TIBETAN RELIC CLASSIFICATIONS

TIBETAN RELIC CLASSIFICATIONS

Yael BENTOR (Jerusalem)

This essay is an attempt to clarify the Tibetan concept of relics through a survey of various classifications of relics found in the Tibetan literature. This study leads us to reconsider the significance of objects found within Tibetan images and stûpas, and to question the methodologies employed in previous research.

Tibetan Concepts of Relics.

As the Tibetan concept of relics was based on the Indian Buddhist tradition, we begin our survey with a brief summary of the types of relics known to have existed in India. Based on archaeology, testimonies of Chinese pilgrims to India and Indian Buddhist literary sources, three categories of relics may be distinguished?

1) The bodily remains of the Buddha and other important (even if subsequently anonymous) saintly persons.3

2) Various objects that came into contact or were otherwise associated with them.

3) Relics of the dharma, including entire scriptures or, in the majority of cases, the verse of interdependent origination

4 as well as dhâranîs derived from certain Dhâranî Sûtras. Providing one of the solutions to the problem of locating the presence of the Buddha, who has passed into nirvâna, within the samsaric world, these relics create possibilities for interaction with him; they provide inspiration and a locus for worship.

5 Tibetan literature contains threefold, fourfold and fivefold classifications of relics (ring-bsrel). Nfl<has-grub-rje (1385-1438) supplied a threefold classification based on 'former panditas' 6 and therefore dating to before the fifteenth century:

[The Buddha] taught to insert into stûpas:

[l] relics of the dharmakâya of the Tathâgata;

[2] bodily relics,

[3] relics of the garb.7

[1] Relics of the dharmakâya are dhârar.zîs,

[2] bodily relics are mustard-seed-like relics which emerge from bodily remains;

8 [31 relics of the garb are images.

9The former pap4itas not only classified these relics, but also ranked them in the same order as highest, middle and lowest. This ranking of dhârcvgîs as superior to other types of relics is found in those Dhâranî Sûtras which recommend the deposition of their particular dhârqîs in stûpas and images (see Bentor, in preparation). Their style of argumentation is one typical of the sûtra literature. The element chosen for comparison is usually a highly regarded practice or object of worship, second only to the main topic promoted in the specific sûtra. Such arguments may at times reflect actual dialogues between theoretical views represented in those practices. In this case, the dialogue is between those who locate the presence of the Buddha in his physical relics, and those

who locate this presence in his teachings found in a concrete form in scriptures and dhâraeîs. The identification of relics of the garb with images in Mkhas-grub-rje's work is atypical for most of the literature on the subject. In most cases, relics of the garb are explained to be hair and nails,

10 as well as various objects that came into contact with the saints (see below). Hair and nails as relics of the garb appear at least as early as Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan [1147-1216] (translated in Bentor, in preparation). If we take relics of the garb to mean relics of contact, Mkhas-grub-rje's threefold classification would be parallel to our summary of relics found in India.

Far more common in Tibetan works is the fourfold classification of relics listed at least since the time of One such enumeration is provided by the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682):

1. Bodily remains: such as bones of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Srâvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and lineages of Lamas.

2. Mustard-seed-like relics: 'increasing bone' ('phel-gdung) of Tathâgatas and relics (ring-bsrel) of scholars and practitioners.

3. Relics of the garb: hair of the head, nails and so forth.

4. dharmakâya relics: dhâranîs. ll

The fourth category is formed by dividing the bodily relics of the threefold classification into two. Bones of saints such as the Buddha, Lamas and so forth are differentiated from mustard-seed-like relics. Mkhas-grub-rje, on the other hand, explained the bodily relics as mustard-seed-like relics which emerge from bodily remains. The mustard-seed-like relics (yungs„'bru Ita-bu'i ring-bsrel) are small spherical relics the size of mustard seeds, which are said to grow out of other relics, or to emerge from holy personages (even while living) and sacred objects. They may function as both relics and as 'signs of saintly death' (Maltin 1992 and forthcoming).

In the fourfold classification given above, the mustard-seed-like relics include two types: 'increasing bone' ('phel-gdung) of the Tathâgata and 'relics' (ring-bsrel) of scholars and practitioners. The term ring-bsrel has both general and specific meanings. In its general meaning, ring-bsrel covers all types of the threefold, fourfold, and fivefold classifications of relics. In its specific meaning, ring-bsrel is one type of the mustard-seed-like relics. Both ring-bsrel, in its specific meaning, and tincreasing bone' have the ability to multiply or to emerge out of other relics. This

capacity has important practical consequences. It ensures a constant supply of relics even when only one tiny fragment is available. This type of relic is what makes it possible to deposit a relic of Buddha Sâkyamuni in stûpas constructed nowadays. Such relics would grow out of other pieces of his bones, or from another mustard-seed-like relic that originated from the Buddha's relics. The term trelics as

small as mustard seeds' is encountered in a number of sûtras in an hyperbolic sense, mustard seed being a simile for the smallest measure. 12 Relics even the size of mustard seed are said to produce inconceivable results [Adbhutadharmaparyâya, Kûtâgâra and Mahârana Sûtras (Bentor 1988), the Suvareaprabhâsottama Sûtra (Emmerick 1970: Yet, the capacity of relics 'the size of mustard seedst to multiply is not explicitly found in these sûtras. 14

Another common Tibetan classification of relics is a fivefold one. Some authors such as Padma-'phrin-las (1641-1717, p. 304-305), and Kong-sprul Blo-gros-

mthat-yas (1813-1899, p. 101), present both fourfold and fivefold classifications. Padma-tphrin-las lists the fivefold types of relics as follows:

1. Relics of the dharmakâya.

2. Relics of bodily remains of the Tathâgata.

3. Relics of the garb.

4. Dharma-relics (chos-kyi ring-bsrel).

5. Mustard-seed-like relics.

Similar lists are provided by other authors of manuals for the deposition of relics and dhâranîs. 16 Numbers 2-3 and 5 in the above list are identical to those in the fourfold classification. The relics of the dharmakâya are here further divided into two separate categories. This is explained by Padma-'phrin-las as follows:

The scholars taught to identify the relics of the dharmakâya [no. l] as stûpas and tsha«tsha which symbolize the quality of that [i.e. the dharmakâya]. The others [nos. 2,355] are as before. The dharma-relics [no. 4] are the collected words of the Buddha (The Victorious One, rgyal-ba) [[[including]] both] the great and small Vehicles. 17

Kong-sprul explains dharma-relics as dhâratús and books.

The fivefold classification is further explained in a work by Chos-kyi-grags-pa written in 1636 C.E.:

There are five relics:

l) Relics of the dharmakâya.

2) Relics like mustard seeds.

3) Relics of dharma.

4) Relics of physical remains.

