365bet娱乐

This chapter draws on a diversity of historical texts and iconographic sources to describe the ritual use of charnel materials within the formalization of Buddhist tantra. Specifically, the following explores how skulls and bone ornaments were cultivated as ritual instruments through the methodologies of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra as Buddhist forms of ritualized charnel asceticism.^[1] This work will moreover examine evidence for the exchange of charnel methods with other religious traditions and communities active across south and central Asia during the first millennium CE, including brahmanical and 艢补颈惫补 ascetic practices like the observance of the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补, or skull-bearers. Moreover, this discussion investigates sources for the Tibetan iconography of siddhas, yogin墨/岣嵞乲颈苍墨, and the deity Heruka and these figures鈥� consistent, prominent depiction with ritual objects made with human remains.^[2]

In one of the oldest preserved painted representations of a transmission lineage on the top floor of the early thirteenth century Alchi gSum brtsegs in Ladakh (figure 2.1), the Indian siddhas Tilopa (988-1069) and 狈腻谤辞辫补 (b.1012) are dark-skinned and naked wearing charnel ornaments on their heads, ears, necks, arms, wrists and ankles, and around the waist as a girdle or belt (Skt. 尘别办丑补濒腻, Tbt. ska rags), indicating the fundamental prestige of these materials. Each holds a skull in the left hand with a musical instrument鈥攁 horn and 岣峚尘补谤耻, respectively 鈥攊n the right. Between them is the blue figure of Vajrasattva (or Vajradhara) and, on the ground, a 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 with skulls placed at the four corners. The two yogins turn toward one another, illustrating the oral transmission of teachings between them while, to the left, the founding bKa鈥� brgyud translator and student of 狈腻谤辞辫补, the white-robed Marpa (1012-1097), rotates towards them as the source for his tantric knowledge.^[3]

Figure 2.1: First three figures in the founding lineage of the 鈥楤ri gung bKa鈥� brgyud from the top floor of the Alchi gSum brtsegs, c.1220, from right to left, Tilopa, 狈腻谤辞辫补 and Marpa. Image from Tsering 2009. Each has a small single skull in their hair, indicating that these ornaments are charnel materials.

In images such as this, skulls and charnel ornaments are prominent features of the siddhas鈥� appearance, thus associated with the Indian and revelatory sources for Buddhist tantra as well as its transmission to local and/or Tibetan religious leaders.^[4] However, the collective identity of these figures as 尘补丑腻蝉颈诲诲丑补 and the refinement of their iconography in the Himalayas was established only after the twelfth century through the consolidation and translation of earlier sources and teachings on Buddhist tantra.^[5] Earlier, generic representations of Buddhist charnel ascetic yogins are found in two twelfth century 尘补峁囜笉补濒补, for example, in which are also illustrated the use and visualization of corpses or human remains as ritual method, the feast-gathering of 驳补峁嘺肠补办谤补 (Tbt. tshogs kyi 鈥�khor lo) and the iconographic program of the eight charnel grounds (Skt. 补峁ａ弓补艣尘腻艣补苍补, Tbt. dur khrod chen po brgyad) (figures 2.2-2.3).^[6] These are two of the oldest surviving painted examples of Buddhist 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 and, like the transmission lineage at the Alchi gSum brtsegs, suggest the ways in which charnel materials had become important to the visual culture of deity yoga in Buddhist tantra during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In each of these 尘补峁囜笉补濒补, the central deities鈥�厂补峁僾补谤补 in figs. 2.2 and 2.4 and 痴补箩谤补岣嵞乲补 as 厂补辫迟腻办峁�a谤补 in figs. 2.3 and 2.5, each embracing the consort 痴补箩谤补惫腻谤腻丑墨鈥攁re represented as a form of Heruka with a skull and 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and, like the siddhas in fig. 2.1 above, wearing bone ornaments on the head, waist, limbs, etc. (figures 2.4 and 2.5). These two 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 and the iconography of their figures reflect sources compiled during or previous to this period: The triple-wheel assembly and twelve-armed form of 厂补峁僾补谤补 in fig. 2.2 corresponds to a description from the 狈颈峁�p补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨 of 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补 (d.1125) as well as the textual sources which would form the basis of the Tibetan 颁补办谤补蝉补峁僾补谤补 iconography.^[7] The six-armed 厂补辫迟腻办峁�a谤补, on the other hand, is one of many forms of the deity Heruka taken by the buddha 础办峁�o产丑测补 in the 厂腻诲丑补苍补尘腻濒补, the earliest surviving copies of which also date from the twelfth century.^[8] Each deity is moreover surrounded by a retinue or network of 岣嵞乲颈苍墨 and/or their consorts as well as protectors. The following chapter examines the origins of their wrathful (Skt. krodha, Tbt. khro ba) characterization through their association with charnel materials as well as evidence for historical exchanges between Buddhist and 艢补颈惫补 or brahmanical iconographic traditions.^[9]

