Published as: “Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and Tongues from Fire: Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History,” contained in: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita 1992), vol. 1, pp. 183-191. Note: This file has been transformed into a unicode font, but the Tibetan letters had to be typed all over again. For this and other reasons, it is recommended that you make reference to the original print version and not to this pre-published draft.
It may be of interest that an alternative translation of the passage about the encounter of Sapan with the Drigung retreatants (at footnotes 6 and 7 below), has meanwhile been done quite differently in Tsepong Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa, One Hundred Thousand Moons, Brill (Leiden 2010), vol. 1, p. 233.
Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and Tongues from Fire
Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History.*
Dan Martin
December 1989
While a small body of literature has grown up around the Buddhist cults of relics in India,[1] very little has been written outside the Tibetan language about the same phenomenon in Tibet,[2] although the brief references in previous ethnographic and travel literature are many. The present considerations will form part of a larger study now in progress. This larger study, provisionally entitled 'Pearls from Bones: Relics, Chortens, Tertons and the Signs of Saintly Death in Tibet', goes into some detail about which items may be considered relics from the viewpoint of Tibetan literary sources. I relied, to begin with, on a limited number of chorten guidebooks (dkar-chags) written by Tibetan authors affiliated with all five major sects, and not on scriptural and commentarial authorities. I believe that these guidebooks are important because they may be expected to reflect with a fair degree of accuracy particular instances of practice, rather than prescriptive or theoretical elaborations. The scriptural and commentarial authorities were found relevant to my study only insofar as they are directly cited by Tibetan authors, as part of the internal Tibetan dialog. In the present paper as well I should not be perceived as engaging in a comparative or theoretical study of relics 'in general', nor in a quest for Indian or other origins. I am more interested to know what Tibetans have said about them. I would first like to summarize some parts of the larger study as background for the specific problems that form the main focus.
Without going into detailed justifications, we may say that, in Tibet, the emphasis of the relic cults was less on the wonder working power of relics and more on the miraculous nature of some of the relics in and of themselves. While this may appear to be a subtle distinction, I believe it has substantial impact, especially on the theoretical concerns that might be brought to the subject by students from other cultures. While relics in Tibet were, and are, conceived as sources of blessings, these blessings are considered more as aids to devotion and spiritual growth than as restorers of bodily health. Testimonials on miraculous cures are not, in any case, in the foreground of Tibetan relic literature as they are in the European Christian literature.[3]
In order to understand how relics may, in themselves, be miracles, it may help if we note how some particular relics fall within an intersection of categories used in Tibetan religious culture. On the one hand there are classifications of relics (not discussed here) and on the other classifications of the 'signs of sainthood'--more specifically, the signs of saintly death. The two sets of classifications have a few items in common.
The most important single text for the signs of sainthood in Tibet is the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba,[4] a Nyingma tantra which will be discussed further on. In this text, the following six signs of saintly death are listed and interpreted:
1. Images (sku).
2. 'Bone' (gdung).
3. Lights in the vicinity of the corpse.
4. Sounds in the vicinity of the corpse.
5. Earth tremors.
6. Atmospheric phenomenon, including rain, storms, hail, wind, mist, fog, rings around the moon and so forth.
The first two items must be understood, as the tantra makes clear, not as ordinary images or bones, but rather as miraculously-produced objects discovered after the cremation of saints. The first item, 'images', may be found formed either in relief on the bones or from other bodily substances (or even stones from the funeral pyre), including the second item. The second item is not 'bone' as such, but a spherical or near-spherical crystalline or resinous-looking concretion usually emerging from bone or hair, although there may be other sources. Apart from exceptional cases, they appear to range in size from about one sixteenth to one quarter of an inch. The most usual word for them is ring-bsrel (although they may be called gdung as well, and these two are often distinguished, as in the tantra), which has also the more general meaning of 'relic'. The specific meaning can only be known by context. On the other hand, the contexts in works by Tibetans rarely leave any room for ambiguity. There is even more ambiguity in the Sanskrit word śarîra. The specific object will be referred to as ring-bsrel throughout this paper.
I have collected many references to these images and ring-bsrel from literature about Tibet and Mongolia and from Tibetan literature as well. It is important to emphasize, especially for those who have not seen them, that while these are considered miraculous occurrences, they are also physical objects which have been widely attested by both believers and skeptics. I emphasize this, because using the word 'miracle' might imply that they should be some ineffable, impalpable phenomenon. The fact is that they hold an important place in the material culture of Tibetan Buddhism. There has not been in Tibet, as there should not be now, any controversy over their status as substantive objects. The controversy in Tibet had more to do with 1) the validity of their means of production (their genuineness); 2) their interpretation or significance after the fact; 3) their justification through scriptural and commentarial authorities.
Before going on to relate the particular controversy that is the main subject of this paper, I would like to point out the importance of this sort of study for those who are more interested in politics than religious studies. It was not a relic controversy, but a quarrel over possession of a relic (an image of Khasarpaṇa found on a backbone of Gtsang-pa Rgya-ras-pa after his cremation) that was the chief symbolic 'bone of contention' between the two sides disputing succession to the head of the 'Brug-pa sect after the death of Kun-mkhyen Padma-dkar-po in 1592. The story of this conflict has already been told by Michael Aris.[5] The relic episode was so important to the 'Brug-pa school in Bhutan that they continue to reenact it ritually every year.
