Complementarity and opposition in early Tibetan ritual.

• Author: Dotson, Brandon
• Position: Report

The Bon religion of Tibet is sometimes referred to as a form of heterodox Buddhism, or as the "fifth sect" of Tibetan Buddhism. As an institutionalized religious sect, it has its origins in the tenth and eleventh centuries. (1) In its outward appearance, its beliefs, rituals, and iconography, Bon, to an outside observer, differs little from Tibetan Buddhism. One of the most visible differences in this respect, and one that has been noted many times before, is that whereas Buddhists circumambulate sacred sites in a clockwise direction, the Bon-po do so in a counterclockwise fashion. Perhaps the greatest difference between Bon and Buddhism lies in their competing approaches to Tibetan history. (2) The issue at stake in this contest is the Bon religion's claim to antiquity, and, by extension, primacy of place in Tibet's religious landscape. Bon-po historiographers claim that the Bon religion was more or less fully formed when Buddhism took root in Tibet. Further underlining their aspirations to antiquity, the Bon-po claim the Buddha Sakyamuni as a Bon-po teacher within the lineage of the founder of Bon, Gshen-rab Mi-bo. Although Buddhist historiographers, arguing from the vantage point of reigning orthodoxy, generally concede that Bon is a "pre-Buddhist" religion, they customarily assert that Bon developed in phases, and that the modern Bon sect took form through plagiarism and mimicry of Buddhism. Reciprocally, Bon historiography lays the same charge at the door of the Buddhists. (3)

Modern scholars have tended to follow the Buddhists' lead in this argument by focusing mainly on the legitimacy of Bon-po claims to antiquity. Most have fallen victim to unexamined assumptions about "pre-Buddhist Bon," "the royal Bon religion," or even "pre-Buddhist Bon shamanism." In this way they create a sort of catch-all category for all "pre Buddhist," non-Buddhist, and by implication anti-Buddhist, Tibetan ritual practices, and tend to associate these with the cult of divine kingship prior to and during the period of the Tibetan Empire (c. 600-c. 850). (4) Those who have studied Old Tibetan ritual texts among the Dunhuang manuscripts, in particular R. A. Stein and Samten Karmay, indeed uncover a good deal of continuity between Old Tibetan ritual practices and later Bon ritual practices. (5) These Old Tibetan ritual practices are generally carried out by ritual specialists referred to as bon, bon-po, and gshen. As a result we have a curious situation whereby early Tibetan ritual specialists, bon-po, are referred to by the same term as adherents of the later systematized Bon religion. (6) This has perhaps exacerbated the insidious tendency to construct "pre-Buddhist Bon" as a hazy foil against which the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet is set. This category gained a semblance of nuance, however, when the French Tibetologist Marcelle Lalou argued that a plurality existed in early Tibet's ritual landscape whereby one class of ritual specialists, the bon, opposed another, the gshen.

In a pioneering article Lalou translated the Dunhuang document PT 1285, in which the bon are repeatedly glorified at the expense of the gshen, who fail in their healing remedies where the bon succeed (7) Other scholars took up this claim regarding the opposition between bon and gshen in their own work. In particular. R. A. Stein also examined the opposition between gshen and bon on numerous occasions in his own treatment of PT 1285 and other Dunhuang ritual texts. (8) While Stein revealed some further dynamics of the relationship between these two types of ritual specialists, pointing out, for example, that their ritual technologies overlapped and that they often worked in tandem, his most influential writings reified the model of simple opposition. (9) In my rereading of this document, I argue that the model of opposition between bon and gshen is based on a false dichotomy, and that these two classes of priests were identical, or nearly identical, ritual specialists involved mostly in healing, divination, and funerary rites. They belonged to a single ritual complex in which bon and gshen were interchangeable. Further, in my reading of PT 1285 I have uncovered a hitherto unnoticed feature of the text: it contains two specific types of liturgies. The first, which is described here as a "narrative" liturgy, constitutes the majority of the text, while the second type, referred to here as a "catalogue of healing antecedents," represents a minor, but significant part of the text. The most intriguing aspect of this revelation is that while the recited oral journey in the narrative liturgy moves upstream along the Gtsang-po River (Brahmaputra) from east to west, the "catalogues of healing antecedents" move in the opposite direction. I consider the significance of this divergence, first as possible evidence in support of Lalou and Stein's mode of bon I gshen opposition, and then, after dismissing this, I suggest that this directional opposition represents two different types of practices within a single ritual complex. In this way I argue that the model of opposition between bon and gshen as two distinct classes of ritual specialists must be replaced by a model of complementarity according to which these two interchangeable, and perhaps identical, classes of priests deployed diverging but complementary ritual technologies within a single tradition.

