'Ol-mo-lung-ring

’Ol-mo-lung-ring, the Original Holy Place

Dan Martin

Jerusalem

Note: This was first published as: “‘Ol-mo-lung-ring, the Original Holy Place” in Tibet Journal (Dharamsala), vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 48-82.  What you see here is a pre-published draft of the revised and expanded version that was published with the same title in Toni Huber, Sacred Spaces and Powerful Places in Tibetan Culture: A Collection of Essays, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (Dharamsala 1999), pp. 258-301.  

I recommend that you make reference to the print version rather than this pre-published draft. The larger map of 'Ol-mo-lung-ring with the place names didn't copy very perfectly, but I will try to fix this another time.  

Note that some remarkable paintings have become known since this paper was written.  Look here for a few examples (apart from the wellknown woodblock reproduced by Snellgrove in 1980, here called "Map B")... 

As the frontispiece, we have the map published in Delhi in 1965, here called "Map A" 

A more popular presentation on the subject, with somewhat different coverage, was published as: Olmo Lungring, a Holy Place Here. and Beyond, contained in: Samten G. Karmay and Jeff Watt, eds., Bon, the Magic Word: The Indigenous Religion of Tibet, Rubin Museum (New York 2007), pp. 98-123

.

Figure 1

We may interpret the place names (according to our own current understandings of their relatively original referents, not necessarily those of Bon readers of any particular time; nota bene), bearing in mind that the scheme originated in Tibet’s pre-Mongol period, as follows:

Figure 2

The same basic scheme of the Eighteen Great Countries is found in three other Bon histories, as well as in one fourteenth-century Bon commentary on the Mdzod Phug (often with good reason called the ‘Bon Abhidharma’).  Two of these sources refer back to a work called Rtsa ’Grel, or ‘Root Commentary’, which is supposed to have been excavated in about the mid-twelfth century, but is not now available to us.[14]  For present purposes, we would like to draw particular attention to the location of Stag-gzig to the west of Tibet, touching on Gilgit and Yavana (Bactria).  We have also noted the existence of a very similar scheme of Nine Great Countries in both the Rgya Bod Yig-tshang (composed in the year 1434) and the ‘Guide to the Derge Tanjur’ by Zhu-chen (1974: II 15), both deriving from an earlier, but not currently available, biography of Śākyamuni Buddha by Bcom-ldan Rig-ral (who flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century).  There are still other indications that the Eighteen Great Countries idea was known to Chos writers. 

The Condensed Scripture (Mdo-’dus, or, in its full title, Mdo-’dus Rin-po-che’i Rgyud Thams-cad Mkhyen-pa’i Tshad-ma;  ‘Condensed Scripture, String of Jewels, Authority of the All Knowing’),[15] the shortest of a set of the three main biographies of Lord Shenrab, was excavated in the late-tenth or eleventh century.[16]  This scripture tells us that it was spoken by the Teacher Gshen-rab-mi-po (i.e., Lord Shenrab) at a ‘perfection of Place’ (gnas phun-sum-tshogs-pa), the peak of the None Higher (’Og-men, for ’Og-min) Best of Mountains (Ri-rab)  [which is] the peak of Nine Stacked Svâstikas (G.yu[ng-dr]ung-dgu-[b]rtsegs) Mountain.  Chapter 2 of the text (pp. 9-17) is on the ‘outer vessel’ (phyi snod) world, meaning the environmental world which contains the ‘internal vital’ (nang bcud) world.  Here we find a very interesting geographical passage on Jambu Island, which distinguishes the area of Mt. Ti-se from ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, even while calling Mt. Ti-se by the name G.yung-drung-dgu-brtsegs:

In particular, in the center of Jambu Island (’Dzam-gling), the mountain Gang[s]-che (i.e., Gangs-can) Ti-tse (=Ti-se) is called Nine Stacked Svastikas (G.yu[ng-dr]ung-dgu-brtsegs).  In width it is 500 dpag-tshad.[17]  [This] mountain and Mt. Spos-ri-ngad-ldan have between them a lake Ma-dros-pa with a width of 50 dpag-tshad.  The four lakes which are there in the four directions are the turquoise lake Ma-pam-mo-bya, the golden lake La-ngad, the silver lake Gung-chung, and the iron lake Zom-shang.  There are pools with slow waterfalls.   Four streams descend from the mouths of four animals.  The Gang-ka falls from the mouth of an elephant in the east.  The Sin-’du falls from the mouth of a ‘herd leader’ [a bull] (khyu-mchog) in the south.  The Pag-shu falls from the mouth of a horse in the west.  The Si-ta falls from the mouth of a peacock in the north.  These four supreme rivers each have 500 tributaries, and their waters flow to the oceans in the four directions.  They have ponds with slow waterfalls and the tree[s?] are called Sa-la-rab-brtan.[18]

To the northwest of this is Gshel-yul [=Gshen-yul] ’Ol-mo-gling.  It has an area of thousands of dpag-tshad.[19]  It is cut by the rivers Pag-shu and Si-ti; cut by the Nine Dark Mountains.

In the west is the country of Dmu.[20]  In the east is the country of China (Rgya).  In the south is the country of Mon.  In the south east is the country of ’Jang.  In the north are Li, Bal and Phrom.  In the northeast is the country of Hor, [and] Snowy Tibet (Gang[s]-can Bod). 

In [those countries] live the three hundred and sixty human types.  They have the Sixteen Great Countries and the thousand minor countries.  They make up Jambu Island (’Dzom-bu-gling).[21]

One of the most interesting points of this relatively early geographical passage is the variant scheme of countries which make up Jambu Island.  There is mention, without listing, of Sixteen Great Countries.  These Sixteen Great Countries are frequently mentioned, also without listing, in Chos works, where they evidently are understood as identical to the Indian Buddhist idea of ‘Sixteen Great Countries’ (Mahājanapādas).  This, as well as the geographical scheme that is supplied, sets the Mdo-’dus apart from most later Bon sources.  The arrangements of countries in the Mdo-’dus may be schematized as follows:

Figure 3

Two more-or-less similar world-geography schemes are supplied in a work of uncertain date revealed by one Bra-bo Sgom-nyag.[22]  The first is not especially clear about whether ’Ol-mo-lung-ring or India is at the center, but it locates the latter to the south of the former:

Figure 4

This is almost immediately followed by another geography of Jambu Island, centered on Mt. Ti-se, which closely resembles that of the Mdo-’dus, but note that Turks are found in the place of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.

Figure 5

The text adds that there are 60 great countries and a thousand minor ones.

Also of interest is the scheme of rivers which flow from the centrally located Mount Ti-tse (Ti-se), which would seem to be the mountain known today by this name in western Tibet, although it may at times also be identified with the central mountain of Stag-gzig.[24]  This scheme is available in many Tibetan sources, and the variations, even contradictions, of these sources are a source of much bewilderment for us.  The Mdo-’dus version, being rather early, is perhaps more authoritative:[25]

Figure 6

However, this arrangement of rivers is contradicted elsewhere in the text of the Mdo-’dus (p. 207):

Figure 7

Still one other, somewhat independent scheme ought at least to be mentioned.  This is the ‘shoulder-bone’ geography, in which Jambu Island is described as shaped like a sheep’s shoulder-bone (sog[s]-k[h]a, sog-pa, sog-mo), somewhat like a downward pointing triangle, only with the lower angle (which Tibetan sources call the ‘handle’, yu-ba) truncated.  The various countries are described as being located in particular parts of the shoulder-bone.  This model of the world emerges now and then in both Bon and Chos sources.  For example, it appears in the Rnying-ma commentary to the Klong Drug tantra, ascribed to an eighth-century author.[26]  A full study cannot be attempted at the moment, but it has the ‘feel’ of being quite old, mainly on account of the use of shoulder-bones in the type of divination known as scapulimancy.  It appears in the above mentioned revelation to Bra-bo Sgom-nyag,[27] and in the geography by Dbra-ston (ca. 1930: 938).

Consciously avoiding the complications that would be introduced by attempting to account for every variant detail of all the various schemes, and with the confidence that we are dealing with some of the oldest sources, we will proceed to interpret them in terms of our understanding of geography.

1.  If we follow the scheme of the Eighteen Great Countries, and assume that ’Ol-mo-lung-ring is, as many later sources say, in some way identical with Stag-gzig,[28] we see that Stag-gzig is to the west of Tibet, and is bordered by the smaller areas of Gilgit and Yavana (Bactria).  This would point to an area stretching from present-day north Pakistan to Takhar (equivalent to Tibetan Tho-gar, which shouldn’t be confused with the Thod-dkar which borders China, although both names seem to come from a single ethnonym, and are in fact occasionally confused in Bon sources) in northeastern Afghanistan, and possibly including areas still further to the south.

2.  If we follow the arrangement of countries in  the Mdo-’dus, ’Ol-mo-lung-ring is located to the northwest of western Tibet (where Ti-tse/Ti-se is) and rather to the north of a mysterious country called Dmu (Persia, perhaps?).  It is cut by both the Nine Dark Mountains (on which, more soon) and the rivers Pag-shu and Si-ti, which we might very well identify as the Oxus (Vakṣu) and Sitā (in the Tarim Basin) rivers.[29]  Here we seem to be dealing with an area that stretches from the Badakhshan in northeastern Afghanistan, circling (to the right or the left of) the Pamirs, and touching on, but not actually including, the Tarim Basin (which seems to be well covered by the Li Bal Phrom of the scheme).  Hence, compared to the picture from the Eighteen Great Countries, we seem to be both further to the north and further to the east.

3.  If we follow the arrangement of rivers, we are on still more unsteady ground, since there are countless conflicting variations.  To follow the first version from the Mdo-’dus,

Figure 8

This suggests a very large area subsuming Baltistan, Gilgit, northern Kashmir, the north part of present-day Pakistan (Swat, Chitral, etc.), and perhaps Badakhshan.  If Gang-ka here means the Gangā, then we would also have to stretch the area to include the mountainous area in the north part of the Indian province of Uttar Pradesh.  But then again, while the Mdo-’dus says that ’Ol-mo-lung-ring is cut by the rivers Pakshu and Si-ta (the Oxus and Tarim), we must note that other sources, in citations of the same passage from the Mdo-’dus, give the two rivers’ names as Pakshu and Si[n]dhu (Oxus and Indus).[30]  Following the citations, rather than the text of the Mdo-’dus, ’Ol-mo-lung-ring would cover the area from the north part of modern Pakistan up to and including at least some part of Uzbekistan.

Most of the same sources in which we find the Eighteen Great Countries, as well as the Bon Abhidharma literature, the Mdzod Phug and its commentaries, have a very interesting set of Nine Dark Mountains.  We haven’t the time or space to go into this very complicated geographical problem, on which we hope to say more elsewhere.  Here we would only point out that these mountains, or rather mountain ranges, are called Dark Mountains because they are darker than other mountains (presumably due to the absence of permanent glaciers).  They are listed in order starting from the north at the ‘outermost lake’ of Jambu Island, in an uninhabited place which might be supposed to be the vicinity of the Arctic Circle, and ending in the south at Mt. Ti-se (although Mt. Ti-se is itself excluded from the set).   Almost all the sources agree that the eighth member of the set is the mountain range (ri rgyud) of Ba-dag-shan[31]  which, they mostly say, divides the Dru-gu (Turks) from the Tsha-gser.[32]  Ba-dag-shan is surely Badakhshan.  Still, one late twelfth-century source (Gling-grags 5v) rather improbably states that the Ba-dag-sha (Badakhshan?), which is “like the head of a conch,” divides the ‘Central Glacial Ranges’ (dbus gangs-kyi ra-ba, generally speaking, and particularly in this context to be understood to mean Tibet) from Stag-gzig in the west.[33]

If the pre-thirteenth-century sources have not allowed us to be very precise about the location of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, still they provide us with a general idea:  it is an area to the west of western Tibet, stretching from the borders of Ladakh (or more likely, northern Pakistan) to the land beyond the Badakhshan, and including an indeterminate area to the south and/or the north.  In these areas there were indeed strong local traditions of Buddhism already in the first centuries of the Christian Era, some of them lasting well beyond the Islamic conquests of the ninth century, and it was in approximately the late ninth or early tenth century that, according to Bon histories, the Bru clan migrated from the areas of Little Balur (Bru-sha) and Tukharistan (Tho-gar) to western Tibet and Gtsang province (Martin 1991).  The Bru clan was one of four clans that gathered around the teachings of Gshen-chen Klu-dga’ in the early eleventh century, and one of the six most important families of the Bon religion. 

By the late twelfth century, we find in the Meditation Commentary, a composition included in the Bon Mother Tantra literature, an interesting geographical-linguistic scheme which was often followed by later Bon authors.

Even though the types of Zhang-zhung languages are many, they may be reduced to three:  1.  The Innermost Language stems from the Kapita[34] ‘gods’.  It is the ‘Divine Language’.  2.  The Intermediate Language stems from Sanskrit (Sang-tri-ta).  It is the language of the Thirty-three [Gods].  3.  The Gateway Language stems from the Sgra-bla (Sgra-sla) of the good aeon.[35]  This last is the language of Smar.  If explained according to their most essential features, there did exist in the different areas of Gateway [Zhang-zhung] the languages of Khyung-lung, Ting-tog[36] and so forth, but it cannot be said that they are all Smar language.  Generally, all three of the great places where this teaching spread have that same [Smar] language:  1. Sham-po Lha-rtse in Stag-gzig;[37]  2. Royal Fort Cattle Enclosure in Intermediate Zhang-zhung;[38]  3.  Khyung-lung Dngul-mkhar in Gateway (Zhang-zhung).[39]  It is the language common to these [three] places.[40]

The metaphor behind this threefold geographical division of the ‘three Zhang-zhungs’ is that of the house.  Zhang-zhung as such, more or less equivalent to western Tibet centered in Khyung-lung Dngul-mkhar in the upper Sutlej, is the ‘doorway’ (sgo).   ‘Intermediate Zhang-zhung’ is the intermediate space (bar), while Stag-gzig (here identical to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring with its royal palace of Sham-po Lha-rtse) is the innermost recess, or innermost treasury (phugs) where the family heirlooms are kept.  While the ‘doorway’ opens to the outside world and is accessible to the public at large, the intermediate space of the house is reserved for guests, and the innermost recesses are for family members only.  In this twelfth-century source it might seem as if ’Ol-mo-lung-ring was undergoing a process of occultation.

The Meditation Commentary’s mentioning of Ka-pi-ta, which is surely the same as Kapisha, an old center of Gandhara located north of present-day Kabul, is at least generally consonant with the territory of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring as known in earlier sources.[41]

Having reached this rather imprecise and tentative location for ’Ol-mo-lung-ring,[42] we can easily see how it comes into direct conflict with the well-known views of the late professor B. I. Kuznetsov (1935-1985), first published in 1969, following which we have a small body of literature devoted to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and its ‘map’ which claims that ’Ol-mo-lung-ring should be identified with the Persian Empire and its tributary states stretching, according to Kuznetsov, from the Pamirs to Egypt and possibly Rome.[43]  Before going on to challenge this view, we would like first to supply our own schematized ‘map’ of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, patterned after the woodblock printed version (the same woodblock version reproduced in Snellgrove [1980], but supplying the place names in transliteration), and point out a few things that might seem to justify Kuznetsov’s view.

