Tibet at the Center

Tibet at the Center

A Historical Study of Some Tibetan Geographical Conceptions Based on Two Types of Country-lists Found in Bon Histories*

Dan Martin

This is a somewhat revised version, 

dating to 2012, of an essay that first 

appeared in: Per Kværne, ed., Tibetan Studies, 

The Institute for Comparative Research 

in Human Culture (Oslo 1994), 

vol. 1, pp. 517-532.

Having collected country-lists from a number of Tibetan sources for several years, it was only quite recently that we have been enabled to bring some historical insights to what would otherwise constitute a rather chaotic body of data. The present essay concentrates on the two most commonly encountered types of country-lists found in Bon histories, but makes reference to other Tibetan lists when there is good reason to do so. Some fairly important canonical and non-canonical lists have been almost entirely excluded from consideration, including a famous list from the Kālacakra literature, canonical lists such as the Mahāmāyūrī, lists of countries said to have been under the power of the Emperor Ral-pa-can, and country-names found in Old Tibetan literature.[1] Quite different conclusions have been reached about the histories of our two types of country-lists. Of the two, the list of Eighteen Great Countries presents the more intriguing historical problems and will therefore be discussed at greater length. Due to limitations both of space and personal ability, we have not been able to provide detailed arguments for the identities of most of the individual place names. Our emphasis is on the histories of the wholes, not of the parts, although we do hope that the material presented here will stimulate some interesting discussions among students of the historical geography of Central Eurasia and its peripheries, regardless of their special areas of concern.

For the first type of Bon country-list (which for convenience might be called the Kamboja-list), please see Figure 1, columns D through H. The items in the chart are arranged typologically, rather than chronologically, in order to make apparent the close similarities between the variant lists (numbered to preserve the original order of the items within the lists). The Bon lists fall into two sub-types, that of column D, and that of columns E through H.[2] One may note an obvious affinity between the list from the mid-14th-century (?) Bon history Srid-pa Rgyud-kyi Kha-byang Chen-mo [SKC] (column D) and the list located in the Abhidharmakośa commentary by Karma-pa VIII (1975: I 556-7) composed between the years 1532 and 1543 (column C). Then one may see that all these lists must have descended from a sūtra list (column A, and a citation of the same in column B).

The sūtra country-list, which is found in the Tathāgatācintyagūhya Nirdeśa Sūtra,[3] has been studied long ago by Sylvain Lévi (1905). The passage opens as follows,

Oh Śāntimati, what are the thousand countries completely filling this world of Jambudvīpa which have been brought within the influence of the Sixteen Great Countries,[4] in which the people’s vocabulary is even different, the etymological derivations are different, and the ‘signs’ are also distinct? In those [countries] as well the Tathāgata engages language, well setting forth the truths of the way things are through distinct vocabularies.

In this opening statement it would seem that the thousand countries, of which our list of 48 is only a sampling, are all supposed to be in some way subservient to the Sixteen Great Countries; they lie in the ‘in-between places’ of the world. In general terms, the list may be divided into four main parts. Nos. 1-12 are predominantly names of areas to the northwest of the northern Indian plains, or areas accessible by the northwestern trade routes: 1. is a confused spelling for Śaka. 2. is probably a copyist error for an attested Tibetan form Pa-hla-ba, for Pahlava (Lévi 1915). 3. Tukhāra. 4. Yavana (see Lindtner 1988). 5. Kamboja. 6. the Khasa. 7. Hūṇa. 8. China (Cīna). 9. the Dards. 10. Uraśā. 11-12. ? Nos. 13-16 are the four castes; we venture no explanation for their presence in a list of countries. Nos. 17-30, in so far as they are identifiable, are mostly either peoples/places of the north Indian plains or to the south of the same, considered by Indian high culture to be less civilized: 18. is Kirāta. 19. Pulinda. 20. Puṇḍra. 21. Kuru (?). 22. Pañcāla. 26. Kaliṅga. No. 30 should be, according to the later citations of the sūtra, Balkh.[5] Nos. 31-48 all give the impression of being ’mythological‘: 31. Dog faces. 32. Fox faces. 33. Antelope (?) faces. 34. Heads hanging down. 35. Sky faced (Sky facing?). 36. Backward faces. 37. Northern border facing. 38. Running after. 39. Boiled in the ocean (?). 40. Adjoining the furthermost country[s]. 41-42. ? 43. Noseless. 44. A possible reference to Assam peoples. 45. Space naked. 46. Naked sporting wings. 47. Who walk hunched over. 48. Pūraṇa (?).

The Chinese version translated by Dharmarakṣa in the year 280, as noted by Lévi, only supplies one country-name (that of Śaka, corresponding to Kaśa of the Tibetan list!) followed by an ‘etcetera’, while the 11th-century Chinese translation does have a list of 36 countries, which represents many of the same countries as the Tibetan translation, with the main difference in the presence of those countries in the Chinese cultural realm which Chinese considered less civilized instead of those countries in the Indian cultural realm which North Indians considered less civilized. It does seem that the Indic version available to Dharmarakṣa actually contained the full list and that he simply passed it over as being too difficult or not significant enough to render into Chinese. This suggests that the Indic list, probably most accurately represented in the 8th-century Tibetan translation, would date from the 3rd century or before.

Deriving as it does from an Indic source,[6] it is difficult to learn much about how Tibetans understood the geographical data in this first type of country-list. The second type, the Eighteen Great Countries, does imply a significant amount of geographical knowledge dating, as we will see, from about the second half of the 12th century.

We begin with what is certainly the most eccentric version of the Eighteen Great Countries. It is found as part of a relatively lengthy geographical text embedded in a commentary written in a typically ‘analytical’ Indian mode, and on that most synthetic of subjects, Rdzogs-chen. The basis for the commentary is the Klong Drug Tantra, which is among the seventeen tantras belonging to the Man-ngag Class of the Rnying-ma Oral Transmissions (bka’-ma). The commentary is directly attributed in the colophon to Vimalamitra.

