Hierarchical Buddhism, especially as developed in Tibet and Mongolia

Hierarchical Buddhism, especially as developed in Tibet and Mongolia.

To Find More Interesting Resources Click below :

Early Buddhism was, as we have seen, opposed to all ecclesiastical organization. It had no hierarchy in the proper sense of that term—no church, no priests, no true form of prayer, no religious rites, no ceremonial observances. It was simply a Brotherhood consisting of men who had renounced all family ties, all worldly desires—even all desire for life—and were pledged to devote themselves to meditation, recitation of the Law, self-restraint, and the accumulation of merit, not for the sake of saving others, but for their own deliverance.

It was on this account that when the Buddha died he abstained from appointing a successor, and gave no directions to his followers as to any particular form of government. All that he said was, ‘Hold fast to the Law; look not to any one but yourselves as a refuge.’ In short, the Society (Saṅgha) he left behind was a simple brotherhood of monks which claimed some kind of corporate authority for the enforcement of discipline, but had no Head except the Law. Nor did Buddhism for a long time think of contravening the last injunctions of its Founder. Nor has it ever attempted to establish a universal hierarchy under one Head and under one central authority, and although the great 254 Kāṡyapa as president of the first Council (p. 55) is sometimes held to have been the first successor of Buddha, and Ānanda the second (p. 56), these men never claimed any supremacy like that of Popes. In point of fact Buddhism simply organized itself in separate monastic institutions according to local ideas and necessities. And indeed the exigencies of healthy growth, and even the simple instinct of self-preservation compelled the scattered members of the Buddhist Brotherhood to attempt some such organization very soon after the death of their Founder. In ancient times communication was carried on with difficulty, and the Buddhist Brotherhood could only hold together by combining for mutual support in various centres, and adopting some sort of monastic government.

It was thus that every collection of monks naturally tended to crystallize into a distinct organized society with certain definite rules.

Naturally, the earliest constitution of each was moulded according to the family pattern. The living Head of every monastery was a kind of spiritual father, while its inmates were his children, and these, again, resolved themselves into two classes: the first consisting of the more youthful members of the society; the second, of those whose more mature experience entitled them to greater respect and reverence. Then, again, some kind of pre-eminence was assigned to individuals who were remarkable for greater knowledge, or sanctity of character.

It is easy to understand, therefore, how it happened that the Saṅgha or collective community of monks was 255 compelled in the end to establish several gradations of rank and position among its members.

The following were soon recognized:—1. The Ṡrāmaṇera or ‘novice’ (who began by being a Ćhela or ‘pupil’ under education); 2. The Ṡramaṇa (also called Bhikshu) or full monk; 3. The Sthavira or ‘elder,’ who was merely superior to others in virtue of his age; 4. The Mahā-sthavira or ‘great elder’ (sometimes called Sthaviraḥ Sthavirāṇām); 5. The Upādhyāya and Āćārya. These last were teachers of different kinds, who received honour in virtue of their knowledge; the two positions of elder and teacher being frequently united in the President of particular monasteries.

No doubt gradations of this kind existed in very early times in India, Ceylon, and Burma. But in India the whole Buddhistic Order of monks passed away.

In Ceylon and Burma, on the contrary, Buddhism has held its own. It may even now be found in a purer form in those countries and in Siam than in any other region of Eastern Asia, although it must be borne in mind that, when it was introduced there, it was grafted on serpent-worship, Nāga-worship[116], demon-worship, and Nath-worship[117], with all of which, as well as with the worship of numerous Hindū gods, it continues to be adulterated in the present day.

The Sinhalese (Koeppen, i. 207, 386) give a list of the first five successive enforcers of discipline (viz. 256 Upāli, Dāsaka, Sonaka, Siggava, and Moggali-putta), and another list of ten successive Sthaviras or elders, beginning with Sāri-putta. These lists are untrustworthy, especially as omitting the great Kāṡyapa.

And I may here state that the condition of Buddhism in Ceylon is a subject which I have had an opportunity of investigating personally. I visited Ceylon in 1877, and had many interesting conversations with intelligent monks, heads of monasteries, and a few really learned men, including a leading monk named Sumaṅgala, who described himself to me as ‘High Priest of Adam’s Peak[118].’

I found, too, that a lofty idea prevails in Ceylon in regard to the status of the monkhood. Theoretically, a true monk is regarded as a kind of inferior Buddha, and revered accordingly. There are boy-pupils, novices, and full monks, as in Burma (see p. 259). The admission-ceremonies resemble those before described (p. 77). Admission confers no priestly powers. Those monks who are Anglicized by contact with our civilization call themselves ‘priests,’ but they are not real priests, and have no sacerdotal functions except teaching, intoning the Law, and preaching. They live as celibates and cœnobites in Pān-sālās (‘houses made of leaves,’ p. 430), or monastic buildings of the simplest structure.

The number of such monks is said to be about 8,000, and their chief duties are supposed to be to meditate a great deal, to perform Baṇa, that is, to recite the 257 Tri-piṭaka with its commentary the Aṭṭha-kathā in a sing-song voice, to repeat constantly the three-refuge formula (p. 78)[119], to teach and to preach, to fast and to make confession to each other on at least four days in every month, at the four changes of the moon called Uposatha (or commonly Poya) days (see p. 84); these days being generally in modern times made to coincide with the Christian Sunday.

True Buddhism does not require monks to perform public religious services in temples. Nor is it the daily practice of monks to set the people an example of worshipping and presenting offerings there. So far as I was able to observe, the duty of visiting temples belongs rather to the laity. The monks receive offerings, rather than present them. As to their dress, it resembles that represented in the Buddha’s images, and ought to consist of three pieces of cloth stained yellow or of a dull yellowish colour. The principal garment is in one piece, but torn and sewn together again, the object being to reduce its value and assimilate it to a dress made of rags. The end of the dress is brought over the left shoulder, and generally so as to leave the right shoulder bare. In some cases both shoulders are covered, or the right partially so.

A good deal of care seems to be taken in Ceylon to instruct the youthful members of the Order in Pāli; 258 that is, in the language of their sacred books (p. 60), and to make them conversant with the sacred texts.

I visited two principal colleges for monks at Kandy, which enjoy a reputation rather like that of Oxford and Cambridge in our own country. One is called Mālwatte, and the other Āsgīrīya. In the former I noticed a large central hall, in which the ceremony of admission to the monkhood takes place.

At Colombo there has been recently a revival of learning, and a modern Oriental College (called Vidyodaya), for the cultivation of Sanskṛit, Pāli, and Sinhalese, has been established under the superintendence of the learned Sumaṅgala, ‘the High Priest of Adam’s Peak,’ mentioned before.

Each monastery in Ceylon has a presiding Head, and generally a temple and library attached, with considerable property in land, but there is clearly no organized hierarchy in the proper sense of the term, and no supreme authority like that of an Archbishop; though it is said that the Heads of the two Kandy Colleges exercise a kind of control over the after-career of the monks they have trained. I found that a certain amount of intelligence and learning exists among the monks both at Colombo and Kandy, but it must be evident to every impartial observer that the habit of living in houses apart from the laity, of repeating the Law by rote, and of engaging in a kind of meditation which generally amounts to thinking about nothing in particular, must tend, in the majority of instances, to contract the mind, induce laziness, and give a vacant and listless expression to the countenance. It may 259 be safely affirmed that the chief religious aim of the Buddhists of Ceylon is to acquire merit with a view to ‘better’ themselves in future states of existence, and that their highest aspiration is to attain to the heaven of Indra (Ṡakra, p. 207). They have no real desire for Nirvāṇa (p. 141), and still less for Pari-nirvāṇa (p. 142).

Passing on to Burma we may remark that although in Burma, as in Ceylon, a pure form of Buddhism has prevailed ever since its introduction by Buddha-ghosha (p. 65), and is still existent, yet we find that the purer system is mixed up, as in Ceylon, with the worship of Nāgas, demons, spirit-gods called Naths (commonly spelt Nats, p. 217), and with a kind of Shamanism derived from the surrounding hill-tribes.

In regard to the gradations of the monkhood a more complete organization exists in Burma than in Ceylon.