More directly relevant here is a story told in the Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston about events leading up to the civil war known by the name of 'Bri-gung Gling-log which ended in 1290 with a victory for the Sa-skya-pa. I give a provisional translation of this passage, since it is rather difficult.
Generally, as for the origins of the dispute between the Sa-skya and 'Bri-gung, when the 'Bri-gung Dbon Rinpoche Bsod-nams-grags-pa[6] passed away, a group of retreatants (ri-pa) came to Sa-skya on their way to Mount Kailash (Ti-se). Sa Paṇ asked, "When the Rinpoche passed away, did he go to None Higher [Akaniṣṭa], or what signs occurred at his passing?"
One of the retreatants replied, "Whether it was None Higher or not, he didn't go to None Lower. There was a shower of ring-bsrel, and a golden image of Mahâmudrâ a full cubit high occurred."
Sa Paṇ stayed silent.
The next day at the Dharma School, Sa Paṇ blurted, "I have no thanks for your over-assertions. If yesterday's sort of senseless talk had only not come from your mouth, you would have my thanks for that." When they heard this, they felt disagreeable.
When Dbon Rin-chen-dpal was made leader in Gtsang, involved in the feud, he galloped to Sa Paṇ's Dharma School. He watered his horses at Zangs-mo-che. He destroyed a hut to make [tent] supports. Such things did not please the Sa-skya-pa.[7]
Although there are reasons to suspect that this story may be partly or entirely apocryphal (it could be a post facto rationalization), it is necessary to know something about the following controversy before passing judgment. Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta, in his Sdom Gsum Rab-dbye,[8] has the following statements about relics:
"The reasons why ring-bsrel, hearts and tongues,[9] images and so forth emerge from the remains of cremated saints needs to be investigated a little. The ring-bsrel of the three types of saints emerge through the force of their saintly qualities. As receptacles for the merit of embodied beings, these emerge [genuinely] like jewels from a [definite] origin. Some ring-bsrel are made by malicious gdon spirits. Others emerge [naturally] from the four elements.[10] There are, as well, some which are brought into being as faith producing manifestations by deities who delight in the Buddha's teachings. But nowadays the majority of ring-bsrel are deceitfully manufactured. Hence, the distinctions between these types must be examined by the wise [the scholars].
"The emerging of hearts, tongues, images and so forth is not preached in Buddhist scripture. Still, generally speaking, all these things are deceitfully manufactured. Even if they were genuine, there is no scriptural authority or rational method for distinguishing genuine from manufactured, hence the difficulty of establishing whether or not they are positive signs.
"The dawning of several suns, the approximation of windows in space, rainbows at night, lights radiating from a corpse, sudden visions of deities and spirits, the nondeceitful dripping of ring-bsrel from a living person's body. . .Such things the foolish may take for positive signs, but if wise persons saw such things, they would know them to be signs of impediments. While the foolish may be amazed at images crying, walking, dancing, or uttering words; at showers of blood, sounds of donkeys braying beneath the ground, animals speaking human tongues, and so on, if wise persons perceive such things, they know that enemies are invading the country, or that other calamities are headed their way. When people perceive things of this nature, they would do well to consult the wise.
"These are just a few examples of common misinterpretations."
Now, as far as I know, it was only when Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta's arguments were revived in polemical works by Mang-thos Klu-grub-rgya-mtsho and his students in the late 16th century that a representative of the Bka'-brgyud-pa saw fit to make a direct and detailed response. Mkhas-dbang Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje's[11] reply to the argument about relics will be summarized here, with direct translations given in indented quotes.
When Sa Paṇ says that the ring-bsrel of saints emerge through force of their saintly qualities, Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje responds, "True." To the statement on their being produced by malicious spirits, the four elements, or deities, the answer is "Half true." When Sa Paṇ says that most ring-bsrel nowadays are deceitfully manufactured, and that they must be distinguished by the scholars, Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje cries, "Foul!"
"Of course, if the scholars honestly look into the problem, they will know. But even we confused 'fools' can figure it out if we look into it."
According to him, what Sa Paṇ is really doing here is casting aspersions on the many cases of ring-bsrel occurring as signs of the spiritual accomplishments of past Bka'-brgyud-pa masters. What he is really saying here is, 'If these supports of worship occur in my case, they are not to be included.'
"We could just as well argue that the ring-bsrel of Sa Paṇ, even if not deceitfully manufactured, might belong to the other classes of those made by malicious spirits, the four elements, or deities. There have been a few persons who take gangs-thig, pearls, and so forth, wrap them in cloth, place them in a reliquary box, and announce that they are ring-bsrel. These people shouldn't just be scolded, when fists would be appropriate."