I have represented the Eighteen Great Countries according to the Klong Drug Commentary in a map-like tabular form in Figure 3, based on the spatial co-ordinates supplied in the text (Vimalamitra 1988: 237), and reflecting the mandala-like form which is implied. It is important to know that in all the Eighteen Great Countries descriptions that we will discuss, the countries are listed in pairs, and no indication is given for the position of the two countries in relation to each other.

There are basically three observations I would like to make about this version: 1) India and Nepal are at the center. 2) There are three country names — Da-tung, Gar-bsam, and Tsha-ba-dmar-thag — which are otherwise known to me only from Zhang-ston Bkra-shis-rdo-rje’s mid-12th-century history of the Rdzogs-chen Snying-thig.[7] Da-tung is almost definitely Ta-t’ung, which had long been a flourishing center of Buddhism, presently located in Shansi Province of China.[8] 3) Some of the positions of the countries cannot be squared with general geographical knowledge. Sog-po and Stag-gzig, however difficult it might be to determine their precise meanings in this particular context, clearly should not be located in the southeastern sector. That this is truly a misconception, and not just an oversight or scribal error is certain, since it is consistent with another statement elsewhere in the same text, where the country of ’U, also placed in the southeast, is said to share a border with Stag-gzig. It is puzzling that a geographical passage should be found at all in a Rdzogs-chen text, but the simply bad geography is still more perplexing.[9]

But we will leave this question for now, and look at some examples of a distinct version of the Eighteen Great Countries found in very similar forms in several Bon histories. These are represented in figures 4 through 8, although we will concentrate for present purposes to figures 4 and 5.

One problem that tends to undermine our textual study of these passages is the absence of a series of datable manuscripts. We cannot at all be certain that the oldest histories necessarily supply the oldest or most authentic spellings for the place names. Our available manuscripts of the oldest histories may have had the most tortuous scribal transmissions resulting in the most eccentric spellings. As consequence, we have to pay attention to the provenance of the individual histories and their manuscripts as far as this is possible, but at the same time be prepared to consider all possible sources, even the most modern histories such as those of Shar-rdza and Dpal-tshul.

We begin with the version from the so-called Rgyal-rabs Bon-gyi ’Byung-gnas (Figure 4), not because it is the oldest, but because it was used by Sarat Chandra Das in his Tibetan dictionary, and in order to demonstrate the importance of a cross-textual study of our geographical passage. Note first of all that a name for Tibet, along with the mysterious Copper Isle/Gold Isle, is located in the central position. Secondly, leaving aside some of the problematic place names for now, and of course switching the pairs around in any way we see fit, this scheme is generally consistent with actual geography, remarkably so.[10]

Unlike our Rnying-ma example, this one quite correctly places Stag-gzig to the west, and further identifies it with ’Ol-mo-lung-ring (and, also, the ‘Western Field of Bde-ba-can’).[11] Phu-na seems to be identical to Yu’o, Spu’u, Spu-na/Yu-na of other sources. I believe the variation may be explained by the similarity, in cursive manuscripts, of ‘sp’ and ‘y’.[12] Bearing in mind that ‘m’ and ‘l’ might well be confounded in cursive manuscripts, Kye’u-me is the same as Ke-le, Kye-le, Ko-le, Ge-le and Ge’u-le. However here it is placed to the west of Tibet, rather than to the southwest of northern India. At present, my best guess is that this should be Gilgit (which occurs in a 10th-century Khotanese itinerary in the form Gīagītti).[13] However Clauson (1957: 19-20), among others, identified a very similar toponym, Ke’u-li, found in an Old Tibetan text, with the Kingdom of Po-hai which once existed in the area of northern Korea and eastern Manchuria.

This ‘map’ is quite similar to the following one (Figure 5) which is to be found in the early 20th-century history by Shar-rdza (1977: 15), but in a citation from a work called Rtsa ’Grel which, according to Bon historical traditions, was rediscovered in the mid-12th century.[14] I would like to draw attention to some of the remarkable variants.

In the north part of Figure 5, notice how the Po and Sbal[15] of the previous chart, forms which Sarat Chandra Das entered into his dictionary, are actually identical to Sog-po and Sbal-kha. And notice in the south part how Hu-pa of Figure 4 appears in Figure 5 as Hu-na. It is especially curious to notice in the western part how O-rgyan has disappeared, and Stag-gzig has become two entities, Stag-sde and Gzig-’phan.  Note also how the name of the Khitans[16] is given in a form (Gri-bdag, meaning ‘knife lord’) that would be terribly misleading if we did not have it in another context. The forms Sbal-kha and Hu-na are quite significant, especially since they find collaboration in other Bon sources.[17] Sbal-kha must be Balkh (Bāhlīka). Hu-na is quite evidently Hūṇa.[18] A late Hindu tantra places Hūṇa in the Punjab region and calls it the ‘land of heroes’ (Śūra).[19] This probably goes toward explaining the neighboring Gyad-yul, ‘land of heroes’. Being at the ‘edge’ of China, Thod-dkar (here probably preferable to the form Tho-gar) must be the eastern Tokharians.[20]

One final, if only partial, version of this ‘map’ should also be examined. It is from the beginning of the Rgya Bod Yig-tshang, compiled by *Dpal-’byor-bzang-po in 1434 A.D. It is included there as part of a citation from an unavailable biography of the Buddha by Bcom-ldan Ral-gri (=Rig-pa’i-ral-gri) who flourished in the latter half of the 13th century entitled, Sdom-pa Brgyan-gyi Me-tog. The citation[21] first gives names of mountains and rivers marking the boundaries of the central country (here, the nine glaciated ranges of Tibet). The list of Nine Great Countries is represented in Figure 9. The most interesting point of this Chos source is that it gives exactly the same spellings of Stag-sde and Gzig-’phan,[22] which we might otherwise suppose to be peculiar to Bon traditions. 

