MNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan On the Special Features of the Bon Monastic Disciplin

In this paper I will comment on the monastic discipline (’dul ba) of the Bon tradition, with the intention of comparing parallel aspects of the Buddhist Vinaya. I will particularly refer to two texts composed by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1356-1415), one of the main figures of the Bon scholasticism 1. In 1405 or 1406, founded the sMan ri monastery, soon to become the main seat for Bon studies. Accordingly, his writings in the field of monastic discipline are nowadays of utmost importance in Bon.

These two texts are commentaries by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan on writings by the important bon po author Me ston Shes rab ’od zer (1058-1132) 2. See the bibliography at the end of this paper for a short note about these two texts and the compilation in which they are included. I have also referred to a short text by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak as C (details in bibliography). The purpose of this presentation is to highlight the differences between the Buddhist Vinaya and Bon ’dul-ba. Therefore, I do not refer here to any canonical texts, such as the chp. XV of the mDo gzer mig and the relevant chapters of the mDo dri med gzi brjid quoted and translated in the Nine Ways of Bon, other than for the purpose of clarifying some points which would otherwise remain obscure. Within this limited scope, since not much research

1 The Bon po scholars assert that he introduced some new doctrines into Bon, notably the idea that the ultimate form of wisdom (ye shes) is a cognitive faculty (blo) that realizes the absolute (don dam) ; it is impermanent, being born of causes and conditions — a subject that cognizes the ultimate as its object — whereas the “Ancients” (snga rabs pa) regarded the ye shes as a mere interruption of all the mind-functions. This innovation is strikingky parallel to one of the main features of the doctrine of his famous contemporary, Tsong kha pa. But, besides mere legends, nothing is seriously established about any contact between the two thinkers. Shes rab rgyal mtshan is said to have studied philosophy with another central thinker of his times — Rong ston ≥æ kya rgyal mtshan (1367-1449), whose intellectual heirs, especially

Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429-1490), strongly criticized that precise thesis (among others) in Tsong kha pa’s doctrine. An investigation concerning Shes rab rgyal mtshan’s studies with Rong ston and other events of his life brings up various chronological difficulties, especially about the date (1386?) of the destruction of g.Yas ru dBen sa kha, the centre of philosophical studies in Bon before the foundation of sMan ri. Many perplexing chronological inconsistencies lead to the conclusion that the commonly accepted idea — namely, that the foundation of sMan ri was somehow a consequence of, and a reaction to, the destruction of dBen sa kha — might well be no more than a “myth of transference of legitimacy”. See Arguillère 2007 for details about these issues. 2 Me ston Shes rab ’od zer also wrote, among other texts, a

dBu ma bden gnyis to which mMyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan devoted a commentary that is regarded as very important in the Bon monastic tradition even nowadays (a few lines about this treatise and its commentary can be found in Arguillère 2007). Me ston is definitely a key figure for the Bon doctrines and the fact that he is quite early also has its importance. Still, here, I will focus on mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan without checking whether his ideas about the difference between the Bon pos and the Buddhists are already clearly formulated, or just vaguely alluded to, in Shes rab ’od zer’s source-texts.

about the Bon conceptions of monastic ethics has been carried out so far, what has been presented is not much more than a set of disparate comments, though organized within major topics. In a very general way, mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan insists on the idea that difficult points in the Bon system of monastic discipline must be clarified on the basis of Bon source-texts and of the relevant oral traditions, without improper admixtures. As he writes (A: 8) : “As regards the contradictions between [various] schools of monastic discipline, even if there are many [such differences] between two traditions of differing natures, the one cannot refute the other. There is no doubt that if one acts according to one’s own tradition, this is a path to liberation. Quoting scriptural sources that do not match with one another would be like wearing shoes as one’s hat. This being so, as there are also within Bon many traditions of discipline that are not in accordance with each other, it is the same [that one should do : follow one’s own system and not try to combine it with other traditions]. So here [one will find] a compilation of all [relevant matters] according to the specific lineage of abbots and disciples of the Venerable Me ston, and not [anything] else. As regards the other [systems that exist in Bon], I have quoted the four root [downfalls] from the mDo khyim spangs and not the ten, and so forth. [The way I proceeded] in all the other [similar] cases can be known from that [example]. — “Is it that other [systems] are not [valid] discipline ?”, one may ask. — It may be that they are, but what [I wrote] was done on the basis of what does and does not match with our own tradition 3.” It should be noted that in many parts of the text, when mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan makes uses of terms such as rang lugs and gzhan lugs, it can be seen from the context that he does not mean the Bon tradition on the one hand and the Buddhist system on the other.

3 De yang ’dul ba’i sde la mi mthun pa ni / rang bzhin gnyis ka’i lugs la du mar yod kyang / gcig gis gcig ’gogs mi nus pas / rang rang gi lugs bzhin spyod na thar lam yin par gdon mi za’o / phan tshun mi mthun pa’i lung la sogs ’dren pa ni / lham dpe zhwa la bkab pa bzhin no / des na bon la yang ’dul ba lugs mi mthun pa yang mang du yod pas de bzhin no / ’dir yang rje btsun me ston gyis rang [9] gi mkhan slob kyi lugs dang mthun pa rnams btus pa yin gyi / gzhan dag ni min te mdo khyim spangs la yang / rtsa ba bzhi drangs la / rtsa ba bcu ma drangs pa la sogs / gzhan rnams la yang de’i shugs kyis rig par bya’o / gzhan dag ’dul ba ma yin nam zhe na / yin mod kyi rang lugs dang mthun mi mthun gyi sgo nas de ltar yin no /

He alludes to various traditions of Bon monastic discipline 4, mostly those that are distinguished under the two labels of stod lugs and smad lugs. He may also be referring to collections of texts that do not match with either of those two systems. He addresses this problem somewhere in B, with the hermeneutical hypothesis of codes of discipline of various levels (Hînayæna, Mahæyæna, etc.…). Some of this literature would have been transmitted in the bKa’ ’gyur, though no tradition of their practice would be known in Tibet. That matter requires further inquiry and this remains to be done.

Globally, mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan is following a system called sTod lugs, which Me ston codified. The terms sTod lugs and sMad lugs also exist in Buddhism with reference to lineages of Vinaya which spread in Tibet during the earlier and later diffusions of Buddhism, but, here, they have an altogether different meaning. Also, this seems to be unconnected with the Bon pos’ idea that the Buddhist sMad lugs (the lineage of ordination followed by the rNying ma pas and dGe lugs pas) is in fact a Bon lineage. In both cases and for different reasons, there may have been a slight doubt about the authenticity of the socalled sMad lugs 5.