5) Relics of the garb. Among these:

1) Relics of the dharmakâya are receptacles of the dharmakâya which indicate [or are a conventional sign of] its nature, such as the eight stûpas of the Tathâgata and tsha-tshas. The relics of the dharmakâya to be inserted inside them are: [Sâkyamunits mantra:] 0m namo bhagavate Sâkyamunaye tathâgatâya arhate samyaksambud[d]haya tadyathâ 0m muni muni mahâmuneye [read mahâmunaye] Svâhâ as well as [the dhâraeîs of] Uyý§avijaya, Vimaloyý¥, Guhyadhâtu, Bodhigarbhâlafikâralaksa, and Pratîtyasamutpâda.

Vimaloyý§a, Guhyadhâtu and Bodhi„alañkaralalqa may be foundi9 in another book.

2) Relics like mustard seeds emerge from the bones of exceptional persons such as the three 'saints' [[[šrâvakas]], Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas]. Furthermore, those that have clear color and are slightly larger than, or the size of, a pea are called gdung, while those which are smaller than this are called ring-bsrel. In the Sku-gdung Bar-ba'i Rgyud and other Rnying-ma-pa tantras there are 'a-ri-ram, ba-ri-ram, chu-ri-ram, nya-ri-ram, and pañca-ramp Even though such a classification exists, it refers only to colors and shapes. They, as well as all the gdung and ring„bsrel, are included within the category of mustard-seed-like [[[relics]]].

3) Relics of dharma are mantras taught in the supreme great secret Vajrayâna and the numerous collections of dhâra4îs taught in the Sûtrayâna of Mtshan-nyid-Prajñâpâramitâ. Furthermore, the pronouncements of the Buddha and reliable commentaries on them are called relics of the dharma.

4) Relics of bodily remains are those of superior persons such as the root lama as well as the community of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Srâvakas, and Pratyekabuddhas or receptacles of the Body, Speech and Mind which emerge from them or parts of these [personages] such as flesh, blood, and bone. These are called relics of bodily remains.

5) Relics of garb are hair, finger or toe nails as well as cloth and so fonh of the personages who were just mentioned; in short, the numerous items blessed by connection with their bodies.

Relics of dharma are here the teachings of the Buddha written as mantras and dhâraeîs and also books containing his pronouncements, and this even includes reliable commentaries on the word of the Buddha. These are all relics of the dharmakâya, the 'corpus of teachings', in its concrete sense. The new category in the fivefold classifications are relics of the dharmakâya in its meanings of the Buddha's qualities, the realization of enlightenment, that which was taught by the Buddha, the reality itself, and so forth (Eckel 1992: 97- 109; Harrison 1992). These relics are stûpas and tsha„ tshas which symbolize the dhannakâya.

Hence, while relics of dharma are the Buddhist teachings embodied in books, the relics of dharmakâya symbolize the manifold abstract aspects of the dharmakâya. The stûpa, the symbol of the Buddhats nirvâna, came to be also the relic of the dharmakâya. The stûpa encompasses both the abstract and manifested forms of the Buddha and the dharma. Within it are contained bodily remains and books — relics of the physical body of the Buddha and the corpus of his teachings (dharmakâya in one of its concrete meanings), while its external shape symbolizes enlightenment, reality itself, the path for realizing it, the qualities of the Buddha; in short, the dharmakâya in its abstract meanings. Furthermore, the stûpa is a symbol of the dharmakâya not only in its external form. In fact, the stûpa (and tshatsha) itself became a relic. Smaller stûpas as symbols of the dharmakâya are deposited within larger stûpas together with the physical relics and the relics of the teachings.

In his threefold classification, Mkhas-grub-rje listed dhâraeîs as the highest. Dge-lugs-pa authors such as the First Panchen Lama (p. 802), the Fifth Dalai Lama (p. 401.5) or the First Lcang-skya22 who favored a fourfold classification also ranked the dhâravî relics as superior. This is also the position of the Dhâranî Sûtras (see above). The importance of the dhârqîs is evident also in the Tibetan name for the practice of depositing these sacred items in stûpas and images, which is called gzungs- 'bul — the offering of dhâra4îs, or gzungs-gzhug — the insertion of dhâra4îs. In this case the word gzungs (or dhâranîs) serves as a collective name for all types of relics.

On the other hand, others, such as Kong-sprul (who presents a fivefold classification), say: Whatever is the size of the receptacle (rten) it is necessary to have the complete five relics as the main inner deposits. Furthermore, [a stâpa or

image, etc.] without either mustard-seed-like relics or dharma-relics is improper.23 Here, the essential relics are both (orie type of) the physical relics and the relics of the dharma. These are also the most frequently encountered types of relics in India (see Bentor, in preparation).

The Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan24 as a Source for the Tibetan Classifications of Relics.

In presenting his threefold classification of relics in the 15th century Mkhas„ grub-rje commented that the former paUitast on whom he relied based their classification in turn on the Byang-chub Roan 'Bum Byang„chub Rgyan 'Bum is identified by Wayman (ibid.) as an abbreviation for Byang-chub Snying„po Rgyan Bum zhes bya-ba'i Gzungs (Toh. 508). Padma-*phrin-las (16711717, p. 305) cites a work entitled Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan„gyi Gzungs-kyi Choga Zhib-mo as a source of his fivefold rather than threefold classification of relics. He does not identify the text as canonical and we may assume that this

source is different from the Byang-chub Rgyan 'Bum that is said to contain a threefold classification. But Kong-sprul Blo„gros-mtha'-yas (1813-1899), who follows the pattern of Padma-'phrinlas' presentation (both in listing first the fourfold classification and then the fivefold, and in the sequence of items in each listing), not only identifies the source of his fivefold classification as the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan-gyi Gzungs-kyi Cho-ga Zhib-mo, as Padma-'phrin-las does, but also remarks that this is a new translation from Chinese (rgya-nag gsar 'gyur, p. 101). According to its colophon, Toh. 508 was indeed translated

from Chinese in 1743 as part of a project of translating canonical texts missing in the Tibetan canon but extant in Chinese. This text is found only in the Lhasa Kanjur and in some, but not all, of the Derge Kanjurs.2s• The absence of Toh. 508 in Tibet prior to 1743 has provoked comments on several occasions. In his Kanjur Dkarchag, Bu-ston (1290-1364) said: "A complete version of this text should be searched for, as it was translated into Tibetan,"26 a statement repeated in the Gsan-yig of the 5th Dalai Lama (Jampa Samten 1992: 120). Also Mkhas-grub-rje stated that the Byangchub Rgyan 'Bum on which the 'former panditas' had relied (see above) did not exist as a complete text during his time (15th century) in Tibet (1968: 106-107).

