the spirit of the mountain: myth and state in pre-buddhist tibet

The Spirit of the Mountain: Myth and State in Pre-Buddhist TibetAuthor(s): J. Russell KirklandReviewed work(s):Source: History of Religions, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Feb., 1982), pp. 257-271Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062161 .Accessed: 07/06/2012 14:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historyof Religions.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062161?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

J. Russell Kirkland T H E S P I R I T OF THE MOUNTAIN: MYTH AND STATE IN PRE-BUDDHIST TIBET

The interrelations of religious traditions with secular power are of almost infinite variety. While many patterns have already been inves- tigated, others remain unexamined for a lack of fundamental historical research. Such is especially the case with lands such as Tibet, the history and institutions of which remain largely the domain of a handful of specialists.

The "theocracy" of the Tibetan Buddhist church (once widely known as "Lamaism") is fairly well known today, thanks to the descriptions of nineteenth- and twentieth-century travelers and dip- lomats as well as to contemporary scholars. What is not widely known is that prior to the introduction of Buddhism in the eighth century C.E., Tibet was the center of a mighty Asian empire. The claim to sovereignty of the Tibetan emperors was fortified by a claim of descent from heavenly deities. As with similar conceptions in pre- Buddhist Japan and Korea, the origins and dynamics of such claims have just begun to be examined.'

I wish to thank Professor Emeritus Helmut Hoffmann of Indiana University for his critical examination of earlier versions of this paper.

I am currently preparing studies of the ancestral myths of the early rulers of both Japan and Korea. Among existing studies, see Matsumae Takeshi, "The Origin and Growth of the Worship of Amaterasu," Asian Folklore Studies 37 (1978): 1-11.

?1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0018-2710/82/2103-0004$01.00

Myth and State in Pre-Buddhist Tibet

Our sources for ancient Tibetan history and religion are of three sorts. One is the inscriptions of Tibetan rulers of the eighth and ninth centuries. One is the contemporary documents written in Old Tibetan, preserved in caches such as that at Tun-huang on the borders of Chinese Turkestan. The third is the ancient traditions recorded in later texts, compiled after Buddhism had come to dominate all of Tibetan culture.

The inscriptions of the early Tibetan emperors exalt the throne by proclaiming the rulers to be descended from a "son of the gods" (lha- sras). The name of that figure is related in a set phrase found in a number of ancient sources, both inscribed and literary: "'O-lde spu- rgyal came from the gods of heaven to be the lord of men."2 Beyond that phrase, little is recorded concerning this 'O-lde spu-rgyal. A reference in one ninth-century inscription is slightly fuller: "The divine miraculous emperor 'O-lde spu-rgyal, from the time when this country came into being and the land emerged, was the great ruler of Tibet [Bod]. From being a god in heaven he came to be a ruler of men in a high country and a pure land, the center of snowy mountains and the source of great rivers."3 There is confirma- tion from medieval Chinese historical texts that the ancestor of the Tibetan emperors was known as 'O-lde spu-rgyal.4 Consequently, it would appear that the facts are quite straightforward and that only their significance remains to be elucidated.

Such, however, is not at all the case. For in some ancient sources and many later works the mythical first king is named not 'O-lde spu- rgyal, but rather gNya'-k'ri btsan-po. Moreover, the accounts of his advent leave considerable doubt as to any heavenly origin.

The story of the first king in most of the later Tibetan chronicles is as follows. An exiled Indian prince was passing through the Himalayas and at length arrived at a sacred peak known as Rol-pa'i-rtse. From that vantage point he surveyed his surroundings. Observing the

2 This phrase appears in the following materials: (1) the tomb inscription of K'ri-lde srong-btsan (Sad-na-legs, reigned 799-815) (see G. Tucci, Tombs of the Tibetan Kings [Rome, 1950], pp. 36-37); (2) a series of ancient prayers (see F. W. Thomas, Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents concerning Chinese Turkestan [London, 1951], 2:99, 108); and (3) rGyal-po bka'i t'ang-yig, a section of bKa'-t'ang sde-lnga, the fourteenth- century life of Padmasambhava which contains much material from the eighth and ninth centuries (see H. Hoffman, Quellen zur Geschichte der Tibetischen Bon-Religion [Wiesbaden, 1950], p. 245). Cf. G. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls (Rome, 1949), 3:732.

3 The inscription of K'ri-gtsug lde-brtsan (Ral-pa-can, reigned 815-38) (translated in H. Richardson, Ancient Historical Edicts at Lhasa [London, 1952] p. 61, somewhat modified). Cf. Li Fang-kuei, "The Inscription of the Sino-Tibetan Treaty of 821-22," T'oung Pao, n.s. 44 (1956): 62-63.

