dkon mchog in the biblical context
A historic sketch of the term dkon mchog (དཀོན་མཆོག་)
in the context of the Tibetan Bible
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
MESOPOTAMIA ........................................................................................................... 3
ERIDU, SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA ....................................................................... 4
MIGRATIONS FROM SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA .............................................. 6
THE INDUS VALLEY (Vedic Period) .......................................................................... 7
Shiva ....................................................................................................................................... 7
History of ratna in the Vedas.................................................................................................. 8
THE INDUS VALLEY (Emergence of Buddhist thought) .......................................... 11
THE SANSKRIT BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES ............................................................ 12
History of ratna and triratna in the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures ........................................ 13
Shiva ..................................................................................................................................... 16
THE EARLY-TRANSLATION PERIOD (Sanskrit to Tibetan).................................. 17
Key players in the early-translation period ........................................................................... 18
Shiva ..................................................................................................................................... 22
THE TIBETAN BUDDHIST CANON ........................................................................ 24
History of dkon mchog in the Tibetan scriptures .................................................................. 24
Shiva-Wangchuk ................................................................................................................... 31
CAPUCHINS AND JESUITS IN TIBET..................................................................... 34
Ippolito Desideri (1684-1733) .............................................................................................. 35
History of dkon mchog in biblical-related texts (Catholic)................................................... 37
THE MORAVIANS ON THE BORDER OF TIBET .................................................. 48
Heinrich August Jäschke (1817-1883).................................................................................. 48
History of dkon mchog in the biblical scriptures (Protestant)............................................... 48
THE FINAL PROTESTANT INITIATIVE ................................................................. 52
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 55
2
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to provide a historic context for the term dkon mchog (könchok; IPA: køn
tʃʰok; Tib. དཀོན་མཆོག་; Wylie: dkon mchog). In Tibetan Bibles, dkon mchog is equated to Elohim ( ֱא ִ ֑היםin
the Hebrew Bible and Brit Chadashah). This historical background begins in Mesopotamia and continues
in the Indus Valley of pre-Buddhist India. The roots of dkon mchog sink deep into pre-Buddhist history.
In this paper, dates corresponding to B.C. events are not unanimously agreed upon. However, these
estimated dates are helpful for understanding the historic context of the focus term dkon mchog.
MESOPOTAMIA
There would likely have been multiple post-flood1 cultures
inhabiting the Caspian Sea region (present-day Azerbaijan) 2 by the
time the Sumerians led a return to southern Mesopotamia
(Sumer/Shinar), the land between two rivers, the Tigris and the
Euphrates (in the region of present-day Kuwait and southern Iraq),3
in ca. 3000 B.C.
Mesopotamia, 3000 B.C.
The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians, led by Nimrod,4 ruler of Akkad. Nimrod was a
Post-flood (postdiluvian): the word ‘diluvian’ maintains the pre-nineteenth century meaning, that is, the biblical
(global) flood.
2
Caspian Sea region in ancient history: “About 5,500 years ago someone in the mountains of Armenia put his best
foot forward in what is now the oldest leather shoe ever found” [Oldest leather shoe steps out after 5,500 years.
10/06/2010, Boston.com]. This item is called the Areni-1 shoe, and was found in a cave in the Vayots Dzor province
of Armenia. In the fourth century A.D., Armenia bordered the Caspian Sea. Today, Armenia is separated from the
Caspian Sea by Azerbaijan (see regional map below).
3
Sumer, Shinar, and southern Mesopotamia are different names for the same place. Sumer is Akkadian, Shinar is
Hebrew () ִשׁנְ עָ ר, and Mesopotamia is Greek (Μεσοποταμία (μέσος (mésos), between + ποτᾰμός (potamόs), river)).
By the time the descendants of Noah arrived in Sumer, they were distinct peoples, yet they all spoke the same
language. According to Morris, “The immediate descendants of Noah… all spoke the same language… It is probable
that this was a Semitic language (perhaps even Hebrew), since the proper names of men and places in the preBabel period all have meanings only in Hebrew and its cognate languages” (Morris, p. 267).
4
“The name “Nimrod” [Heb. נִ ְמרוֹ, Nīmrōd] may derive from the Hebrew verb [ מָ ַרדmārad]” (Petrovich, p. 277);
mārad, to rebel, revolt, be rebellious (Strong’s number H4775). The Mesopotamian deity Marduk (Heb. ַ ְמרֹד,
Mərōdaḵ; Sumerian amar utu, “bull calf of the sun god Utu”) derives from the same verb mārad.
1
3
descendant of Noah5 (Noah6 > Ham > Cush7 > Nimrod8). “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel
[Eridu], Erech,9 Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built
Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah [Nimrud], and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city”
(Genesis 10.10-12). The Akkadian Empire united the city-states of Sumer and Akkad under one rule, and
gradually, under one spoken language, as the Akkadian language replaced Sumerian. Akkadian 10 was a
Semitic language, and Sumerian11 was a non-Indo-European, non-Semitic language.
ERIDU, SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA
“Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a
plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn
them thoroughly.”12 And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build
ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed
over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11.1-4).
The tower of Babel13 was a ziggurat,14 and was located in Shinar, southern Mesopotamia, at Eridu.15 This
ziggurat was constructed during the rule of Nimrod, and functioned as a temple, a place of pagan
Adam to Noah (Genesis 5): Adam > Seth > Enosh > Kenan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methuselah > Lamech >
Noah.
6
Noah to Abram (Genesis 11.10-32): Noah > Shem > Arphaxad > Shelah > Eber > Peleg > Reu > Serug > Nahor >
Terah > Abram [Abram (later, Abraham), a Mesopotamian from Ur of the Chaldees, lived from 2008 to 1833 B.C.].
7
Noah to Cush (Genesis 10.7): Noah > Ham > Cush (> Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteka)... Cush
(Sumerian, Kish), “The first ruler of Sumer, whose deeds are recorded… is a king by the name of Etana of Kish, who
may have come to the throne quite early in the third millennium B.C.” (Samuel N. Kramer, The Sumerians, p. 43).
8
Noah to Nimrod (Genesis 10.8; also 1 Chronicles 1.10): Noah > Ham > Cush > Nimrod. Note that, while Cush had
biological sons (Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteka), Nimrod was not a biological son of Cush, but a
remote descendant (see Petrovich’s discussion p. 276, and the use of the Heb. ָילַד, yalad, Strong’s number H3205).
9
Erech (biblical spelling)/Uruk: Uruk was Sumer’s oldest and most important capital city (see Argubright, p. 50).
Sumer’s capital was later moved from Erech to Ur [Ur of the Chaldees (Heb. ַשׂ ִדּים
ְ אוּר כּ, ʾūr Kaśdīm (Gen. 11.31))].
10
Akkadian became the lingua franca of the ancient Near East, and was eventually replaced by Aramaic, a
replacement process that began in the eighth century B.C.
11
Sumerian (Sum. eme-gir, i.e., eme, “tongue, language” + gir, “native, local”) has been considered to be a
language isolate. However, there are alignments between the Sumerian and Tibetan lexicons which are currently
being reviewed in publications by Mosenkis and Bomhard.
12
Baked brick was rarely used for architectural construction until 3100 B.C. (Seely, p. 17).
13
Tower of Babel: Heb. ִמגְ דַּ ל בָּ בֶ ל, Migdal Bavel; Sumerian E-temen-an-ki, “Temple (that is) the foundation (pegs)
of the heavens and the earth.”
14
The ziggurat, a four-sided stepped pyramid, a ‘temple tower,’ was a Sumerian innovation. The ziggurat became
the model for future pyramids. Construction of the earliest Egyptian pyramid began decades later, in Saqqara. The
Saqqara pyramid was a stepped pyramid and was built for the pharaoh Djoser “at some point between 2667 and
2648 BC” (The Djoser Pyramid in Egypt, Mia Forbes). The ziggurat as well became the model for future Buddhist
stupas. The earliest Buddhist stupa was constructed in the third century B.C. in Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh.
15
Babylon (founded around the time of Sargon of Akkad) vs. Eridu (founded by Nimrod): Babylon was located
along the Euphrates River about 80 kilometres south of present-day Baghdad. However, Eridu, about 300
kilometres south-east of Baghdad (present-day Tel Abu Shahrain), as opposed to the later city of Babylon, is
considered the site of the tower of Babel (Nimrod’s Babel). Joshua Mark wrote, “… the Babylonian historian
5
4
worship. It was in this land between two rivers that the foundation was laid for the non-Judeo-Christian
world religions of today.
“Every culture has always believed in something beyond this life. Sumer and Akkad were no exceptions. They had
the most influential religion ever to be seen. Most religions can easily trace their roots to the Sumerians. The
Sumerian religion was a polytheistic religion…” 16
The religion of the Sumerians17 provided the foundation for evolutionary pantheism, rebirth,18 idolatry,
and sacrificial worship of the temple (Temple cult).19 Morris wrote, echoing Romans 1.18-32,
Berossus (1. c. 200 BCE), who was a major source for later Greek historians, seems to be clearly referring to Eridu
when he writes of ‘Babel’ as ‘Babylon’…” (Eridu, Joshua J. Mark). Regarding historical dating, Seely wrote, “… we
can set 2400 B.C. as the terminus ante quem for the first ziggurat built in Babylon. We can thus date the building of
the tower of Babel sometime between 3500 and 2400 B.C.” (Seely, p. 19).
16
http://www.hyperblastmetal.com/staff/isos/theoriginsofcivilization.html
17
The Sumerians, “the black headed people,” were polytheistic. It was thought that the gods controlled every
aspect of life, particularly the forces of nature [animism]. To Sumerians, their highest duty was to keep these gods
happy, thereby ensuring the safety of their city-state. Each city-state had its own god or goddess to whom the
people prayed and offered sacrifices of animals, grain, and wine. “The prayers consisted of invocations to the gods,
requests for assistance, and expressions of gratitude for past favors or for dangers averted… The Sumerians
recognized thousands of deities, many of whom were associated with the earth and the sky, plants and grains, and
herds and flocks [pantheism]… Later the older nonhuman forms were regarded as the divine emblems that
accompanied a deity… the sun disk came to symbolize the sun god Uto [sun cult (Gayatri mantra)]… the cosmos, or
nature, was viewed as a multitude of divergent and conflicting wills in which order could be maintained only if
these forces were kept in harmony… the movements of heavenly bodies were observed [astrology]” (Forman, pp.
55, 57). “These pagan deities were also identified with the stars and planets – the “host of heaven” – with sunworshiping occupying a central place. This system was formalized in the zodiac, with its numerous constellations”
(Morris, p. 264). “The Sumerians also developed pseudo-science like astrology, within the context of religion. They
believed that the stars on the sky were gods that controlled the events in the world, and that the position between
these gods could be used to predict events in the world, as well as the fortune for individuals” (Encyclopedia of the
Orient - Sumer). The Ba’al religion (as it related to worshiping the sun, moon, and stars) was based primarily on a
corruption of the astronomy developed by Noah’s prediluvian ancestors, who were righteous (see Jeremiah 8.1-3).
18
Rebirth and the Mesopotamian deity Tammuz: [Etymology of Tammuz: Babylonian Du’uzu > Sumerian Damu-zid
> Dumu-zid (Dumuzi) > Akkadian Du’zu > Heb. תַּ מּוּז, Tammuz]. Tammuz was the ancient Mesopotamian deity
associated with death and the return of life, the god of fertility who died annually and was reborn year after year,
representing the yearly cycle of the seasons and crops (see Bowker, p. 947; Forman, p. 58; also Ezekiel 8.14). The
death of Dumuzi occurred repeatedly at harvest time. The Hebrew month of Tammuz took its name from the
Mesopotamian deity. Gk. Κρόνος is an alias for Tammuz/Dumuzi.
19
Temple cult: “There were specific angels (and stars) concerned with every aspect of human life and terrestrial
processes. In paying due reverence to these, they were, so they believed, worshiping God. Furthermore God,
through these same spirits (and their respective stars), would in response provide protection and provision and
guidance in their own lives. But this system soon became so complicated that it required a specially devoted class
of men and women to dedicate their lives to its study and interpretation, so that they might guide the people in
their devotions and sacrifices…” (Morris, p. 271). “The temple was an important part of Mesopotamian life…
Priests were organized into corporations to serve the deity, and schools were organized to teach future priests the
skills they would need” (Forman, p. 57). “Nimrod must have realized that they needed a strong religious
motivation as well, a motivation powerful enough to overcome their knowledge that God had indeed commanded
them to fill the whole earth. The tower [of Babel] was designed to satisfy that need as well. The tower was not
designed to reach to heaven… The words “to reach” are not in the original. They would build a “tower unto
heaven” – in other words, a tower dedicated to heaven and its angelic host” (Morris, p. 270).
5
“When the tower [temple] was completed… Nimrod no doubt instituted religious services there. It was only a short
time… before the ostensible worship of the Creator was corrupted into the worship of the “creature.” 20
The worship of Nimrod began in Shinar, where he was known as Nimrod-Ninus,21 the bull-horned man.22
MIGRATIONS FROM SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA
“To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, 23 for in his days the earth was divided” (Genesis
10.25; also 1 Chronicles 1.19).
Regional map (including present-day Azerbaijan, Iraq and Kuwait)
Following the division of languages in Eridu (ca. 2700 B.C.24), there would have been multiple migrations
from Shinar.25 When the Indo-Aryan people migrated from Shinar to northern Persia, into the region of
Morris, p. 270.
Nimrod-Ninus: “The Assyrian legends speak of “Ninus” as the founder of Nineveh” (Morris, p. 253). Ninus (Gk.
Νίνος), according to Greek historians writing in the Hellenistic period and later, was accepted as the eponymous
founder of Nineveh (also called Gk. Νίνου πόλις “city of Ninus”), ancient capital of Assyria (see
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Ninus). “Ninus was first identified in the Recognitions (part of Clementine
literature) with the biblical Nimrod, who, the author says, taught the Persians to worship fire” (Wikipedia, Ninus).
22
Nimrod/Marduk were worshipped at the Tower of Babel/Etemenanki in Shinar. Marduk (Heb. ַ ְמרֹ ד, Mərōdaḵ;
Sumerian amar utu, “bull calf of the sun god Utu”) became known as the Canaanite deity Ba’al (Heb. )בַּ עַל.
23
The name Peleg comes from the Hebrew verb פלג, palag (verb stem: Niphal) to be split, be divided.
24
Peleg was born a hundred and one years after the flood and lived two hundred and thirty-nine years. It is
assumed that the division of languages took place during Peleg’s lifetime, in which case the division occurred
somewhere between a hundred and one and three hundred and forty years after the flood (see Genesis 11).
25
Linguistic Society of America: “Although most historical linguists believe that human language probably arose
just once, in a single place at a particular time, most of them also believe that language change is too rapid and too
sweeping to permit the verification of family relationships older than about ten thousand years” (Language
Variation and Change, Linguistic Society of America).
20
21
6
the Caspian Sea (present-day northern Iran), Vedism was their religion. Vedism brought with it the
worship of Rudra (identified with Nimrod-Ninus, the bull-horned man). Around 1800 B.C., the Aryans,
coming from northern Persia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains and migrated into the Indus Valley of
the Indian subcontinent.
THE INDUS VALLEY (Vedic Period)
By the time the Indo-Aryans arrived in the Indus Valley, the Indus Valley civilization (Harappan) had an
advanced culture.26 The belief system of the Indus Valley civilization was very different from that of the
in-migrating Aryans. However, over time, there was a merging of the two belief systems.
“The history of Indian religion from 1500 B.C. up to 600 or 500 B.C., the time of the Buddha, the history of those
1000 years in India is a history of gradual interaction between these two totally opposed religious views. As the
Aryans gradually spread and settled across the gigantic Indian subcontinent, as their pioneering exploits
diminished, gradually these two totally opposed religious views began to influence, interact and merge with each
other... Consequently, by the time of the Buddha, we have a very heterogeneous religious scene” (Fundamentals
of Buddhism: the pre-Buddhist background).
The language of the Indus Valley civilization, before the Aryan migration, was Prakrit. During the Vedic
Period, the language of the Indus Valley became Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas, the ancient Sanskrit texts of
Hinduism of the Indo-Aryans, were composed during the Vedic Period. The oldest texts of the Vedas are
from 1700 B.C., and the youngest were completed before 600 B.C. Of all Vedic literature, the
Upanishads are the most widely known. The central ideas of the Upanishads are at the spiritual core of
Hindus. All Upanishads are associated with one of the four Vedas: Rig-veda, Sama-veda, Yajur-veda, and
Atharva-veda. Upanishads are the scriptures par excellence of Hinduism.27
Shiva
The worship of Shiva dates back to Indus Valley civilization.28 The name Shiva does not appear in the
Vedas, but is identified with the Vedic god Rudra, god of the Rg-veda.29 Rudra became the Hindu god
Both the Indus Valley and Egypt were settled by migrating groups shortly after 2700 B.C. The Indus Valley
Civilisation was an advanced culture from 2600 B.C. to 1900 B.C. Archaeological discoveries imply that trade routes
between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia were active during the 3 rd millennium B.C. Regarding settlement in
Egypt, the First Dynasty of pharaohs, after 3000 B.C., apparently corresponds to the arrival of a group of people
from Mesopotamia who in a short time established a complete civilization. Arts, crafts, architecture, etc. of a high
level suddenly (possibly in less than a hundred years) appeared all over Egypt (Edwards 1964:35-40; Emery 1961:
30-3; Frankfort 1956:124-37; Gardiner 1966:395-8; Kantor 1952; Roux 1966:80; Wilson 1956:37-41) (Livingston).
27
The pre-Buddhist Upanishads are Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Kaushitaki, Aitareya, and Taittiriya Upanishad.
Some of the Upanishads’ concepts and ideas are shared with Buddhism.
28
It is being considered by some that Shiva was the Sumerian Enki, and that Enki was associated with Etemenanki
/Tower of Babel at Eridu, and that (according to tradition), Marduk was the son of Enki. This is not conclusive.
26
7
Shiva [Skt.
(rudra); Rudra, epithet and Vedic form of Shiva; “the Wild One,30 the Roarer, the Howler,”
derived from the verb rud, to be reddish; to cry, to howl; to shine31].32
“A number of terracotta figurines have been found, perhaps goddess images, and a seal depicting a seated figure
surrounded by animals that some scholars thought to be a prototype of the god Shiva. Others have disputed this,
pointing out that it bears a close resemblance to Elamite seals depicting seated bulls…” 33
“One Indus Valley seal shows a seated figure with a horned headdress, possibly tricephalic [having three heads]…,
surrounded by animals. Marshall identified the figure as an early form of the Hindu god Shiva (or Rudra), who is
associated with asceticism, yoga, and linga; regarded as a lord of animals… The seal has hence come to be known
as the Pashupati Seal, after Pashupati (lord of all animals), an epithet of Shiva.”34
History of ratna in the Vedas
The practice of astrology began with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, and continued to be developed
through time and in the various cultures that migrated from Mesopotamia. The term ratna appears in
the Vedas, in the context of Vedic astrology (jyotiṣa (Skt. यो तष), from jyóti, “light, heavenly body”).
“The first concrete record of stars and constellations appears in the Rig Veda, a collection of early Hindu religious
songs composed between 1500-1400 BCE.”35
Vedic astrology: In the context of Vedic astrology, ratna refers to physical jewels, specifically to the nine
‘astrological gemstones’ (navaratna (Skt. नवर न)) which are associated with nine planets (navagraha
(Skt. नव ह)) and days of the week, and deities. The following table illustrates the associations:
The name Shiva may have derived from the Dravidian word “Siva” meaning “to be red,” making it the equivalent
of Rudra, “the red” Rig Veda” (Shiva - New World Encyclopedia) - Rudra, Rg-vedic god, “the Roarer,” “the Howler,”
a Death god; “Shiva originated as an epithet of Rudra, the adjective shiva (“kind”) being used euphemistically of
Rudra” (Wikipedia, Rudra). By the post-Vedic period, according to the Sanskrit Epics, the name Rudra came to be a
synonym for Shiva, and the two names are used interchangeably.
30
Rg-veda 10.61
31
The etymology is uncertain, but according to Grassman, derives from the root “shining” (Chakravarti, p. 4). The
29
root, however, appears to have several meanings and interpetations. “This term [ (rudra)] refers to Lord Śiva. It
is traceable to the Vedas and said to be derived from rud (drāvayitā) – he who drives away sin or suffering” (A
Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy). Shiva has both a light side and a dark form.
32
“The third of the Hindu margas, the Way of Devotion or bhaktimarga, places its hope for liberation in the power
of a personal God of the universe. Two great theistic movements in Hinduism – one centered on Siva, the other
centered on Vishnu – have been exceedingly popular for 2,000 years” (Forman, p. 128).
33
History of Hinduism, Gavin Flood.
34
Wikipedia, Indus Valley Civilisation… According to Forman, the seated posture is evidence that yoga was already
being practiced 4000 years ago (Forman, p. 88).
35
Johnson-Groh, p. 5.