Our present objective is not so much to portray the entire historical background of the geographical concept or definitively identify each country, but to reach one or two small conclusions that could prove useful for the difficult task of piecing together a larger picture. It is, of course, significant to know not only those places where the Eighteen Great Countries conception occurs, but also where it does not occur. It is found neither in the Sba-bzhed, nor in the history of Lde’u.[23] It is also found neither in the history by Nyang-ral (Meisezahl 1985) nor in the shortest (and probably the oldest) version of the life of Lord Shenrab, the Mdo ’Dus. What we find instead, in both the history by Nyang-ral and the Mdo ’Dus, are mentions of Sixteen Great Countries, although the countries are not listed. Nyang-ral says only that O-rgyan is at the center.[24] The Mdo ’Dus (p. 16) does contain a very interesting list of ten countries, with Mt. Ti-se (here identified with G.yung-drung-dgu-brtsegs) at the center, which is the basis for Figure 10. By placing our sources in chronological order according to the (sometimes questionable) dates of their composition or, in the case of gter-ma, their excavation,[25] it appears that the Tibet-centered scheme of the Eighteen Great Countries first emerged in Bon works in the mid- to late-12th century. (The presence of the Khitan Kingdom in the lists also might suggest a date of the 10th through early 12th centuries.) Hardly ever do we find mentions of both Sixteen and Eighteen Great Countries in the same text. The Sixteen Great Countries should be identical to the Indian Buddhist idea of the Sixteen Great Countries, or Mahājanapadas, a concept which would have been well known to Tibetans from translated scriptures, even if the names of the individual countries remained unknown to them. Significantly, there is scarcely any overlap between the contents of the Indian Sixteen

Mahājanapada conception and the Tibetan Eighteen Great Countries. All of the Mahājanapadas are located in the north Indian plains except for two countries to the northwest. Apparently something similar occurred with the Abhidharmakośa concept of the Nine Dark Mountains. Originally an Indocentric idea which included the mountains dividing the north Indian plains from Mt. Kailash, the Bon historical sources we have used made it Tibetocentric or, to be more precise, “Kailasho-centric”.[26] In other words, Bon historians took a geographical formula that most likely originated in India, but then filled in the content on the basis of their perceptions of their own geographical position.

But then, if the Eighteen Great Countries forms the core of our Bon geographical passages, it is also true that an older concept lies at the core of the Eighteen Great Countries, and that is the concept of the Four Appointed Kings, which has been subject to wellknown studies by Pelliot (1923), Stein (1959: 252-266) and Macdonald (1962). Already before the histories by Mkhas-pa Lde’u, the Appointed Kings concept had been elaborated into what we might call an “ethnographic checklist” of thirty topics, of which the longer Lde’u history is our only complete source. The presence of the four countries of the Four Appointed Kings at the core of the Eighteen Great Countries seems to be another indication that the latter concept developed in Tibet.

Although this was basically my conclusion, I would still like to say a few words about the anomalies. The first, the Nine Great Countries of Rig-ral, would seem to be a truncated version of the Eighteen Great Countries already known to Bon texts. Still, we cannot exclude the possibility that it might represent an early stage in the development. Secondly, there is the very exceptional version of the Eighteen Great Countries in the Klong Drug commentary.[27] As I have had occasion to remark in a previous essay,[28] the Klong Drug tantra, along with the others of the seventeen tantras of the Man-ngag Class, is not attested in early Rnying-ma historical works, meaning Nyang-ral and Mkhas-pa Lde’u, even though these works have extensive listings of Rnying-ma tantras. Therefore, unless good evidence emerges to force us to revise our opinion, we may believe that the Klong Drug tantra and, by implication, its commentary were not within the public domain until fairly late, perhaps as late as the 14th century, or roughly the time of Klong-chen-pa.[29] Our hypothesis which would explain the bad geography of the Klong Drug commentary is simply this: It is derived from an earlier Tibetocentric model of the Eighteen Great Countries, but, being purportedly an Indian commentary, it forced India into the center, added a few names unique to a 12th-century text belonging to its own tradition, and allowed the other pieces to fall wherever they might. But, we should stress, this is only a hypothesis.

To reiterate briefly, of the many things that might be located in the background of our second type of country-list, we would emphasize three things. First, mandala types of typologies; second, the Four Appointed Kings; and third, the Sixteen Great Countries as an ‘empty’ or ‘emptied’ formula ready to be refilled.[30] That the Eighteen Great Countries concept seems to have emerged in the 12th century is one indication among others that Tibet was at that time recovering its sense of centrality in the world,[31] and locating its own center, after being partially and temporarily thrown off center by the power of India’s Buddhism. In the past many scholars have read “India” through their Tibetan texts, as if the Tibetan language had nothing to express in its own right, or as if it were not worthwhile to hear. Perhaps the knowledge that there have been Tibetans who have found themselves at the center will be an encouragement for those who center their attention on Tibet. It may at the same time, and without any danger of contradiction, help counter exaggerated but persistent reports on Tibet’s “isolation.”

— — —

Postscript:

The figures are collected at the end of this file.

When I first published this paper, I was of the opinion that there was no good source in Tibetan language for the list, well known in Sanskrit and Påli sources, for the Sixteen Great Countries. However, there is one source that I could locate meanwhile in a Kanjur text. Details follow.

*Vasiṣṭha Sūtra (’Phags pa gnas ’jog pa’i mdo). Tôh. no. 333. Dergé Kanjur, vol. SA, folios 263v.6-268r.4. Translated by Sarvajñādeva & Dpal brtsegs. The title character is a Brahmin named Vasiṣṭha (Tib. Gnas-’jog).

Here is the list as it appears on page 539.3 in the published Dergé edition:

yul chen po bcu drug la —

[1] ang ga dang /

[2] ma ga dhā dang /

[3] ko sa la dang /

[4] kā shi dang /

[5] bṛi dzi dang /

[6] malla dang /

[7] pun dra dang /

[8] sreg pa dang /

[9] kā mā dang /

[10] a ban ti dang /

[11] ku ru dang /

[12] lnga len dang /

[13] bad sa dang /

[14] dpal sde dang /

[15] ya ba na dang /

[16] kam po

rnams su ’di lta ste...