On the statements about hearts, tongues and images not being taught in Buddhist scriptures, he responds by citing a biography of Sa Paṇ himself, written by Yar-lung Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan within about a hundred years of his death, listing a large number of ring-bsrel and images which occurred after Sa Paṇ's cremation.[12] An apparent empiricist, he pits the weight of repeated observation against Sa Paṇ's scripture-based rationalism:
"All sorts of divine images, letters, deity insignia and 'increasing bone' ('phel-gdung) composed of small bones, resinous exudations, ashes and stones from the funeral pyres have adhered to the remains of many masters of India and Tibet. Both talk about these as well as the articles themselves have formed objective spheres of the sense organs. . . The 'great intellectuals' have trouble knowing what to make of such things. Sa Paṇ added these misleading verses which make the contrary opinion more obvious and, without any reflection, involved himself in a mass of contradictions. Is he saying about these divine images, 'not preached in Buddhist scriptures', but which have nevertheless been engendered from the remains of our lamas, that they are all deceitfully manufactured? Even if we took such a possibility for a fact, since there is no scriptural authority or rational method to decide one way or another, we could not pretend to make judgements about them. We must count the ways that Body, Speech and Mind receptacles occur as being among the great miracles. Hence, to assert that they are all false is like a deer chasing a mirage; the argument will lead to nothing but exhaustion.
"But, the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba Tantra,[13] which is numbered among the Old Translations, explains how hearts, tongues and images as well as entire heads emerge whole from the cremation fires. This being so, how could he write that they are not taught in Buddhist scripture? And if he didnot accept this tantra as a valid scripture, he should have critically examined it. Anyway, any argument about their positive or negative nature as signs will devolve into an argument about existence and nonexistence, falling into one of the four sets of extreme positions [to be avoided in Buddhist thought]."[14]
Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje goes on to discuss the other miracles mentioned by Sa Paṇ. Going back to the scriptural sources[15] on the crying, walking, dancing and talking images, he finds that those sources are speaking specifically about images of 'worldly' deities.'[16] Consecrated images of transworldly deities may, he argues, perform such actions as part of the Emanation Body deeds of Buddhas, in order to aid and encourage people in their quest for Enlightenment. About the other miraculous occurrences, Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje says that they are, after all is said and done, miracles and as such are naturally difficult to explain even if one does ask the scholars about them.
There are certain historical problems involved in this and another relic controversy contained in Sog-bzlog-pa's reply to 'Bri-gung Dpal-'dzin.[17] Here we find a citation of a statement by Atiśa from the Bka'-gdams Glegs-bam which I have managed to trace to its context.[18] It says, according to Sog-bzlog-pa,
"Deity images occur to those who have mastered the Generation Stage contemplations.
For those of pure conduct, there are rains of flowers.
When Bodhicitta is highly developed, ring-bsrel drip out.
When the letter 'A' occurs, it demonstrates mastery of the true meaning of the inner and outer sensory potentialities (âyatana).
For Nonreturners, a spiraling conch occurs.
In the case of Bodhisattvas who have not abandoned saṃsâra, hearts and tongues occur."
This is a demonstrably important passage, since its causal explanations are often repeated in the later Tibetan relic discussions, even if they sometimes get confused or altered. It would of course be desirable to have a better idea about the history and transmission of the Bka'-gdams Glegs-bam before drawing too many consequences from its evidence.
We must also observe that, although Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje could cite the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba as a scriptural source for images and so forth, it is difficult to be certain that this tantra existed in the time of Sa Paṇ. If it did exist, it may not have been widely available. The Mkha'-'gro Snying-thig, rediscovered by Padma-las-'brel-rtsal (whose questionable dates are 1291-1315) and then publicized by Klong-chen-pa in the first half of the 14th century, has passages on relics parallel to those in the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba. Klong-chen-pa seems to have been equally responsible for publicizing the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba along with the other tantras of the Man-ngag Sde. I could locate no trace of Klong Sde or Man-ngag Sde tantras in the listings of Old Translation Tantras found in the late thirteenth century history by Mkhas-pa Lde'u (which has only become available quite recently).[19] In the Langthang manuscript of the Old Tantra Collection, which I was able to view on microfilm at the National Archives in Kathmandu, the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba and other Man-ngag Sde tantras include copious interlinear annotations attributed to Me-long-rdo-rje, a spiritual predecessor of Klong-chen-pa. But Me-long-rdo-rje died in 1303, still too late. Since we have failed to verify the existence of the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba during or prior to the time of Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta (although we are still looking for evidence), we may well wonder how Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje could fault him for overlooking it.
These historical problems deserve more attention than I am able to give them here, but I would like to conclude by at least summarizing what the argument was (and was not) about. Firstly, there was no argument against the possibility of genuine ring-bsrel occurring, and no argument against their origins in India. We do, in fact, have Indian evidence (even if problematic) for the existence of these objects,[20] and if anyone were to argue in favor of their Tibetan origins, they would then have to argue for their diffusion from Tibet to China, Korea and Japan where their occurrence is well known. Sa Paṇ denies any Indian scriptural authority for hearts, tongues, and images emerging from the remains of saints, and asserts that these are all ("generally speaking") deceitfully manufactured. These particular types of relics do not, in fact, seem to be known outside the wider Tibetan-style Buddhist world. But the main point of controversy lies in the subsequent interpretations. Where the many would want to see positive signs, Sa Paṇ sees rather negative signs (and this argument would be even more central to the polemical passage on relics by 'Bri-gung Dpal-'dzin).