8
*Vedic astrology
vedic gemstone (with Vedic
names)
Ruby (māṇikya)
planet (with Vedic names)
days
deities
Sunday
Agni and the light form of Shiva
Pearl (mauktika)
Sun (सय
ू (Surya))
Moon (चं (Chandra))
Monday
Shakti/Parvati (consorts of Shiva)
Mars (मंगल (Mangal))
Tuesday
Subrahmanya
Mercury (बध
ु (Budha))36
Wednesday
Vishnu
Jupiter (बह
ृ प त or गु
(Brihaspati or Guru))
Thursday
Brihaspati and Indra
(Mesopotamian equiv. Marduk)
Venus (शु
Friday
Laxmi and Indrani37
Saturday
the dark form of Shiva
Red Coral (vidruma or pravāla)
Emerald (tārkṣya)
Yellow Sapphire (puṣparāga)
Diamond (vájra)
Blue Sapphire (śanipriya)
Hessonite Garnet (gomeda)
(Shukra))
Saturn (श न (Shani))
Rahu (राहु) - north lunar node
Cat’s Eye Chrysoberyl
Ketu (केतु) - south lunar node
(vaidῡrya)
Vedic astrology (gemstones, planets, days of the week, deities)
Saraswati and Parvati
Ganesh
The purpose of wearing these Vedic gems called Navaratnas is to balance personal planetary karma,
“The cultures of the Indian subcontinent have studied gemstones for millennia, and many ancient texts detail the
medicinal, spiritual, and supernatural powers of various gems. Evidence [dates] as far back as 5,000 years ago. The
Vedas, the oldest Indian scriptures, contain several references for the use of gems in ceremonial rituals and
everyday life. They describe the powers of precious stones to influence subtle energies and connect the Earth to
the rest of the universe. Because precious stones were closely associated with the gods, they had the power to
heal and influence destiny.”38
The Vedic gem sapphire (Skt. श न य (śanipriya))39 is associated with Saturn (Hindi श न (shani) and with
Saturday (Hindi श नवार (shaniwar).40 In Vedic Astrology, Shiva (Skt. शव (śiva)) is said to be represented
36
Budha graha (Skt. बुध ह) refers to the planet Mercury ( ह means ‘planet’). Budha is not etymologically,
mythologically, or in any other way related to Buddha (बु ध), the founder of Buddhism.
Venus corresponds to the Mesopotamian Ishtar and Greek Aphrodite. In Vedic astrology, Venus corresponds to
Laxmi and Indrani (Indrani is Indra’s consort. In Hindu texts, Indra is sometimes known as an aspect (avatar) of
Shiva. Both Indra and Shiva are likened to a bull). The Canaanites identified Astarte (evening star) and Asherah
(morning star) with the planet Venus (COS, 281 n.51). In the Old Testament Venus is called the “Queen of Heaven”
(see Jeremiah 44:17). During the time of Manasseh, they thought their prosperity was a result of their worship to
the Queen of Heaven.
37
Is there any mention of gem stones in puranas? (The Puranas (Skt. पुराण) are part of the Vedas).
Lit. “dear to Saturn.” The sapphire being referred to is blue in color. The name ‘Sapphire’ derives from: Heb.
סַ פִּ יר, sappir; Latin sappheiros (meaning ‘blue’); and Sanskrit śanipriya.
40
Other Saturn-Saturday connections: Tibetan: གཟའ་ ེན་པ་ (gza spen pa) means ‘Saturn, Saturday’; Germanic and
Norse traditions: the English word ‘Saturday’ comes from the Anglo-Saxon word, “Sӕturnesdӕg,” which translates
to “Saturn’s day” (from Latin Saturni); Hebrew: the Hebrew name for Saturn, Shabtai ()שַׁ ְבּתַ אי, comes from
Shabbat ()שַׁ בָּ ת, which transliterates into English ‘Sabbath.’ The Jewish Sabbath lies on Saturday. Hence, Saturn is
for Jews ‘the Sabbath planet.’ “The name Shab-tai comes from the word She-vet [ ]שֶּׁ בֶ תand Sha-vat [( ]שָׁ בַ תto stop
38
39
9
by Saturn. Saturn is also known as Roudra or Pingala. Pingala means ‘bearer of the trident.’ Shiva is the
bearer of the trident. The trident is Shiva’s symbol of power. In the distant past, Saturn was known as
Cronus, the keeper of time (Latin Saturnus41 equated to Gk. Κρόνος (Cronus), alias for Tammuz/Dumuzi).
Shiva represents the ‘keeper of time’ in the form of Mahakala.42
Vedic astrology was founded on Mesopotamian astrology, where the sapphire was associated with
Saturn. In the Chaldean mysteries, Nimrod was deified as Saturn.43
In the biblical record, the sapphire (Heb. סַ פִּ יר, sappir) is used in contexts of God and Sa•tan. Regarding
Sa•tan (Heb. שָּׂ טָ ן, śātān), who opposes God and said, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will make myself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14.14),44 Ezekiel wrote,
“Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre,
and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:
“You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz [Brihaspati
(बह
ृ प त)/Jupiter], and diamond [Shukra (शु )/Venus], beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire [Shani (श न)/Saturn],
emerald [Budha (बुध)/Mercury], and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the
day that you were created they were prepared” (Ezekiel 28.11-13).
Of the gems stated in Ezekiel, only the topaz (yellow sapphire), diamond, blue sapphire, and emerald
are, according to Vedic astrology, astrological gemstones.45 Of their associated planets [Jupiter (yellow
sapphire), Venus (diamond), Saturn (blue sapphire), Mercury (emerald)], Venus and Saturn are referred
to in the biblical record. In Isaiah and Revelation, Venus is the referent. In Isaiah 14.12, the King of
Babylon is called Helel ben Shachar (ן־שׁחַ ר
֑ ָ ֶילל בּ
֣ ֵ ֵ)ה, i.e., Helel son of dawn. ‘Helel’ is a transliteration of
activity, sit) and its derivative Shab-at (Sabbath), but it is also related to the Roman god, Saturn [Saturnus], which
gave its name to the seventh day, ‘Saturday’” (Jerusalem Prayer Team).
41
Saturnus: derived from the Latin verb serere, to sow or plant.
42
Saturnus: Roman deity of time and agriculture; Cronus: Greek deity of time; Tammuz/Dumuzi: Mesopotamian
deity of fertility who died and was reborn annually. In Tibetan Buddhism, Shiva is worshipped as the deity
Mahakala (Skt. महाकाल (mahā-kāla); Skt. काल (kal) means ‘time’ or ‘death’), Tib. ནག་པོ་ཆེན་པོ་ (nag po chen po), ‘black
+ great.’ Shiva is the lord of time, the lord of death; cf. ‘wheel of time,’ Skt. कालच (kālacakra) / Tib. ས་ ི་འཁོར་ལོ།.
Saturn, in the Bible, is associated with a false god, “In Stephen's discourse just before his martyrdom, he
mentions God's condemnation of ancient Israel's idolatrous worship of “your god Remphan” (Acts 7:43). Remphan
was the Egyptian name for Saturn (JFB commentary on Amos 5:26)” (Astronomy in the Bible). During biblical times,
the only planets that could be seen were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
43
Shiva is worshiped as the deity Mahadeva (Skt. महादे व (mahā-deva)), Tib. ་ཆེན་ (lha chen), ‘god + great = a great
and mighty deity; Supreme God.’ lha chen is a literal rendering of mahā-deva, an epithet of Siva (see Guenther, H.
The teachings of Padmasambhava. 214).
45
Sapphire: the second stone in the second row of the high priest's breastplate (Exodus 28.18); extremely precious
(Job 28.16); one of the precious stones that ornamented the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28.13).
44
10
the Hebrew ( הֵ ילֵלhelel), “shining one, Wail!” [derived from the verbs ( הללhalal), to praise or shine,46
and ( יללyalal), to howl or wail].47 The word ( הֵ ילֵלhelel) appears only once in the Hebrew biblical texts,
in Isaiah 14.12, but with different translations into English (ESV and KJV),
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star []הֵ ילֵל, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who
laid the nations low! You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on
high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’” (Isaiah 14.12-14 (ESV)).
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer []הֵ ילֵל, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14.12-14 (KJV)).
Jesus identifies himself as “the bright and morning star,”
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the
descendant of David, the bright morning star” (Revelation 22.16); εγω ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι
υμιν ταυτα επι ταις εκκλησιαις εγω ειμι η ριζα και το γενος του δαβιδ ο αστηρ [star] ο λαμπρος [bright] και
ορθρινος [morning] (Revelation 22.16 (Scrivener 1894 TR)).
… and the throne of God has the appearance of sapphire,
“And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and
seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. And upward from what had the
appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And
downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was
brightness around him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the
appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And
when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking” (Ezekiel 1.26; also Revelation 21.19).
THE INDUS VALLEY (Emergence of Buddhist thought)
The origin of Buddhism points to one man, the Indian Siddhartha Gautama (Skt. स धाथ गौतम), the
historical Buddha (Śākyamuni Buddha). According to Buddhist tradition, Gautama48 was born in the
46
In the Bible, Lucifer/Sa•tan is the angel of light (2 Corinthians 11.14-15). In Hinduism, Shiva is ‘the shining one.’
The word Shiva (Skt. शव) has been derived by reversing the letters of the word ‘vash’ (वश ्). Vash means to
enlighten; hence, the one who enlightens is Shiva. “Shiva is Absolute, self-radiant. He remains radiant and
illuminates the universe” (Hindu Janajagruti Samiti).
47
Abarim Publications
48
Gautama (bright light): Gautam, Gotama [Siddhattha Gautama/Gotama - the historical Buddha’s given and
family names], derived from the Sanskrit roots ग (ga, one of the meanings is ‘bright light’) and तम (tama,
‘darkness’). Together, they indicate the one “who dispels darkness (ignorance) by his brilliance (spiritual
knowledge) and knowledge (wisdom) (Wikipedia, Gautam (given name)).
11
ancient city of Kapilavatthu (near present-day Lumbini in Nepal) around 560 B.C.49 With the life of
Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism in time “emerged as a major religious and social force.”50 However,
before Siddhartha Gautama was born, the essential elements of Buddhism had already formed in the
Indus Valley. These essential elements were drawn from the belief system of the original Indus Valley
civilization moreso than the belief system of the Aryans who migrated into the Indus Valley.51
“Buddhism did not arise in a vacuum. The Buddha’s teachings were formulated in response to the social and
intellectual conditions of ancient India. The fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. – when the Buddha lived and the
canonical literature began to emerge – were times of great philosophical and religious ferment in ancient India.
The Pāli Canon shows that the early Buddhists were aware of the literature of the Vedic tradition, its sacrificial
cults, and even certain early Upaniᶊads. Aside from the strands of Vedic religion and its Brahmanist (Hindu)
philosophy, there were materialists, determinists, Jains, and ascetics of various sorts at the time of the Buddha. In
short, ancient India at this time was a veritable marketplace of different spiritual and philosophical systems.” 52
The birthplace of Buddhist thought was the Indus Valley.53
THE SANSKRIT BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES
According to the Theravāda tradition, a council was held in Rājagaha (present-day Rajgir, Bihar) 54 shortly
after Gautama died, around 483 B.C., to collect and preserve his teachings. His teachings were then
recited orally from the time of his death to the first century A.D. In the first century A.D., his teachings
were written down in the Anuradhapura Kingdom (present-day Sri Lanka),55
“After the death of the founder, Buddhist texts were transmitted orally in Middle Indo-Aryan dialects (Prakrits).
While the southern tradition eventually settled on one of these dialects, Pāli, as its canonical language, in India and
Central Asia Buddhist texts were successively Sanskritized... Also, new Buddhist texts in India, from at least the
third century onward, were directly composed in standard Sanskrit. Manuscripts from the northern tradition,
especially those of Central Asian provenance, are therefore often in Prakrit (especially Gāndhārī) or some
The earliest inhabitants of Nepal are believed to be people from the Indus Valley. While the Indus Valley did not
include the Lumbini region, there would have been contact between Gautama and the Indus Valley peoples.
50
“When Gautama died around 483 B.C., his followers began to organize a religious movement. Buddha's
teachings became the foundation for what would develop into Buddhism. In the 3rd century B.C., Ashoka the
Great, the Mauryan Indian emperor, made Buddhism the state religion of India” (Buddhism, History.com Editors).
51
Key difference between Buddhism and Hinduism as expressed in the Upanishadic theories: Hinduism asserts that
there is a soul, self (atman). Buddhism asserts that there is no soul, no permanent self (Pāli: anattā, Sanskrit:
49
anātman). Anatman is linked to the concept of ‘emptiness’ (Skt. शू यता (śῡnyatā); Tib. ོང་པ་ཉིད་ (stong pa nyid)).
52
Early Buddhist Discourses, John J. Holder (editor and translator), p. ix. Note that Desideri also wrote similarly,
that Tibetans “took their religion from the ancient pagans of Hindustan, that is, Mogul” (Sweet, p. 341).
53
At least some of these essential elements of Buddhism originated in Mesopotamia, within the Sumerian culture.
54
Rājagaha, the city to where Siddhartha Gautama first travelled, at twenty-nine years of age.
55
Anuradhapura Kingdom (377 BC to 1017 AD)
12
nonstandard form of Sanskrit, sometimes called Buddhist Sanskrit, an intermediate stage between some Prakrit
and standard Sanskrit.”56
Sanskrit slowly became the main language of the Buddhist scriptures in India as Sanskrit became the
literary lingua franca of the subcontinent.
The Sanskrit Buddhist scripture is called the Tripițaka (Pāli: Tipițaka), meaning ‘Three Baskets.’57 The
Buddhist scripture is also called the Pāli Canon,58 after the language in which it was first written. The Pāli
Canon means “the word of Buddha” (Pāli/Skt. बु वचन (buddhavacana)) though it also incorporates the
teachings of his pupils.59
History of ratna and triratna in the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures
The triratna symbol is a Buddhist symbol. The symbol represents the three
jewels of Buddhism, the Buddha, the dharma, and the Sangha. The symbol
appears on frieze sculptures on the Sanchi stupa, built in present-day Madhya
Pradesh in the third century B.C. during the Mauryan Empire, over the relics of
the historical Buddha. The triratna symbol has also been found on first century B.C.
coins of Buddhist kingdoms that existed in the subcontinent.
Triratna symbol on the reverse (right side)
of a first century B.C. coin
The term triratna came into oral use in the Buddhist
context in the fifth century B.C. (only after
Gautama’s death?), to refer to the Buddha, the
Marcus Bingenheimer, Editor in Chief; Bhikkhu Anālayo and Roderick S. Bucknell, Co-Editors. The Madhyama
Agama: Middle Length Discourses Vol I (Taishō Volume 1, Number 26). Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai America, Inc. 2013.
BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, p. xvi.
57
The Discipline Basket (Vinaya Pițaka), the Discourse Basket (Sutta Pițaka), and the “Higher Teachings” Basket
(Abhidhamma Pițaka).
58
Pāli Canon: the Pāli Canon contains fifty volumes. The Pāli language is closely related to Sanskrit, “Pāli is a close
relative to Sanskrit, the language in which some of India’s most famous religious texts were written, such as the
Vedas, Upaniᶊads, and the Bhagavad Gītā. The use of Pāli, however, is confined to Buddhist texts” (Early Buddhist
Discourses, John J. Holder (editor and translator), p. vii).
59
“… although almost no one in the scholarly community believes that the Pāli Canon is the verbatim teachings of
the historical Buddha, many scholars do think that it provides to a substantial degree the spirit of the teachings of
the historical Buddha and may well contain certain passages that recount the Buddha’s own words” (Early
Buddhist Discourses, John J. Holder (editor and translator)).
56
13
dharma, and the Sangha.60 While Gautama Buddha was alive, the triratna concept was in use, as the
following communication between the Buddha and a disciple (bhikku61) illustrates,
“Magnificent, Master Gotama!... I go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of
bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life.” 62
The term ratna63 (Pāli ratana (रतनँ)) was used by Gautama Buddha in his discourses, for example, the
Ratana Sutta (Heap of Jewels).64 The Buddha delivered the Ratana Sutta to a gathering in the city of
Vesali, a city which was afflicted by a famine (Vesali was an ancient city in present-day Bihar). He used
the Pāli term ratana in the sutta in independent references to the Buddha (lines 3, 12, 13), the dharma
(lines 4 and 5), and the Sangha (lines 6-11, 14). In the Ratana Sutta, Gautama Buddha did not directly call
himself ‘Buddha’ (Skt. बु ध (buddhá)),65 but most often referred to himself indirectly as the Buddha, and
hence ratna, by using the Pāli/Skt. तथागत (tathāgata), that is, ‘he who is gone.’66 He used this term
Tathāgata in reference to himself numerous times in the in the Pāli Canon. In doing so, Gautama
Buddha indirectly referred to himself as ratna, because the Tathāgata is an epithet of the Buddha, and
the Buddha is one of the three jewels (ratna). Gautama Buddha also, though less frequently, referred to
himself as “Gotama the recluse,”67 and “the blessed one.” At some point in his life,68 he told his disciples
not to address “the Tathāgata” by name (Gotama) or as “friend,” though it appears that he did allow at
Though represented by one symbol, the three parts are viewed individually. When a Buddhist lay-person ‘takes
refuge,’ he or she takes refuge in the three ‘jewels’ individually, that is, “I take the Buddha as a refuge. I take the
dhamma as a refuge. I take the Saṅgha as a refuge.”
61
Bhikkhu/plural form, bhikkhus: a Theravada Buddhist monk.
62
M.1.24 [MN4.35] - M/MN refers to the Majjhima Nikaya in the Tripitika/Tripițaka, i.e., The Middle-length
discourses of the Buddha.
63
Note that the term maṇi-jewel (Chin. 摩尼珠 (móní zhū); Japanese mani ju) also appears in some of the Buddha’s
discourses. The word mani is Sanskrit and Pāli for “jewel.” Therefore, the phrase “Mani Jewel” is in a sense
redundant. However, the term does not appear in the context of the Buddha, dharma, and Sangha (?). The maṇi
jewel makes its first appearance in the Pāli Nikāyas where it is referred to as one of the seven treasures owned by
a wheel-turning monarch. Later texts describe the maṇi jewel differently – one version is the Cintāmaṇi
60
( च ताम ण) stone, the wish-fulfilling jewel. The Cintāmaṇi is one of several maṇi jewel images found in Buddhist
scripture. In Buddhism, the Cintāmaṇi is held by Avalokiteśvara and Ksitigarbha, “He [Avalokiteśvara] holds a
cintamani or wish fulfilling jewel to his heart…” (Avalokiteśvara).
64
The Ratnakuta Sutra, Tib. དཀོན་མཆོག་བ ེགས་པའི་མདོ་
65
buddhá, “one who is enlightened,” or “one who has woken up” to the truth.
66
Tathāgata, Tib. དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་ (de bzhin gshegs pa), དེ་བཞིན་ (like that (THL)) + གཤེགས་པ་ (go away; to come (THL)).
67
Recluse = ascetic. See Ratana Sutta line 7, in his discussion of the most important aspects of ethical behavior.
What about his references to himself as the Buddha, e.g., lines 9, 12, 13 in the Ratana Sutta?
68
When he met with the five ascetics at the Deer Park at Isipatana, and they referred to him by name and as
‘friend,’ he then told them not to do so.
14
least his new disciples to call him “Master Gotama,”69 and others to refer to him using the titles “the
exalted one,” “Lord,” “the blessed one” [these titles are English translations from the term Bhagavān.
Bhagavān (Skt. भगवान)् is an epithet for deity,70 and appears in the Pāli scriptures in reference to
Gautama Buddha (Skt. Bhagavān Buddha). Bhagavān is translated into English using ‘Lord’ or ‘the
blessed one’71]. Aside from these, how did the Buddha’s disciples address him directly and refer to him
indirectly? According to a Tibetan in Kathmandu, he was addressed by his disciples as ratna. After
Siddhartha Gautama died, his disciples continued to refer to the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama
as ratna.
Siddhartha Gautama and his disciples were familiar with literature of the Vedic tradition,
“Siddhattha learned the Brahmanical (Vedic) teachings and rituals as would befit a person of his noble class and
status.”72
“The Pāli Canon shows that the early Buddhists were aware of the literature of the Vedic tradition, its sacrificial
cults, and even certain early Upaniᶊads.”73
Hence, Gautama and his disciples would have understood the meaning of ratna in the context of Vedic
astrology. However, Gautama Buddha eventually condemned astrology as an unprofitable
preoccupation.74 Given that the Buddha condemned astrology, would he have carried the Vedic
meaning of ratna into Buddhism? It is being assumed that, for a time only (during his life?), astrology
was set aside, “but by the second century BCE it was firmly established as an important discipline within
Buddhism.”75 However, did the Vedic meaning of ratna carry into Buddhism, and ultimately into Tibetan
astrology? Tibetan astrology was formed over millennium and under multiple influences,
“Tibetan astrology has a long tradition and its oldest literature dates back to the 7 th century [when the Tibetan
script was invented]. Before the time of Tibetan script astrological knowledge was passed down orally in songs and
lyrics… Throughout time Tibetan astrology has developed with influences from neighboring countries such as
China,76 India, Persia and Greece, mixed in synthesis with teachings from ancient Bön religion 77 and Buddhist
philosophy…”78
69
“Magnificent, Master Gotama!... I go to Master Gotama for refuge and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of
bhikkhus…”
70
In the Hindu Shaivism tradition, Bhagavān refers to Shiva, i.e., Bhagavān Shiva. In Buddhism, Bhagavān refers to
Gautama Buddha, i.e., Bhagavān Buddha.