'Ol-mo-lung-rings, Map B

At the center (1) is Nine Stacked Svâstika Mountain, surrounded by four groves: (2) Happiness Grove [Dga’-ba’i Tshal], (3) Jewel Grove [Rin-chen Tshal], (4) Lotus Grove [Padma’i Tshal], and (5) Man-made Grove [Skyed-mo Tshal].  It was apparently the central mountain surrounded by groves (or parks or formal gardens) that initially inspired Kuznetsov to identify the map with the Persian Empire, since he believed that the mountain (which appears on the woodblock printed map as nine stepped levels, each composed of seven or five svâstikas; on the drawn map, it looks rather like a beehive) surrounded by gardens was reminiscent of the tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae,[44] once likewise surrounded by groves and gardens.  Then Bar-po-so-brgyad[12] Kuznetsov evidently thought sufficiently similar to the name Pasagardae (sometimes appearing in forms like Parsogard) that they might be identical.  It was apparently on the basis of these particular similarities that Kuznetsov (and Gumilev, although Kuznetsov was the one who supplied the Tibetological expertise) went on to identify other parts of the map with parts of the Persian empire of approximately the sixth century B.C.E.

In order to properly read the map, we should first know there are two versions.  The rather crudely hand-drawn version, published together with a Zhang-zhung  Dictionary in 1965, was the one Kuznetsov used as the basis.  This map was republished in an Israeli newspaper with Hebrew-letter identifications added on.[45]  As far as the content is concerned, this version is not very different, but of course with some spelling differences, from the woodblock printed version (first published by Snellgrove), even if the visual differences are striking.  We will call these, for convenience, maps A and B.  One confusing difference between them is that A locates the east at the top, while B locates the east at the bottom.[46]   B is rendered in a very artistic manner, making many features of the map more clear.  B places a wall, with gates in the four cardinal directions, around the eight inner ‘islands’; it represents all the other divisions between the ‘islands’ as bodies of water, and a body of water surrounds the entire map together with an encircling mountain range.   This outermost body of water we know from map B (and from many literary sources) to be called Mu-khyud-bdal-pa’i Mtsho.  This name means ‘Lake that Covers the Circumference’.  Kuznetsov (p. 575 no. 60) translates, “Surrounding, elongated sea” and says, “i.e., the world ocean, which surrounds the land.  In this case, the Mediterranean Sea.”  About the outermost encircling mountain range, called Dbal-so-ra-ba, which we would translate “Wall of Sharp Teeth,”[47] Kuznetsov, not understanding that the ‘X’ on the map was intended to label the entire circle of mountains, and not one particular spot, says (p. 575 no. 64):  “in location, this would appear to be Cyprus.  The interpretation is supported by the first two syllables, which may refer to Alisah, an ancient self-designation of Cyprus according to the Amarna tablets of Amenhotep III or Amenhotep IV.” 

Overall, the map is made up of six square ‘belts’ or zones:

I.  The innermost division made up of Nine Stacked Svâstika Mountain and the surrounding groves.

II.  The inner division made up of eight ‘islands’ (in fact, four  buildings and four mchod-rtens).

III.  The next division made up of twelve ‘great islands’ is sometimes called the ‘twelve inner islands’ (nang gling bcu-gnyis).

IV.  The next division, also made up of twelve ‘great islands’ (included among them are two ‘countries’ (yul) and one lake).  These are sometimes called the ‘twelve intermediate great islands’ (phyi gling bcu-gnyis).

V.  The next division made up of sixteen ‘great islands’ (including a city, a royal fortress, a group of six islands, a country and three other unspecified geographical entities).  These are sometimes called the ‘sixteen outer great islands’ (phyi gling bcu-drug).

VI.  The outermost square of ‘islands’ depicted as eight bodies of land divided from each other by water (including four ‘countries’ [yul], a city, a capital, a lake and other unspecified geographical entities).  Shar-rdza (1985: 14) calls this the ‘eight great fringe islands’.  The Gzi-brjid (Namdak 1971: 877) refers to this area as the ‘thirty-two fringe islands’.  Dpal-tshul (p. 33) says that there are a grand total of ninety-six ‘major areas’ (yul chen) in ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.[48]

We will proceed to look at each of the country names, following the gazetteer of the Mdo-’dus (pp. 203-209, in the order given there, starting at the center, and working our way outward (numbers in square brackets refer to our map based on map B).  It makes difficult reading, and for this I apologize.

II.  The inner twelve ‘great islands’:  1) Sham-po-lha-rtse[6][49] in the east.  Decorated with the eight precious substances, it is surrounded with seven dpag-tshad of walls.  Teacher Shenrab dwelled in the Pho-gling-mo-gling (‘Father Island Mother Island’).  The younger brother Rma-lo G.yu-lo were born here.  2)  Bar-po-so-brgyad[12][50] in the south.  It is made of lapis with the five precious substances, encircled by seven dpag-tshad of walls.  It is the fortress of [Lord Shenrab’s] father Rgyal-bon Thod-dkar,[51] and the place where Teacher Shenrab took birth.  3)  Khri-smon-rgyal-bzhad[10][52] in the west.  It is made of sapphire and copper, decorated with the four precious substances.  [The walls] are seven dpag-tshad.  This was the fortress of Hos-za Rgyal-med, and the [place] where Gto-bu

Spyad-bu was born.  4)  Kho-ma Ne’u-chung[8][53] in the north.  It is made of Indranīla and turquoise, and decorated with a ground of precious gold.  It is encircled by a seven dpag-tshad wall.  It is the ‘island’ of Dpo-za Thang-mo, and here the fruits [of the marriage], Lung-’dren-rgyud-’dren and Gshen-za Ne’u-chung were born.  5)  Bde-ba-rang-grub[13][54] in the southeast.  It is three dpag-tshad, made of crystal.  Here are found the teachings of a thousand Well Gone Ones (bde-gshegs) and a thousand crystal tsha-tshas.  6)  Thugs-rje-’byung-ba[11][55] in the southwest.  It is three dpag-tshad, [made of] mercury.  The foundations were laid by a thousand spirits (’dre srin).  7) Rnam-dag-dkar-po[9][56] in the northwest.  It is three dpag-tshad made of crystal.  It is a great treasury (mine?)  of precious substances.  8) Gshen-rab-sku-tshad[7][57] in the northeast.  It is made of precious blue lapis, and of three dpag-tshad.  [In] its self-produced ‘vessel’ (bum-pa) abides a Shenrab image.  It is made of gold and blazes with light.  In back (of the just-mentioned ‘islands’) are seven walls: walls of five precious substances, six together with the water, and of saplings and lotuses [making seven].

III.  Behind that are twelve ‘great islands’.  1)  G.yung-drung-bkod-pa’i Gling[14][58] in the east.  It is beautified with decorations of the four precious substances.  Here is the divine mountain of light Spos-mthon.[59]  Here are the rich possessions of the Teacher, including the stone slab of ar-mo-la-ka,[60] bathing pools made of precious substances, good leaves of the wish-granting tree, the wishgranting cow, the uncultivated grain harvest, the Teacher’s seat of four precious substances, a trunk of sandalwood, the eight substances that are auspicious signs, the seven precious signs of kingship, the luminous hos-gur,[61] the curtain with rainbow designs.  2) Dga’-ldan-lha’i Gling[15][62] to the right of the preceding.  It is marvelously laid out.  Here the Teacher explained Bon to the gods.  3)  ’Dul-ba-khrims-kyi Gling[25][63] to the left of the preceding.  Here is a self-produced mchod-rten decorated with trees.  Here the Teacher renounced the household life, and he expounded the Six Treatises on Renunciation (’Dul-ba Rgyud Drug).[64]   4)  Tshad-med-byang-chub Gling[23][65] in the south.  Ground made of lapis, decorated with golden lotus flowers.  Here [the Teacher] cultivated the four immeasurables in his [mental] continuum.  5)  Bdud-’dul-sngags-kyi Gling[24][66] to the right.  This is the place where the White ‘A’ tantric treatises were expounded.  Here the Teacher civilized the delusory forces.  6)  Sbyin-pa-mtha’-rgyas Gling[22][67] to the left.  The Teacher brought together the ‘six types’ (of beings) by giving them gifts, perfecting giving in ’Ol-mo-gling.  7)  Mi-g.yo-bsam-gtan Gling[20][68] in the west.  It is decorated with forests of the six kinds of precious substances.  It is a place where the Teacher left his circle of followers and did contemplation.  8)  Dge-rgyas-yon-tan Gling[21][69] to the right.  This is the place where [the Teacher] made rich gifts and offerings, and amassed the virtuous accumulation of merit.  9)  Tshad-med-byams-pa’i Gling[19][70] to the left.  Here he generated the thought of awakening, generating love.  10)  Gnod-sbyin-nor-gyi Gling[17][71] in the north.  This is the abode of the ‘injury-giver’ (gnod-sbyin) ’Dzam-bha-la.  11)  Drang-ma-spungs-pa’i Gling[18][72] to the right.  Here the Teacher emerged from his fortress (i.e., left the married state).  12)  Rin-chen-spungs-pa’i Ri[18] on the left.  Here he abandoned gifts of wealth, and an image of the Teacher formed.  Behind [the just listed ‘islands’] is Mu-khyud-mdzes Mtsho, a lake with the eight branches [of good water].  There are trees of cool shade, a place where the sages (drang-srong) entered into trances of cessation (i.e., suspended animation).

IV.  Beyond them are twelve ‘islands’.  1)  Rgyal-rigs-rgyal-sa-’dzin-pa’i Gling[26] in the east.  [From here] the river Na-ra-’dza-ra descends.[73]  2)  Gser-gling[27] to the right.  This is where the golden lineage dwells.  3)  Zangs-gling[37] to the left is an auspicious place.  4)  Rje’u-rigs-bkod-pa’i Gling[35] in the south.  [From here] the river Si-ti-si-dhu[74] descends.  5)  Drang-srong-’gro-ba-’dul-ba’i Gling[36] to the right.  It has a thousand self-produced mchod-rtens.  6)  Bram-ze Mya-ngan-med-pa’i Gling[34] to the left.  In the Dur-bu Island he passed beyond suffering.  7)  Bram-ze-gtsang-ba’i Gling[32] in the west.  [From here] the river Gyim-shang-phyi-nang[75] descends.  8)  Bram-ze Hos-mo Gling[33] on the right.  Here is the mountain Hos-ru-rtse-mtho.[76]  9)  ’Bri-mig-dgu-bskor Mtsho’i Gling[31] on the left.  Here the Teacher expounded Bon to the klu spirits.  10)  Rmang-rigs-gdol-ba’i Gling[29][77] in the north.  [From here] the river Pag-shu-rtsang-po[78] descends.  11)  Stob[s]-chen-gyad-kyi Gling[30] to the right.  12)  Gtsug-rje-rgyal-po’i Gling[28] to the left.  Here is the mountain Gtsugs-kyi-phyug-po.[79]   Beyond [these just listed ‘islands’] is the lake of ’Khor-mo-gling.

V.  Beyond those are the sixteen ‘great islands’[80]:  1)  Dmu A-ba-da-ra’i Yul[38] in the east.  2) Brag-sing-ge-brgyad-bsnol-phyug-pa[39] to the right.  A high peaked divine mountain with a hundred and eight rock caverns where the delusionary power Ma-drang-kha-chen was civilized.  3) ’Gro-ba-’dul-ba’i Mchod-rten[53] on the left.  One hundred and eight mchod-rtens.  4)  Brgya-lag-’o-ma Gling[52/46?][81] in the southeast.  The abode of the Chinese Kong-rtse ’Phrul-gyi-rgyal-po.[82]  5)  Khri-ting-’byam-pa-rin-chen-spung[50][83] Mountain in the south.  6)  Smra-mi Grong Bdun[51?] to the right.  7)  The country Pra-mo-khri-’od[49][84] to the left.  8) The mountain Gtsug-rum-’bar-ba in the south.  9)  The great city Ling-ling[48], on the banks of the western lake Mu-le-stong-ldan,[85] a place where the king stayed.   10) Rgyal-mo-mo-khrom Gling[47] on the right.  11)  Mkha’-’gro-mi-rkun Gling[45] on the left.  12)  Mi-’am-chi’i Gling in the northwest.  13)  Hos-mo-gling-drug[42?] in the north.[86]  Here Hos Dang-ba-yid-rang stayed.   14)  Ha-nu-man-dha-sprel-gyi Gling[43][87] to the right.  15)  Pra-mo-gling-drug[41] on the left.    Gto-bo-’khor-ba was brought here.  16) Dha-la-shel-gyi Brag-phug[40?] in the northeast.  Beyond [the preceding areas] is the lake Mu-khyud-bdal-ba, surrounded by a thousand and five hundred dpag-tshad iron mountain chain.  A copper mountain chain obscures the sky.  The heavens are like an eight spoked wheel...

The most significant difference between the Mdo-’dus account of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and our maps A and B is that the outermost level is missing.  The geographical entities represented on our transliterated map by the numbers 54 through 61 are not listed in the Mdo-’dus,[88] and the names of these places are nowhere to be found in the text.  This might suggest that these further countries of maps A and B have been taken from a later, more elaborated account, most probably that of the fourteenth-century Gzi-brjid.[89]  At the same time, it should be emphasized that the account of the Mdo-’dus is already a fairly elaborate one, and the most significant geographical areas are those at the center.

The main conclusion that we wish to draw concerns the way we ought to ‘read’ the map.  The Mdo-’dus account suggests that it ought to be read as a map of places of significance in the sacred biography of Lord Shenrab (in many cases places connected with his close associates).  We suggest that the maps were preceded by the textual accounts, that the maps may, in fact, be little more than tabulated charts based on the geographical coordinates provided in the texts.  In favor of this idea, we may say that there is absolutely no evidence that either of the two maps is of any great age, and it is even possible that they could have been created as late as the 1960’s.[90]  We cannot assume, in any case, that they are of any antiquity; we need evidence for this.  We can know with a fair amount of certainty only that the contents of the maps, at least for the most part, existed in textual form in the eleventh century, but we cannot say the same for the maps themselves.

Some new evidence has arrived, due to the kindness of Dr. Antoni Huber, in the form of a hanging thangka map, about 2.5 by 4 meters in size, made even larger by its framing of brocade, now displayed at the new temple Dga’-mal Dgon-khag in Shar-khog district.  According to the notes of Dr. Huber, this map was painted about a hundred years ago by an artist named Gnyan-’bum-rgyal from the village of Ha-’phel (Chinese name, Ambi).  Like so many other Tibetan religious objects, it was concealed by burying during the cultural conflagrations of the ‘cultural revolution’, and only brought out of hiding and placed in the temple in the mid-1980’s.  This ’Ol-mo-lung-ring map is said to have inscriptions in each of its individual sections, although these are impossible to make out in the photographs.  In its more general outlines, it appears to be identical to our Maps A and B, but there are many differences of detail.  Most intriguing is the addition of human figures, a group of them portrayed circumambulating the central mountain in typical Bon fashion.  Horse-drawn covered wagons together with horseback riders are shown going to and from a shrine which appears to hold an image of Kun-bzang-rgyal-ba-rgya-mtsho.[91]  A closer study of this marvellously painted ‘map’ in the future could help answer some of the questions raised about ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and its history.  Its existence does show that there was at least one ’Ol-mo-lung-ring map in the last half of the nineteenth century.