4 Chinese Hu-t'i-p'o-hsi-yeh, ancient pronunication juat-d'iei-b'uat-siak-io (see Hsin

T'ang-shu [Peking, 1975], 19:6071).

258

History of Religions

beautiful Yarlung (Yar-klungs) valley with its soaring glacial mountain Yar-lha sham-po, he decided to proceed there. Arriving in that valley, he met twelve men, variously described as shepherds, hunters, Bon-po priests, or merely twelve individuals who happened to be worshiping the spirits of that place. The men inquired of him whence he had come. Since he could not speak their language, he pointed silently upward, toward the peak of the mountain from which he had just descended. Thinking that he was pointing to the sky, the twelve men took him to be a son of the gods, sent down from heaven. Raising him onto their necks (gNya), they hailed him as their king, calling him gNya'-k'ri btsan-po, the "Neck-Enthroned Emperor."5

According to this version, the first king had not in reality descended from heaven: he was merely a prince from India who, through misunderstanding, was taken to be a son of the gods. It is generally accepted that this version was concocted by Buddhist writers to "de- fuse" the earlier tradition that the pagan king had actually descended from the gods of heaven.6 Yet gNya'-k'ri btsan-po does appear as the name of the first king in some demonstrably ancient texts and inscriptions.7

This fact raises a serious question. Why is the mythical first king, from whom the later Tibetan emperors claimed descent, referred to by different names in different texts? It is the purpose of this study to ascertain the answer to that question and to elucidate the significance of the discrepancy. In order to achieve those aims, it is necessary to delve somewhat into the earliest history of Tibet, known to us through a number of traditions in which scraps of history, legend, and myth are loosely intertwined.

Chinese records reveal that the people known to us as Tibetans (Tib. Bod) occupied a broad area of eastern and northern Tibet from at least the second century C.E.8 It is only from the seventh century,

5 Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, pp. 731 ff.; Hoffmann, pp. 146 ff., and references. For a detailed analysis of this set of myths, see E. Haarh, The Yar-luh Dynasty (Copenhagen, 1969), pp. 168-212. According to the Buddhist versions, gNya'-k'ri was a scion of Gautama's princely line, while the Bon-po affiliated him to an earlier royal line from the Mahabhdrata.

See, e.g., G. Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, trans. G. Samuel (Berkeley, 1980), p. 223.

7See J. Bacot and C. Toussaint, Documents de Touen-Houang relatifs a l'histoire du 7Tbet (Paris, 1946), p. 81/85 f. hereafter cited as THD; H. Richardson, "The rKong-po Inscription," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1972), pp. 30-39, esp. p. 34. 8 For this and what follows, see the following: H. Hoffmann, Tibet: A Handbook (Bloomington, Ind., 1975), pp. 39 ff.; D. Snellgrove and H. Richardson, A Cultural History of Tibet (New York, 1968), pp. 21 ff.; L. Petech, A Study on the Chronicles of Ladakh (Calcutta, 1939), pp. 30-38; and C. Beckwith, "A Study of the Early Medieval Chinese, Latin, and Tibetan Historical Sources on Pre-Imperial Tibet" (Ph.D. diss. Indiana University, 1977), esp. pp. 61, 259.

259


however, that we possess clear historical evidence of their activities. At that time, all of western Tibet appears to have been ruled by a non-Bod kingdom known as Zhang-zhung. The Bod must have adjoined Zhang-zhung in central Tibet (gTsang-Bod).

Around the turn of the seventh century, a petty chieftain named sLon-mts'an arose in the Yarlung valley and formed an alliance with several other chieftains. After he had led them in subjugating several vassals of Zhang-zhung in central Tibet, sLon-mts'an's followers acknowledged him as their supreme leader. He soon went on to unify most of east and central Tibet.

As his power waxed greater, the lords of the land-his vassals-

proclaimed sLon-mts'an and his younger brother to be gods (lha). In

addition, they gave him a new name: "His government being loftier than the heavens (gNam), his sacred helmet being firmer than the mountains (ri), they made his name gNam-ri slon-mts'an."9 As the

kingdom of this man was known as sPu, he came to be known by the title of sPu-rgyal, "the king of sPu."

In 608-9 sLon-mts'an sent two embassies to the Sui court in China, the first such historical contact.'1 It was his son, Srong-btsan sgam- po, who moved the capital from Yarlung to Ra-sa ("the walled city," later known as Lha-sa, "the city of the gods"). In addition, this ruler

finally conquered the great rival kingdom of Zhang-zhung and established an empire strong enough to cause serious concern for the

powerful rulers of early T'ang China. Historically, then, gNam-ri slon-mts'an was the first king of Tibet.