The work of the Indian Buddhist tantric scholar 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补鈥攊ncluding the 狈颈峁�p补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨 cited above鈥攚as highly valued by Tibetan scholars in the period after the phyi dar during the (re)establishment of the region鈥檚 religious institutions and gSar ma monastic lineages.^[10] This includes as well the 痴补箩谤补惫腻濒颈 (Tbt. rDo rje phreng ba), a compendium of Buddhist texts and commentaries which include the description of a yogic vow to hold a skull and 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and wear charnel ornaments in a practice identified as vajra办腻辫腻濒颈办补cary膩vrata.^[11] This represents the result of a Buddhist re-contextualization for the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 observance which had been adapted in the preceding centuries by 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 authors, most explicitly and consistently in the visual and liturgical modes of 厂补峁僾补谤补 tantra.^[12] This chapter will examine surviving evidence for this process and the emergence of a Buddhist yogin墨 tradition after the eighth century, defined in part by its prominent use of charnel materials.

Figure 2.2: Triple-wheel 颁补办谤补蝉补峁僾补谤补 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 surrounded by the eight charnel grounds with a form of Heruka and 痴补箩谤补惫腻谤腻丑墨 at the center of an oath-bound network of 岣嵞乲颈苍墨, central Tibet, c. 1100, now in a private collection.

Figure 2.3: Ma峁囜笉ala of Heruka as 痴补箩谤补岣嵞乲补 in the form of 厂补辫迟腻办峁�a谤补 in union with 痴补箩谤补惫腻谤腻丑墨 within the eight charnel grounds, central Tibet, c. 1100, now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1995.233).

Figures 2.4 and 2.5: Detail of the central assembly of figs. 2.2 (above) and 2.3 (below) with forms of Heruka and Vajravarah墨 (as 惫补箩谤补测辞驳颈苍墨) in union trampling their non-Buddhist adversaries within a circular network of 岣嵞乲颈苍墨. Note also the skulls positioned on top of vases with offerings in the corners of fig. 2.5.

Drawing from the writings of 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补 as well as the textual corpus of Buddhist tantra, the Sa skya scholar Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) would further develop the yoga of ritualized charnel asceticism in his He ru ka鈥檌 chas 鈥榙谤耻驳, which describes the skull vessel, 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and bone ornaments as the implements of one who assumes the form of the deity Heruka.^[13] This thirteenth century text on Heruka deity yoga would form an early textual precedent for the Tibetan tradition of brtul zhugs spyod pa (Skt. 惫谤补迟补肠补谤测腻), or practice of observance.^[14] Grags pa rgyal mtshan moreover developed narratives which associated the adaptation of charnel methodologies from non-Buddhist sources with the origins of the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus and the characteristic appearance of Heruka as its central deity.^[15]

Grags pa rgyal mtshan鈥檚 description of deity yoga in the form of Heruka and its application of charnel materials is reflected in the early thirteenth century image of the siddhas 狈腻谤辞辫补 and Tilopa seen in fig. 2.1, including as well their use of musical instruments and seat of animal skins.^[16] At the same time, the Sa skya scholar鈥檚 contribution to the exegesis of these practices was informed by his knowledge and study of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 texts also found at Dunhuang and authored before the eleventh century, such as those describing subjugation through sgrol ba, or liberatory ritual killing, in the tradition of Vajrak墨laya (rDo rje Phur pa) and which are also characteristic to the rNying ma corpus.17 This chapter will also explore the contribution of these 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 sources to the formalization of Buddhist tantra in Tibet through their evidence for ritualized charnel asceticism.

