Conclusion

In the preceding chapters, we have discussed some weird and inconsistencies evident in Tibetan myth, religion and history. These are some of the areas where re-evaluation is imperative to put the subjects closer to its original forms. Although, conclusions and hypothesis have been made at the end of each chapter, here is the compiled summary.

Tibetan Myth of Origin: Pre-seventh century Tibetan myth of origin has it that the universe with its outer existential inanimate forms [Tib:phyi snod] and inner existential animate beings [Tib:nang bcud] evolved from the five natural elements [Tib:rGyu lnga], i.e. earth, water, fire, wind and space. In the beginning, when there was nothing, the king of Powerful Empty space [Tib:Nam mkha' stong ldan phyod sum rje] had the essence of these five elements. He inspired Father Khri rgyal khug pa to gather these elements on his body and release a breath "Ha, hu". The moist, air, fragrance and energy emanated from the breath [Tib:Ngad pa] stimulated the external world and the internal beings through a cosmic egg [Tib:Srid pa'i sgo nga]. The Bonpo texts differ here and there in the content, but they agree on Father Srid pa sangs po 'bum khri and Mother Chu lcam rgyal mo, who appeared from the comic egg, as the parents of the gods, goddesses and human beings. We find genealogies of gods and goddesses in the Bon text Srid pa'i mdzod phugs, and this text needs to be studied seriously if we are to achieve deeper understanding of Bon cosmology and metaphysics.

Early Tibetan texts like, dBu nag miu'i 'dra chags and rLang gi spo ti se ru, have something similar to the above myth and they delineates how ultimately the six tribes of Tibet, mi'u gdung drug evolved. The texts have 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 khyung dbra, A-lcags 'gru, dMu tsa dga', dBal and zLa. They are popularly known by Se, rmu, ldong, stong, dbra and 'bru. These mythical narrations related to the origin of the world and beings, and the Tibetan tribes reflect the wisdom of the early inhabitants of the Pamir plateau, and opulence and depth of Tibetan civilization.

Buddhist theory of Avaloketishvara and rock ogress holds ground if it is placed before the birth of Buddha. This is possible, because in Mahayana tradition, Avalokiteshvara and Goddess Tara existed before Buddha in his Nirmankaya form as Shakyamuni. Linking the prophesy in "Byam dpal rtsa rgyud" text with the monkey myth and its occurrence hundred years after Buddha shakyamuni's parinirvana, has rendered the myth or theory invalid. If the origin of Tibet and Tibetans were left to the conversation between Buddha Amitabha and Avalokiteshavara only, it would have been more relevant.

Rupati theory does not hold any ground from Tibetan as well as Indian mythical and historical context. Despite the assertion that it was written in the Tibetan translation of "Lha las 'phul 'byung gi bstod pa", we do not find anything about any Rupati with or without his platoon escaping to Himalaya or Tibet in the guise of women.

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

Zhangzhung Civilization:

We have studied how Zhangzhung and Tibet evolved and the independent status the former enjoyed in ancient times in chapter two. Zhangzhung was one of the early twelve regions around Tibet during Nyatri Tsanpo's time, which ultimately was absorbed into Tibet like Kongpo and Nyangpo.^[1] Reference to Zhangzhung's contribution and princess Lithigsman's arrival in Tibet are scanty, which needs further research and deliberations. Too much attention to Balsa and Gyasa has deprived the other three queens their share of honor and respect.

Although the Bonpo claims Olmolungring of Tazig as the source of Bon religion, the facts show Tonpa Shenrab and Bon religion was a part of Zhangzhung civilization. Bonpo text, Srid pa brgyud kyi kha byang has mentioned that Ngari region of Tibet was the center of the earth and source of the four great rivers, and Lord of this land was Tonpa Shenrab^[2]. Zhangzhung was the cradle of not only Tibetans but also of the neighboring Himalayan regions. Names of the Tibetan Kings were also associated with Zhangzhung language. Scholars have observed Tamang and Thakali community in Nepal and places like Kinaur, Kullu, Malana in H.P. and Niti and Kyonam in U.P. people are still using Zhangzhung language^[3]. Therefore, research beyond the time of Nyatri Tsanpo and Srongtsan Gampo is important to have a proper view of ancient Zhangzhung civilization.

Origin of the First Tibetan King:

Through the ancient and modern texts that we have studied, we found that most of the theories supporting Indic origin have quoted its source as Mani Kabum and Kachem Kakholma texts. There are differences, but it all tries to link the progenitor of the first King to Shakya lineage and Mahabharata epic. We have enumerated certain important points in the chapter which renders Indic source invalid and a pure wishful myth. We could not find any incident of some Ruba skyes or Rupati fleeing to Tibet neither in Mahabharata epic nor in Indian history around the time.