To begin with the boy-pupils:—In Burma nearly all boys become inmates of monastic houses (called Kyoung) with the one object of learning to read and write. They are simply school-boys and nothing more. Indeed, until our advent, the monasteries monopolized the education of the country, and to a great extent do so still. The real gradations are as follow:—

1. The Sheṅ or Shiṅ, that is Ṡrāmaṇeras or novices. These are properly youths of at least fifteen years of age (but see p. 307); their hair is cut off and yellow garments are put on for a time.

It should be noted that every male throughout Burma is required to enter a monastery and become a novice for a portion of his life, if only for a single Vassa. This is because the Buddha taught that every true Buddhist 260 ought to conform to his example and become a monk, although he wisely abstained from imposing any irrevocable vows. The whole process is often merely formal, and sometimes only lasts for seven days.

2. The Pyit-seṅ or Pyit-siṅ (sometimes pronounced Patzin) or full monks, who have the title Pungī or Phungī (sometimes spelt Phungee or Phongie), ‘full of great glory,’ when they have been at least ten years members of the order. They correspond to the Ṡramaṇas, and are by Europeans called Talapoins (from their carrying fans of palm leaves). Their dress usually consists of three pieces of yellow cotton cloth.

3. The Hsayā (always a Phungī) or Head of a separate monastery, who corresponds to the Abbot of European countries.

4. The Gaiṇ-ok or provincial Head, who has a kind of episcopal jurisdiction over all the monasteries of a district.

5. The Thāthanā-paing (Thāthanā = Sanskṛit Ṡāsanā) or supreme rulers, who correspond to Archbishops. They superintend all religious affairs. According to Mr. Scott, there are now eight of them.

Occasionally instances occur of hermit-monks who lead solitary lives, and sit motionless in meditation for years.

In Siam the gradations of monkhood are nearly similar to those in Burma, and we learn from Mr. Alabaster that the monastic vow is not binding for life, but can be cancelled at any time. This rule leads to every Siamese man spending at least three months of his life in a monastery.

261
We have now to pass from Ceylon, Burma, and Siam to Tibet (properly called Bod or Bot or Bhot, Sanskṛit Bhoṭa). And here we leave the simpler forms of Buddhism and are brought face to face with that highly developed system which, though nominally resulting from an expansion of the Hīna-yāna, ‘Little Method,’ into the Mahā-yāna, ‘Great Method’ (p. 158), was really the product of a still further expansion of the ‘Great Method’ and its combination with other creeds.

In truth, Tibetan Buddhism is so different from every other Buddhistic system that it ought to be treated of separately in a separate volume, as Koeppen has done. In his elaborate and excellent work on this subject he has remarked that for the development of a hierarchy no circumstance is more favourable than isolation, and that this advantage was offered in the highest degree by Tibet. Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism a profound darkness had rested on it. The inhabitants were ignorant and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of Shamanism.

To describe exactly what Shamanism is would be no easy task. The word is said to be of Tungusic origin[120], and to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia, Siberia, and other Northern countries.

Perhaps we shall not be far wrong in asserting that the two principal constituents of Shamanism are the worship of nature and the dread of spirits.

262
The inhabitants of Tibet and Mongolia and indeed of other Northern countries believed that spirits, good and bad, influenced the whole course of nature. They held that such spirits were able either to cause or to avert diseases and disasters, to control the destinies of men, and even to decide the fate of the lower animals. Hence it is easy to understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate them by sacrifices and various magical practices. In this way they pretended to prevent storms, pestilences, and other calamities. They were supposed, too, to understand omens and to predict the future by watching the flights of birds, by examining the shoulder-blades of sheep, and by similar devices. Shamanism, in fact, with its Tibetan offshoot, Bon, had much in common with the lowest types of Ṡaivism, Ṡāktism, and Tāntrism, with which the Buddhism of Northern India, Nepāl, and the countries bordering on Tibet, had already become adulterated.

When, therefore, this mixed form of Buddhism advanced from those countries into Tibet, its approach was not resisted as an intrusion. On the contrary, Tibetan Shamanism, although it had possession of the field, was quite ready to meet the new religion halfway. The result was an alliance, or rather perhaps an amalgamation; and this led to the establishment of a complex religious system which I have ventured to call Lāmism[121].

263
Lāmism, then, is a form of Buddhism which, although based on the Hīna-yāna and Mahā-yāna of India, is combined with Shamanism, Ṡiva-worship, and magic, and has a marked individuality and a peculiar hierarchical organization of its own. This organization has been compared to that of the Roman Catholic Church. Doubtless in its great receptivity Buddhism may have borrowed from Christianity, but Lāmism possesses certain unique features which distinguish it from every other system in the world.

Unfortunately few Europeans have, as yet, penetrated into Tibet, and its sacred literature has been little studied. It follows therefore that the various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily described, and only a general idea of them can be given.

We ought first to note the boy-pupil called Genyen, sometimes spoken of as Bandi or Bante (= Bandya[122], a term more properly applicable to monks). Boy-pupils are inmates of every Tibetan monastery; but under exceptional circumstances a pupil may live with his parents. He may be received after seven years of age, and until fifteen, as in Burma (p. 259). He is placed under a full monk, who teaches him and makes him promise to keep the five chief commandments (p. 126). Though sometimes called a novice he is merely under 264 education, and not necessarily a candidate for the monkhood. The real degrees of the Lāmistic hierarchy, as explained by Koeppen and others, are as follow:—

1. First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk, called Gethsul (Getzul), who has been admitted after fifteen years of age to the first stage of monkhood by a Khanpo Lāma or his representative. His hair is cut off and he wears the monkish garments, and has 112 rules to observe. He waits on the full monk, and assists in all functions except blessing and consecrating. He has been compared to the deacon of the European ecclesiastical system, but the comparison is misleading, as shown at p. 76.

2. Secondly and higher in rank we have the full monk, called Gelong (or Geloṅ). He corresponds to the Bhikshu, who has received complete consecration, and is often called by courtesy a Lāma (see note, p. 262), though he has no real right to that title. He is not properly a priest, yet it is certain that in Tibet he often discharges sacerdotal functions. The ceremony of admission to the full monkhood can only be performed after the twentieth year, and binds the recipient to 253 rules of discipline[123].

3. Thirdly we have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who has a real right to the further title Lāma, and from his higher knowledge and sanctity sometimes becomes a kind of head-teacher (Sanskṛit Upādhyāya or Āćārya). As the chief monk in a monastery 265 he may be compared to the European Abbot; but in respect of consecration he is only a Gelong. Nor are any of the higher grades of monks—so far as the forms of consecration are concerned—higher than Gelongs and Khanpos.

At this point, however, we have to note the special peculiarity of the Lāmistic system, namely, that some of the higher Khanpo Lāmas are supposed to be living re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatāra Lāmas (see p. 190), and of such there are three degrees, which we may denote by the letters A. B. C. as follow:—

A. The lowest degree of Avatāra Lāma. He may be called an ordinary Khubilghan (from a Mongolian word—written by Huc, Hubilghan). He represents the continuous re-embodiment of an ordinary canonized saint (p. 188), or founder of some great monastery. He is higher by one degree than the Khanpo Abbot, as presiding over a more important monastery.

B. A higher grade of Avatāra Lāma called Khutuktu. He exercises a kind of episcopal jurisdiction over a still more important monastery than that presided over by the ordinary incarnated Lāma. He represents the incarnation of a higher Bodhi-sattva or deified saint, but he sometimes claims to be an incarnated Buddha.

C. The highest Avatāra Lāma commonly called a Supreme or Grand Lāma. He is not an incarnation of a mere ordinary Bodhi-sattva (p. 188), but a continuous re-embodiment of either a supreme Buddha or of his Bodhi-sattva. The two notable examples of this highest 266 degree are the Dalai and Panchen Lāmas, who claim an authority, like that of a Pope or Archbishop, over extensive regions outside their own monasteries. They will be more fully described in the sequel (see p. 284).

It may be stated generally, therefore, that the Lāmistic hierarchy consists of three lower and three higher grades. We have, besides, to reckon certain other distinctions of rank, such as those of the Rab-jampa, ‘doctor of theology or philosophy,’ the Ćhorje (strictly Ćhos-rje), ‘lord of the faith.’ These are sometimes associated with the Khanpo or Abbot, though slightly inferior in rank to that dignitary. It is said that the Ćhorje often acts as a kind of coadjutor Abbot. Practically they rank below the incarnated or Avatāra Lāmas. Moreover, in every monastery there are numerous other subordinate officials; for example, schoolmasters, teachers who explain the Law and guide the studies of the brotherhood, precentors or choirmasters, secretaries, collectors of revenue, treasurers, stewards, overseers, physicians, painters, sculptors, manufacturers of relics, of amulets, of rosaries, of images, and in some monasteries-especially those of the Red sect—astrologers, fortune-tellers, magicians (Ćhos-kyong or Ćhos-kyoṅ), and exorcists. The Lāma is not only the priest; he is the educator, schoolmaster, physician, astrologer, architect, sculptor, painter; he is ‘the head, the heart, the oracle of the laity.’