Therefore, it can be seen that by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there was a comprehensive historiographic, iconographic and practical interpretation for the ritual use of charnel materials in Tibet. Moreover, these objects were given emphatically Indian origins by Tibetan religious authorities of the gSar ma traditions through representations of siddhas as tantric innovators, and were primarily cultivated in the 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantras. This chapter will examine evidence for how these materials came to be valued as ritual objects by the patrons, authors and practitioners who would formalize the ritual methodologies of Buddhist tantra. Furthermore, this work will describe the development of iconographic programs鈥攑articularly in the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus鈥攚hich feature the use of skulls and bone ornaments, including the wrathful deity forms of Heruka and the yogin墨 or 岣嵞乲颈苍墨, and how these representations existed in conversation with adjacent, non-Buddhist traditions.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Italics are used here for the Sanskrit and Tibetan names of objects and words which are not common in English-language scholarship (unlike e.g. yoga, tantra, 岣嵞乲颈苍墨) with the exception of proper nouns and the names of deities. Diacritical marks for Sanskrit vocabulary are retained for accuracy.

[2]:

Yogin墨 and 岣嵞乲颈苍墨 are largely treated as synonymous entities in Buddhist tantra though the latter name (mkha鈥� 鈥榞ro ma) is preferred in Tibetan sources; their iconography is derived from common sources (see below).

[3]:

See Christian Luczanits, 鈥淏eneficial to see: Early Drigung painting鈥�, in Painting Traditions of the Drigung School, ed. David P. Jackson (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2014), 214-259. For an extended discussion of the historiographic importance of this lineage painting see idem., 鈥淎rt historical aspects of dating Tibetan art,鈥� in Dating Tibetan Art: Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Chronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, ed. Ingrid Kriede-Damani (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag: 2003), 25-57. See also chapter 3 for additional discussion of siddha iconography in the thirteenth and fourteenth century monuments of Alchi Chos 鈥榢丑辞谤.

[4]:

Geoffrey Samuel, 鈥淭he siddha as a cultural category,鈥� in Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas, op.cit, 45. Samuel suggests that Tibetan authors and lineage founders in the phyi dar (c. tenth to twelfth centuries) particularly emphasized the extremity of siddhas鈥� ritual methodologies in order to support their local authority.

[5]:

See the introduction in chapter 1, notes 34 and 35. Wedemeyer notes that Abhayadatta鈥檚 twelfth century collective biography Grub chen brgyad bcu rtsa 产锄丑颈鈥檌 rnam thar, is a compendium of historical and hagiographic material and 鈥渁lmost certainly a Tibetan apocryphon鈥�, idem., Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism, 175. See also Matthew T. Kapstein, 鈥淎n inexhaustible treasury of verse: The literary legacy of the 尘补丑腻蝉颈诲诲丑补s,鈥� in Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas, ed. Rob Linrothe (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2006), 22-35.

[6]:

Christian Luczanits, 鈥淭he eight great siddhas in early Tibetan paintings,鈥� in Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas, op.cit., 77-91. Luczanits observes that the siddhas in the two twelfth century 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 included here do not necessarily correspond to the collective biography of the 84 尘补丑腻蝉颈诲诲丑补s nor the 鈥楤ri gung conventional grouping of eight, but rather represent variations in a general type drawn from other sources which will be explored here.

[7]:

This description is number 12 in the 狈颈峁�p补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨; see Marie-Th茅r猫se de Mallmann, Introduction 脿 l鈥檌conographie du t芒ntrisme bouddhique (Paris: Librarie d鈥橝m茅rique et d鈥橭rient, 1986), 50-52. This triple-wheel 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 assembly is also described in the root tantra for the Tibetan 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus, the eighth century 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补 (see below).