71
Gautama Buddha indirectly referred to himself as a deity, and did not prohibit others from doing so.
72
Early Buddhist Discourses, John J. Holder (editor and translator), p. xi.
73
Early Buddhist Discourses, John J. Holder (editor and translator), p. ix.
74
Johnson-Groh, p. 6.
75
Johnson-Groh, p. 6.
76
China: according to Dr. Alexander Berzin [An Introduction to Tibetan Astronomy and Astrology], there are two
divisions of Tibetan astro material, one associated with China, i.e., Chinese astrology/divination (nag rtsis (ནག་ ིས་)),
lit. black astrology, and the other, with India, i.e., Vedic astrology (dkar rtsis (དཀར་ ིས་)), lit. white astrology.
15
According to Johnson-Groh, the primary influence on Tibetan astrology was Vedic astrology,
“Though differences between the Tibetan and Indian systems exist, the majority of Tibetan astrology matches that
of its Vedic origin.”79
Therefore, did the Vedic meaning of ratna carry into Buddhism, and ultimately into Tibetan astrology?
Because the documentation of Tibetan astrology began after the invention of the Tibetan script in the
seventh century A.D., the association of Tibetan astrology with gemstones and planets and days of the
week and deities will be examined in the section, ‘History of dkon mchog in the Tibetan Scriptures.’
Shiva
Shiva the Vedic deity was, in time, assimilated into Buddhism. The name Shiva does not appear in the
Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures. However, Shiva is referred to, in the Lotus Sutra, as an ‘emanation of
Avalokiteśvara.’80 Shiva is the bearer of the trident. The trident is Shiva’s symbol of power. The three
prongs of Shiva’s trident represent the three ratnas, that is, triratna, the Buddha, the dharma, and the
Sangha. The triratna symbol is called, by Hindus, nandi-pada, or “bull's hoof,”
“Prominent among [the Indus Valley] deities were the bull-horned man from Sumeria, the mighty NimrodDumuzi… the horned god has been interpreted as a prototype of the Hindu god Shiva…” 81
“Traditionally, each star and planet was considered to be a spirit” (Johnson-Groh, p. 15).
History of Tibetan Astrology (Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia)
79
Johnson-Groh, p. 19.
80
The Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasῡtra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sῡtra)) is thought to be the earliest literature
teaching about Avalokiteśvara. Avalokiteśvara has been identified with Brahma (creator of the universe), with
Vishnu (preserver), and with Shiva (destroyer); “probably around the fifth century C.E., a full-blown cult of
Avalokiteśvara emerged. Avalokiteśvara evolves into the supreme savior of all suffering beings. He takes on the
characteristics of various brahmanic gods, such as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Like Brahma, Avalokitesvara is
described as the creator of the universe… He has become identified with the bodhisattva Maitreya, the “future
Buddha”” (Andrews, Karen. 1993. Avalokitesvara and the Tibetan Contemplation of Compassion). Avalokiteśvara is
also referred to as ‘Great Merciful One’ ( གས་ ེ་ཆེན་པོ་, compassion-great). Stucco wrote (When Thomas Aquinas Met
Nagarjuna, p. 48, footnote 7), “This title [Great Merciful One] was attributed to Avalokitesvara [Syn. spyan ras
gzigs], the bodhisattva who is the protector of Tibet and is believed to be incarnated in the Dalai Lama.” ‘Great
Merciful One’ was attributed to the God of Israel by Desideri in his composition The Dawn, tho rangs (ཐོ་རངས།), དཀོན་
མཆོག་ གས་ ེ་ཆེན་པོ་, dkon mchog-compassion-great (Il t’o-rans (L’aurora), p. 91). Regarding third-generation
translations: Guido Stucco translated Desideri’s composition tho rangs into English from an Italian translation. The
Italian translation from Desideri’s Tibetan was done by Giuseppe Toscano. It is necessary to go to the underlying
Tibetan, i.e., to Desideri’s writing, in order to know the Tibetan behind these English titles. While ‘Great Merciful
One’ is a literal translation of Desideri’s Tibetan (though Desideri compounded ‘great compassion’ with dkon
mchog), ‘Supreme Being’ is not a literal translation. ‘Supreme Being,’ another title shared by Avalokiteśvara/Shiva
and the God of Israel in English translations, has as its underlying Tibetan, in Desideri’s tho rangs composition,
dkon mchog. Stucco wrote that, typically, when Desideri was referring to the God of Israel in tho rangs, he used
dkon mchog or rang grub dkon mchog. Dkon mchog was translated non-literally into Italian, by Toscano, as èssere
suprèmo, which was then translated literally into English by Stucco, as ‘Supreme Being’ (When Thomas Aquinas
Met Nagarjuna, p. 46, footnote 3).
81
Article reference: The Dark powers that Bind. Section 8. India. Destiner Press Titles.
77
78
16
During the same century that narratives surrounding the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of 33 A.D.
were being recorded in Israel,82 Siddhartha Gautama’s discourses were being written down in the
Anuradhapura Kingdom (present-day Sri Lanka),83 in Sanskrit.84 Centuries would pass before these
Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures would be translated into Tibetan.
THE EARLY-TRANSLATION PERIOD (Sanskrit to Tibetan)
“Tibetan literature and its script do not date before the seventh century… the development of Tibetan Buddhism
and Tibetan literature from the seventh century onwards is marked by two phases of growth. In the first phase, the
three Dharma Kings of the Yar lung dynasty – Srong bstan sgam po (617-648), Khri srong lde’u btsan (742-797), and
khri ral pa can (806-839) and Indian Mahapandita Shantarakshita and Mahayogi Padmasambhava, and translators
such as Ye shes dbang po, Vairocana, and Vimalamitra etc were mainly responsible for the said development
during which thousands of texts were translated from their Sanskrit originals. This period came to be known as
In Desideri’s time, Tibetans had a form of crucifixion which they used as capital punishment, “The crime of
robbery with homicide… is punished by that painful and drawn-out death by arrows. One could say that it is
accompanied by crucifixion, for the gallows in this country, which remain always erected and prepared for
criminals, is exactly in the form of the St. Andrew’s cross, with the difference that it ends with a beam on top of it
and with two beams, one on either side. This cross or gallows is called in Tibetan kyangshing…” (Sweet, pp. 26263). This term rgyangs shing ( ངས་ཤིང་) is the same term used in Tibetan Bible translations for crucifixion.
83
Anuradhapura Kingdom (377 BC to 1017 AD)
84
Around the beginning of the first century A.D., a new genre of sutra literature began to be written with a focus
on the Bodhisattva ideal, known as Mahayana, or ‘great vehicle’ sutras. Many of the Mahayana sutras were
written in Sanskrit and then translated into the Tibetan Buddhist canons (the Kangyur).
82
17
“early-translation period.”… In the span of two hundred years starting from Emperor srong btsan sgam po to Khri
ral pa can, a period known as the first phase of Tibetan literary development, over five hundred and fifty one
Tibetan and Indian scholars had contributed in the translation works.” 85
The early-translation period86 refers to the period in history when the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures were
translated into Tibetan. The initiating event of the Tibetan translation period was the development of
the Tibetan script (dbu can)87 in the seventh century A.D.
Key players in the early-translation period
There are four significant players in this early-translation period:
Songtsän Gampo [srong btsan sgam po ( ོང་བཙན་ མ་པོ་), 605-? A.D.]: Songtsän Gampo was thirty-third king
of the Yarlung Dynasty, the first Emperor of Tibet, and the king who unified Tibet under a central
government.88 He had two Buddhist wives, one Chinese and the other Nepali.89 Through his Chinese
wife, he was ‘converted’ from the indigenous spiritual tradition of Tibet called Bön, 90 and consequently
welcomed Buddhism into the land,91 and initiated the worship of Chenrezig92 [Chenrezig is the Tibetan
Tsepag, Introduction, pp. 50-51.
Also called the “Early diffusion of Buddhism” (bsTan pa snga dar).
87
Name of the printed form of the Tibetan script, pronounced Ü-chen; Wylie transliteration: dbu can (ད ་ཅན།): the
printed form of the Tibetan writing system is called dbu can. This is the most common script for Tibetan writing;
dbu can: lit. head-having, i.e., ‘with head.’ The head is the heavy horizontal line at the top of the characters.
88
The Tibetan empire during the time of the Yarlung kings, under the central government, included parts of
present-day China. Tibet and China negotiated a series of treaties regarding agreed-upon borders, the most wellknown treaty being the Treaty of 821-822, signed during the reign of Tibetan king khri gtsug lde btsan (41st King of
Tibet, and one of the three most important kings, besides Songtsän Gampo and Trisong Deutsen). See ‘History of
dkon mchog in the Tibetan Scripture,’ Level three meaning (the oath), regarding the oath taken in the treaty.
89
Regarding Songtsän Gampo’s two wives, Rockhill (1891:214) wrote that “King Srong-tsan gambo, who reigned in
the seventh century A.D. at Lh’asa, married two wives, a Chinese and a Nepalese, and it is a matter of history that
his household was not a peaceful one.”
90
Bön: founder was gShen rab mi bo, born in 1917 B.C. The name Bön means ‘invocation’ and refers to the
conjuring of spirits by magic formulas. Ancient Bön is the Persian influenced pre-Buddhist occultist and pantheistanimist-shamanist religion of Tibet. Tibet first entered written history in the Geography of Ptolemy, under the
name batai (βαται). βαται is a Greek transcription of the indigenous name Böd, Tib. བོད་ (bod).
91
“Buddhism was introduced into Bod-yul [Tibet] in the beginning of the seventh century by a pious Chinese
Princess, who had married a Tibetan King [Songtsän Gampo], who was converted by her from the Bön religion into
Buddhism, and had become since then a pillar of the faith in Tibet, as Asok had been nine centuries earlier in India”
(1882. Reincarnations in Tibet. Theosophist).
92
The worship of Chenrezig was initiated by Songtsän Gampo in the seventh century. According to Rockhill (p.
326), native historians claim that the mantra om mani padmé hūm, the mantra which is spoken in worship to
Chenrezig, was introduced into Tibet during the same century by (Buddhist?) missionaries. Songtsän Gampo is
considered to be an incarnation of Chenrezig. There is not yet a consensus by Western scholars regarding the
origin of the reverence for Avalokiteśvara/Chenrezig. It is suggested that Avalokiteśvara was a borrowing or
absorption by Mahayana Buddhism from Hinduism, in particular Shiva or Vishnu. This seems to be based on the
name Avalokiteśvara.
85
86
18
form of the Skt. अवलो कते वर (avalokiteśvara)].93 Furthermore as a consequence of his conversion to
Buddhism, the Tibetan script, alphabet, and writing system were invented by his initiation. This script
and writing system were invented for the specific purpose of facilitating the translation of the Sanskrit
Buddhist scriptures into Tibetan, so that the teachings of the Buddha could be transmitted to the
Tibetan peoples,94
“According to written records, the present Tibetan script was invented in the seventh century. Modeled on an
Indian script, the Tibetan script was specifically commissioned to make possible the translation of vast numbers of
Indian Buddhist texts into Tibetan, and thus facilitate the transmission of Buddha Dharma into Tibet.” 95
According to Heinrich August Jäschke, Songtsän Gampo was “the most famous king of Tibet, a
contemporary of Mohammed; he introduced the Tibetan letters, and was the chief promoter of
Buddhism and its literature.”96
Thönmi Sambhota [thon mi sam+b+ho Ta (ཐོན་མི་ས ོ་ཊ་), 619?-? A.D.]: Songtsän Gampo sent his minister
Thönmi Sambhota and other colleagues to India to study Sanskrit and the writing system, and to invent
a script, alphabet, and writing system for the Tibetan language, 97 a process which took years. Beyond
developing the script and writing system, Thönmi Sambhota studied Buddhism. He then proceeded to
translate some of the more important Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures into Tibetan,
“… early historical sources mention that Thon-mi-saṃ-bho-ta brought back with him a number of texts of dharma
(chos) including the Pad ma dkar po, “the White Lotus,” or Lotus Sutra. Later sources will list twenty-one texts that
Thon-mi-saṃ-bho-ta brought back to Tibet, all of which were affiliated with the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara…” 98
Trisong Deutsen [khri srong lde bstan ( ི་ ོང་ ེ་བ ན། / ོ་ ངོ ་ ེ་བ ན། / ི་ ོང་ ེ་བཙན), 742-797/804? A.D.]: Trisong
Deutsen was thirty-eighth king of Tibet, and a contemporary of Padma-Sambhava. Trisong Deutsen
The first mention of Chenrezig was found in 100 AD, in the Lotus Sutra, and by around the fifth century, he had
evolved into the supreme savior of all suffering beings… Desideri wrote, “Here, in a few words, is the conception
that the Tibetans have about their Grand Lama [Dalai Lama]: they believe that he is Chenresik who has voluntarily
become a human being many times over, always returning in his human transmigrations for the good of this
kingdom and the salvation of their souls” (Sweet, p. 298), i.e., the Dalai Lama is an emanation of Chenrezig.
94
Foreman, p. 211.
95
Tsepag, p. 50.
96
Jäschke 1881:585
97
i.e., to systematise Tibetan grammar.
98
Apple, p. 3. According to W. Wordsworth, “The guide, philosopher, and friend of this Thibetan Charlemagne
[Songtsän Gampo] was Thumi Sambhota, who spent many years in Hindustan with fourteen companions, engaged
in the study of the “good law,” and in the composition of a Thibetan alphabet… He translated into the Thibetan
language some of the more important scriptures of the new faith... The Mani Kambum was a strictly dogmatic
religious work, the revelations of Avalokitecvara, the guardian of Cakjamuni’s doctrine on earth... The famous
formula of Thibetan devotion, the six sacred syllables, repeated hourly to this day by millions of devout believers...
is found in this book, and is therefore contemporary with the first introduction of Buddhism into Tibet”
(Wordsworth, p. 27).
93
19
became a Buddhist in 762 A.D. Though Thönmi Sambhota translated some of the Sanskrit Buddhist
scriptures into Tibetan, essentially it was during the reign of Trisong Deutsen that the several-centuries
long translation period began (as early as 763 A.D.),99 a translation process that gained royal support
with each successive king.100 During the reign of Trisong Deutsen, Buddhism became firmly established
in Tibet.101 The first Buddhist monastery, bsam yas (བསམ་ཡས་) was built under his command, and was
consecrated in 779 A.D.
Padma-Sambhava, ‘born of the Lotus’ [pad ma ‘byung gnas102 (པད་མ་འ ང་གནས་ / པ ྨ་འ ང་གནས་), 717-803?
A.D.]: the Indian Padma-Sambhava, most commonly known as Urgyen,103 was born into a Brahmin
family,104 and became possibly the most influential historical figure105 in the formation of the Tibetan
religious system.106 In 749 A.D., according to tradition, Padma-Sambhava, who was a follower of Shiva,
travelled from the region of the Indus Valley called Uddiyana (in present-day northern Pakistan), 107 and
Consider that translation of the Lotus Sutra began around 763 A.D. There are indications in certain catalogues of
Buddhist texts (e.g., ‘Phang-thang-ma Catalogue) that “the Lotus Sutra had a place in early Tibetan canonical
catalogs” (Apple, p. 9). Regarding translators of the Lotus Sutra, “Surendrabodhi and sNa-nam Ye-shes-sde
translated the Lotus Sutra from Sanskrit into Tibetan according to the revised dharma-language certified by the
Emperor’s authoritative decision” (Apple, p. 10).
100
Apple, p. 4. According to Apple, texts were also translated from Chinese, “and probably Central Asian languages
such as Khotanese as well (Wangdu and Diemberger 2000:69-71).”
101
Apple, p. 4.
99
pad ma is a transliteration of the Sanskrit word for ‘lotus’ [प म] (THL).
According to Das (1970:1352), ‘Urgyen’ is the chief epithet by which Padma-Sambhava is known to Tibetans. For
additional titles, see Das 1902:1352. During Desideri’s travels from Goa to Lhasa, his company went through a
place called Ngari Jungar, the highest point in the pilgrimage. According to the local people, Ngari Jungar “is very
much respected and venerated by the local people owing to a certain Urgyen (Urghièn), the founder of the religion
or sect current in Tibet… It is said that in a cave hollowed out of the living rock of this mountain the
aforementioned Urgyen lived for some time in complete isolation, self-mortification, and continual contemplation”
(Sweet, p. 169). At that point, Desideri did not appear to know that this ‘Urgyen’ was Padma-Sambhava. Desideri
also considered Ngari Jungar to be the origin of both the Ganges and the Indus (Sindu) Rivers.
102
103
Brahmin (Skt. ा मण), a class in Hinduism specialising as priests, teachers, and protectors of sacred learning.
There are legends attached with this person, e.g., our Tibetan friend Sönam insists that the slice through a huge
rock in Kyirong was made by Padma-Sambhava so that the river could flow through.
106
Note that, as Pomplun pointed out, given the uniqueness of the Tibetan belief system as a merge of several
belief systems, Desideri did not identify the Tibetan religion to be Buddhist (Pomplun, Like No Other in the World:
Ippolito Desideri on Tibetan Religion, p. 1).
107
Based on the accounts of pilgrims, Uddiyana/Urgyen, a’u rgyan has been identified with the Swat district in the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of present-day Pakistan. Uddiyana was the place of origin of the first tantric texts of
Vajrayana Buddhism, “It is of great interest to us personally, to see that already by the seventh century [the
century before Padma-Sambhava] the usage of secret mantra, i.e., a system of Tantra, was already prevalent in
Uddiyana. For in later ages, the Kingdom of Uddiyana is spoken of as the land of Tantra par excellence” (Uddiyana
Until the Eighth Century: A Short Historical Overview. Dharma Fellowship of His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa).
104
105
20
arrived in Tibet where he met Trisong Deutsen.108 In the years following his arrival in Tibet, PadmaSambhava merged Yungdrung (Swastika) Bön, the pre-Buddhist spiritual tradition of Tibet, with
Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism.109 This merging resulted in the Tibetan religion.
“Tibetan Buddhism was the direct successor of the Vajrayana tradition that developed in the Indian subcontinent
during the Pala period (750-1200 A.D.). But Tibetan Buddhism has also, throughout its history, been profoundly
influenced by the particularities and dynamics of Tibetan culture, politics, and religion… The distinctiveness of
Tibetan Buddhism, however, is due mainly to the pervasive presence of Vajrayana elements.” 110
Padma-Sambhava developed the Nyingma School or sect of Buddhism,111 also called the ‘Red sect’112
based on the first Tibetan scripture translations from Sanskrit, “Padmasambhava’s school of Buddhism is
known as Nyingmapa (“Ancient Ones”) and has a heavy emphasis on Vajrayana.” 113 Sambhava was a
primary translator of the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures into Tibetan, and is therefore also referred to as
the ‘great translator.’ As Wordsworth wrote,
“Teams of Indian paṇḍitas and Tibetan translators (lo-tsā-ba) worked together to translate hundreds of Buddhist
texts. These teams included Indian scholars…”114
“Under Thisrongdetsan [Trisong Deutsen], assisted by other scholars, [Padma-Sambhava] undertook and carried
out, at this time, the complete translation of the sacred canonical books of the faith.”115
These ‘sacred canonical books of the faith’ are called the Tibetan Buddhist Canon.
By which route did Padma-Sambhava travel en route to Tibet? Did he take Desideri’s route through Kashmir, or
through the Kyirong pass? Ippolito Desideri briefly discusses Kyirong in the HNT (Historical Notices of Tibet (Notizie
istoriche del Thibet)), “… the province of Kyirong (Chiee-rong)… The other two provinces in far western Tibet are
Kyirong and Kuti, both of which border on the kingdom of Nepal in places… Taking the road from Kyirong, horses
can be used as far as Nepal and from there to the Mogul [Hindustan] border…” (Sweet, pp. 112, 225).
109
Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism [Vajrayana Buddhism, containing the Dhyani-buddhas, magical rites, necromancy,
and Shaivism]: Historically, Tantric practice began in the Indus Valley when the Vedas were written. Tantric texts
were first brought into Tibet in the eighth century, and would (then) have been translated from Sanskrit to the
Tibetan script. Note that Buddhist Tantras are key texts in Vajrayana Buddhism. Vajrayana is the dominant form of
108
Tibetan Buddhism: Vajra-Yana, Skt. व (vájra), thunderbolt, diamond + Pāli/Skt. यान (yāna), vehicle (‘vehicle’
refers to the method of Buddhist spiritual practice, and to divisions of various schools of Buddhism. These Tantras
may have preceded Padma-Sambhava, and may have been translated into Tibetan by the time he arrived.