There is also a whole class of mendicant Lāmas, who have vowed to live a vagabond life for a certain number of years. They are better known than some others, for they often find their way into British territory.

267
When I was staying at Dārjīling, I encountered two specimens of the vagabond class who came from some distant part of Tibet. They called themselves Lāmas, though, of course, they had no real right to that title. They were clothed in ragged garments made up of thirty-two patches of different cloths, and wore thick buskins to protect them from the snows. Then they carried a kind of knapsack or wallet of goat-skin behind their backs, and in their hands a sort of sacred drum or tabour called ḍamaru (see p. 384).

According to M. Huc, these vagabond Lāmas travel for the sake of travelling. They wander through China, Manchuria, Southern Mongolia, Kuku Nūr, Tibet, Northern India, and even Turkestān.

There is scarcely a river which they have not crossed; a mountain which they have not ascended; a Grand Lāma before whom they have not prostrated themselves; a people among whom they have not lived, and of whom they do not know the manners and language.

It should be noted that when an incarnated Lāma is the spiritual Head of a monastery there is generally a temporal Head to manage its affairs.

Then we must not forget that Tibetan Buddhism has also its organized female hierarchy, on the highest steps of which are female Khutuktus and incarnated Abbesses, as well as lower gradations of nuns and novices, living together in their own convents.

The rules of discipline for the whole Lāmistic hierarchy fill at least thirteen out of the 108 volumes 268 of the Tibetan Canon (see p. 272). They do not differ materially from those of other Buddhist countries. The 253 rules of the Pratimoksha-sūtra (see p. 62) are said to contain commands and prohibitions relating to five sides of the monastic life—conduct, dress, food, habitation, and occupation.

It must be borne in mind that early Lāmism, like true Buddhism, had properly no secular priesthood and encouraged no intercourse with the outer world, except for the reception of alms and food from the laity. All grades of the hierarchy were supposed to live together as one celibate fraternity in monastic seclusion, apart from mundane associations. Their only duties were to meditate, recite the Law, and obey certain strict rules of discipline. This strictness of discipline, however, was not long borne with equal patience by the whole fraternity. It soon became irksome to a large section, and the same state of things which arose in early Buddhism and generally arises in all religious communities, occurred in Lāmism. The fraternity of Lāmas became split up into two chief parties or sects—the strict and the lax. We shall see in the end that these two sects were distinguished from each other by the colour of their garments, and especially of their caps, the former adopting yellow and calling themselves Gelug pa or Galdan pa, the latter adopting red (Shamār). Of course the lax or Red-cap sect soon infringed the rule in regard to celibacy, and allowed the marriage of monks under certain conditions, though such marriages seem at first to have been exceptional.

269
It is said, indeed, that in Nepāl, under modern Gorkha rule, the celibate occupies a lower position than the married monk, to whom the services in the temples are committed. It is said, too, that the Lāmas of Sikkim and other northern countries constantly have children living with them, though they do not admit them to be their own (p. 152). Yet, for all that, celibacy is the rule, and nominally, at any rate, the great majority of Lāmistic monks in Eastern Asia are unmarried cœnobites, who live together in monasteries.

Certainly in no other country in the world are monasteries so numerous or on so vast a scale as in Tibet and Mongolia (see p. 426).

And, indeed, in all probability it was the difficulty of enforcing discipline and order in these immense establishments, without some method of securing obedience to a presiding Head acceptable to all the inmates, that led to that strange re-incarnation or ‘Avatāra’ theory which is one chief distinguishing feature of Lāmism.

The process by which this remarkable theory was developed is so interesting and so important in relation to the subject of the present Lecture that it deserves careful investigation, and to clear the ground we must here make a brief digression and advert to some circumstances in the early history of Tibet and Mongolia, as given in Koeppen’s laborious work.

We learn from him that Nya Khri Tsanpo, who lived in the Yarlung valley, was the first king of Tibet. After several successors came Srong Tsan Gampo. This king was born in 617, and, according to a legend, exhibited at his birth certain marks of perfection 270 like those of Amitābha or Avalokiteṡvara (p. 198). He is worshipped as a great Conqueror and Reformer.

In the year 632, or about the time when Muhammad died in Arabia, he began the work of civilizing his subjects. To this end he directed his minister Thumi (or Thonmi) Sambhoṭa to proceed to India, and make himself acquainted with Buddhist writings. This great man was the first to design the Tibetan alphabet on the model of the Indian letters then in use (called Lañćha), but rejecting certain consonants and certain vowels as unsuitable for the representation of Tibetan sounds, and adding six new letters. Hence he was the first to introduce the art of writing along with Buddhism into Tibet.

It may be noted here that Buddhism, to its great credit, has generally given some sort of literary education to the barbarous nations to which it has imparted its own doctrines. It has also made the vernacular of the people its medium of instruction, though it has not always translated its sacred literature or ritualistic formularies into that vernacular.

The first Tibetan author was Thumi Sambhoṭa himself, who is said to have composed a grammar and other books during his sojourn in India. An important work translated by him into the vernacular was the Maṇi Kambum—a Tantra work, alleged to have been revealed by Amitābha and his son Avalokiteṡvara. This book describes the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet as well as the origin of the well-known six-syllabled prayer-formula of Tibet—Om maṇi padme Hūm (see pp. 371-374). It contains 100,000 precepts.

271
The teaching of Thumi Sambhoṭa seems to have been of an orthodox character. He may perhaps be regarded as the founder of the strict school of Tibetan Buddhism (already mentioned), which was afterwards called Kadampa, and finally developed into the Yellow-robed sect, as distinguished from the Red. After Thumi Sambhoṭa the propagation of Buddhism in Tibet was chiefly carried on by the two princesses, wives of King Srong Tsan Gampo, called Dolkar and Doljang. They were worshipped under the name Dolma, as forms of the wife of Ṡiva or of the goddess Tārā; one being called the white mother, and the other, the dark; representing the mild and fierce forms of Ṡiva’s consort[124].

The first two Lāma monasteries in Tibet (called Lā brang and Ra mo che, founded about A.D. 650; Edgar, p. 38) were erected at Lhāssa[125] by them or in their honour, and each monastery contained a renowned wonder-working image, which each princess had brought with her (see pp. 440, 441, 492).

After King Srong Tsan Gampo, Buddhism declined in Tibet. One of his successors, named Khri Srong De Tsan, who was born in 728 A.D. and reigned from 740 to 786, tried to restore it. For this purpose, he sent for religious teachers in great numbers from India. These seem to have brought with them a very corrupt 272 form of Buddhism, which aimed chiefly at counteracting the evil influences of demons by magical spells.

First came Ṡānta Rakshita, with twelve companions from Bengal.

Then the celebrated Padma-sambhava was sent for out of the land of Udyāna (= Dardistān)—west of the Indus, north of Peshawar—where the people were addicted to Ṡaivism and witchcraft. It was under him that the great monastery at Sam ye (strictly Sam yas) was built (see p. 448). He was celebrated for his skill in magic, sorcery, and alchemy, and became the real founder of the Red sect, after instructing several young Tibetans in his own lore. At the same time he was remarkable for his knowledge of Indian languages, and was active in promoting a taste for literature in Tibet. It redounds much to his credit that he was the first to further the translation of the whole Buddhist Canon (almost entirely from Sanskṛit books) into Tibetan.

But the sacred books had by that time greatly increased, so that the Tibetan Canon commonly called Kanjur (or more strictly Kangyur and Ka-gyur, pp. 70, 267) consisted of at least 108 volumes.

Then we have the Tanjur (Tangyur) consisting of 225 folio volumes of translations, commentaries, and treatises, corresponding to the Aṭṭha-kathā of Ceylon (p. 65), and embracing works on all subjects (often mere translations from the Sanskṛit), such as grammar, logic, rhetoric, poetry, medicine, astrology, alchemy, magic, and the use of spells.