[8]:

Benoytosh Bhattacharya, The Indian Buddhist Iconography (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), 64-65. This form of Heruka is described as the deity 痴补箩谤补岣嵞乲补 in union with his consort in 蝉腻诲丑补苍补 numbers 250 and 251.

[9]:

See Rob Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion: Wrathful Deities in Early Indo-Tibetan Esoteric Buddhist Art (London: Serindia Publications, 1999), 299-304 for an iconological summary of 厂补峁僾补谤补 as a Buddhist re-contextualization for 艢补颈惫补 imagery. My field of inquiry roughly corresponds to the third phase of Linrothe鈥檚 periodization for the development of 办谤辞诲丑补惫颈驳苍腻苍迟补办补 (wrathful protectors) in 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 iconography, after the tenth century.

[10]:

According to 鈥楪os lo ts膩 ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481), 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补 is most prominently associated with the composition of the 痴补箩谤补惫腻濒颈, idem., The Blue Annals (Deb ther ngon po), trans. George Roerich, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1949), 1048. See also David B. Gray on support for 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补鈥檚 interpretation of the 厂补峁僾补谤补 tradition by Tibetan political and religious leaders after the twelfth century, idem., 鈥淚ntroduction鈥� in The Cakrasamvara Tantra: The Discourse of 艢r墨 Heruka (艢谤墨丑别谤耻办腻产丑颈诲丑腻苍补), trans. David B. Gray (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 69-71.

[11]:

Cited in Alexis Sanderson, 鈥湷詹孤岚�补测腻苍��: Origin and function,鈥� in Buddhism into the Year 2000: International Conference Proceedings (Bangkok and Los Angeles: 顿丑补尘尘补办腻测补 Foundation, 1994), 91.

[12]:

Sanderson (ibid.) has effectively demonstrated the intertextuality of 艢补颈惫补 and Buddhist sources that incorporate the charnel methodologies of the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 vow, most prominently in the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus; see below and idem., 鈥淭he 艢补颈惫补 age -The rise of dominance of 艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 during the early medieval period,鈥� in Genesis and Development of Tantrism ed. by Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 145ff.

[13]:

Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 鈥淗e ru ka鈥檌 chas drug鈥�, 267. His iteration of bone ornaments is taken from chapter 6 of the first part of the Hevajra tantra, see below.

[14]:

This description of the six implements of the Heruka yogin would be repeated by the seventeenth century rNying ma teacher Lha btsun nam mkha鈥� 鈥榡igs med, for example, in his own 鈥淗e ru ka鈥檌 chas kyi rnam bshad鈥�, included as 鈥淟ha btsun nam mkha' 'jigs med dpal gyi rig pa brtul zhugs spyod pa'i rnam thar鈥� in gSang rnying rgyan dang rol mo鈥檌 bstan bcos, ed. bKra shis rgya mtsho (Lha sa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skyun khang, 1996); available at the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC), no. W22300, 105-116. My thanks to Westin Harris for sharing his unpublished translation and knowledge of this text with me; see also chapter 3 on the integration of gcod and the brtul zhugs practice.

[15]:

Ronald Davidson, 鈥淩eflections on the 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 subjugation myth: Indic materials, Sa-skya-pa apologetics, and the birth of Heruka,鈥� Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14, no.2 (1991): 205-207.

[16]:

狈腻谤辞辫补鈥檚 bone ornaments鈥攏ow at Hemis Monastery in Ladakh鈥攁re dated locally to the eleventh century when the bKa鈥� brgyud translator Marpa (b.1012) received them directly from the siddha in Bihar with teachings of Buddhist tantra; see Loseries-Leick, Tibetan Mahayoga Tantra, 126 and chapter 4, section 3. According to Grags pa rgyal mtshan and his sources, the six implements of the Heruka yogin are bone ornaments, skull vessel, ritual implements (including 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补), a garment (of animal skin) and an appropriate seat. The use of musical instruments by these ascetics includes a double-sided hand drum or 岣峚尘补谤耻, which can be made of wood or skulls according to the Grags pa rgyal mtshan and based on descriptions from the Samputa tantra (see chapter 4, section 5).