9. Conclusion

According to early Tibetan myth on origin of the earth and the beings, the above is how the world [Tib: phyi snod] and living beings [Tib: nang bcud] evolved. It delineates how the cosmic egg, the god Sangs po 'bum khri and goddess Chu lcam rgyal mo, the last of the Phyva god sTag cha 'al 'ol, four brothers of Phyva and how ultimately the six tribes of Tibet, mi'u gdung drug evolved. Both dBu nag mi'u dra chag and rLang gi spo ti se ru says that father A-nye khri tho chen po and his three wives, and six children, who became the six tribes of Tibet: sPos chu lDong, Se khung dbra, A lcags 'gru, dMu tsa dga', dBal and zLa. In dBu nag mi'u dra chag, the three mothers were: dKar mo of gNyan, dMu za of dMu and Srin mo of Srin, while in rLang gi spo ti se ru, the three mothers were: sNyan za sha mig, dMu za lha mo and Brag srin. Father is A-nye khri thog chen po in the former and A-mye mu ze khri to chen po in the later. Srid pa'i mzod phug and gZi brjid do not mention about Khri tho chen po and three mothers, but they speak of Sangs po 'bum khri and Chu lcag rgyal mo, and the four brothers of Phyva "Phyva rabs ched bzhi". Although the four brothers differ a little in name, they have the same sTag cha 'al 'ol and 'Tsam za as their parents. Phyva rabs ched bzhi is mentioned in some other texts also with the eldest Yab lha bdal drug as grandfather of the first king of Tibet, Nyathi Tsanpo. There are little differences here and there, but they all agree on the cosmic egg which came as a result of interaction amoung the five natural elements, and the role of God Sangs po 'bum khri and Goddess Chu lcam rgyal mo in Tibetan cosmology. These mythical narrations had remained in deep slumber in the ancient Bonpo texts; they needs to be awakened and appreciated to demonstrate the Tibetan version of the origin myth of the outer universe and inner beings. Because of the centuries of neglect, they may be a little crude and incoherent, but nothing which a little study and care would not make coherent. It reflects the wisdom of the early inhabitants of the Pamir plateau, and the opulence and depth of Tibetan civilization.

The Buddhist theory of Avaloketeshvara and the rock-ogress holds relevant if it is placed before the birth of Buddha. This is possible, because according to the Mahayana tradition, Avalokiteshvara and Goddess Tara existed before the coming of Buddha in Nirmankaya form as Shakyamuni. If it is attached with the historical Buddha prophesying the birth of Tibet and Tibetans hundred years during or after his time, it will mean erasing or dismantling the whole essence and existence of early civilization in Tibet. It would mean that when the neighboring countries had achieved high levels of civilization, Tibet was still waiting for the Boddhisattva monkey and a rock-ogress to give birth to Tibetans. There was supposed to have been nine hundred twenty one thousand five hundred and three [921,503]^[1] kings of Shakya lineage in India by that time, the last two being Buddha and his son Rahula. So the prophesy of Buddha about the origin of Tibet and Tibetans does not subscribe to common reasoning. Kun khyen padma karpo and the later scholars have done great harm in linking the monkey myth to Buddha and its occurance one hundred years after Buddha's parinirvana.

If the origin of Tibet and Tibetans were left to the conversation between Buddha Amitabha and Avalokiteshvara much before Buddha Shakyamuni's time, it would have been more appropriate.

The Rupati theory does not hold any ground from the Tibetan or the Indian mythical and historical context. Although the Tibetan translation of 'Lha las 'pul 'byung gi bstod pa' mentions it, the original Sanskrit 'Devatisayatotratika' does not say anything about Rupati and his flight to Tibet. Ne'u Pandita [1283 CE] had rejected this interpretation^[2]. mKhas pa'i dga' ston, dPa' bo gtsug lag phreng ba [1564 CE] too has expressed doubt and raised inconsistencies in this Rupati theory, as explained in the Tibetan commentary on Devatisayatotratika, and Kachem Kakholma^[3]. Moreover, in the Mahabharata epic, we do not find anything about any Rupati with or without his platoon escaping to Himalaya or Tibet in the guise of women.

Lastly, scientists and archeological studies have shown that humans existed on the Tibetan plateau as far as 12,000^[4] years ago, and implements and tools found in some regions of Tibet are said to date back some 8000 years^[5]. The traditional Tibetan Bonpo calendar dates Tonpa Shenrab [Tib: sTon-pa gshen-rab], the founder of the indigenous Bon religion, to some 23,000 years ago^[6]. Some scholars put him around 1917 BC^[7]. Myth, as a part of ancient knowledge and narratives of a community, has to predate history. A recent study has shown "humans first appeared in Tibet at least 30,000 years ago during a warm stage in the last period of glaciations."^[8] These ancient sources and scientific findings clearly testify to Tibet being a very ancient civilization, and putting it after Mahabharata and the Buddha's period is preposterous and not creditable.

Therefore, the Tibetan historians and scholars and the school textbooks need to put this monkey theory in a more relevant context, and the cosmic egg theory should be explored further and be accorded its rightful place as the original ancient Tibetan myth of creation.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Deb ther dmar po, Mi rig pe skrun, 1981, p-5

[2]:

Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag lnga, p-4

[3]:

dPa' bo gtsug lag phreng ba, mKhas pa'i dga' ston, p-158 ff

[4]:

Tibetan Lived in Himalyas Year Round Up to 12,000 Years Ago by Laura Geggel, Senior Writer / Jan 5, 2017. Live Science. [http://www.livescience.com/57403-humans-inhabited-tibet-mountains-earlier-than-thought.html]

[5]:

Bod-kyi lo-rgyus bgro-gleng, LTWA, p-1ix

[6]:

Bellezza, John Vincent, gShen-rab Myi-bo, p-31, University of Virginia

[7]:

Namkhai Norbu,Drung, Deu and Bon, p-156 ff

[8]:

Bellezza, John Vincent, Antiquities of upper Tibet, p-7, Delhi, 2002 / Bod kyi lo rgyus gleng ba p-182