Now, I think it’s time bring this comments thread back “on topic”. Or wait a few days till the next post, where I’ll be hoping for as many comments as possible.

S.

If you have a basic command of the lingo you could read my previous post that none of my specialties include history or Tibet which excludes me from being the mentioned scholar whom I have read with joy. Alas Karmey was one of the names given to me. It is not surprising as I find many people simply do not have a good attention span, take my initial post which also mentioned the various civil wars and sectarian clashes or other points which never led tot he destruction of Tibet as a confederated state for ‘long periods’ which was the fate of most states in the last millennium in Asia and Europe.

To answer your other query I’d say in time the ‘primary’ concern of most academics transforms into that of being a careerist and then simply retiring. Tibetologists seem to be a nicer bunch than usual though. Sam has certain qualities, take for example the usual hodgepodge of other blogs which do not obey the basic rules of paper presentation or writing, never mind proper user friendly formats seen in most well written journals or publications when presenting information. It goes beyond style though. He has a good nose. Let me clarify. He chooses his main subjects very carefully and I would say strategically very wisely from his thesis to his papers. The only paper I liked better personally on JIATS than his ones was Germano’s Funerary piece. His side issues, dips, are very pleasant too, take the recent graffiti post. Apart from choosing and focusing well on the pivotal areas as I see them, he keeps to them long term while researching their fringes too. He then interrogates the
field very well, tackling the issues and answering points which always come up in my mind on the next paragraph or pages. He asks the questions you would ask and is very thorough. This is a great talent which for example makes an exceptional interviewer and is rare. This only comes about if one’s interests ‘primarily’ is one’s quest and genuine all consuming passion in the subject. He does his footwork comprehensively. He has other qualities too but I don’t want to spoil him and some are best left unmentioned but let me balance all that by saying he does not immediately grasp the points put to him but I suspect they usually sink in though he might do better in future to read in between the lines more.

Thank you for clarifications Mr Dan Martin and your name reminds me of your compatriot Martin Van Creveld who is probably one of the greatest historians alive and I like him very much. Though I’d venture to say it is generally well advised for historians, specially on Tibet, to steer clear of the secretive dark side of any state involvement despite it’s many temptations. Said’s famous book had a clear subtext aimed at Bernard Lewis and the war mongering traditions he inherited from his predecessors. After all we live a few years and then we have to face our individual ‘karmey’ for a very long time, as some might say. It’s just not worth the gamble.

Wishing all a great new year,

Karmey

Speaking of the IATS, I don’t think it’s nice, but more importantly fair or even very true, that Sam’s good qualities should be considered unusual — “not only you are open to discussion in your many posts online but also are genuine in your researches as the main point despite personal gains. Many are not like you” — when I’d say he’s actually fairly typical of modern-day professional Tibetanists as a whole. Not that there aren’t dangers this general goodness might be on the decline with petty in-fighting on the rise… Of course, it’s a different matter altogether just how many papers on the economic impact of the commercialization of caterpillar fungi one is willing to sit through (with a wink and an apology to the Winklers). Perhaps KarmEy was taking aim at academic researchers as a ‘complete’ group? If so, really, there’s no such thing. Is there? Holiday joy to all!

I’ll be brief with my points. I think you missed my tongue in cheek tone. I like your book and papers and blogs too. Also I’m happy to see not only you are open to discussion in your many posts online but also are genuine in your researches as the main point despite personal gains. Many are not like you. This is a good mark and rare.

You missed my main points. First of all the various Orientalist historians looking at the east and excluding Tibet for obvious reasons as the field is fairly new were of much higher quality in the old days of 19th and early 20th century. Though Gombrich has a flavour of the old stock. However he was not mainly focused on Tibet which was not opened up as such back then and I don’t like Popper’s system anyway but still is far superior to the self-contradictory works of Davidson which is more of a tabloid style. Actually traditional non-biased hard academic work like papers in ‘Power, Politics and the re-invention of Tradition’ dishes much more dirt than sensationalist works though I quite like anything on Tibet specially Davidson which is fun. By the way I do not think your style is open to my accusation. You are very much in the mold of the old hard workers, hopefully minus the political criticisms and biases that Ed Said foregrounded so well. I hope like the greats, in other fields, you will always keep an open mind and change our mind through your promising future researches.