However, a translation dated 1743 could not have been the source for Padma'phrin-las who was killed during the Dzungar invasion in 1717/18. We know that a text called Byang-chub Snying-po'i Rgyan 'Bum zhes bya'-ba'i Gzungs is included in the ninth-century Ldan-kar-ma catalogue.27 Further Jampa Samten has recently shown that our text is one of the 23 texts contained in the Thug-brag Kanjur, and not in any of the other editions of the Kanjurs. As suggested by Schopen (1985: 124, n. 1 1) and confirmed by Scherrer-Schaub (1992) a version of this text entitled Byang-chub-kyi Snying„po ti Gzungs„kyi Cho-ga is found also among the Dunhuang manuscripts (PT 555). One of these earlier texts may have been available to Padma„'phrin-las. The examination of the relic classifications found in the different available versions of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan generates as many problems as it solves.

One classification given in Toh. 508 (translated from Chinese, Lhasa, rgyud, vol. ta, 492a) consists of the following:

I. chos-kyi sku'i ring-bsrel — relics of dharmakâya. 2. chos-kyi dbyings-kyi ring-bsrel — relics of dharmadhâtu. 3. rus„pa'i ring„bsrel — relics of bone. 4. sha'i ring-bsrel — relics of flesh.

As was already shown this list "is a predominantly, perhaps exclusively, late Chinese classification" (Schopen 1985: 127). This is, however, not the only classification found in Toh. 508. Another fourfold classification is given as follows (Lhasa, rgyud, vol. ta, 489a):

I. chos-kyi dbyings-kyi ring„bsrel — relics of the dharmadhâtu.

2. rus-pa'i ring-bsrel — relics of bone.

3. sha'i ring-bsrel — relics of flesh.

4. yungs- 'bru Ita-bu'i ring„bsrel — mustard-seed-like relics.

This list is partly parallel to the predominantly Chinese categories and partly to the Tibetan fourfold classification (see above) which is repeated here in a sequence corresponding to the last list.

l. chos„sku'i ring-bsrel — relics of dharmakâya.

2. ring-bsrel — bodily remains.

3. sku-bal„gyi ring„bsrel — relics of the garb.

4. yungs- 'bru Ita-bu'i ring-bsrel — mustard-seed-like relics.

The first category in Toh. 508 (Lhasa, fol. 489a) can be taken as parallel to the relics of the dharmakâya of the Tibetan classification. Both ring-bsrel and dbyings are possible translations of the Sanskrit word dhâtu. We might note that where the Phugbrag version of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan has chos-kyi ring-bsrel (on fols. 59b and 63b), the Lhasa has gsungs-pa'i chos-kyi dbyings (fol. 485a) and chos-kyi dbyings-kyi ring-bsrel (fol. 489a). Hence, the origins of the term relics of dharmadhâtu may have been dharmadhâtu in its meaning of 'relics of dharma'. In this case, relics of dharmadhâtu in Toh. 508 could have

the meaning of relics of dharma, i.e. books and dhârqîs. The last category in Toh. 508 (fol. 489a) is identical to the parallel one in the Tibetan list. Relics of bone (rus„pa'i ring-bsrel) are similar to bodily remains (skugdung-gi ring-bsrel). Finally Toh. 508 has relics of flesh where the common Tibetan classification has relics of the garb. While relics of flesh are not commonly included in the main Tibetan classifications, they do occur as, for example, in the work by Chos-kyi-grags-pa cited above (type 4), in Martin (forthcoming) or in Hsüan Tsang's account of Bodhgaya (1885 11: 133).

The Thug-brag version of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan contains yet other listings of relics categories. In a passage parallel to Toh. 508, fol. 492a, the Phug-brag Kanjur (fol. 66a) has only one type of relic — bodily remains of the Tathâgata (dew bzhin„gshegs-pa'i ring-bsrel„gyi sku„gdung), The parallel to Toh. 508, fol. 489a, in the Thug-brag Kanjur, (fol. 63b) has bodily remains of the Tathâgata and dharma relics which are mere mustard seeds (de„bzhin-gshegs-pa'i sku-gdung-gi ring-bsrel dang/

chos-kyi ring-bsrel 'bru„tsam). Here the measure of mustard seed seems to be used in the same hyperbolic sense encountered in various sûtras (see above). In the fourfold and higher classifications of relics the mustard-seed-like relics took on a life of their own and appeared as a separate type of relic. The Dunhuang version of our text has again differing categories? The parallel to Toh. 508, fol. 492a and Phug-brag, fol. 66a refers, like the Thug-brag Kanjur, to bodily relics alone (ring-bsrel snyed„kyi sku-gdung, 555, fol. 22bl), but the parallel to Toh. 508, fol. 489a and Phug„brag, fol. 63b provides a sixfold classification of relics (PT 555, fol. 200-3):

I. de-bzhin-gshegs-pa'i chos-kyi ring-bsrel — dharma relics of the Tathâgata.

2. de-bzhin-gshegs-pa'i sku-gdung-gi ring•bsrel — bodily relics of the Tathâgata.

3. sku-bal-kyi ring„bsrel — relics of the garb.

4. gdung-gi ring-bsrel — bodily relics.

5. chos-kyi ring-bsrel — dharma relics.

6. yungs„'bru tsam-kyi ring-bsrel — relics just as mustard seeds.

Here 'dharma relics of the Tathâgatat are distinguished from 'dharma relics', and bodily relics of the Tathâgatat are distinguished form 'bodily relics'. Otherwise this listing is similar to the fourfold Tibetan classification. These versions of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan contain one, two, two sets of four, and six types of relics. They do not contain a threefold classification as mentioned by Mkhas-grub„rje nor a fivefold listing cited by Padma-tphrin„las and Kong-sprul Blo-gros-mtha'-yas._ Still, it should be emphasized that all the

types of relics which appear in the different versions are relics that were actually in use in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. Another aspect that requires examination is the context of these classifications in the scripture. The intent of the relevant passages in the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan is not to provide us with a scholastic analysis of the types of relics but rather to demonstrate the still greater power of the dhâranî taught there. In one occurrence the merit accumulated through the deposition of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan Dhâraï?î in a stâpa is said to be superior to that of the deposition of other types of

relics which are then listed. This type of argument is typical for the genre of Dhâranî Sûtras related to stûpas and images which are collectively called by Tibetan authors 'the five great dhâravîs' (gzungs-chen sde Inga).29 Where the other of the Dhâranî Sûtras use as the basis of comparison relics in general (ring-bsrel), bodily remains (sku-gdung), Tathâgatas, and the dharma as teachings, all in incalculable large numbers,30 the different versions of the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan list as their basis for comparison one or more different types of relics.3i For the sake of the arguments made in the text, the number of the types of relics is not what is important.

