¹ ‘Dus-pa rin-po-che’i-rgyud gzer-mig. It is one of the three versions of gṤen-rab's life and is said to have been discovered by Draṅ-rje bTsun-pa gser-mig in bSam-yas (ZM, ch. xviii, fol. 291b; BS, No. 22, p. 751; LS, p. 4, n. 1, p. 162). For abbreviations, see p. 579.

² In her introduction to ‘Le Lha-’dre bka‘-thaṅ’, in Études tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou, Paris, 1971, 45–7, Mme. Blondeau has rejected the hypothesis that ZM was modelled on the bKa’-thaṅ sde-lṅa. On the contrary she proposes that ZM may well precede it, especially the Lha-’dre and bTsun-mo bka’-thaṅ sections. This proposal finds no lack of confirmation in recently published Bonpo sources.Google Scholar

In the following works by ‘A-źa Blo-gros rgyal-mtshan (1198–1263) several passages are quoted from ZM, but without mention of the actual title: gZer-mig. The author refers to his source as simply mDo or gives no reference at all. This seems to suggest that ZM was too well known a work to necessitate mention of its title, because for most other quotations he has given proper references to his sources. Here are some examples of the passages which I have traced back to ZM.

According to Bonpo historians the texts discovered by Draṅ-rje bTsun-pa gser-mig are called bKa’ draṅ ṅ- ṅa-ma derived from the name of the above gTer-ston who is also known as Draṅ- ṅa mdo-la, Draṅ- ṅa btsun-pa, or Draṅ-btsun (BS, No. 22, p. 751; LS, 162). In the short account of the life of bźod-ston dṄos-grub grags-pa (BS, No. 14, p. 323) there is mention of gźod-ston studying bKa’ draṅ- ṅa-ma’i bon. This gźod-ston dṄos-grub grags-pa discovered some texts in 1088 (BS, No. 22, p. 740; LS, 154; Kvaerne, P., ‘A chronological table of the Bonpo‘, Acta Orientalia, xxxiii, 1971, 230). This account of his life was written by a gźod-ston bSod-grags whose dates remain unknown.Google Scholar

In the biography of Yar-’brog-pa Me-ston Ṥes-rab ‘od-zer (1058–1132) compiled by his disciple gṤen-ston Nam-mkha’ rgyal-mtshan (BS, No. 16) Me-⋯ag sTag-la me-’bar's death is mentioned and Me-ston was asked to carry out the funeral. He did this according to the Kloṅ-rgyas dkyil- ‘khor (p. 353): me ⋯ag stag la me ‘bar bya ba/ bla ma la gus pa’i ston pa cig ‘das nas/ bla ma spyan draṅs nas/ kloṅ rgyas dkyil ‘khor tshad Idan gźuṅ bźin byas pa’i steṅ du pur sbyoṅs/. Now the Kloṅ-rgyas dkyil-’khor is mainly taken from ch. xiv and other ritual parts of ch. v, vi, ix, and xiii of ZM. This funeral ritual was first performed by gṤen-rab, and when he died his disciples used it for his own funeral (ZM, ch. xix, 265a, 267a, 271b). Thus ch. xiv was extracted with other ritual parts from the main body of ZM for general use and exists today in that form (for one example: T 0215, École Française d’Extrême-Orient, Paris). It is the most important funeral ritual of the Bonpo. Two commentaries on this particular ritual were composed (LS, p. 4, n. 1). The biography of Me-ston also quotes the following phrases from ZM (p. 362): lta ba yas phub/ spyod pa mas ‘dzegs/ (ZM, ch. xv, 216a2).