The many levels of truth? It goes beyond Madhyamika and into tantra actually. Lets just sum it up with Nagarjuna’s view of having no view which is a discussion killer. On the relative functional levels, Barthes was in a way preceded long by Indo-Tibetan masters and there are as many readings as readers. And even more as each person is different every new day. These masters also preceded Wittgenstein or Gödel by saying though the methods and even ultimately all our reasoning is baseless never the less we have to use them as tools on the path or even in ordinary life as everyone does. So there is no one truth or correct point of view and these Indo-Tibetans are the only ones that said it coherently through many centuries until modern ideas came about.

One could have a clear view of one’s current methodology though. Whether it is the Foucaultian Neo-Nietzscheanism or deconstructionist, structuralist or various pot-structuralist methods of Deleuze Baudrillard etc. or the various old and newer routine empirical Anglo-American traditions which is great too though often it tries to misrepresent itself as objective which as we agree does not exist. I think it is useful to be aware of the modes one currently works in and be open to others too.

Finally my main point was that such political manoeuvrings, or Realpolitik as coined by Bismarck and embodied by Kissinger, is nothing new during Tri Song’s reign. It exists in all places and eras to various degrees. In fact as I stated Shanta’s entry was just the start and the real fun started after as many sources testify with: Vairo, Padma, Yeshe Tsogyal and other queens and ministers and Bon priests and their ultimate splinterings (continues to this day with New Bon) and exiles/conformities and various local reactions. As Dargyay(s) and others have pointed out based on so many sources. So the main point of this post on the blog is hardly anything new.

There is the purely power politics aspect which is not true as Tri Song needed to introduce Buddhism in his situation like a hole in the head and as subsequent structural failure of his system showed from which Tibet never recovered. And so is unacceptable the saintly hagios for the faithful massaged in time. That is why apart from jumping to extremes there are many nuances which should always be open to modification and research and will keep one balanced. I have a few specialties, history nor Tibet one of them, but I find the long term analytical view point useful for me and appreciate any new empirical work in this understudied area and specially look forward greatly to your contributions though no one is without their analytical point of view. The trick I found useful for me generally is that I don’t have to make my mind up on everything and can absorb more by aiming to remain open. Well at least I’m trying to which is impossible but it’s fun trying. So looking forward to you and others’ work in future. Your hard work in recent years is the sort of stuff we really need. Keep them coming.

Happy holidays.

K

I fully concur with being characterised as a “lesser” historian, but I’m afraid I don’t find your arguments convincing. What I think you’re saying is that Tibet became a culture based around Vajrayana Buddhism, and that this was a good thing (I don’t disagree) which avoided any destructive clashes (given the bloody Tibetan civil wars of the 9th, 13th, and 17th centuries, to name a few, I can’t really agree with that).

But this is history as teleogy, like the Christian theologians’ argument from design. You want, I think, to support the picture painted by the later historical texts, but these were written when Tibetan Vajrayana had already taken shape, and taken its commanding role in the culture. What’s interesting about the earlier histories is that they predate this development, or at least represent an earlier stage, and that’s why they sometimes suggest a different picture.

I agree with you that Tri Song Detsen did a great job in introducing Buddhism to Tibet. Unlike some historians, I also think that he was probably sincere in his interest in Buddhism, not only using it for political ends. As for what is “hidden” or “secret” — when we’re talking about history, we need to form a consensus, and the current consensus is that history should be based on the best possible sources, and no-one should have priviledged access to these. No, the earlier sources aren’t always better, but when sources disagree, we’re duty-bound to look into that. We can’t just brush it off with a plea to the many levels of appearances that might be good for meditation, but bad for doing history.

If we’re talking about a Buddhist approach to history, I think it might be worth keeping Candrakirti’s approach to the two truths in mind. On the ultimate level nothing can be determined to exist, or not to exist as such. But on the conventional level, we need follow what is generally accepted to be true (and so for example we accept the testimony of a clear-sighted person over a person with cataracts).

So there has to be a consensus about our standards for truth, like the method of analysing historical sources. We can of course keep in mind that this is not true in an ultimate or final sense, because it depends on us all agreeing that the methods we use are valid. I fully accept that you should be allowed to hold a different view. It’s inevitable — history is too complicated for there not to be different views. As long as you feel confident in your view, there’s no need to be threatened by others, and no need for hostility. But confidence only comes with an openness to the multiplicity of historical narratives.