A sect called Urgyanpa (or Urgyenpa), another called 273 Brugpa (or Dugpa or Dukpa), another called Sakyapa—all belonging to the Red-clothed (in Tibetan, Shamār) Lāmas who are numerous in Nepāl, Bhutān, Sikkim, Ladāk, and in portions of Southern Tibet—follow the rules of Padma-sambhava.

After Khri Srong De Tsan came a number of kings who caused Buddhism to decline; but in the second half of the eleventh century it began to recover, and learned men were sent for from Kashmir and India, one of whom was Atīsha (strictly Atīṡa), who might be called the re-founder of Lāmism.

He had an eminent Tibetan pupil named Brom Ton (Brom-sTon or Brom Bakshi[126]). All violent opposition to Buddhism then ceased. Monastery after monastery was founded in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Three of the most important were (1) Raseng (or Ra-deng, strictly Ra sGreng), north-east of Lhāssa, founded by Brom Ton in 1058; (2) Sakya (see p. 448), situated in the district of Tsang, south-west of Shigatse, and founded by Koncho Yalpo, whose son was the first Grand Lāma of this monastery; (3) Brikhung (also written Brikuṅ or Briguṅ or Brigung), four days’ journey north of Lhāssa, founded by Koncho Yalpo’s son.

Atīsha belonged to a school which did not favour Ṡaivism and sorcery in the way that Padma-sambhava had done, and his pupil, Brom Ton of the Raseng monastery, was the founder of the sect called Kadampa[127], 274 which enforced great strictness of monastic life—a sect which, as we have already mentioned, had its earliest origin in the teaching of Thumi Sambhoṭa, and whose tenets were adopted by the celebrated reformer Tsong Khapa (p. 277), the real founder of the Yellow sect.

On the other hand, the monks of the Sakya monastery belonged to the more lax school, and were therefore followers of Padma-sambhava. No doubt these two chief monasteries of Raseng and Sakya maintained at first their own separate independence, the presiding Lāma of each claiming equal authority with the other. Then in process of time, a rivalry sprang up between them. Moreover the Brikhung monastery strove with the Sakya, each trying to acquire predominance. Ultimately they appealed to the Chinese authorities, who decided that the highest position belonged to the monastery of Sakya and to the Red sect.

And here we have to turn for a short time to Mongolia. That country received its Buddhism, or rather Lāmism, from Tibet. It is well known that the great Mongol conqueror, Jenghiz Khān, conquered Tibet about A.D. 1206[128]. Before that period the Mongolians had come in contact with various religious cults; for example, with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Islām.

They had even had some experience of Christianity; for Nestorian Missions existed in Central Asia in the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, and penetrated to China in the seventh century. All these religions strove 275 to convert the Mongolians, who soon became an important nation through the conquests of Jenghiz Khān. That conqueror, however, had a very simple religion of his own. He believed in one God in heaven, and one king on earth; that is, he believed that God had given him the dominion of the whole world, and he set himself to conquer the world. Yet he tolerated all religions. ‘As the hand,’ he said, ‘has many fingers, so there are many ways to show men how they may reach heaven.’

Khubilai (1259-1294), the greatest of all the descendants of Jenghiz and Sovereign of a vast empire, was the first to elevate his people above a mere life of rapine and plunder; and it struck him that the best method of civilizing them would be by adopting and promoting Buddhism, which the greater number of the races subject to him already professed.

Between the indigenous Shamanism of Northern countries and the doctrines of Confucius, or of Islām, or of Christianity, there were no points of contact; whereas Shamanism, as we have seen, had much common ground with Northern Buddhism, which had become mixed up with Ṡaivism and magic.

It was this that led Khubilai to adopt the Lāmistic or Tibetan form of Buddhism. He also thought it wise to conciliate the spiritual potentates of Tibet, who had for many centuries taken all real power out of the hands of their temporal chiefs.

And among Lāmistic prelates, the Head of the Monastery of Sakya and of the Red school in Southern Tibet had, as we have seen, acquired a kind of sovereignty. Many monks of this Red sect married, 276 according to the practice of the Brāhmans, and remained householders till a son and heir was born to them. At that time they had a presiding monk, called Sakya Paṇḍita, and the Emperor Khubilai appointed Mati-dhvaja, the Paṇḍita’s nephew, to succeed him as Head of the monastery, conferring on him a certain amount of temporal power and making him a kind of tributary ruler of Tibet. He was known as the Phaspa (strictly Phags pa), ‘excellent Lāma,’ and in return for the supremacy granted to him, was required to consecrate or crown the emperors of Mongolia.

Koeppen observes that Khubilai was thus the creator of the first Lāmistic Pope; just as Pepin and Charlemagne were of the first Christian Pope.

The Mongolians also owe their written character and literature to Buddhism. It was Phaspa Lāma who invented the Mongolian alphabet. Taking the Tibetan alphabet as his model, he invented a square character with a thousand syllables. He then undertook a new revision of the Buddhist sacred writings, causing the Tibetan sacred texts (Kanjur) to be compared with the Chinese. It is said that this lasted from the year 1285 to 1306.

Twenty-nine learned men, versed in the Tibetan, Ugrian, Chinese, and Sanskṛit languages, were occupied on the task of collation, and a few years later, the first Mongolian translation of the sacred texts was begun by the Sakya Lāma Ćhoskyi Odser.

Khubilai, no doubt, was a great promoter of Buddhism, and founded many monasteries in Mongolia, and a celebrated one at Peking.

277
After the elevation of the Phaspa Lāma to quasi-temporal as well as spiritual sovereignty very little is known about the state of Buddhism in Tibet, except that the successive Heads of the Sakya monastery maintained their position under Khubilai’s successors, and of course perpetuated and extended the doctrines of the Red school of Buddhism. Probably they resided at Lhāssa, and possibly at the Mongolo-Chinese Court.

In 1368, the last Mongol emperor was expelled by the founder of the Ming dynasty, after Jenghiz’s family had occupied the throne of China for about a century.

The emperors of this dynasty did their best to bring Tibet under the Chinese Government, and to conciliate the Tibetan Lāmas by gifts, titles, and other favours. But they thought it politic to prevent the predominance of any one monastery. Hence they made three other Heads of monasteries equal in rank to the Sakya Lāma, and encouraged antagonism between them. This facilitated the great Reform which Lāmism underwent in the time of the Emperor Jong lo—a reform brought about by the celebrated Tsong Khapa, sometimes called the Luther of Lāmistic Buddhism.

Tsong Khapa, whose name is as much celebrated in Mongolia and Tibet and among the Kalmuk Tartars as that of the founder of Buddhism, is said to have been born in the year 1355 or 1357 of our era, in the land of Amdo, where the celebrated monastery of Kunbum or Kumbum—situated North of Tibet on the borders of China—now stands. All sorts of legends, but none worth repeating, are related about him. We may note, however, a probable tradition that a learned Lāma, 278 ‘with a long nose and bright eyes,’ who had settled in the land of Amdo, and may possibly have been a Roman Catholic priest, became his teacher.

To Find More Interesting Resources Click below :



In process of time, Tsong Khapa set out on a journey from Amdo to Tibet, his object being to acquire a knowledge of the doctrine from original sources. He is said to have studied the Law of Buddha at Sakya, Brikhung, and Lhāssa. It was in this way that he became impressed with the necessity of purifying and reforming the discipline of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Red sect had corrupted by allowing the marriage of monks and by laxity in other matters. Innumerable pupils gathered round him, all of whom adopted, as their distinguishing mark, the orthodox yellow garments of primitive Buddhism, and especially the yellow cap (p. 268); while the followers of Padma-sambhava and the more corrupt school wore red garments and a red cap.

Tsong Khapa soon acquired vast influence, and in the year 1409 was able to build on a hill about thirty miles from Lhāssa, the afterwards celebrated monastery called Galdan (or Gahdan) of the Yellow school. Of this Tsong Khapa was the first Abbot. His followers, however, rapidly became too numerous to be comprehended within so limited an area. Hence there arose in the immediate neighbourhood of Lhāssa, two other great monasteries, Brepung (also written Dapung, etc., see p. 442), founded by Jam-yang Ćhos-rje, and Sera ‘the Golden,’ founded by Byam Ćhen Ćhos-rje.

These three monasteries once held 30,000 monks of the Yellow sect, but now have only 16,500.