The importance of the categories of relics which appear in the various versions of the Byang-chub Snying„po Rgyan lies in their uniqueness within the Indo-Tibetan literature. It seems that no other scriptural authority for the classification of relics was available to Tibetan authors writing on this subject. But it is difficult to know which, if any, versions of the Dhâranî Sûtra were available at every point in history. The complexities in the historical transmissions of this scripture in Tibet make it difficult to judge in every case whether the citations by Tibetan authors are direct quotations of

particular versions, or attributions of non-canonical systems of relic classifications to this Dhâranî Sûtra. It is also not clear whether certain later Tibetan classifications were incorporated into some of the versions of this scripture. We might conclude, however, that the Byang-chub Snying-po Rgyan is the main scriptural authority for the differing relic classifications used in Tibet. In addition, Tibetan authors rely on scriptures that teach, for the most part,

only one type of relic such as the Mahâparinirvâea Sûtra, Adbhutadharmaparyâya, Kûtâgara Sûtra and Mahârana Sûtra, which mention bodily remains, the Pratîtyasamutpâda Sûtra and the Five Great Dhâraeîst, which mention relics of dharma, and the Subahupariprcchâ Tamra, which seems to mention both. Comparison to relic classification of the Theravâda tradition.

The scriptural authority of the Pâli and Theravâda tradition with regard to relic classification has long been cited by Western scholars. In the absence of any well known Mahâyâna classification, this Pâli listing was used by scholars writing not only on Pâli or Theravâda Buddhism but also on the Mahâyâna tradition. This Pâli classification does not, in fact, refer to relics but rather to shrines (cetiyas). It does not appear in the canon but in the introduction to the Kâliñgabodhi Jâtaka32 dated to the fifth century C.E. or earlier (Trainor 1990: 110), and consists of l. shrines for the bodily remains (sârîrika), 2. shrines

for objects used by or associated with the Buddha (pâribhogika), and 3. indicative shrines (uddesika). The first two categories are parallel to the Tibetan classification of bodily remains and relics of the garb.33 Tibetan relics of dharmakâya may be classified as indicative relics. Yet, this would neither exhaust the entire range of indicative shrines nor of relics of dharmakâya. In a previous treatment of Buddhist relics and their classifications Benard (1988) assumed

the threefold typology of the Pâli literature to be the basic Buddhist classification. She then pláced the various types of relics she found in the Tibetan tradition into these Pâli categories. Not only is there no justification for such a procedure, but this synthetic approach fails to do justice to the historical dynamics of the various Buddhist traditions.

A Sinhalese classification of shrines, said to be based on the scriptural authority of the Kâliñgabodhi Jâtaka, consists of bodily relics, the bodhi tree and images of the Buddha (Gombrich 197 1: 105; Trainor 1990: 109-110). This list, which introduces innovations in relation to the earlier one, bears resemblance to Mkhas-grub-rjets threefold classification, but the bodhi tree replaces the dhâraeîs of his classification. In addition there occurred an expansion of the threefold Pâli classification into a fourfold one. An example may be found in the Thai tradition:34 1. dhâtu„cetiya, shrines for bodily relics; 2. paribhoga-

cetiya, shrines by use or by association, especially the bodhi tree (as in the Sinhalese tradition); 3. dhamma-cetiya, doctrinal shrines; according to Phra Rajavaramuni, a doctrinal shrine is a "monument of the Teaching where inscribed palm-leaves or tablets or scriptures are housed" ( ibid.). In the earlier period these were mostly the verse of interdependent origination (see above). Later shrines of dhamma were the Pâli canon, extracts of it or its commentaries, whether inscribed on bricks used to erect stûpas or as books. 4. uddesika-cetiya, indicative shrines; for the most part images, as in the Sinhalese tradition, but other 'reminders' as well.

Unlike the classical classification of the Kâliñgabodhi Jâtaka, and similar to the Tibetan one, this Thai typology does include relics or shrines of the teachings. These appear as well in later Pâli sources, such as the Sârasañgaha by Siddhattha (13th-14th centuries?) and the Vinaya-!ika by Sariputta (12th If compared to the Tibetan fourfold classification, this Theravâda classification has, in place of mustardseed-like relics, indicative reminders. These indicative

reminders (and to some extant also reminders by association) include mostly images of the Buddha depicting events in the life of the Buddha, stûpas and paintings or reliefs representing the sites of the great events in the life of the Buddha, copies of dhâtu-cetiyas and paribhoga-cetiyas, copies of the Buddha's footprints and of other uddesika-cetiyas, and so forth. These shrines do not house any sacred objects or relics, be they physical remains, objects that came into contact with the Buddha, or the holy scriptures. Instead they are indicative of sacred events and sites.

Let us examine these indicative shrines and some of their Tibetan parallels. Any shrine bound up with the location of various events in the life of the Buddha would theoretically remain limited to the geographical sphere of the Buddha's activities. In order to expand this geographical area, various legendary accounts relate shrines located outside the Ganges valley to the Buddha's visits there. The Buddha is said to have visited Sri Lanka (Trainor 1990: 90-91, 139-140), Thailand (Pruess 1976), northwestern India (Fa Hsien 1886/1965: 29; Hsüan Tsang 1885: 93) and even Tibet (Martin 1991: 152). The footprints or shadows left upon such visits became relics as well. Such accounts, cannot be related to the major events in the life of the Buddha, in particular to his enlightenment or

niryâr.za. The uddesika shrines serve to transport the Buddhist sacred geography of India into the wider Buddhist world. In Tibet this function is' fulfilled, for example, by the eight stûpas related with each of the four major and four minor events in the life of the Buddha.36 Each of these stûpas receives its own distinctive shape. When constructed in other locations, these stûpas make the eight most sacred sites in the life of the Buddha available for worship. These complexes of eight stûpas, known already in India (I Tsing 1896: 108) have been commonly constructed by Tibetans until the present day. Their role in transferring the sacred Indian pilgrimage sites to Tibet, which makes possible the worship of the eight great events in the life of the Buddha, and especially his enlightenment, is considerably more important for Tibetan pilgrims than the spatial symbolism of the stâpa so extensively discussed in recent publications (especially Snodgrass 1985).

Conclusions.

Tibetan images and stûpas may contain a large variety of objects, such as bodily remains, hair, nails, teeth, skulls, pieces of cloth, hides, pellets (ril-bu), images, stûpas, tsha-tshas, paintings, block-printed pictures, large number of dhâra¿zîs, scriptures or parts of them, Indian and Tibetan works and so forth. Since this content does, for the most part, clearly reflect Buddhist classifications of relics and of receptacles of the Buddha's body, speech and mind,37 it

is remarkable that the bulk of the Western literature on this subject has failed to notice any significant linkage between this content and the Buddhist cults of relics. This oversight may be a result of the primary method of investigation which has usually involved little more than emptying private and museum pieces of their fillings and describing them.38 Such a method tells us very

little about the cultural and Buddhist significañce of these ritual deposits. It is hoped that the present essay will contribute to our understanding of Tibetan concepts of relics and eventually allow us to see the practical implications for their placement in images and stûpas.