The nature of the two treatises A and B is defined by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan in the beginning of his commentary on A 6 (p. 13). This he presents as a compilation of all materials that are in accordance with “our own system” (rang lugs) that is, that of the

4 See also Martin 2001, 69-70 : « …These five clans (as well as a sixth one, the Khyung clan) all had vinaya lineages associated with them ; each developped particular monastic traditions that differed somewhat from each other. The Bru, Zhu and gShen had distinct ritual traditions. It is said that nowadays the Bru ritual tradition is mostly followed, although some of the gShen rites continue to be performed. Even if the Bru family itself nearly disappeared in the nineteenth century, its monastic tradition is of special significance, because of the monastery g.Yas ru dBen sa kha, founded in 1072 by a disciple of Nam-mkha’ g.yung-drung named g.Yung-drung bla-ma. dBen sa kha was the single most important center of Bon learning in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries. Damaged by floods sometimes after 1386, its traditions were

carried on at nearby sMan ri monastery, founded in 1405, which then took the place of dBen sa kha as the center for higher Bon studies. » 5 In A (p. 88), the author indicates some of the more intrinsic difficulties in the sMad lugs, especially because it seems to have a tradition in which it is said that a disciple should not follow his masters’ teachings when not well grounded upon authentic texts and valid reasonings. Anyway, mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan advises the reader, when the sMad lugs is not clear enough, to augment it with the authority of the

sTod lugs… — See Martin 2001 : 101-102 for the story of how Buddhists were ordained by a Bon po “abbot”. I shall come back to this point when I discuss the special features of a Bon monk’s clothes and how they are actually found also in a Buddhist monk’s costume, in contradiction with the Buddhist Vinaya texts… 6 This might be a sign that A was actually written before B, though this cannot be asserted with certainty either from what we know of the biography or from the colophons of both texts. The logical order of the reading, following the successive levels of the ordination, suggests that A comes “before” B. But as regards the content, A gives me a — very subjective — feeling of greater ease and mastery than B, as if it had been written by a more mature writer (as in the case of the Sa lam rang ’grel, which, as I have shown elsewhere, deals with the same issues as the commentary of Me ston’s dBu ma bden gnyis in a much clearer and more precise way).

sTod lugs; the drang srong discipline is explained in A and that of the gtsang gtsug, dge bsnyen and bsnyen gnas is developed mostly in B 7. The following themes will be reviewed in this paper : (1) Ordination and re-ordination (which is called bskyar ba, “repeating”) ; (2) Losing the status of a monk or nun, or “deordination”; (3) a monk’s clothing and other material attributes ; (4) a few words about vegetarianism ; and (5) quasi-tantric features of the Bon conception of the vows as Samaya. As a conclusion, a short portrait of the Bon monk, or an evocation the spirit of Bon monasticism, is contrasted with the image of the Buddhist monks as they appear in the Vinaya literature, notwithstanding the fact that Tibetan monks, be they Buddhist or Bon pos, seem to be somewhat closer to the ethos of the Bon monk than to that of the original Indian Buddhist monk…

I. ORDINATION, RE-ORDINATION

(1) The text A starts with a long apologia for the Bon religion as a whole. The line of the argument is that the Bon tradition of morals is authentic, because it originates from an omniscient master. It is interesting that this discussion about the authenticity of Bon occurs in the context of a treatise of monastic ethics. This topic is definitely not rare in Bon literature. However, I have not found it so strongly in the other works of mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan that I have read so far.

It might be the case that this has to do with the fact that the author feels more secure with the internal consistency of a rational grounding in the case of more theoretical matters, while the authority of the tradition is more central in the case of ethical rules. This detail is worth noticing : it shows that morals, as a specific field of knowledge within the Tibetan tradition as a whole, might well have more similarities with juridical reasoning than with philosophical argumentation. There is no question here of demonstrating what is good or bad, or deducing the rules of morals from any rational principle. It is all a matter of determining the meaning of the Law, arranging its matters in a logical order as in a code, and defining the way in which it should be applied.

7 De yang mdo khyim spangs dang / snang ba tshul khrims las kyang rang lugs dang bstun nas tshul khrims kyi lung drangs / g.yung gis mdzad pa’i bkol byang dang / dam pa sogs kyi gsung sgros la brten nas / khrims kyi rkang grangs la sogs bsdus pa’o / stod lugs kyi bslab bya dang gzhan yang smad lugs kyi brgyud rim dang / las chog gi yig chung dang / ’thor bu’i sde rnams las kyang / rang lugs dang mthun pa dag bsdus nas / drang srong gi bslab bya la kun la btus dang / gtsang gstug dang / dge bsnyen dang / bsnyen gnas kyi bslab bya mdor bsdus ’di nyid rtsom pa’o /

This is an extremely important point. In general, the common perspective is that Buddhism as well as Bon (which does not seem to be so different on this point) are religions in which “revelation” does not play the same role as in Christianity, Islam or Judaeism. The stale topic : “Buddhism : a religion or a philosophy ?”, definitely reaches one of its limits when it is realized that in many fields of doctrinal discussion, philosophy (in whichever way it may be defines) has little or no function at all. Here, we find argumentative procedures that are more reminiscent of Averroes’ Decisive Treatise (which is a judicial pronouncement, or fatwa), rather than of Aristotle’s treatises of morals or Spinoza’s Ethics.

(2) Vows can either be received from already ordained monks or, in some cases, taken alone by oneself, alone. The more standard case is the first. On this point, there is a considerable difference between Bon and Buddhist Vinaya traditions, which, as pointed by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan, has to do with the number of people giving the ordination. As we can read in B : 107-108 :

“[One can take ordination], in the best case, from as many as a gathering of four : the abbot, the master, the witness and the translator 8 who makes the application of the terms, [all four] endowed with five such specific features [as described before in the text]. If those are not gathered [complete], it is said [in the Scriptures] that one alone is enough [to give the ordination], as, for examples, in the case of Mu zi and Khri ’bar 9. We do not follow here [= on this point] the system of ‘the others’ [=the Buddhists] for who it is clear that, [to give ordination,] in a central country, up to ten people [are required], or, in a peripheral one, [at least] five 10.”

One can imagine that the difference between the two traditions on this issue may be connected with the comparative rarity of the Bon religion, and especially the scarcity of fully ordained monks, which made it necessary for the Bon pos to find ways to maintain the continuity of their transmissions unbroken, even if they would be held by only a few. The same doctrine is upheld in C, which indicates that the contemporary Bon pos have not

8 On the three first characters, see Snellgrove 1967: 136-137. There is no mention of the l o t s æ b a in that passage. 9 See Martin 2001 : 100-101, translating a passage of the rGyal rabs bon gyi ’byung gnas, for the story of Mu zi gSal bzang and Khri ’bar tshul khrims. Mu zi is supposed to have remained in « suspended animation » during « eight hundred years », and then woke up and ordained Khri ’bar without any assistants. 10 De ltar khyad pa lnga la sogs dang ldan pa’i / mkhan po dang slob dpon dang spang po dang lo ts æ bas brda sbyor bar byed pa la / rab kyi bzhi yan chod ’dzom pa dang / ma ’dzom na cig gis kyang btub gsungs / dpe na mu zi dang khri ’bar bzhin no / gzhan sdes ni yul dbus su bcu yan chod dang / ’tha’ khob tu lngas dgos nges pa’i lugs ’dir ni mi ’dren no /

deviated from this practice, in spite of the contradictory traditions of the surrounding Buddhist monasteries.

(3) The possibility of taking such “individual liberation” vows by oneself, in the event that a qualified mkhan po is not available, is envisaged by the author, but with much reluctance. This is clearly visible. Excluding this possibility may create some difficulty in supporting the validity of the first ordination — that is, the original self-ordination as performed by the Enlightened One, which becomes the source of all others. This would, of necessity, be the case when any previously existing lineage of ordination (those which were founded by previous Buddhas) have become extinct. This might occur in the case of the Buddhas themselves, hen they reinitiate a lineage of monastic discipline with such a self-ordination, unless we imagine spiritual beings descending from the heavens to grant them ordination, a hypothesis which would also be embarrassing, as it would somehow subordinate this Buddha to a higher authority.