Tsong Khapa wrote many works, which enjoy a 279 quasi-canonical authority among the adherents of the reformed sect. Many of them exist in Mongolian translations, but they have not yet been fully examined.

Undeniably, Tsong Khapa’s chief merit was that he caused his followers to revert to the purer monastic discipline, especially to the rule of celibacy. He also purified the forms of worship, and greatly restricted without altogether prohibiting the use of magical rites. Tsong Khapa, too, is said to have re-established the original practice of retirement for religious meditation at certain seasons, although as there was no rainy season in Tibet, another period had to be chosen.

Travellers in Tibet have often described the many points of resemblance between the Roman Catholic and Lāmistic systems, such as the Popedom, the celibacy of the priesthood, the worship of saints, confession, fasting, processions, holy water, bells, rosaries, mitres, croziers, etc. These resemblances and coincidences will be more fully noted in a subsequent Lecture (see pp. 338, 339).

It is possible that Tsong Khapa may have imbibed some of his notions from his instructor at Amdo already named (p. 277), who was either a Roman Catholic missionary, or was familiar with the constitution of the Romish hierarchy. On the other hand, it is certain that celibacy, confession, and fasting existed in Buddhism before the teaching of Christ, and long before that of Tsong Khapa.

In fact, Tsong Khapa’s reformation had been to a certain extent anticipated, as we have seen, by the school of Kadampa, founded in the eleventh century, by Atīsha’s disciple, Brom Ton (p. 273).

280
Very little more is known about Tsong Khapa. He died in the year 1419, or, as his disciples believe, ascended to heaven, and that ascension is still celebrated during the festival of Lamps by all orthodox Buddhists of the Lāmistic Church (see pp. 345, 346).

When some time after his death, he was canonized, he was regarded by some as an incarnation of Amitābha, or by others of Mañju-ṡrī, or by others of Vajra-pāṇi (see p. 195), or even of the Mahā-kāla form of Ṡiva, and his image is generally found in the temples of the Yellow sect, and often between the two images of the Dalai Lāma and the Panchen Lāma, on the right and left respectively.

His followers of the Yellow school called themselves Gelugpa (or Gelukpa), ‘adherents of virtue’ (or, Gal-danpa from their monastery); their principal characteristic being that they adhered to the purer discipline.

The chief point of interest in connexion with Tsong Khapa is the bearing of his reformation on the development of the Avatāra theory already mentioned (see pp. 190, 265).

It is said that Tsong Khapa himself, like Gautama Buddha, had two chief pupils, and that he appointed these two to succeed him with equal authority as Heads of the orthodox sect. He is also credited with having been the first to promulgate the doctrine that no election of successors to his two pupils would at any time be needed, as each of them on dying would be constantly re-born in a supernatural manner.

There is, however, no historical foundation for such a statement. Indeed, according to the opinion of some, 281 the two Grand Lāmas were merely the lineal successors of the two eminent Lāmas, Atīsha and his pupil Brom Ton (see p. 273).

After all, it seems most likely that the whole Avatāra theory was an invention of some shrewd Head Lāma, who, perceiving that the strict enforcement of celibacy would prevent any hereditary succession, like that possible in monasteries of the Red school, and foreseeing that it would be necessary to prevent the suicidal divisions to which the intrigues of an election to the Headship of monasteries—especially of Grand Lāma monasteries—would be likely to give rise, bethought himself of a compromise between hereditary succession and election. After more than one trial, the system was found to work so well that it was eventually adopted with little modification by all Northern Buddhists, and even by those of the Red sect.

The date of its invention is as uncertain as the name of the inventor. All that can be said is, that it cannot be traced back to an earlier period than the fifteenth century.

And here we must again guard against the confusion of thought likely to arise from the usual practice of translating Avatāra by ‘incarnation.’

We have seen that the doctrine of transmigration (gati) through various embodiments, as applicable to all beings, is a fundamental dogma both of Brāhmanism and of Buddhism, though in Buddhism transmigration properly means a mere continuous transformation and reconstruction of the elements (Skandhas) of being (p. 109).

The idea is very dimly, if at all, adumbrated in the Mantra portion of the Veda.

282
It is more clearly traceable in one of the Brāhmaṇas, and distinctly enunciated in the Ćhāndogya Upanishad (V. x. 7) thus:—‘He whose conduct has been good, quickly attains to some good embodiment as a Brāhman, Kshatriya, or Vaiṡya. He whose conduct has been bad, assumes an inferior embodiment, as a dog, a hog, or a Ćaṇḍāla.’ In Manu the theory is fully developed.

Now it is true that in Buddhism this kind of transmigration may be described as a continuous series of incarnations, although genuine Buddhism denies the separate existence of a soul between each incarnation (see p. 110).

But the doctrine of repeated incarnations of one individual in six forms of life is quite distinct from the Tibetan Avatāra theory. This theory not only recognizes the separate existence of an immaterial essence or soul, but also teaches that the Head Lāma of certain monasteries is the living, visible embodiment, for the time being, of the continuous descent (avatāra) on earth of a portion of the essence of the canonized Founder of a monastery or of a celestial Bodhi-sattva or Buddha, who will perpetually continue to descend from heaven and re-appear in human forms for the welfare of the world (see p. 109)[129].

A similar idea, we know, prevails in India, where the doctrine of the descent (avatāra) of portions of the essence of Vishṇu and other gods is common. There is, however, a noteworthy distinction in the Hindū 283 doctrine, because the descents of Vishṇu are not continuous and uninterrupted (see ‘Brāhmanism and Hindūism,’ pp. 47, 107-116); and although every great Hindū teacher is supposed to be the embodiment of a portion of the essence of a deity, each such embodiment is isolated and single.

And here note that one theory is that the continuous descents of Bodhi-sattvas and Buddhas into human forms were effected by means of their third changeable body (Nirmāṇa-kāya, p. 247), which belonged to Bodhi-sattvas as well as to Buddhas; or, according to another theory, through rays of light proceeding from the essences of the Bodhi-sattvas, just as the Bodhi-sattvas themselves were held by some to have been generated by rays of light proceeding from the Dhyāni-Buddhas.

Or again, the Dhyāni-Buddhas might incarnate themselves not only intermediately through their Dhyāni-Bodhi-sattvas, but by the transmission of rays of light directly from their own essences into a continuous succession of human beings of pre-eminent sanctity.

Hence it is clear that the Avatāra Lāma is no example of the working of either Hindū metempsychosis or of Buddhist metamorphosis. And indeed, re-birth, through transmigration and transformation, according to the ordinary Hindū and Buddhist theories, is regarded as a kind of natural act, whereas continuous incarnation through the descent of a portion of a celestial essence into human bodies is a supernatural act.

Of course, as we have stated, there were lower and higher Avatāras, corresponding to the difference in rank of Saints and Bodhi-sattvas (see pp. 190, 265).

284
Examples of the highest Avatāras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are supreme Lāmas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhāssa, and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles distant, in a south-westerly direction, not far from the town of Shigatse (or Shigatze, capital of the province of Tsang), and not very far from our Indian frontier.

The Grand Lāma at Lhāssa is the Dalai Lāma, that is, ‘the Ocean-Lāma, or one whose power and learning are as great as the ocean;’ a half Mongolian half Tibetan title—Dalai (or Tale) meaning in Mongolian ‘Ocean,’ and Lāma meaning in Tibetan ‘a superior Teacher’ (see note, p. 262). He has also the Tibetan title of rGyamthso Rinpoche (Rin-po-će), ‘Ocean-Jewel’ (the Tibetan equivalent for Dalai being rGyamthso).

The other Grand Lāma who resides in the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the names of the Tashi Lāma (sometimes written Teshu Lāma) or Panchen Lāma (called in Mongolian Bogdo Lāma). He has the Tibetan title of Panchen Rinpoche (Pañ-ćen Rin-po-će), ‘the great Paṇḍit Jewel’ (Pan being equivalent to Paṇḍita, and chen meaning great).

Hence Tashi Lunpo is the second metropolis of Lāmism (see p. 443). It is said to have been built by Gedun grub pa, the chief pupil of the Reformer Tsong Khapa, in 1445 (see p. 291).

Neither of these Grand Lāmas are Popes in the European sense, for neither are elected by a conclave of chief Lāmas.

The belief is that when they quit their bodies at death, they re-appear after nine months, or occasionally 285 after the second or third year, in children whose bodies they have occupied from conception.