NOTES

I Among these works are those by Olson (1950-71), Lange (1964), Schulemann (1969), Sommarström (1980), Hatt (1980), Preston (1983), Reedy (1986), Leonov (1991 & 1992), and Pal (1992). It should be emphasized that these works display varying degrees of familiarity with the cultural context of their findings. Some go beyond simple description to employ various scientific methods of analysis such as carbon dating and x-ray. These type of analyses have little to offer in the way of cultural and religious explanation.

2This is based on Hsüan Tsang 1885; Fa Hsien 1886/1965; Falk 1977; Schopen 1985, 1987, 1991; Mitra 1990 and references there; Trainor 1990; Boucher 1991, etc. 3Around main objects of worship are found also stûpas containing relics of people wishing to be buried ad sanctos as shown by Schopen (1987). 4The ye dharma.. gâthâ, see Boucher 1991.

5Reynolds 1977; Schopen 1987 & 1988; Trainor 1990; Boucher 1991; Collins 1992: 235-238; Eckel 1992.

6For corrections to Waymanls translation of this passage, see Schopen 1985: 1234. '7Sku-bal; this will be explained below. 8This will be clarified below.

9De-bzhin„gshegs-pa'i chos-sku'i ring-bsreL/ sku-gdung-gi ring-bsrel/ sku-bal-gyi ringbsrel-rnams/ gzhug-par gsungs-te/ chos-sku'i ring-bsrel ni gzungsmams-so/ sku-gdung-gi ring-bsrel ni sku„gdung-las byung-ba'i ring-bsrel yungs- 'bru tsam-mo/sku-bal-gyi ring-bsrel ni sku-gzugs-te/ Mkhas-grub„rje 1968: 106. IOSee references in the following note.

I IRing-bsrel"la/ sku-gdung-gi ring-bsrel/yungs- 'bru Ita„bu'i ring-bsrel/ sku-bal-gyi ring-bsrel/ chos-sku 'i ring„bsrel-rnams-las/ sku-gdung ni/ sangs-rgyas/ byang-sems/ nyan-rang/ bla-ma brgyud-pa-rnams-kyi gdung-rus Ita-bu/ yungs- 'bru ni/ de-bzhin„ gshegs-pa'i 'phel-gdung dang/ mkhas-grub„rnams-kyi ring-bsrel/ sku-bal ni dbu-skra/ sen-mo sogs/chos-sku'i ring-bsrel ni gzungs-mams-la ngos-'dzing-pas/ pp. 406.6407.2. Similar classifications are also found in the works of Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan, p.

240.34; Stag-tshang Lo„tshâ-ba, fol. 47a; The First Panchen Lama, p. 801; Padma'phrin-las, p. 304; Lcang-skya I, p. 84.3, 84.5; 'Jam-dbyangs-bzhad„pa I, p. 494; Gung-thang Dkon-mchog-bstan-pa'i-sgron-me, p. 465; Chos-kyi-dbang-phyug, fol. 7a; Kong-sprul, p. 101.

120n the measure of mustard seed, see Emmerick 1967. i3See also Adikaram 1953; 137; Bigandet 1912: Il 89. After the Buddha's nirvâea his relics are also said to have dispersed in the world into invisible particles like mustard seeds (see strong 1979: 223). 14For the ability of relics to 'grow' (rgyas) as found in the Pitrputra Sûtra, see Martin 1992: 188.

15Chos-kyi sku'i ring„bsrel dang/ de-bzhin-gshegs-pa'i sku-gdung„gi ring„bsreldang/ sku-bal-gyi ring bsreV chos-kyi ring bsrel dang/ yungs-'bru tsam-gyi ring„bsrel dang Ingar gsungs„pa. p. 305.1-2. 1 6Chos-rnam-pa, pp. 6-7; Chos-kyi-grags-pa, pp. 281-283. k7Mkhas-pa-dag„gis chos„sku'i rings-bsrel ni de'i yon-tan mtshon-byed mchod„rten dang sâtsha/ gzhan-rnams gong-dang 'dra-la/chos-kyi ring-bsrel ni rgyal-ba'i bka' thegpa che-chung gis bsdus„pa-mams-la ngos„ 'dzin-par gsungs/ p. 305.2-3. 18 Chos„kyi ring-bsrel gzungs sngags dang glegs-bam la ngos 'dzin, p. 102. 19Literary: 'it is necessary to draw from'.

2œThis passage from the Sku-gdung 'Bar-ba Tantra is translated and explained in Martin, forthcoming.

21 Ring-bsrel Inga ni chos-sku'i ring-bsrel/ yungs-'bru Ita-bu'i ring„bsrel/ chos-kyi ringbsrel/ sku-gdung-gyi ring-bsrel/ sku-bal-gyi ring-bsrel-mams„so/ de-dag-gi chos„kyi sku'i ring-bsrel nil rnam-pa brdar btags-pa'i chos-sku'i Hen bde-bar-gshegs-pa'i mchodrten brgyad dang sâtstsha Ita-bu yin-la/ de-yi nang„du gzhug-pa'i chos-sku'i ring-bsrel ni/Om na-mo Shâ-kya-mu-na-ye ta-thâ-ga-tâ-ya arha-te samyak-sam tadya-thâ 0m mu-ni mu-ni ma-hâ-mu-ne-ye Svâ-hâ/ ces dang/ gzhanyang/ gtsug-gtor-mam-rgyal/ gtsug-tor-dri-med byang-chubsnying-po 'i-rgyan- 'bum/ rten- 'brel-snying-po„mams yin-no/ gtsug-gtor-rnam-rgyal/ gtsug-tor-dri-med/ byang-chub-rgyan- 'bum bcas dpe gzhan-nas 'bebs-dgos„so/ yungs- 'bru Ita-bu'i ring„bsrel ni/ 'phags„pa gsum-sogs gang-zag khyadpar can-gyi gdung„las