About this last issue it is difficult for us, as it was for Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje, to reach any kind of justifiable conclusion, but the main strength of his argument lies in the verifiable existence of the objects themselves (and regardless of any thoughts about the circumstances of their production). Few people could spend any amount of time around Buddhist Tibetans without coming into contact with one or several of these objects. For images we have the testimony of Professor Snellgrove in his book Himalayan Pilgrimage. At the Sku-tshab-gter-lnga Temple in Nepal he saw,
"a section of the skull of [a] . . . lama with the Tibetan letter 'A' embossed as it were on the bone,for he had meditated so long on this basic vowel-sound
. . .that it had produced its written symbol miraculously inside his skull."[21]
It is not possible for us at present to judge whether the story told in the Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston is true, but it is entirely possible that differences of opinion between the Sa-skya and Bka'-brgyud sects about relics could have exacerbated tensions that lead finally to violent conflict. What does emerge clearly from the polemical exchanges is just that Tibetan thinkers have by no means been unanimous in their views about the significance of relics and signs of saintly death. Charges of fraudulence were exchanged along sectarian lines as footnotes to larger disagreements. The scripture-based rationalist could accept only miracles with explicit sources in scripture, while the religious empiricist could say little more than that these things happen nonetheless. Here I see an interesting parallel to two different attitudes found among contemporary Tibetanists. Some, like Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta, dislike anything they find in Tibetan Buddhism without clear roots in India. They tend to view these apparent 'deviations' sinful, when they pay attention to them at all. Others, like Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje, would allow things to follow their own logic in Tibetan culture, regardless of Indian (or other) roots. I could not presume to know which attitude is better; then as well as now each seems to form part of a cultural process. Perhaps both are useful and even necessary. Still, I think I am not alone in finding myself more and more willing to allow Tibet some miracles of its own.
* Dedicated to my nephew Martin Noffsinger.
[1]See, for example, Nancy Falk, To Gaze on the Sacred Traces (History of Religions vol. 16, no. 4 [May 1977] pp. 281-293) and references given there.
[2]Elizabeth Benard, The Living and the Dead: A Comparison of Buddhist and Christian Relics (The Tibet Journal vol. 13, no. 3 [autumn 1988] pp. 33-48), makes a brave attempt at comparison, but the Tibetan evidence is not presented in a very orderly fashion, gets mixed in with the Indian evidence, and there are a few unwarranted assumptions (as noted in the following note). Still, it is especially recommended both for the evidence it does present, and for the issues it raises. I only think that it suffers from a few of the usual problems that tend to arise when things get compared too soon. See also Jampa Kalsang, Grundsätzliches zur Füllung vom Mc'od Rten, Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 3 (1969) pp. 51-53. There are also quite a few articles based on examining the contents of particular chortens, images and so forth. For examples, see Werner Schulemann, Der Inhalt eines tibetischen Mc'od Rten, Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 3 (1969) pp. 55-76; Robert T. Hatt, A Thirteenth Century Tibetan Reliquary: An Iconographic and Physical Analysis, Artibus Asiae vol. 42 no. 2/3 (autumn 1980) pp. 175-220.
[3]Note how Benard (op. cit., p. 37) obscures this distinction by implying that miraculous cures are as important to Buddhist relic cults as to the Christian.
[4]See Rnying-ma Rgyud-'bum (The Mtshams-brag Manuscript of the Rnying-ma'i Rgyud 'bum [Bhutan National Library,Thimphu 1982] vol. 11, pp. 788-815; A Collection of Treasured Tantras Translated during the Period of the First Propagation of Buddhism in Tibet [Dingo Khyentse Rimpoche, Thimphu 1973-5] vol. 9, pp. 600-624) for this tantra. The contents will be outlined in Martin, 'Pearls'. See also Tulku Thondup, The Origin of Buddhism in Tibet: The Tantric Tradition of the Nyingmapa (Buddhayana, Marion 1984) pp. 184-185, note 163, for the signs of saintly death and p. 30, no. 6, where the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba is listed among the seventeen tantras of the Man-ngag Sde.
[5]Michael Aris, The Admonition of the Thunderbolt Cannon-ball and its Place in the Bhutanese New Year Festival (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies vol. 39 part 3 [1976] pp. 601-635) on pages 611 and 618-619. Thanks are due to Mme. Françoise Pommeret for pointing this out to me.