Still, since the second hypothesis is favoured in the case of sTon pa gShen rab, we sould note that this makes his legend quite different from that of ≥ækyamuni. But the case is not so clearcut, as, regarding the life of s T on pa gShen rab, the Bon po scholars insist on the fact that there are two versions, one of which maintains that he was self-ordained 11.

As Shes rab rgyal mtshan clearly states in A : 18 :

“As regards the second point, there are two [possibilities] : obtaining [the vows] from an ‘icon’ (rten) or obtaining them from a person. In the first [[[Wikipedia:hypothesis|hypothesis]]], as in the phrase : ‘[From] those sugatas themselves, or an icon…’, it is said that [the vows] are obtained when one recites the ritual by oneself, taking as witnesses [either] the four sugatas that one visualizes through meditation or the three ‘icons’ 12 of the sugatas. But let the wise ponder [this issue] 13.”

11 Anyway, the question is extremely important as it shows us a situation in which the origin of the law is to some extent an exception to the law (which could be said of many cases of the violent institution of a political authority that institutes a system of Law which, from then on, becomes the framework in which social peace is organized…). 12 Representations of body, speech and mind. 13 gNyis pa la gnyis te / rten las thob pa dang / gang zag las thob pa’o / dang po ni / bder gshegs de nyid rten la sogs / zhes pa / bde gshegs gtso bzhi la sogs dmigs pa’i yul du bsgom pa’am / bder gshegs kyi rten gsum dpang por bzhag nas / rang nyid kyis cho ga brjod pas thob par bshad do / ’on kyang blo ldan dag gis dpyad par mdzod cig /

Actually, our author’s doctrine on this point is not so different from that of most Tibetan Buddhism. However, it might be the case that the temptation was greater to perform such “self-ordinations” in a tradition in which a qualified mkhan po was more difficult to find, at times, given the comparative rarity of the Bon religion in some regions of Tibet and the periods of persecution that are described in the texts or known of by historians 14.

The solution suggested by Shes rab rgyal mtshan is that only an Æ r ya (’phags pa) can perform self-ordination. This is not a very daring hypothesis, as Æ r ya s are supposed not only to behold ultimate reality, but also to perceive the rdzogs sku (the s a µ bhoga kæ ya , in Buddhist terms). So when they invoke invisible Buddhas for the purpose of taking ordination in their “imagined” presence, in fact those are really present to them. This is not substantially different from the case in which one receives a monastic ordination from an already ordained person and it cannot ultimately be called a self-ordination. That is why the issue of the two versions of the ordination of sTon pa gShen rab in the mDo dri med gzi brjid and the mDo gzer mig is not so crucial, as they may in actuality be regarded by Bon po scholars as meaning the same in different words.

(4) Another connected topic is that of what happens in case the mkhan po, etc., who performed an ordination ritual when he was fully endowed with all the qualifications, but later loses such qualifications through some downfall or another accident that deprives him of the rank of drang srong. This question is dealt with by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan in A (p. 20) :

“If, though one has obtained [the vows], they would later on be destroyed [in the case one’s mkhan po loses his quality of drang srong], one may ask : ‘would it be [a case of oneself] damaging [the vows] ? Or giving [them] back ? Or a case of conjunction of the two sexual organs ? Or of [oneself] dying ?’ 15 — So does one fall into rantings

14 What is more, it is not impossible that this worry, which appears in some passages of the two texts, might be connected with the role that gter stons may have performed in some lineages of Bon monastic discipline. See for example, Martin 2001: 76 n., about the ’Dul ba gling grags : “It is interesting that this work is here attributed to the excavations of rMa (either rMa ston Srid ’dzin or rMa ston Shes rab seng ge), since it is not indicated in the text of the ’Dul ba gling grags itself. Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan’s primary significance is that he was the

first of the gShen lineage to take monastic ordination, and thereby was the initiator of the gShen monastic lineage (gShen gyi ’dul rgyud) […].” 15 Shes rab rgyal mtshan enumerates the cases in which one loses the benefit of the drang srong or gtsang gtsug ordination. The point is that, in case one upholds the thesis that, if the mkhan po who is the source of one’s ordination is not a pure monk anymore, that would entail the consequence that one is not a monk either, this would add an extra case to the supposedly exaustive canonical list of the downfalls. Maybe this issue is connected with the quite « tantric » undestanding of the monastic vows in the Bon tradition, as, in a Buddhist context, it seems to me that a similar question could only be asked in the case of the tantric samayas.

that contradict [our] doctrine (grub mtha’). Let the holders of the teachings examine [that point]. However, one may ask : ‘If, though one has taken [[[vows]]] from a proper ‘object’ [a qualified mkhan po], in case a downfall later occurs in this ‘object’, what are the defects ?’ — One would [then] become unable to give birth to the discipline in the mind-stream of others 16, because one’s “abbot lineage” would be broken. It is also the cas if [the abbot] has given back [his vows]. Some think that in such a case [the] one [whose ‘ordination-mkhan po’ is not a monk anymore] should be re-ordained. But re-ordination is not necessary, for no obstacle has occurred such as breaking the three main [[[vows]]]. Still, if one thinks of benefiting others [through granting ordinations ?], it would be fine to be re-ordained. So basing oneself upon a proper ‘object’ is very important 17.”

It is not explained here whether the one whose “abbot lineage is broken” must begin again the process of ordination from lay vows upwards, or whether he merely has to re-take drang srong vows. The first solution would be more in the spirit of the sMan ri tradition, in which, when monastic discipline has been broken or given back, the entire process must be restarted from the lowest levels, those of the dge bsnyen vows. Regardless, this is an uncommon idea, which does not seem to appear in the Buddhist literature. Instead, it seems to float between Buddhist conceptions of monastic ordination and tantric ideas about samaya.

(5) There is also the question of what happens in the following case : a person who is taking vows has previously committed faults regarding lower categories of vows that he or she had previously taken (for example, gtsang gtsug vows for someone who is now taking drang srong vows). As B : 113-114 says :

“…When one takes the vows of drang srong, etc., one should be asked whether one is endowed with an undamaged discipine of the lower levels. If it has been damaged, one must re-take it. Most of the ‘others’ [= Buddhists] assert [also] that one must re-take it. It seems that some say that, if the superior [[[vows]]] are transmitted without [the

16 This means : though one’s own ordination remains valid, one would, from that time on, become unable to grant the ordination to anybody. It seems to me that this idea is unknown of the Buddhists. 17 Gal te thob na phyis med du song ba de / nyams pa yin nam / phul lam / mtshan gnyis gcig char byung ba yin nam / tshes ’phos pa yin la sogs kyi dri ba bkod na / grub mtha’ dang ’gal ba’i kha skad chen po shor ro / des na bstan ’dzin rnams kyi[s] gzabs par mdzod cig / gzhan yang yul tshad ldan las blangs kyang / phyis yul de la pham pa byung na / nyes pa ci yod zhe na / gzhan brgyud la sdom pa bskyes mi nus te / mkhan brgyud chad pas so / phul ba yang de bzhin no / La las ni / de lta bu la bskyar dgos par ’dod do / bsKyar mi dgos te / rtsa ba chad pa la sogs kyi ’gal rkyen ma byung bas so / ’On kyang gzhan don la sogs la dmigs nas skyar bar ’thad do / Des na yul brten par [bsten par] gal che’o /

question] being asked, they are obtained [by those who is receiving the ordination], but the fault falls on the slob dpon, etc.; however, this is not followed here [by us, Bon pos].”

