTan-ḥgyur (the translated explanation). Various spellings are used by European writers such as Kah-gyur, Kandjour, Bkahgyur, etc. Waddell writes Kah-gyur and Tän-gyur.]

[Footnote 974: Though this distinction seems to hold good on the whole, yet it is not strictly observed. Thus the work called Udâna and corresponding to the Dhammapada is found in both the Kanjur and Tanjur.]

[Footnote 975: Nanjio's catalogue states that a great many Abhidhaṛma works in Chinese agree with Tibetan, but their titles are not to be found in Csoma's analysis of the Kanjur. They may however be in the Tanjur, which is less fully analyzed.]

[Footnote 976: Analysis of the Dulva, etc., four parts in _Asiatic Researches_, vol. XX. 1836, by A. Csoma Körösi. Translated into French by Feer, _Annales du Musée Guimet_, tome 2me, 1881. _Index des Kanjur_, herausgegeben von I.J. Schmidt (in Tibetan), 1845. Huth, _Verzeichnis der in Tibetischen Tanjur, Abtheilung mDo, erhaltenen Werke_ in _Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad._ 1895. P. Cordier, _Catalogue du fonds Tibétain de la Bibliothèque Nationale_. Beckh, _Verzeichnis der tibetischen Handscriften der K. Bibliothek zu Berlin_, 1 Abth., Kanjur, 1914. This is an analysis of the edition in 108 volumes, whereas Csoma de Körösi and Feer analyzed the edition in 100 volumes. The arrangement of the two editions is not quite the same. See too Pelliot's review of Beckh's catalogue in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 111 ff. See also Waddell, "Tibetan Manuscripts and Books" in _Asiatic Quarterly_, July, 1912, pp. 80-113, which, though not an analysis of the Canon, incidentally gives much information.]

[Footnote 977: _E.g._ Udâna ( = Dhammapada) by Rockhill, 1892 (transl.), and Beckh (text 1911) Madhyamakâvatâra: de la Vallée Poussin, 1912, Madyamika-śâstra: Max Walleser, 1911 (transl.), Citralakshana, ed. and trans. Laufer, 1913; Feer, _Fragments extraits du Kanjur, Annales du Musée Guimet_, tome 5me, 1883.]

[Footnote 978: It is also sometimes divided into three Pitakas. When this is done, the Dulva is the Vinaya P., the Śer-chin is the Abhidharma P., and all the other works whether Sûtras or Tantras are classed together as the Sûtra P.]

[Footnote 979: hDul-ba.]

[Footnote 980: See Nanjio, Nos. 1115-1119, 1122, 1132-4. Rockhill, _Prâtimoksha Sûtra selon la version Tibétaine_, 1884. Huth, _Tibetische Version der Naihsargikaprâyaccittikadharmâs_, 1891. Finot and Hüber, "Le Prâtimoksa des Sarvâstivadins," _J.A._ 1913, II. p. 465.]

[Footnote 981: Strictly Śer-phyin.]

[Footnote 982: Waddell in _Asiatic Quarterly_, 1912, XXXIV. p. 98, renders the title as Vata sangha, which probably represents Avataṃsaka. Sarat Chandra Das, _sub voce_, says Phal-chen-sde-pa = Mahâsanghika.]

[Footnote 983: The statements of Nanjio as to "deest in Tibetan" are not quite accurate as regards the edition in 108 volumes. Compare his catalogue with Beckh's.]

[Footnote 984: This statement made by such scholars as Feer (_Anal. du Kanjour_, p. 288) and Rockhill (_Udâna_, p. x) is of great weight, but I have not found in their works any quotation from the Tibetan translation saying that the original language was not Sanskrit and the titles given by Peer are in Sanskrit not in Pali. I presume it is not meant that the Tibetan text is a translation from a Sanskrit text which corresponds with the Pali text known to us. In Beckh's catalogue of the edition in 108 volumes the same titles occur in the Prajñâ-pâramitâ section, but without any statement that the works are translated from Pali. See Beckh, p. 12, and Feer, pp. 288 ff.]

[Footnote 985: _Life of the Buddha_, p. 224, and _J.R.A.S._ 1899, p. 422.]

[Footnote 986: There is another shorter sûtra on the same subject in the mDo section of the Kanjur. Feer, p. 247. In the edition of 108 volumes, the whole section is incorporated in the mDo, Beckh, p. 33.]

[Footnote 987: The word seems originally to mean string or chain.]