We will look at just three examples of Kuznetsov’s treatment of the place names in the ’Ol-mo-lung-ring map (map A) in order to demonstrate that it is not necessary to appeal to a hypothetical prototype map of the Persian Empire, and that the primary intent of this ‘map’ is to serve as a sort of memory-system keyed to events in the life of Lord Shenrab.[92]

In their entry for Dmang-rigs Gdol-pa’i Gling[29] (Kuznetsov’s no. 27), we read as follows:

Med-rigs-gdol-pa’i-gling--“country of the fierce Mede tribe,” i.e. Media.  The country was conquered by the Persians in the middle of the 6th century B.C. and was incorporated into the empire as a province.

In the first place, ‘Med’ is a misreading of Rmang[s] (or Rmong,[93] since the presence of a vowel is hinted at; map B has Dmong) which in any case means the Śūdra caste (the other three castes occupy corresponding places in the three other cardinal directions).  Gdol-pa does not mean ‘fierce’ here; it means, like Sanskrit caṇḍāla, an especially low caste of butchers.

For another example, see Kuznetsov’s no.  45 [our no. 46]:

Rgya-lag-’o[d]-ma’i-gling — “country of the Chaldeans,” i.e., Babylonia, where the Chaldeans were the dominant people.

Kuznetsov quite correctly supplies the missing ‘d’, but it is difficult to believe that a Tibetan name with a meaning in Tibetan (‘Broad Branched Bamboo’) and pronounced something like ‘Gyalawoma’, or, perhaps in an eastern dialect, ‘Jalawoma’, corresponds in any way to Chaldea.[94]  Or, to give a third example, why should anyone accept that Grong-khyer Lang-ling (K 58) is Jerusalem without any reason at all (aside from the cardinal direction and a very vague similarity in some of the sounds) being given to support the claim?  It could be because the last syllable of Jerusalem is pronounced ‘laa-yim’ in Hebrew, and this might roughly approximate the ling in Lang-ling.  Even if this were acceptable, we would have to take into account that lang-ling is a Tibetan word, identical in meaning to lang-nge-ling-nge, which means ‘swaying’.[95]  There are many such examples; in fact the examples just given are quite characteristic. 

To continue with the latter two of our three examples, Rgya-lag-’od-ma’i Gling is the place where Kong-rtse ’Phrul-gyi-rgyal-po was born.  Bon sources differ as to whether this place was in the southeast or the west.[96]  Since Kong-rtse is explicitly stated to be Chinese, and his name is the usual Tibetan form for Confucius (see Karmay 1975), this king must be a namesake of Confucius.  It is, of course, a problem to trace the historical reasons why someone named Confucius should have such a prominent position in Bon scripture, and why he should be located in the southeast or west of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  Nonetheless it is a still more severe strain on our imagination to locate a Confucius in Chaldea.

Lang-ling, which Kuznetsov thinks to be Jerusalem, is a city that Lord Shenrab visited at the age of three.[97]  While there, he bathed in the Mu-la-had Ocean.  King Sa-la,[98] the local king, and his grandfather, prostrated to him.  The goddesses of the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and space) bowed to him and made offerings of a turquoise drum, a ritual vase, food, and a seating carpet.  He transformed all the five elements into Bon.  Then he went on his way to Sgra-mi-snyan [continent] in the north (Mdo-’dus, pp 57-58).[99]  To follow this story in combination with Kuznetsov’s speculations, we would have to say that Lord Shenrab visited Jerusalem at age three, and that one of his father’s wives was a Palestinian princess.  This is all very interesting, but difficult to accommodate in our usual views about history.

But Kuznetsov’s views cannot be dismissed as complete nonsense.  At one time I had thought that the place Seng-ge-rgyab-bsnol[39] might be one clue on which Kuznetsov failed to comment,[100] but that might conceivably support his idea that the map is somehow connected to Pasargadae.  At Pasargadae, found among the ruins, are gigantic stone capitals from a pillared hall called the Apadana.  These stone capitals are in the shapes of various addorsed animals, including addorsed lions.  Seng-ge-rgyab-bsnol means ‘addorsed lion[s]’, and is located next to an ‘island’ called A-ba-da-ra.[101]  But Seng-ge-rgyab-bsnol is described in the Mdo-’dus as a place with a hundred and eight caves, where Shenrab’s disciple Gsang-ba-mdo-sdud stayed in meditation (Mdo-’dus, p. 153), and where Shenrab converted the delusionary power Ma-tang-ru-ring (Mdo-’dus, p. 69).  We find A-ba-da-ra also serving as the name of a lord of the Dmu country (Mdo-’dus, p. 39).  Finally, such speculation leads only to more tenuous, or even untenable, speculations, and we have to turn back to the Bon sources for enlightenment on the meanings of these places according to their own traditions. 

We would not deny that something of ’Persia’ could very well be found in Bon tradition in general and in the ’Ol-mo-lung-ring maps in particular.  If Bon teachings, as seems entirely possible, came to Zhang-zhung and Tibet from a place in the west, then some sort of Persian connections would seem to follow.  As Kaloyanov (1990: 78) and Martin (1994, this latter based in turn on an earlier, unpublished work of Christopher I. Beckwith, Bloomington, circulated in 1984) have suggested, the Tibetan noun ’Bon’ could be a Persian loanword.  But such speculations, intriguing as they may be, cannot bear significance in isolation, but must fit within a specifically known historical context, with a specific historical context in which the transmission to Tibet would have taken place.  The historical dimensions of Bon’s emergence and transmission are still far too unclear for critical scholarship to allow confident pronouncements.

Still, in summary in lieu of a conclusion, we may say that all the various sources we have brought forward point to a location for ’Ol-mo-lung-ring not precisely in Persia, but in the lands between northern Persia and the (changing) western borders of Tibet.  There is, it is true, a tendency to identify this area with the area of Mount Ti-se within western Tibet, although the two areas are just as often carefully distinguished;[102] some of the place names in both places correspond, or are made to correspond, thus accentuating the perplexity of our problem.  One author has suggested that the geography of western Tibet was transferred out of Tibet to form an idealized (and inaccessible) land.[103]  It seems equally possible that some aspects of the geography of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring were transferred into western Tibet to form a more accessible substitute holy place.[104]  My temporary impression is that, no matter how idealized the picture of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, it could very well encapsulate cultural memories of the area to the west of Tibet and on the fringes of Persia, a place where Buddhism was long known and practiced, perhaps helping us to explain, in some part, the phenomenon of Bon in Tibet as a result of Buddhist migrations from (as well as Tibetan conquests of) that area.[105]  We must emphasize, since there are many who would wish otherwise, that the Bon sources always place ’Ol-mo-lung-ring well outside the boundaries of Tibet (and well outside the area of western Tibet, or Zhang-zhung, which includes Mt. Ti-se), and this remains true no matter how much it might be described in ways that make it seem to resemble Western Tibet.

If we look at the internal geography of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, there is really nothing there that requires an appeal to Persian cartography.  What we might see instead is a reflection of old Indic traditions of urban planning found in both Śilpaśāstras and the Arthaśāstra.  In Indic tradition, the ideal city is (like the country of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring) laid out very rationally as a square fortified urban gridwork, with palaces and temples in the central square; with the four castes located in the four directions; and with inner, intermediate, and outer square ‘belts’ progressing outward from the center.[106]

’Ol-mo-lung-ring never really served as a place of pilgrimage, but besides that it was everything we could want from a place.  No Bonpo of recent centuries has actually succeeded in travelling overland to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, or if they have, they never returned to tell the tale.[107]  It was a paradise both on and beyond the earth, an exotic country, a place of religious origins, a visionary landscape, a Pure Land in which one might wish to gain rebirth.  Although its explicit identification with Shambhala, more correctly Sambhala, appears only rather late in Bon literature (see the appendix), there are a few general and specific features, even in the earlier texts, that would suggest their similarity.[108]  ’Ol-mo-lung-ring was and is all these things, but at the same time it was a place on the ground that we can indeed roughly locate, through text-based historical geography, in the area between Ladakh/Kashmir and the Oxus River.  And it was and is a quite original holy place rooted in the sacred biography of Lord Shenrab, not just a copy of anyone else’s holy place, not a retracing of some lost Persian map, but a place interwoven with the sacred time of Bon’s founding moments.  Perhaps these suggestions will assist people in the future, no matter what their views, to sharpen their arguments when they approach the subject.  ’Ol-mo-lung-ring has never been a very accessible place, neither geographically nor historical-geographically speaking.  To reach it is not the same as to enter into it.  The Rgyal-rabs (p. 21) tells, without great conviction, a piece of a traditional story:

When you look westward from the mountaintops of Kashmir, there is a dark rainbow.  Travelling for a long distance in that direction there appears, at the outskirts of Sharp Teeth (Dbal-so) Glacier [Mountains], a pathway no larger than a bamboo tube.  Since she was unable to go into it, the messenger woman returned after reaching the glacier [mountains].

One might say that a Wall of Sharp Teeth keeps us from finding the ‘true’ ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, but we suggest that the Bon sources are the first places to which we must turn if we ever hope to discern a glimmer of light at the end of the bamboo tunnel.  But what of the approach we will take after turning to those sources?

A historical geography that leans its weight on the historical side will tend to collapse space into a mere ornament to the vagaries of time and temporal development — in true philological style dissolving multiple destinies into a singularized reconstructed ‘origin’, tactically ignoring the fact that this ‘origin’ is just one of a string of origins stretching back into the beginningless past and forward into a future unknowable until we make it.  On the other side, a historical geography that gives greater weight to space will in same degree have more difficulty accommodating, let alone comprehending, the changing borders and shifts in planes that take place not only in linked historical developments but in contemporaneous minds and systems of thought.  As a hopelessly hybrid creature, or just as a sub-organism of the equally hybrid ‘cultural history’ with which it shares a similar range of problems and prospects, historical geography must accomplish an impossible balancing act between the extremes of timism and spacism.  But even when making good on its promises, historical geography alone is impotent to explain why, since ancient Assyria, the stone age and beyond, we have been setting aside special places for the indwelling of transcendent presences.  For that we need at least the ‘objective’ approaches of psychology if not also religious studies or, even more than those, a close attendance on the way our own minds work and even, it could well be argued (and I will not argue against it), intimate experience of the things religions do with us when we give ourselves to them.

When all is said and done, this place will still be meaningful only because it means something in the minds of those who accept it as a ‘spiritual’, not a just a geographical, horizon:

If this country [’Ol-mo-lung-ring] is a Pure Field which is a matter for faith, then to investigate or search for it as if it were here on the surface of this earth would be foolish.  Some want it to be the same as the areas of Mt. Ti-se and Persia, but if this were so, why would it need to be only a country in which one makes aspirations to be reborn?  Since our Teacher had this to say in the Scripture on Cutting Off the Door of Rebirth, “May we be born in the land of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  Not taking birth in a cyclic form of a bad body,”[109] it must be the case that this Field is truly and particularly exalted beyond the cyclic and ordinary world.

Wanting it to be nothing more than an object (or, country) of the ordinary senses of we animate beings, and thinking it necessary that we see it before it could exist in relation to the ground of Jambu Island, would be excessively constricted (or, suspicious) thinking…[110]

There do exist some places on the land and in the mind that historical geography, following its usual methods, can hardly hope to reach.

+ Appendix +

Following is a transcription of the lines inscribed at the bottom of Map B, followed by a discussion of similar passages in Bon literature which I believe might have preceeded the inscription.  I seek to demonstrate, even if not entirely unequivocally, that the expressions used in the inscription are quite recent, and that their historical development may be traced.

The Map B inscription reads (with the cursive abbreviations tacitly resolved):  u rgyan gyi mi rnams kyis zhing khams ’di la mtshan bde ba can btags / shar gling pas mi ’gyur g.yung drung can dang / byang gling pas dbang bsgyur ’khor lo can dang / nub gling pas me tog bkod pa can dang / ’dzam gling spyi pas yid bzhin bkod pa can dang / gzhan yang rgya gar gyi mi rnams kyis sham bha la / rgya nag gi mi rnams kyis mu khyud gter gyi gling / za hor gyi mi rnams kyis dbang ldan ’khor mo gling / yu gur gyi mi rnams kyis gar ma gar shom spro / bru sha’i mi rnams kyis mi ’gyur ’od ma tshal / kha che’i mi rnams kyis mi shig rdo rje’i gling / ge sar mi rnams kyis kha la g.yu gshog gling / li bal gyi mi rnams kyis dpag bsam ljon pa’i gling / zhang zhung gi mi rnams kyi nub byang stag gzig khrom gyi yul / bod gangs can gyi mi rnams kyis nub phyogs ’ol mo lung ring ngam ’ol mo lung (?) / mon yul gyi mi rnams kyis ta gzigs ga sha nor gyi gling / ’jang gi mi rnams kyis dmu yul ’phyo ba hos mo gling / la sogs mtshan so sor yod do. 