110
Forman, pp. 210-211.
111
There are five principal orders (schools/sects) relating to Tibetan Buddhism: Nyingma, Kagyü, Sakya, Gelug, and
Bön. The first four (excluding Bön) “commonly subscribe to the philosophy called Madhyamika and to the main
tenets of Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 11).
112
The monks of the Red sect wear red hats, and are devoted to Urgyen. Desideri wrote, “While the red-cap monks
reverence Shakya Thupa as their universal lawgiver, they are, nevertheless, particularly devoted to Urgyen as the
founder of their order [Nyingma order], and they profess a special dedication to his worship…” (Sweet, p. 334).
113
Forman, p. 211.
114
Apple, p. 7.
115
Wordsworth, pp. 29-30. Padma-Sambhava also composed ‘the Tibetan Book of the Dead,’ and initiated the
institution of ‘state oracle.’
21
*Urgyen (ཨོ་ ན་) – other titles
lama urgyen padma ( ་མ་ཨོ་ ན་པད་མ་), lama + Padma-Sambhava of Uddiyana
urgyen rimpoche (ཨོ་ ན་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་), Padma-Sambhava
guru rimpoche ( ་ ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་), Guru Rinpoche; “… tantric master who established Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet in the
ninth century at the invitation of Trisong Deutsen” (THL)
guru sengé dra dok (Skt. संहनाद (Siṃhanāda), ‘Battle cry’; Tib. ་ ་སེང་གེ་ ་ ོག་, guru; lama + lion’s roar (THL). In the
photo below, on the right, is a peaceful manifestation of guru sengé dra dok, that is, Padma-Sambhava).
precious guru
vajra guru (holding the vajra in the right hand) and tantric master116 (holding the khatvanga trident with the left
arm)
a second Buddha (སངས་ ས་གཉིས་པ་)
Three golden statues at the stupa in Swoyambhu, Kathmandu, Nepal: left statue, Skt. अवलो कते वर
ན་རས་གཟིགས་; middle statue, Skt. बु ध (buddhá), Tib. སངས་ ས་དཀོན་མཆོག་; right statue, Skt.
प म (padma), Tib. པད་མ་ (transliteration of the Sanskrit प म (lotus)) / པད་མ་འ ང་ (Padma / Padma zhung =
(avalokiteśvara), Tib.
Padma-Sambhava)
Shiva
The name Shiva does not appear in the Tibetan Buddhist Canon. However, Shiva is referred to, in the
Lotus Sutra,117 as an ‘emanation of Avalokiteśvara,’ that is, an emanation of Chenrezig 118 [Tib. ན་རས་གཟིགས་
116
Padma-Sambhava (photo above, on the right): in the crook of the left arm of Padma-Sambhava is the trident
(Skt. शूल (triśῡla)), and in the left hand is a skull-cup. In the right hand is the vajra, with the fingers positioned in
the ‘karana mudra.’ This mudra gesture is believed to expel demons, and remove sicknesses and negative
thoughts; vajra (Skt. व (vájra); Tib. ོ་ ེ་ (rdo rje) the symbol of Vajra-Yana; mudra: Skt. मु ा (mudrā) is derived
from the verb mud, meaning ‘to please (the gods).’ The word generally refers to a seal, mark, or sign’ (Beer. 221),
and in Tibetan terminology, usually refers to a hand gesture. Shiva is also holder of the trident.
22
(spyan ras gzigs), Skt. अवलो कते वर (avalokiteśvara)]. The mantra associated with Avalokiteśvara and
Chenrezig is oṃ maṇi padme hῡṃ.119
“In China, where Avalokiteśvara was very popular, he underwent a change and became Kwan Yin ( 觀音, also spelt
Guān Yīn, and in Japanese: Kannon) a female Bodhisattva. Kwan Yin actually translates an earlier version of the
name of this bodhisattva: Avalokitasvara. Svara means sounds and the name Avalokitasvara means “regarder of
sounds or cries” which is how the name often appears in English translations of the Chinese Lotus Sutra for
instance. The name changed as the bodhisattva absorbed some of the qualities of Śiva the Hindu Iśvara 120 – svara
became īśvara, and eśvara in combination…” 121
The final outcome of the years of
translation of the Sanskrit Buddhist
scriptures into Tibetan was the Tibetan
Buddhist Canon.
The very first Tibetan catalogue was
introduced during the period of the 39th
Tibetan King Khri lde srong btsan… (776815).122
Rasuwa Gadhi (रसुवागढ ) is the location of a Himalayan pass
(down and to the right, just off the photo). This is a most
likely route taken by carriers of the Buddhist scriptures from
India to Tibet during the seventh and following centuries.
The Lotus Sutra, one of the earliest Mahayana Sutras, is considered by most scholars to be the earliest literature
teaching about the doctrines of Avalokiteśvara. Initial translations of the Lotus Sutra from Sanskrit to Tibetan were
underway by the late eighth century (Apple, Preface), possibly as early as 763 A.D. Translation of the Lotus Sutra:
English version of the Lotus Sutra: Chapter XXV of the LOTUS SUTRA (Taishō Volume 9, Number 262; (Translated
from the Sanskrit by Dharmarakṣa in 267 C.E.; Translated from the Chinese of Kumārajiva, by Tsugunari Kubo and
Akira Yuyama), The Gateway to Every Direction [Manifested by Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara]; Tibetan version of the
Lotus Sutra: translated from Sanskrit by Lotsawa Yeshe De in the late 700s.
118
Chenrezig and Shiva have 108 titles. There are 108 beads on the ‘phreng ba ( འ ེང་བ་). Prayer beads originated
with the Hindu faith. Using beads for devotions dates to the eighth century B.C. in the cult of Shiva… Note that
Songtsän Gampo (and the other Tibetan kings?) is considered to be an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara/Chenrezig. As
well, every successive Dalai Lama through history is believed to be an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara/Chenrezig.
Desideri wrote, “Here, in a few words, is the conception that the Tibetans have about their Grand Lama: they
believe that he is Chenresik who has voluntarily become a human being many times over, always returning in his
human transmigrations for the good of this kingdom and the salvation of their souls” (Sweet, p. 298).
119
Chenrezig, who is given some of Shiva’s names (the blue-throated one, mahesvara (Maha-Ishvara), etc.), is
worshiped through the mantra. Om mani peme hung: the quintessence of religion, sufficient to cleanse from sin.
117
Hindu Iśvara (ई वर), Tib. དབང་ ག་ (dbang phyug): “‘Lord,’ Hindu non-sectarian term for ‘God,’ but sometimes
treated as synonymous with Shiva; sovereign, all-mighty, Maheshvara, Ishvara, God, as creator” (THL).
121
Avalokiteśvara (http://www.visiblemantra.org/avalokitesvara.html).
122
Tsepag, p. 50.
120
23
THE TIBETAN BUDDHIST CANON
The Tibetan Buddhist Canon has two parts. The first part is called the Kangyur (bka ‘gyur (བཀའ་འ ར་)).
What is considered “the word of Buddha” (Pāli/Skt. बु वचन (buddhavacana))123 is collected in the
Kangyur. The second part is called the Tengyur (bstan ‘gyur (བ ན་འ ར་)), commentaries on the Buddha’s
discourses. The Kangyur belongs to the various schools of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, and contains
sutras124 and tantras.125 The Kangyur contains translations of almost five-hundred tantras. The tantras
are generally shared only in more intimate settings given their esoteric nature, while the sutras have
traditionally been shared in public teachings.
The major part of Tibetan literature corpus is that of translation works of Indian Buddhist treatises. The entire
Buddhist canon comprising of three scriptural collections, or Tripitaka, as well as an enormous volume of Indian
commentarial works, were translated into Tibetan and compiled into the two sections of the Tibetan canon – bKa’
‘gyur & bsTan ‘gyur, translation of Buddha’s discourses and translation of commentarial works respectively.” 126
“As the number of literary works has been increased rapidly since the seventh century onward, existing literature
were compiled and catalogued from time to time which later extended, upgraded, classified, reorganized and put
in different sets of different collections. A separate set of translation works was re-grouped into two major
collections popularly known as bKa’ ‘gyur and bsTan ‘gyur, translation of Buddha’s discourses and translation of
commentarial works respectively. The very first Tibetan catalogue was introduced during the period of the 39th
Tibetan King Khri lde srong btsan, also known as Sad na legs mjing gyon (776-815).” 127
The Lotus Sutra, a significant sutra in the Kangyur, did not relate ‘intimately’ to the Tibetan culture until
after the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet and the subsequent translation of a significant number of
Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures into Tibetan.128
History of dkon mchog in the Tibetan scriptures
It was from the Tibetan who owns a large bookstore in Kathmandu that I first learned about the origin of
the term dkon mchog. According to her, the term came from the Sanskrit ratna, meaning ‘jewel,’ and
the word ratna was used to refer to the historical Gautama Buddha (Skt. buddha ratna) during his life.
115 volumes, “translated pronouncements,” i.e., the pronouncements or teachings of the Buddha; also called
the Tripițaka (Pāli: Tipițaka), meaning ‘Three Baskets.’
123
Sutra: Skt. सू , Pāli sūtta; series of aphorisms concerning ceremonies, rites, and conduct; from Skt. sutram, rule,
lit. string, thread (as a measure of straightness); derived from the verb sivyati, sew (Online Etymology Dictionary).
124
Tantra: Skt. त ; from Skt. tantram, lit. loom, warp; fig. groundwork, system, doctrine; derived from the verb
tan, to stretch, extend (Online Etymology Dictionary). Vajrayana Buddhism is known for its extensive tantra ideas
and practices. According to Stucco (When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 5), “The Kangyur is the Tibetan
Buddhist canon of Scriptures consisting of 943 works contained in 108 volumes, including prajnaparamita sutras
(about forty texts); Buddha’s speeches, mostly in their Mahayana versions; monastic rules; and tantric texts.”
126
Tsepag, p. 50.
127
Tsepag, p. 51.
128
Apple, p. 2.
125
24
Another Tibetan told me that, following Siddhartha Gautama’s death, the term ratna became ratnatraya, meaning ‘three jewels,’ and was used to refer to the Buddha, the dharma, and the Sangha. The
following quotes underscore what these Tibetans said,
“The Sanskrit and Pāli word “ratna” translates directly as jewel [e.g., ནོར་ ་], but the Tibetan translators use the
word “dkon mchog” which literally means “rare-supreme.” 129
“the Holy Trinity is dKon-mChog-gSum (Sanskrit triratna (= ratna-traya)).”130
It is being assumed that the equivalency between ratna and dkon mchog was determined, in history, by
either Thönmi Sambhota or Padma-Sambhava, during the process of translating the Sanskrit Buddhist
scriptures into Tibetan.131
The term dkon mchog has levels of meaning, but before illustrating these levels of meaning, a significant
distinction needs to be made, that is, the distinction between sangs rgyas (སངས་ ས་, Buddha) and byang
chub sems pa ( ང་ བ་སེམས་པ་, the mind of enlightenment). The Italian Jesuit Ippolito Desideri wrote,
“… they [Tibetans] assert that among the infinite number of living beings who have been, are, and will be cycling
again and again through the huge bottomless sea (as they say) of transmigrations, there are some who have
already reached the end of this. These are divided into two classes: the jangchup sempas [the mind of
enlightenment] and the sangyés [Buddha]. The jangchup sempas are those who have ceased being reborn due to
the necessity and force of the passions and voluntarily choose to be reborn innumerable times as a human being in
order to give the religious law to the world and assist other living beings to escape from the evils of sin and the
sufferings of its punishments. The sangyés are those who have finished being reborn both by necessity and by
choice, and after having given religious laws to the world have gained eternal bliss. The Tibetans believe that all
living beings without any exception must eventually reach this state of sangyé, at which time the world will end,
completely consumed and incinerated by fire. These sangyé, they say, are the object of worship and refuge for all
living beings and are the only ones that can help them.”132
According to the Tibetan worldview, the sangs rgyas are not divine, yet in the Tibetan mind they are
worthy to be worshipped and prayed to (i.e., they are the objects of refuge and prayer) because of their
three virtues:
1.
2.
3.
they have been liberated and escaped from all afflictions,
they know the ways and means to attract others and free them from evil, and
they have an impartial and equal compassion toward all in order to help them and, in fact, successfully
relieve them.133
David Karma Choephel (DKC)
Marek, p. 150.
131
Note that standardization of lexical equivalencies for the Sanskrit to Tibetan translation process was initiated
during the reign of Trisong Deutsen. The equivalency register (dkar-chag) ultimately included over nine thousand
Sanskrit terms with Tibetan equivalents (Apple, p. 9).
132
Sweet, pp. 362-63.
133
Sweet, p. 380 (this is a Desideri quote).
129
130
25
As the owner of the Kathmandu bookstore said, ratna (Tib. དཀོན་མཆོག་ (dkon mchog)) refers to the Buddha
(Tib. སངས་ ས་དཀོན་མཆོག་ (sangs rgyas dkon mchog)).134 However, ratna is only indirectly associated with
byang chub sems pa, that is, Avalokiteśvara/Chenrezig/Dalai Lama;135 Padma-Sambhava.136 The primary
object of refuge and prayer is sangs rgyas dkon mchog, generally referred to by Tibetans as dkon mchog.
Yangchen said,
“to you people, dkon mchog means ‘Jesus,’ but when [our people] hear the name dkon mchog, they will think
about Gautama [Buddha], Jampayang [Maitreya], the Dalai Lama, Guru Rimpoche… all the gods - or one of their
own choice.”
She told me that when she herself hears the word dkon mchog, she has in her mind an image of the
Dalai Lama. She says it is practical because he is alive; she prays to the Dalai Lama every day, often, she
says, “with good results,” and says, “I am a follower of the Dalai Lama.” Yangchen appears to blur the
line of distinction between sangs rgyas and byang chub sems pa,137 because, strictly speaking, dkon
mchog refers to sangs rgyas (Buddha). However, the epithet of Guru Rimpoche (Padma-Sambhava) is
sangs rgyas gnyis pa, that is, a second Buddha,138 and Jampayang (Maitreya) is the future Buddha,139 ma
‘ongs sangs rgyas byams pa mgon po. Though the sangs rgyas are not divine, nonetheless, based on
sangs rgyas dkon mchog: Skt. buddha ratna; the Buddha jewel, the precious Buddha (THL); Precious Buddha.
The state of Buddhahood endowed with the perfect benefit for self and others; the Buddha Jewel, the Precious
Buddha; Precious jewel of the Buddha; [Skt.] buddha ratna (Tibetan Dictionary APP). Desideri identifies a
significant sangs rgyas dkon mchog (Sweet, p. 392), the first of the three protector deities of the Buddha (this list
includes the corresponding Hindu triad (trimurti)): 1. Skt. Manju-Shri, Tib. Jam(pel)yang (Brahma); 2. Skt.
Avalokiteshvara, Tib. Chenresik (Vishnu); 3. Skt. vájra-pani/ vájra-sattva, Tib. Chana-Dorje (Shiva).
135
“[Chenrezig, having attained the state of a jangchup sempa over many centuries] took upon himself the duty to
be born and reborn in an unbroken succession there, always as a man and in the position of Grand Lama [Dalai
Lama] of Tibet… they [Tibetans] persistently claim and very tenaciously assert that the Grand Lama of Tibet is none
other than their great advocate Chenresik, who out of love for them and their salvation has returned again and
again in successive births as a man…” (Sweet, pp. 398-99).
136
These three, written in bold font (Avalokiteśvara, Buddha, Padma-Sambhava) are represented by the three
statues at the stupa in Swoyambhu, Kathmandu, Nepal.
137
Desideri wrote, “Thus the Tibetans reverence, pray to, and worship in the first place those whom they consider
to be jangchup sempas, even though these have not yet arrived at the state of bliss in company with the sangyés
but are very near to reaching it and are already forever safe from backsliding” (Sweet, pp. 383-84). Robert Beer
states the following associations: “The Sanskrit and Tibetan terms for ‘jewel’ are frequently applied to great Indian
pandits (Skt. ratna) and incarnate Tibetan lamas [Tib. རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ (rin po che), precious/jewel/precious jewel/lama/living
Buddha]. The ‘precious jewel’ [སངས་ ས་དཀོན་མཆོག་ (Tibetan Dictionary APP)] and ‘wish-granting gem’ [Cintāmaṇi stone
134
( च ताम ण)] are terms applied to the Buddhas and their teachings, and the ‘Three Jewels’ [triratna > དཀོན་མཆོག་ག
are synonymous with the Buddha, dharma, and sangha” (Beer, pp. 191ff.).
138
Specifically, it is the Nyingmapa who refer to Padma-Sambhava as a second Buddha.
139
Jampa ( མས་པ་ / མས་པ་མགོན་པོ་) = Maitreya (Skt. मै ेय, from मै ी, “friendship”) = the Loving One, Buddha of the
future, ma ‘ongs sangs rgyas byams pa mgon po (མ་འོངས་སངས་ ས་ མས་པ་མགོན་པོ་). “He [Avalokiteśvara] has become
identified with the bodhisattva Maitreya, the “future Buddha”” (Andrews, Karen. 1993. Avalokitesvara and the
Tibetan Contemplation of Compassion).
26
མ་]
their three virtues, and ultimately their ability to help others escape from evil (escape samsara), they
are, according to Tibetans, worthy of worship and prayer. Ippolito Desideri wrote,
“Consequently, those who are called by the Tibetans Sangyé Könchok, and who are for them the legitimate and
primary object of reverence and prayer, are not regarded as gods who by their nature have dominion and supreme
power over the world. Rather, they are regarded as simple living beings by nature, who from beginningless time
and for infinite centuries were in all things equal to the most wretched of living beings; who from beginningless
time and for infinite centuries were brute beasts on earth and among the damned in Hell, very much in need of the
help and protection of the earlier sangyés, and who, finally, after infinite intolerable torments and through their
own diligence, were purged of all sins 140 and passions and reached the state of sainthood and eternal
blissfulness.”141
The levels of meaning of dkon mchog are illustrated in the following table,142
*levels of meaning of dkon mchog (according to genus and species)143
level one meaning:
the parts, dkon and
mchog
level two meaning
(the highest
genus): the whole,
dkon mchog
level three
meaning (species):
dkon mchog gsum
dkon (dkon po, adj.: rare, scarce, and
therefore dear, precious, valuable)
level three
meaning: dkon
The Tibetan empire during the time of the Yarlung kings included parts of presentday China. Tibet and China negotiated a series of treaties regarding agreed-upon
mchog (adj.: the best, the most
excellent in its kind)
dkon mchog (noun: jewel/ratna (the most perfect thing; the most precious
thing)),144 “All of the many and innumerable objects that the Tibetans reverence
and pray to are included in the highest genus könchok (Kon-cciòa) and belong to
one of the three classes or species contained within it, that is…” 145
The Buddha
The dharma
The Sangha
dge ‘dun dkon mchog (དགེ་
sangs rgyas dkon mchog chos dkon mchog (ཆོས་
(སངས་ ས་དཀོན་མཆོག་)
དཀོན་མཆོག་)
འ ན་དཀོན་མཆོག་)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in
these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the
word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”
(Hebrews 1.1-4).
141
Sweet, p. 379.
142
Lopez wrote, “… rather than translating ratna as “gemstone,” [e.g., ནོར་ ་]” they translated it as “rare-supreme”
(dkon mchog), with traditional etymologies saying that the three jewels are called jewels because they are difficult
to find and, when found, they are of great value. Desideri was likely less interested in this particular etymology,
which he would have known from his studies, than in the fact that he wanted to use the name of the Buddhist
object of worship for the Christian God (p. 160).
143
Desideri used the terms ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in reference to the term dkon mchog. As Sweet pointed out in his
Notes regarding the appropriatenss of the use of the term ‘genus’ in this context, “Genere supremo; Latin summum
genus, a genus that does not become subordinated as a species to a higher genus. However, in scholastic
philosophy, God’s being is transcendental and not a genus at all. In describing the Three Jewels as such, Desideri is
denying that they are God” (Sweet, p. 720, Note 981).
144
The level two meaning is where astrology is engaged.
145
Sweet, p. 378. Desideri wrote, “… by the three aforementioned terms [the Buddha, the dharma, and the
Sangha] the Tibetans do not mean (as it might appear at first sight) that there are three separate and distinct
individuals merged into a single being, Könchok; such a belief has caused many people… to err greatly. What they
mean is rather that there are three species – that is, classes or, more accurately, three collections – included in the
common genus, könchok” (Sweet, p. 378).