§    §    §    §    §

Bibliography (and abbreviated references)

Bailey, H.W. 1936.

            “An Itinerary in Khotanese Saka,” Acta Orientalia, vol. 14, pp. 258-267.

Bailey, H.W. 1937.

            “Ttaugara,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 8, pp. 883-921.

Bailey, H.W. 1949/50.

            “Irano-Indica III,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 13, pp. 389-409.

Bailey, H.W. 1979.

Dictionary of Khotanese Saka, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge).

Beckwith, C.I. 1987.

            The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton University Press (Princeton).

Bka’-thang: O-rgyan-gling-pa (gter-ston).

            Bka’-thang Sde Lnga, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Pe-cing 1986).

Blo-bzang-rta-mgrin 1964.

            The Golden Annals of Lamaism (Hor Chos-’byung), Lokesh Chandra (N. Delhi).

Bsod-nams-don-grub 1992.

            “Stag-gzig dang Gna’-rabs Bod-kyi ’Brel-ba’i Skor la Dpyad-pa” (“Inquiry into the Relations between Tazig and Old Tibet”), Bod-ljongs Zhib-’jug, annual issue no. 3, pp. 25-36.

Caffarelli, P.M.V. 1990.

            “Note sulla produzione artistica dei Kitan-Liao (907-1125),” contained in: Paolo Daffina, ed., Indo-Sino-Tibetica: Studi in onore di Luciano Petech, Bardi Editore (Rome), pp. 223-256.

Clauson, Gérard 1957.

            “A propos du Manuscrit Pelliot Tibétain 1283,” Journal Asiatique, vol. 245, pp. 11-24.

Das, S.C., et al. 1973.

            A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi).

Don-dam-smra-ba’i-seng-ge 1969.

            A 15th Century Tibetan Compendium of Knowledge, Śatapiṭaka Series (N. Delhi).

Don-dam-smra-ba’i-seng-ge 1976.

            Bshad Mdzod Chen-mo, Kunsang Topgey (Thimphu, Bhutan). Note that the date of publication on the title page, “1967,” is a mistake.

*Dpal-’byor-bzang-po 1985.

            Rgya Bod Yig-tshang Chen-mo, Si-khron Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Ch’eng-tu).

Dpal-tshul 1972.

            G.yung-drung Bon-gyi Bstan-’byung, Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Center [TBMC] (Dolanji).

Enoki, Kazuo 1969.

            “On the Date of the Kidarites (1),” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, vol. 27, pp. 1-26.

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. Ms. in Oslo University Library, Østas II 14.

Gnoli, G. 1987.

            “Avestan Geography,” contained in: E. Yarshater, ed., Encyclopaedia Iranica, London (Routledge & Kegan Paul), vol. 3, fasc. 1, pp. 44-47.

Gu-ru Bkra-shis 198X.

            Chos-’byung Ngo-mtshar Gtam-gyi Rol Mtsho, Dingo Khyentse Rinpoche (Delhi).

’Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa I Ngag-dbang-brtson-’grus 1968.

            Dam-pa’i Chos Mngon-pa Mdzod-kyi Dgongs-’grel, Sbag-sa Chos-sde (Wa-ra-na-si[Varanasi]).

’Jig-rten-mgon-po 1969. The Collected Writings (Gsung-’bum) of ’Bri-gung Chos-rje ’Jig-rten-mgon-po Rin-chen-dpal, Khangsar Tulku (N. Delhi).

Karma-pa VIII Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje 1975.

            Chos Mngon-pa’i Mdzod-kyi ’Grel-pa Rgyas-par Spros-pa Grub Bde’i Dpyid ’Jo, T. Tsepal Taikhang (N. Delhi).

Karmay, S.G. 1972.

            The Treasury of Good Sayings, Oxford University Press (London).

Klong-chen-pa Dri-med-’od-zer 1985.

            Mdzod Bdun, Palace Monastery (Gangtok).

Kuijp, L. van der 1992.

            “Dating the Two Lde’u Chronicles of Buddhism in India and Tibet,” Asiatische Studien, vol. 46, pp. 468-491.

Kvaerne, P. 1980.

            “Mongols and Khitans in a 14th-Century Tibetan Bonpo Text,” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, vol. 34, pp. 85-104.

Law, B.C. 1954.

            Historical Geography of Ancient India, Société Asiatique de Paris (Paris).

Lde’u:

            Mkhas-pa Lde’us Mdzad-pa’i Rgya Bod-kyi Chos-’byung Rgyas-pa, Bod-ljongs Mi-dmangs Dpe-skrun-khang (Lhasa 1987).

Lévi, Sylvain 1905.

            “Notes chinoises sur l’Inde,” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient, vol. 5, pp. 253-305.

Lévi, Sylvain 1915.

            “Mahāmāyūrī,” Journal Asiatique, 11th series, vol. 5, pp. 19-138.

Lindtner, C. 1988.

            “Buddhist References to Old Iranian Religion,” contained in: A Green Leaf (Acta Iranica 28), E.J. Brill (Leiden), pp. 433-444.

Macdonald, Ariane 1962.

            “Note sur la diffusion de la theorie des quatre fils du ciel au Tibet,” Journal Asiatique, vol. 250, pp. 531-548.

Martin, D. 1991.

            The Emergence of Bon and the Tibetan Polemical Tradition, dissertation, Indiana University University Microfilms International (Ann Arbor).

Martin, D. 1992.

            “Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and Tongues from Fire: Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History,” contained in: Tibetan Studies, Naritasan Shinshoji (Narita), pp. 183-191.

Mchims Nam-mkha’-grags 1976[?].

            Chos Mngon-pa Mdzod-kyi Tshig Le’ur Byas-pa’i ’Grel-pa Mngon-pa’i Rgyan, n.p. (Sbag-sa).