[Footnote 988: Apparently not the same as the Tathâgata-Guhyaka _alias_ Guhya Samagha described by R. Mitra, _Sk. Bud. Lit_. p. 261.]

[Footnote 989: See notices of these in four articles by Satiścandra Vidyâbhûshana in _J.A.S. Beng._ 1907.]

[Footnote 990: _I.e._ the Dhammapada.]

[Footnote 991: Huth's analysis of vols. 117-124 of the Tanjur (_Sitzungsber. Kōn. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin_, 1895) shows that they contain _inter alia_, eight works on Sanskrit literature and philology besides the Meghadûta, nine on medicine and alchemy with commentaries, fourteen on astrology and divination, three on chemistry (the composition of incense), eight on gnomic poetry and ethics, one encyclopædia, six lives of the Saints, six works on the Tibetan language and five on painting and fine art. Cordier gives further particulars of the medical works in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, p. 604. They include a veterinary treatise.]

[Footnote 992: See title in Laufer's edition.]

[Footnote 993: See Feer, _l.c._ for instance, pp. 287, 248.]

[Footnote 994: See Feer, _l.c._ p. 344, and Laufer, "Die Bruza Sprache" in _T'oung Pao_, 1908. It is said that King Ru-che-tsan of Brusha or Dusha translated (? what date) the Mûla-Tantra and Vyâkhyâ-Tantra into the language of his country. See _J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 12. Beckh states that four works have titles in Chinese, one in Bruža and one in Tartar (Hor-gyi-skad-du).]

[Footnote 995: Laufer, _ibid_. p. 4.]

[Footnote 996: See Nanjio, No. 87, and Feer, _l.c._ pp. 208-212, but the two works may not be the same. The Tibetan seems to be a collection of 45 sûtras.]

[Footnote 997: Rockhill, _l.c._ p. 212.]

[Footnote 998: Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, pp. 426-9 and App. B. See also Pelliot in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1908, pp. 507 ff.]

[Footnote 999: The Mahâvyutpatti edited by Minayeff in _Bibl. Buddhica_ and an abridgement.]

[Footnote 1000: According to Feer (_Analyse_, p. 325) Tibetan historians state that at this epoch kings prohibited the translation of more than a few tantric works.]

[Footnote 1001: Numerous works are also ascribed to Sarvajñâdeva and Dharmaka, both of Kashmir, and to the Indian Vidyâkaraprabhâ and Surendrabodhi.]

[Footnote 1002: See Francke in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 56-7.]

[Footnote 1003: See Pander, _Pantheon_, No. 30.]

[Footnote 1004: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 36, gives a list of them.]

[Footnote 1005: It appears to me that there is some confusion between Brom-ston, a disciple of Atîśa, who must have flourished about 1060 and Bu-ston, who was born in 1288. Grünwedel says that the latter is credited with the compilations of the Kanjur and Tanjur, but Rockhill (_Life of the Buddha_, p. 227) describes Bu-ston as a disciple of Atîśa.]

[Footnote 1006: See Huth, _Geschichte des Budd. in der Mongolei_, 291, and Laufer, "Skizze der Mongolischen Literatur" (in _Keleti Szemle_, 1907), p. 219. Also Pelliot in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 112-3.]

[Footnote 1007: See Laufer in _Bull. de l'Acad. de S. Pétersbourg_, 1909, pp. 567-574. There are some differences in the editions. That of Narthang is said to contain a series of sûtras translated from the Pali and wanting in the Red Edition, but not to contain two translations from Chinese which are found in the Red Edition. See the preface to Beckh's catalogue. The MS. analyzed by him was obtained at Peking, but it is not known whence it came. An edition by Ch'ien Lung is mentioned by some authors. It is also said that an edition is printed at Punakha in Bhutan, and another in Mongolian at Kumbum.]

[Footnote 1008: Some of these are probably included in the Tanjur, which has not been fully catalogued. See _J.A.S. Beng_. 1904, for a list of 85 printed books bought in Lhasa, 1902, and Waddell's article in _Asiatic Quarterly_, July, 1912, already referred to.]

[Footnote 1009: Edited and translated by Huth as _Geschichte des Buddhismus in der Mongolei_, 1892.]

[Footnote 1010: Finno Ugrian Society of Helsingfors, 1898.]

[Footnote 1011: Same Society, 1900 and 1902, and _J.A.S.B._ 1906-7.]