140
27
mchog gsum as as
an oath
borders, the most well-known of the treaties being the Treaty of 821-822, signed
during the reign of Tibetan king khri gtsug lde btsan, 41st King of Tibet. This treaty
was inscribed on three stone pillars, in Chinese and Tibetan. One of the pillars was
placed in the Chinese capital Ch’ang-an (present-day Xian, in Shanxi Province),
another on the border between China and Tibet, at Gugu Meru, and the third in
Lhasa, which continues to stand in front of the Ta-chao-ssu Temple (Jokhang
Temple).146 A significant use of the term dkon mchog gsum is as an oath. This term
dkon mchog gsum was used as an oath for this Treaty of 821-822. Lines 61-64 of the
treaty translate as follows, “This is of great importance, and that it may never be
changed, the three gods [dkon mchog gsum/དཀོན་མཆོག་ག མ་], the august heaven, sun,
moon, the planets and the stars, are asked to witness it”147 [ ར་ནས་གཙགས་བཅས་པ་དང་ནམ་
པར་ ི་འ ར་བར། དཀོན་མཆོག་ག མ་དང་། འཕགས་པའི་ནམ་མཁའ་གཉིས་ ་དང་གཟའ་ ར་ལ་ཡང་དཔང་ ་]. Today, in
certain Tibetan regions, dkon mchog sum is still used an oath, to swear by, and is
used most commonly by monks. Some say that the only understanding they have of
the word dkon mchog is as someone or something to swear by.148
level four meaning: Consider the possibility that the term dkon mchog existed in pre-Buddhist/pre-Bön
the preTibetan history, that it was used to refer to a supernatural being, and that today it
Buddhist/pre-Bön
may still be actively used in this way, in direct contradiction to Buddhism. “One of
meaning of dkon
the most difficult concepts for a Buddhist to grasp is the concept of a Divine Being,
mchog
God,”149 yet many Folk Buddhists, who are animists, believe there is a powerful
supernatural being that exists. This being is not a creator. 150 This being is not
personal.151 This being is neither good nor evil. They call this being dkon mchog.
Prayers are often addressed to dkon mchog when in trouble or need (see Jäschke
p.10). Tibetans are only superficially Buddhist, but primarily animist in their
worldview. The level four meaning is the one that appears to have spiritual content,
which the orthodox Buddhist meaning lacks absolutely. Belief in the unseen world is
an integral part of the Tibetan worldview. Buddhism denies what Tibetans have
always known to be true, that the spirit world exists. And not only do Tibetans
believe, but they interact with the spirit world, defensively, by attempting to
appease the spirits, and offensively, by attempting to get information from the
spirit world.
Levels of meaning of dkon mchog (according to genus and species)
The term dkon mchog has levels of meaning. The first three levels of meaning relate to the Sanskrit
source term ratna. The fourth level, the pre-Buddhist/pre-Bön Folk Buddhist (animistic) meaning, refers
See ‘The Inscription of the Sino-Tibetan Treaty of 821-822,’ by Fang-Kuei Li, University of Washington, p. 3.
Tibetan Inscription on the Stone Monument in Front of the Ta-Chao-Ssu Temple [Jokhang Temple] in Lhasa, 822
A.D. Projet de base de données August Hermann Francke (1870-1930).
148
Desideri wrote in tho rangs regarding the oath, “People often mention respected names with devotion, but they
never mention the [true] Supreme Being [who Desideri called dkon mchog], except in oaths that have no good use
for their souls” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 114). Stucco explains, “Tibetans make oaths by
saying: “This is as true as the three jewels exist.” The three jewels are Buddha, dharma and sangha. When taken
together they are as sacred to Tibetans as God is to monotheistic religions” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met
Nagarjuna, footnote 44, p. 114).
149
Tenzin Gyatso (the current Dalai Lama), p. 55.
150
“They [the lamas in their discussion with Andrade] also added that the world had not been created by a God.
The first creation being at the beginning of the world, it revives itself continually” (Marek, p. 151).
151
“Heaven was held in high honor by the old Bön-po [Tibetans who practice/ed the Bön religion], not only as a
natural, impersonal reality, but also as the personified God of Heaven, who... hardly seems to have played any role
in men’s lives…” (Hoffmann, p. 19).
146
147
28
to a supernatural being. This level of meaning requires further study because it is unknown at this point
what percentage of Tibetans have this supernatural being as the primary referent of dkon mchog. Given
current understanding of the Tibetan worldview, dkon mchog primarily refers to Buddha (sangs rgyas).
Therefore, does dkon mchog have astrological associations within the context of Tibetan astrology?
Tibetan astrology:152 The roots of Tibetan astrology reach back through time to Mesopotamia,
The Sumerians also developed pseudo-science like astrology, within the context of religion. They believed that the
stars on the sky were gods that controlled the events in the world, and that the position between these gods could
be used to predict events in the world, as well as the fortune for individuals.”153
While Mesopotamian astrology provides the foundation, Vedic astrology has been the primary influence
on the development of Tibetan astrology.
“With the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, came Vedic texts on astrology… Tibetan astrology, as it is understood
today, originated with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet. Along with the introduction of the Dharma to the
Tibetan plateau, came Indian astrology. In fact, astrology in the Vedic tradition is the primary influence on the
Tibetan practice. Thus, in order to understand Tibetan astrology it is important to understand Vedic astrology. And
though the Tibetans received many ideas of astronomy from Indians, many of the concepts are not originally of
Indian origin. The true origin of astronomy reaches back to the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia… The astrology
used in Buddhism descends directly from the Indian astrology in Hinduism which has its origins in Persian and
Mesopotamian traditions…”154
In Vedic astrology, ratna refers to astrological gemstones that are related to planets and days of the
week and deities. In Tibetan astrology, does dkon mchog have parallel referents and associations?
In Tibetan culture, the moon is the most important body in the sky. The moon is considered to be the
god Chandra (चं ), and the entire system of the gyukar155 is designed primarily to locate the position of
the moon. The moon (considered a planet in astrology, as is the Sun) and ‘other’ planets are considered
home to heavenly beings according to Tibetan belief.156 However, the ‘remaining’ planets157 are of
secondary importance to the moon. In Tibetan astrology, there are seven “planets,” each with a ‘day of
the week’ and a diety association. As well, there are two ‘moon nodes.’ The following table illustrates
the associations:
Tibetan cosmology: there is a mountain called Mount Meru (Rirap Chenpo). The sun, moon, planets and stars
rotate around Mount Meru (the sun takes 24 hours to do its rotation). Furthermore, Tibetans believe that “the
sun, moon, planets, and some of the stars are living beings, lha and lhamayin” (Sweet, p. 346).
153
Encyclopedia of the Orient – Sumer.
154
Johnson-Groh, Abstract, pp. 5, 6.
152
Kala-Chakra (“Wheel of time”) [कालच (kālacakra)] classifies the gyukar (a single star) into three groups.
Johnson-Groh, p. 16.
157
And associated planetary alignments, which are considered auspicious.
155
156
29
vedic gemstone
planet
Sun (nyi ma (ཉི་མ་))
Moon (zla ba ( ་བ་))
*Tibetan astrology
Mars (mig dmar (མིག་དམར་))
Mercury (lhag pa ( ག་པ་))
Jupiter (phur bu ( ར་ ་))
Venus (pa sangs (པ་སངས་))
Saturn (spen pa ( ེན་པ་))
Rahu (sgra can ( ་ཅན་)) - north lunar node
Ketu (mjug ring (མ
days
Sunday
Monday
deities
Sῡrya
Chandra
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
variation
Dakye
Vrihaspati
Tārā (Tib.
Friday
Saturday
ོལ་མ་ (dölma))
gshin rje drag po
ག་རིང་)) - south lunar node158
Tibetan astrology (gemstones, planets, days of the week, deities)
In the discussion of dkon mchog and astrology, while Vedic astrology parallels Tibetan with respect to
planets, days of the week and most of the deities, there does not appear to be a parallel gemstone
association. While in Vedic astrology, ratna refers to astrological gemstones that are related to planets
and days of the week and deities, there appears to be no such dkon mchog association in Tibetan
astrology. However, in the Mesopotamian, Vedic, and Tibetan astrologies, there is a parallel association
between the planet Saturn, the day Saturday, and the same deity (under different names). In Vedic
astrology: Saturn (Hindi श न (shani)); Saturday (Hindi श नवार (shaniwar)); diety (the dark form of Shiva,
the Lord of Death (Skt. शव (śiva))).159 In Tibetan astrology: Saturn and Saturday (Tib. ེན་པ་ (spen pa); གཟའ་
ེན་པ་ (gza spen pa)); deity (Shinje Dakpo (Tib. གཤིན་ ེ་ ག་པོ་ (gshin rje drag po))). Regarding Shinje Dakpo,
Johnson-Groh wrote,
“The sun is considered the Lord of the Planets, or Sῡrya as it is known in Vedic Tradition. In Tibetan astrology it is
called Namkhe Mik [ནམ་མཁའི་མིག་] which translates as the “Eye of the Sky” which is similar to the Egyptian sun god Ra
whose eye is what we see in the sky. Sῡrya is the symbol of life and provides both light and life for living beings.
The sun is the father of Saturn (Shinje Dakpo) who is the Lord of Death according to astrological belief.” 160
Shinje (གཤིན་ ེ་ (gshin rje)) is the Lord of the Dead. The Sanskrit equivalent is यम (yama), lord and judge of
the dead, ruler of Hades. Shinje Dakpo is a hyphenated title, lit. Lord of the Dead-Shiva. The final suffix
“Like Vedic astrology, Tibetan astrology recognises the shadowy planets of Rahu and Ketu, which are important
for the prediction of eclipses, wellbeing of the people, and nation” (Tibetan Medical & Astro-science Institute).
158
159
The dark form of Shiva: Tib. ནག་པོ་ཆེན་པོ་ (nag po chen po) = Skt. महाकाल (mahā-kāla), epithet of the god Siva
(Shiva/Siwa (Skt. शव)), the lord of death, the wrathful manifestation of Chenrezig/Avalokiteśvara (Das 1902:730).
160
Johnson-Groh, p. 17.
30
of this hyphenated title means: Tib. ག་པོ་ (drag po), strong, vehement, violent; forcible; epithet of
terrifying deities, especially Shiva.161 Shinje Dakpo is identified with Rudra and Shiva.
Shiva-Wangchuk
The purpose of this paper is to provide a historic context for the term dkon mchog. While developing
this historic context, I have wanted to gain a better understanding of the Shiva-ratna association, and
consequently the Shiva-dkon mchog association. A Tibetan told me that dkon mchog has long been
associated with Shiva. Note that Tibetans do not usually refer to Shiva, but use the name Wangchuk
(dbang phyug). Wangchuk is the Tibetan name for the god Shiva.
The following points illustrate associations between Shiva and ratna, and consequently, between ShivaWangchuk and dkon mchog:
Shiva and triratna association, through the trident: Shiva is the bearer of the trident. The trident is
Shiva’s symbol of power. The three ‘prongs’ of Shiva’s trident represent the three ratnas, that is,
triratna, the Buddha, the dharma, and the Sangha.
Shiva and triratna association, through the bull:
“The triratna symbol is also called nandipada, or “bull's hoof,” by Hindus.”162
The triratna symbol is called, by Hindus, nandi-pada (bull's hoof). The bull, called Nandi, is Shiva’s
‘vehicle’ (Nimrod was known as Nimrod-Ninus, the bull-horned man).163 Deepak, in our conversation,
made an association between Nandi and dkon mchog. He also talked about Shiva and nag po chen po
(ནག་པོ་ཆེན་པོ་), the Great Black One, epithet of Shiva, interpreted also as death.164
drag po: 1) strong; violent, fierce, serious, severe, wrathful, powerful, wrath. 2) Raudra, [54th year, the Male
Iron Monkey]. 3) Shiva; Rudra (THL).
162
Three Jewels (New World Encyclopedia)
161
Nandi (Skt. नि द), usually depicted as a bull, is the ‘gate-guardian’ deity of Kailasa (Mount Kailash), the abode of
Shiva. “The worship of Shiva and Nandi can even be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization time-period. The
famous ‘Pasupati Seal’ depicts a seated figure, which is usually identified as Shiva, and there were many bull-seals
found in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa [ancient cities in the Indus Valley], which led to [the] conclusion of the
researchers, that Nandi worship has been a long standing tradition for many thousands of years” (Dogra, R. C.
2004. Let’s Know Hinduism. Star Publications). Consider also the possibility of the indirect worship of Shiva(?)
through the golden calf by the Israelites (with the exception of the tribe of Levi) - see the Hebrew term used in
Exodus 32.1 and Nehemiah 9.18 for ‘gods/God.’
164
See Jäschke 1881:300.
163
31
Nandi, Shiva’s ‘vehicle,’ in front of and in line with a statue of Tārā
(Skt. तारा)/Dölma (Tib.
ོལ་མ་), in a pocket park in Kathmandu, Nepal.
The triratna symbol - nandipada (bull’s hoof)
Shiva and ratna association, through astrology: Tārā (तारा), called Dölma in Tibetan, is a female Buddha
in Vajra-Yana Buddhism, and the female aspect of Avalokiteśvara. Tārā is the deity associated with the
planet Venus (तारा means ‘star’), and through Vedic astrology, the diamond jewel165 (Skt. व (vájra); Tib.
ོ་ ེ་ (rdo rje)). This Shiva-ratna association relates to the astrological significance of Venus (deity: female
aspect of Avalokiteśvara) and Saturn166 (deity: dark form of Shiva, the emanation of Avalokiteśvara). The
development of this association is in process.
Shiva and ratna association, through the Cintāmaṇi stone (the wish-fulfilling gem; Tib. ཡིད་བཞིན་ནོར་ ་ (yid
bzhin nor bu); nor bu dkos don dkon mchog (ནོར་ ་དགོས་དོན་དཀོན་མཆོག་)167):
“The ‘precious jewel’ and ‘wish-granting gem’ [Cintāmaṇi stone ( च ताम ण)] are terms applied to the Buddhas
and their teachings” (Beer, pp. 191ff.).
See Ezekiel 28.11-13.
Saturn, Rudraksha ratna.
167
See Huber’s Lende Glossary (wish-fulfilling gem).
165
166
32
A Buddhist jewel not included in the Vedic gems is the Cintāmaṇi stone,168 a divya-ratna (Skt. द यर न),
that is, a divine jewel (versus a human jewel or a Bodhisattva jewel). These divya-ratna always
‘accompany the gods,’ and can be communicated with. The Cintāmaṇi is held by Avalokiteśvara, “He
[Avalokiteśvara] holds a cintamani or wish fulfilling jewel to his heart…” (Avalokiteśvara). Shiva is
referred to, in the Lotus Sutra, as an ‘emanation of Avalokiteśvara.’ The Buddha (Skt. buddha ratna; Tib.
sangs rgyas dkon mchog) is often referred to as a wish-granting jewel (THL).169
Shiva and ratna association, through the mantra: mantras are Sanskrit-invocations of the “Supreme
Being.”170 Mahadeva (Skt. महादे व (mahā-deva)), meaning “Supreme among gods,” is an epithet of
Shiva,171 and one of the eight names of Rudra. The mantra associated with Avalokiteśvara and Chenrezig
is oṃ maṇi padme hῡṃ (oṃ jewel lotus hῡṃ). The development of this association is in process.
Syamanta jewel (Hindu Vishnu Purana).
‘Cintāmaṇi’ is also used as a title for the Dalai Lama (THL).
170
Rudra Center.
171
Guenther, H. The teachings of Padmasambhava, p. 214.
168
169
33
From the beginning of the translation period, that is, the translation of the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures
into Tibetan, centuries would pass before any Christian missionary activity would occur in Tibet. The
Catholics entered first, that is, the Catholic order called the Capuchins. The Capuchins first entered Tibet
in the fourteenth century, and were followed nearly two hundred years later by the Jesuits.172
CAPUCHINS AND JESUITS IN TIBET
The Capuchins173 and Jesuits (Society of Jesus)174 are religious orders within the Roman Catholic Church.
In history, both the Capuchins and Jesuits considered Tibet to be of strategic importance “as a link
between China, the most important field of operations in East Asia for both the orders, and their
important mission fields in South Asia.”175 Both Catholic orders were contending for Tibet, as only one
order was permitted to be established in a particular region.176 Furthermore, priests of both Catholic
orders considered that there may have been, in history, a Christian foundation to the Tibetan belief
system,177 or as Portuguese Jesuit António de Andrade stated in his letter written in 1626, that the
Tibetan religion appeared to be “a corrupt form of Christianity, defiled with heresies, because of the
The Nestorians reached Tibet before the Capuchins and Jesuits. However, Nestorianism was considered
heretical, and was formally condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
173
The Capuchins are one of the three most prominent Franciscan orders. The founder of the Franciscan order was
Francis of Assisi.
174
The founder of the Jesuit order was Ignatius Loyola.
175
Sweet, p. 21.
176
Behind the contention were two conflicting Catholic mission authorities, the Patronage (padroado) and the
Propeganda (de Propoganda Fide, est. 1622). Crowns of Spain and Portugal were given, by the popes, the right to
“regulate church affairs within their domains, even to the right of assigning and approving missions, with Portugal
having been given these rights over all of East and South Asia” (Sweet p. 20). This right or power was known as the
Patronage. The Propeganda was the department of pontifical administration, responsible with spreading
Catholicism throughout the world and regulating church affairs in non-Catholic countries. No religious order was
allowed to establish a mission without the approval of the Propeganda, and no mission could be established in a
place where missionaries of another religious order were already established (mission poaching).
177
Considering Tibetans to be the “Lost Christians of Cathay” (Kalapura, p. 1075).
172
34
long isolation of the country.”178 It was within this political and spiritual context that Ippolito Desideri, a
Jesuit priest, was sent to Tibet.179 The consideration that Tibet was of strategic importance was a prime
concern of Michelangelo Tamburini, ‘father general’ of the Society of Jesus. Tamburini was the man who
gave Desideri his order to go to Tibet.
Ippolito Desideri (1684-1733)
Desideri, on August 15, 1712, received Tamburini’s order to depart for the Indies. 180
“On the 15th of August 1712, after repeated requests, I received permission to go to the East Indies from the Very
Rev. Fr. Michelangelo Tamburini, superior general of the Society of Jesus, and was expressly assigned to carry on
the Tibet mission founded in 1624 by Fr. António de Andrade of the Society of Jesus.” 181
It was Tamburini’s desire to reopen the Tibet field for the Jesuits (no Jesuits had gone into Tibet
following the closure of Andrade’s mission in 1640).182 Desideri wrote a formal letter of application to
Tamburini on August 14, 1712, requesting to be posted to the Indies (‘the Indies’ included all of South,
Southeast, and East Asia, and Tibet). As well, in the letter, Desideri requested that Tamburini would
grant his request on the following day, August 15th, because it was the Feast of the Assumption.183
Tamburini granted his request by a formal response, on that following day, August 15 th. Tamburini
ordered Desideri to go to ‘the Indies.’ Goa, on the western coast of the Indian subcontinent, was to be
Desideri’s initial destination (Goa was referred to as “Rome of the East,” and had jurisdiction over the
Tibetan mission184). Desideri, with his companion Fr. Ildebrando Grassi, departed from Rome on the 27 th
Marek, p. 149. Sweet elaborated: Andrade, in 1626, wrote that “… the Tibetan regions “are not Christian, but
appear to have been so at some point in time…” Thus, he viewed Tibetan Buddhism as “a mixed Pagan-Christian
development (Didier 2002: 301), and his accounts are full of the parallels he saw between Tibetan Buddhist and
Catholic practices and beliefs… [Cacella, 1628] Cacella… during his stay at Shigatse in 1628, realized that “these
countries are pagan” (Wessels 1924: 156). However, almost a century later, the Capuchins continued to repeat
mistaken ideas about Tibetan beliefs in the Trinity and other false parallels with Catholicism, for example, see the
letter written in 1712 by Domenico da Fano, “They believe in one God in three persons, one of whom became
man,” referring to Buddhist faith in the so-called Three Jewels, the first of which is the Buddha. The long-held
belief in a hidden or degenerate Christianity in Tibet was not definitely repudiated by Catholic missionaries until
the time of Desideri and Freyre” (Sweet, p. 689 note 547).
179
“By Desideri’s time, the Capuchins were regarded by the Jesuits as intruders and usurpers used by the
Propaganda to reduce their power and influence and to break the monopoly of the padroado” (Sweet, p. 21).
180
Sweet, p. 17.
181
Sweet, p. 119.
182
Had the field of Tibet been closed to the Jesuits due to the political dynamic between the Jesuits and the
Capuchins over jurisdiction of the Tibet mission? Or was the closure related to the persecution that followed
Andrade’s return to Goa in 1629? Most likely because the Capuchins would have gone into Tibet some time after
Andrade the Jesuit left Tibet. According to records, the Capuchins did in fact reopen the Tibet mission in 1707.
How did Tamburini not know this when he ordered Desideri to go to Tibet in 1712? Apparently, he didn’t.
183
Sweet, p. 17.
184
Goa was founded under the padroado.