Nyangral Nyima Odzer's has rejected the Mahabharata theory as far too distant^[4], at the same time he attributed his theory. "grandson of King 'Char byed of Vatsa" to Srongtsan Gampo^[5], the author of Kachem Kakholma and Manikabum. But as we have seen the two texts [although contradictory] traces the King to the Mahabharata epic only, therefore, the inconsistency. Mahabharata epic in Tibetan version and the one in Kachem Kakholma are disparate from the Indian original. Kachem Kakholma text has sKyabs seng and dMag brgya ba as grandsons of King 'Char byed of Vatsa, but Pandava and Kaurava were the grandsons of King Sanatu and Queen Satyavati of Hastinapur. The episodes thereafter were unrelated.

Yablha Daldrug of Bon and Theurang of pre-Bon versions, although, they are far from historical reality, the two theories cannot be ignored as pure myths. In most of the history around the world, people have tried to link their royal lineages to something sacred and magical, i.e. gods, goddesses or heaven. Early Tibetans were not exception. The important thing is how we can identify history from these early myths. Tunhuang manuscripts and inscriptions on the rocks and pillars are closer to this theory of Yab lha dal drug.^[6]. 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. The answer seems to lie somewhere in between and around Yablha Daldrug and Theurang theories. Therefore, we need to focus more attention to these indigenous material.

Srongtsan Gampo and His Period:

The differences in the life span of King Srongtsan Gampo occurred due to the difference in adopting the King's birth year, i.e. Fire-Ox year or Earth-Ox year [Tib:Me glang or sa glang]. Two possible years for the Fire-Ox is 557 and 617 CE, and for Earth-Ox is: 569 or 6297 CE. Early scholars were in agreement with the statement that the King lived for eighty-two years. Tunhuang manuscripts and records from Tang Annals have substantially established that the Iron-Dog [Tib:lcag khyi], the year of Srongtsan's demise, as recorded in most of the Tibetan works was 650 CE, and this has been accepted by the modern scholars too.

From the analysis that we made through tables in Chapter five, we found that if we take the FireOx of 557 CE as the King's birth year, then Srongtsan lived for ninety-four^[7] years. Fire-Ox of 617 CE will mean Srongtsan lived for thirty-three^[8] years. Both of these years do not lead us to eighty-two years for the King. Earth-Ox of 629 CE will mean the King lived for twenty-one years only. It is the Earth-Ox of 569 CE that lead us to prove the early scholars' statement that the King lived for eighty-two years.

The writings by early scholars as delineated in the Chapter although they differ in the year, like 'Tshal pa, 'Gos lo rtsa ba and dPa' bo gtsug lag, they have substantially implied the Earth-Ox of 569 CE as Srongtsan's birth year. Same is the case with the Fifth Dalai Lama's dPyid kyi rgyal mo'i glu dbyangs, the text has it that when the Nepalese princess Bhrikuti was laying the foundation for her temple in the Water-Ox year, Srongtsan was twenty-five^[9]. Now, two possible Water-Ox years are: 593 and 653 CE, and the author has the King's birth as Earth-Ox and death as Iron-Dog^[10]. As the Iron-Dog has been established at 650 CE, twenty-five at WaterOx year [593 CE] leads us to Earth-Ox of 569 CE as Srongtsan's birth year.

Therefore, King Srongstan Gampo's life span of 82 years and the Earth-Ox [569 CE] as his birth year, is more in congruence with the writings of early Tibetan scholars^[11] and his eventful life. We need to study and chronicle Tibetan history along this line. 'Gos lo rtsa ba's sixty years difference should be rectified so that sixty years loss in the later history of Tibet is recovered and put in order.

Tibetan Writing System:

We found that the Tibetan dBu can and aBu med scripts precede Lantsa and Wartu, so it is difficult to reason the latter as the source of the former. Lantsa and wartu scripts came only around eleventh century. We are also not sure about when and where Thonmi Sambhota studied in India, and who was his teacher. Tibetan texts mention about six letters [rGya la med pa'i yi ge drug], which are not in Indian language as being discovered by Thonmi Sambhota. But the syllables like, ca, cha, ja are already there in Indian language, and the six sounds in Tibetan language. Inspirations behind the discovery were also shaky. Interesting thing is, Manikabum of Srongtsan Gampo has it that King Lhathothori Nyantsan received scriptures written in Tibetan, indicating existence of Tibetan writing around that time.