Mdo ’Dus:

            Mdo ’Dus Rin-po-che’i Rgyud Thams-cad Mkhyen-pa’i Bka’ Tshad-ma, TBMC (Dolanji 1985).

Meisezahl, R.O. 1985.

            Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition, VGH Wissenschaftsverlag (Sankt Augustin).

MHTL:

            Lokesh Chandra, Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature, Sharada Rani (N. Delhi 1985).

Parlato, S.C. 1990.

            “La presunta invasione Eftalita in India,” contained in: Paolo Daffina, ed., Indo-Sino-Tibetica: Studi in onore di Luciano Petech, Bardi Editore (Rome), pp. 257-281.

Pelliot, P. 1923.

            “La théorie des quatre Fils du Ciel,” T’oung Pao, vol. 22, pp. 97-125.

Phag-mo-gru-pa Rdo-rje-rgyal-po 1977.

            Sangs-rgyas-kyi Bstan-pa la Rim-gyis ’Jug-pa’i Tshul, Zogyam and Pema Lodoe (Bir, Himachal Pradesh).

Po-to-ba, et al. 1991.

            Bka’-gdams-kyi Man-ngag Be’u-bum Sngon-po’i Rtsa ’Grel, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Pe-cing).

Prats, Ramon 1980.

            “Some Preliminary Considerations Arising from a Bibliographical Study of the Early Gter-ston,” contained in: Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi, eds., Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, Aris & Phillips (Warminster 1980), pp. 256-260.

Roerich, g.n. 1976.

            The Blue Annals, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi).

Sba-bzhed:

                  Sba-bzhed ces bya-ba-las Sba Gsal-snang-gi Bzhed-pa, Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khang (Pe-cing 1980/82).

Sga-ston Tshul-khrims-rgyal-mtshan 1974.

            Kun-las Btus-pa Srid-pa’i Mdzod Phug-gi Gzhung ’Grel, TBMC, Tashi Dorje (Dolanji).

Shar-rdza Bkra-shis-rgyal-mtshan 1977.

            Legs-bshad Rin-po-che’i Mdzod, TBMC (Delhi).

Sircar, D.C. 1971.

            Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi).

SKC:

            Khod-spo Blo-gros-thogs-med, Srid-pa Rgyud-kyi Kha-byang Chen-mo, TBMC (Dolanji 1976).

Stein, R.A. 1959.

            Recherches sur l’épopée et le barde au Tibet, Presses Universitaires de France (Paris).

Three Sources:

            Three Sources for a History of Bon, Khedup Gyatso, TBMC (Dolanji 1974).

Tog Palace:

            The Tog Palace Manuscript of the Tibetan Kanjur, Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod series (Leh 1975-80).

Vimalamitra (Bye-ma-la-mi-tra) 1988.

            Kun-tu-bzang-po Klong Drug Rgyud-kyi ’Grel-pa, Samdrup Tsering (Delhi).

Zhang-ston Bkra-shis-rdo-rje 1985.

            “Rdzogs-pa Chen-po Snying-thig-gi Lo-rgyus Chen-mo,” contained in: Rnying-ma Bka’-ma Rgyas-pa, Dupjung Lama (Kalimpong), vol. 45, pp. 503-675.

Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen 1974.

            Sde-dge’i Bstan-’gyur-gyi Dkar-chag, Trayang and Jamyang Samten (Delhi).

Figure 1:  A chart typologically arranged to show that this type of country-list found in Bon histories (I call it the Kamboja list) descends from a list in the Tathāgatācintyagūhya Nirdeśa Sūtra.

The 92 Fringe Countries (mtha’-’khob):

Between India and Orgyan (2):

1.   Sing-ga-la’i Yul

2.   A-ba-brag-shi-ta

Between Kashmir and India (2):

3.   Long-bu

4.   Long-thang

Between India and Orgyan (2):

5.   Bla-spangs

6.   Gser-gling

Between Orgyan and China (10).

7.   Lad-sa (Lang-sa?)

8.   Spu-bo

9.   ’Dam-ka

10.  Che Yul

11.  Dang-ke

12.  Chu-ke

13.  Me-lung

14.  Ra-rnams

15.  Kung-ke

16.  Lung-ke

Between India and Tibet (11):

17.  Rni-shangs

18.  Rbad-mi

19.  Ri-then

20.  Kha-gnyis

21.  Se-rib

22.  Long-spangs

23.  Sdan-long

24.  Bya-skrog

25.  Slos-po (=Klo-bo)

26.  Slob-kra (=Klo-bkra)

27.  Spyi-bcings

Between Tibet and China (20, actually 18):

28.  Spang-kung (Spad-kud?)

29.  Ne-le

30.  Tsha-ling

31.  Dur-ling

32.  Za-ma

33.  Spang-lang

34.  Sil-mi

35.  Gsar-mi

36.  Dan-tri

37.  Rag-sha

38.  Pa

39.  Ken

40.  Sin

41.  Zhun

42.  Bag-ge

43.  Stong-mi

44.  Ldom-ka

45.  Rus-can

Between Tibet and Hor (5):

46.  Gar-log

47.  Se-smen

48.  G.yung

49.  Hor-mi

50.  Stam-keng

Between India and China (35, actually 37):

51.  Ras-smi

52.  Sa-smi

53.  Lde-ge

54.  Lag-ge

55.  Ba

56.  Sa-pe

57.  Lu

58.  Khe

59.  Gha-ling

60.  Ba-ling

61.  Ṭa-sangs

62.  Gu-ra-tri

63.  Tam-ling

64.  Bsam-ling

65.  Sa-ti

66.  Pa-la

67.  U-ling

68.  Sam-ling

69.  Ke

70.  Smer-ke

71.  Sa-dur

72.  Me-dur

73.  Kham

74.  Khem

75.  Pa-ma

76.  Kung

77.  Ba-sa

78.  Bu-sa

79.  La-tan

80.  Pa-lang-ke-ra

81.  Ma-smi

82.  Len-ta

83.  Kya-ri

84.  Smar-ti

85.  Su-ri

86.  Mer-rga

87.  ’Dam-sangs

Between Khotan (Li) and Kashmir (3):

88.  Ra-ga-ta-ri

89.  Sa-mu-li

90.  Ba-lang-can

Between China and Stag-gzig (2):

91.  Ri-kheng

92.  Gug-rta

Figure 2: 92 Fringe Countries, according to Kun-tu-bzang-po Klong Drug Rgyud-kyi ’Grel-pa, attributed to Vimalamitra.