That is being said in the context of the questions which are asked to the person who is receiving the vows, at the beginning of the ordination ritual. This person is asked whether he or she has kept pure the lower level of vows. This must be understood within a framework of gradual ordination, in which there are at least three steps, normally separated by some (here undetermined) span of time : dge bsnyen, gtsang gtsug and drang srong. mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mshan’s doctrine is that one cannot receive a higher level of vows if the lower is not complete or has not been kept pure. If the person has somehow broken, given away or even simply “damaged” his or her vows of the lesser level, these must first be retaken 18.

(6) Another issue is the question of qualification. Who is habilitated to bestow “vows of individual liberation”? Can one grant vows up to the level of one’s own, or up to just the inferior level, etc. ? It seems that in the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, the “lay vows” (bsnyen gnas and dge bsnyen) can be conferred even by a layman possessing such vows and it is not rare to see Buddhist lamas who are sngags pas granting the Refuge (skyab ’gro’i sdom pa). This is more or less the first level of the vows of individual liberation, as we can see in the phrase : skyabs gsum ’dzin pa’i dge bsnyen. These sngags pa also give gnyen gnas vows 19.

Regardless, mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan’s doctrine on this point is that only a drang srong, a fully ordained monk, can bestow any type of “vows of individual liberation”. Here is precisely what he writes (A : 20-21) :

“If one asks whether a gtsang gtsug can ‘mature’ [someone] of his kind or not [that is, if he is habilitated to bestow ordinations up to his own level], it is said (gsungs) that he

18 In fact, according to Yongdzin Lopön Tendzin Namdak Rinpoche’s oral explanations, the vows must be all retaken from the basis, dge bsnyen vows (even if the vows about which a fault occurred are of the gtsang gtsug level). 19 I have seen such things only in the rNying ma tradition, which is somehow original in its theory of vows because of the famous system of the dge slong rdo rje ’dzin pa as developed in mNga’ ris p a ß chen’s sDom gsum rnam nges (one can be a fully ordained monk though one does not keep formally any of the vows, provided that one has received the full ordination once, and then has not infringed any rule under the power of an afflictive emotion. Now that last case never occurs with those who have sublimated all afflictive emotions in primordial wisdom through the practice of the tantras or rDzogs chen — but this theory is not openly upheld in practice by most rNying ma lamas, and, what is more, most of the sngags pas who grant “lay vows” were never fully ordained monks and always kept a layman’s style of life.

nable to do so when a drang srong is nearby, but that, if it is not the case, he is able to do so. But that [was said] merely in order not to destroy the small virtues. The same reasoning applies for dge bsnyen and bsnyen gnas. This being so, I say that [the gtsang gtsug and a fortiori the dge bsnyen] cannot [bestow vows up to their own level]. If [someone] says that the same should apply to the drang srong, it is not the same case, because of the fact that the drang srong is endowed with the nec plus ultra of the ‘individual liberation’ discipline. For example, while a king can enthrone the crownprince, it is not the case that a minister could make some else become a minister 20.”

(7) Concerning the same question of the hierarchy of the “vows of individual liberation” and the way the ordination ritual must be performed, mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan indicates (B : 116-117) that there are various conceptions about the question of whether an ordination ritual of a higher level must include the re-taking of the vows of lower levels 21. That question may sound odd and it is not clear how it was first brought up in the Bon context. It might well be by contamination of tantric ideas. In the rNying ma system, at least, initiations (or empowerments, dbang) belonging to higher classes of tantras are said to always include summarized empowerments of all the lower levels at the begining of the ceremony. For example, this is explained by Klong chen rab ’byams in the Phyogs bcu’i mun sel, his large commentary on the gSang ba snying po.

mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan presents the various systems without clearly stating whether these ideas belong to some Bon po scholars or are those of Buddhists monks.

20 ’O na gtsang gtsug pas rang gi rigs ’dra smin nus sam mi nus zhe na / drang srong nye lam na yod na mi nus la / med na nus gsungs pa yang gzhan gyi dge ba phra mo mi gcog pa la dgos pa tsam du zad do / dge bsnyen dang bsnyen gnas [21] kyang des ’gre’o / des na mi nus par smra’o / gal te drang srong yang der mtshungs so zhe na / mi mtshungs te / drang srong ni so thar gyi sdom pa mthar thug dang ldan pas so / dper na rgyal pos rgyal bu rgyal sar la sogs nus la / blon pos ni blon po la sogs bskos mi nus pa bzhin no / 21 Here is all the discussion, that I could not translate without making this paper to long for the present publication ; still, I found it worthy of being quoted : gTsang gtsug pa la sogs ’og mas / drang srong la sogs gong ma’i tshul dang khrims len par ’dod pa dang / de nyid blang ba’i dus ’og ma’i tshul khrims de yang len dgos sam / mi len nam gang ltar yin zhe na / ’di la gnyis te / len dgos par ’dod pa’i sde pa dang / len mi dgos pa’i sde pa’i lugs gnyis

so / dang po la yang / gnas ’gyur du ’dod pa dang / sna tshogs pa’i rgyan ltar du ’dod pa’i sde pa gnyis so / / de la dang po ni / de’i dus su blang bar bya zhing dbogs dgos te lu gu las la gar ’gyur ba bzhin du / ’og ma’i sdom pa’i gnas gong ma’i sdom pa ru ’gyur ba’am / khyad par du ’phags par ’dod do / gzhi gcig la gser rgyan dang g.yu rgyan la sogs rdzas tha dad sna tshogs btags pa’i rgyan ltar du / sdom pa yang ngo bo tha dad kyi ldog pa gnyis ’tshogs su skye bar ’dod pa’o / de’i lugs [117] la skyon brjod mi mthong ste / de dgag par dga’o / gzhung ’di mdzad p’ai mkhan slob rnams kyi lugs ni / len mi dgos par ’dod pa’i sde pa yin te / nyes pa pham pa’i skyon gyis ma gos pa’i sdom khrims rnams ni / yang yang skyar nas blangs kyang yon tan la sogs mi ’byung bar ’dod de / dper na rdzas gzhan la rigs gcig pa’am mnyam pa’i rdzas tha dad gzhan mi ’chags pa bzhin du / las chog rdzogs pa’i sdom pa gcig la / las chog bskyar kyang de dang rigs gcig pa sdom pa gzhan mi chags pa’i tshul ni gong ma de bzhin du ’dod / de pham pa byung na bskyar dgos / sbom po la sogs byung nag gso sbyong dang / nyes byas phra mo nyams na sdom pas chog par ’dod de / dper na rin chen gyi bum pa’i gnas skabs yang zhig na brdung dgos / zhum na bsrang shing / dri ma ni phyis pas chog pa lta bu’o / zhes gsungs par mngon no / […]’on kyang nges pa bskyed pa’i phyir du bskyar nas blang pa sogs ni mi dgag go /

But the end of the passage makes it quite clear that they must be Buddhist ideas, or the ideas of some Buddhists, and he clearly insists on the necessity of avoiding any mixtures of distinctive traditions : “So one should distinguish the discipline (’dul ba) of our tradition and that of others. It is bad to apply [irrelevant] traditions whose reasonings are mostly in contradiction [with those of our tradition] 22. […] The wise should discern [matters] from the point of view of [belonging] to the same tradition or not, to the same system or not 23.”