Let me reproduce from the chapter what the scholars have said and implied about the existence of Tibetan writing before seventh century. lDe'u Jo sras has in lDe'u chos 'byung noted that during the reign of eight King Dri gum bTsanpo, Bon and literacy came about^[12]. Sakya Sonam Gyaltsen in rGyal rabs gsal ba'i me long writes that during the reign of King Bya khri alias sPu de gung rgyal, gYung drung Bon flourished, and someone by sTon pa gshen rabs mi bo was born in sTag gzig 'Ol-mo lung ring. Bon teachings like Khams chen brgyad were translated from Zhangzhung and Bon religion was established^[13]. Tshe ring thar has in his work "Bod yig gi 'byung gzhir gsar du dpyad pa" quoted Bu ston Rin chen drub as saying that Srongtsan Gampo was able to read at a very young age^[14] implying that there was some literacy before Srongtsan assumed the throne. Samten Karmay, a noted Tibetologist has said that based on many evidences, it would be appropriate to credit Thonmi Sambhota for improving and polishing the already existing Tibetan writing system^[15]. Tsewang Lhamo, a scholar in Tibet has in Ph.D dissertation on Tibetan writings concluded that sMar chen and sMar chung scripts of Zhangzhung as the original source of Tibetan writing system^[16]. Dung dkar bLo bzang 'phrin las has also stated that there was Tibetan script before Srongtsan Gampo and it was the old Zhangzhung scripts.^[17] His Holiness the Dalai Lama, has supported the possibility of sMar yig as the source of Tibetan script, and said Tibetan scripts and letters are very ancient.^[18]

Therefore, the assertion that there was no writing system in Tibet before seventh century is unfounded and it contradicts the fact that Tibet was an ancient civilization; it would dispense the history of thirty two Kings before Srongtsan and eighteen Zhangzhung Kings before Nyatri Tsanpo in the realms of myth and fairy tales. Serious study of Zhangzhung civilization and its language is the key to understanding and discovering hidden aspects of the rich Tibetan civilization.

Tonpa Shenrab and Bon Religion of Tibet:

Based on the ancient Bonpo scriptures, Tonpa Shenrab was the founder of Yungdrung Bon religion which spread to Tibet from Zhangzhung, present day Ngari or western regions of Tibet. Much before the coming of Tonpa Shenrab, there already were many forms of faiths and rituals, which were all known as Bon.

To quote from my article^[19],

"Some of the early forms of Bon prevalent in the land were: gDon bon, bDud bon, bTsan bon, Dur bon etc.^[20] There were kLu bon, gNyan bon, 'Dre bon, Ngod sBying bon, Ma sangs kyi bon etc^[21]. Like any primitive religion, some of these Bons among other things involved sacrifice of flesh and blood [dmar mchod] as propitiation rituals. It can be deduced from these fact that the term "Bon" was used broadly for all "ritual, healing and religious practice" in early period. It was not a specific but a generic term to mean various forms of rituals and religious practices or faith in the land. The Bon religion that we are talking in Tibetan society is Yungdrung Bon taught by Buddha Tonpa Shenrab. This Yungdrung Bon, which has sustained the Tibetan civilization since the early Zhangzhung and Yarlung Empire, and which later came to be known by Bon only, should not be confused with the generic Bon, a term used to mean various rituals, beliefs and faiths in the early period."

Yungdrung Bon doctrine or teachings are properly categorized in Nine ways of Bon [Tib:theg pa rim pa dgu'i bon], Four doors and fifth treasury [Tib:sGo zhi mdzod nga] and in Sutra, Tantra and rdZogchen [Tib:mdo, sngags, sems gsum]. It has bKa' 'gyur, the direct teachings of Tonpa Shenrab in 133 Volume, and bsTan 'gyur, commentaries and treaties in 293 Volume. Biography of the Teacher Tonpa Shenrab can be found in three different versions: mDo dus, mDo gzer mig and mDo dri med gzi brjid; the short, medium and lengthy versions. Therefore, the time has come to shed the stereotype image of Bon as animistic faith, crude and without any philosophical foundation.

It is true that Buddhism greatly enriched and enlightened the Tibetan civilization, but dumping and belittling one's own root and culture is not a commendable approach. If a strong national foundation is desired, we need to seek the root. The new masters preached to value anything coming from India as sacred and pure. The propagators went to the extent of ascribing the origin of the Tibetan race^[22], king^[23], and language^[24] to India. Scholars like Namkhai Norbu have refuted these claims as overdoing of the Tibetan masters to show their loyalty to the land of Dharma^[25] and to disparage the native civilization. A short glance through some of the works by scholars on Bon studies mentioned in the chapters would be good to gain some understanding about the subject and appreciate this side of the rich heritage of Tibet.