178
35
of September, 1712, and arrived in Goa on the 25th of September, 1713.185 On November 13, 1714,
Desideri, with another travel companion Fr. Manoel Freyre, arrived in Srinagar, Kashmir, 186 and left on
May 17, 1715. After forty days of walking, on June 26, 1715, they arrived in Leh, Ladakh, and left on
October 9, 1715 with the Tartar princess’s calvary, to begin a seven months journey across the Tibetan
plains. They arrived in Lhasa on March 18, 1716. On May 1, 1716, Desideri had an audience with King
Lhabzang Khan (lha bzang khan ( ་བཟང་ཁན་)).187 From Lhabzang Khan, Desideri was given permission to
“preach the gospel without interference,” and was later given the opportunity by the king to study the
Tibetan religion at a deeper level, a study which began on March 25, 1717 at the Shidé Monastery (bzhi
sde (བཞི་ ེ་)), within view of the Potala, studying with the Capuchin Orazio della Penna. In August 1717,
Desideri continued studying at a university attached to the Sera Monastery (se ra (སེ་ར་)). This study
ended on December 3, 1717, not directly because of the ongoing political dynamic between the Jesuits
and the Capuchins, but because an invading Zünghar army took Lhasa and killed Lhabzang Khan. 188
Desideri relocated to Trongné, eight days walk from Lhasa, to continue his studies of the Tibetan
religion. However, on December 12, 1718, “the Propaganda issued its decree giving exclusive rights over
the Tibet mission to the Capuchins and reproving the Jesuits for having acted contrary to its formal
edicts.”189 On January 16, 1719, Tamburini wrote a letter to Desideri, recalling him from the Tibet
mission.190 Desideri received the letter on January 10, 1721, and left Tibet on December 15, 1721. After
some years as a parish priest in Delhi, Desideri arrived back in Rome on January 23, 1727, with the
Grassi parted ways with Desideri at Goa, and went on to Mysore to establish a mission.
According to Desideri, “The natives of this place [Srinagar, Kashmir], as well as other people in the Mogul
empire [Hindustan], state that Srinagar was founded by Solomon, and they declare that the small remnant of an
ancient building on the summit of this hill was the residence of the supposed founder. They call the ruins of that
ancient structure Takht-i-Sulaiman (Takht-Solimàn), or Solomon’s Throne” (Sweet, p. 158).
187
Desideri referred to him as Jin gir Khan (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 94).
188
Sweet, p. 46. “… the Qing rulers of China had been engaged in a campaign to suppress the Mongol tribes of
central Asia, which they had succeeded in doing, except for the Zünghars of “Independent Tartary” [i.e., the
Tartars]. The Zünghars in turn were concerned with the growing influence of China in Tibet through its alliance
with Lajang Khan.” The Zünghar army was eventually defeated by the forces of the Qing emperor. Was Khan, who
ruled Tibet from 1705 to 1717, a relative of the Chinese Emperor? See Sweet p. 183.
189
Sweet, pp. 47-48.
190
The recall was directly related to the Capuchin-Jesuit politics, as the following quote from Michelangelo
Tamburini’s letter to Desideri reveals (dated January 16, 1719), “When I gave Your Reverence permission to go to
Tibet I did not know of the assignment of the mission to Tibet by the Sacred Congregation to the Capuchin fathers,
for I supposed that after our fathers had founded that mission and remained in it until 1650, when they were
expelled due to persecution, that it had not been later reopened by others” (Sweet, p. 626). 1650? Andrade left
Tibet and returned to Goa in 1629. Shortly after, Gugé was invaded by Ladakh, the missionaries were persecuted,
and by 1640, the Jesuit mission was over.
185
186
36
intention to enter into legal proceedings against the Capuchins over rights to the Tibetan mission.
Desideri never returned to Tibet. He died in Rome on April 13, 1733, at 48 years of age.
History of dkon mchog in biblical-related texts (Catholic)
As stated previously, there was a belief among the Catholic orders that there may have been an ancient
Christian foundation to the Tibetan culture,191
“… there was a religious argument to be made [in 1703]: like Andrade eighty years before him, [Fr. François-Marie
de Tours] the French Capuchin had come to believe in the widespread and persistent legend among Muslim
traders that there were people in Tibet who had once been Christians. Fr. François-Marie pointed out that due to
the lack of priests these former Christians were now ignorant of their origins, yet some influence remained, insofar
as the Tibetans are hostile to Muslims and are very welcoming to any Christian who should come among them.” 192
However, eighty years earlier, Portuguese Jesuit António de Andrade, before his own journey to Tibet,
had considered as well an opposing religious argument [an argument which was not mentioned by the
French Capuchin Fr. François-Marie de Tours in 1703, and which years later (1726/27) Ippolito Desideri
wrote about in his Historical Notices of Tibet (HNT),193 on his return journey by French ship to Rome,
from notes he’d written during his years in Tibet], described as follows,
“When the Portuguese Father Antόnio de Andrade was the head of our Society’s college at Agra [pre-1624], the
capital of Mogul [Hindustan] in former times, he often heard from Armenian and Kashmiri merchants that the
people of Tibet professed Christianity or a religion wholly similar to it… Having discussed this matter thoroughly
among themselves, they concluded that it was a sign from Divine Providence, who wished to make use of them
and of our small Society to provide those remote people with appropriate guidance or necessary instruction. Since,
if this people were an ignorant and degenerate remnant of some Christian community that others had created in
ancient times, there could be nothing more fitting than to provide them with legitimate priests and zealous
ministers of the Holy Roman Church. However, if this people had nothing more of Christianity than its deceitful
appearance, and they were in reality blind and ignorant unbelievers, then they would require our zeal for divine
glory and for the salvation of souls… Should it [the reports] turn out to be true, they would have the good fortune
of bringing back to the obedience of the Roman Church a part of its flock that had for such a long time been astray
and in exile; should it be false, the way would be open for the light of the gospel to enter and spread in these
new and, until now, unknown regions.”194
Several men contributed to this belief. Their names were listed by Desideri in his Historical Notices of Tibet (p.
448)): Fr. Athanasius Kircher, Fr. Antόnio de Andrade, Louis Moréri, J. B. Tavernier, Fr. Antόnio Franco (etc.). These
and other letters have been collected in Lettres édifiantes et Curieuses, including Desideri’s initial letter(s) to Fr.
Ildebrando Grassi, written before he realized his error. Desideri addressed their ‘Christian foundation’ arguments
in Chapter 22 (Book III) of his Historical Notices of Tibet (p. 450).
192
Sweet, pp. 21-22.
193
Italian: Relazione (Relation), i.e., Notizie istoriche del Thibet (in full: Notizie istoriche del Thibet e memorie de’
viaggi e missione ivi fatta dal P. Ippolito Desideri della Compagnia di Gesù dal medesimo scritte e dedicate
(Historical Notices of Tibet and Memoir of the Journeys and Missions Undertaken by Fr. Ippolito Desideri of the
Society of Jesus, Written and Dedicated by the Same); also referred to as: Notizie istoriche de’ Regni del Thibet
(Historical Notices of the Kingdoms of Tibet).
194
Sweet, pp. 196-97.
191
37
Andrade then, in 1623, left the Jesuit College at Agra and journeyed to Tibet, and in 1624 set up a
mission in Tsaparang.195 In time, Andrade discovered that the Tibetans were, in fact, “blind and ignorant
unbelievers buried in the abysmal darkness of idolatrous superstition.” 196
Ninety years after Andrade established the Tsaparang mission, during Desideri’s own journey across the
frozen Tibetan plains to Lhasa, he considered evidence that appeared to support the 1703 religious
argument197 (was Desideri ignorant of Andrade’s conclusion stated in 1624, a conclusion which was not
mentioned by the French Capuchin in 1703, and possibly had not been published?), based on his own
recent interactions with the king and prime minister of Leh, Ladakh,
In these and other audiences the king and prime minister expressed their strong desire that we should stay and
exercise our duties as teachers of our holy Law198… When we visited him [the king] for the last time he gave us, in
addition to further gifts, unrestricted passports with orders to his governors to treat us well.” 199
“For Desideri, the Ladakhis, by which he meant the king, his court, and the lamas, were kind, generous, and well
disposed toward Christianity even if they had, to his eyes, neither culture nor science…” 200
Given the receptiveness in Ladakh, together with (misleading) interactions with his Muslim
interpreter,201 and other observations made during his first seven months in Tibet (such as the Ladakhis’
use of the word dkon mchog for ‘God,’ and their apparent concept of the Trinity), Desideri prepared to
share his conclusions, which he did first with Tamburini in a report dated August 5, 1715, during the
middle of their stay in Leh (they arrived in Leh, Ladakh, on June 26, 1715, and left on October 9,
This is the mission that Desideri was, in August of 1712, assigned by Tamburini to carry on. Portuguese Jesuit
António de Andrade set up the Tsaparang mission, in the western Tibetan kingdom of Guge [Gugé]. “In 1625,
Andrade met the king of Guge in Western Tibet, who permitted him to preach. The King of Guge “was convinced
that truth cannot harm truth, and that, therefore, whatever was true in the religion of the stranger, could only
enhance, amplify, and bear out the teachings of Tibetan saints and of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas”” (Jesus and
his Missionaries in Tibet, G. W. Houston, p. 18). However, the result of this permission, and of Andrade’s
subsequent repudiation of the teachings of Buddhism, was revolt in Western Tibet… It was the letters of Andrade
that, for the first time, “aquainted Europe with the Tibetan religion” (Marek, p. 149).
196
Sweet, p. 198.
197
At this point in his journey (March, 1716), that is, before realizing his error, Desideri was carrying on the
tradition of previous Catholic missionaries, “Others, after arriving in Europe and in Rome from Tibet have, at other
times as well, informed the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda and the supreme Pontiff that the words Sangyé
Könchok signify the first person of the Holy Trinity, that is, the Eternal Father; Chö Könchok the Son or Divine
Word; and Gendün Könchok the Holy Spirit” (Sweet, p. 732 note 1125). Long after Desideri realized his own error,
he documented the above in what is called the Florentine manuscript (abbrev. (F), the first extant state of the
HNT).
198
Sweet, pp. 41, 177 (the king’s commander said “that not only would I not meet any opposition to my plans, but
that the king and everyone else would willingly hear what I had to say on so righteous and significant a matter”).
199
Sweet, pp. 166-67.
200
Sweet, p. 31.
201
Desideri initially was led to believe by his Muslim interpreter (who could speak both Persian and Tibetan) that
dkon mchog gsum was a concept similar to the Judeo-Christian Trinity (gsum means ‘three’). See also Historical
Notices of Tibet (Chapter 22 Book III) for his account.
195
38
1715).202 On March 18, 1716, Desideri and his travel companion Fr. Manoel Freyre arrived in Lhasa,
‘Abode of the gods,’ the place which Desideri considered to be “the head and foundation of that false
sect.”203 Shortly after their arrival, on April 10, 1716, Desideri wrote a letter to his former travel
companion and friend Ildebrando Grassi,204 a letter sharing his conclusions in detail, conclusions in
support of the argument that within the Tibetan culture lay remnants of an ancient Christianity, “stating
unequivocally that the Tibetans did not believe in transmigration but in eternal punishment or reward
after death.”205 Furthermore, Desideri wrote,
“One might well doubt whether Christianity was founded in these regions or whether some apostle came here
long ago. Such suspicion may be grounded by a great many things in the Tibetan sect and religion that bear a great
resemblance to the mysteries of our holy faith, to our ceremonies, institutions, ecclesiastical hierarchy, to the
maxims and moral principles of our holy law, and to the rules and teachings of Christian perfection.” 206
In this letter, Desideri went on to describe to Ildebrando Grassi the Tibetan’s reference to God as dkon
mchog, and their concept of the Trinity of God,207
“Here is what I learned about the Tibetans’ religion… They call God könchok [dkon mchog], and they appear to
have some notion of the adorable Trinity, for at times they call Him könchok chik [dkon mchog gcig], that is, the
One God, and at other times they call Him könchok sum [dkon mchog gsum], that is, the Triune God. They also use
a kind of chaplet, over which they repeat the words Oṁ ah hῡṁ, and they say that the word Oṁ signifies
knowledge or an arm, that is, power; ah is the word, and hῡṁ is the heart, or love, and that these three words
mean God. They also worship a being named Padmasaṃbhava, who was born some seven hundred years ago.
Sweet, p. 36. On August 17, 1715, Desideri and Manoel Freyre left Leh, and arrived in Tashigang September 7,
1715. While in Tashigang, Freyre discussed matters of religion with a Lama, through their Muslim interpreter,
specifically rebirth, which supposedly he never shared with Desideri.
203
Sweet, p. 166. Desideri and Freyre arrived in Lhasa “three years, five months, and twenty-two days after my
departure from Rome” (Sweet, p. 176). Freyre returned to Goa from Lhasa, according to Desideri, because of the
cold climate.
204
Desideri wrote the Grassi letter from Lhasa. However, according to Sweet’s translation of Desideri’s Historical
Notices of Tibet, Desideri considered, not long after arriving in Lhasa, that Tibetans had “fallen into the worst
error” (Sweet, p. 177). Desideri would have had to realize his error shortly after sending his letter to Grassi, “When
Desideri arrived in Lhasa, he could write the letter to his old friend Grassi that came to be published and widely
circulated in Europe, informing him of what he had learned of Tibetan religion…” (Sweet, p. 36).
205
Surprisingly, Desideri’s convictions were not, according to Szembek, supported by Andrade, who wrote, “that
there is a Hell which awaits the wicked and a Paradise for the reward of the good” (Marek, p. 149), but knew also
that this ‘Hell’ and ‘Heaven’ are not considered by Tibetans to be eternal, as his discussion (disputations) with
lamas revealed, “Andrade was strongly struck with the belief in the transmigrations of souls. He asked what
purpose those continual rebirths served. The lamas answered that it is for the good to accumulate sufficient good
actions to go to heaven, and for the wicked to commit sufficient bad actions to be damned, and having spent a
long period of time in the hells, they return to life and again earn enough to be damned” (Marek, pp. 150-51).
206
Pomplun, Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet, p. 78. Houston also wrote
regarding observed similarities, “Like many before him [the German Jesuit John Grueber], he noted many
similarities between Tibetan Buddhism and Roman Catholicism: celebration of the Mass with wine and bread,
monasteries, beads, prayers for healing, shaved heads, choirs that chant, fasting, religious festivals, exorcisms, and
so on. Grueber like many before and after him considered that these practices might be the remains of early
Christian influences” (G. W. Houston, p.19).
207
This letter survives on in a French translation.
202
39
When asked if he was God or man, some people replied that he was both God and man… In their churches, one
finds an altar covered with cloth and ornaments, and a sort of tabernacle sits in the middle of the altar, where they
say Padmasaṃbhava dwells, though they also assert that he is in heaven.” 208
In his Historical Notices of Tibet, Desideri recorded similarly,
“In this manner it appears to me that one may suspect that this trinity of collections of Sangyé Könchok, Chö
Könchok, and Gendün Könchok honored by the Tibetans is a glimmer, like a tiny remnant and blind fictionalization
of some knowledge of the most noble and worshipful Divine Trinity that was possessed in the past, if not by the
Tibetans themselves, at least by the ancient peoples of Hindustan from whom they took their religion…” 209
Desideri would have been aware that Roman Catholic theologians of his time, in attempting to
understand the condition of peoples in Asia and the Americas who had not heard the gospel, considered
newer theories that they felt better explained the possible salvation of non-Christians, and consequently
relaxed the necessary conditions for faith among newly discovered peoples, “allowing them the
possibility of an implicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, while upholding the necessity of an
explicit faith in God and His providence…” [as opposed to the necessity of understanding the gospel
message, “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John
5:12)]. Desideri came to think that Tibetans may have possessed that implicit faith given the similarities
their religion bore to Christianity. These were all factors that motivated Desideri to arrive at certain
premature and erroneous conclusions about the Tibetan religious system and the term dkon mchog.210
As Desideri’s knowledge deepened, he realized the errors in his thinking, recognizing that Buddhism
opposes the biblical record.211 In only a matter of days after writing the letter to Grassi,212 a letter which
Pomplun, Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet, p. 74. Desideri also wrote, “The
peoples of this great Tibet are not idolaters, since we have found that they acknowledge the adorable Unity and
Trinity of the true God” (Pomplun, Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet, p. 82).
209
Sweet, p. 385.
210
What was Desideri’s own view on the salvation of non-Christians? Initially, he appeared to align with Catholic
theology (which was summarized by Stucco in the nges legs Appendix ‘The Salvation of non-Christians in Recent
Catholic Theology’). However, in time, Desideri’s view changed. In tho rangs, Desideri wrote that the Messiah
(translated into English by Stucco as ‘Jesus Christ’) is the only door/path through or by which eternal salvation can
be attained. This Gospel message was opposed by Padma-Sambhava centuries earlier. This opposition was
recorded in Padma-Sambhava’s biography Padma thang yig (also known as rnam thar shel brag ma), where Yeshe
Tsogyel (ye shes mtsho rgyal), the Tibetan princess consort to Padma-Sambhava, wrote, “The Supreme Being [dkon
mchog] has come into the world many times, and will do so again” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna,
p. 100; see also PADMA BKA’I THANG YIG, The history of Padmasambhava).
211
Regarding transmigration/rebirth, Desideri also wrote, later on and in contradiction to his initial conclusions,
“The main and fundamental error from which spring all others, or better expressed, under which all the errors of
the false Tibetan sect are subsumed, is the nefarious error of metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls… 1)
They assert that the world and everything in it, living beings and their origin, that is, the continual course of
transmigration, have existed ab aeterno [from beginningless time]… 2) They do not accept fate, as Democritus
does… Neither do they accept with Plato and Aristotle that the world, living beings, and everything in the world is
created by God; nor do they accept in any way any primary, universal, uncreated, and independent cause upon
208
40
came to be published and widely distributed, Desideri again wrote to Grassi, and in this letter,
repudiated all that he had previously written, knowing that he had drawn hasty conclusions, stating that
in fact there was no historical evidence of a ‘Christian foundation to the Tibetan culture’ despite the
seeming resemblances relating to the Trinity and an eternal heaven and hell (therefore, at some point in
the last two weeks of April, 1716, Desideri drew the same conclusion that Andrade had drawn in 1624).
Excerpts from this ‘correction’ letter to Grassi:
“I have found no credible indication that Tibetans once had a notion of Christianity and our holy faith, but rather
find it much more likely that the religion and false beliefs of Tibet can be found among the ancient Indian
nations…”213
“in none of the Thibettan histories, memories or traditions, have I found any hint that our Holy Faith has at any
time been known, or that any Apostle or evangelical preacher has ever lived here.” 214
However, there is no record that this ‘correction’ letter was published, as the initial letter was. Desideri
found out in 1726 during his stay in Pondicherry, a French colony in South India (ten years after writing
his initial letter to Grassi), that the initial letter had been passed from Grassi to others, who then
translated it into French, and published it in Paris in 1722215 without his knowledge. The letter was then
cited and translated numerous times to the end of the nineteenth century.216 By 1726, Desideri was well
aware of the errors contained in his initial letter to Ildebrando Grassi, errors which he described on his
return journey to Rome in around that same year, in his Historical Notices of Tibet,
“About these two things [Tibetan’s knowledge of God and of the Trinity] I was grossly mistaken and I erred greatly
in my understanding of both matters. The cause of my error was the following. When I was preparing to leave
Kashmir for Tibet I took great effort to see if I could find some man who knew both the Persian and Tibetan
languages to serve as my interpreter, teach me some common words and phrases, and initiate me into the Tibetan
language during the journey. Now all who travel to the second or third Tibet, be they Europeans, Armenians,
Muscovites, or Mohammedans, without exception fall into the error of assuming that the word Könchok
which all things depend. On the contrary, they positively and directly deny and reject both fate and the existence
of any entity uncreated in itself that would be the lord and creator of the universe” (Sweet, p. 342).
212
Chronology: arrived in Lhasa on March 18, 1716; wrote the initial letter to Grassi on April 10, 1716; then
realized his error; and on May 1, 1716, had an audience with Lhabzang Khan, by which time he realized that
Tibetans had “fallen into the worst error” (Sweet, p. 177).
213
Pomplun, Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet, p. 78.
214
Pomplun, Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet, p. 302.
215
In the Lettres édifiantes et curieuses. Note that a second letter of Desideri’s had been published as well, in 1752,
but this letter dealt with issues relating to his life in Lhasa, his interactions with the king, his Tibetan studies, etc.
216
In his Historical Notices of Tibet (Chapter 22 Book III), Desideri wrote about his disappointment, not only with
respect to his hasty conclusions, but about the fact that his ‘hasty conclusions’ had been published, “However,
with equal frankness I must confess that the fault of publishing this letter and those two unsubstantiated scraps of
information cannot in any way be attributed to me, since when I wrote it, the possibility of its publication never
crossed my mind” (Sweet, p. 450).
41
signifies and means “God,”217 and indeed my own interpreter used it in the very same way. To be specific, on
those occasions when either the king or his minister of state, the Grand Lama of Ladakh, or another lama were
asking various questions about our religion with respect to God, they replied that they recognized Könchok sum,
the word sum meaning “three” or “triune.” When we replied that it was necessary to recognize only one, unique
God, they answered that they also recognized Könchok chik, the word chik meaning one and unique, although they
understand it in a different sense. This provided the occasion for my misunderstanding of these matters, which I
had wished to know and understand in too great a haste.”218
However, given the momentum provided by the publication and wide distribution of Desideri’s initial
letter to Ildebrando Grassi, ‘the ball began to roll.’