This inscription tells seventeen names by which seventeen nations of the world call the land of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  I believe that this inscription is a fairly clear indication that Map B itself was recently made, probably in the middle of the twentieth century or later, and perhaps even in eastern Tibet.  My reasoning is as follows.  In older Bon sources I have not found this eclectic identification of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring with Shambhala,[111] although I have noticed two rather old sources for the identification of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring with Bde-ba-can (in general Tibetan usage this would of course be the Sanskrit Sukhāvatī).  The name Bde-ba-can (as also Shambhala) doesn’t appear at all in the Mdo-’dus.  The first instance we know of is in a fourteenth-century work, Stag-tsha (p. 9): gnas mchogs de’i ming la ni / stag gzigs yul ni zhes kyang bya / ’ol mo lung rings zhes kyang bya / nubs phyogs bde ba can gyis zhings ’khams zhes kyang bya’o, ‘To give the names of this supreme place, it is called Stag-gzigs country, ’Ol-mo-lung-rings, western Bde-ba-can paradise.’  The second is a fifteenth-century history (Rgyal-rabs, pp. 12, 20), which attributes this identification to the (Bon scripture entitled) Rnam-rgyal.   We do find sets of identifications more closely similar to the inscription (and, I think significantly, employing the further identification with Shambhala) in use by proponents of ‘New Bon’, a movement whose origins are a point of controversy, but I believe that its identity as a distinct and self-conscious current of Bon began only in the seventeenth century.  It was in the eighteenth century, under the inspiration of the New Bon teacher Kun-grol-grags-pa, that the king of Khro-chen Kun-dga’-nor-bu undertook to carve the woodblocks for a new printed edition of the Bon canon, completed between the years 1758 and 1774.  In the colophon added to the Khro-chen print of the Gzi-brjid, we find the following passage:  gnas mchog dam pa ’ol mo lung ring ngam / sham ba la’am / stag gzig gi yul zhes bya ba / nub snang ba mtha’ yas sam / sangs rgyas bye drag dngos med kyi zhing khams ji lta ba gdos bcas su grub pas nub bde ba can gyi zhing khams su / rgyal rigs dra ma chen po ’khor los sgyur ba’i sras su rnam pa thams cad mkhyen pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas rgyal ba ston pa gshen (located in Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 12, fol. 325).  In the biography of the ancient sage Tshe-dbang-rig-’dzin, a gter-ma of Gsang-sngags-gling-pa (b. 1864) excavated in 1889, we find similar expressions, but one example will suffice (Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 187, fol. 78):  ’dzam gling sum cha bde ba can gyi zhing / sog kha bon gyi ’byung gnas ’ol mo gling / sham bha la yi gnas mchog chen po der , ‘In that place that is one-third[112] of Jambu Island, the Field of Bde-ba-can, the shoulder-bone [shaped] originating place of Bon ’Ol-mo-gling, the great supreme holy place of Shambhala.’  These eighteenth- and nineteenth-century passages clearly equate ’Ol-mo-lung-ring with Stag-gzig, with Bde-ba-can and, unlike earlier sources, with Shambhala, but missing is any information about which people in which countries call the place by which name.  This further element we find first in the approximately 1910 work by Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan (or perhaps by one of his disciples; see Shar-rdza 1973: 551; the authorship of this work is discussed in Blondeau 1988):  ’dzam gling gi mi rigs so sos mtshan re yod pa’i nang tshan / zhang zhung gi mi rnams kyis stag gzig khrom pa’i gling / rgya gar gyi mi rnams kyis byang sham bha la’i gnas mchog / bod kyi mi rnams kyis stag gzig gi yul ’ol mo lung ring zhes gsol, ‘Each nationality of Jambu Island has its own name for it, among them:  The people of Zhang-zhung call it Stag-gzig Khrom-pa’i Gling.  The Indian people call it northern Shambhala, the supreme place.  Tibetans call it the land of Stag-gzig, ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.’  In the history by Shar-rdza, composed in the 1920’s, we find a very similar quote (Shar-rdza 1985: 16):  zhing khams ’di la mtshan gyi rnam grangs yang rgya gar gyi mi rnams kyis sham bha la / zhang zhung gi mi rnams kyis stag gzig khrom gyi yul / bod kyi mi rnams kyis stag gzig gi yul ’ol mo lung ring / o rgyan gyi mi rnams kyis nub phyogs bde ba can gyi zhing zer ro //  zhes sogs mdo dri med las bshad do.  The significant thing about this latter passage is that it attributes the idea of the various names of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring to the Mdo Dri-med, better known to us as the Gzi-brjid, the most extensive account of the life of Lord Shenrab aurally transmitted to Blo-ldan-snying-po (b. 1360) in the late fourteenth century.  If the attribution of this citation is correct, we would have to trace the origins of this conception to that time (note that some followers of New Bon do consider Blo-ldan-snying-po as belonging to their movement).  But it is possible (and I think likely) that the attribution may not be a reliable one.  Shar-rdza might have been quoting not from the text of the Gzi-brjid itself, but from a colophon to the Gzi-brjid like the one we have cited above.  In order to demonstrate this, we would of course have to read through the entire twelve volumes of the Gzi-brjid, and establish that no such statements occur therein, something we are not prepared to do at the moment.  The New Bon geography, by a follower of both Shar-rdza and Gsang-sngags-gling-pa, Dbra-ston (ca. 1930: 942) reads:  gnyis pa bon tshigs kyi yul dbus ni byang shambha la ste / rgya gar bas byang shambha la dang / o rgyan pas nub bde ba can dang / bod kyi m[i] nub byang ’ol mo’i gling zhes ’bod pa de yin la.  ‘Secondly, the Bon religion central country is northern Shambhala.  The Indians call it northern Shambhala.  The O-rgyan people call it western Bde-ba-can, and the Tibetans call it northwestern ’Ol-mo’i-gling.’  The lengthy inscription at the bottom of our Map B would thus seem to be only a more elaborate version of this or a similar quite recent and eclectic statement (it is interesting and worthy of comment that Dbra-ston foregrounds Shambhala as the main name of this country, surely something no earlier Bon writer would have ventured to do, although a later writer, such as Dpal-tshul 1972: 69, very well might).

Addendum to the Appendix

Since submitting this essay for publication, my friend and Tibetological colleague Dagkar Geshe Namgyal Nyima, presently living in Bonn, kindly informed me of two more works about 'Ol-mo-lung-ring.  The first of these is Dbra-ston Bskal-bzang-bstan-rgyal (1897-1959), Sprul-sku'i Zhing Mchog Sham-bha-la 'Ol-mo'i-gling-gi Rtogs-pa Brjod-pa U-dumbara'i Skyed-mo'i Tshal, contained in:  Dbra ston bka' 'bum, vol. KA, fols. 1r-10r.  (In other words, it is a 10-folio text contained somewhere in the first volume.)  This short work is not yet available to me (it is known that Dbra-ston's works have been published recently in Eastern Tibet, but this hardly makes them 'available'), but one may see from the title that the author once again foregrounds the name Shambhala. 

The second work, which we were able to locate, contains a passage that could well have served as the source of the Map B inscription, and furthermore an extensive gazeteer of 'Ol-mo-lung-ring, and therefore it is quite significant for our arguments.  This is a commentary on a 'root text' whose author is unknown although it could well have been Shar-rdza himself. I was able to come to no conclusion about its exact date of composition on the basis of the information supplied in the colophons, but since the author Shar-rdza's dates ought to be 1859-1933, this cannot be considered a source of any great age.  The words from the 'root text' are marked with small circles beneath them, and the following passage, which appears on pp. 436-437 is not so marked, and so should be taken as part of the commentary authored by Shar-rdza.  The wording and spellings are so close that it seems that the Map B inscription must have been directly extracted from Shar-rdza's text.  Here are the bibliographical details, followed by a transcription of the relevant passage.  (The parts that directly correspond to the Map B inscription are italicized for ease of comparison.)

Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan, Bde-chen Zhing-gi Smon-lam-gyi Don Gsal-bar Byed-pa'i 'Grel-ba Nyi-ma'i Snying-po, contained in:  Gsang-sngags Khrid dang Smon-lam Rnam Gsum sogs-kyi 'Grel-pa (a collection of works by Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan), "Reproduced from a copy of the Delhi lithographic print made by Khyung-sprul 'Jigs-med-nam-mkha'i-rdo-rje during the 1950's," New Thobgyal, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1973, pp. 433-618. 

u rgyan gyi mi rnams kyis zhing khams 'di la mtshan bde ba can btags pa'i sgra las drangs pa ste / don du gnas skabs dang mthar thug thams cad du mi bde ba med cing bde ba can gyi gnas yin pa'i phyir dang / de lta bu'i gnas sam grong du 'jug pa'i thabs khyed [i.e., khyad] par can gyi tshig phreng yin pas na de skad brjod pa'o // 

gzhan dag gis ni / shar gling pas mi 'gyur g.yung drung can dang / byang gling pas dbang bsgyur 'khor lo can dang / nub gling pas me tog bkod pa can dang / 'dzam gling spyi pas yid bzhin bkod pa can dang / gzhan yang rgya gar gyi mi rnams kyis sham bha la / rgya nags[ k]yi mi rnams kyis mu khyud gter gyi gling / za hor gyi mi rnams kyis dbang ldan 'khor lo gling / sbu gur [i.e., yu gur] gyi mi rnams kyis zhar ma gar shom spro / bru sha'i mi rnams kyis mi 'gyur 'od ma tshal / kha che'i mi rnams kyis mi shig rdo rje'i gling / ge sar mi rnams kyis kha la g.yu gshog gling / li bal gyi mi rnams kyis dpag bsam ljon pa'i gling / zhang zhung gi mi rnams kyis nub byang stag gzig khrom gyi yul / bod gangs can gyi mi rnams kyis nub phyogs 'ol mo bsung [i.e., lung] ring ngam 'ol mo'i gling / mon yul gyi mi rnams kyis ta gzigs ga sha nor gyi gling / 'jam gi mi rnams kyis dmu yul 'phyo ba hos mo gling la sogs mtshan so sor yod do //

Notes:

Bibliography

Bailey, Harold W., ‘Report’, in:  John R. Hinnells, ed., Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mithraic Studies, Totowa, Manchester University Press, 1975, p. 134.

Beckwith, Christopher I., The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1987.

Blondeau, Anne-Marie, ‘La controverse soulevée par l’inclusion de rituels bon‑po dans le Rin‑chen gter‑mdzod. Note préliminaire’,  in: H. Uebach & J.L. Panglung (eds.), Tibetan Studies, Munich, Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988, pp. 55‑67.

Bon Kanjur (G.yung-drung Bon-gyi Bka’-’gyur Rin-po-che), “reproduced from the surviving prints from the Khro-chen blocks,” Khedup Gyatso, Dolanji, 1984-5.  Only three volumes were published.

Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, published in 192 volumes in Chengdu in 1987 by Bon-slebs Nam-mkha’-bstan-’dzin and Ha-sang Yon (no bibliographical details are provided in the publication itself).

Bsod-nams-don-grub, “Stag-gzig dang Gna’-rabs Bod-kyi ’Brel-ba’i Skor la Dpyad-pa” (‘Investigation into the Ancient Historical Connections between Persia and Tibet’), Bod-ljongs Zhib-’jug, 3rd issue for the year 1992, pp. 25-34.

Cech, Krystyna, ‘A Religious Geography of Tibet according to the Bon Tradition’, in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita, Narita Shinshoji, 1992, vol. 2, pp. 387-392 (with attached map).

Chang, Garma C.C., tr., The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa (the Tibetan author is Gtsang-smyon He-ru-ka, 1452-1507), Boulder, Shambhala, 1977, in 2 volumes.

Clemente, Adriano, ‘The Sgra Bla, Gods of the Ancestors of Gshen-rab Mi-bo according to the Sgra Bla Go Bsang from the Gzi-brjid’, in:  Per Kværne, ed., Tibetan Studies, Oslo, The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 127-136.

Dbra-ston Skal-bzang-bstan-pa’i-rgyal-mtshan, ’Dzam-gling Mtha’ Dbus-kyi Rnam-bzhag Nyer-mkho’i Snang-ba, a photocopy of a ms. in 18 folios.  Has added Arabic numerals 933 through 968.  Probably taken from a volume published recently in Tibet.  The author’s name appears in the colophon as Khod-spungs Dbra-zhig Btsun-pa.  Composed in circa 1930.

Dpal-tshul (Dpal-ldan-tshul-khrims), G.yung-drung Bon-gyi Bstan-’byung, Dolanji, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1972, in 2 vols.

Dudjom Rinpoche Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje, The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism:  Its Fundamentals and History, tr. & ed., by Gyurme Dorje with Matthew Kapstein, Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1991.

Gangs-ri-ba Chos-dbyings-rdo-rje, Gangs-can Bod-kyi Nub-ngos Mnga’-ris Skor Gsum-gyi Sngon-byung Lo-rgyus ’Chi-med Rnga Sgra, Lhasa, Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang, 1996.

Gibson, Todd, ‘Dgra-lha: A Re-examination’, Journal of the Tibet Society, vol. 5 (1985), pp. 67-72.

Gling-grags (Bon Chos Dar Nub-gi Lo-rgyus Grags-pa Rin-chen Gling-grag[s] ces bya-ba Rmongs‑pa Blo’i Gsal-byed; said to have been excavated by Mtha’-bzhi Ye-shes-blo-gros), manuscript in 95 folios made in 1919 kept in Oslo University Library, Østas II 14.

Har-El, Menashe, ‘Jews and the Great Silk Road’, Ariel: A Review of Arts and Letters in Israel (Jerusalem), no. 84 (1991), pp. 2-18.

Hetenyi, Ernest, ‘Jerusalem in an Old Tibetan Map?’ Tibetan Review, vol. 8 (January/February, 1973), p. 14.  This article was also published in Hungarian, German and English versions in A Körösi Csoma Sándor Intézet Közleményei (publication of the Arya Maitreya Mandala in Budapest) in the 1972 issue (general series no. 4?), pp. 11-16.

Hoffmann, Helmut, Quellen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Bon-Religion, Wiesbaden, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1950.

Hoffmann, Helmut, ‘Zur Literatur der Bon-po’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft , vol. 94 (1940), pp. 169-188.

Hoffmann, Helmut, Symbolik der tibetischen Religionen und des Schamanismus (Symbolik der Religionen series, vol. 12), Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1967.

Huber, [An]Toni, ‘Where Exactly are Câritra, Devikoṭa and Himavat?  A Sacred Geography Controversy and the Development of Tantric Buddhist Pilgrimage Sites in Tibet’, Kailash, vol. 16, no. 3-4 (1990), pp. 121-164.

Huber, Antoni, ‘A Tibetan Map of Lho-kha in the South-Eastern Himalayan Borderlands of Tibet’,  Imago Mundi, vol. 44 (1992), pp. 9-23.

Hummel, Siegbert, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu Jerusalem auf einer alten tibetischen Weltkarte?’, A Körösi Csoma Sándor Intézet Közleményei (publication of the Arya Maitreya Mandala in Budapest) in the issue no. 1 of the year 1973, pp. 47-48.

Hummel, Siegbert, ‘Das heilige Land der Bon-po und das mythologische K’un-lun der Chinesen’, A Körösi Csoma Sándor Intézet Közleményei (publication of the Arya Maitreya Mandala in Budapest) in the issue no. 3-4 of the year 1975 (general series no. 9-10), pp. 28-29.

Jamspal, Lozang, ‘The Three Provinces of Mna’-ris: Traditional Accounts of Ancient Western Tibet’, in: B.Aziz & M.Kapstein, eds., Soundings in Tibetan Civilization, New Delhi, Manohar, 1985, pp. 152-156.

Kaloyanov, Stanimir, ‘Irano-Tibetica: Some Observations on the Tibetan Bon’, Tibet Journal, vol. 15, no. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 77-82.

Karmay, Samten G., The Treasury of Good Sayings: A Tibetan History of Bon, London Oriental Series volume 26, London, Oxford University Press, 1972.

Karmay, Samten G., ‘A Gzer-mig Version of the Interview between Confucius and Phyva Ke∫-tse Lan-med’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 38 (1975a), pp. 562-580.

Karmay, Samten G., ‘A General Introduction to the History and Doctrines of Bon’, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tôyô Bunko, vol. 33 (1975b), pp. 171-218.

Kletter, Ch., M. Kriechbaum, P. Szambor, N. Qusar, W. Holzner & W. Kubelka, “’Ol-mo-se, Podophyllum hexandrum Royle:  Documentation of Tibetan Medicinal Plants,” Sman-rtsis (Dharamsala), vol. 1, no. 1 (1995), pp. 1-25.