In DK Me-ston Ṥes-rab ‘od-zer has quoted extensive passages from ch. xvi of ZM without mentioning any title, but simply refers to it by saying ston-pas gsuṅs ‘the teacher said’ (fols. 27b 28b, 29b). The passages quoted are found in ZM (ch. xv, 197a-200a). DK is one of the five works by Me-ston known as the bKa’-brten sde-lṅa (BS, No. 16, p. 372). The edition of DK I consulted has no colophon, but the fact that it is the work of Me-ston is attested by KTDG (p. 14). A commentary on DK by mÑam-med Ṥes-rab rgyal-mtshan (1356–1415) is also recorded in KTDG (p. 14); DK is the earliest work quoting passages from ZM available at present. The fact that neither ‘A-źa nor Me-ston mentions the actual title gZer-mig makes one wonder if the whole work existed in their time in its present form. The passages quoted by Me-ston are from ch. xviii, whereas those in ‘A-źa's works are taken from many chapters with only one passage from ch. Xi and nothing from ch. x or xii. It is precisely these chapters that have parallel passages in the Lha-’dre and bTsun-mo bka’-thaṅ (Blondeau, art. cit., 34–9). Ch. x, xi, and xii are mainly narrative, and since ‘A-źa was only concerned with passages of philosophical significance which he needed for his YK, SB, and TH, it is not surprising that he does not quote from them. This hardly proves that these chapters did not exist in his time. However, there is a possibility that only the ritual parts existed in the time of Me-ston and that the rest of ZM had already been added by the time of ‘A-źa.

Although ZM claims to be a gTer-ma the compiler commits a faux pas in saying that ZM was extracted from the Dus-gsum gṤen-rab byuṅ-khuṅs-kyi mdo (ZM, ch. xviii, 291a; this work is mentioned in SG as having been discovered also by Draṅ-rje bTsun-pa gser-mig, fol. 163a) which is the same as the mDo-’dus (KTDG, 3), but according to other sources it was found along with three other mDo by two Bonpo gTer-ston in 961 in the stūpa in bSam-yas (BS, No. 22, p. 750; LS, 160; Kvaerne, art. cit., 228).

sGa-ston Tshul-khrims rgyal-mtshan (mentioned in GB, 10) takes a very critical view of ZM in his TB (fol. 3a): ‘o na (g)zer mig kyaṅ,.. de yaṅ mdo ni cuṅ zad Ṥes rab źan pa gcig gis sdeb par mṅon te/ ‘ In that case, even with gZer-mig... it is clear that the mDo was compiled by a person of low intelligence’. Yet ZM is one of the sources for his KTS (fol. 27b).

³ A. H. Francke, ‘gZer-myig: a book of the Tibetan Bon-pos’, Asia Major, i, 2–4, 1924; III, 3–4, 1926; iv, 2–3, 1927; v, 1, 1928; vi, 2–3, 1930; NS, I, 2, 1950.

⁴ Snellgrove, D. L. (ed. and tr.), The nine ways of bon, London, 1967, 8.Google Scholar

⁵ For the ‘phrul, see Stein, R. A., ‘Un ensemble sémantique tib’, BSOAS, xxxvi, 2, 1973, 417.Google Scholar

⁶ ZM, ch. xiii, 78b. Confucius is the prototype of Koṅ-tse ‘phrul-gyi rgyal-po, whom the Bonpo tradition makes the author of a g. Yaṅ-sgrub and the Sa-bdag ‘khrugs bcos rin-chen ‘phreṅ-ba (KTDG, 15–16). He is also said to be the inventor of divination, Koṅ-sprul Yon-tan rgya-mtsho (alias Blo-gros mtha’-yas, 1813–99), Ṥes-bya kun-khyab, i, 594 (Ṥata-piṭaka Series, LXXX), Delhi, 1970. Stein, R. A., Les tribus anciennes des marches Sino-tibétaines, Paris, 1959, 228.Google Scholar

⁷ There are three Tun-huang manuscripts of the story in Tibetan and many in Chinese. Pelliot tibétain (PT), Nos. 992,1284, and Pelliot Chinois (PC), No. 3883, are edited and translated into French with other versions of the story by M. Soymié, ‘L’entrevue de Confucius et Hiang T’o’, Journal Asiatique, CCXLII, 3–4, 1954.

⁸ ZM, ch. xiii, 77a2–89b5.