The Dalai Lāmas are held to be continuous re-incarnations of the Dhyāni-Bodhisattva Avalokiteṡvara (p. 197), while the Panchen Lāmas are continuous re-incarnations of his father the Dhyāni-Buddha Amitābha (p. 203).

Hence, as the father is superior to the son, and the master to the pupil, the Panchen Lāma at Tashi Lunpo might reasonably have ranked above the Dalai Lāma at Lhāssa. But, as Avalokiteṡvara is the special patron of the Lāmistic Church in Tibet, his incarnation at Lhāssa is practically a more important personage than the incarnated Dhyāni-Buddha at Tashi Lunpo. Some hold that the Panchen Lāma is only a re-incarnation of Tsong Khapa, who was identified with Mañju-ṡrī.

It is said that the Dalai Lāma exercises secular authority over about four millions of people, including monks; although in the present day political power has to a great extent been taken from him by the Chinese Government, which has two permanent Commissioners or Residents (called Ampas) at Lhāssa, and sometimes sends a special Envoy (Kin-Tche)[130].

The real fact is, that since mere children, who are too young to have received any education, are elevated to the Grand Lāmaship, and most of them either die 286 naturally or are made to die before they have gained any knowledge, the re-incarnated Lāmas are generally unfit to govern, and in monasteries which have an Avatāra Grand Lāma, an elected chief Lāma acts as regent or administrator of affairs, while the incarnated Buddha is supposed to lose himself in sublime heights of meditation and receive divine homage[131]. This elected Regent also governs during the intervals of the incarnations, and at Lhāssa he is the real Head and most powerful Tibetan official. He is called Nomun-khan or Nomin-khan (or No min han).

The manner in which the Avatāra doctrine is carried into practice has varied at different times.

It is alleged that formerly the departing Lāma, before he transferred himself to another body, was in the habit of revealing where and in what family he would be re-incarnated. Or occasionally it happened that children of two or three years of age called out suddenly, as if impelled by some spiritual influence, ‘I am a living Buddha, I am the chief Lāma of such and such a monastery.’

Or more commonly the sacred books were consulted; or the official soothsayers gave their opinion.

But the usual rule was that at the death of the Dalai Lāma the interpretation of the traditions and oracles about his re-birth and the duty of discovering the family in which he was to appear were committed to the Panchen Lāma. When the Panchen Lāma himself 287 died, the Dalai Grand Lāma did the same service for him.

It was only natural that the holy land of Tibet, and especially the holy city of Lhāssa, should have been most fruitful in re-incarnations, and should even have supplied foreign countries with them.

When Messrs. Huc and Gabet were travelling in Mongolia they were about to pass a certain Lāmistic convent without stopping, when a Lāma came out and invited them to enter, that they might have an opportunity of paying adoration to the saint enthroned within. ‘Our saint,’ he said, ‘is not a mere man. In our small convent we have the happiness to possess a living Buddha! Two years ago he deigned to descend from the holy mountains of Tibet, and he is now seven years old.’ These living Buddhas, according to M. Huc, are very numerous. Sometimes a clever Lāma builds a small temple and attracts a few disciples. Then by degrees his reputation increases. Other Lāmas build their cells near the temple, and bring it into fashion, and proclaim him to be a living Buddha.

It is said, indeed, that some spiritual Heads of the Hierarchy in Lhāssa have contrived to instal their illegitimate children in the Headship of distant Lāmaseries, so that occasionally the supposed living Buddha is really the son of some Tibetan Grand Lāma.

In the present day the Emperor of China exercises so great an influence in the nomination of both the Dalai and Panchen Lāmas, that the co-operation of the Lāmistic priesthood has become little more than a 288 form. Still the form is gone through, and the following description (chiefly resting on the authority of Koeppen and Huc) may give some idea of the whole process.

When the Dalai Lāma dies, or rather when his soul—which consists of a portion of the essence of Avalokiteṡvara—has cast off one body with the object of entering another, the names of all the male children born at the time of his death in Tibet have to be sent in to the great monastery of Lā brang at Lhāssa, and those parents who have reason to suspect that their children are re-incarnations, are obliged to notify the fact.

A true decision cannot be arrived at until three children have been found, or rather (as is practically the case) until three candidates have been set up for election who are accepted by the Chinese Government or its representatives.

The first stage in the process of election is to write the names of these three children on lots, and place them in a golden urn. Then the Khutuktus assemble together in solemn conclave. For six days they remain in retirement. During all that period they are supposed to fast and to be engaged in repeating prayers. On the seventh day, the leading Khutuktu draws a lot, and the infant or child whose name comes out is proclaimed Dalai Lāma. The Panchen Lāma and the representatives of China must be present at the time[132].

289
In a similar manner, the Panchen Lāmas, Khutuktus, and ordinary Avatāra Lāmas are elected.

The Mongolian mode of election is thus described by M. Huc. (The quotation is not literal, and is abridged.)

The election and enthronization of the living Buddhas is extremely curious. When a Grand Lāma is ‘gone away,’ that is to say, is dead, the event is by no means made a matter of mourning in the convent. There are no tears or regrets, for every one knows that the living Buddha will soon re-appear. The apparent death is only the commencement of a new existence, a new link added to a boundless and uninterrupted chain of successive lives—a simple palingenesia. While the saint is in the chrysalis state, his disciples are in the greatest anxiety, and the grand point is to discover the place where their master has returned to life. If a rainbow appears, they consider it as a sign sent to them from their Grand Lāma, to assist them in their researches.

Every one then goes to prayers, and especially the convent which has been widowed of its Buddha is incessant in its fastings and orisons, and a troop of chosen Lāmas set out to consult the Churchun or diviner of hidden things. They relate to him the time, place, and circumstances under which the rainbow has appeared: and he then, after reciting some prayers, opens his books of divination, and at length pronounces his oracle; while the Tartars who have come to consult him, listen on their knees with the most profound devotion.

‘Your Grand Lāma,’ they say, ‘has returned to life in Tibet—at 290 such a place—in such a family;’ and when the poor Mongols have heard the oracle, they return full of joy to their convent, to announce the happy news. Sometimes the living Buddha announces himself, at an age when other infants cannot articulate a word; but whether his place of abode be found by means of the rainbow, or by this spontaneous revelation, it is always at a considerable distance, and in a country difficult of access. A grand procession is then made, headed by the king, or the greatest man in the country, to fetch the young living Buddha. The Mongols often go through incredible fatigue and hardships, traverse frightful deserts, and sometimes, after being plundered by robbers, stripped of everything, and compelled to return, set out again with undiminished courage. When the living Buddha is found, however, he is not saluted Grand Lāma without a previous examination. Doubtless, the simple Mongols are in this matter often the dupes of those who have an interest in making a Grand Lāma of the baby. The title of the living Buddha having been confirmed, he is conducted in triumph to the monastery of which he is to become Grand Lāma; and as he passes along, the Tartars come in great troops and prostrate themselves before him, and bring him offerings. As soon as he arrives at the convent, he is placed on the altar, and every Tartar, from the highest to the lowest in the land, bows down before this child. There is no Tartar kingdom which does not possess one of these living Buddhas; but there is always another Grand Lāma, chosen among the members of the royal family, with whom the real government of the convent rests. The famous maxim ‘Le roi règne et ne gouverne pas’ has been of old application among the Tartars. [See note p. 306 of these Lectures.]

It should be noted that the Lāmistic community like to keep up the fiction of these re-incarnations; and therefore they pretend to ascertain the genuineness of every re-birth by clear signs. Hence before a re-born saint is installed, his identity is established by his passing a kind of examination before a solemn assembly, thousands of witnesses being present.

Some of the books, clothes, and sacred or secular utensils which the dead Lāma was in the habit of 291 using, are brought and mixed with others. The child is then asked to pick out the true ones, or he has to answer questions as to the events in his previous state of existence. If the replies are satisfactory, he is installed as the re-born Lāma amid great rejoicings.

Koeppen asserts that no positive information as to the relationship between the Dalai and Panchen Lāmas is forthcoming. Some maintain that both hierarchical systems developed simultaneously. Some say that the Panchen Lāma of Tashi Lunpo was the first Grand Avatāra Lama, while others hold that the elevation of the Panchen Lāmas took place later, and only resulted from the increase in importance of the Tashi Lunpo monastery in which they reside (p. 284).