In a nutshell, the dissertation has worked on certain ostentatious grey areas in the myth, religion and history of Tibet and it has postulated more reasonable and scientific propositions. Attempts have been made to bring alive the ancient and indigenous aspects of Tibetan civilization, which has erstwhile remained in oblivion, and has not seen the light of appreciations. The study has achieved some strong working hypothesis and has contributed in widening the horizon of Tibetan studies.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

'Bri gung skyabs mgon, Bod btsan po'i rgyal rabs, p-40, and mKhas pa lde'u, p-142

[2]:

Srid pa brgyud kyi kha byang, p-2, "mDor na mNga' ris bod kyi rgyam 'di, lho 'dzam bug ling gi dkyil, rgyal bo chen po bzhi yi dbus, ….. de lta bu'i zhing khams de'i mnga' bdag ni, sTon pa gshen rab mi bo'o"

[3]:

Gar zhva ba Tshe ring rdor rje, Bon sgo VI (1993), p-62

[4]:

Nyang ral nyi ma 'od zer, p-154/155

[5]:

ibid, p-156

[6]:

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

[7]:

'Pa' bo gtsug lag phren ba, mkhas pa'i dga' ston, p-171

[8]:

Bod kyi lo rgyus bgro gleng, p-2, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, India, 2006

[9]:

dPyi kyi rgyal mo'i glu dbyags, p-41

[10]:

ibid, p-18, 46

[11]:

1) mKhas pa lDe'u, p-160. 2) Bu ston, p-185. 3) Sha kya Rin chen sde, Yarlung Chos 'byung, p-53. 4) dPa' bo gtsug lag 'phreng ba, p-. 5) Shakappa, p-29. 6) She rig dpar khang, Tibetan Reader IV, p-24. They all said that Srongtsan lived for 82 years.

[12]:

lDeu jo sras, lDeu chos 'byung, p-160

[13]:

Sa skya bSod nam rgyal mtsan, rGyal rabs gsal ba'i me long, p-71

[14]:

Khri gYung drung, brDa sprod gzi mig dgu pa, p-227

[15]:

ibid, p-224

[16]:

Tshe dbang lha mo, p-111 "Bod kyi brda sprod rig pa'i rnam bshad sngon med rig pa'i 'phrul-shel" ibid, p-51,

[17]:

Khri g.yung drung, brDa sprod gzi mig dgu pa, p-50

[18]:

DIIR, Bod mi'i rang dbang bdun re'i gsar shog, 1999

[19]:

T.G. Arya, Yungdrung Bon, Tibet Journal, Vol XLI No.2 2016, p-63 ff

[20]:

(1) Namkhai Norbu, p-45. (2) BonsGo 5, 'go-pa bsTan 'zin 'brug drags, Bon gyi skor cun zhig gLeng ba, P-37.

[21]:

dGe gshes Phunstok Nyima, p-xxiv

[22]:

(1) Nyang ral nyima 'od zer, p-139-140. (2) Tsepon Shakabpa Tsepon, page 1. [Based on the text Lha las phul byung gi stod 'grel by Indian master Sherab Goched. Following their defeat against Pandavas in Mahabharata war of Indian epic, prince Rupati along with his platoons fled to Tibet in the guise of women. They were said to be the first inhabitants in Tibet.]

[23]:

1) Khas pa lDe'u, p -150. [It was written that after the Mahabharata war, Rupa-skyes, the 99th son of Dhrtarastra fled to Tibet. When the native asked from whence he come, not knowing the language, he pointed to the sky. People believed he came from the sky and was made their king. (2) Nyang-rel Nyima 'od-zer, page-156-157. [Here the King of Badsala tribe had a prince with many strange features, bird like eye lid, webbed fingers etc. He was cast in a river, when he grew up and came to know the reality, he fled to Tibet. There the people made him king because they believed him to be divine when he pointed his finger in sky about his origin.]

[24]:

(1) Nyang ral nyima 'od zer, p-170. (2) Tsepon Shakabpa, p-12 and 25.

[25]:

(1) Namkhai Norbu, The Necklace of dZi, p-3-4, and 7. (2) Namkhai Norbu, DDB, p-43. [A boy of Shen clan having donkey's ear was depicted as the origin of the so called rdol bon. Namkahi Norbu has refuted this.]