⁹ He is Gha Ha-dha nag-po who takes part in a ritual of ransom (glud), ZM, ch. ix, 15a. He is called Ha-dha skyes-gcig in ZJ (fol. 45a). See also p. 577, n. 82.

¹⁰ rtse.

¹¹ pa.

¹² bcug.

¹³ rtse.

¹⁴ kham.

¹⁵ bems.

¹⁶ ‘khyam.

¹⁷ bkhol.

¹⁸ g⋯en.

¹⁹ mchu’i.

²⁰ spu.

²¹ ba’i.

²² yi.

²³ gis.

²⁴ rigs.

²⁵ rigs bṤer.

²⁶ rigs.

²⁷ mtho.

²⁸ skyal.

²⁹ skyal.

³⁰ Ṥugs.

³¹ gyis.

³² smras.

³³ ‘phreṅ.

³⁴ na.

³⁵ rtse.

³⁶ ‘dzas.

³⁷ gran.

³⁸ ka.

³⁹ rtse.

⁴⁰ nas.

⁴¹ na.

⁴² bris.

⁴³ absent.

⁴⁴ na.

⁴⁵ bris.

⁴⁶ na.

⁴⁷ bris.

⁴⁸ bris.

⁴⁹ dogs.

⁵⁰ s⋯u.

⁵¹ pa’i.

⁵² rtse.

⁵³ gis.

⁵⁴ rise.

⁵⁵ slags.

⁵⁶ bcugs.

⁵⁷ phya.

⁵⁸ ‘dra.

⁵⁹ dbaṅ.

⁶⁰ By rtsi-ber I understand ‘woollen cloak’, but rtsi denoting wool is not found in dictionaries. Corrected to rtsid, it would then mean a cloak made of yak hair, but the form rtsi is found consistently in our text as well as in ZJ (fol. 23b) and DK (fol. 8b).

⁶¹ cf. Soymié, art. cit., 313; PT, 992, 1. 2.

⁶² Cho-lo is probably a transcription of shuanglu (Soymié, art. cit., p. 345, n. 2), but I do not know what kind of game this shuanglu is. In Tibetan cho-lo is the name of the game itself as well as that of the dice with which it is played. In ZM the number of cho-lo is 5 (ch. xiii, 98b) with 12 designations (fol. 99a), whereas in ZJ (fol. 25a) there are 12 cho-lo: da gser gyi cho lo bcu g⋯is ‘di/ daṅ po ‘byuṅ ba’i khuṅs bzaṅ ste/ ma ha rus sbal Ihu tshigs las byuṅ/ ‘Now, these twelve golden dice have a good origin. They came out of the joints of the body of the great tortoise’. Although cho-lo denotes ‘dice’ (Chos-kyi grags-pa, Tibetan-Chinese dictionary, Peking, 1957), dice does not seem to be the exact game being played. On the other hand, in plate III (this article) the game of dice seems to be depicted. For B. Laufer, cho-lo denotes ‘chess’, ‘ Loan-words in Tibetan’, T’oung Pao, 2e Sér., xvii, 4, 1916. In ZJ (fol. 23a) the boy wearing a robe of goatskin has his own dice made of iron with inlaid copper patterns (Icags kyi cho lo la zaṅs kyi ri mo can) and he plays on the black dice-cloth.

⁶³ cf. PT, 992, 11. 1–3.

⁶⁴ cf. Ibid., 11. 5–9.

⁶⁵ cf. Ibid., 11. 9–10.

⁶⁶ cf. Ibid., 11. 10–14.

⁶⁷ cf. Ibid., 1. 14.

⁶⁸ cf. Ibid., 11. 14–15.

⁶⁹ cf. Ibid., II. 35–6.

⁷⁰ cf. Ibid., 11. 35–6.

⁷¹ cf. Ibid., 1. 39.

⁷² cf. Ibid., 1. 37.

⁷³ cf. Ibid., 11. 39–40.

⁷⁴ Concerning these teachings, see Snellgrove, op. cit., 16–19.