Kun-dga’-don-grub, Grub-chen O-rgyan-pa’i Rnam-thar Thar-pa Byin-brlabs Chu Rgyun (Note: author on title page given as Zla-ba-seng-ge), Gangtok, Sherab Gyaltsen Lama, 1976.

Kunga Rinpoche, Lama, & Brian Cutillo, Drinking the Mountain Stream: New Stories & Songs by Milarepa, Novato California, Lotsawa, 1978.

Kuznetsov, B.I., and L.N. Gumilev, ‘Two Traditions of Ancient Tibetan Cartography’, Soviet Geography: Review & Translation, vol. 11, no. 7 (September 1970), pp. 565-579.  The original Russian-language version was published in 1969 in the series entitled Geologiya i geografiya.

Kuznetsov, B.I., ‘A Letter from Leningrad’, Tibetan Review, vol. 8 (December 1973), p. 20.

Kuznetsov, B.I., ‘The Article Jerusalem in an Old Tibetan Map?’, A Körösi Csoma Sándor Intézet Közleményei (publication of the Arya Maitreya Mandala in Budapest) in the issue 3-4 of the year 1974 (general series nos. 5-6), pp. 53-54.

Kværne, Per, ‘The Canon of the Tibetan Bonpos’, Indo-Iranian Journal vol. 16 (1974), pp. 8-56, 96-144.

Kværne, Per, ‘Mongols and Khitans in a 14th-Century Tibetan Bonpo Text’, Acta Orientalia Hungarica, vol. 34 (1980), pp. 85-104.

Kværne, Per, ‘Peintures tibétaines de la vie de Ston-pa-gçen-rab’, Arts Asiatiques, vol. 41 (1986), pp. 36-81.

Kværne, Per, The Bon Religion of Tibet:  The Iconography of a Living Tradition, London, Serindia, 1995.

Kværne, Per, ‘Dualism in Tibetan Cosmogonic Myths and the Question of Iranian Influence’, in:  C.I. Beckwith, ed., Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, Bloomington, The Tibet Society, 1987, pp. 163-174.

Lauf, D.I., ‘Randnotizen zu Jerusalem auf einer alten tibetischen Weltkarte?’, A Körösi Csoma Sándor Intézet Közleményei (publication of the Arya Maitreya Mandala in Budapest) in the issue no. 1 of the year 1973, pp. 49-50.

Law, B.C., ‘Rivers of India as in Ancient Literature’, in:  B.C. Law, ed.,   Mountains and Rivers of India, Calcutta, National Committee for Geography, 1968, pp. 187-210.

Lindtner, Christian, ‘Buddhist References to Old Iranian Religion’, Acta Iranica, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1988, pp. 433-444.

Macdonald, Ariane, ‘Note sur la diffusion de la theorie des quatre fils du ciel au Tibet’, Journal Asiatique, vol. 250 (1962), pp. 531-548.

Martin, Dan, The Emergence of Bon and the Tibetan Polemical Tradition, doctoral dissertation, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1991.

Martin, Dan, Mandala Cosmogony:  Human Body Good Thought and the Revelation of the Secret Mother Tantras of Bon, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994 (based in part on the masters thesis of 1986).

Martin, Dan, ‘Tibet at the Center: A Historical Study of Some Tibetan Geographical Conceptions Based on Two Types of Country-Lists Found in Bon Histories’, in:  Per Kværne, ed., Tibetan Studies, Oslo, The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994a, vol. 1, pp. 517-532.

Mdo-’dus Rin-po-che’i Rgyud Thams-cad Mkhyen-pa’i Bka’ Tshad-ma, Khedup Gyatsho,  Dolanji, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1985.

Musche, Brigitte, ‘Eine tibetische Eberkopfkappe und ihre Beziehung zu den sasanidischen Tierkopfkappen’, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, vol. 20 (1987), pp. 281-288.

Namdak, Tenzin, ed., Rgyal-gshen Rnam-thar (=The Life of Lord Gshen-rab: Excerpted from Original Texts), Dolanji, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1971.  Two  volumes (pagination continuous).

Namdak, Tenzin (=Slob-dpon Bstan-’dzin-rnam-dag), The History of Tibet according to Bon (=Snga-rabs Bod-kyi Byung-ba Brjod-pa’i ’Bel-gtam Lung-gi Snying-po), Dolanji, Tenzin Namdak, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1973.

Newman, John, ‘Itineraries to Sambhala’, in: J.I. Cabezón & R.R. Jackson, eds., Tibetan Literature:  Studies in Genre, Ithaca, Snow Lion, 1996, pp. 485-499.

Norbu, Namkhai and Ramon Prats, Gans ti se’i dkar c’ag, Rome, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.

Norbu, Namkhai, The Necklace of Gzi:  A Cultural History of Tibet, Dharamsala, Information Office of H.H. The Dalai Lama, 1981 (original Tibetan version published in 1976).

Norbu, Namkhai (=Nam-mkha’i-nor-bu), Bod-kyi Lo-rgyus-las ’Phros-pa’i Gtam Nor-bu’i Do-shal, Dharamsala, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981a.

Norbu, Namkhai (=Nam-mkha’i-nor-bu), Zhang Bod Gna’-rabs-kyi Lo-rgyus Nor-bu’i Me-long, Chengdu, Si-khron Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang, 1990.

Nyi-zer (Srid-pa Las-kyi Gting-bzlog-gis Rtsa-rgyud Nyi-zer Sgron-ma), contained in:  Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 111.  A gter-ma excavation of Bra-bo Sgom-nyag.

Ohji Toshiaki, ‘The ‘Ideal’ Hindu City of Ancient India as Described in the Arthaśāstra and the Urban Planning of Jaipur’, East Asian Cultural Studies, vol. 29, no. 1-4 (March, 1990), pp. 55-73.

Pranavananda, Swami, ‘New Light on the Sources of the Four Great Rivers of the Holy Kailas and Manasarowar’, in: B.C. Law, ed., Mountains and Rivers of India, Calcutta, National Committee for Geography, 1968, pp. 221-230.

Rgya Bod Yig-tshang Chen-mo, by *Dpal-’byor-bzang-po, Ch’eng-tu, Si-khron Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang, 1985.

Sga-ston Tshul-khrims-rgyal-mtshan, Kun-las Btus-pa Srid-pa’i Mdzod-phug-gi Gzhung ’Grel, Dolanji, Tashi Dorji, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1974, in 2 vols.

Shar-pa Rnal-’byor, Gnas-mchog ’Ol-mo-lung-rings-kyis Bkod-pa Ngo-mtshar Rgya-mtsho’i Gter, contained in:  Shar-pa Rnal-’byor, The Songs of Realization (Mgur-’bum), Dolanji, Ngawang Sonam, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1976, pp. 1-21.

Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan, Bstan-grags-kyi Brgal-lan Drang-por Bshad-pa Lha Mi Dgyes-pa’i ’Bel-gtam, in: Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan, Nam-mkha’i Mdzod, New Thobgyal, Ngawang Sonam, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1973, vol. 1, pp. 543-614.  (A 53-folio xylograph of this work exists in the Migot collection [see Karmay 1972: 194], although not available to us.)

Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan, Legs-bshad Rin-po-che’i Gter Mdzod, Lhasa, Mi-rigs Dpe‑skrun‑khang, 1985.

Smith, E. Gene, ‘Preface’  to Don-dam-smra-ba’i-seng-ge, Bshad Mdzod Yid-bzhin Nor-bu (=A 15th Century Tibetan Compendium of Knowledge), Satapitaka series no. 78, Lokesh Chandra (N. Delhi 1969).

Snellgrove, David L., The Nine Ways of Bon, Boulder, Prajñā Press, 1980.

Snellgrove, David, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists & Their Tibetan Successors, Boston, Shambhala, 1987.  Two volumes (continuous pagination).

Spa-ston Bstan-rgyal-bzang-po (15th cent.), Bstan-pa’i Rnam-bshad Dar-rgyas Gsal-ba’i Sgron-me (=Bstan-pa’i Rnam-bshad Dar-rgyas Gsal-sgron-las Bstan-pa’i Gnas-tshad dang Lo-rgyus Lhun Gsal), Beijing, Krung-go’i Bod-kyi Shes-rig Dpe-skrun-khang, 1991.

Srid-pa Rgyud-kyi Kha-byang Chen-mo, “rediscovered by Khod-spo Blo‑gros‑thogs‑med,” Dolanji, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1976.

Stein, R.A., ‘Tibetica Antiqua III: A propos du mot gcug-lag et de la religion indigéne’, Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extréme Orient, vol. 74 (1985), pp. 83-133.

Stronach, David, ‘Excavations at Pasargadae: First Preliminary Report’, Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, vol. 1 (1963), pp. 19-39.

Stronach, David, ‘Excavations at Pasargadae: Second Preliminary Report’, Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, vol. 2 (1964), pp. 21-42.

Stronach, David, ‘Cyrus’s Capital in Old Tibetan Map’, Tibetan Review, vol. 12, no. 1 (January 1977), pp. 14-15.

Stronach, David, Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978.

Tucci, Giuseppe, Santi e briganti nel Tibet ignoto, Milan, Editore Ulrico Hoepli, 1937.

Tucci, Giuseppe, ‘Iran et Tibet’, Acta Iranica, series 1, vol. 1 (1974), pp. 299-306.

Tucci, Giuseppe, Sadhus et brigands du Kailash: Mon voyage au Tibet occidental, Paris, Raymond Chabaud, 1989.  Translation of Tucci 1937.

Uray, Géza, ‘The Narrative of Legislation and Organization of the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston’, Acta Orientalia Hungarica, vol. 26 (1972), pp. 11-68.

Stag-tsha Bla-ma Rgyal-mtshan, Yang-rtse Klong-chen-gyis ’Grel-pa Nyi-zer Sgron‑ma, in: Gzhod-ston Dngos-grub-grags-’bar, Bla-med Rdzogs-pa-chen-po Yang‑rtse Klong-chen-gyi Khrid Gzhung Cha-lag dang bcas pa’i Gsung Pod, New Thobgyal, Sherab Wangyal, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1973, vol. 1, pp. 1-98.

Stein, Rolf A., Tibetan Civilization, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1972.

White, David Gordon, Myths of the Dog-man, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen, Sde-dge’i Bstan-’gyur-gyi Dkar-chag, Delhi, Trayang and Jamyang Samten, 1974.

[1]The Tibetan polemical tradition, as it concerns Bon, was the subject of Martin (1991).  The sources usually use the word bsgyur in these contexts, meaning both ‘transformed’ and ‘translated’.  The revision of this paper was made possible during my stay during 1995 and 1996 at the Center for Advanced Studies in Oslo, where I had the opportunity to consult the complete 2nd edition of the Bon Kanjur in 192 volumes and the pleasure of interacting regularly with scholars of Bon studies.  I should particularly like to mention and thank my friend Dagkar Geshe Namgyal Nyima, who pointed out to me some of the sources on ’Ol-mo-lung-ring used in the revision.

[2]An example of a ‘triple’ geocentrism is Dbra-ston (ca. 1930).  According to this geographical work, the ‘geographic center’ (sa-tshigs-kyi yul dbus) is Mt. Kailash, which itself might be identified as two different places, either Mt. Ti-se in western Tibet, or the Ti-se of Stag-gzig, which Indians call both Ka-bi-la (Kabul?  Kapita?) and Kê-la-sha.  The latter is located on the opposite side of the Shi-ta river that forms the boundary of Shambhala.  The second center, the ‘Bon center’ (bon-tshigs-kyi yul dbus) is the place called Shambhala by the Indians, Bde-ba-can by the inhabitants of O-rgyan, and by the Tibetans Northwest ’Ol-mo’i-gling.  This place is further identified with Stag-gzig.  The third center, the ‘place that accords with being a Bon center’ (bon-tshigs-kyi yul dbus rjes-mthun) is identified with the two countries of Zhang-zhung and Tibet (Zhang Bod gnyis).

[3]I have discussed this question of this bi-centralistic view very briefly in Martin (1994a, note 31).   Many Tibetan thinkers of the eleventh through fourteenth centuries, both Bon and Chos, sought to balance the ‘outside center’ (’Ol-mo-lung-ring in the case of Bon and the Diamond Seat of Bodhgaya in the case of Chos) with a sense of their own centrality.  These two centers are, in both Bon and Chos sources, often called 1. the ‘way-stations’ (sa-tshigs) or, we might prefer to say, ‘geographical’ center and 2. the ‘quality’ (yon-tan) center. 

[4]Snellgrove (1987: II 388 ff.).  There are a number of points in Snellgrove’s account with which I would differ.  On p. 289, he says that hidden books began to be discovered “from the thirteenth century on.”  Bon history traces the beginnings of the treasure-excavation mode of revelation to the tenth century, while some of the most influential scriptural revelations were made in 1017 by Gshen-chen Klu-dga’ (on him and his dates, see Martin 1991), and his own particular textual treasures were concealed in the time of Dri-gum-btsan-po, and not in the time of Khri-srong-lde-brtsan, as Snellgrove would suggest (p. 389).  I also disagree, for what I think obvious reasons, with his characterization of Bon as “heterodox Buddhism.”  On the whole, however, Snellgrove’s work has brought a virtual paradigm shift to Bon studies.

[5]The question of Persian-Tibetan historical relations is an interesting subject in its own right, quite apart from the present considerations.  For those who wish to study the problems in detail, it will be necessary to refer to a few recent articles on the subject, including bsod-nams-don-grub (1992), Kaloyanov (1990), Kværne (1987), Musche (1987), Tucci (1974).  There are also, even if not cited here, several other articles by Kuznetsov translated into English in the pages of the Tibet Journal (Dharamsala).  It is interesting to note that in some modern Tibetan works, Persia and Iran are referred to as Po-zi, Par-sig (this last spelling is from a frequently repeated list of countries derived from the Kālacakra literature; Par-shig and Par-zhig are spellings known in some old sources, including Dunhuang documents) and Dbyi-lang or Dbyis-lang (pronounced ‘yeelang’, a borrowing of ‘Iran’ via Chinese not known to the older Tibetan literature).  The spelling Par-sig would seem to be the most ‘Indic’ of these names, since it so closely corresponds to Pārasîka, a word used in Indian Epic and Puranic literature to refer to Persians, at least since Sassanian times.  See Lindtner 1988), for Iran and Persia in Indian Buddhist literature, some of it available to Tibetans in the form of translations.