Be that as it may, tradition records some thirty-one rulers before him. Of course, most of those figures are pure fabrications, comprising an idealized sequence of twenty-seven (3 X 9) sovereigns. But it is now

generally accepted that the last four were actual historical figures, though certainly not emperors of all Tibet. They were most likely local chiefs in the Yarlung valley and the ancestors of the later historical emperors. It is reported that in one tradition the first of those historical rulers, T'o-t'o-ri by name, descended from heaven on to Yar-lha sham-po, the sacred mountain of Yarlung."L So highly was this ancestor regarded that he was apotheosized, being known in most later sources as Lha-t'o-t'o-ri, "the divine T'o-t'o-ri."'2

9 Old Tibetan Chronicle (Pelliot MS 1287, old no. 250), translated in Beckwith, p. 207, transcription modified. The same text is given in THD, pp. 105 f./ 136 ff. For the sacred helmet, see G. Tucci, "The Sacred Character of the Kings of Ancient Tibet," East and West 6 (1955): 177-205, quote on 200.

10 See Beckwith, p. 221. 1 Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, p. 728. The name is given there as gNya-t'o-t'o-ri.

Haarh provides a list of variants (p. 50). 12 This position is based upon the assumption that the name To-t'u-tu recorded in

the Hsin T'ang-shu represents the actual name of this chief and that the element Lha

260


This tradition, which I shall call the Yarlung genealogy, seems to shed little light upon the myth of the first king. Fortunately, there is another, more well-known tradition regarding the earliest rulers, preserved in both Buddhist and Bon-po sources. According to this tradition, gNya'-k'ri btsan-po was followed by six divine sovereigns who never died but instead reascended to heaven. The seventh, however, inadvertently lost his connection to heaven and died upon the earth. He was named Dri-gum btsan-po.

Recent scholarship has established that Dri-gum btsan-po was likely a historical personage, probably living around the fifth century C.E. While there is some confusion regarding the location of his kingdom, it is generally agreed that it was not in the area of Yarlung. It has traditionally been assumed that Dri-gum flourished near Gyantse (rGyal-rtse) in south-central Tibet.'3 It seems to me, however, that Sir Hugh Richardson has all but proven that Dri-gum was in fact active in the region around Kong-po (rKong-po), to the north- east. 14

According to two ancient texts, Dri-gum had two sons, Nya-k'yi (the elder) and Sha-k'yi (the younger).'5 When Dri-gum died, the sons buried him on Mt. Gyang-t'o in Kong-po. Sha-k'yi then proceeded to Yarlung, becoming the "divine emperor" (lha btsan-po).'6 The brother who remained in Kong-po, Nya-k'yi, is then said to have worshiped two spirits. First, he revered an unnamed oread (gNyan-po), the patron spirit (sKu-bla) which he had shared with his brother. Second, he "took for his master" another sKu-bla, the male counterpart of the goddess De-mo. There is some evidence to suggest that the first spirit may have been that of the Kong-po holy mountain 'O-lde gung-rgyal. The second spirit, according to a plausible suggestion, may have been

was originally a title, not part of the name. Cf. Petech, pp. 33-34; R. A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, trans. J. E. S. Driver (Stanford, Calif., 1972), p. 51. In the "Genealogy" from Tun-huang (THD, p. 82/88), the name is given as Lha-t'o-do. The final element ri would seem to be the same word for "mountain" as the final element in the name gNam-ri.

13 Tucci, Religions of Tibet, p. 223; Hoffmann, p. 102. 14 Richardson, "The rKong-po Inscription," pp. 37-38. Dri-gum reportedly lost his

life in a duel in a land called Myang, the location of which was not clearly specified. A relatively late tradition identifies it with the Nyang valley in gTsang, but Richardson argues persuasively for an identification with Myang-yul, just to the north of Kong-po. Richardson cites also a report "that Bon-po tradition places the duel ... firmly in the Myang valley near rKong-po. 5 In the Old Tibetan Chronicle, Nya-k'yi was the younger and Sha-k'yi the elder. I follow the Kong-po inscription, assuming the other version to have been altered by imperial genealogists in the effort to assert the supremacy of Yarlung over Kong-po.

THD, p. 98/126f. and the Kong-po inscription (n. 7 above). Cf. Snellgrove and Richardson, p. 25. According to some accounts, Nya-k'yi proceeded from Yarlung to Kong-po. I again follow what would seem to be the earlier version.

261

262 Myth and State in Pre-Buddhist Tibet

the spirit of Mt. Gyang-t'o itself.17 After Dri-gum's demise and Sha- k'yi's departure, Nya-k'yi reigned in Kong-po as an autonomous chieftain, the Kong dKar-po or "white one." Meanwhile, we hear nothing further in this tradition of the brother who left for Yarlung.