Figure 3: A uniquely Indocentric version of the Eighteen Great Countries according to the same commentary on the Klong Drug Tantra attributed to Vimalamitra. (Note: Asterisked [*] items were missing in the list itself, and had to be supplied from another part of the text.)

Figure 4:  Eighteen Great Countries from the so-called Rgyal-rabs Bon-gyi ’Byung-gnas (1439?), based on the edition in Three Sources (pp. 10-11).

Figure 5:  Eighteen Great Countries Based on Shar-rdza (1977: 15), composed in 1923, in citation from a (mid-12th cent.?) commentarial work called Rtsa ’Grel.

Figure 6: Eighteen Great Countries according to two mss. of the Gling Grags (late 12th century?), following the critical text edition by Per Kvaerne.  (Note: Kvaerne’s Text B reads “Gser-gling Zang-gling / Mu-thig-gling rnams stong,” in the center.)

Figure 7:  Eighteen Great Countries according to Dpal-tshul (1972: 61), citing the Gling-grags as a source.

Figure 8:  From Sga-ston (1974: 308-9), a 14th-century (?) commentary on the Mdzod Phug, in the context of a citation from the Rtsa ’Grel (compare Figure 5).

Figure 9:  Nine Great Countries, based on Rgya Bod Yig-tshang [1434] citation from a lost (?) work of Rig-ral, or Rig-pa’i-ral-gri (late 13th cent.), entitled Sdom-pa [i.e. Ston-pa] Brgyan-gyi Me-tog (MHTL no. 10819).

Figure 10: Based on a list of countries (with Mt. Ti-tse [Ti-se] at the center) found in the shortest of the three main versions of the Life of Lord Shenrab: chapter 2 of the 11th-century (?) Mdo ’Dus (p. 16).

* Dedicated to my niece Vida Noffsinger, and to the phywa and the dmu who are still busily attempting to make sense of human experience. Many people have helped in different ways to formulate and analyze the ideas and data in this essay, among whom I must especially mention Christopher I. Beckwith, Michael Walter, and Thubten J. Norbu. Thanks also to Tashi Tsering (Dharamsala) for some useful bibliographical advice. This essay was partly researched and entirely written under tenure as fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and I will always remain grateful for their support.

[1] Also neglected are the lists of peoples found in Indian epic and puranic literature, even though their study in conjunction with the Indian Buddhist and Tibetan data would surely lead to interesting historical insights. The Kālacakra list, often cited directly or indirectly by Tibetan authors (for an example of its incorporation into a larger list, see Meisezahl 1985: plate 64.1, continued on 63.2), may be traced to the end of the 4th part of the 1st chapter of the Vimalaprabhā. Following the Peking edition, these countries are: Bod, Rgya-nag, Rgya-nag-chen-po, Pār-si-ka, Tsam-pa-ka, Spre’u, Gser, Rug-ma and Su-ra-ma. In each of these countries the teachings of the Buddha have, says the Vimalaprabhā, been set down in writing in their own languages. For the Mahāmāyūrī list, see Lévi (1915). For the countries under the power of Ral-pa-can, see Meisezahl (1985: plate 307.2.5). They are: 1. Rgya-gar (India). 2. Bal-po (Nepal). 3. Li-yul-then (i.e., Li-yul ’U-then, Khotan). 4-5. Sbal Gru-sha (evidently Sbal-ti / Baltistan and Bru-zha / Burusho; see Beckwith 1987: 116). 6. Dmang Zhang-zhung (Dmang may refer to Ladakh?). 7. Hor Yul. 8. Sog Yul. 9. Ka-mi-log. There are lists of the different countries in which Padmasambhava and Lord Shenrab manifested themselves (see Martin 1991: 114-5). For country names found in Old Tibetan itineraries, see for example Clauson (1957). It would also be interesting to speculate on the historical connections between the Indian Buddhist, Jaina and Hindu concepts of the Sixteen Mahājanapadas and the list of sixteen districts of Iran in the Avesta (see Gnoli 1987: 45-6 and literature cited there).

[2] Column D is based on SKC (p. 59). Column E is from Gling-grags (folio 4 verso). Column F is from Shar-rdza (1977: 15-16). Column G is from Dpal-tshul (1972: 61). Column H is from the long mistitled Rgyal-rabs Bon-gyi ’Byung-gnas (Three Sources, p. 11). With the exception of SKC, all these sources describe the countries as belonging to the 91 or 92 minor countries.

[3] See Column A of Figure 1. We have used the Tog Palace, no. 11.3 (vol. 35, pp. 145b.7-308b.2, at ff. 417-8). Column B represents a partial listing found in ’Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa I (1968: 132). There is also a complete citation in Blo-bzang-rta-mgrin (1964: 6).

[4] There are many secondary sources for the Sixteen Mahājanapadas, but see especially Law (1954: 42-53), who lists them according to the Aṅguttara Nikāya as follows: Aṅga, Magadha, Kāśī, Kośala, Vajji, Malla, Ceti, Vaṃsa, Kuru, Pañcāla, Maccha, Sūrasena, Assaka, Avantī, Gandhāra and Kamboja. There are a few other somewhat variant lists, but apparently none of these lists were available to Tibetans for the simple reason that the texts containing them were not translated into Tibetan.

[5] For a detailed listing of different forms of the name Balkh, including a Tibetan form Bag-la, see Enoki (1969: 12).