The Dalai Lāmas may be enumerated as follow:—

The first is said to have been Gedun grub pa (otherwise pronounced Gedun dubpa). Probably he was the nephew and chief pupil of the Reformer Tsong Khapa. It was he who founded the monastery of Tashi Lunpo in 1445, and he is by some therefore called the first Lāma of that monastery. His birth is supposed to have occurred in 1391 or 1419, and his death in 1473 or 1476. Then he was born again after ten months as Gedun GyamThso (or Gedun Yamtso), the second Grand Lāma, who is held by some to have been the real founder of the Avatāra system of perpetual succession by reincarnations. He filled the Dalai Lāma Chair from 1474 or 1476 to 1540 or 1542.

The third embodiment took place in 1543, and bore the name Sod nam GyamThso (or Sod nam Yamtso), ‘sea of virtue.’ He was the first who really took 292 the half Mongolian title of Dalai Lāma. Moreover, he laboured hard to spread Buddhism among the Mongolians, and founded the first Great Lāma’s Chair in Mongolia.

In his fourth re-birth, the Dalai Lāma took the name of Yon Jan Yam Thso, ‘ocean of merit,’ and lived up to his 14th year (until 1602) in Mongolia, when he moved to Lhāssa.

The fifth Dalai Lāma was the great Navang Lobsang (strictly Ngag dBang bLo bSang), ‘wise speaker or eloquent sage,’ who is the most celebrated of all. According to some he was the first real Dalai Lāma, those who preceded him being merely supreme Lāmas of the Yellow school. His career lasted from 1617 to 1682. He was a kind of Lāmistic Innocent. But his long minority led to political disturbances. In the end, Navang Lobsang overcame all difficulties, and as a sign that the power of a king of Tibet had been made over to him, built on one summit of the triple hill Potala, where once the royal castle had stood, that palatial monastery—that wonderful Lāmistic Vatican—in which he still resides in his continual re-incarnations (see p. 330).

Indeed the successors of Tsong Khapa had good reason to be satisfied with their position at that time. They had overshadowed the Red sect, or reduced it to comparative unimportance. They had won over Mongolia, which greatly aided them in their struggle for dominion. Monastery after monastery arose there. The sacred books had been translated into the Mongolian language, and thousands of Mongolians came every 293 year with rich presents to worship the re-born Lāmas at Lhāssa, or sent their sons there for education.

When Navang Lobsang died, his death was concealed by the Regent, and great intriguing followed. In the interregnum two Dalai Lāmas were successively set up and deposed. These are not reckoned in the list of legitimate Dalai Lāmas.

Then a child was chosen, who had all the signs of being called to the Lāmaship. This was Lobsang Kalsang Yamthso; he is reckoned the sixth Dalai Lāma. He died in 1758, after gaining some repute as a writer.

The seventh Dalai Lāma was Lobsang Jampal (or Champal) Yamthso, who is believed to have died in either 1805 or 1808.

The next was Lungtog YamThso, who died a mere infant in 1815 or 1816. He had three child-successors, who were all killed as minors by the acting Regent. The last child was made away with in 1837.

If these three children are reckoned, Ge Mure YamThso must be regarded as the eleventh Dalai Lāma. He died in 1855. The twelfth was born in 1856, and seems to have lived till 1874.

The discovery of the present Dalai Lāma is thus related by Sarat Chandra Dās.

After the death of an incarnate Lāma, his soul is said ordinarily to remain in the spiritual world for a space (called Bardo) of at least forty-nine days. In 1875, one year after the demise of the late Dalai Lāma, Thinle Gya-tsho, the Regency and the College of Cardinals at Lhāssa consulted the celebrated oracle of Nachung Chhoskyong about the re-appearance of the Dalai. The oracle declared that the Grand Lāma could only be discovered by a monk of the purest morals. Accordingly the Shar-tse Khanpo of the Galdan monastery, who was well 294 known for his virtuous character and his profound knowledge of the sacred books, proceeded to Chhoikhor Gya, where he sat in profound meditation for full seven days. On the night of the last day he saw a vision, in which a voice from heaven directed him to go and see a miraculous sight in the Ya-tsho lake of Chhoikhor Gya. Awaking from his sleep, the Khanpo went to the lake, where in the crystal-like water he saw the incarnate Grand Lāma sitting in the lap of his mother and caressed by his father. The house with its furniture was also visible. All on a sudden this mirage-like appearance disappeared, and he heard the neighing of a horse. So much of his dream being fulfilled, he proceeded on the horse to the province of Kong-po, and, on the way, he happened to call at the house of a rich and respectable family of the district of Tag-po. Here he recognized the house, the family, and the child he had seen in the lake, and at once declared that the real end of his journey was obtained. On his report the Government officials and the College of Cardinals, headed by the Regent, visited Tag-po and escorted the infant with its parents in great pomp to the palace of Rigyal near Lhāssa. The princely child was only one year old when he was discovered. He is now ten, and bears the name of Nag-wang Lo-ssang Thub-dan Gya-tsho, ‘the lord of speech, and powerful ocean of wisdom.’ (This extract is abbreviated.)

A similar list of the Panchen Lāmas who have reigned at Tashi Lunpo has not been given. When Mr. Sarat Chandra Dās was there in August, 1882, the then Panchen Lāma died from grief (so it was said) because he had not been allowed to consecrate the young Dalai Lāma, according to previous custom.

The next important Lāma in great Tibet (after the Dalai and Panchen Lāmas) is the Head Lāma or Khanpo of the monastery of Galdan (Gahdan)—the oldest monastery of the Yellow sect, founded in the year 1409 by the reformer Tsong Khapa (see p. 278), who was the first Abbot. It once had 8,000 inhabitants. The body of Tsong Khapa is said to be there visible, preserved from corruption and miraculously poised in the air. 295 Prints of his hands and feet and his bed are also shown to pilgrims (see p. 441).

But the Grand Lāma of the Yellow school who comes next in rank to the Dalai and Panchen Lāmas is the Head of the monastery of Kurun (also written Kuren) or Urga, in the land of the Khalkhas in Mongolia. His perpetual re-incarnation began in the sixteenth century. He is generally called by the Mongolians Maidari or Gegen Khutuktu, but his proper title is Je Tsun Dampa (or Tampa) Tāranātha. A Tāranātha Lāma (born in 1575) completed a work on Buddhism in the Tibetan language in 1608 (Markham’s Tibet, xlviii).

There is also a celebrated Avatāra Lāma at Kuku khotun in Tartary who is a perpetual re-incarnation of Mañju-ṡrī Khutuktu.

Indeed Mongolia is a kind of paradise in which the monks of Lāmism enjoy perennial bliss, for the Mongolians are simpler and more full of faith than the Tibetans.

Another Grand Lāma is the Dharma-rāja of Bhutān (p. 297), and another Great Lāma is at Peking in China (see p. 299).

As to Ladāk (the capital of which is Le or Leh), this is the most western part of Tibet that has adopted Lāmism. Aṡoka’s mission penetrated to Ladāk, so that the whole land in king Kanishka’s time (that is, in the first century) was Buddhistic. Moreover, the Buddhist religion (both Red sect and Yellow) has maintained itself there until now, while in the neighbouring countries of Kashmīr, Kafirstān, the Panjāb, etc., it has been displaced by Brāhmanism, Islām, and Ṡāktism, etc. We have little knowledge of the ancient history of Ladāk. It has 296 a large and ancient monastery at Lāma Yurru, near the Indus—in which is an enormous image of the cloven-headed[133] Avalokiteṡvara—another at Hemis, and another at Hanle. (See Cunningham’s ‘Ladāk,’ Mrs. Bridges’ ‘Travels,’ and p. 433 of this volume.)

In Tangut, all round the blue lake (Kuku Nūr), Lāmistic Buddhism has been the established religion since the end of the ninth century. It seems to have taken a great start upwards in the succeeding four centuries, for it was in the province of Amdo, as before mentioned (p. 277), that the great Reformer commenced his career. In the North-eastern corner close to China is the Lāmasery of Kunbum (Kumbum), where Tsong Khapa was born. When his reputation increased, Lāmas from all parts made pilgrimages there. Sarat Chandra Dās states that it is inhabited by 9,000 Lāmas of the Yellow sect. Koeppen says that it has a University with four Faculties, and an important printing-press, and that at the head of it is an incarnated living Buddha. The Lāmas from Amdo are said by Koeppen to be more highly-gifted, intelligent, learned, and religious than the monks of other monasteries. They are intrusted in Lhāssa with the most important offices, and are employed in the education of the infant representatives of Buddha. Amdo is still almost a terra incognita.