This story may be referred to as the Kong-po genealogy. The question is, How does it relate to the Yarlung genealogy discussed above? It has been suggested that after the reign of Srong-btsan sgam-po the genealogists of the imperial court incorporated into their lineage the ancestral traditions of families allied by marriage to the throne. Among those traditions would have been the Kong-po genealogy as well as a separate cycle concerning Dri-gum btsan-po.18

Such a suggestion would seem to make some sense if the genealogy of the imperial court were actually a unified scheme, incorporating the ancestors of allied clans in peripheral roles while maintaining the supremacy of the "true" Yarlung lineage. Precisely such a scheme was in fact worked out in the early Japanese court at Yamato during approximately the same period.'9

But the imperial genealogy of Tibet is nothing of the sort. As we have seen, the imperial tomb inscriptions speak of descent from '0- lde spu-rgyal, the "son of the gods." But no mention is made there of

17 This identification of De-mo's associate was offerred by Ariane MacDonald in "Une lecture des Pelliot Tib6tain 1286, 1287, 1038, 1047, et 1290," in Etudes Tibetaines dediees a la memoire de Marcelle Lalou (Paris, 1971), pp. 299-301. De-mo, MacDonald notes, is probably to be identified with rKong-bcun de-mo, another sacred mountain of Kong-po. The relationship between De-mo and the male spirit in question is uncertain: Richardson sees the latter as De-mo's "consort," while MacDonald views De-mo as the sister of the gNyan-po in the previous line. Neither scholar attempts a further identification of that first sKu-bla. gNyan were chthonic sprites who often inhabited mountains. 'O-lde gung-rgyal was perhaps the best-known sacred mountain of Kong- po and is mentioned elsewhere alongside rKong-bcun de-mo (see MacDonald, p. 299). An association of Nya-k'yi and Sha-k'yi with the spirit of that mountain is obliquely indicated in several ways. First, in THD (pp. 97-99/124-27), the brothers and their mother consort with a female water spirit (kLu) named 'O-de ring-mo. Richardson suggests a connection between that spirit and 'O-lde gung-rgyal ("The rKong-po Inscription," p. 37). Second, we read in a number of sources that Dri-gum's son and successor was named sPu-de gung-rgyal, and it is generally assumed that that name is directly related to that of 'O-lde gung-rgyal (see, e.g., R. A. Stein, Les Tribus anciennes des marches Sino-Tibetaines [Paris, 1961], pp. 302, n. 22, and 314, n. 138). According to the fifteenth-century rGyal-rabs Bon, the first mortal ruler (after twenty-seven mythical emperors) was named Lha-c'en 'O-lde (ibid., pp. 57-58, n. 162). Perhaps Dri- gum is here confounded with his son and thereby with the sacred mountain spirit '0- lde gung-rgyal. Sources from the sixteenth century and later say that it was a third son of Dri-gum, Bya-k'yi by name, who took the name sPu-de gung-rgyal (Petech, pp. 23-24; Hoffmann, pp. 313, 316, and 325). But such a third son appears in neither THD nor the Kong-po inscription. In the rGyal-po bka'i-t'ang-yig, Bya-k'yi appears as the lord of Kong-po, but it still seems to be Sha-k'yi who assumes the title sPu-de gung-rgyal (Haarh, p. 143). 18 Tucci, Religions of Tibet, pp. 226-27.

19 See J. Russell Kirkland, "The Sun and the Throne: The Origins of the Japanese Royal Descent Myth," in preparation.


Lha-t'o-t'o-ri or any other figure of the "Yarlung genealogy," or for that matter of any other ancestral figure at all (see Appendix). Clearly the early imperial court at Lhasa did not boast any genealogy involving either of the ancestral traditions outlined above. There can thus be little question of the Yarlung genealogy having any legitimate precedence over the Kong-po genealogy. Since neither was adopted as an official imperial genealogy, the preservation of the different traditions in imperial times must have another explanation. Moreover, it is still necessary to explain why both the Yarlung and the Kong-po traditions name gNya'-k'ri btsan-po as the first king, when the imperial inscriptions and Chinese annalists name instead 'O-lde spu- rgyal.

One scholar has proposed that there was a convention in imperial Tibet according to which the rulers themselves, in their inscriptions, referred to their ancestor in his aspect as the deity of the ancestral mountain 'O-lde gung-rgyal (supposedly = 'O-lde spu-rgyal). Mean- while, it is suggested, the imperial chroniclers were expected to employ the name given the divine ancestor by his first subjects, gNya'-k'ri.20

Yet the name 'O-lde spu-rgyal does in fact appear in one written document from Tun-huang, apparently exploding the notion of such a convention.21 Moreover, the hypothesis of the two-name convention implicitly accepts the Buddhist story of gNya'-k'ri btsan-po as an authentic tradition of the imperial age. In actuality, the ancient texts make no mention of gNya'-k'ri receiving his name from his subjects; in fact, they seem rather to imply that he possessed the name in heaven, before descending to earth. It seems certain that the story of gNya'-k'ri receiving his kingship and name from the men of Yar-lha sham-po represents the attempt of later writers to provide a euhemeristic explanation of the mythical divine king.22 The actual significance of the name must lie elsewhere.