[6]Many modern Tibetan nationalists, both inside and outside Tibet, strongly reject, or simply ignore, the idea of Bon’s extra-Tibetan origins, since this doesn’t fit well with the uses they want to make of Bon.   They have perhaps been inspired by the insistence that Lord Shenrab was a native-born Tibetan (even if Tibet was then called Zhang-zhung) found in Norbu (1981: 16-17; as well as 1981a: 38-40; 1990: 19-20, etc.), even though the bulk of Bon textual evidence clearly locates his birthplace in ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, which they place, almost invariably as we shall see, outside Tibet.  (There is nothing ‘wrong’ with these sorts of speculations — I intend to indulge in a few myself — but they should at least be clearly distinguished from what the Bon sources themselves have to say.)  There is one Chos story, attested only as early as the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston (ignoring one late and almost certainly apocryphal account included in the Milarepa corpus; Kunga & Cutillo 1978: 148, which unlike the Mkhas-pa’i Dga’-ston, puts the birthplace in Western Tibet), about a child born with donkey ears in a place called Bon-mo-lung-ring, in turn placed in ’On in Central Tibet, but the clear hostile intent of this account makes it unworthy of any serious consideration as a proof-text (but then see Stein 1972: 233, 236; the donkey ears are just one further rhetorical embellishment to a story first found in the circa 1260 anti-Bon polemic of the Dgongs-gcig Yig-cha, which will be subject of another essay).  There is another earlier Chos story, starting with the history by Nyang-ral at the end of the 12th century, that at least one kind of Bon (Nyang-ral calls it ‘outbreak Bon of the sky’) had its Tibetan origins with a teacher who came from a place to the west of Tibet (a place he locates on ‘this’ side of O-rgyan, and the other side of Kashmir, thus seeming to place it in the present-day Buner valley, while other later Chos sources locate it either in Stag-gzig or in between Sog-po and Stag-gzig, making for a rather complicated discussion that will not be pursued further here) in the time of Dri-gum-btsan-po, and although quite evidently polemically motivated, a number of centuries later than the events described, and not portraying the geography in the same way as Bon sources, this sort of statement might at the very least be taken as an outside source of verification, however hostile it may be, of the nearly universal account of Bon’s extra-Tibetan origins held by Bon historians of the past.  Even the nineteenth-century guide to Mt. Ti-se by the Bonpo Dkar-ru Grub-dbang, who was born (in 1801) in the vicinity of that mountain, and evinces in his book very little interest in ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, nevertheless says that Lord Shenrab came to Mt. Ti-se from ’Ol-mo-lung-ring in Stag-gzig and subsequently returned there (Norbu & Prats 1989: 42-53).

[7]We do find ’Ol-mo-lung-ring directly identified as the/a ‘country of Stag-gzig’ in a Bon canonical text, the Rgyud Dung-lo-ljon-pa (‘The Scripture Conch-Leafed Tree’, found in the Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 182, pp. 132-142, at p. 133), a gter-ma of Gu-ru Ban-chung of eastern Tibet, whose dates are unclear.

[8]’Ol-mo-lung-ring has often been mentioned in Tibetological literature, but the most useful and reliable general discussion is still Karmay (1975b: 171-175), and also Karmay (1972: xxvii-xxxi).  I would also like to recommend certain works (mainly in Tibetan) by Namkhai Norbu (although the most recent ones are unfortunately not at the moment available to me) where problems of Bon geographies of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and Zhang-zhung are discussed.  Attempts to find an explanation of the main part of the name, ’Ol-mo (lung ring means ‘long valley/country’), in terms of historical place-names or Tibetan-language etymologies (it has no meaning at all in Zhang-zhung language, as far as may be known from the available glossaries)  have not been conclusive, and we have tried to avoid going into greatly detailed arguments on this question, since in any case knowing how to account for the name of a place is not necessarily useful or relevant for locating it.  Kuznetsov (1973: 20) wants to connect it with Elam in southern Persia, although a connection with Hebrew olam (Arabic alam), ‘world’, might also suggest itself, and we hasten to add that there is really very little that could support any of these connections.  Possible Tibetan-language etymologies would involve various plants (one more promising possibility, the medicinal herb ’Ol-mo-se, which grows in moist mountain-side forests ranging from NE Afghanistan to China; see Kletter et al. 1995), birds (hawks and kites), diseases, rain-gutters (irrigation?  Intriguing given the gridwork of watercourses in ’Ol-mo-lung-ring maps), and so forth.  The existence of a Tibetan place-name ’Ol-mo Tshal (Dudjom 1991: I 609), ‘Grove of ’Ol-mo’, might make us tend toward identifying ’Ol-mo as a kind of tree.  There are also some internal Bon etymologies, which involve metaphysical speculations, analysing each syllable separately, but these would seem to be rather late and after the fact.  The Mdo-’dus, for example, offers no such etymology, although we do find one example from the later — just how much later is not clear — Gzer-mig (as cited in Shar-rdza 1973: 552 and in Karmay 1975: 172; comparing the text in Shar-rdza 1985: 10-11):

’Ol because it is unproduced.

Mo because it fulfills desires.

Lung because the oral transmission of the Word was taught [there].

Ring because of the long reach of compassion.

I do not feel that this or any other etymology provides a very satisfying explanation for present purposes, but I would like to add still another to the list.  The Mdo-’dus (p. 209; parallel text in Rgyal-rabs, p. 19), in the end of its gazetteer of the parts of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, has the following description of the outermost ring of ocean and mountains:  de rgyab mu khyud bdal ba’i mtsho / lcags ri dpag tshad stong dang lnga brgyas bskor / zang ri nam mkha’ ’ol ’ol ste / gnam ni ’khor lo rtsibs brgyad ’dra.  We might translate:  ‘Behind that is the Lake that Covers the Circumference.  It is surrounded by 1500 leagues of Iron Mountains.  The Copper Mountains make obscure (’ol-’ol, =’al-’ol, =’al-le-’ol-le) the sky.  The firmanent appears like an eight-spoked wheel.’  The name ’Ol-mo might suggest the ‘obscurity’ of the country itself.  The syllable ’ol occurs, with closely related meanings (‘hazy’ or ‘rough’), in such compounds as ’ol-spyi (rough and ready), ’ol-spyod (a deed performed without forethought), and ’ol-tshod (rough estimate).  This explanation, along with the others, is at best hazy or rough, and we will procede on the assumption that it might be possible to clarify the historical location of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, even without a generally acceptable explanation of the name.

[9]Such highly unusual peoples are also known to European tradition, both ancient and medieval, starting from Megasthenes as preserved in the writings of Strabo.  The last-mentioned group of people, for example, corresponds to the Enotocoitae (‘ear-sleepers’).

[10]Jambu Island may be understood to mean ‘the world as we know it’, since its precise meaning has proven quite elastic depending on changing Buddhist (not to mention changing Bon) views of the geographical world.

[11]I have shown in Martin (1994a) how Phu-na, which occurs in other sources in the form Spu-na, etc., stems from a scribal misinterpretation of Yu-na.  For the identification of Yavana (Pâli Yona) with the Indo-Greeks and their successors (perhaps including the later Indo-Scythians), see Lindtner (1988: 436) and references given there.

[12]This country is probably the same “vortex of cynanthropy” in quest of which White (1991) was written.

[13]While Stag-ste (Stag-sde, etc.) and Gzig-’phan were probably created for reasons of symmetry (Macdonald  1962: 532), they do seem to go back to the original Eighteen Great Countries conception (as evidenced by the source, to be mentioned presently, from a late-thirteenth-century Chos history), and only the Rgyal-rabs places Stag-gzig and O-rgyan in the west.

[14]Karmay (1972: xviii) identifies this Rtsa ’Grel with the Zhi Khro Rtsa ’Grel excavated by Gu-ru Rnon-rtse (b. 1136), on whom see Martin (1994).

[15]According to Karmay (1972: 4 n. 1), the title should be Dus Gsum Sangs-rgyas Byung-khungs-kyi Mdo (and this is the title as it appears in Kværne 1974: no. K7), ‘Scripture on the Source of the Buddhas of the Three Times’.  The Zhang-zhung language title supplied in the beginning of the text has some obvious ‘Indic’ elements:  a drung sad gyer drung mu rad na tan tra da do ci.  The sad gyer drung mu  stands for Tibetan g.yung-drung lha-yi bon (‘Eternal Divine Bon [Text]’).  The rad na tan tra obviously corresponds to Indic ratna tantra (‘string of jewels’); the da do ci means ces bya-ba (‘thus called’), and the a drung must stand for mdo-’dus, although I do not find this Zhang-zhung word in my glossaries.  Because there are some internal inconsistencies, a few noted below, the Mdo-’dus as we have it seems to be a pastiche, albeit an old one, of two or more still more ancient sources.

[16]The other two are the Gzer-mig (excavated in the eleventh century), in two volumes, and the Gzi-brjid (pronounced ‘Sibjee’, aurally revealed in the fourteenth century) in twelve.  While the Gzer-mig and the Gzi-brjid have been known to the world outside Tibet for quite some time, the Mdo-’dus only became available in a reprint edition in 1985.  Its authenticity as such is not in doubt, since it is cited, in a generally accurate way, by a great many Bon authors, particularly in historical works.  The problem with our edition is that it is badly spelled, causing many problems in the readings.  This does tend to make our understanding rather tentative, so that in the absence of a second version of the text, it is important to make reference to citations in other works whenever possible.  For the most useful summary of events in the life of Lord Shenrab, see Kværne (1986).

[17]A dpag-tshad is supposed to be equivalent to the Indian yojana, a measure equal to about nine miles.

[18]This is a name of the elephant of Indra.

[19]I assume that we should read here stong-phrag bzhi (instead of the text’s stong-phrag gzhi), which means ‘four thousand’.

[20]Dmu (and the interchangeable spelling rmu) is difficult to explain.  Etymologically, it seems to mean ‘limit’ or ‘border’ (and hence sometimes ‘barbarian’).  Sometimes, together with the phywa and gtsug, the dmu are entities active in cosmogony.  The Dmu is also one of the six original royal clans, and the clan of Lord Shenrab (Shar-rdza 1985: 17-18).  For a discussion of dmu, see Stein (1985:104‑107).

[21]The following text (with emendations in square brackets) occurs on pp. 15.4 through 17.1:  de yang khyad par ’dzam gling dbus / ri bo gang[s] che [=can] ti tse ni / g.yu[ng dr]ung dgu brtsegs ri zhes bya / chu zhing [=chu zheng] dpag tshad lnga brgya’o //  ri ni spos ri ngad ldan dang / bar na mtsho ni ma dros pas / chu zhing dpag tshad lnga bcu pa / phyogs bzhi mtsho bzhi yod pa ni / ma phaṃ mo bya g.yu mtsho / la ngad gser mtsho / gung chung dngul mtsho / zom shang lcag[s] mtsho / rdzing bu dal gyis ’bab / seṃ[s ca]n bzhi’i kha nas chu bzhi ’bab pa ni / gang ka shar phyogs glang chen kha nas ’bab / sin ’du lho phyogs khyu mchog kha nas ’bab / pag shu nub phyogs rta’i kha nas ’bab / si ta byang phyogs rma bya’i kha nas ’bab / chu klu[ng] rab chya [=mchog] bzhi po dag ni / re re la yang chu g.yog lnga brgya dang bcas par / chu’i rgyun rnams phyogs bzhir rgya mtshor ’gro / rdzing bu dal gyis ’bab dang / shing ni sa la rab brtan bya ba yod// de’i nub gyang gshel yul [=gshen yul] ’ol mo gling / dpag tshad stong phrag gzhi gnas yod / chu bo pag shu si tis rab bcad de / ri nag po dgu’i bcad pa’o // nub phyogs dmu’i yul / shar phyogs rgya’i yul / lho phyogs mon gyis yul / shar lho ’jang gis yul / byang phyogs li bal phrom / byang shar hor gyis yul / gang[s] can bod kyis yul / mi rig[s g]su[m] brgya drug bcu gnas / yul chen bcu drug dang / yul phran stong dang bcas / de dag ’dzom bu gling yin no.  Compare the brief description of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring [in Shar-rdza’s history, citing the Mdo-’dus and another work] in Karmay 1972: xxix.

[22]Nyi-zer (p. 23r-v).  Karmay (1975: 175) dates it to the fourteenth century.  This text which, besides the world geography, has a gazetteer of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, is one source frequently cited by such recent authors as Shar-rdza in his history, as well as by Tenzin Namdak in his gazetteer of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring (see Namdak 1971: 877, where he notes that the Nyi Sgron, i.e. the Rtsa-rgyud Nyi-zer Sgron-ma, has switched around the locations of the ‘islands’, and this he assumes to be a result of faulty textual transmission).  It does not seem to be cited in older (14th-15th century) historical works (unless it has something to do with the Gting-zlog Rgyud cited in Stag-tsha, p. 29), which might lead us to doubt its early dating.  Still, there is much in this lengthy work to entertain the interests of the geographically inclined.

[23]This is the land of Tsari, located inside the great southward bend of the Brahmaputra River, close to Assam (subject of several articles and a forthcoming book by Dr. Antoni Huber).

[24]In what is probably a quite early (perhaps late 14th-century) geographical passage (Sga-ston 1974: I 282-284) we find a discussion of two groups of four rivers, although the rivers themselves bear the same names in both groups.  The first group descends from Stag-gzig, the ‘quality center’.  These rivers then descend to Bar-gzigs (this name reminds us of one of the more usual Tibetan names for ‘Persia’, Par-sig, mentioned above), and from there to Rgya-kar (i.e., Rgya-gar, ‘India’; but note variant statements in  the fifteenth-century histories of Spa-ston 1991: 83 and Rgyal-rabs, p. 21).  The second group belongs to the ‘geographic center’, meaning Tibet, although these rivers leave Tibet to flow through India, China, Phrom and Stag-gzig.  Later on in the same work is a discussion about whether Ti-tse (i.e., Ti-se) ought to be located in Tibet, in Stag-gzig, or in both (I 191 ff.), concluding with a quote from Sa-skya Ban-bhi-ṭa (i.e., Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta), that the Tibetan Ti-tse is a piece of the Ti-tse in Stag-gzig miraculously transported by the Monkey King Ha-nu-ma-’da (compare the fifteenth-century histories Rgyal-rab, p. 22, and especially Spa-ston 1991: 85, where there is a quotation from the famous early thirteenth-century work by Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta on the three vows).  For an edition, with some small parts translated, of a nineteenth-century Bonpo guidebook to Mt. Ti-se, see Norbu & Prats (1989).

[25]See Macdonald (1962) for a Dunhuang source, in which the rivers in the east, south, west and north are the Bhan-ksha, Si-ta, ’Ga’-’ga’, and Si-to, and the animals are the bull, elephant, lion and horse.  Note also an article on the subject of the four rivers, Pranavananda (1968).  This first version of the Mdo-’dus  is quite close to the version Macdonald (1962: 540, 547 n. 18) calls the more ‘usual description’:  in which the rivers in the east, south, west and north are the Ga∫gā, Sindhu, Pakṣu, and Sîtā, with the corresponding animals being the elephant, bull, horse and lion (and this corresponds to the account in the thirteenth-century Tibetan commentary on the Abhidharmakośa by Mchims ’Jam-pa’i-dbyangs; compare also the rather different account of the fifth-century Buddhaghoṣa cited in Law 1968: 194-5).  Here the only serious difference with the Mdo-’dus’s first version is the substitution of the lion for the peacock.

[26]For details about this tantra commentary and its geographical section, see Martin (1994a).  The shoulder-bone world-conception appears in the astro-science work by Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, together with an illustration, although the text is not available to me at the moment.  Recent Bon authors such as Gsang-sngags-gling-pa and Dbra-ston have a special epithet for ’Ol-mo-lung-ring:  sog-kha bon-gyi ’byung-gnas, ‘shoulder-bone Bon origin place’.