II. LOSING THE STATUS OF AN ORDAINED PERSON

(1) Another question is whether or not all of the vows are lost when one of the most fundamental rules is broken. On this point, the difference is not between the Buddhists in general on the one hand and the Bon pos on the other hand, but rather between a minority of the Buddhist commentators of the Vinaya and the Bon pos as a whole. The doctrine criticized by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan is also rejected by Sa skya pa ß ≈ i t a in the sDom gsum rab dbye and it is not followed either by the rNying ma pa author mNga’ ris pa ß chen in his sDom gsum rnam nges.

The Tibetan text 24 is long and complicated, and so let me summarize the idea. According to some Buddhists (Sa skya pa ß ≈ i t a ascribes this doctrine to some ’Bri khung pa prior to his time), breaking one of the fundamental monastic vows does not set one free from the obligation to keep the others. For example, a monk who has not respected the vow of celibacy is somehow free from the obligation of keeping it from the time of the fault onwards.

22 Des na ’dul ba rang lugs dang / gzhan lugs phyed dgos shing / rigs pa phal cher dang / phan tshun mi mthun pa’i lugs drang ba ni sdug pa yin no / 23 gZhan yang sde gcig mi gcig dang / lugs gcig mi gcig la sogs kyi sgo nas blo ldan rnams kyi dpyad par mdzod cig / 24 Here is the passage (B : 122-123) : gSum pa ni / gal te srog gcod la sogs rtsa ba’i pham pa gcig byung bas ni / mi tshangs spyod la sogs gzhan rnams bsrungs pa’i yon tan yod dam med zhe na / las ’bras kyi dbang du yod mod kyi / yod pa kun la mthun mod kyang / sdom pa nyams ma nyams kyi dbang du byas pa la gnyis te / nor che bu long mang ba’i gzhan lugs dang / rkang bzhi rkang chag bzhin du ’dod pa’i rang lugs gnyis so / dang pos ni dom gyi zhing nyos pa’i bu lon yang mang la / de ’jal ba dang lhag pa ’byung ba bzhin du / nyams pa’i nyes pa dang / bsrung ba’i yon tan gnyis ka yod par / gzhan gyi kha che’i sde pa ’ga’ la sogs kyi ’dod do / gnyis pa rang lugs ni / dud ’gro rkang bzhi can rkang pa gcig chag ne ’gro mi nus pa bzhin du / skyes pa rtsa ba bzhi bsrung dgos pa la / [123] gcig nyams na sdom pa nyams par ’dod do / gzhan yang ’di’i skabs la / bsnyen gnas dang dge bsnyen gyi blang yul nges pa med pa la gzhan sde’i lugs drang pa la sogs dang / rang lugs dang mthun mi mthun shan phyed pa’i lung mang la / ra mda’ zlog pa’i ’dul ba’i ’grel byed mang bar mthong ste / blo ldan rnams kyis dpyad par mdzod kho bos ni ’dul ba rang gi lugs ma nor ba gtso che zhes smra’o / de ni rang lugs nyid bshad cing / lung mang mi ’dren no / bon la ’dul ba mi mthun pa mang du byon pa mngon du gsal ba bzhin du / sde pa yang mang du byung bar mngon no / da lta bod du dar ba ’di ni / theg pa che chung gnyis yod pa’i nang na / theg pa chen po’i lugs yin zhes ’grel mdzad phal cher bzhed do / de las kyang de ni Me ston mkhan slob kyi lugs khyad par du byas par rig par bya’o /

But he is still bound to respect the other commitments he has taken at the time of the ordination, and this puts him in a strange situation, as, for example, he may still be required to wear monastic robes, etc. We can imagine that this odd solution was originally elaborated for very scholastic reasons, but then reinforced within the framework of sDom gsum speculations : especially for monks whose spiritual development in the tantric path has brought them to a level at which it would be lacking compassion — and even a downfall in the context of bodhisattva vows — if one were not to take a ka r m a m udr æ with whose help one could swiftly reach enlightenment.

Circumspectually, there are three types of solutions to this problem : (1) the one followed by some ancient bKa’ brgyud pas, as mentioned above ; (2) the one advocated by mNga ris pa ß chen, which was described earlier: this monk would not lose the benefit of the ordination, for he would not have broken any vow, as he would have already transmuted the impure emotions into pure j ñæ na ; (3) The last solution, followed not only by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan, but also by Sa skya pa ß ≈ i t a and Tsong kha pa, which states that one who breaks one of the root vows completely loses the status of a monk, as the breaking of one of these primary vows is defined by the action of body or speech and not by the inner motivation of the action. It is not clear as to the opinions of the Bon pos’ with respect to the above mentionned situation. Should one be required to abandon the monastic discipline for the greater benefit of sentient beings ? Maybe the matter cannot be decided in general, but on an individual basis. For example, an obscure hermit might prefer his own swift spiritual development to the more public religious tasks of giving ordinations and the like. In this case, it might be more compassionate for him to renounce the status of a monk. On the other hand, this might not be the best solution in the case of the abbot of a monastery.

III. CLOTHING AND OTHER MONASTIC ATRIBUTES 25

(1) The rules regarding the “lotus hat” (pad zhwa or pad zhu, B : 137) are of course specific features of the Bon discipline that are not found in Buddhism, as it seems that Buddhist monks are allowed only a very simple sun-hat. Possessing, and wearing in some ceremonies, a “lotus hat” is compulsory for the drang srong, although it seems to be a disputed question with regard to the gtsang gtsug. The same can be said of the “lotus-boots” (pad lham). It is curious that these rules which are expounded in the Bon literature are more or less followed 25 All this chapter can be compared with Snellgrove 1967: 154-161 and 269-275 for the beautiful illustrations by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak which help to make sense of the texts for those who have not seen the actual items directly.

by Tibetan Buddhist monks, though they are completely alien to the Buddhist Vinaya doctrines 26. The difference is stressed by mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan, with a intention that might be ironical, for the purpose of proving the independence of the Bon tradition of monastic discipline (B : 138) :

“— What is the special clothing of an ordained person ? — Those are the six pieces of clothing, plus the mat as the seventh. — What definitely proves this to be so ? — It is clearly established (nges) in the mDo khyim spangs. In the Vinaya of ‘the Others’, there is nothing about the hat, the upper garment and the boots. This shows clearly that the traditions of monastic dicipline are contradictory and so proves that they do not depend upon one another 27.”

As for the rules regarding the wearing of the lotus hat, the text quotes the gSang lung (B : 146) which says : “Always keep with you the lotus hat and the lotus boots. A shaven head, without hair, becomes a sre mgo [weasel-head ?] which is frightening for the planet [-spirits] and for the gandharvas. And as for barren feet uncovered by lotus-boots, [such thing] belongs to the race of the ogres. [Whoever] walks three steps [should] bear the ‘lotus race’ 28.”

It is not clear so far why a shaven head that is so frightening for the planets and aerial spirits. As the lotus-hat is worn mostly in the large public gatherings of the so sbyong ceremony, the idea might be that a crowd of bald heads seen from above is a horrible sight.