I believe that the divergence of traditions concerning the first king can be better understood by examining the location to which that ruler is said to have come to earth in the different traditions. The inscriptions and other ancient texts which name 'O-lde spu-rgyal as

20 Richardson, Ancient Historical Edicts, p. 49.

21 See above, n. 7. 22 T. V. Wylie asserts without explanation that the Buddhist genealogists assigned

the name 'O-lde to the king who came from India, then combined sPu-rgyal with the Bon (sic) name 'O-lde gung-rgyal to invent the later king sPu-lde gung-rgyal (see T. V. Wylie, "'O-lde spu-rgyal and the Introduction of Bon to Tibet," Central Asiatic Journal 8 [1963]: 100-103). All other difficulties aside, Wylie's position appears untenable for the reason that the Old Tibetan Chronicle is pre-Buddhist, and its information is confirmed by the Kong-po inscription.

263


the first king never specify a particular point at which he first alighted upon the earth. Later texts give a variety of locations, as outlined in table 1.

TABLE 1

THE LOCATION OF THE FIRST KING'S DESCENT ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT TIBETAN TEXTS

Date Text (Century) Location Given

1. bKa-t'ang sde-Inga: a) Lha-'dre bka'i t'ang-yig ...... 14th with ma- Byang-dor in Kong-po

terial from 8th to 9th

b) rGyal-po bka'i t'ang-yig ..... (none) 2. Mani bKa'-'bum ............ 12th-13th Rol-pa'i-rtse in Yarlung 3. (Chronicle of) Bu-ston ........ 14th Yol-ba 4. rGyal-rabs gsal-ba'i me-long .... 16th Rol-pa'i-rtse of Yar-lha

sham-po 5. Lha-dwags rgyal-rabs ......... 16th Gyang-mt'o in dbUs 6. (Chronicle of) Sanang Setsen ... 17th Rol-po of Gyang-mt'o 7. (Chronicle of) 5th Dalai Lama .. 17th Gyang-t'o 8. dPag-bsam ljon-bzang ........ 18th Rol-rtse of Yar-lha sham-po

SOURCE.-H. Hoffmann, Quellen zur Geschichte der Tibetischen Bon-Religion (Wiesbaden, 1950).

Now in the attributions given here, we see a clear bifurcation. Several texts place the descent upon Mt. Rol-po or Rol-(pa'i)-rtse, usually localized in Yarlung. Several other texts refer it to Mt.

Gyang-(m)t'o (or Byang-dor), localized in Kong-po or in the central Tibetan province of dbUs. One rather late account attempts to combine the two mountains.

What are we to make of that dichotomy? To begin with, it is

certainly understandable that the descent of the first king should at some point have come to be localized in Yarlung, the seat of the earliest historical emperors. It is still more natural for the peak in

question to have been homologized with the great Yarlung sacred mountain, Yar-lha sham-po. But there is no obvious reason that a mountain in Kong-po or dbUs should appear in the accounts of the first king. And while an association of the first king's descent with a sacred peak in Yarlung might enhance imperial prestige, it is difficult to perceive how the admittedly distant and relatively obscure Mt.

Gyang-t'o could have served any similar function.23 One can in fact readily imagine a prestigious Yarlung identifi-

cation being worked into a mythic tradition concerning the first king. It is much more difficult to perceive how or why a mountain such as

23 Even if it were remembered that Dri-gum was once reported to have been entombed at Gyang-t'o, he was, tradition has it, only the seventh in the line of kings, and his untimely demise would seem to make him a fairly grim memory.

264


Gyang-t'o could have entered the tradition if the original myth had actually centered around a sacred spot in Yarlung.24 These facts prompt one to examine the possibility that the mention of Mt. Gyang-t'o had some hitherto unappreciated significance for the myth of the first king, gNya'-kri btsan-po.

Now as mentioned above, one ninth-century document from Tun- huang contains a reference to 'O-lde spu-rgyal without any mention of his provenance. Yet in another part of the very same text, gNya'- k'ri btsan-po appears instead and is explicitly said to have descended onto "the sacred mountain Gyang-do" (Iha-ri gyang-do). Furthermore, the same information is given in the contemporary Kong-po inscription, in precisely the same words. Since we thus have two ancient sources as well as several later works linking gNya'-k'ri to Gyang-t'o, and no reference to "Rol-pa'i-rtse" (or Yarlung) before the twelfth century, it seems fairly safe to deduce that the earliest form of the myth actually portrayed the first king as descending upon Mt. Gyang- t'o. The other localizations would thus represent tendentious accre- tions to the myth.

What, then, is the significance of the first king's descent onto Mt.