[6]If the Dbon Rinpoche lived 1199 to 1247, it would not have been possible for anyone to meet Sa Paṇ at Sa-skya following his death since Sa Paṇ went to meet Godan in 1247. It seems possible that his dates have been shifted forward by one twelve-year cycle, in which case he would have lived from 1187 to 1235, and since he served as the second abbot of 'Bri-gung from 1222 to 1234, the emended date is entirely possible. For some Tibetan sources on the Dbon Rinpoche (also known as Sangs-rgyas Dbon), see Elliot Sperling, Some Notes on the Early 'Bri-gung-pa Sgom-pa (Christopher I. Beckwith, ed., Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, The Tibet Society, Bloomington 1987, pp. 33-53) at page 34 and note 15. The Blue Annals by 'Gos Lo-tsâ-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal does in fact say that he was born in 1187 (Blue Annals, translated by George N. Roerich, et al., Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1976, p. 609). It is the history by Che-tshang Sprul-sku IV Bstan-'dzin-padma'i-rgyal-mtshan, born in 1770 (Nges-don Bstan-pa'i Snying-po 'Bri-gung-pa Chen-po'i Gdan-rabs Chos-kyi Byung-tshul Gser-gyi Phreng-ba ,Bir 1977, pp. 157 ff.), which gives the dates 1199-1247, but I believe that the author mistakenly took the birthdate (a Fire Sheep) for the date of death. Although unfortunately incomplete, the 'Bri-gung-pa history by 'Bri-gung Chos-rje Kun-dga'-rin-chen, who lived from 1475 to 1527 (Miscellaneous Writings [Bka'-'bum Thor-bu] of 'Bri-gung Chos-rje Kun-dga'-rin-chen, Leh 1977), says that the Dbon Rinpoche was in his thirty-first year when 'Jig-rten-mgon-po died (in 1217). This places his birthdate in 1187 (a Fire Sheep). The recent 'Bri-gung-pa history by La-dwags Rtogs-sprul Thub-bstan-bstan-pa'i-rgyal-mtshan (Chos-rje 'Bri-gung Gdan-rabs, Rewalsar 1969?, p. 23) agrees with this date. Hence, we provisionally accept the date 1187 for his birth and, if we believe the account of the Che-tshang Sprul-sku which says he died in his forty-ninth year, his date of death must have been 1235.
[7]I must thank Sonam Tenzing (Bloomington) for making corrections in my earlier translation of this passage. The source of the Tibetan citation below is Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag-phreng-ba, Dam-pa'i Chos-kyi 'Khor-lo Bsgyur-ba-rnams-kyi Byung-ba Gsal-bar Byed-pa Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston (Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang 1986) p. 1155-1156.
སྤྱིར་ས་འབྲིའི་རྩོད་གཞི་ཡང་འབྲི་ཁུང་དབོན་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་བསོད་ནམས་གྲགས་པ་གཤེགས་པའི་དུས་ཏི་སེར་འགྲོ་བའི་རི་པ་ཚན་གཅིག་ས་སྐྱར་ཕྱིན། རྗེ་ས་པཎ་གྱིས། རིན་པོ་ཆེ་འོག་མིན་དུ་གཤེགས་སམ་གཤེགས་ལྟས་ཅི་བྱུང་གསུངས་པས་རི་པ་ཅིག་ན་རེ། འོག་མིན་ཅི་ཡིན་སྟེང་མིན་དུ་གཤེགས་མོད། རིང་བསྲེལ་གྱི་ཆར་བབ། ཕྱག་རྒྱ་ཆེན་པོའི་གསེར་སྐུ་ཁྲུ་གང་བྱོན་ཟེར་བས་ཆོས་རྗེ་བ་ཅང་མ་གསུང་། སང་ཉིན་ཆོས་གྲར་ངས་ཁྱེད་འཚོལ་ཁས་དྲག་གི་དྲིན་མེད་དེ་ཁ་སང་གི་ཁ་འཆལ་དེ་འདྲ་ཁ་ནས་མ་འོང་ཙམ་ངའི་དྲིན་ཡིན་གསུང་བ་ཐེལ་པས་ཐོས་པས་ཐུགས་ལ་མ་འཐད། དཔོན་རྡོ་རྗེ་དཔལ་གཙང་གི་དཔོན་བྱེད་དུས་དེའི་ཞེ་ནད་དུ་རྗེ་ས་པཎ་གྱི་ཆོས་གྲྭ་ལ་རྟ་བརྒྱུགས། ཟངས་མོ་ཆེ་ལ་རྟ་ཆུ་བླུད། སྤྱིལ་བུ་བཤིག་ནས་རྒྱ་སྲང་བཅོས། དེ་ལྟ་བུ་ལ་ས་སྐྱ་པ་རྣམས་ཐུགས་ལ་མ་རན།
One may compare three other versions of this text in W. D. Shakabpa, Bod-kyi Srid-don Rgyal-rabs vol. 1, pp. 304-305; Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag-phreng-ba, Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston (International Academy of Indian Culture, N. Delhi 1961), p. 615; Chos-'byung Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston (Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, Delhi 1980) vol. 2, p. 316, line 3 (i.e., folio 158 of section PA). The khyed 'tshol of the above text should be read as khyed-tsho-la (and this is the most significant variant reading).
[8]The translated passage begins on page 318a (line 3) of the Sdom-pa Gsum-gyi Rab-tu Dbye-ba as it is found in the collected works of Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta in the Sa-skya Bka'-'bum (Tôyô Bunko, Tokyo 1969) vol. 5, pp. 297-320. It may also be located in a separate publication of the same work: Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta, Sdom-pa Gsum-gyi Rab-tu Dbye-ba'i Bstan-bcos (n.p. 1971?) pp. 88r-89v.
[9]To hearts and tongues we should add eyes. Thugs-ljags-spyan gsum, 'hearts, tongues, and eyes' are well known to Tibetans as symbols of the Mind, Speech and Body of the Buddha.
[10]This is the 'naturalistic' or 'chemical' explanation for the phenomenon, a possibility that Tibetan writers did not entirely neglect.