26 See Martin 2001 : 102-103, translating a passage of the rGyal rabs bon gyi ’byung gnas : « Prior to this Chos had been suppressed in Tibet, and until the teachings spread later on, there was no Chos. Lha lung dPal rdor asked the monk gNyos who his ordinator was, and he replied : “It was dGongs pa rab gsal.” The Tibetans discussed the matter, and then four men of gTsang, three men of dBus, seven altogether, went to meet the ordinator dGongs pa rab gsal to ask for the complete vows. The Bla chen said : “Generally there is not difference between Bon and Chos. My own lineage of discipline (’dul rgyud) is Bon. Since this is the line of the ‘appropriate disengagements’ (so so thar pa), you must act

according to the rules and directives. You must promise to keep four signes of not forgetting your ordinator, so that your teachings will greatly flourish, and whichever teaching of the Buddha you propagate will be fine.” The four signs that show connection with Bon are, the blue ‘pillar’ ( ? ka ba) of the skirt [actually, those are blue sewings on the patched monk-skirt], the blue flaps, the blue thread used to sew the outer robe, and the blue center of the seating cushion. » 27 Rab tu byung ba la khyad par gyi gos ni du zhe na / na bza’ gos drug gding dang bdun no / de’i nges pa ni / mdo khyim spangs sogs kyis nges so / gzhan sde’i ’dul ba la ni / zhwa dang / stod gos dang / lham gyi bshad pa ni med do / des na ’dul lugs mi mthun par mngon pas / phan tshun ltos med yin par rigs par bya’o / 28 Pad zhu pad lham rtag tu ’grogs / zhwa med skra bzhar sre mgo byung / gza’ dang dri za skrag par ’gyur / Pad lham ma gon rkang rjen ni / srin po’i rigs su gtogs pa yin / gom bdun dpag nas pad khyug khur /

The allusion to the seven steps of the new-born future Buddha in the passage about the lotus boots is also interesting. The author adds : “If an ordained person sits, he should not sit on the barren ground, but he should spread his mat. It is said that if he would sit on the barren ground, that would harm the earth-demons 29.”

Those details, however odd they may sound, are all of crucial importance : they show that the Bon monk is actually perceived as a sacred person — a person whose very body has been transformed by the rite of ordination. In this sense, the ordination in the Bon doctrine can be regarded in the truest meaning of the word, and in a much more proper sense than that of the Buddhist monk 30. Now, though A (p. 74) mentions traditions of the smad lugs that allow the gtang gstug to wear the pad zhu, this is not the system followed by the author. In B (p. 147) he expounds his doctrine on this point :

“It is said in the Bar ti ka that as long as the ordination is not complete [i.e., for a gtsang gtsug] the lotus-hat should not be worn. When the ordination is complete, it is said that it should be worn in order to tame the migrants 31.”

The seven articles of clothing are (B : 138) : (1) pad zhu (the lotus-hat), (2) rmad gos (“patched cloak” according to Snellgrove, which is the equivalent of the buddhist chos gos), (3) rmad ’og (shirt, under-garment for the upper part of the body), (4) stod gos (upper garment), (5) smad sham (cloth for the lower part of the body, “monk-skirt”) and (6) pad lham (“lotus boots”), plus (7) gding (carpet). (2) In the same category of the rules regarding clothes, the Bon tradition insists that all these must be made out of patches of cloth sewn together. These rectangular patches are called

29 Rab byung ba ’dug na sa rjen la sogs la mi ’dug par gdan gding ba ’ding bar bya’o / sa rjen la ’dug na ni sa gdon la sogs la gnod par bshad do / 30 The phrase « monastic ordination », though everybody uses it, is otherwise completely improper. In the catholic tradition, from which it is supposed to be borrowed, there is no such thing as a monastic ordination. Only a priest is ordained ; the ordination is a sacrament and as such it is a transformation of the whole person, which makes it sacred. In the catholic world, only priests and kings were sacred persons in the strongest sense of the term. Monks were not. Now, it is difficult to say clearly to what extent, according to Buddhist conceptions, a Buddhist monk is supposed to be a sacred person (and not merely a religious person with a special status). But it seems to me that, for the Bon pos, a drang srong is definitely such a sacred person : the « frightening » character of his body, that we discover in such strange passages, is a quite clear sign of this. 31 Bar ti ka nas pad zhu ni khrims ma rdzogs pas gon pa min par bshad do / khrims rdzogs pas ni ’gro ba ’dul ba’i phyir du bgo bar gsungs so /

gling snam, which seems to be a specifically Bon word, and the seams (or the folds ?) are called lcags ri, “iron walls”. Those two words, given the connotations that they have, confer to the monk costume cosmological meanings which are not present in the Buddhist Vinaya traditions. What is more, the idea of shrouds torn apart, the pieces of which would have been sown, as in the legend of Buddha ≥ækyamuni, seems unknown to the Bon tradition, which regards the monk robes as glorious and not as abject.

In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, the chos gos is always a piece of patchwork with a number of patches that varies between the dge tshul (25) and the dge slong (108). The stod gos is also made up of such pieces, and there exist a tradition of sham thabs (monk skirt) made of patches. It would be interesting to consider wether, on such points, Tibetan Buddhist monks might be unknowingly following rules and traditions that, though not contradictory with the Buddhist Vinaya, are in fact clearly formulated only in the ’dul ba texts of the Bon pos 32.

Most of the articles of the drang srong pa’s clothing should be made of twenty-five parts, which are symbolically connected with the five Buddha-families. This is of course not found in genuine Indian Buddhist Vinaya traditions, although it may have existed in the later ideas of Tibetan Buddhist monasticism. In any case, this grants the Bon monk’s clothing a metaphysical meaning in addition to the cosmological meaning which has been pointed out above.

In passing, let us remark that, despite the claim of some people, that the original colour of the clothing of Bon monks was blue, this colour is actually allowed only for some patches of the monastic robes, and not for the whole. This is perfectly clear from B : 144 :

32 The Buddhist chos gos and patched monk-skirt are sown with blue thread, which is obviously hardly compatible with genuine Buddhist rules that forbid such colours. It would be interesting to ask a Buddhist Vinaya specialist about the origin of those traditions originate from, according to Tibetan scholars. I have not so ar had the opportunity to clarify such points. About such patches on the rmad gos of the Bon pos, as compared to the chos gos, cf. B : 140-141 : mDo la sogs bas rmad ’og gling snam rtsa lnga dang gsung pas / rmad gos dang rmad ’og la / [141] cho ga la sogs khyad par yod cing / dbyibs la khyad par med ces ni / kho bo’i bla ma dang / mkhas pa la las gsung pa’i rjes su ’breng ngo / La las gling snam med par gzhan sde’i lung ’dren pa ni / mdo sogs dang ’gal bar sems / gZhan sdes kyang chos gos ni ka ba drug par ’chad la / gal te ma lcogs na me long ma la yang byin rlabs chags so / zhes bshad pa ni thos so / bon po’i lugs la rmad gos me long ma ru bshad pa’i sde snod ni ma mthong ngo / des na blo gros dang ldan pa rnams kyis dpyad par mdzod /

“Moreover, the passage: “you will not wear all-blue”, means that one should not have clothes, all whose inside and outside parts would be only blue. In the same way, do not let all the inside and outside parts be either red, or yellow 33.”