[6] One other indication that the lists from Bon histories derived from the sūtra list is the way the Bon sources describe these countries –– “minor countries” (yul ’phran) and “in the in-between places” (yul-chen-rnams-kyi bar-na yod) –– phrases very similar to those used in the sūtra. But notice also that the list from SKC (p. 59) is described as the Sixteen Great Countries (sa yul chen-po bcu[-d]rug). SKC (pp. 74-5) also has a unique list of Eighteen Great Fringe Countries: Rgya, ’Jang, Pal-po (Bal-po?), Nyang-po, Klo-bo, Spu-’u, Mon, Ge’u-le, Sog-po, Bod-ba, Hor (Ba-hor?), Ge-sar, Man-’ja, Mur-’ja, Gu-le-grin, Ma-he, ’U-sa (’U-pa?), and Lus-’dzing (?). For still another list in the SKC (pp. 22-27), see Martin (1991: 115) and Snellgrove (1967: 15).

[7] The names of Gar-bsam and Tsha-ba-dmar-thag I have located only in one other Tibetan source, and that is Zhang-ston (1985: 630) which, according to Karmay (1988: 209 ff.) dates to the early 12th century. It has a listing of countries among which are distributed the 113 cemeteries where ḍākiṇīs congregate. Thirty-two of them are in India, eight in Orgyan, ten in Kashmir, five each in Khotan and Hor, five each in Tsha-ba-dmar-thag and Dung [perhaps Dang-dung, equivalent to Da-tung, should be read here], ten each in Mi-nyag and Za-hor, ten each in ’Thon-mi and Gar-bsam. Only two are in Tibet. One of the two is at the White Rock of Ti-sgro of Gzho in Dbu-ru, and the other is the famous pilgrimage center in southeastern Dbus province (inside the Brahmaputra bend) called Tsā-ri (Tsā-ri Tsā-gong). This might be compared to a similar treatment of the 113 cemeteries in Gu-ru Bkra-shis (198X: I 316). 

[8] See, for example, Caffarelli (1990: 241 ff., and photographs on pp. 242-3). Gar-bsam is also probably in the same general area, although I still do not have any clear idea what place it should be.

[9] The Klong Drug commentary does include the only complete listing of the 92 Fringe Countries known to me (see Figure 2).

[10] It must be noted, in order to accurately ‘read’ the charts, that all the sources with the exception of Dpal-tshul place the outermost countries “at the edge” of only one of the intermediate countries. In other words, Rgya-mo-khyi-khyo-can and Thod-dkar are at the edge of China; Gyad-yul and Hu-na are at the edge of India; Kye’u-me and Phu-na are at the edge of Stag-gzig (note that here it is treated as one entity!). The two editions of the Gling-grags differ as to whether it is Hor or Ge-sar that Sog-po and Sbal-kha border, while all the other versions agree that they border on Ge-sar.

[11] Three Sources (p. 12.4).

[12] The correspondence of Spu-na/Phu-na with Yavana/Yona/Yuna has been fairly demonstrated in Figure 1.

[13] Bailey (1936: 261).

[14] See Karmay (1972: xviii), where the Rtsa ’Grel cited by Shar-rdza is identified with the Zhi Khro Rtsa ’Grel excavated by Gu-ru Rnon-rtse (b. 1136).

[15] Das (1973: 936), basing himself on the same Bon history, believed that this Sbal is a province of southern Mongolia (but this seems mere guessing on his part, and he gives no evidence). Po (see DAS, p. 785) and Sbal appear as Sog-po and Sbal-kha in the following ‘map’. Still, when Sbal appears as such we must be aware that this could be a shortened form of two different toponyms: 1. Sbal-kha (Balkh), and 2. Sbal-ti (Balti). When it occurs in a list of countries said to have been brought under the power of Emperor Ral-pa-can, the Sbal, since it appears in conjunction with Gru-sha (i.e., Bru-zha, Burusho), must stand for Sbal-ti (see Meisezahl 1985: plate 307.2.5).

[16] See Kvaerne (1980) on Khitans in Bon sources. See the same (p. 101) for Rgya[l]-mo-khyi-khyo-can, “Chinese wom[e]n [or queen] having dog husband[s].” In the context of the Eighteen Great Countries, Khri-dan (Khitan) and Rgya-mo-khyi-khyo-can are clearly distinct countries. Das (1973: 159) suggests that Khyi-khyo is “prob[ably] Kamschatka.”

[17] See colums C and D of Figure 1.

[18] Das (1973: 1328), says that Hu-na is not only the Hūṇa, a “Mongol or Indo-Mongolian family to which the Tibetans are allied,” but also a name of a place in Tibet (according to a text he calls Bon Chos, but which I have not identified). I do not believe that there was ever such a place in Tibet, but wish for evidence otherwise. For a discussion of the problem of who the Hūṇas were, see Parlato (1990: especially pp. 258-264).

[19] See Sircar (1971: 108).

[20] See Bailey (1937: especially pp. 885-8). Bon sources, when they are clearly referring to the western Tokharistan, always seem to use the form Tho-gar (i.e., without the final ‘d’ in the first syllable); see, for example, Martin (1991: 136). Tho-gar appears in Roerich (1976: 159, 345) in the personal name Tho-gar Nam-mkha’-lde (=Gnam-sde?), an early Rnying-ma teacher. The etymology for Togar, proposed in Bailey (1979: 80), connecting it with the Tibetan clan name Mgar, is quite interesting in this connection (cf. Beckwith 1987: 6). For an occurrence of a country named Tho-gar (also, Thog-gar) in a Vinaya work, see Bailey (1949/50: 403-4).