⁷⁵ ‘gan-ma-lab (or lad) = ku-re ‘joke’, bsTan-’dzin blo-gros rgya-mtsho, Gaṅs-can bod-kyibrda yaṅ-dag-par byed-pa’i sbyor-ba dpag-bsam ljon-pa’i s*e-ma, Delhi, 1961, fol. 30.

⁷⁶ cf. PT, 992,11. 27–30.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 1. 27: rgyal po sten la dad ches daṅ ‘baṅs kyi chis myi byed/ ‘Quand le roi s’y adonna avec une grand passion, les affaires des sujets ne sont pas traitées’. Here it is a question of playing dmyig-maṅ ‘chess ‘ (Chos-kyi grags-pa, op. cit.; mig-maṅs) whereas in PC, 3883, it is shuanglu, see p. 570, n. 62. The author of ZM has changed the original sten to bstan-pa.

⁷⁸ For these, see Snellgrove, op. cit., 9–11.

⁷⁹ cf. FT, 992, 11. 50–61.

⁸⁰ ZM, ch. iii, 26a: srid pa’i lha rgyal po chen po bźi ‘the four kings, the gods of the world’. ZM (ch. v, 52b) and ZJ (fol. 24a): srid pa’i gzu bo bźi ‘the four mediators of the world’, but nowhere is their identity mentioned. The place is described as lha srin g⋯is kyi sa mtshame ‘the frontier of the gods and demons’ (ZM, ch. v, 32b; ZJ, fol. 24a). This place is also referred to as lha srin thab sa ‘the battle-field of the gods and demons’ (cf. ZM, ch. v, 53a).

⁸¹ This name is very curious yet it is the form found in every Bonpo source where it is mentioned. No doubt Keṅ is a corrupt form of Koṅ and lan-med ‘ without reply’ is, because the boy to whom Koṅ-tse asks questions never replies, but instead asks Koṅ-tse his own questions. Hence ‘the One Who does not Reply to Koṅ-tse’. But why Phyva ? The Phyva are very important in Bonpo mythology. Their residence is up in the sky known as sNar-ma glegs-bźi, gnam gyi yob bla (ZM, ch. xi, 18al: ya bla) dguṅ gi yaṅ steṅ (PT, 1134, and Thomas, W., Ancient folk-literature from north-eastern Tibet, Berlin, 1957,Google Scholar iA: ya steṅs) na/ mgon btsun (PT, 1134: ‘grow btsun; Thomas, op. cit., iA: mgon tshun) phyva’i yul snar ma glegs bźi na... (ZM, ch. iii, 19a3). sNar-ma glegs-bźi brings to mind the god Ku-spyi ser-bźi in PT, 1038. This extremely important manuscript was first studied by M. Lalou (‘Tibétain ancien Bod/Bon ‘, Journal Asiatique, COXLI, 2, 1953, 275–6)Google Scholar and has further been thoroughly studied by Mme. A. Macdonald (‘Une lecture des Pelliot tibétain 1286, 1287, 1038 et 1290‘, Études tibétaines, Paris, 1971, 215–19). She is of the opinion that it is a Bonpo redaction. Ku-spyi ser-bźi may have some connexion with Ku-byi maṅ-ske, a god of wisdom residing on KailāṤa (Dz. G, fols. 3a, 24b, 32a). The Phyva are closely related to dMu. dMu-rgyal thod-dkar, sixth in the dMu lineage, and the father of gṤen-rab, is the son of dMu-rgyal them-pa-skas, whose wife is the lady of Phyva, Phyva-za Ṅaṅ-’braṅ-ma (NG, fol. 73b). Thod-dkar's uncle is Phyva Khar-rje thaṅ-po (ZM, ch. i, 9a6; ch. vii, 116a2), who is fourth in the Phyva lineage (NG, fol. 38a). The third dMu-rgyal is also married to a lady of Phyva (NG, fol. 73b). There are altogether six dMu-rgyal, who are descendants of the six ‘Then (GB, fol. 24; R. A. Stein, op. cit., 69). GṤen-rab frequents sNar-ma glegs-bźi, which is described as the country of his paternal uncle (źaṅ-po phyva’i yul), where he has also a Phyva lady friend, Phyva-lcam Guṅ-ma-ron (ZM, ch. xii, 64b4).Google Scholar