[11]Mkhas-dbang Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje (1569-1645) was a 'Brug-pa Bka'-brgyud-pa scholar and poet. His available works show that in general he was, unlike Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta, quite supportive of popular religious practices, including the cults of relics and holy places. The work cited here is entitled "Gnas Gsum Gsal-byed Nor-bu'i Me-long," 'A Jewel Mirror to Clearly Reflect the Three Holy Places'. Probably composed in the 1620's, it is found in a volume of his works with the cover title Responses to Various Polemical Writings (Sherab Gyaltsen Lama and Acarya Shedup Tenzin, Rewalsar 1985), pp. 327-464. The passage partly translated and partly paraphrased here is found on pp. 430.3 through 435.5.
[12]For citation of the Tibetan text, see 'Jam-mgon A-myes-zhabs Ngag-dbang-kun-dga'-bsod-nams, 'Jam-gling Byang-phyogs-kyi Thub-pa'i Rgyal-tshab Chen-po Dpal-ldan Sa-skya-pa'i Gdung-rabs Rin-po-che Ji-ltar Byon-pa'i Tshul-gyi Rnam-par Thar-pa Ngo-mtshar Rin-po-che'i Bang-mdzod Dgos 'Dod Kun 'Byung (Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang 1986) p. 144. The source of the citation, the Sa Paṇ biography by Yar-lungs-pa ("Yar-klungs-pa Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan" is how he is signed), is found in a very valuable anthology of early Sa-skya-pa biographies entitled De-bzhin-gshegs-pa Thams-cad-kyi Bgrod-pa Gcig-pa'i Lam Chen Gsung-ngag Rin-po-che'i Bla-ma Brgyud-pa'i Rnam-thar Glegs-bam Dang-po-las Bla-ma 'Phags Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus (contained in: 'Jam-dbyangs-blo-gter-dbang-po, ed., Lam-'bras Slob Bshad, Sakya Centre, Dehra Dun 1983, vol. 1, pp. 1-473). It is entitled "Chos-kyi Rje Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta Kun-dga'-rgyal-mtshan-dpal-bzang-po'i Rnam-par Thar-pa 'Bring-po" (found at pp. 64-76 of the just mentioned collection). According to this text, at the opening of the jeweled coffin containing Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta's ashes (ibid., p. 74 line 5), with King Godan in attendance, the following articles were found.
སྐུ་གདུང་བཞུགས་ལྟས་སྐུ་གསུང་ཐུགས་ཀྱི་རྟེན། །
གཙུག་ཏོར་དབུས་སུ་ཀྱེ་ཡི་རྡོ་རྗེ་དང། །
འཇམ་པའི་དབྱངས་སྐུ་དྲི་མེད་གསལ་པོར་བྱོན། །
དཔྲལ་བའི་དབྱིངས་སུ་འཁོར་ལོ་སྡོ་པའི་ཚོགས། །
ལྟག་པའི་ཆ་ལ་སངས་རྒྱས་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། །
ཕྲག་པའི་གདུང་ལ་ཁར་ས་པཱ་ཎི་དང་། །
རྐང་གི་སྦུགས་སུ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་དབང་དང་། །
སྒལ་བུའི་ཆ་ལ་གསང་བའི་ཡུམ་བཞི་བྱོན། །
སྒྲོལ་མ་མི་གཡོ་པུས་གཙུགས་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས། །
ཕྱག་སོར་གཡས་པ་ཀླུ་ཤིང་ལྗོན་པའི་སྟེང་། །
བྱམས་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་འཁོར་ལོའི་ཕྱག་རྒྱ་ཅན། །
སྤྲུལ་པ་རྣམ་བཅུ་སྐུ་ཡི་རྟེན་དུ་བྱོན། །
ཚངས་པའི་གསུང་དབྱངས་སྟོང་ཉིད་སེང་གེའི་སྒྲ། །
སྐྱེ་མེད་དོན་མཚོན་ཨ་ཡིག་འབུར་དུ་དོད། །
སྙན་གོང་གཉིས་ལ་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་མཆོད་རྟེན་རེ། །
དམ་ཚིག་རྡོ་རྗེ་ལྟེ་བར་ཧཱུཾ་གིས་མཚན། །
ཐུགས་དགོངས་རྣམ་དག་རང་བྱུང་ཆོས་སྐུར་ཤར། །
གཞན་ཡང་རིང་བསྲེལ་སྣ་ཚོགས་དཔག་མེད་བྱོན། །
The citation by Sog-bzlog-pa differs from this only in minor points of spelling. We might translate the passage like this:
"Among the icons of Body, Speech and Mind found among his relics were the following. In the middle of the top of his head were pure and vivid images of Hevajra and Mañjughoṣa. In the area of his forehead was the divine assemblage of Cakrasamvara. In a part of the nape of his neck was the Buddha Bhagavan. On the shoulder bone was Khasarpaṇa. In the hollow of his legs (behind his knees) were Târâ and Acala. On the 'nâga tree' of the fingers of his right hand appeared the Body icon of the ten emanations of Maitreya making the gesture of turning the wheel of Dharma. The symbol of the unarticulated lion's roar of Emptiness, the melodious Speech of Brahma, the letter 'A' was formed in relief. Above each of his ears being a Victory Chorten (Vijâya Stûpa), each with a samaya vajra marked in the center with the syllable 'Hû≈m', his immaculate Mind dawned as self-produced Dharmakâya. There were, besides these, many differeng kind of ring-bsrel."