Gyang-t'o? The answer would seem to lie in the localization of that mountain. The localization of Gyang-t'o in Kong-po (rather than in dbUs or elsewhere) is attested in one of our ancient accounts and confirmed by two later works.25 This fact is important for several reasons. First, there is, as seen above, reason to believe that the first actual historical figure in Tibet, Dri-gum btsan-po, was the ruler somewhere in the vicinity of Kong-po. Second, that ruler had a son named Nya-k'yi, who ruled in Kong-po after his younger brother had

gone to become "emperor" in Yarlung. Third, Kong-po is the location of another important sacred mountain, 'O-lde gung-rgyal.

In weighing these data, it must be remembered that religious beliefs in ancient Tibet were remarkably heterogeneous and fluid. Certain ideas, such as the ancestral mountain, were without doubt common to many groups in different areas, though each group would have had a distinctive version of the ubiquitous belief. What is more important, it is known that in Tibet as elsewhere it was possible for a group to carry their sacred mountain with them, so to speak. That is to say, as a people removed from one location to another, they might

24 For a similar situation involving the localization of a legendary biblical event, see J. R. Kirkland, "The Incident at Salem: A Re-examination of Genesis 14:18-20," Studia biblica et theologica 7 (1977): 3-23.

25 See table 1, no. 1, and Hoffmann, n. 2 above, p. 148, citing Pad-ma dkar-po's sixteenth-century History of Buddhism (C'os-'byung) and the gZer-myig, the standard Bon-po biography of gShen-rab mi-bo.

265


reassociate their traditional holy mountain (or lake, etc.) with one in their new territory, calling it by the same name as the old sacred mountain. And, as different groups crossed through the same territory, it is simple to see that similar traditions could mix and influence each other.

While these facts serve to complicate the historical puzzle, they can also serve as keys to help unravel it. Integrating them with the data concerning Kong-po, one can begin to construct a model of how the various royal genealogical traditions may have taken form.

Let us say that far back in the fourth or fifth century C.E. a group of Bod inhabiting part of the Kong-po region venerated a sacred mountain called 'O-lde gung-rgyal. In time, the sacredness of the mountain came to take on a personalized form, the resulting spirit becoming revered both as the deity of the mountain and as the ancestor of the group. Later, perhaps in the sixth century, this group suffered defeat at the hands of another and was dispersed, with one leading clan (or group of clans) migrating toward the southwest while another remained ensconced in Kong-po.26

The migrating group, one may postulate, passed into a land which they called sPu, and this name adhered to the new statelet which evolved in the Yarlung area. The rulers of this growing power (referred to by the descriptive title sPu-rgyal, "king of sPu") maintained the old association with the sacred mountain, as evidenced by the word for "mountain," ri, in names such as To-t'o-ri.27 Subse- quently, the name of the traditional divine ancestor/mountain spirit from Kong-po, 'O-lde gung-rgyal, was influenced by the new kings' title of sPu-rgyal, and became transformed into 'O-lde spu-rgyal. This was the state of affairs at the turn of the seventh century, when the founder of a new confederation (still called sPu) was divinized and given the name of "Heavenly Mountain" (gNam-ri). Gradually, the sacred mountain of the Yarlung kings came to be reidentified with the local mountain, Yar-lha sham-po.

Meanwhile, in Kong-po, the reverence of the mountain-ancestor took a different turn. After Dri-gum's burial and Sha-k'yi's departure,

26 The defeat by another group would have been the basis for the story of Dri-gum's defeat and death at the hands of Lo-ngam (cf. Richardson and Snellgrove, p. 25; Haarh, pp. 110, 329).

27 Chinese histories of the early Tang dynasty report that the land of Fu (established by Beckwith as identical with sPu) had a king (wang): Pei-shih (Peking, 1974), 10:3193 = Sui-shu (Peking, 1973), 5:1858. The context suggests that that position might reflect the line of chieftains preceding gNam-ri slon-mts'an, especially since Srong-btsan sgam- po was already referred to as bTsan-po (Chin. tsan-p'u), which in Tibetan means "emperor" (Beckwith, pp. 120-21). The rulers of Yarlung may have used the title sPu- rgyal for generations, and the word rgyal would translate into Chinese as wang.

266


Nya-k'yi came down from Gyang-t'o as the first leader of a new regime in Kong-po. As the records indicate, he maintained the cult of the mountain spirit which he had shared with his brother (and presumably with his forebears as well). But it would seem that he also reshaped that cult. According to my interpretation, Nya-k'yi began by turning his attention away from 'O-lde gung-rgyal and toward Lha-ri gyang-t'o, where he had inherited the sacred kingship from Dri- gum. In addition, in descending from the mountain to rule his people, Nya-k'yi brought the ancestral divinity down with him. That is to say, the divinity of the ancestral mountain was no longer embodied in the mountain itself but rather in the person of the new king. Nya-k'yi assumed the kingship with its ancestral divinity and brought it down from above, into the world of men. His successors thus saw the source of their divine rule in him, Nya-k'yi, instead of in the old mountain spirit, 'O-lde gung-rgyal. Gradually the figure of Nya-k'yi developed from that of a mere historical ancestor into that of a heavenly being, who, at the beginning of time, descended upon the holy mountain to rule the world of men.