byung-ba-ste/de-yang kha-dog-dwangs-shing sran-ma'i rdog tsam yan-tshad-la gdung zhes dang/ de-las chung-ba-mams-la ni ring„bsrel zhes bya-la/ sngags rnying-ma'i sku-gdung„ 'bar-ba'i rgyud sogs-las ni/ sha-ri-ram/ ba-ri-ram/ churi-ram/ nya-ri„ram/panyca-ram/ zhes-par dbye-ba-yang kha-dog-gi dbyibs tsam-du zad-pa'i phyir/ de„ltar gdung dang ring-bsrel thams-cad yung[sl- 'bru Ita-bu'i khongs-su bsdu'o/ chos-kyi ring-bsrel ni gsang-chen rdo-rje theg-pa mchog-las gsungs-pa'i sngags-rnams dang/ mtshan-nyid phyin„pa mdo-sde'i theg-pa-nas gsungspa'i gzungs-kyi tshogs ji-snyed-pa dang/ gzhan-yang rgyal-ba'i bka' dang de-dog-gi dgongs„ 'grel tshad-mar gyur-pa-rnams chos-kyi ring-bsrel zhes bya'o/ ring-bsrel ni/ rtsa-ba'i bla„ma sogs gang„zag mchog sangs„rgyas dang byang-chubsems-dpa' nyan„rang-gi tshogs-dang bcas-pa'i de-las byung-ba'i sku gsung thugs-Oi rten-nam/ de-dag-gi cha-shas sha khrag rus-pa'i tshogs la-sogs-parnams ni sku•gdung-gi

ring-bsrel zhes bya'o/ sku-bal-gyi ring=bsrel ni/ bshad ma thag„ pa'i gang„zag de„mams-kyi dbu-skra dang phyag-zhabs-kyi sen-mo dang na„bza' lasogs-pa mdor-na sku dang 'brel-ba'i byin-brlab-kyi tshog ji-snyed„pa-la sku-bal-gyi ring-bsrel bshad-do/pp. 281-3. This text, a copy of which was kindly loaned to me by Trangu Rinpoche in Bodhanath, Nepal, had been priorly referred to in Martin (forthcoming) who paraphrased this fivefold classification as well. 22Lcang-skya I says: "Four [types] of relics were taught. Among them, the relics of the dharmakâya, the dhârqî mantras were taught as superior." Rings [sic]-bsrel bzhi gsungs-shing/ de'i nang-nas chos-sku'i rings gzungs-sngags mchog-du gsungs„de/ (P. 6301, p. 894.4-5). Here Lcang-skya quotes the Guhyadhâtu, Tog Palace, # 469, vol. 102, pp. 12.7-13.4.

23Rten che-chung gang-yin-kyang nang-gzhug gtso-bo ring-bsrel Inga tshang-bar dgos„shing/ de-las-kyang yungs-'bru Ita„bu dang chos-kyi ring-bsrel gnyis„ka'am gangrung med-du mi ring zhing/p. 102.5-6.

24The various versions of the title of this scripture arê mentioned below. 25See also Schopen 1985: 124 and Jampa Sarnten 1992:120. 26Cited in Scherrer„Schaub, 1992. 27Schopen 1985: 125; Jampa Samten 1992: 120.

281 would like to thank Christina A. Scherrer-Schaub for providing me with the following details. 29See Bentor, in preparation. The five dhârar.zîs include in addition to the Byang„chub snying„po rgyan (Bodhigarbha), also the Uyîsavijaya (Toh. 594-598), Vimalosl?îsa (Toh. 599, 983), Guhyadhâtu (Toh. 507, 883) and Pratîtyasamutpâda (Toh. 212', 550, 980). Occasionally the RaSmivimala (Toh. 510, 982) is replacing one of these five. 30See Bentor, in preparation.

used to illustrate the extent of the merit that can be derived from retaining, reading, reciting, understanding and so forth, of the Byang-chub Snying„po Rgyan DhâraŽ3î.

32Fausbøll 1887: iv 228; translated into English by Rouse 1901: 142. 33These two types of relics are mentioned also in the Milindapañho 341. 34Phra Rajavaramuni 2535 B.E. (1990-1991) and Damrong Rajanubhab 1973. I would like to thank Charles Hallisey and Peter Skilling not only for introducing me to these sources respectively, but also for providing me with copies. 35Sasaki 1992:40 and Charles Hallisey, communication, Dec. 1993; see also Boucher 1991: 26, n. 75.

36See Tucci 1932/1988: 21-24; Bagchi 1941; Maue and Röhrborn 1979; Nakamura 1980; Huntington 1985-86 and 1987; etc. 371n addition the pedestals or thrones (khri) contain various offerings and 'omens', such as earth and stones from holy places, medicinal herbs, grains, jewels, edibles, etc. 38See n. 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adikaram, E.W. 1953. Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, Colombo (M.D. Gunasena).

Bagchi, P. C. 1941. i'The Eight Great Caityas and their Cult", IHQ 17: 223-235. Benard, Elizabeth 1988. "The Living Among the Dead: a Comparison of Buddhist and Christian Relics", TJ 13: 3348. Bentor, Yael 1988. "The Redactions of the Adbhutadharmaparyâya from Gilgit't , JIABS 11.2: 21-52.

Bentor, Yael, in preparation, "On the Question of the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhâraeîs in Stûpas and Images". Bigandet, Paul Ambrose 1911-1912. The Life or Legend of Gaudama, The Buddha of the Burmese, London (K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.) 4th ed., 2 vols. Boucher, Daniel 1991. "The Pratîtyasamutpâdagâthâ and Its Role in Medieval Cult of the Relics", JIABS 14.1: 1-27.

Chos-kyi„dbang-phyug, (b. 1775), "Gzungs-bul-gyi lag-len bde bklags-pas 'grub-pa dwangs-shel me-long", (n.p., n.d.) [Photographic copy of a manuscript in personal possession, courtesy of Padma Tharlam, Bodhanath, Nepal].

Chos-kyi-grags-pa, Bri-gung Rig-Idzin (b. 1595) [Bri-gung-pa], "Ring-bsrel Ingati bzhugs-tshul lag-len tshogs-gnyis rgya-mtsho", Sku-gzugs-kyi thig-rtsa dang gsarmying rgyud„sde rgya-mtsho'i thig-rtsa gzungs- 'bul lag-len bcas, Gangtok (1985) 271-331.

Chos-rnam-pa [[[Sa-skya-pa]]] (Chos-rnam-rgyal? abbot of Rta-nag-thub-bstan?), "Rten„ la gzungs-bzhugs 'bul-ba'i lag-len gsal„bar bshad-pa kun-gsal dngul-gyi me-long", Personal copy received at Sakya Center in Rajpur (n.p., n.d.). Collins, Steven 1992. "Nirvâea, Time, and Narrative", HR 31: 215-246. Dagyab, Loden Sherap 1977. Tibetan Religious Art, Wiesbaden (Otto Harrassowitz) 2 vols. Dalai Lama V Ngag-dbang-blo-bzang-rgya-mtsho (1617-1682) [[[Dge-lugs-pa]]], 'I Gzugnas blo-ldan ngo„mtshar skyed„byed gzungs-'bul-gyi lag-len khrul-spong nyinmor byed-pat', Rituals of Rdo-rje-brag, Leh (1973) l: 389-437 (missing folio 3 and part of folio 12 and 25. A complete version is found in the Library of the Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala, Acc. no. pa 1053). Damrong Rajanubhab 1973. Monuments of the Buddha in Siam, trans. Sukak Sivaraksa and AB. Griswold, 2nd ed., Bangkok (The Siam Society). Eckel, Malcolm David 1992. To See the Buddha, San Francisco (HarperSanFrancisco). Emmerick, R. E. 1967. "The Mustard Upamâ", JMS pp. 22-25.

