BRIEF
INTRODUCTION TO BASIC CONCEPTS OF "TIBETAN" BUDDHISM
Page 4
THE
QUESTION OF BON AND INDIGENOUS BELIEFS
When Buddhism was introduced into Tibet in the seventh century under
King Songtsen Gampo, it was apparently centered in the royal court
and did not, at first, put down deep roots. Almost a century passed
until it found favor again under King Trisong Detsen, who with the
aid of Padmasambhava strengthened its position. But even after that
"first diffusion," the new religion lost ground, and it
was not until the "second diffusion" of Buddhism in the
ninth and tenth centuries that it became firmly and finally established
as the majority religion of Tibet.
While
this basic outline is not disputed, scholars have disagreed about
precisely what it was that Buddhism replaced. Certainly, indigenous
religious beliefs and practices dominated Tibet before even the
first introduction of Buddhism in the seventh century, and during
the subsequent stages of its history there. But with what did Buddhism
struggle during that period between the "first" and "second"
diffusions? And what were the influences that led Tibetan Buddhism
to diverge so markedly from Indian Buddhism that later observers
attached to it a new name -- Lamaism -- as to a separate, distinct
cult?
The
great Tibetologist, Giuseppe Tucci, called Tibet's indigenous religious
beliefs and practices "the folk religion," for which R.A.
Stein adopted the
telling designation, "the nameless religion." Just as
various Middle-Eastern and European "pagan" beliefs, deities,
customs and practices were absorbed into Christianity, so in Tibet
many traces of the folk religion still exist, interwoven into Buddhist
practices. But besides those popular beliefs, with their local cults
and magical rites, another belief system either pre-dated Buddhism
in Tibet or co-existed with it, and the relation of those two has
been the subject of research and controversy.
That
other religion is Bon. Giuseppe Tucci, David Snellgrove, and other
scholars have worked to reconstruct the theology and iconography
of early Bon, and have researched the question of Bon's origins,
its history, and the extent of its relation to Buddhism. Tucci and
other scholars believe that Bon preceded the introduction of Buddhism
into Tibet. They identify divination and exorcism as central elements
of the indigenous folk religion but also of Bon, and believe that
both the folk religion and the more structured Bon contributed to
the undeniably shamanistic aspect of Tibetan religious practice
and customs. In this view, Bon brought a multiplicity of gods, demons,
and spirits of nature into the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, where
they joined the gods absorbed from Indian tantrism. Tucci attributed
Bon's formal doctrinal structure to a later borrowing from Buddhism.
According to the standard history, Bon vied with Buddhism for dominance
during the early centuries after the introduction of the new religion,
and during the period between the first and second diffusions. In
any case, Buddhism prevailed, but Bon, or some form of it, has survived
in parts of Tibet as well as in remote Himalayan areas, such as
Dolpo in northwestern Nepal, and there has recently been a Bon revival
in the West.
According
to this line of thought, the Bon that has survived was so heavily
influenced and infused with later adaptations and borrowings from
Buddhism that its original form can no longer be definitively distinguished
from what is now the majority religion. Yet Buddhism was also heavily
influenced by Bon: both shared traditions of magic and exorcism,
and both were influenced by the still potent "folk religion."
(Tucci considers that Bon was also influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism
and by Shaivism, the cult of Shiva, which reached Tibet from the
states on the western edge of the Himalayas.)
David
Snellgrove, in contradiction, argues that Bon is not the old indigenous
religion of Tibet. He agrees with the claim of present-day Bonpos
(adherents of Bon) that their religion was, from the beginning,
a form of Buddhism, however heterodox. Snellgrove maintains that
before the famous introduction of Buddhism to Tibet in the seventh
century under royal sponsorship, forms of Buddhism that had reached
Central Asia were actually familiar to some Tibetans, and that Bon
developed in Western or Central Asia earlier than its arrival, as
traditionally understood, in Tibet. He points out that the Bonpos,
like the orthodox sects, believe in an enlightened being, Shen-rab,
analogous to Buddha, and that Shen-rab, like Shakyamuni, had previous
incarnations and appears in various manifestations; he maintains,
moreover, that the Bonpos also have a fully developed theology and
a set of tantras that he finds corresponds with Buddhist practice.
Snellgrove considers Bon much closer to the Nyingma-pa, known among
the recognized orthodox Buddhist sects as the "old" school,
than it is to the popular folk religion with its multitude of spirits,
magical rites, divination, exorcism, auguries, etc. He argues that
those supernatural aspects of the indigenous cult were accepted
perforce by both Bonpos as well as Buddhists, as old, deeply ingrained
customs against which it was futile to contend, however irrelevant
or alien to their own beliefs.
To
complicate matters, some Bonpos of the present time identify Bon
as the religion that prevailed in Tibet prior to the introduction
of Buddhism, a position that contradicts those who argue that Bon
is merely another form of Buddhism, having developed at about the
same time as Buddhism reached Tibet, if not somewhat earlier. And
while Bonpos consider their religion as a form of Buddhism, present-day
Tibetan Buddhists regard Bon as a distinct, different religion,
not as a heterodox form of Buddhism.
In
light of these contending, disparate views about the origin, history,
and nature of Bon, and its disputed relation to Buddhism, Per Kvaerne
has thus defined the three main theories:
-
Bon was the pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet, its central figure
a king with sacred powers;
-
Bon was a form of Buddhism that developed in western Tibet at
least as early as the period in which Buddhism was introduced
into Tibet, and was similar in many respects to orthodox Buddhism;
-
Bon, so-called, was not a religion in its own right, but the sum
of all the indigenous beliefs, cults of local gods, popular rites,
etc., that were once prevalent across Tibet.
Whatever
the true origin, history, and nature of Bon, Tibetan Buddhist monastic
orders are broadly tolerant of the old practices, some of which
have almost no recognizable affinity with Buddhist belief. These
native elements, whether they derive from Bon or from a folk religion,
were strongly concerned with defence against hostile or ambivalent
powers, ensuring that the dead do no harm to the living.
Many
of the rites and practices meant to defeat such hostile powers have
survived not only in the folk religion, but were even, in Buddhist
guise, absorbed into orthodox Buddhist ritual. The people of the
Tibetan cultural world are profoundly, devoutly Buddhist, yet the
ancient traditions of folk religion not only remain vital, but have
left their indelible stamp on Tibetan Buddhism, contributing to
its distinctive nature. Basically, Tibetan Buddhism is the intersection
of Mahayana and of Vajrayana Buddhism, with its component of Indian
Tantrism, along with traditional, pre-Buddhist beliefs, whether
Bon or not. And it is clear that in Tibet, rather than opposing
the folk tradition, Buddhism accepted and absorbed it -- and in
so doing, allowed its borders to stretch. Buddhism has never concerned
itself with extirpating heresy, and has no concept of excommunication.
go
to Buddhism page 5
|