After Desideri realized the errors in his own thinking, he chose not to refrain from using the term dkon
mchog, but to use dkon mchog most often(?) with a qualifying prefix.219 According to Lopez,
“Desideri refers to God with the term that he will use throughout the work as the “self-existent jewel” (rang grub
dkon mchog), a term that he likely chose with particular care.” 220
Desideri modified dkon mchog with the prefix rang grub (རང་ བ་ (self-established, naturally existing)),
creating the sequence rang grub dkon mchog (རང་ བ་དཀོན་མཆོག་), the self-established jewel.
In which contexts did Desideri used this prefixed term rang grub dkon mchog and the unprefixed term
dkon mchog? He was never involved with Bible translation.221 Desideri used these terms in the following
compositions,222 which were written in Literary Tibetan:
First Literary Tibetan Composition [written in the style of argumentation and disputation, a work of
apologetics, called The Dawn223]: After realizing his error, Desideri had his first audience with the king
Lhabzang Khan [Chronology: March 18, 1716 (arrived in Lhasa); April 10, 1716 (wrote his initial letter to
Desideri wrote in Italian, referring to the God of Israel [he used the Italian word for God: dio, from Latin deus,
from Gk. Θεός. In the Septuagint, Gk. Θεός was considered to be an equivalent to the Heb. אֱ ִ ֑הים, Elohim. In the
English translation of the HNT, the generic term ‘God’ is used].
218
Recorded by Desideri in his Historical Notices of Tibet, Chapter 22 Book III. Desideri went on to explain how he
initially misunderstood metempsychosis (transmigration).
219
Interestingly, even with his deeper understanding, Desideri continued to use the term dkon mchog, both with
and without the prefix (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 46), “Toscano used the expression
“Supreme Being” to translate the Tibetan dkon mc’og... Desideri himself in his Second Apology, says he used at
times the term Kon ccioa’ (“the most high”) and at others Ran grub (in Latin “a se existens, or “self-existent””).
220
Lopez, p. 160.
221
The first known Tibetan translation dates from the Ching Dynasty, 1628, and was done by the Polish Jesuit
Fryderyk Szembek (1575-1644). This was a ‘free-form translation,’ and was influenced by Catholic apologetics. The
translation to follow Szembek’s would have been Jäschke’s, i.e., the Book of John in 1862.
222
These writings are referred to as ‘compositions’ in this paper, to distinguish them from the ‘book’ HNT. The
compositions have been divided into three main compositions but contain a total of five compositions.
223
The Dawn, tho rangs (ཐོ་རངས།); full title: Dawn is the sign that the sun dispelling the darkness is about to rise.
Significant issues: divine grace, demons, conflicting truth claims, the origin and value of non-Christian religions, and
the salvation of non-Christians (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 14).
217
42
Grassi); shortly after sending the letter, came to realize that Tibetans had “fallen into the worst error”; 224
May 1, 1716 (had his first audience with Lhabzang Khan)]. Desideri was encouraged by the king’s
receptiveness, “his public affirmations,”225 and then proceeded to write his first Literary Tibetan
composition (The Dawn). The composition was completed in December, 1716. 226 He presented the
composition to the king January 6, 1717, which was read aloud, in part, before a public audience. The king
responded to Desideri personally in March, 1717, telling Desideri about two significant problems that he
had with the composition, that is, the belief in an eternal God 227 and the denial of rebirth,228 as Desideri
later wrote, “… there were two points that caused him great difficulty: that we accept a supreme being
whose nature is single, uncreated, and incorporeal, and that we completely deny metempsychosis, or the
transmigration of souls.”229 Given these two problems, the king directed Desideri to do a deeper study of
the Tibetan religion (which he did with his Capuchin friend Orazio della Penna at the Shidé and Sera
monasteries), in order to be equipped to debate “with the lamas and doctors” over these two issues. 230 A
date for the debate was set. As Desideri waited for the debate, he began, on November 28, 1717, to write
The Origin of Sentient Beings and Other Phenomena, which became part of his third Literary Tibetan
composition. However, just two days after beginning this composition, on November 30, 1717, the
Zünghars invaded Lhasa. On December 3, 1717, Lhabzang Khan was killed by the invading Zünghars. By
Sweet, p. 177.
Sweet, p. 185.
226
According to Stucco (When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 12), Desideri did not begin writing The Dawn
until he had completed two books - the first was a biography of Padma-Sambhava called Padma thang yig (པད་མ་ཐང་
ཡིག།). The second was a series of prophecies called lung bstan ( ང་བ ན་) supposedly written by Padma-Sambhava.
227
Eternal God (v.s. emptiness): “One of the most difficult concepts for a Buddhist to grasp is the concept of a
Divine Being, God” (Tenzin Gyatso, p. 55). Orthodox Tibetan Buddhists say that any who believe in a Creator are at
a low level of enlightenment. Conze (1959:39) wrote that “Buddhist tradition does not exactly deny the existence
of a creator, but it is not really interested to know who created the universe. The purpose of Buddhist doctrine is
to release beings from the suffering of samsara. And speculations about the creator and the origin of the universe
are thought to be irrelevant to that task. These speculations are not only a waste of time, but they may also
postpone one’s deliverance from suffering.” Tenzin Gyatso, in his 1989 Nobel Peace Prize speech, said that,
according to Buddha-Dharma, man is the highest achievement of creation. “The distinctive feature of Buddhism
lies in the fact that it is essentially humanistic rather than formally religious… It sets about defining the problems
that arise in life, and proposing a series of solutions… it does not base itself upon the concept of God. It talks of
man, and how he may attain perfection. Many religions begin with the idea of God and then use it to settle all the
problems of existence… Even if it is an easy answer, it is not logically provable. That is why Buddha avoided it and
strove to present a doctrine that might be based through and through upon reason.”
228
Denial of rebirth: “The intimate connection between Hindu doctrine and Hindu society is illustrated dramatically
in the belief that human beings are born again and again to lives of varied fortune in a course controlled by the
moral quality of their accumulated deeds. It is an idea central to Hinduism. With slight variations, it is accepted by
Buddhists and Jains” (Forman, p. 107).
229
Sweet, p. 187.
230
This deeper study included Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim Chewa (lam rim che ba (ལམ་རིམ་ཆེ་བ།)), The Great Stages of the
Path [lam rim chen mo (ལམ་རིམ་ཆེན་མོ།, Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment], dated September
14, 1717. According to Stucco (When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 5), Desideri “devoted himself to reading
the Kangyur…”
224
225
43
the end of December, Desideri was forced to relocate to a safer environment, namely Trongné, in the
province of Dakpo Khyer. From there, at the Capuchin hospice, Desideri continued to write. 231
Second Literary Tibetan Composition [written in the style of argumentation and disputation, called
Questions on Rebirth and Emptiness232 (unfinished233)]: In this second composition, which Desideri began
on June 24, 1718, he refutes two core Buddhist oppositions to the biblical message: metempsychosis
(transmigration of the consciousness (rnam shes,
མ་ཤེས་), i.e., rebirth)234 and tongpanyi (stong pa nyid ( ོང་
པ་ཉིད་, emptiness)).235 Desideri was about 300 pages into this composition when he received the first
communication from Rome that he was going to be recalled from Tibet. 236 On January 10, 1721, Desideri
received the letter from Tamburini ordering him to abandon the Tibet mission.
Third Literary Tibetan Composition [written in the form of a dialogue, in three parts: Highest Good237
(unfinished); The Origin of Sentient Beings and Other Phenomena238 (begun on November 28, 1717, and
finished on June 21, 1718). In The Origin, Desideri again addresses the second core Buddhist opposition to
the biblical message, emptiness, and as well presents an argument for the existence of God; 239 and The
Heart of Christian Doctrine (The Essence of Christian Perfection)240 (finished towards the end of 1720?)]:
During the time of writing the Third Literary Tibetan Composition, Desideri also dictated (simultaneously
translating from Tibetan to Italian) to Fr. Giuseppe Felice da Morro, the Tibetan religious book called
The Desideri compositions were not written in the same order as they have been labelled (noted by Pomplun in
Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy).
232
Questions on Rebirth and Emptiness Offered to the Scholars of Tibet by the Christian Lama Ippolito, mgo skar
bla ma i po li do zhes bya ba yis phul ba’i bod kyi mkhas pa rnams la skye pa snga ma dang stong pa nyid kyi lta ba’i
sgo nes zhu ba (མགོ་ ར་ ་མ་འི་པོ་ལི་དོ་ཞེས་ ་བ་ཡིས་ ལ་བའི་བོད་ ི་མཁས་པ་ མས་ལ་ ེ་པ་ ་མ་དང་ ོང་པ་ཉིད་ ི་ ་བའི་ ོ་ནེས་ ་བ།).
233
Pomplun, Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy, p. 385.
234
“While denying the substantive reality of the soul (Anatman), Tibetan Buddhism upheld the notion of a
conscious principle called rnam ses, namely a body of knowledge and predispositions (i.e., consciousness) that is
transmitted from birth to birth” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 46), guided by karma. Desideri
argued in tho rangs that “Man’s soul is consciousness, without a cause” (i.e., not ‘caused’ by karma, but created
directly by God’), as opposed to the Buddhist assertion that “consciousness [with no beginning] is guided by
karma” (Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, pp. 82, 116). Karma does not explain origins. The third
core Buddhist opposition to the biblical message is that of Anatman, no soul. Anatman is linked to the concept of
‘emptiness.’
231
Emptiness (v.s. Eternal God): the concept of ‘emptiness,’ i.e., denial of the creator God [Skt. शू यता (śῡnyatā);
Tib. ོང་པ་ཉིད་ (stong pa nyid) [see also the ‘emptiness doctrine,’ the name given to one of the systems of Buddhistic
235
thought: Skt. मा यमक (madhyamaka) / शू यवाद (śūnyavāda); Tib. ད ་མ་པ་ (dbu ma pa)]]. Relating to this core
Buddhist opposition is ‘no beginning v.s. First Cause.’
236
i.e., on August 13, 1719. See Pomplun, Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy, p. 411.
237
The Highest Good and the Final End, nges legs (ངེས་ལེགས།) (Latin: summum bonum).
238
The Origin of Sentient Beings and Other Phenomena, sems can dang chos la sogs pa rnams kyi ‘byung khungs
(སེམས་ཅན་དང་ཆོས་ལ་སོགས་པ་ མས་ ་ི འ ང་ ངས།).
239
Stucco, When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna, p. 38.
240
Abbreviated as snying po ( ིང་པོ།), The Heart of Christian Doctrine (The Essence of Christian Perfection), ke ri se
ste aṇ kyi chos lugs kyi snying po (ཀེ་རི་སེ་ ེ་འན་ ་ི ཆོས་ གས་ ི་ ིང་པོ།), done simultaneously with his second composition.
44
Lamrim Chewa (lam rim che ba (ལམ་རིམ་ཆེ་བ་)), meaning The Great Stages of the Path, which is a
“compendium of the 115 volumes of the Kangyur.”241 This translation/dictation was completed by March,
1721.242 Desideri left Trongé in April, 1721.
Lhabzang Khan was killed before the debate between Desideri and “the lamas and doctors” took place.
However, the king’s noted objections to Desideri’s first composition, specifically to Desideri’s testimony
of a “supreme being whose nature is single, uncreated, and incorporeal,” identifies a significant point
with respect to the term dkon mchog. Within the Tibetan religion, the ‘enlightened mind’ is the mind
that has overcome the knowledge of God, has come to completely deny “the existence of any being of
itself, uncreated and independent, and of any primary and universal cause of things.” 243 Yet alongside
this denial, there is the ancient tradition of ‘Taking Refuge.’ Tibetans ‘take refuge’ in an ‘object’ that
appears to have certain characteristics of the uncreated God that they absolutely deny. Desideri wrote,
“that they believe, confess, and accept that there must be some object of refuge and prayer, and in fact there is.
Furthermore, in speaking in general about the perfections that must exist in any object worthy of adoration and
invocation, they assert these chiefly to be: that it is (1) perfectly blessed and free from all evil; (2) omniscient, that
is, seeing and understanding all things; (3) omnipotent, able to help everyone in all things; and finally, (4) infinitely
compassionate without excluding anyone, wishing to do good to all without exception, whenever it is invoked.” 244
All Tibetans require (and have required from beginningless time, through the eons of infinite
transmigrations) the help of some object of refuge and prayer, an object that has these characteristics in
full. The contradiction, as Desideri points out, is that none of the ‘Saints’ (i.e., Gautama Buddha) that are
objects of worship have been ‘free from all evil’ from beginingless time, but “were themselves engulfed
in the great ocean of the sufferings of transmigration from beginningless time until they finally
succeeded in ridding themselves of all the passions.”245 [“They assert that the world and everything in it,
living beings and their origin, that is, the continual course of transmigration, have existed ab aeterno
[from beginningless time]”]. So what is this object of refuge and prayer, if it is not the uncreated God
whom they deny? There must be, and must have been ‘from beginningless time’ some object of refuge
and prayer “that is outside the collection of all living beings.”246 In reality, there is none but the God they
deny. Tibetans, when they take refuge and when they pray, are recognizing the God they deny, yet they
refuse to acknowledge him, and their object of refuge and prayer, dkon mchog (the most perfect thing),
Sweet, p. 194.
Pomplun, Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy, p. 412.
243
Sweet, p. 364.
244
Sweet, pp. 375-76.
245
Sweet, p. 376.
246
Sweet, p. 376.
241
242
45
is the creature rather than the Creator, as they have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for
images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Yangchen said,
“to you people, dkon mchog means ‘Jesus,’ but when [our people] hear the name dkon mchog, they will think
about Gautama, Jampayang, the Dalai Lama, Guru Rimpoche… all the gods - or one of their own choice…”
Given this, Desideri began to use the prefixed term, rang grub dkon mchog (རང་ བ་དཀོན་མཆོག་) in an effort to
distinguish the intended referent, the uncreated God, from their ‘most perfect things.’
In April, 1721, Desideri left Trongé. He stayed in Lhasa until April 28, 1721. He “descended from the
Tibetan plateau on December 8, 1721,”247 journeyed through the Himalayan pass and on down to India.
After five years as a parish priest in Delhi and a missionary in Tamil Nadu,248 Desideri arrived back in
Rome on January 23, 1727, never to return to Tibet. He lost his legal battle with the Capuchins over
rights to the Tibet mission, and died in Rome on April 13, 1733, at forty-eight. In the final years of his
life, while editing his Historical Notices of Tibet, and long after he had come to realize that there was no
message of hope within the Tibetan religious system, Desideri wrestled with the question, “… how God
could allow the Tibetan people, who were otherwise wonderfully endowed with great intelligence and
all the Christian virtues, to be damned through no fault of their own…” 249 Romans 1 states…
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their
unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it
to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever
since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they
knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal
God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Romans 1.18-23).
In time, other individuals, specifically from the Capuchin order, adopted this same term, rang grub dkon
mchog. However, according to the following, they used dkon mchog as well without the prefix.
Orazio della Penna (1680-1745): Orazio della Penna (the Capuchin who studied with Desideri at the
Shidé and Sera monasteries) prepared Tibetan language Christian texts, which may have included the
term rang grub dkon mchog, but these have all been lost. In 1721, della Penna translated Bellarmino’s
Compendium of Christian Doctrine into Tibetan (this was the only book published in Tibetan by the
Capuchins that Desideri was aware of when he wrote the HNT).250 Della Penna also prepared a Tibetan-
Pomplun, Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy, p. 413.
Sweet, Michael. Review of Jesuit on the Roof of the World: Ippolito Desideri’s Mission to Tibet, by Pomplun.
249
Sweet, pp. 98, 100.
250
Sweet, pp. 206, 574.
247
248
46
Italian dictionary, which included the Capuchin’s terms for God, dkon mchog and rang grub dkon
mchog.251 This dictionary was used as the basis for subsequent dictionaries prepared by certain
Protestant missionaries, including Friedrich Schröter.252
Antonio Agostino Giorgio (1711-1797): based on della Penna’s material, Antonio Agostino Giorgio wrote
the Alphabetanum Tibetanum, an 820 page two-volume work (published by Typis Sacrae Congregationis
de Propaganda Fide, Rome, 1762). The second volume is a detailed study of the Tibetan language. The
appendix of the second volume includes Tibetan
translations of the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed,
using Desideri’s rang grub dkon mchog for ‘God.’ Also
included in the appendix is the Praecepta Decalogi (The
Ten Commandments, Deut. 5:6-21). The term dkon
mchog appears in the Praecepta Decalogi, both with and
without the rang grub prefix.
Praecepta Decalogi (The Ten Commandments, Deut. 5:6-21)
The Roman Catholic Church stopped using the term dkon
mchog some time after 1881, and aligned with the
Chinese Bible translators who used tian shɛn (天神, deity
[of] heaven). Catholic translators developed the tian
shɛn equivalent gnam gyi bdag po (གནམ་ ི་བདག་པོ་, lord of
heaven), and gnam gyi bdag po became the official term
for ‘God’ in Catholic Tibetan Bible translations.
Catholic Tibetan Bible commentary (1930s) - gnam gyi
bdag po (གནམ་ ི་བདག་པོ་), second line from the top, fifth
line from the bottom.
251
252
Prepared while staying at the Sera Monastery with Desideri (1717-1718) (Stucco, Thomas Aquinas, p. 36).
Bray, see ‘Sacred Words and Earthly Powers: Christian Missionary Engagement with Tibet,’ pp. 93-118.
47
THE MORAVIANS ON THE BORDER OF TIBET
One hundred and twenty years after the death of the Jesuit Ippolito Desideri, Moravians August Wilhelm
Heyde and Eduard Pagell were sent from Germany, with the intention to enter Mongolia (Heyde, like
Desideri, was a Jesuit priest). Heyde and Pagell were unable to enter Mongolia, and eventually settled in
the region of Tibet’s western borders. It was now 1855, and this was the beginning of the West
Himalayan Mission of the Moravian Church, working among Tibetans. Pagell and Heyde established the
Moravian mission station in Kyelang, Lahaul, Himachal Pradesh, India. In 1856, the mission board in
Germany sent Heinrich August Jäschke to join Heyde and Pagell.
Heinrich August Jäschke (1817-1883)
Heinrich August Jäschke became superintendent of the Moravian mission station at Kyelang, Lahaul. This
position as superintendent began when he was thirty-nine. Jäschke became part of the first Protestant
Tibetan Bible translation team, along with Wilhelm Heyde and Eduard Pagell.
Jäschke was instructed specifically by the mission board to study the Tibetan language and “devote
himself to the translation of the Bible into the Tibetan language.” 253 Shortly after arriving in Kyelang,
Jäschke went to Stok, Ladakh, where he spent three months with Sönam Stobgyas, a former monk. 254
His primary intention was likely to begin to learn Tibetan. Work began on the Tibetan Bible translation in
1858, in the book of John.
History of dkon mchog in the biblical scriptures (Protestant)
Jäschke had access to Friedrich Schröter’s dictionary,255 which incorporated the Capuchin’s terms for
God, dkon mchog and rang grub dkon mchog [up to the 1880s, the Catholics were continuing to use the
prefixed expression rang grub dkon mchog. Jäschke knew this, given that he documented it in his
dictionary which was published in 1881],256 and so in 1858, Jäschke decided as well to use the term.
Possibly, he was ‘following their lead.’ As Bray pointed out, Jäschke “may have been influenced
indirectly by his Roman Catholic predecessors.”257 However, Jäschke did not use the qualifying prefix,
Driver
Bray, Language, Tradition & the Tibetan Bible, p. 30.
255
Schröter, Friedrich Christian Gotthelf. 1826. A Dictionary of the Bhotanta, or Boutan Language. Serampore; Did
Jäschke also have access to Desideri’s initial letter to Ildebrando Grassi? There is no indication yet that he did.
256
Jäschke, p. 10, “Note 1. rang.grub.dkon mchog with Schr. [Schröter] is evidently the appellation of the Christian
God adopted by the Roman Catholic missionaries of those times” (Jäschke 1881:10).
257
Bray, Sacred Words and Earthly Powers: Christian Missionary Engagement with Tibet, pp. 93-118. Chronology:
Schröter's dictionary was published in 1826, and included the Capuchin terms for God dkon mchog/rang grub dkon
253
254
48
and the term dkon mchog first appeared in the Moravian translation of the Book of John in 1862,258 as is
illustrated in the image below.