Emmerick, RE. 1970. The Sâtra of Golden Light: Being a Translation of the Suvamabhâsottamasûtra, London (Luzac). Fa Hsien 1886. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, trans., James Legge, Oxford (Clarendon Press) reprinted in New York: Paragon, 1965. Falk, Nancy 1977. "To Gaze on the Sacred Traces", HR 16.4: 281-293. Fausbøll, V. 1887. The Jâtaka together with its Commentary, London (Trübner & Co.). Gombrich, Richard F. 1971. Precepts and Practice, Oxford (Clarendon Press). Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan (1147-1216) [[[Sa-skya-pa]]], "Arga'i Cho-ga dang rab-tu gnas-pa don gsal„ba", The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa Skya Sect of the Tibetan Buddhism, Tokyo (The Toyo Bunko, 1968) 4: 237-252.

Gung-thang Dkon-mchog-bstan-pati-sgron-me (1762-1823) [Dge-lug-pa], "Bde-bar gshegs„pati sku gsung thugs-kyi rten bzhengs-pa dang phyag-mchod skor-bati phan-yon bstan-pa", Collected Works, New Delhi (1975) 5: 436-512. Gyalzur, Losang Paldhen and Antony H. N. Verwey 1983. "Spells on the Life-wood: An Introduction to the Tibetan Buddhist Ceremony of Consecration", in Ria Kloppenborg, ed., Selected Studies on Ritual in the Indian Religions, Leiden (E.J. Brill) 169-196. Harrison, Paul 1992. "Is the Dharma-kâya the Real Phantom Body' of the Buddha?" JIABS 15: 44-94. Hatt, Robert T. 1980. "A Thirteenth Century Tibetan Reliquary", Artibus Asiae 42: 175-220.

Hsüan Tsang 1885. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, trans., Samuel Beal, Boston (Kegan Paul Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd.) reprinted: New York, Paragon Book Reprint Corp. 1968. Huntington John C. 1985-86. "Sowing the Seeds of the Lotus: A Journey to the Great Pilgrimage Sites of Buddhism", Orientations 16.11: 46-61, 17.2: 28-43, 17.3: 3246, 17.7: 2840, 17.9: 46-58.

Huntington John C. 1987. "Pilgrimage as Image: the Cult of the Orientations 18.4: 55-63, 18.8: 56-68. I*Tsing (I Ching) 1896. A Record of the Buddhist Religion, trans., J. Takakusu Oxford (The Clarendon Press). 'Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa I Ngag-dbang„brtson-'grus (1648-1721/2) [Dge„lugs-pa], "Gzungs„ljug khrul-spong nyin-byed snying„po", Collected Works, New-Delhi (1974) 1: 486-509.

Jampa Sarnten 1992. "Preliminary Notes on the Thug-brag bKa'-tgyur: A Unique Edition of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon", Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita, 1989, Narita (Naritasan Shinshoji) 115-120.

Kalsang, Jampa 1969. "Grundsätzliches zur Füllung von Mc•od rten", ZAS 3: 51-3. Kong-sprul Blo-gros-mtha'-yas, 'Jam-mgon (1813-1899) [Bka*-brgyud-pdRis-med], ltRten-la nang-gzhug 'bul-ba'i lag-len lugs-srol kun-gsal dri„bral nor-bu chu-shel-gyi me-long", Collected Works, Paro (1975) 12: 97-148. Lange, Kristina 1964. "Zwei metallene Kultfiguren des Bcong-k'a-pa", Jahrbuch des Museumsfür Völkerkunde zu Leipzig 22: 115-128. Lcang-skya I (1642-1714) [Dge-lugs„pa]

1. "Rten„la gzungs-gzhug 'bul-tshul shel-dkar-me-long", Collected Works, in The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking edition [extra volume] (Tokyo-Kyoto, 1961) no. 6299, vol. 164, pp. 83.5.5-88.2.2.

2. "Gzungs-tjug lugs dang dpar-byang", Ibid. no. 6301, pp. 89.2.5-90.2.1. Leonov, Gennady 1991. "Amitayus l*, in Marylin M. Rhie & Robert A.F. Thurman, eds., Wisdom and Compassion: the Sacred Art of Tibet, New York (Asian Art Museum of San Francisco and Tibet House: A.N. Abrams) pp. 351-353. Leonov, Gennady 1992. "The Rite of Consecration in Tibetan Buddhism" , Arts ofAsia 22.5:100-110.

Manen, Johan van 1933. "On Making Earthen Images, Repairing Old Images & Drawing Scroll-pictures in Tibet", Journal ofIndian Society of Oriental Art 1: 105-111.

Martin, Dan 1991. The Emergence of Bon and the Tibetan Polemical Tradition, (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University). Martin, Dan 1992. "Crystals and Images from Bodies, Hearts and Tongues from Fire: Points of Relic Controversy from Tibetan History", Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita, 1989, Narita (Naritasan Shinshoji) 183-191. Martin, Dan, forthcoming, "Pearls from Bones: Relics, Chortens, Tertons and the Signs of Saintly Death in Tibet", Numen. Maue, Dieter and Klaus Röhrbom 1979. "Ein Caityastotra aus dem alttürkischen Goldglanz„Sûtra'I , ZDMG 129: 282-320. Mitra, Debala 1990. 'Relics and Relic Caskets", in An Encyclopaedia ofIndian Archaeology, ed., A. Ghosh, Leiden (E.I. Brill) 1: 270-275. Mkhas„grub Rje 1968. Mkhas Grub Rje's Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras, trans., Ferdinand D. Lessing and Alex Wayman, The Hague (Mouton & Co. N. V. Publishers).

Nakamura, Hajime 1980. "The and the Chinese and Tibetan Versions of a Text Similar to it", in Indianisme et Bouddhisme: Mélanges offerts à Mgr Étienne Lamotte, Louvain-la„neuve (Université catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste) 259-265.

Olson, E. 1950-71. Catalogue of the Tibetan Collection and other Lamaist Articles in the Newark Museum, Newark (The Newark Museum). Padma-tphrin-las, Rdo-rje-brag Rig„tdzin (1641-1717) [Rnying-ma„pa], "Gzungs-'bulgyi lag-len gsal„bar byed-pa bai„4ûr-ya'i me-long*' , Rituals ofRdo-rje„brag, Leh (1973) 1: 287-362. Pal, Pratapaditya 1992. Art of the Himalayas: Treasures from Nepal and Tibet, New York (Hudson Hills Press) 120-121.