On the other hand, the first king of Tibet, Ñag-khri btsan-po, is considered to be a descendant of Phyva-rje Yab-bla bdal-drug (Thomas, op. cit., iA: bdag drug), who is eighth in the Phyva lineage counting from Phyva-rje sGam-po (NG, fol. 38a). Yab-bla bdal-drug has many women, but it was from the lady of dMu, mChoṅ-ron-ma (rMu-rtsan khri-sman, SDz., 151) that the seven brothers of IHe’u-rje were born. The fourth of the seven (bdun-tshigs) was appointed king of the Tibetans by his father (yah kyis bod khams mi yi rje ru bskos/, NG, fol. 147a) and he took the lady of dMu, Khro-’briṅ-ma (g⋯is-mthiṅ-ma, SG, fol. 37b; Bre-btsan-ma, SDz., 151), to whom a son, Ñag-khri bstan-po, was born (LS, p. 32, n. 5; cf. R. A. Stein, op. cit., p. 58, n. 165). The seven lHe’u are described as gods of magic (rdzu ‘phrul gyi lha, ZM, ch. vii, 114al). This story found in SDz. (pp. 147–52) is slightly different from the versions in other Bonpo sources (for a summary of this section in SDz., see Macdonald, art. cit., 206–10). However, in PT, 126.2, it is the Phyva who are asking the dMu for a king to rule over man, which is therefore a different story, but contains certain echoes of ‘Ol-mo luṅ-riṅ, when the country of dMu is described as guarded by gorges full of tigers and leopards (stag ‘phraṅ gzig ‘phraṅ). NG (fol. 39a) relates that the people of ‘Ol-mo luṅ-riṅ are descendants of dMu, and that the Tibetans are from Phyva and the people of Bru-Ṥa (Gilgit) are from gTsug. For the Phyva as creators of the world and the divine archetype of the Tibetan kings, see Macdonald, art. cit., 350–3.

Phyva are believed to look after the lives of living beings and promote their good fortune. The first of the nine sons of Saṅs-po ‘bum-khri are known as the three Phyva, Srid, and sKos i.e. Phyva-rje Riṅ-dkar (alias Phyva-rje sGam-po), Srid-rje ‘braṅ-dkar, and sKos-rje Draṅ-dkar. The task of Phyva-rje Riṅ-dkar is to protect the lives of living beings (GG, 54): skye ‘gro dbugs kyis bsdus pa thams cad kyi/ tshe rdzi daṅ srog skyabs byed pas phyva sde’o/. GG (p. 58) further explains the meaning of phyva and g.yaṅ and, after listing some Phyva gods including Yab-bla bdal-drug, it goes on to say: de rnams phyva daṅ g.yaṅ gi bdag po lags so/ de yaṅ don du phyva zer na g.yuṅ druṅ gi tshe/ g.yaṅ zer na de⋯id kyi bcud du bstan pa’o/ ‘These are the masters of phyva and g.yaṅ. Phyva means everlasting life and g.yaṅ means the essence (of fortune)’ (also cf. GG, 62). Hence the words like phyva-tshe and phyva-g.yaṅ are frequently used in rituals. When the father of gṤen-rab and gSen-rab himself married it was the Phyva who came to summon the ‘essence of fortune of everlasting life’ (ZM, ch. ii, 17a4; ch. viii, 117b5). Also see R. A. Stein, op. cit., 61. Phyva Keṅ-tse lan-med presents himself as a son of Saṅs-po ‘bum-khri, the original ancestor of living beings (ZJ, fol. 21a).