Passing on to Nepāl—this country probably adopted Buddhism before the beginning of the Christian era. It is said that Aṡoka’s missionaries found their way there; but there is no proof that Buddhism really flourished in Nepāl till the seventh century, and even then it never existed except in conjunction with Brāhmanism. 297 It is probable that Buddhist monasteries and Brāhmanical temples always adjoined each other. Indeed since the immigration of the Hindūs into Nepāl, and especially since the invasion of the Gorkhas, there have always been two nationalities, two languages, two literatures, two religions in contact with each other.

In recent times Brāhmanism has gained the predominance as the State-religion, and Buddhism has degenerated, though it is everywhere tolerated.

It is a question whether the spiritual supremacy of the Tibetan Grand Lāma has ever been acknowledged in Nepāl proper. But, according to some, the Dalai Lāma formerly had a legate or representative in the largest and oldest Buddhistic temple of Khatmandu—the temple of Svayambhu-nāth, who is here at once Ādi-Buddha and Ṡiva. The Dalai Lāma also claimed the ownership of this temple, which, he maintained, had been dependent on him from the earliest times. But it is certain that, even if the Tibetan Legate ever possessed the authority arrogated by him, he was compelled by the Gorkhas to abandon his claims. Nevertheless the Tibetan tribes now in Nepāl still adhere to Buddhism. The same may be said of the Newars, who are the original possessors of the great valley of Nepāl. They profess a kind of Buddhism, though they reject the Lāmas, and have priests of their own, whom they call Bandya (see note p. 263).

With regard to Bhutān (capital town Punakha) it is said to have become Buddhist about 350 years ago. Its spiritual ruler and incarnated saint is called Dharma-rāja (or Lāma Rinpoche). He belongs to the Red-cap 298 school, and calls himself Chief of all the monks of the Dugpa sect. His subordination to the Dalai Lāma is little more than nominal. The temporal Governor is called Depa-rāja (Deb-rāja).

The following titles engraved on the Dharma-rāja’s seal of office will give some idea of his pretensions:—

‘I am the Chief of the realm. Defender of the Faith. Equal to Sarasvatī in learning. Chief of all the Buddhas. Head-expounder of the Ṡāstras. Caster out of devils. Most learned in the holy Laws. An Avatār of God. Absolver of sins. Head of the best of all religions.’ (See Dr. Wright’s Nepāl.)

It is said that there are about 10,000 monks, and about 50,000 Buddhist lay families in Bhutān. Many of the monks do not live in monasteries, but hold offices under the Government.

Next, as to Sikkim—of which Dārjīling, now the Sanitarium of the Bengal Government, once formed a part. This is a small boundary country between Bhutān and Nepāl. It seems to have adopted Buddhism about the same time as Bhutān, or perhaps a century earlier. The Lāmas there belong to the Dugpa Red sect (p. 268). The aborigines, called Lepchas, though they venerate the Lāmas, are really only half Buddhists; and their priests, called Bijna (Bhikshu?) beggars, are half devil-exorcists. The oldest temple is that of Pemyangchi (see p. 432). Next come the important monasteries of Tassiding, Changachelling, Raklang, and Tamlung (one residence of the Rāja, the other being at Chumbi in Tibetan territory). There is also one near Dārjīling.

299
We ought finally to advert briefly to China and Japan. It is noteworthy that next in rank to the Mongolian Grand Lāma comes the Head Lāma of the great monastery of Peking, who represents Lāmism in that country. Koeppen informs us that in China, for at least six centuries, there have been two classes of Buddhist monks side by side, viz. first, the Ho-shang (p. 92) or Chinese monks, who had become naturalized in the year 65 after Christ; and, secondly, the Lāmas. These two schools are not distinguished so much by difference of doctrine and discipline, as by the position they hold in the empire. The Ho-shang are little more than separate fraternities of monks, tolerated by the State. They have no hierarchical organization, and no bishops, but each monastery stands independently, and has no superior except its own Abbot.

On the other hand, the Lāmas constitute in China a public organized society, acknowledged to a great extent and supported by the State, and possessing certain spiritual and temporal rights over particular districts. It is said, however, that the Lāmistic hierarchy in China is subordinated to the Government Committee for foreign affairs.

It is further stated that three great monasteries situated in or near Peking are exclusively reserved for the Tibetan and Mongolian Lāmas, and that of the three Lāmas who preside over these the chief is the before-mentioned representative of Lāmism at the Government Court (p. 295).

In China proper, within the eighteen Provinces, the number of the Lāma monasteries is said to be small, 300 and these are generally to be found in the Provinces nearest to Tibet and Mongolia.

As to Japan, it does not appear that the Lāmistic form of Buddhism has penetrated into that country. In all probability Buddhist writings were introduced there from Corea about A.D. 552[134], but it is certain that Buddhism did not gain much ascendency in Japan till the ninth century, and even then was not able to displace either Shintoism or Confucianism and the worship of deceased ancestors. In fact, Buddhism commended itself to the Japanese, as it did to the people of every country to which it spread by its receptivity; and just as in Tibet, it adapted itself to the Shamanism which previously existed there, so in Japan it adopted Shintoism, and turned some of the Shinto deities into Bodhi-sattvas. Then followed the inevitable splitting up of Japanese Buddhism, as of all other religious systems, through disagreements and divisions; and in the thirteenth century various sects were developed. As to these, we need only note that while some sects adopt the early Atheistic and Agnostic form of Buddhism with its doctrine of Nirvāṇa, the principal sect called Shin is decidedly Theistic.

Sir Edward Reed, in his work on Japan (i. 84), informs us that he met a learned priest named Akamatz in company with the Archbishop of the Western sect. This priest’s account of the Shin sect coincides with the information which I myself received from a learned Japanese priest at Oxford.

301
It appears that the members of this sect believe in Amitābha Buddha as a Being of infinite light and goodness, their chief prayer-formula being Namo Amida (for Amita) Butsu, ‘Reverence to the Infinite Buddha,’ that is to Amitābha[135]. They place faith in the love and mercy of Amita Buddha, or rather in his readiness to receive them into his paradise called Sukhāvatī (see pp. 183, 204). At the same time they are required to lead moral lives, and salvation is practically only obtainable through their own works. The monks are allowed to marry and to eat flesh and fish.

Their doctrines have many points of contact with Christianity. The late Mr. Kasawara of Japan, who belonged to this sect and was highly esteemed by all who knew him in England, said to a Christian friend that ‘it gave him great pleasure to meet in the Gospels many coincidences with the aspirations of his own Buddhist faith, and that he greatly admired the idea of the Christ as the concrete expression of the Inscrutable Essence in its twofold form of infinite Light and infinite Love.’

Another well known sect called Nichiren was founded by a celebrated student and teacher named Nichiren. The Nichirens have been called the Methodists or Revivalists of Japan. They are very strict, and esteem the book of the Law as the highest object of veneration. Their prayer is to the following effect:—‘Glory be to the salvation-bringing book of the Law!’

302
Doubtless Japan once had a peculiar hierarchical organization of its own, which crumbled away not long ago, and need not now be described. Even in the present day each sect may have its leader or Head, who exercises a kind of episcopal superintendence like that of a Bishop or Archbishop.

We have already mentioned (p. 200) that a female form of Avalokiteṡvara is worshipped in Japan and China as the goddess of mercy. Her name in China is Kwan-yin, and in Japan Kwan-non; and she is represented as possessing any number of eyes and arms up to a thousand, and sometimes three faces.

In concluding this Lecture we may note that Russia is the only European country to which Lāmistic Buddhism has hitherto penetrated. There are adherents of the Dalai Lāma among the Burat (Buryad) tribes on the Baikal Lake, and among the Kalmuks on the Volga. Koeppen informs us that the chief temple and monastery of the former is on a lake thirty versts to the North-west of Selenginsk, and that the presiding monk is called the Khanpo Paṇḍita and claims to be an Avatāra Lāma. The Chief Lāma of the latter is said to be appointed by the Russian Government.

Hierarchical Buddhism naturally leads us on to the subject of ceremonial Buddhism, which must be reserved for the next Lecture.