PaQ-chen Bla-ma I Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-rgyal-mtshan (1570-1662) [Dge„lugs-pa], "Gzungs-gzhug gnod„sbyin tkhor-lo ji-ltar bya-bali tshul gsal-byed nor-buli long", Collected Works, New Delhi (1973) 4: 799-811.

Preston, Douglas J. 1983. "Spilled Beans and Secret Scrolls", Natural History 92.4: 96„ 99. Pruess, James B., ed. & trans. 1976. The Thât Phanom Chronicle: A Shrine History and its Interpretation, Ithaca, N.Y. (Dept. of Asian Studies, Cornell University). Rajavaramuni, Phra 2535 BE. (1990-1991). Dictionary ofBuddhism, Mahaculalankorn - rajavidalaya. Reedy, Chandra L. 1986. "A Buddha Within a Buddha", Arts ofAsia 16.2: 94-101.

Reynolds, Frank E. 1977. "The Several Bodies of Buddha: Reflections on a Neglected Aspect of Theravada Tradition", HR 16.4: 374-389. Rouse, W.H.D. 1901. The Jâtaka, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press). Sasaki, Genjun H. 1992. Sârasahgaha, Oxford (The Pali Text Society).

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina Anna, "Some Dhâranî Written on Paper [Functioning as Dharmakâyds Relics] to be Placed in a Stûpa: A Tentative Approach to PT 350", A paper delivered at the Conference of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Fagernes August 21-28, 1992). Schopen, Gregory 1985. "The Bodhigarbhâlañkâralalça and Vima10ì1ýsa Dharalfis in Indian Inscriptions: Two Sources for the Practice of Buddhism in Medieval India", WZKS 29: 119-149.

Schopen, Gregory 1987. "Burial 'Ad Sanctos and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions", Religion 17: 193-225. Schopen, Gregory 1988. "On the Buddha and His Bones: The Conception of a Relic in the Inscriptions from Nâgârjuniko#", JAOS 108: 527-537. Schopen, Gregory 1991. "An Old Inscription from Amarâvatî and the Cult of the Local Monastic Dead in Indian Buddhist Monasteries", JIABS 14.1: 281-329. Schulemann, Werner 1969. "Der Inhalt eines tibetischen Mc'od Rten", ZAS 3: 55-76. Snodgrass, Adrian 1985. The Symbolism of the Stupa, Ithaca, N.Y. (Cornell University).

Sommarström, Bo 1980. "Contents of Life in Buddhist Stûpas and Images", Studia Orientalia 50: 241-251. Stag-tshang Lo-tsâ-ba» "Rten-gsum bzhugs-gnas dang bcas-pa'i bsgrub„tshul ryas-par bshad-pa DpaVbyor„rgya„mtsho", National Archives, Kathmandu, Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Reel, E674/29, 54 ff.

Strong, John 1979. "The Transfornûlg Gift: An Analysis of Devotional Acts of Offering in Buddhist Avadâna Literature", HR 18.3: 221-237. Trainor, Kevin Michael 1990. The Relics of the Buddha: A Study of the Cult ofRelic Veneration in the Theravâda Buddhist Tradition of Sri Lanka, (Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University).

Tucci, Giuseppe 1932. 'Mchod rten' e 'tsha tsha' nel Tibet indiano ed occidentale. IndoTibetica, vol. l, Rome (Reale Accademia dtltalia); trans. into English by Uma Marina Vesci, Stupa, ed., Lokesh Chandra, šatapi!aka Series, New Delhi (Aditya Prakashan, 1988).

B YA-RUNG KHA-SHOR, •LÉGENDE FONDATRICE DU BOUDDHISME TIBÉTAIN

Anne-Marie BLONDEAU (EPHE, Paris)

Le stûpa de Bodnath au Népal, Bya-rung kha-shor pour les Tibétains, est si célèbre que l'histoire de sa fondation est dans toutes les mémoires et quil suffira ici den rappeler les grands traits. Les variantes sont relativement nombreuses (voir en annexe le tableau qui répertorie les plus importantes), mais le schéma principal se ramène à ceci : trois frères ayant prononcé devant ce stûpa qutils ont construit le voeu de renaître au Tibet pour y iffuser le bouddhisme, reprennent naissance comme le roi Khri-srong Ide-btsan, l'Abbé ântaraksita, le maître Padmasambhava.

Quant au nom du stûpa, il trouve son explication dans la version répandue actuellement où crest la mère des garçons, gardeuse de volaille de son état (bya-rdzi-mo), qui avait commencé la construction (après avoir demandé un terrain apparemment minuscule au roi du Népal, selon une version). L'extension de ce terrain — miraculeuse ou grâce à l'astuce de la femme —, et la taille de l'édifice ayant suscité la jalousie et l'opposition des habitants du Népal, ceux-ci demandèrent au roi diinterdire la consu•uction ; mais le roi refusa, arguant de sa parole donnée : " J'ai laissé échapper de ma bouche : ' il convient de le faire (bya-rung kha-shor), [et un roi ne revient pas sur sa parole]." Ainsi, si Iton voulait traduire le nom actuel du stûpa, on pourrait le rendre par "Construction autorisée verbalementit .

Mes premières recherches sur l'histoire de la construction de Bya„rung kha-shor remontent aux années 1976-1977, dans le cadre de l'étude du bKd„thang Zangs„glingnn, etje les ai reprises d'une manière plus globale en 1982-1983 1 . Tout récemment, F.K. Ehrhard a publié un court article : "The Stupa of Bodhnath : A Preliminary Analysis of the Written Sources"2 et, avec Ph. Pierce et Ch. Cüppers, une plaquette : Views of the Bodnâth-stûpa3 . Dans ces deux publications, F.K. Ehrhard examine de manière beaucoup plus exhaustive que je ne l'avais fait les documents tibétains sur l'histoire de ce stûpa au Népal à partir du 16ème siècle, et les sources népalaises pouvant faire état de Itexistence d'un stûpa sur le site, antérieurement au 16ème siècle. En effet, l'histoire de ce monument soulève plusieurs questions concomitantes :

l . Depuis quand le site de Bodnath a-t-il été reconnu par les Tibétains comme celui de Bya-rung kha-shor ? 2. Existait-il un stûpa et une tradition népalaise antérieurs qui autorisaient Itidentification à Bya-rung kha-shor ? 3. Si l lhistoire de la construction est légendaire, quelle est son origine, et comment cette histoire stest-elle développée ? 4. Enfin, si l'on dénie tout caractère historique au récit de la fondation, quelle est la signification réelle de l'élaboration d'une telle légende ?

Pour les deux premières questions, les conclusions de F.K. Ehrhard rejoignant pour liessentiel celles auxquelles j'étais parvenue, je renvoie à ses articles, n'indiquant ici que brièvement les résultats :