Eventually, in the early seventh century, the Yarlung kingdom of sPu extended its sovereignty over all of eastern Tibet, including the statelet in Kong-po ruled by a collateral line. With this unification, the ancestral traditions of the two related states began to intermingle, although they were never fully harmonized.28 Sometime during the course of the imperial period, the primal ancestor in the Kong-po tradition came to be accepted as the general ancestor of the Tibetan rulers alongside the more primitive Yarlung version, 'O-lde spu-rgyal.

28 Cf. MacDonald, pp. 331-36. It is conceivable that myths and legends of other groups concerning their own descent could have mingled with those of the Kong-po and/or Yarlung lines at this time. But I can suggest only one concrete example of possible admixture at such an early date. The famous dMu-cord connecting the first seven mythical rulers to heaven is attested in no ancient source. (It does appear in the rGyal-po bka'i-t'ang-yig which contains some early material, but even there it does not appear in the account of the first king [Hoffmann, pp. 245-46].) Our earliest reference to the first king descending by such a cord would seem to be that in the Chronicle of Bu-ston (fourteenth century). That fact might be insignificant were it not for the fact that it is in Bu-ston that that the otherwise unknown Mt. Yolba appears as the site of the first king's descent. It is conceivable that those elements reflect the distinct ancestral myth of another early group. Yet even if such were the case, that extraneous myth would seem to have entered the tradition after the fall of the empire, much later than the period under discussion here. One foreign belief which certainly entered the tradition at an early date was that concerning the cosmic mountain Ri-rab lhun-po (see THD, p. 81/85 f.). Hoffmann has suggested that this concept came to Tibet from India via Zhang-zhung. The Zhang-zhung name for Ri-rab was ri-rang (ri = "glacier," rang = "mountain"), which is analogous to the epithet "ice mountain" applied to Mt. Meru in India. That position is certainly feasible, but no detailed study has yet been done on the subject.

267


By this time, his name had been modified from Nya-k'yi to (g)Nya(')- k'ri, and he was honored with the title of "emperor," btsan-po.29 Gradually gNya'-k'ri btsan-po became associated with Yar-lha sham- po in Yarlung, although his original association with Gyang-t'o endured to compete with the new identification until long after the fall of the empire.30

Such is the process by which the imperial Tibetan ancestral traditions may have developed. Analysis of those traditions affords insights into several areas of phenomenological interest. First, it provides data for examining the development of an isolated popular tradition which interweaves natural religious sentiment with a focus of common group identity. The original Kong-po tradition shows a mountain cult specifically adapted to respond to a group's need for externalized symbols of its shared ancestry and hence of its common identity. The mountain was first of all the focus of the land, of the territory which belongs to "us," embodying the homeland in a visible and concrete manner. Second, by the identification of the group's common ancestor with the spirit of the mountain, the mountain's presence served to recall the temporal "roots" of the group as well as to inspire a sense of solidity and endurance within the common fellowship. Descent from the common ancestor and proximity to the sacred mountain consequently worked together to provide the sense of common identity which permitted effective group action. The mountain cult and the ancestral tradition provided a combined affective conduit for trans- lating spatial, temporal, and consanguinary data into a profound social reality. An understanding of such a model can aid in the

appreciation of religion as not just one element within human life but a holistic force uniting the omnifarious data of existence into an integrated, meaningful reality.31

29 It is possible that k'yi ("dog") was deliberately changed to k'ri ("throne") in the effort to enhance the overtones of sovereignty. Haarh, however, argues that the "interchange of -r- and -y- . . . is most certainly based on the similarity of -r- and -y- in the cursive writing" (p. 440, n. 60). Elsewhere (p. 159) he postulates that the earliest form of the first ancestor's name was Nya-k'ri ("fish-throne') not gNya'-k'ri ("neck- throne").

30 Yar-lha sham-po would likely have entered the picture only after the transfer of the court to Lhasa, for only then would it have appeared as a link to the past, to the half-remembered origins of the state. Although the outlines and most of the details of this reconstruction are entirely my own, a few of the same points were made earlier by Haarh (pp. 152-64) and MacDonald (pp. 226-27). At one point (p. 159) Haarh proposes that the juxtaposition of gNya'-k'ri btsan-po and Nya-k'yi the son of Dri-gum in the Kong-po inscription betrays a Buddhist point of view. I disgree, since there is no trace of Buddhist influence in the Kong-po inscription any more than in THD.