Phyva are also considered to be the learned ones: Phyva-rje sgam-po ‘ the Lord of Phyva, the Wise One’ or more often sGam-po Phyva, ‘Phyva, the Wise’ (ZM, ch. xiv, 118b). It was in their heaven, sNar-ma glegs-gźi, the city of mGon-btsun Phyva alias Yab-bla bdal-drug (mgon btsun phyva’i groṅ khyer du, ZM, ch. i, 4bl) that the three young brothers (khy’u spun gsum, ZM, ch. i, 3bl) formerly studied Swastika Bon. These three brothers became the teachers of the past, present ( = gṤen-rab), and future. The last one is believed to be still studying there (ZM, ch. i, 3b2, 4bl; ch. x, 256b3; ch. xvii, 277a5; ch. xviii, 284b4; BS, No. 22, p. 569). Phyva are also the heavenly artists. They are referred to as skos-mkhan phyva ‘Phyva, the Supervisor’ (ZM, ch. v, 58a3; ch. xiv, 118b2). It is therefore not surprising that Phyva Keṅ-tse lan-med should supervise the building of the temple. This brings to mind the phyva-mkhan who seems to be a Nepalese, and plays an important role in building bSam-yas (Stein, R. A., Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: $Bā-bźad, Paris, 1961, 31, 35, 45). Hsiang T’o of PC, 3883, is the prototype of the boy wearing the woollen cloak, who is Phyva Keṅ-tse lan-med and has become a god of wisdom (ses-rab-kyi lha) for the Bonpo (sPa bsTa-rgyal bzaṅ-po, źaṅ-źuṅ s⋯an-rgynd-kyi bla-ma brgyud-pa’i rnam-thar, composed in 1539, źaṅ-źuṅ s⋯an-rgyud, Ka (Ṥata-piṭaka Series, Lxxiii), Delhi, 1968, 110). Hsiang T’o is mentioned only in the Chinese version as the name of the clever boy, aged seven. The Tibetan versions do not indicate any name or age.Google Scholar

In a propheoy, Phyva Keṅ-tse lan-med told Khro-tshaṅ ‘Brug-lha (956–1077), a Bonpo gTer-ston, to find some texts which Khro-tshaṅ ‘Brug-lha accordingly discovered and which include the Keṅ-tse sgrub-skor, texts of prayers to Phyva Keṅ-tse lan-med asking for the bestowal of wisdom (LS, 124, 288). Khro-tshaṅ ‘Brug-lha was a friend of Pha Dam-pa saṅs-rgyas (Koṅsprul Yon-tan rgya-mtsho, op. cit., I, 534; also of. BS, No. 22, p. 727). In the Bonpo tradition this god of wisdom is often presented as a little boy.

In ZJ (fol. 21b) just before going away Koṅ-tse has a dream in which Keṅ-tse lan-med comes riding on a garuḍa and tells him that Koṅ-tse will meet the Lord of Phyva (phyva-rje) in the north-east. This is depicted in plate III.

⁸² In ZJ (fols. 55a-57a) gṤen-rab averts Ha-dha nag-po skyes-cig's attack on the temple by transforming himself into a god called rNam-par rgyal-ba and four other terrifying divinities and the frightened demon faints. Koṅ-tse, pointing to the heart of the demon with his sceptre, recites a mantra which purifies the demon's sins. So when he regains consciousness he has already become a god and gṤen-rab gives him the name of gCen-lha mig-dgu, and makes him protector of the teachings and the temple. Ha-dha's entourage consists of four demons (ZM, ch. xiii, 104b; ZJ, fol. 45b): Gar-ma dza-la(?), Rag-Ṥa(raksa) glaṅ-mgo (= yama), Dha-Ṥa ghri-ba (DaṤagriva), and YagṤa khore. The last two are personages in the Rāmāyaṇa: Jong, J. W. de, ‘An old Tibetan version of the Rāmayaṇa’, T’oung Pao, Lviii, 1972, 193. A ritual propitiating the above gods and gCen-lha mig-dgu is known as the rNam-rgyal rgya-nag-ma, Ls,174. A similar text has been referred to by R. A. Stein, Les tribus, p. 29, n. 71. Also see KTDG, 15.Google Scholar