Book of John, 1862 (John 3.16 underlined)
Jäschke had his own personal reasons for continuing to use the term dkon mchog, and for doing so in
the context of Tibetan Bible, and for removing the qualifying prefix rang grub in that context. His
reasons are partially revealed in his dictionary,
“As then the original and etymological signification of the word is no longer current, and as to every Tibetan ‘dkon
mchog’ suggests the idea of some supernatural power, the existence of which he feels in his heart, and the nature
and properties of which he attributes more or less to the three agents mentioned above, we are fully entitled to
assign to the word dkon mchog also the signification of God, though the sublime conception which the Bible
mchog; Jäschke arrived at the Moravian mission station in 1857; Jäschke accessed Schröter 's dictionary, and began
to use dkon mchog in 1858 in the book of John; John was published in 1862 (along with Acts?); Jäschke returned to
Germany in 1868 where he continued revising the Kyelang translation (Heyde was also working on the translation
revision from Kyelang, Lahaul); Jäschke 's dictionary was published in 1881, and included an entry noting the
Catholic use of the term rang grub dkon mchog (p. 10); Jäschke died in 1883; at some point between 1883? and
1898, Roman Catholic translators dropped dkon mchog, and began to use gnam bdag; Auguste Desgodins (18261913) published a Tibetan-Latin-French dictionary in 1899, and noted the Catholic's reason for dropping the term.
Bray documented this reasoning, “On page 24 the dictionary noted that dkon mchog was an inadequate word to
express the attributes of the one creator God. Following the usage of the Chinese Bible translations, the official
Catholic term was now gnam gyi bdag po, the ‘Lord of Heaven’” (Bray, Sacred Words and Earthly Powers: Christian
Missionary Engagement with Tibet). The point of this chronological entry is that Jäschke died before the Roman
Catholic translators dropped dkon mchog. Had the term been dropped by the Catholics before 1858, possibly dkon
mchog would not be in use today in Tibetan Bible translations and fellowships. Heyde lived until 1907, and
therefore (being a Jesuit), may have known that the Catholics replaced dkon mchog with gnam gyi bdag po.
258
“The first of Jäschke’s Bible translations, a harmony of the Gospels, was published in Kyelang as early as 1861…
The first complete book of the New Testament was Acts, published in 1862, and the Kyelang mission press brought
out the remaining books of the New Testament between 1865 and 1875. Jäschke regarded the Kyelang versions as
first drafts and continued revising them after his return to Europe in 1868 while at the same time working on his
Tibetan-German and Tibetan-English dictionaries. His colleague A.W. Heyde also worked on the revision from
Kyelang… The complete New Testament was not ready until 1885, two years after Jäschke’s death” (Bray,
Language, Tradition & the Tibetan Bible, p. 35).
49
connects with this word, viz. that of a personal, absolute, omnipotent being, will only with the spread of the
Christian religion be gradually introduced and established…” 259
However, Jäschke’s thinking went beyond the anticipation of meaning shift over time. Jäschke revealed
a favorable attitude towards Buddhism in comparison to Bön,260 the ancient pre-Buddhist animist and
shamanist belief system of Tibet. He considered Buddhism to be superior to, that is, more civilized and
civilizing, than Bön, and therefore possibly able to function as a bridge between Bön and the biblical
message that was coming to Tibetans.261 He wrote, again in his 1881 dictionary, regarding dkon mchog,
“The most precious thing. Buddhism has always sought the highest good not in anything material, but in the moral
sphere, looking with indifference, and indeed with contempt, on everything merely relating to matter.” 262
Along the same line of thought regarding the ‘civilizing’ effect of Buddhism (though for different
purposes), Wordsworth wrote,
“Strongtsan Ganpo took, therefore, a humanizing step when he adopted the “good law,” even in its later perverted
form, as the religion of Thibet. Buddhism is a religion of peace, and wherever it prevails the primeval delight of
man in strife and battle has been slackened... from the admission of the pious scribes of Thibet, we surmise that
the death of Strongtsan Ganpo was the signal for a vigorous re-assertion of the old demon-worship, and that the
first success of the “good law” in Thibet must have depended, to great extent, on the king’s personal influence. For
two generations after Strongtsan’s death it seems to have made no advances, though Thibet at this time was
extending its territory east and west, and distinguishing itself as an aggressive military state. Such periods are not
favourable to religious growth.”263
Much later in time, Hoffmann stated similarly that Buddhism could function as a bridge between Tibet’s
primitive origins and the post-Enlightenment worldview of the Europeans. Bjerken wrote the following
regarding Jäschke and the ‘Buddhism bridge:’ “His comparison of Buddhism/Bon to
Christianity/paganism is quite telling, and it foretells the Buddhist bias presumed by so many
subsequent students of these two religions. “Original” Bon becomes equated with the dark and static
native tradition, while Buddhism is likened to the enlightened and uplifting force of missionary
Christianity. A Moravian missionary, Jäschke believed that Indian Buddhism had a civilizing impact on
Tibet, for it prepared the Tibetans to accept the higher teachings of Christianity.” 264
Jäschke 1881:10.
According to Religion Facts (Bön) there was a ‘theistic’ concept in the ancient Bön religion, “In its earlier forms
Bön doctrine was a dualistic theism, teaching that the creation of the world was brought about by coexistent good
and evil principles.” If this is true, it is interesting that the translators would have considered Buddhism to be
superior to Bön, given that Buddhism denies the existence of the creator God.
261
Jäschke considered that Buddhism would function as a bridge between Bön and the biblical message rather
than as a direct opposition to the biblical message, which was essentially the conclusion drawn by Desideri.
262
Jäschke, p. 10.
263
Wordsworth, pp. 26, 29.
264
Bjerken, p. 10.
259
260
50
And so, the Moravian team, Jäschke, Heyde, and Pagell, continued work on the Tibetan Bible translation
with the help of a Tibetan named Gergan Sönam Wangyal, using the term dkon mchog. Jäschke died in
1883 (exactly one hundred and fifty years after Desideri died), and at the time of his death, the New
Testament had been translated (except for Hebrews), and as well, Genesis and part of Exodus had been
completed. Jäschke was replaced by August Hermann Francke. Gergan Wangyal died in 1897, and
several years later, around 1908, Gergan Wangyal’s son Yoseb Gergan joined the team. 265 Previous to
Yoseb Gergan joining the team, the translation work had shifted to Leh, Ladakh. While preparing for the
translation work in Leh, Yoseb Gergan, according to one account, discovered a strange Tibetan dialect
that was more easily understood by most Tibetans than classical Tibetan,
“One day, Gergan was in an isolated temple. He heard an old monk chanting from an ancient book of myths and
legends. The dialect was one that he thought pre-dated both Classical Tibetan and the contemporary dialects.
Although nearly forgotten, it was familiar enough to be understood by all. Furthermore, it had words for "god" and
"prayer" and other concepts that were free of the Buddhist connotations associated with the more familiar words.
Gergan asked if he could borrow the book and study its language. The lama gave it to him…” 266
This word for “God” from the strange dialect (a Ladakhi dialect?) was never used, for reasons that are
not known, and neither the dialect nor the term has been identified in other sources. Perhaps other
team members thought as Jäschke did, firstly, that it was considered to be more favorable to have a
Buddhist term (rather than a Bön or other term), given the belief that Buddhism would function as a
bridge between Bön and the biblical worldview, and secondly, that the meaning of dkon mchog would
shift over time. There is no way to confirm this account of Gergan and his temple experience because
there are no other supporting accounts. The closest I could get to being able to confirm this account was
to ask Yoseb Gergan’s daughter, which I was able to do indirectly, through a friend. She was living in
Dehra Dun, India, and was ninety-six years old at the time. She still remembered her days in Ladakh. Her
remembrance of the situation surrounding the term dkon mchog, which was stated in an email to me
from their friend, is that it was mainly her father’s decision to use the term, and that he discussed this
issue with the European members of the translation team. She would have been twenty-one years old
when the full-Bible translation was completed. Gergan’s daughter recalled nothing specifically that could
have verified this account and provided more information about the dialect and the term.
On November 18, 1919, Yoseb Gergan began to translate the first of the remaining books of the Old
Testament, using the term dkon mchog (by this time, Genesis to Joshua, and Psalms had been
completed). His aim was to develop a “simple, semi-classical tongue which can be understood easily by
265
266
Yoseb Gergan (1885-1946)
Maberly, Alan. God Spoke Tibetan. Evangel Bible Translators.
51
all classes and readers.”267 Nine years later, on October 5th, 1928, he completed the first draft of the Old
Testament. Francke was editing from Berlin, and died in February, 1930. Bishop F.E. Peter of Leh took
over, and the OT translation was completed in 1934. Gergan then went on to revise the New Testament
and Psalms. Yoseb Gergan completed the translation in 1946. Five days after completion, Gergan died.
The full Bible was published in 1948, ninety years after Jäschke’s Moravian team began the translation
work.
THE FINAL PROTESTANT INITIATIVE
The use of the term dkon mchog in the context of the Tibetan Bible continues. However, there is now
another side to the Protestant initiative, that is, there are individuals who do not, or who no longer, use
the term dkon mchog. The following outlines the reasons that are used for continuing to support the
term in the biblical context, and the reasons for not supporting the term.
Supporting the use of the term dkon mchog in the biblical context
There are various reasons for continuing to use the term (arguments):
Desideri used it (quoting one translator)
The meaning in the biblical context will shift over time (context dependant term): this
anticipation was expressed by Heinrich August Jäschke in the nineteenth century,
“… we are fully entitled to assign to the word dkon mchog also the signification of God, though the sublime
conception which the Bible connects with this word, viz. that of a personal, absolute, omnipotent being, will
only with the spread of the Christian religion be gradually introduced and established…” 268
This anticipated ‘meaning shift’ assumes that the word dkon mchog is context dependant, that
is, the context will infuse the word with the intended meaning, given time. The following is a
letter I received from a Tibetan ma shi ka ba (མ་ཤི་ཀ་བ་),269
“… Regarding this key term, you have raised up a very important question which we never thought before. In
Nepali, for dkon mchog, Christians use different word than the non-Christian. In Tibet we don't have different
Bray, Language, Tradition & the Tibetan Bible, p. 42.
Jäschke 1881:10. However, in stating that, Jäschke acknowledged that there is no similarity in meaning between
the Buddhist and the biblical, “These three ‘persons’ [Buddha, dharma, Sangha], however, have as little as dkon
mchog sum any thing in common with the Christian Trinity, nor even with the Indian Trimũrtti…” (Trimũrtti: Hindu
triad).
269
Christian: ma shi ka is a transliteration of the Hebrew ַ[ מָ ִשׁיחmāšîaḥ (Messiah (= Gk. Χριστός (Christ)))], and
with the suffix -ba (ma shi ka ba (མ་ཤི་ཀ་བ་)) means ‘person who associates with the Messiah’ (= Gk. Χριστιανός
(Christian)); as Jäschke wrote, -ba, “affixed to the names of things, it denotes the person that deals with the thing
(rta pa horseman, chu pa water carrier (Jäschke 1881:321)).
267
268
52
word. Both Christians and non-Christians use the same dkon mchog word. If I use dkon mchog and not explain
anything about Yeshu then the Tibetans will think I am talking about dkon mchog gsum. Then of course they say
we are same. As soon as we talk about Yeshu (some may still refer to Dalai Lama, need to explain more) they know
we are talking about different one, western God. Therefore, I see the need of explaining the whole Bible, taking
time. In time, with much discipling, I have seen God suddenly open their spiritual eyes. All their unbelief goes
away. The Word of God is very powerful.”
Another Tibetan told me,
“Basically we don't have a big problem with that word. The idea of someone just very high up, unapproachable,
can see everything, knows everything, can punish if we sin, is there in the hearts of many Tibetans. Now in the
Bible that dkon mchog is actually explained very clearly…”
The word dkon mchog has been entrenched in the biblical context: a fellow worker said that it
has been decided generally by translators across the Himalayan region to support the use of the
term dkon mchog “because it has a strong history [in the biblical context], dating back from the
1949 translation” (actually 1858). Furthermore, other literature and websites and apps contain
the term dkon mchog, and the term is being used in Tibetan fellowships.270
Not supporting the use of the term dkon mchog in the biblical context
There are various reasons for not using the term (counter-arguments):
Desideri came to have real concerns about the dkon mchog being used as an equivalent for the
Judeo-Christian God, and was therefore motivated to use dkon mchog with the prefix rang grub,
at least in some of his compositions, in an attempt to distinguish its meaning from the Buddhist
sense.
The meaning in the biblical context may in fact not shift over time (context independant term): I
was with a former monk in Pokhara [Nepal] who showed me a book of writings called zhal ‘don
deb (ཞལ་འདོན་དེབ་), meaning ‘prayer/chanting book,’ and how the name dkon mchog appears many
times, usually with the gsum suffix. I then showed him a biblical text containing the name dkon
mchog, and he told me that, for Buddhists, it [dkon mchog] holds the same meaning that it has
in Buddhist texts. He said that the meaning of the term is always the same regardless of its
context. Again, Yangchen’s statement applies,
“to you people, dkon mchog means ‘Jesus,’ but when [our people] hear the name dkon mchog, they will think
about Gautama, Jampayang, the Dalai Lama, Guru Rimpoche… all the gods - or one of their own choice.”
E.g., the Lhomi fellowhip of Nepal: it was explained to us that the Lhomi fellowship has experienced relatively
strong growth, but according to Tsering L., the reason for this, in her thinking, is because the Lhomi people never
had a strong Tibetan Buddhist foundation to begin with.
270
53
Missionaries, in the 1930s in Eastern Tibet, complained to the Bible Society about dkon mchog,
“… as late as the 1930s missionaries working in Eastern Tibet wrote to the British and Foreign Bible society
complaining that the word was misleading.”271
The ‘entrenchment’ is not irreversible (i.e., the term dkon mchog could be replaced in the
biblical context): it could be argued that 157 years (from 1862 to 2019) of use in the biblical
context does not compare with many centuries of use as a term or concept in the Buddhist and
pre-Buddhist contexts, assuming that time is a measure of entrenchment, that is, that a longer
period of use means deeper entrenchment.
Sarat Chandra Das wrote in the late 1800s, “Mr. W. W. Rockhill condemned the use of this word [dkon
mchog] by Christian missionaries to signify “God.””272 Rockhill was an open-door diplomat, “attached to
the United States Legation at Peking,” and a Tibetan scholar, fluent in Tibetan, and the first known
Westerner to befriend the 13th Dalai Lama while in exile. Rockhill became familiar with the manners and
customs of Tibetans during his journeys. Rockhill himself wrote some years before 1891 that “Swearing
is practically unknown among Mongols and Tibetans. The only strong expression, and one not often
heard, among the Koko-nor273 and Ts’aidam people is ah lama, kon-ch’ok ch’en-po [དཀོན་མཆོག་ཆེན་པོ།, lit. dkon
mchog-great]. Protestant missionaries in Lahaul have translated our word “God” by kon-ch’ok, but it has
never had that meaning in Tibetan.”274
CONCLUSION
The purpose in writing this paper was to illustrate the historic context for the term dkon mchog, from
pre-Buddhist India to its use today in the biblical context. Let the reader draw his or her own conclusions
about the use of the term dkon mchog in the context of the Tibetan Bible.
Matt H. (August, 2019; Kathmandu, Nepal; E-mail: matthoward835@gmail.com)
Bray, A History of the Moravian Church’s Tibetan Bible Translations, p. 68.
Das, p. 53.
273
A region in Qinghai Province, “… populated chiefly by Tibetan, Mongolian, and Chinese people” (Yang, Ho-Chin,
The Annals of Kokonor).
274
Rockhill, p. 146. See Rockhill 1891:328-29 for a story containing the name Kön-Chok. In the story, there appears
to be an equating, i.e., putting on an equal level, of dkon mchog and Padma-Sambhava, “... the king, when came
the full moon, made great offerings to the Kon-ch’ok, and showed also every honor to this miraculous creature
[lotus-born], and made him offerings without number...”
271
272
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Apple, James. 2016. The Lotus Sutra in Tibetan Buddhist History and Culture, Part 1. Bulletin of the
Institute of Oriental Philosophy.
Argubright, John. 1997. Bible Believer’s Archaeology – Volume 2: The Search for Truth. John Argubright.
Beer, Robert. 2003. The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols. Boston: Shambhala.
Bjerken, Zeff. 2004. Exorcising the Illusion of Bon “Shamans”: A critical genealogy of Shamanism in
Tibetan religions. College of Charleston, USA.
Bomhard, Allan. 1997. On the origin of Sumerian. Journal of the Association for the Study of Language in
Prehistory, Issue III (December 1997).
Bowker, John (editor). 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bray, John. 1990. A History of the Moravian Church’s Tibetan Bible Translations. London.
Bray, John. 1991. Language, Tradition & the Tibetan Bible. The Tibet Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, Thematic
Issue: Western Religions and Tibet (Winter 1991), pp. 28-58 (31 pages)
Bray, John. 2011. Sacred Words and Earthly Powers: Christian Missionary Engagement with Tibet. Tokyo:
The Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 3.
Conze, Edward. 2003. Buddhism: Its Essence and Development. Dover Publications.
Cornu, Philippe, 1990. Tibetan Astrology, Boston & London: Shambhala.
Das, Sarat Chandra, Graham Sandberg and Augustus William Heyde. 1902. A Tibetan-English Dictionary.
Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depôt; reprinted in 1970 by Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pvt. Ltd.
Desideri, Ippolito. Il t’o-rans (L’aurora) [tho rangs (The Dawn)]. December, 1716.275
Desideri, Ippolito (Author); Guido Stucco (Translator, Introduction). 2019. The Ultimate Good: A Theist
Critique of Madhyamika’s Views. Self-published.
Desideri, Ippolito [Edited by Filippo de Filippi; translated from Italian. Previously translated into Italian
from Desideri’s Tibetan, by Giuseppe Toscano (1982)276]. 1937. An Account of Tibet. The Travels of
Ippolito Desideri of Pistoia, S.J., 1712-1727. London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd.
Driver, N. 1951. The Story of the Tibetan Bible. Publisher unknown.
Forman, Robert. 1993. Religions of the World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gyatso, Tenzin (the current Dalai Lama). 1998. The Good Heart. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.
Hoffmann, Helmut. 1961. The Religions of Tibet. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Houston, G. W. 1991. Jesus and his Missionaries in Tibet. The Tibet Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4. Published by:
Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.
Jäschke, Heinrich August. 1881. A Tibetan English Dictionary - with Special Reference to the Prevailing
Dialects. London: Secretary of State for India in Council; reprinted in 1987 by Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
This is the document containing Desideri’s Tibetan composition tho rangs, with an Italian title.
Giuseppe Toscano discovered Desideri’s Tibetan manuscript in the Jesuit archives in Rome
(https://www.innerexplorations.com/ewtext/desideri.htm).
275
276
55
Johnson-Groh, Mara. 2013. Stories of the Stars: The History and Folklore of Tibetan Ethnoastronomy. SIT
Study Abroad.
Kalapura, Jose. 2012. Constructing the Idea of Tibet: Missionary Explorations, 17-18 th Centuries.
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 73 (2012), pp. 1065-1077.
Levin, Yigal. 2002. Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad. Vetus Testamentum, Vol.
52, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2002).
Livingston, David. The Date of Noah’s Flood: Literary and Archaeological Evidence.
http://www.davelivingston.com/flooddate.htm
Lopez, Donald and Thupten Jinpa. 2017. Dispelling the Darkness: A Jesuit’s Quest for the Soul of Tibet.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mejor, Marek. 1980. The First Polish Description of Tibet from 1628 (Acta Orientalia Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae, Szembek, Fryderyk), Vol. 34, No. 1/3 (1980), pp. 147-151.
Morris, Henry M. 1976. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Mosenkis, Iurii. ? Origin of Sumerian. ?
Petrovich, Douglas. 2013. Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and
Archaeological Means.
Pomplun, Trent, 2009. Jesuit on the roof of the world - Ippolito Desideri’s mission to Tibet. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pomplun, Trent. 2020. Like No Other in the World: Ippolito Desideri on Tibetan Religion. Maryland:
Department of Theology, Loyola University.
Pomplun, Trent. 2011. Natural Reasons and Buddhist Philosophy: The Tibetan Studies of Ippolito
Desideri, SJ (1684-1733). Maryland: Department of Theology, Loyola University.
Robinson, R. and W. Johnson. 1982. The Buddhist Religion - A Historical Introduction. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Rockhill, W. W. 1891. The Land of the Lamas - Notes of a Journey Through China Mongolia and Tibet.
London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; reprinted in 2005 by Delhi: Winsome Books India.
Seely, H. Paul. 2001. The date of the Tower of Babel and some theological implications. Westminster
Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38. Copyright 2001 by Westminster Theological Seminary.
Stucco, Guido. 2016. When Thomas Aquinas Met Nagarjuna: Two Works by Ippolito Desideri, S.J. Selfpublished.
Sweet, Michael J. (Translator); Leonard Zwilling (Editor). 2010. Mission to Tibet – The Extraordinary
Eighteenth-Century Account of Father Ippolito Desideri, S.J. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.
Tsepag, Ngawang. 2005. Traditional Cataloguing & Classification of Tibetan Literature, Journal Article,
The Tibet Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer 2005), pp. 49-60.
Wordsworth, W. 1877. The church of Thibet. Bombay: Thacker, Vining & Co.
56
Matthew Howard