(3) In addition to the articles of clothing, the list of a drang srong’s paraphernalia include : hos ru (a specific Bon version of the “mendicant staff” called mkhar gsil in the context of Tibetan Buddhism as well as in some Bon texts), khrus bum (“jar for ablutions”), spu gri (razor), tshem khab (sewing needle) and gzhi skur (the equivalent of the Buddhist lhung bzed or alms bowl).

It has been suggested at times that the idea of begging monks is unknown to Bon. However, this idea is formally contradicted by the texts (B : 155) :

“At times such as that of begging for alms, even householders, basing themselves on the fact that [the monk] bears the hos ru, will understand that this one is an ordained person with specific features 34.”

The Hos ru must be made of precious materials. This makes for a seeming contradiction with the vow of not owning or even touching gold, silver or jewels unless it is for the necessities of the community. In B we read (p. 154) : “As for the material [of which] the hos ru will be made, it must be made from precious substances (rin chen) such as gold, silver, iron, red copper, bronze and yellow copper, and so on 35.” It is a bit of a hyperbole to call iron or copper “precious substances”, but it is clear in the text, nonetheless, that if the drang srong can afford a hos ru made of gold or silver, he should not refrain, for the greatest glory of the Bon Religion.

Although similar in some way with the Buddhist mkhar gsil, the hos ru, is much more elegant. In B: p. 154-155, it has two s t ºpa s, the one above other, under which there is a lotus with four petals, four “horns” (this is most likely the name of the side ornaments), twelve “eyes” (?) and a “iron hook” (on the staff). It has metallic rings that make “a pleasant sound” just as its Buddhist equivalent.

33 gzhan yang thams cad nsgon po bcang mi bya zhes pa / gos phyi nang thams cad sngon po rkyang pa yang mi bya la / phyi nang thams cad dmar ba dang / phyi nang thams cad ser ba yang gongs ma de bzhin du mi bya’o / 34 bSod snyoms la sogs kyi dus su khyim pas kyang / hos ru bzung ba’i rtags la brten nas / khyad par can gyi rab byung la sogs su go bar byed do / 35 Hos ru’i rgyu ni / gser dang dngul dang lcags dang zangs dang ’khar ba ra gan la sogs rin chen la bya’o /

The size must be three cubits, one for the higher metallic part, one for the middle (wooden ?) part and one for the inferior metallic part 36.It would seem that it is much shorter than the Buddhist mkhar gsil, at least as it appears in the iconography — as the Buddhist mkhar gsil is rare in Tibet, it is difficult to compare with its Bon counterpart. The Bon hos ru looks more like a sceptre than a walking-staff. Here again, the glorious and kingly aspect of the drang srong appears, as opposed to the signs of humility supposedly presented by the dge slong. As regards the gzhi bskur or begging bowl (lhung bzed), it must be black “like the eye of a crow”, and not grey or multicoloured, and also not white, “as some traditions of monastic discipline have it” 37.

Both A and B insist (for example A : 77) on the interdiction of all the sngags pa attributes for a monk, be he a gtsang gtsug or a drang srong. That is common with the Buddhist Vinaya. But in the Tibetan religious tradition, as we have already seen, a key element in the appreciation of the Vinaya is not to be found in Vinaya treatises. Rather, it is found in the sDom gsum literature which, in each branch of Buddhism, clearly determines how the Vinaya rules are actually to be applied by one who is also endowed with bodhisattva vows and tantric samayas. The theoretical rule that governs even the construction of Sa skya pa ß ≈ i t a ’s very monastic sDom gsum rab dbye is that, when there is a contradiction, a vow belonging to a superior level over-rules any vow of a lower class. Now, clearly, no door is opened by our author in the direction of the rNying ma conception of the dge slong rdo rje ’dzin pa or dge tshul rdo rje ’dzin pa.

< IV. VEGETARIANISM

(1) Another distinctive feature of the Bon monastic discipline is its insistence on vegetarianism 38. This also exists in Buddhist literature, but it is mostly found in M a hæ yæ na

texts such as the L a ıkæ va t æ r a - s ºt r a rather than in the Vinaya. The Buddhist Vinaya itself seems not to go further than forbidding the eating of the flesh of an animal that would have

36 dByibs ni mchod rten gong ’og gnyis dang ldan pa / de’i og tu [155] bum pa dang / de’i ’og tu padma ’dab bzhi dang / ra bzhi dang / yang mig bcu gnyis dang / lcag kyu gcig dang ldan par bya’o / ngo bo ni bar gyi shing la khru gang stod smad kyi lcags gnyis la khru re ste khru gsum dum bu gsum du bya’o / mkhar ba gsil snyan sgra dang bcas pa ’byung ba ’di yang zhes ’og ma sbrel lo / gnyis pa dgos pa ni / dpa’ bo dpa’ rtags ’chang ba bzhin du / khyim pa las rmad du byung ba’i rtags su gzung bar bya’o / 37 B : 159: Kha dog gi khyad par ni / skya bo dang dkar po dang / khra bo la sogs ni min te / ’dul lugs la la nas dkar por ’dod pa yod mod kyang / ’di’i lugs kyi nag po ste / bya pho rog gi mig bzhin ’dod pas so / zhes snga rabs pa’i lugs ma chad pa’o / 38 See Snellgrove 1967: 139-145, a quite long pasage about “the harmfulness of flesh”.

been killed in front of a monk or a nun, or in order to feed him or her. The Bon texts ultimately say as much, but after a very strong condemnation of meat-eating.

This surely goes with the idea that the Bon monastic discipline is, to phrase it in sanskrit, a “ M a hæ yæ na V i na y a ” 39. This is a very distinctive feature of the Bon pos’ understanding of monastic discipline. For the Tibetan Buddhists, the V i na ya as such does not belong either to the H î na yæ na or the M a hæ yæ na . In the case of the one which is followed in Tibet, it is borrowed from the scriptures of a H î na y æ na school, that of the M ºl a - s a r væ s t i væ di n . However, the qualification of the monastic practice as H î na yæ na or M a hæ yæ na depends completely of the motivation of the practitionner, and not of the content of the vows.

In B : 186, we find three explanations of the term drang srong based upon quotations of canonical texts, all of which convey the idea of the essentially altruistic nature of the Bon monastic discipline that connect it to the Greater Vehicle :

“The sentient beings of the six classes, under the power of their own karma, wander and circulate in the five paths of s a µ s æ r a . Through a variety of means, and so that they will not wander [anymore] in the ways of the s a µ s æ r a that they are drawn to (drang) and set up in (bsrang) the path of liberation — it is with that aim only that [the monk], gathering all such things as the conditioned virtues of his three doors, dedicates all of them for the sake of sentient beings.

Let us explain the term drang srong : [it means] correcting (drang) one’s own mindstream and repairing the miseries of the others’ mind stream, that is, through the purity of one’s own mind, purifying the impure minds of others.

Or otherwise : drang ba means drawing [[[beings]]] out of s a µ s æ r a and bsrang pa or srong ba means setting up [[[beings]]] on the path of liberation to which [they] have been attracted. So this terms is applied only to [an activity that is performed] for the benefit of others 40.”