[27]Nyi-zer (p. 20r). 

[28]See, for example, Rgyal-rabs (p. 12), which states that Stag-gzigs is also known as ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  Some recent Bonpo authors have insisted on distinguishing a Rtag-gzigs which they do identify with ’Ol-mo-lung-ring from Stag-gzig[s] which they do not identify with it (Dpal-tshul, pp. 16, 34; Namdak 1974: 884 — note Tenzin Namdak’s citations of Slob-dpon Ho-bu-man [i.e., Helmut Hoffmann] and Mkhas-dbang Hi-ro Bhi-ye-le [i.e., Harold Bailey]).  Our present opinion is that Rtag-gzigs is just a variant spelling, perhaps introduced to make possible a more auspicious etymology (taking it as an abbreviated form of rtag-tu gzigs, ‘looking always [with compassion]’).  Stag means ‘tiger’ and gzig means ‘leopard’.  One recent author states that Stag-gzig is named so precisely because of the danger from wild beasts such as tigers and leopards in the extremely narrow mountain passages leading to it (Shar-rdza 1973: 552; comparing the older source Stag-tsha, p. 9), adding that it takes a nine-days march to pass through the wild beast defile, and another nine days to pass through the ‘defile of darkness’ (mun ’phrang).   See also Kværne (1980: 100).

[29]Law (1968: 191) identifies Sindhu with the Indus, and Sîtā he identifies with either the Jaxartes/Syr Darya or Yarkhand rivers.  If we were to identify the Si-ti of the Mdo-’dus text with the Jaxartes, then we would have to say that ’Ol-mo-lung-ring is roughly equivalent to the area of Uzbekistan.

[30]Shar-rdza (1973: 54).  Spa-ston (1991: 83) closely agrees in its reading:  chu bo pakshu si dhus bcad (although on the preceding page, the typesetters have mistakenly put chu bo pakshu si rgyus bcad).  Compare also Stag-tsha (p. 5), which reads chu bo dpag chu dang ni si ’du’i bcad.  The weight of this testimony constrains us to accept the evidence of the citations over the ‘original text’ and read ‘Sindhu’ rather than ‘Sitā’.

[31]Three sources agree with this spelling, while other sources have the variant spellings Ba-dag-shun, Ka-shan, and Bdag-shan.  The Bon conception differs remarkably from the Nine Dark Mountains found in the Abhidharma literature of Chos, but this matter is complicated enough to deserve separate treatment.

[32]?  A few sources have Hor-ser, ‘Yellow Uighurs’(?).  Tsha-gser, as a word, might mean ‘hot gold’ (a method of gold-plating).

[33]Compare Namdak (1971: 888), where it says that the path going through the Sharp Teeth Glacial Range has a gate, and this gate is called Dag-sha Dung-gi Sgo-mo (“Dag-sha Conch Gate”).  This seems to be in the context of a citation from the Gzi-brjid (the source in the Gzi-brjid is supplied by Karmay [1972: xxxi, n. 1]).

[34]Ka-pi-ta, ‘Kapistan’, or the area of Kapisha, now in Afghanistan.  It was once a flourishing cultural center in Gandhara and the Kushan Empire.  See Hoffmann (1940: 184-185); Hoffmann (1950: 222).

[35]Or, alternatively, ‘of good fortune’.  For the Sgra-bla, see Snellgrove (1980) 57 ff., where he calls them ‘genies’.  They are identified with the Dgra-bla, or Dgra-lha of (later?) Tibetan literature.  See Hoffmann (1950: 161, 171; 1967: 73-4), Gibson (1985), and Clemente (1994).

[36]Khyung-lung, or, ‘Garuḍa Valley’ was visited by the late Italian Tibetologist Giuseppe Tucci (Tucci 1937: 130-137; or the more accessible French translation, Tucci 1989: 190-196), which includes excellent black-and-white photographs of the ruined fortresses and monasteries still to be found there.  We have not noticed other references to Ting-tog, although this Zhang-zhung-language name might possibly be translated into Tibetan as G.yu-thog (name of famous physicians in Tibetan history).  Another translation, perhaps more probable, would be Sngo-thog (cf. the Bla-ma Sngo-thog-pa in the biography of O-rgyan-pa by Kun-dga’-don-grub [1976] 147.6).

[37]Sham-po Lha-rtse, part of the royal complex at the center of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring. 

[38]“Zhang-zhung Bar-pa na Rgyal-mkhar Ba-chod.”

[39]“Sgo-pa na Khyung-lung Dngul-dkar.”  For Khyung-lung and a discussion on the historical geography of the Zhang-zhung Empire, see Uray (1972) 44, and especially his note 95.

[40]Martin (1994: 17).

[41]Although the subject is quite complicated, both confused and confusing, I would suggest that some light might be shed on the idea of the three Zhang-zhungs by looking into the historical geography of Western Tibet, the area[s] known as Mnga’-ris [B]skor Gsum.  The three-fold division of western Tibet is usually (see Jamspal 1985) traced back to the the time of its division among the three sons of the imperial descendent Nyi-ma-mgon following the mid-ninth-century collapse of the centralized Tibetan Imperial state.  The usual explanation of the syllable bskor tells us that each of these three divisions was ‘surrounded’ by something.  Thus we have the area of Mang-yul (here probably meant for Ladakh) and Zangs-skar (or Zangs-dkar) ‘surrounded’ (bskor) by lakes, then Stag-mo and Spu-rangs ‘surrounded’ by glacier mountains, and finally the area of Zhang-zhung and Gu-ge ‘surrounded’ by slate mountains.  Without going into the difficult problems already involved in this geographical scheme, there are certain sources that would strongly suggest that the term Mnga’-ris Bskor Gsum is still older than this, and that originally it had a quite different significance.  These sources describe (what we might call) a ‘Greater Mnga’-ris’, also made up of three parts, one of which is comprised of Gilgit, Burusho and Khotan (see discussion in Smith 1969: 21, n. 49 and in Gangs-ri-ba 1996: 43-44).  I suggest that this ‘greater Mnga’-ris’ idea reflects the situation in the time of Ral-pa-can (or perhaps even earlier conquests, better known to us thanks to Beckwith 1987) when these regions were part of the western imperial possessions.  I would then explain the ‘three surroundings’ (bskor gsum) as representing three levels of territorial expansion (perhaps with different arrangements for their jurisdiction).  These are only suggestions put forward in the hope that someone will find good reason to either reject them or pursue them further.  In any case, there simply must be some kind of link between the ‘greater Mnga’-ris’ idea and that of the three Zhang-zhungs that together make up a ‘greater Zhang-zhung’.

[42]We might mention as well a work by one Dbra-ston Skal-bzang-bstan-pa’i-rgyal-mtshan (1897-1959) entitled ’Dzam-gling-gi Mtha’ Dbus-kyi Rnam-gzhag Nyer-mkho’i Snang-ba, cited in Norbu (1990) and Bsod-nams-don-grub (1992: 33), which was only recently made available to me (Dbra-ston ca. 1930).   I know little about the author, although he is well remembered in contemporary Bon circles as Su-la Rin-po-che or Su-la Rgyal-mtshan, and five or so volumes of his collected works are said to survive.  He was one of the important disciples of the more famous scholar-historian Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan (1859-1933) whose biography he composed, as well as of the visionary ‘treasure revealer’ Gsang-sngags-gling-pa (b. 1864), some of whose works he was involved in publishing in woodblock form (he composed a colophon to one of them in the year 1930).  This Bon historical-geographical work would make a fascinating study in its own right, but here we will limit ourselves to what it has to say relevant to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and the three Zhang-zhungs.  It says (p. 945) that Innermost Zhang-zhung is more than three months journey to the west of Mount Ti-se, close to Me-sag-gi Par-sig (?some part of Persia, evidently) and the area which includes Badakhshan (Bha-dag-shan) and Balkh (Bha-lag).  This would seem to approximately agree with our tentative conclusions on the location of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  However, the author goes on to identify Innermost Zhang-zhung with the kingdom of Mi-lus-bsam-legs, and he makes this identification seemingly unaware that the Mother Tantra literature with which Mi-lus-bsam-legs is so closely associated always identifies his kingdom with Intermediate Zhang-zhung.  Intermediate Zhang-zhung Dbra-ston identifies with Pretapuri, a town a few days walk west of Mt. Ti-se in western Tibet, and more generally with the area of western Tibet that we usually identify with Zhang-zhung proper.  He even suggests that it might include the whole area of Zhang Bod (Zhang-zhung and Tibet).  Gateway Zhang-zhung he identifies more or less with the area of  the Khyung-po clan (the high plateau area to the north of the Skyid-chu river-system in which Lhasa is found), which he also identifies as Sum-pa Glang-gi Gyim-shod.  His general motive in shifting the received geography of the three Zhang-zhungs further to the east, even at the price of excluding ’Ol-mo-lung-ring entirely from the scheme, would seem to be a desire to bring it closer to eastern Tibet, the place where the author lived.  Later in the text (p. 961), he tells us how to get to Stag-gzig (=Ta-zig) country.  Starting from Ladakh you travel a great distance, and in the northwest is Mo-ta-na, a part of Du-ru-ka.  To the south of Mo-ta-na is Thod-dkar country, and outside of (or ‘beyond’) Thod-dkar is Ta-zig or Stag-gzig country.  (Note:  This does seem to place Stag-gzig in the northern part of present Afghanistan and Pakistan, although Multan is in Pakistan SW of Lahore, while Takhar is in far northern Afghanistan, and the latter can hardly be south of the former if these are indeed the places the author had in mind.)  He places Ga-dza-na (i.e., Ghazna) still further to the west, identifying it with O-rgyan.  Another recent writer, Dpal-tshul (p. 34), identifies Innermost Zhang-zhung with Rtag-gzig, and Intermediate Zhang-zhung with O-rgyan.  The identifications made by these two twentieth-century authors might seem eccentric when viewed in light of the older Bon sources (and they therefore should not be taken as the primary authorities for a historical-geographical study as Norbu [1990: 149 ff.] attempts to do), but these authors are interesting in their own right, in part because both were making active attempts to accommodate their broadening knowledge of world geography within a more-or-less intact Bon traditional framework.  Dbra-ston in particular could draw on the practical geographical knowledge of a ‘Nepalese’ friend, a lama named Bstan-’dzin-rgyal-mtshan.

[43]Writings which criticize, report, support and, in some cases, simply adopt Kuznetsov’s conclusions are:  Bailey (1975), Hetenyi (1973), Hummel (1973), Hummel (1975), Kaloyanov (1990), Kuznetsov (1973; 1974), Lauf (1973), Stronach (1977), and Har-El (1991).   See Bailey (1975) for a list of the relevant Russian-language articles by Kuznetsov as well as reference to a conference report by “Mr David Stronack” [i.e., Stronach] delivered at the sixth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology at Oxford in September 1972.  Of these scholars, Lauf was the most critical, while  Hetenyi, Hummel, and Stronach were most supportive of the Kuznetsov hypothesis.  The silence of a great number of other Tibetanists active in the early 1970’s deserves to be noted.  It seems that they didn’t write on the subject simply because they hadn’t come up with a clear alternative hypothesis.  I know that the late Helmut Hoffman didn’t comment in a public forum on the Kuznetsov hypothesis because he didn’t find anything believable in it.  He once commented to me that it made a hopeless mess of the historical geography of Central Asia and the Middle East, mixing as it does historical place names from the sixth century B.C. up until the sixth century A.D., and basing its identifications of the place names on linguistically untenable grounds.

[44]On the tomb of Cyrus and Pasargadae, see especially Stronach (1963, 1964, 1978).  There are detailed plans and photographs of the tomb in Stronach (1963).  The various forms of the name Pasargadae are discussed in Stronach (1978: 280-1).  If viewed from an aerial perspective, the tomb of Cyrus really does look quite a bit like the map of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  See Kuznetsov (p. 571), where the authors say that the equivalence of Pasargadae and Bar-po-so-brgyad was “the point of departure of our study.”

[45]First published in the Tel Aviv newspaper Ma’ariv, in an unspecified issue of the month of May in 1972.  This map, identical to our Map A, except that it has Hebrew-script labels added, was also reproduced by Hetenyi and Stronach, since they apparently didn’t have available to them the original Indian publication.  A very badly reproduced version of the same map (minus the Hebrew labels) was published in an article by a professor emeritus of biblical geography, formerly of Tel Aviv University, in the Israeli literary journal Ariel (see Har-El 1991: 8), with an added arrow pointing to “Sogdiana” (i.e., Seng-ge-rgyab-bsnol, which Kuznetsov in fact identified with Sogdiana).  This publication never mentions the fact that the map has anything to do with Tibet, calling it a “map of the Persian Empire, 2nd century BCE.  In the centre is the grave of Coresh.  At the bottom of the map (west) are marked Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt.”  Unfortunately, no bibliography accompanies this paper, but it clearly relies on the work of Kuznetsov.  It would be interesting to explore the whole history of Tibetan cartography, but that will not be possible here.  Cosmographic paintings and diagrams were very common in Tibet, cartographic ones less so.  Most ‘maps’ were in the shape of detailed painted illustrations of landscape (mainly of places of pilgrimage; example in Huber 1992), rather than the spare and geometrical sets of straight lines and dots, together with jagged lines of rivers and coasts, which we commonly call ‘maps’ today. 

[46]Map B also has a fairly lengthy Tibetan-language cursive inscription at the bottom.  For a transcription and discussion, see the appendix.

[47]The word dbal, widely attested in Bon writings, is in fact an ‘Old Translation’ word which was later dropped in favor of the word tog, meaning ‘peak, point’.   Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ta mentions this in his Sdom-gsum Rab-dbye.  Shar-rdza (1985: 102) says that dbal means rtse-mo (‘tip, summit’) and that it is particularly used for the tip of a flame.  The Mdzod-phug says (Bon Kanjur 1984-5, vol. 2, p. 6.3) says, padma’i ’jam dang tshor-ma’i (i.e., tsher-ma’i) dbal, ‘the softness of the lotus and the sharpness of the thorn.’  Note that, while the Mdo-’dus, p. 209, does mention Mu-khyud-bdal-ba’i Mtsho, it does not mention any proper name for the surrounding mountains.

[48]It is noteworthy that a Bon canonical source, the Kun-’bum (or Kun-’bum Khra-bo), in its chapter 5, has a gazetteer of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring in which it explicitly states that it contains sixty Great Places (gnas chen), corresponding to a set of sixty deeds of Lord Shenrab (see the Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 152, fol. 15 ff.).  The Kun-’bum is known to have been obtained as an ‘accomplishment’ (dngos-grub, here most probably meaning a gter-ma) by Gnyal-ston Gzhon-nu-’bum (often called simply Gzhon-nu), the famous disciple of Gu-ru Rnon-rtse, who would seem to belong to the twelfth century (see Martin 1994: 27-31).

[49]Lha-rtse means ‘Divine Peak’, while Sham-po seems to have no clear meaning apart from its usage as a proper name.