On the dating problem for Yar-lung Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, who probably lived in the late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, see Per Kvaerne, An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs (White Orchid Press, Bangkok 1986) p. 2.
[13]This is the same tantra discussed elsewhere in this paper. One may well wonder why Sog-bzlog-pa did not mention the following quote from the Meeting of Father and Son Sûtra (Pîtaputra Samâgamana, chapter 13, Tog Palace Manuscript Kanjur, vol. 38, p. 305, line 6) which had already been cited by Go-rams-pa (Sa-skya Bka'-'bum, vol. 14, p. 193d, line 6). The passage is given as found in the Kanjur. Note that such expressions as "those of unlowered fame" and "those of endless fame" are used in this sûtra as epithets for the Sugatas and other holy personages. The Bhagavan is speaking:
གྲགས་པ་མ་སྨད་དེ་དག་གི །
རིང་བསྲེལ་དག་ཀྱང་རྒྱས་པར་འགྱུར། །
དེ་དག་རྣམས་ཀྱི་རིང་བསྲེལ་ལའང་། །
རྒྱལ་བའི་སྐུ་མང་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར། །
གྲགས་པ་མཐའ་ཡས་ལྡན་རྣམས་ཀྱི། །
རིང་བསྲེལ་ཆོ་འཕྲུལ་སྐུ་མཐོང་ནས། །
སྲོག་ཆགས་བྱེ་བ་ཁྲག་ཁྲིག་མང་། །
བྱང་ཆུབ་ཏུ་ནི་སེམས་སྐྱེད་འགྱུར། །
Certain ambiguities of this passage make it difficult to translate and interpret, and those who read the English translation only should be careful to read it twice--once understanding 'relics' as the kind of ring-bsrel discussed in this paper, and once understanding it to mean simply 'bone relics'.
"Also the relics of those of unlowered fame
will increase.
Also to the relics of those
many images of the Jina will occur.
After seeing the miraculous relic images
of those of endless fame
many 1,000,000,000,000,000,000's of living beings
will generate the thought of Enlightenment."
It is entirely possible to read this passage as saying that ring-bsrel of the saints will 'multiply' and that on the resulting ring-bsrel images of Buddha will occur, that it is these miraculous images that will move living beings to pursue Enlightenment. Although this reading is completely justifiable within the context of the Buddha's prophecy, Go-rams-pa (op. cit.) insists on reading it to mean that "in the future images will be constructed which will serve as receptacles for [those bone] relics."
མ་འོངས་པ་ན་། རིང་བསྲེལ་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་སྐུ་གཟུགས་བཞེངས་པ་འབྱུང་བ་
I think it significant that Go-rams-pa chose to cite only the first four lines of the sûtra passage. We may feel secure, by the way, that this sûtra was an Indian text, since it is cited in the Śikṣâ Samuccaya.
[14]These four sets of extreme positions may be understood so,
1. creationist positivism/ cessationist nihilism
2. eternalist positivism/ apocalyptic nihilism
3. existence positivism/ nonexistence nihilism
4. phenomenal positivism/ emptiness nihilism
Evidently it is the third one into which Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje implied Sa Paṇ might be in danger of falling.
[15]According to a modern commentator on the text by Sa Paṇ, Mkhan-chen Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin (Sdom-pa Gsum-gyi Rab-tu Dbye-ba'i Mchan 'Grel, T. G. Dhongthog, N. Delhi 1979, p. 262 line 3), the scriptural source to which Sa Paṇ refers is the Stag Sna (i.e. Stag Rna, Sanskrit--Śârdûlakarṇa Avadâna, Tohoku no. 358) and he also cites the Mig Bcu-gnyis-pa (Dvâdaśalocana Sûtra, Tohoku no. 359) in support of Sa Paṇ's statements. Sangs-rgyas-bstan-'dzin clearly relied on the earlier commentary by Ngag-dbang-chos-grags (1572-1641) for this information (see Ngag-dbang-chos-grags, Sdom-pa Gsum-gyi Rab-tu Dbye-ba'i Rnam-bshad Legs-bshad Zla 'Od Nor-bu [T. G. Dhongthog, N. Delhi 1978], p. 431).
[16]Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje certainly has a point here, as we may discover by doing as he did and consulting the scriptural sources behind Sa Paṇ's statements. The Śârdûlakarṇa Avadâna , the Dvâdaśalocana, and also the twelfth chapter of the Mahâmuni Gargarṣya Nimittâkṛti Nirdeśa (Toh. no. 4321, Tog Palace Kanjur no. 271; notice that in the Tog Palace version of the Kanjur it is included in the sûtra section) were all known to Sa Paṇ and he clearly used them to make his own compilation of miraculous 'signs'. But in each of these scriptures we find ourselves within a Brahmanical context, which makes the use of them as 'Buddhist' scriptures (which in some sense they of course are) problematic.