[21] See *Dpal-’byor-bzang-po (1985: 10). On this passage, see Macdonald (1962: 531-2), and also Bsod-nams-don-grub (1992: 29). Sdom-pa (i.e., Ston-pa) Brgyan-gyi Me-tog is listed in MHTL, no. 10819. Except for a missing ’a-chung in Gzig-phan, the 18th-century list of countries in Zhu-chen (1974: II 15) is identical (see Stein 1959: 259). Some other non-Bon sources mention, without listing, the Eighteen Great Countries. These sources include the 1283 history by Nel-pa (Deb-ther Khag Lnga, p. 3) and, excavated in 1347, the Bka’-thang (p. 101, see below). We may feel justified, therefore, in treating the Eighteen Great Countries as a general Tibetan, rather than a specifically Bonpo, cultural phenomenon, at the very least in the 13th-14th centuries. A 1919 history (Blo-bzang-rta-mgrin 1964: 6 verso) says that there are either Sixteen or Eighteen Great Countries. This is a rare example of the two concepts being mentioned in the same context.

[22] For an explanation, see Stein (1959: 304, note 47).

[23] On the two histories of Lde’u, see now Kuijp (1992).

[24] Meisezahl (1985: plate 104.1).

[25] There is an emerging consensus that careful historians must consider the gter-ma texts as documents closely reflecting the time and circumstances under which they were revealed. Some gter-ma do, at least in part, incorporate or preserve materials found in prior works, but these are problems that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. On this, see especially Prats (1980) and the literature cited there.

[26] I have dealt with the problem of the Nine Dark Mountains briefly in Martin (1991: 163) and hope to return to it in another place.

[27] For another, still more aberrant version of the Eighteen Great Countries, one evidently dating to the 15th century, see the outline by E. Gene Smith in Don-dam-smra-ba’i-seng-ge (1969: 19-20; see also 1976: 195-8). These are introduced as the Sixteen Great Countries (yul gru chen-po) which, together with the center (India made up of nine subdivisions) and the group of 91 marginal countries, add up to eighteen. The Four Good Countries are: 1. SE of India, Byang (’Jang), the kingdom of juicy fruits. 2. SW of India, ’Ga’-da (’Ga’-de), the kingdom of medicines. 3. NW of India, Stag-gzig[s], kingdom of wealth. 4. NE of India, Kha-dkar, the kingdom of bronze (li). The Four Bad Countries are: 1. The Ra-tsa kingdom in the east. 2. The Mu-stegs kingdom in the south. 3. The Srin-po kingdom in the west. 4. The Tibetan Kingdom in the north. The Four Chief Countries are Rgya-nag, Ge-sar (Ge-ser), Hor and Gru-gu. The Four Great Chief Countries are Bal-po, Zhang-zhung, Sum-pa and Me-nyag. Note: The Kha-dkar kingdom may have something to do with Kha-khra, a name applied by Tibetans to certain peoples of Assam, although an identification with the holy mountain in Khams named Kha-ba-dkar-po is also possible. The Rgyal-po Bka’i Thang-yig, chapter 2 (Bka’-thang, p. 101) mentions, without listing, the Eighteen Great Countries. It does however supply a fifteen-member typology of the 6,400 nationalities (mi-rigs) which somewhat resembles the Great Countries list of Don-dam-smra-ba’i-seng-ge –– A. The Three Good Ones: 1. Rmu-sangs. 2. She-tshar. 3. Dge-tshar. B. The Three Bad Ones: 1. Spangs-te. 2. Pir-la. 3. Yu-lu. C. The Three Under Good (bzang ’og): 1. ’Thoms-pa. 2. ’Gags-pa. 3. ’Gongs-pa. D. The Three Intermediate: 1. Rmugs-pa. 2. Ger-pa. 3. Thom-ham. E. The Three Under [Intermediate]: 1. Nem-pa. 2. ’Gar-ba. 3. Phrag-pa.

[28] See Martin (1992: 190). This hypothesis on the non-availability of the Man-ngag Class tantras prior to Klong-chen-pa is one that I am still trying to disprove.

[29] It is interesting to note that Klong-chen-pa (1983: I 146) does at least mention another commentary composed by Vimala[mitra], on a tantra called Mu-tig Phreng-ba, which is, like the Klong Drug, one of the seventeen tantras of the Man-ngag Class.

[30] There is also the possibility that the Eighteen Great Countries concept was inspired by a passage in the Mdo Dran-pa Nyer-bzhag as cited in ’Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa I (1968: 132), which says that there are eighteen countries (yul-ljongs bco-brgyad) in Jambudvīpa (also cited in Blo-bzang-rta-mgrin 1964: 5 verso). I haven’t yet been able to trace the citation in the text of the sūtra. However, it seems that every Tibetan commentary on the Abhidharmakośa, starting at least in the 13th century (Mchims 1967?: folio 160, for example), contains a reference to the Sixteen Great Countries, a thousand minor countries, 360 nationalities, and 720 languages.

[31] Note specifically the distinction made in 12th-century works between two types of centers: 1. sa-tshigs, ‘way-stations’, or (by further interpretation) ‘geographical’ center, meaning by all accounts the Diamond Seat of Bodhgaya where the Buddha was enlightened, and 2. yon-tan, ‘qualitative’, center, meaning anywhere Buddhism exists. See especially the words of Dol-pa (born 1059?) in Po-to-ba (1991: 155), who says that while geographically speaking “we” (i.e., Tibetans) are a marginal people (mtha’-’khob), qualitatively [we] are like the essence of the center (dbus-kyi snying-po). See similar passages in Phag-mo-gru-pa (1977: 17), and also, Rgyal-rabs Bon-gyi ’Byung-gnas (Three Sources, pp. 12, 22, where ’Ol-mo-lung-ring/Stag-gzigs is the qualitative center, while the geographical center is Mount Ti-se; compare also Three Sources, p. 589; and Shar-rdza 1977: 16). While these sources clearly stop short of calling Tibet a ‘geographical’ center, they do promote the idea that Tibet could constitute, nevertheless, a center. This trend would be partly due to Tibetan awareness of the tragedy befalling their religion in northern India, evident at least in the late 12th-century works of ’Jig-rten-mgon-po (1969: II 256); see also the words of Khro-phu Lo-tsā-ba preserved in Zhu-chen (1974: II 14).