31 It is impossible to determine with certainty whether the ancestry in the case under consideration was in fact that of the entire group or merely that of a single lineage within the group. If the latter were the focus, the phenomenological interpretation

268


We also have the unusual opportunity to follow the independent development of such an ancestral/religious tradition in two similar but independent settings. Such an opportunity is not unlike that of examining identical twins raised in separate households. In one setting, the old tradition endured with little change, each ruler in turn being perceived as embodying the divine force of his people's ancestral mountain. So strong was that identification that the royal title became integrated into the name of the ancestral spirit itself. But the ancestral figure remained essentially static, never undergoing any mythic elaboration. In the other setting, a striking set of changes began almost immediately. The ancestral spirit who dwelt in the mountain was supplanted by a charismatic leader who substituted another holy mountain while himself assuming the mantle of the divine ancestor. A descriptive account of the new figure's advent began to be developed, an account not paralleled in the first tradition. Hence we can observe the same fundamental tradition undergoing a process of measured politicization in one setting while undergoing a process of dynamic mythicization in another.

Our opportunities do not end there. Not only are we able to analyze the divergent evolution of the twin traditions. We can also examine their reconvergence in a new and unprecedented context. The rulers of one traditional segment established a large and powerful state. Like virtually all rulers, they required legitimizing support of an affective or ideological nature in order to withstand real or potential internal and external challenges. Since the tradition of divine ancestry had already become closely associated with the apotheosized founder of the state, it was a simple extension for each emperor in turn to claim a sacred status based upon descent from the traditional ancestor. The ancestor's aspect of mountain spirit was no longer relevent and soon faded into oblivion. After the new state reincorporated the original homeland, the alternate, mythicized version of the ancestor became known. Chroniclers soon began to compose new accounts of the "first king" based upon the alternate figure. But rather than replace the existing figure, they preserved both figures at once, without explicitly identifying them.

Meanwhile, an entire new era began. The emperors had, almost from the outset, been engaged in a constant power struggle with regional leaders and clan chiefs, who had come to constitute a powerful nobility.32 In the second half of the eighth century, one

would of course be somewhat different. It is my assumption that the holiness of the mountain would have predated the emergence of a distinct ruling line within the society dwelling around it.

32 See Hoffman, Tibet, pp. 40-41; Tucci, Religions of Tibet, pp. 2 ff.

269


percipient emperor invited foreign priests to enter Tibet and establish a new religion. This was the great faith of Buddhism. That emperor and his successors attempted to utilize the institutions of Buddhism to offset the power of the nobility.33

But in spite of that struggle, the notion of the emperors' divine ancestry never wavered. Even the most Buddhist of rulers maintained the tradition of descent from the heavenly first king.34 On this point, therefore, both sides concurred. The pro-Buddhist emperors supported the tradition because it upheld their sacred status. The nobles supported it because it upheld the old traditions against the unrelenting inroads of Buddhism.

It seems unlikely that the tradition underwent any serious modifi- cation at this time. The only perceptible Buddhist influence in the later sources is the transferral of the first king's parentage from heaven to India. Since the motive for that change could only have been to desanctify the emperor, it is most improbable that it could have occurred until the emperors were already very weak. It is in fact likely that the transformation occurred only after the fall of the empire (ninth century) and the so-called second introduction of Buddhism (tenth to eleventh centuries). If such was indeed the case, there would have been no question of a religious or political power struggle but only of a desire to "rehabilitate" the early traditions. By that time, the tradition was no longer a living thing.

The transformation of the ancestral mountain spirit into the mythical first king under imperial tutelage is of more than historical interest. It provides a sophisticated phenomenological model for comparison with other cultures in which traditions of divine ancestry became transformed into political legitimation devices. It is hoped that such models, when thoroughly understood, can provide new insights into the phenomenology of mythology and political legitimation.

APPENDIX THE ANCIENT TIBETAN ANCESTRAL TRADITIONS

A. The Yarlung Genealogy

Twenty-seven mythical rulers Lha-t'o-t'o-ri Three successors (gNam-ri) sLon-mts'an

33The ruler was K'ri-srong lde-brtsan (r. 755-97) see Hoffmann, Tibet, pp. 126 ff.; Tucci, Religions, pp. 1-12).

34 See above and nn. 2-3; cf. Hoffman, p. 44.

270

History of Religions 271

B. The Kong-po Genealogy

gNya'-k'ri btsan-po Six rulers who reascended to heaven Dri-gum btsan-po Nya-k'yi (who became the Kong dKar-po) and Sha-k'yi (who

became emperor in Yarlung)

C. The Imperial Genealogy

'O-lde spu-rgyal An indefinite number of generations (gNam-ri) sLon-mts'an

Indiana University