8. Conclusion

The above texts and scriptures that we have discussed are some of the most early and modern authoritative materials on the origin of the first king of Tibet. Through these texts, we find that most of the theories supporting Indic origin were based on or inspired by Mani Kabum and Kachem Kakholma texts. Whatever the differences, it revolves around an Indian king of the Shakya lineage and the Mahabharata epic. But our analysis evidently shows that neither the events nor the protagonists mentioned in the theories correspond to or appear in the Indian mythical epic or in the historical events of the land. We also confirm the possibility of another version of Kachem Kakholma, because authors, like Nyangral and Sakya Sonam Gyaltsan attribute their source to the text, but the interpretation is different from the Kachem Kakholma text. The same is the case with 5th Dalai Lama's dPyid kyi rgyal mo'i glu dbyangs. The differences in Mani Kabum and Kachem Kakholma, and in their interpretations warrant further research into the authorship and original copy of the texts. It was said that some pages of the original text were missing, and that the caretaker [dKon gnyer] replaced the pages with his own writing from memory. This could be the time when the old text was replaced with the new version.

Indian Shakya lineage and Mahabharata theories are found invalid because of following points:

• King Rupati fleeing with his platoon to Tibet in women's disguise, such an event or person is not found in the Indian Mahabharata epic.

• Mahabharata was supposed to have happened in 5000 to 3000 BCE^[1], but scholars have put the logical time frame of Nyatri Tsanpo in between 600 to 127 BCE. Some Bon texts had put Nyatri Tsanpo at 1137 BCE. Whatever the proposition, it is difficult to see the rational in asserting the beginning of the Yarlung dynasty in the above context.

• Nyang ral has rejected the Mahabharata, Pandava and Kaurava theory as far too distant [p-154-155]. At the same time he attributed the source of his theory to Srongtsan Gampo [p-156], the supposed author of Kachem Kakholma and Manikabum. But as we have seen, the two texts are based on the Mahabharata epic. Therefore, there is inconsistency.

• Kachem Kakholma text has shown King 'Char byed of Vatsa as the lineage holder of Shakya Ri brag pa, and sKyabs seng and dMag brgya ba as his grandsons. But Pandava and Kaurava were the grandsons of King Sanatu and Queen Satyavati, and sons of King Vicitravirya [supposed] of Hastinapur. Moreover, the Kauravas had no son by the name of Rupati or Rubakye and there is no incident of anyone fleeing to Tibet.

The name Rupati or Ru pa skye or Ru ba skyes comes up frequently as the one who escaped to Tibet and became the first Tibetan king. Anything close to the vocables in Tibetan historiography and in Mahabharata are: Ru las skyes, the son born to the widow of eighth King Drigum Tsanpo, and Ru las skyes is remembered as restoring the kingdom. Ru las skyes was supposed to be raised up in a horn, therefore the name, Ru las skyes. In the Mahabharata, something close to Rupati is Drupati, the wife of Pandava. Rup means beauty, pati may mean "one how owns in abundant" [like, lakh-pati, crore-pati etc.]. Therefore, Rupati may mean, one who owns beauty in abundance. But there is nothing that could connect her to Tibet.

Some common phrases [Tib:tha snyad] observed here and there in the Tibetan texts elucidating the origin of the first Tibetan are: the Shakya lineage, sKya seng and dMag rgya pa; a boy with strange features; Rupati and Rupakye; a son abandoned in the river, descending from sky through dMu cord on a mountain top etc. Kachem Kakholma is the only text which has all these elements. The discovery of the text was credited to Master Atisha and the authorship to King Srongtsan Gampo, both of whom are profound figures in Tibetan religious history. They are so greatly revered that; in fact, no one can dare to question the veracity of this account. Later scholars took it at face value and used it to dole out their own version. g.Yangmo mtso, in her work "gNya khri brtsan po zhib 'jug", has also concluded that Kachem Kakholma incorporated the Bon version only to gain legitimacy through a more established native version to in order to steady the shaky stance of the Indic version.^[2]

One potential area that could provide us with crucial clues to help unravel this enigmatic question about the origin and identity of the king lies in Yab lha dal drug of Bon and Theurang of the pre-Bon versions. The Bon theory of the king descending from the sky cannot be ignored as a pure myth. The theory, even in its myth form, is important because it is associated with the origin myth of the Tibetan race and the gods and goddesses of the land. More importantly, the Tunhuang manuscripts also speak of what is revealed in the textual version of this theory^[3]. The Theurang version, as opined by modern scholars like Chab spal, 'Bri gung skyab mgon and g.Yang mo mtso, is nearer to the historical reality. But the fact that a cruel and ugly looking Theurang [Goblin] banished from some other land was readily accepted by the Tibetans as their King is hard to digest. It may have happened in the distant past, but the descendants of Mi'u gdung bdrug could not have been that naïve to impose upon themselves a total foreigner with goblin features as their king.

The truth seems to dwell somewhere in between the Yab lha dal drug and Theurang theories. 'Bri gung skyabs mgon has picked up the logically interpretable parts from the two theories and tried to present them in one that could be seen historically rational^[4]. If any further logical or new information on King Nyatri Tsanpo is to be sought, it can come from these premises only, and not from the Indic sources. Chab spal has said that many of the twenty-seven places [Tib:gSheg rabs nyi shu rtsa bdun] on the route that the king took to reach Yarlung are still in existence and that they can found in between sPu bo in Nying khri, and Yarlung through Kongpo and Dagpo. The Tunhuang manuscript P0120,0104-0168^[5], which has the records of conversation between Phyva and dMu about the appointment of a king, needs to be studied closely. This manuscript and the twenty-seven places in the gSheg rabs nyi shu rtsa bdun^[6] could connect the bsGrags pa Bon lugs and Yang gsang The'u rang lugs to provide us with a theory which is closer to historical reality.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Dr. P.V. Vartak, The Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War

[2]:

g.Yang mo mtso, gNya khri btsan po zhib 'jug, p-734

[3]:

'Bri gung skyabs mgon, [P1038], p-64, [P1286] p-67 & p-78

[4]:

'Bri gung skyabs mgon, p-59

[5]:

'Bri gung skyabs mgon, p-43, "Phyva yis dmu rje bsko bar pho nya btang ba'i bskor"

[6]:

dDe'u mkhas pa, p-150