Looking first at the Śârdûlakarṇa, which has been very thoroughly studied and outlined by S. Mukhopadhyaya ('Critical Study of the Śârdûlakarṇâvadâna', contained in Viśva-Bharati Annals, vol. 12, pt. 1 [July 1967] pp. 1-108), the larger context is a story told by the Buddha in order to argue against caste distinctions. In its narrower context within the story, the passage on divine images dancing, laughing or crying being a sign of calamity is in the words of the outcaste (caṇḍâla ) king Triśa∫ku who needs to demonstrate to the brahmin king Puṣkarasârin that he possesses all the knowledge expected of a brahmin in order that his son Śârdûlakarṇa would be allowed to marry the brahmin's daughter.
In the Dvâdaśalocana, King Bimbisâra is troubled by the meaning of signs such as shooting stars, lightning and meteors. He consults the brahmin soothsayers, who are ashamed not to be able to help him, but do tell him about the text (gtsug-lag) known as Dvâdaśalocana. King Bimbisâra then goes to ask the Bhagavan, who at first refuses to reply, since, he says, it is not proper for renunciates to explain such a non-Buddhist and worldly text. The non-Buddhist text in question was in fact revealed by Brahma to twelve sons born of the bestial union of the sage Bhagava [Bhârgava?] and a tigress. There are two references to images moving, etc., and in one it is explicitly stated, as Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje claims, that these divine images are of worldly deities. The following quote is found in the Derge Kanjur (vol. 76 [=vol. a˙] p. 561 line 1):
འཇིག་རྟེན་པའི་ལྷ་མཆོད་པའི་ཚེ་ལྷ་སྨྲའམ་འཛུམ་ན། རྒྱལ་པོ་ལ་བགེགས་དང་གནོད་པ་འབྱུང་།
"While worshipping worldly deities, if the god talks or smiles, impediments and injuries will occur to the king." This is identical to the citation by Mkhas-dbang Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje (op. cit., p. 434, line 4).
[17]The life of 'Bri-gung Dpal-'dzin and circumstances surrounding his polemical circular are problems I hope to return to in another place. For some discussion, see Leonard van der Kuijp, 'Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution on/to the Bsam-yas Debate' (Kailash vol. 11 [1984] nos. 3-4, pp. 149-184) at page 173, note. Dpal-'dzin and Klong-chen-pa seem to have been native to the same area (to add to our confusion, Klong-chen-pa has Dpal-'dzin among his many names) and 'Bri-gung Dpal-'dzin's polemic was apparently provoked by some of Klong-chen-pa's successors.
[18]Translated as quoted by Sog-bzlog-pa (Collected Writings of Sog-bzlog-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan, Sanje Dorji, New Delhi 1975, vol. 1, p. 427, line 6). For the passage in its original context, see Bka'-gdams Glegs-bam (New Delhi 1982), vol. 1, p. 240, which reads as follows:
ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་གཙང་ལ་མེ་ཏོག་འབབ། །
བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་ལ་རིང་སྲེལ་འཛག །
བསྐྱེད་རིམ་ཅན་ལ་ལྷ་སྐུ་འབྱོན། །
ཁྲིམས་གཙང་ཕུང་པོ་གཙང་མ་སྟེ། །
ལྷ་རྣམས་ཀུན་གྱིས་བསུ་བར་བྱེད། །
ཕྱིར་མི་ལྡོག་ལ་དུང་འཁྱིལ་ཏེ། །
འཁོར་བ་མི་སྤོང་སེམས་དཔའ་ལ། །
ཐུགས་དང་ལྗགས་ནི་འབྱོན་པར་བཤད། །
སྤྱིར་ནི་དམ་པ་གཤེགས་པ་ལ།།
ལྷ་ཡི་སྔ་ལྟས་འཇའ་འོད་འབྱུང་། །
གནས་ལུགས་སྔ་ལྟས་སྤྲིན་མེད་ཡིན། །
དེ་ནི་ཐུན་མོང་སྔ་ལྟས་ཙམ། །
ཐུན་མོང་མ་ཡིན་བསམ་མི་ཁྱབ། །
The most notable difference (besides the different order of the lines) in the Bka'-gdams Glegs-bam version is the absence of the line about the letter 'A'.
[19]The dating of this work, which exists in a longer and a shorter version, is still a problem awaiting detailed analysis. There are indications in the text that the author was a Rnying-ma-pa. The long version was published under the title, Mkhas-pa Lde'us Mdzad-pa'i Rgya Bod-kyi Chos-'byung Rgyas-pa (Gangs-can Rig Mdzod series volume 3, Bod Yig Dpe Rnying Dpe-skrun-khang, 1987). The shorter version was published under the title Chos-'byung Chen-mo Bstan-pa'i Rgyal-mtshan Lde'u Jo-sras-kyis Mdzad-pa (Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang, 1987).
[20]Our problem is, of course to know that the texts of the sûtras (such as the Meeting of Father and Son mentioned above) are referring to the exact same phenomenon as I refer to here under the Tibetan name ring-bsrel. The biography of Hsüan-tsang (Hwui Li, The Life of Hiuen-tsiang, translated by S. Beal, Kegan Paul, London 1914, p. 156) does seem to affirm the existence of this phenomenon in India, but a close study of the passage in question is badly needed.
[21]David Snellgrove, Himalayan Pilgrimage (Prajñâ Press, Boulder 1981) p. 187.