THE ROLES OF BON AND GSHEN IN EARLY TIBETAN RITUAL

The ritual jurisdiction of ban and gshen has been mapped out through analyses and translations of numerous Dunhuang ritual texts. (10) In all known cases the bon and gshen are ritual specialists involved mainly in healing rites and funeral rites, and their ritual functions overlap a great deal. In the Old Tibetan document under consideration, PT 1285, bon and gshen are deployed as healers to either gods or kings in legendary episodes that serve as ritual antecedents in a healing liturgy. In this context the bon and gshen healers employ the same ritual technologies: they perform mo and phya divinations (mo btab phya klags). These are similar types of prognoses regarding an individual's future. (11)

Elsewhere a bon-po, Ltam-bon Dmus-long, performs gto and dpyad rites. (12) A word on these two terms: Karmay explains that the gto consists of two parts, a narrative followed by a rite. The narrative recounts the mythical antecedents of the rite and thus guarantees its effectiveness. (13) This is, of course, a fundamental principle in Tibetan ritual, and is not unique to gto rituals. As a ritual category, the term "gto rituals" in fact covers a wide range of Tibetan ritual practices, and is something of an umbrella category. (14) The term dpyad, which often appears together with gto, indicates diagnosis, and is often used in a medical context. (15) This is, of course, perfectly consonant with the Old Tibetan healing liturgies in which the term appears. Considering gto rituals and diagnoses (dpyad) together, Karmay asserts that the former is "probably quite effective at least on the psychological side whereas the dpyad deals purely with the physical side of the patient." (16)

Other Old Tibetan documents reveal that gto and dpyad rituals were not peculiar to bon, but were performed by gshen as well. In fact, one funerary document analyzed by Stein, PT 1068. includes an episode where "Father (Pha) Gshen-rab Mi-bo" arrives with two gshen for a woman's funeral. Here Gshen-rab states that the bon will perform the gto rite and the gshen will perform the dpyad. (17) Coming from the lips of a central, recurring figure in Old Tibetan ritual literature, and indeed one who would be recognized (or reimagined) as the founder of the Bon religion in the tenth and eleventh centuries, there could hardly be a clearer archetype for ritual cooperation and complementarity. Another funerary document, PT 1042. has bon and gshen working side by side at a funeral. (18) In the funerary context the bon and gshen also perform the funeral and burial rites known as shid, rmang, and mdad. (19)

As noted by Stein, another Old Tibetan ritual text, ITJ 734, names various types of bon-po--lha-bon, g.yang-bon, and phya-bon--who perform rites such as calling in good fortune / life essence (g.yang du glan) (ITJ 734, 2 recto, I. 61; 3 recto, I. 88) and, above all, ransom rites (glud), which are the theme of the text (see infra). (20) They are also involved in creating soul-houses (rla-khyim, rla-gang). soul-strongholds (rla [rlan]-mkhar), and soul-paths (ral-lam) for the soul (sku-rla) of the deceased (ITJ 734, 2 recto, 11. 68-71; 3 recto. II. 104-5). In addition, they perform lesser-known rites involving various strings and cords, such as the dmu-dag, lha-dag, and gsas-dag (ITJ 734, 6 recto, 1. 224).

In summary, bon [po] and gshen were ritual specialists operating during the period of the Tibetan Empire (c. 600-c. 850). They were important figures in Tibetan society, and performed divination (mo, phya), gto rituals, diagnoses (dpyad), ransom rites (glad), funeral rites (skid, rmang, mdad), and other rites, mainly in the context of healing rituals and funeral rites. Having briefly described the ritual functions of bon [po] and gshen and demonstrated their important role in Tibetan society during the imperial period, I will now discuss in greater detail the relationship between these two types of ritual specialists, as it appears in PT 1285.

THE OLD TIBETAN HEALING LITURGIES OF PT 1285

Here we are concerned mainly with healing rites. Best exemplified by ITJ 734 and PT 1285, these texts are written liturgies meant to be performed by the healer and differing depending on the source of the malady and the nature of the patient (e.g, human or divine). The liturgy proceeds by citing a ritual antecedent for the patient's illness and recovery. There are two distinct types of liturgies found in PT 1285, which I have designated as "narrative liturgies" and "catalogues of healing antecedents." We shall see...