[50]So-brgyad means ‘Thirty-eight’, while Bar-po most likely means an ‘Interval’, or an ‘In-between Space’.

[51]Rgyal Bon means ‘Royal Bon’ (a title), while Thod-dkar (the name proper) might be interpreted to mean ‘white turban’, although some connection with the Thod-dkar, or Tokharian people, might be posited.

[52]This name probably means ‘Ten Thousand’ (khri) ‘Aspiration Prayers’ (smon) ‘Royal’ (rgyal) ‘Laughter’ (bzhad).  Kuznetsov (p. 571, no. 7) wants to identify this with Persepolis.

[53]Ne’u-chung probably means ‘Small Meadow’ (ne’u being taken as a shortened form of ne’u-seng).  Kho-ma occurs in the names of several Bon temples, and might be a foreign loanword (it doesn’t seem to be either Tibetan or Zhang-zhung).

[54]The name means ‘Self-Produced Happiness’.

[55]This name means ‘Compassion Arising’.

[56]This name means ‘Immaculate White’.

[57]Sku-tshad means ‘Measure of Life’ (?) or ‘Measure of the Image’.

[58]This means ‘Svâstika Layout Island’.

[59]Rgyal-rabs (p. 13) reads Spo-mtho.

[60]Evidently a variant form of the Tibetan form a-mo-nig, a cubic black stone (lead ore?).  The Mahāvyutpatti says that ar-nig lta-bu’i rdo-leb is equivalent to Sanskrit pāṇḍu-kambalaśilātala, which is a name for the throne of Indra.  In the Mdo-’dus (p. 25) we also find the spelling ar-mo-lig-gis rdo-leb.

[61]Hos-gur is a special name for a ‘tent-canopy’ (bla gur) that belonged to Lord Shenrab.  See the vocabulary appended to Shar-rdza (1985: 336).  Hos is not a known Tibetan word (and neither does it seem to be Zhang-zhung), but it does occur in place-names connected with ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, and the Hos clan is said to be one of the six royal clans of divine descent (Shar-rdza 1985: 17).  The Rgyud Dung-lo-ljon-pa (cited above) lists four clans of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring:  The royal Hos clan located in the east, the royal Dpo clan located in the north, the royal Gnyan clan in the west, and the royal Dmu clan in the south (this Dmu clan is the one to which Lord Shenrab belonged).  Rgyal-rabs (p. 14) reads gsal-ba ’od-kyi gur (‘tent of luminous light’).  Stag-tsha (p. 20, line 4) reads gsal-ba ’od-gyis hos-gur.  Some Bon texts say that Hos is an especially ancient and secret name for Bon itself, although this will lead us into the subject for another paper.

[62]‘Island of the Gods Who Have Joy’.

[63]‘Island of the Rule for [Monastic] Civilization’.

[64]These works on Bon monastic discipline have been published in Bon Kanjur (1984-5, vol. 3).

[65]‘Immeasurable Awakening Island’.

[66]‘Delusionary Power Civilizing Spell Island’.  This is the same place which Kuznetsov reads (on map A) as “Bdud-’dus-gling” and wants to identify with Bedouins.

[67]‘Giving Grown to the Limit Island’.  Rgyal-rabs (p. 15) has a reading (perhaps preferable), Sbyin-pa-mtha’-yas Gling.

[68]‘Unshakable Contemplation Island’.

[69]‘Virtue Expanded Qualities Island’.

[70]‘Immeasurable Love Island’.

[71]‘Injury-Giver [Spirit] Wealth Island’.  ’Dzam-bha-la is Indic Jambhala, keeper of the north, lord of the Injury-Giver spirits (Indic Yakṣa), and deity of wealth.

[72]Stag-tsha (7.4) reads here, Rin-chen-dra-ma’i Gling, ‘Precious Substances Network Island’.  Rgyal-rabs (p. 16) reads Yon-tan-rgyas-pa’i Gling here.

[73]Rgyal-rabs (p. 17) reads Na-ra-dza-na.

[74]Rgyal-rabs (p. 17) reads Si-ti-si-tu.

[75]Rgyal-rabs (p. 17) reads Gyim-shang-phyi-shang.

[76]Rgyal-rabs (p. 17) reads Hos-ri-rtse-mtho.

[77]Dmangs-rigs-gdol-pa’i Gling in Rgyal-rabs (p. 17).

[78]Pag-shu-gtsang-po in Rgyal-rabs (p. 18). 

[79]Gtsug-ri-phyug-po in Rgyal-rabs (p. 18).

[80]The author of the Rgyal-rabs (p. 20) says that his listing of the ‘sixteen great islands’ follows the Gzer-mig version, and this probably explains some of the differences with the Mdo-’dus noted below.  Otherwise, the Rgyal-rabs follows the Mdo-’dus.

[81]Rgyal-rabs (p. 18) places Hos-mo Gling-drug here in the southeast, and says that it was the abode of the Hos King Dang-ba-yid-ring.  Rgya-lag-’od-ma’i Gling the Rgyal-rabs (p. 19) locates in the west.

[82]According to Rgyal-rabs (p. 20), the eleventh chapter of the Mdo-’dus places Kong-rtse in the west.

[83]Rgyal-rabs (p. 18) reads Yul Khri-thang-’byams-pa’i Gling, and says that the Dpo King ’Bar-ba’i-sgron-ma stayed there.

[84]Khra-mo-khri-’od, according to Rgyal-rabs (p. 18), where nine persons who had committed great sins were converted by Lord Shenrab (cf. Stag-tsha, p. 8, line 5).

[85]The Gzer-mig places this lake in the south, according to Rgyal-rabs (p. 20).

[86]Rgyal-rabs (p. 19) places ’Od-ma-’byams-skya here in the north.

[87]Ha-lu-man-dha-spre’u’i Gling in Rgyal-rabs (p. 19).

[88]They are also missing from the ’Ol-mo-lung-ring gazetteer of Rgyal-rabs (ending on p. 19), and since Rgyal-rabs used the Gzer-mig as one of its sources, we might assume that they are missing in the Gzer-mig as well.

[89]See Namdak (1971: 877-8) for the Gzi-brjid account of these areas.

[90]Karmay (1975: 175), who would have been in a position to know, says that Map A was “based upon his [i.e., Tenzin Namdak’s] readings of descriptions [of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring] in texts.”  But it is well known that the Ven. Tenzin Namdak is an excellent artist, and Map A doesn’t really do justice to this fact.  We would in any case still need to know who made Map B, and when.

[91]For a painting of this eleven-headed Bon deity, which bears an unmistakable resemblance to certain Chos forms of Spyan-ras-gzigs (Avalokiteśvara), see Kværne (1995: plate 16).

[92]In fact, in the Kun-’bum Khra-bo (as contained in Bon Kanjur, 2nd edition, vol. 152 at p. 15) one finds the statement, “Although the sixty deeds [of Lord Shenrab] were done in the sixty Great Places (gnas chen), this by no means exhausts [His] deeds.”  This text goes on to supply a complete gazetteer of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  The Kun-’bum is believed to be a continuously transmitted text, one that was never concealed as a ‘treasure’ (gter-ma), and it is especially associated with Gnyal-ston Gzhon-nu in the 12th century.

[93]Stag-tsha (p. 7, line 8) reads Rmangs-rigs-brdol-ba’i Gling.

[94]Kuznetsov (1973) says, “To the West are: rGya-lag-od-ma (Kaldu-mu, country of Khaldeans, Babilonia) and others.”

[95]Similarly, Ne’u-seng-dra-ba, a city which Kuznetsov wants to identify with the Egyptian city Alexandria on the basis of some vague phonological similarity, has a meaning in Tibetan, ‘Meadow Network’.  This name does not occur in the Mdo-’dus.  Even if apparently unknown to Kuznetsov, there was a much closer ‘Alexandria’ in the vicinity of Bactria (see for example Lindtner 1988: 437), so he really had no need to search so far.

[96]As already noted, the Mdo-’dus itself is not consistent about the direction.  In the gazetteer of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring it is placed in the southeast, while in the text of chapter eleven (Mdo-’dus, p. 83) it is said to be in the west part of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  The eleventh chapter says how Kong-rtse was born in Rgyal-lag-’od-ma’i Gling.  His father was Ka-’da-ma Gser-’od , and his mother was Mu-tri Gsas-’od-ma.  He built a temple called Dkar-nag-bkra-gsal, and Lord Shenrab performed its consecration.  Compare Shar-rdza (1985: 136-7).

[97]According to the text of the Mdo-’dus (p. 221), one Shen year should be equivalent to one hundred human years (this is, at least, the standard source cited by Bon historians in support of the idea).

[98]King Sa-la was the king located at Lang-ling.  King Sa-la was the father of a wife of Lord Shenrab’s father (Mdo-’dus, p. 55).

[99]Compare Stag-tsha (p. 18) which says that he went to the city Lang-ling with his father to offer respects to his maternal ancestors (zhang myes) and to be bathed in the ocean.  He also (p. 19) erected a temple Gsas-mkhar Kho-ma-ru-ring.  Here there is nothing about travelling to Sgra-mi-snyan continent.

[100]He simply identifies it with Sogdiana, without providing any arguments.

[101]Kuznetsov (p. 573, no. 38) identifies “A-ba-dva-ra’i-gling” with “Bactria, one of the provinces of ancient Iran” again without giving any evidence.  Note in this connection that ‘r’ and ‘n’ are rather easily confounded in some cursive Tibetan manuscripts.

[102]For example, Rgyal-rabs (pp. 20-22), where the conclusion is that the real Mt. Ti-se and Lake Ma-pham are in Stag-gzig ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  Shar-rdza (1973: 548) is one recent author who insists on carefully discriminating two Mt. Ti-se’s, one in Tibet and one in Stag-gzig.  He also distinguishes the four rivers that arise in western Tibet near Mt. Ti-se from the four rivers of Stag-gzig.  (Historical-geographically speaking, it is indeed utterly clear that the names Pakshu and Sita properly belong to rivers outside the traditional Tibetan cultural realm, and were only subsequently, and even then only occasionally, ‘located’ in Tibet proper [see a following note].)

[103]Karmay (1975b: 174-5).

[104]The more general phenomenon of the introjection of external geographic features such as that investigated in Huber (1990) might explain, for instance, how the Pakshu (Oxus) river name could come to be used, albeit very occasionally, for the Gtsang-po (Brahmaputra) river in Tibet (for example in the Tshe-ring-ma account in the Songs of Milarepa; see Chang 1977: I 316; as well as Huber 1990: 138).  Note in this connection that the upper course of the Gtsang-po is quite customarily called by Tibetans by the name Rta-mchog Kha-’bab (‘descending from the horse’s mouth’, an epithet which in the schemes of the four rivers sometimes belongs to the Pakshu, sometimes to other rivers).  Of course, according to Bon histories, Lord Shenrab visited Mount Ti-se also, making it a holy place in its own right.  On Mt. Ti-se and still other places in Tibet considered holy by Bonpos, see Cech (1992).

[105]For the Tibetan conquests of areas to the west of western Tibet, see Beckwith (1987).

[106]For background and description of the Indian models, as well as reference to some comparable Chinese models, see Ohji (1990), especially.

[107]Karmay (1975: 172), mentions that some people used to set out on pilgrimage to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, but he never heard of them coming back.  “One might imagine that they ended up on the Soviet frontier!”  Shar-rdza (1985: 15) says that “people with wrong views and ‘others’ [by which he may mean non-Bonpos], except for those with miraculous powers, are unable to cross the Sharp-Tooth Mountain Range,” that “it is not a place where ordinary people can go.”  A possible exception is a lama of uncertain date by the name of Shar-pa Rnal-’byor.  While he seems to ‘recall’ ’Ol-mo-lung-ring based on dream memories of an earlier rebirth during which he had lived there, there is a quite interesting story of how a shang-shang bird comes and offers to carry him on its back to see the fabled country, which he then goes on to describe at first hand.  Accounts such as this should probably be taken as ‘visionary’ (see Shar-pa 1976, but beware that the name of the scribe of the text, Tshe-dbang-tshul-khrims, is given in the table of contents as the name of the author).  For more comments on the near-impossibility of going to ’Ol-mo-lung-ring, see the history by Spa-ston (1991: 86).

[108]On the guidebooks to and descriptions of Shambhala, see most recently Newman (1996).  One specific feature usually mentioned in descriptions of both ’Ol-mo-lung-ring and Shambhala is that of the eight-petalled lotus shape of the earth, reflected in an eight-spoked wheel shape of the sky.

[109]The source for this citation is in the Bon Kanjur (2nd edition, vol. 151, p. 14):  ’di nas mi rtags ’chi ’phos skyes tsam nas / gnas ngan mtha’ ’khob gnas su mi skye zhing / ’ol mo lung ring gnas su skye bar shog /  lus ngan ’khor ba’i lus mi skye zhing / ’gro ba ’dren pa’i ston pa skye bar shog.   The fuller passage may be translated rather freely, “Having passed through death and impermanence from this [life], as soon as I take rebirth, may I not be born in a bad place, a place of border barbarians, but take birth in the [Holy] Place ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.  Not being reborn in a bad body, a cyclic existence body, may I be born as a Teacher, a leader of living beings.”  The text was revealed by Lhun-grub-thogs-med, a rather obscure figure who seems to have no definite dates.

[110]Rather freely translated from the words of the venerable ex-principal of New Sman-ri Monastery, Tenzin Namdak, contained in Namdak (1973: 30):  ’di nyid dag zhing mos pa’i yid yul las / sa steng ’di na brtag ste btsal ba blun / gal te ti se’i skor dang par sha sogs / yin par ’dod pa nges na der skye ba’i / smon lam ’debs yul kho na byed dgos pa ci’i phyir yod / de yang bdag cag gi ston pas / skye sgo gcod pa’i mdo las / ’ol mo lung ring gnas su skye bar shog / lus ngan ’khor ba’i lus su mi skye zhing / zhes gsungs pas / zhing ’di nyid ’khor zhing thun mong ba las nges par khyad du ’phags pa zhig yin dgos pas so //  rang cag ’gro ba phal pa’i dbang po’i yul du ma gyur na med par ’dod pa dang / ’dzam gling gi sa dang ’brel te yod na rang res mthong dgos pa sogs ni ha cang gi blo sgo dwogs pas /.

[111]In one source we even find a statement that Shambhala (here spelled Sha-bha-la), together with India, is located to the south of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring (Nyi-zer, p. 23r).  If judged from its location in relation to the Sita River (whether understood as the Iaxartes or Tarim rivers), however, Shambhala ought to be far to the north of ’Ol-mo-lung-ring.

[112]Rgyal-rabs (p. 12) mentions how some people claim ’Ol-mo-lung-ring takes up two-thirds of Jambu Island, but the author believes this to be a statement about the number of its qualities, and not its geographical extent.  Srid (p. 65) says it takes up one-third of Jambu Island.  Stag-tsha (p. 9) says, ‘of all the qualities in this Jambu Island, two-thirds of them are in this place (i.e., in ’Ol-mo-lung-ring).’