39 B : 189 : ’Dul ba ’di ni theg chen gyi lugs yin zhes snga rabs pa dag gis bzhed do / 40 Rigs drug gi sems can rnams rang rang gi las dbang gis / ’khor ba’i lam lnga na ’khor bar ’khyams shing ltung ba la / thabs sna tshogs kyis ’khor ba’i lam la mi ’khyams par / drang ba thar pa’i lam la bsrang zhing ’dren pa’i don kho na mdzad pa bzhin du / sgo gsum las ’dus byas kyi dge rtsa la sogs thams cad / sems can gyi don du bsngos shing ’bad par bya’o /Drang srong gi sgra bshad pa la / rang rgyud drang bas gzhang rgyud ’khyogs po srong ba’o / de ni rang gi bsam pa dag pas / gzhan gyi bsam pa ma dag pa yang dag par bsgyur ba lta bu’o / gzhan yang drang ba ni / ’khor ba nas drang ba na / bsrang pa’am srong pa ni / thar pa’i lam du ’dren cing bsrang ste / gzhan don kho na la ’jug pa’i sgra’o /

V. “TANTRIC” ASPECTS OF THE DISCIPLINE : SAMAYA AND CONTAGIOUS IMPURITY

(1) One last group of uncommon feature of Bon monastic discipline is the quite frequent use of the term dam tshig or its synonym dam bca’ 41 in its literature, whereas in Buddhism, this term is found more or less exclusively in the context of the tantric literature. See for example this passage (B : 192) about the awareness that is required for keeping a pure discipline :

“Especially, you should always bear in mind, without forgetting them, the fundamental and secondary dam tshig which have been transfered (’phog pa) from the mkhan po and slob dpon [to you]. So one must take care and apply awareness and consciousness 42.”

(2) In many parts of texts A and B, we find the requirement that an ordained person should not stay in the same place as someone who has broken his or her vows, and to not even “drink the water of the same valley” 43. This seems not to be the case in the Buddhist Vinaya : although the monk or nun who has committed a heavy offence must be banned from the community, it is not implied that his or her impurity will somehow infect the other members of the community by mere physical proximity. But the very same idea is found in rNying ma literature about samayas, especially in the gter ma texts. It seems that we have here something like a Tibetan indigenous conception of the quasi-bodily nature of moral impurity being perceived as a contagious illness.

CONCLUSION

As a short synthesis of all the scattered elements presented in this paper, it is clear that there is a fairly large quantity of minor differences between the monastic rules of Bon and Buddhism. But, more important, what comes to light from a broader perspective of those differences is that the Bon monk is presented as a sacred person, an ordained priest, with quasi-kingly attributes. In forms largely borrowed from the Buddhist Vinaya tradition, the Bon religion

41 Snellgrove 1967 : 136 : dPang po’i drung du khas blangs pa / khas blangs ma yin dam bca’ yin / dam la ’gal na ’bras bu ’tshig / skye ba lnga brgyar ngan song brgyud / gar skyes slu ba rgyun du ’ong / 42 Khyad par du mkhan slob kyi phog pa’i rtsa ba dang yan lag gi dam tshig ni mi brjed par rtag tu yid la rab tu bzung la / dran pa dang shes bzhin gnyis kyis bya ra bya zhing / 43 B : 286: Lung pa gcig gi chu la yang lhan cig tu mi gtung zhing nye bar mi ’jog par mtha’ ring dud gar pa’i rigs yin no. — Same idea in A : 70 : Gong du bshad pa de ltar pham pa’am nyams pa chen po phog pa’i gang zag de ni sdom ldan gzhan dang ldan gcig tu mi gnas par / lung pa gcig gi chu mi ’thung mtha’ ru bkar ba’i rigs zhes gsungs pa bzhin no / de ltar ma byas na sdom ldan gzhan dang lhan gcig tu gang gnas pa de la ltung ba ’byung par ’dod do /

expresses a distinctive concept in that the drang srong is somehow a royal priest, the chaplain of a king, even though his actual social status may bear nothing in common with such a mythical status. The evident revealed in this short analysis must also be kept in mind : the Tibetan Buddhist monks have borrowed many of the practices and surely much of the ideology of the Bon religion concerning the status of an “ordained person”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tibetan sources :

bsTan ’dzin rnam rdag (Yongs ’dzin slob dpon) : — mDo zer mig : Shes rab rgyal mtshan (mNyam med) : there is a collection of volumes published in Chab mdo (probably at the end of the 1980s or in the early 1990s, as I have seen them at the Triten Norbutse Monastery in Nepal in 1992) that are supposed to be a compilation of the complete works of mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan and which are, actually, anything but that : one half of the compiled texts are not writings of this author, and, according to Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak and Khenpo Tenpa Yungdrung, many of his genuine works are not found there. It is, in fact, rather a compilation of all the essential texts required for the dge bshes curriculum in the sMan ri system. What is more, as the edition of the Tibetan text of the Sa lam rang ’grel in Arguilère 2007 shows clearly, the establishment of the text is quite defective in this so-called mNyam med gsung ’bum. Still, for the two texts that are the main basis of this article, it was the only available edition.

— The first of these two is the’Dul ba’i blsab bya mngon du bstan pa’i ’grel pa gsal ba’i sgron me (also known as ’Dul ba mdor bsdus kyi ’grel pa, which is referred to as A in the paper; the second is the bsTan pa’i srog shing ’dul ba’i bslab bya gsal bar byed pa’i ’grel pa ’phrul gyi sgron me (or Kun btsus ’grel pa, which is referred to as B, to make it short). Both are commentaries on source-texts by Me ston Shes rab rgyal mtshan.

— “A” is 92 p. text in that edition ; it deals with the “self-liberation discipline” (so so thar pa’i sdom pa) from basic lay vows (dge bsnyen) up to the gtsang gtsug grade (we remember that gtsang gtsug is the Bon equivalent for the Tibetan Buddhist term dge tshul, skt. ≤ r æ m a ß e r a ). The gtsang gstug vows are dealt with in much more detail than the lay vows in this commentary ; and that is a pity, because there are definitely specificities in the Bon system of vows for lay men and women.

— “B” is a larger text (234 p. in this edition) mostly devoted to the drang srong discipline (a drang srong being the equivalent of a Buddhist dge slong or b h i k Ò u ).

Tibetological sources :

Achard, Jean-Luc, « Nyamme Sherab Gyeltsen (1356-1415), fondateur du monastère bönpo de Menri » in Dzogchen Bulletin, n° 1, Courdimanche (?),1995. Achard, Jean-Luc Bon po Hidden Treasures, Brill, Leiden, 2004. Arguillère 2007 : Arguillère, S., “mNyam med Shes rab rgyal mtshan and Bon scholasticism at the turn of the XVth century” Martin 2001 : Martin, D., Unearthing Bon Treasures, Brill, Leiden, 2001. Pasar Tsultrim Tenzin, Changru Trisuk Namdak Nyima, Gatsa Lodroe Rabsal / Nagano Y. and Karmay, S. G. (eds), A Lexicon of Zhangzhung and Bonpo Terms, Senri Ethnological Reports, n° 76, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka 2008. Rossi, Donatella, “The Monastic Lineage of sNang-zhig dGon-pa in Amdo”, The Tibet Journal, Dharamsala, vol. 23; n° 4 (Winter 1998), pp. 58-71. Snellgrove 1967 : Snellgrove, D., The Nine Ways of Bon, Oxford University Press, London, 1967.