There’s a nice essay by the historian Inga Clendinnen on “Who Owns History?” She was responding to the Australian Prime Minister’s call for a national history as “a structured narrative” with “an objective record of achievment.” That’s impossible, she says: “in human affairs there is never a single narrative. There is usually at least one counter-story, and usually several, and in a democracy, you will probably get to hear them.”

Strewth! In the democratic spirit of stepping down and letting other people have their say, I’d better stop there.

S.

Secondly the new unified royal state, as such, due to these pressures did break up soon after him and until recently the local major lamas/monasteries and/or warlords/local kings ruled the parts even after the introduction of the Dalai Lamas. This on the whole worked very well despite periodical clashes or power/land grabs mixed with sects even with the occasional Mongol/Chinese elements thrown in for good measure. That is compared to other states elsewhere where matters always climaxed to destructive clashes sooner or later which never happened in Tibet as such. The difference was Tibet became the perfect hothouse for Tantric Buddhism and the results which can not be quantified here but are the ultimate end were met.

Finally it is obvious why only a few realize as explained in the teachings how the many levels of appearances, qualities and activities work. Open self secrets, laid out in the middle of the room and best place to hide too. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama says, now it’s time for the 12 kinds of vajra laughs, or for you guys manifesting in the cyberkaya level here as lol :D

Time for Kilaya.

I’m afraid things are more complicated with regard to the various Ananta/Anandas than I hinted in my earlier comment. The post-Phyi-dar translator (no. 3 on my list) probably really ought to be spelled Aananda, but he was also from Kashmir (and I believe is none other than the Jaayaananda Leonard wrote an article about…). I’ll try to fix all the confusion of myself and others another time. Still, I would say that if your early text says Ananta, it is probably correct, and not just trying, but failing to write Aananda (Tib. Kunga or Kun-dga’). Ananta (Tib. Tayé or Mtha’-yas) is a perfectly good Indian name and shouldn’t be fixed unless it turns out it needs to be. There I go being clear as mud again.

Is there something new about reading old historical texts, deciding that particular parts of it ‘couldn’t possibly be true’ and then adjusting them to suit us just because we think it’s more likely to be the case, and not because we know it to be the case? Where will this practice ever end?

Yours,
D.

Ped ma sa bhav ba, as noted in the introduction (page 14) to the DBA’ BZHED, is noted for his public works. But this is his public face, one to which politically concerned Bon might have felt especially threatened. The “inward” face of Pe ma sa bhav ba might only have emerged as important as a public context when the Kingdom dissolved, and inward continuities of identity became the social tools available for popular identity. Then the importance of the hagiographical inward face “blew up” as we say nowadays.

My point is both faces are attested to, but distinguished.

Interesting thoughts on the various Ananta-s. Any thoughts on why we should stick to “Ananta” rather than correcting to “Ānanda” (as some people, including myself, have done?)

Another apparently early mention of Ananta is in the edict that begins the translation manual Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Here he seems to have graduated to become a “literary” translator. I wonder if the works of these translators at the early stage of Tibetan Buddhism were similar to those of the early translators of Buddhist texts in Chinese. I mean, rather impressionistic, sometimes more like summaries of texts, produced for the king and court to give them some impression of what this new religion was all about. I’m thinking here about the Eric Zurcher’s great book The Buddhist Conquest with China, as well as a recent conversation with a SOAS Sinologist, whose name I won’t mention in case I’m misrepresenting him.

Anyway, let me add another epilogue to this post — in the “Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies” (Rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long), this Ananta story is strangely taken out of context and grafted onto a story about a Bon-Buddhist debate. I’ll just copy here Per Sørenson’s translation (p.366):

At this [very] time a person named Ānanda, being the son of a Kashmirian [named] Skyes-bzangs, who was active at a bartering-market [called] Dar-tshags dgung-gseb, [a market located] between Ra-sa ['phrul-snang] and Ra-mo-che [in lHa-sa], was summoned and appointed translator, whereafter the Buddhists and the Bon[-adherents], the two, competed [with one another] in a dispute.

In a footnote Sørenson suggests that Bla-ma Dam-pa has “contrived a contraction of a lengthy narrative embodying these two distinct narrative segments.”

So we return to Bon again. Perhaps now your marvellous bibliography is freely available, Bon perspectives will be brought into this historical dialogue more and more. That would be nice.

S.

You’ve done it again. Found out something that makes us rethink what we used to think we knew.

I’d like to add — There were three main India/Kashmir-born Anantas important in earlier centuries of Tibetan history. The one we’re concerned with here is the middle one. His name must be prefaced by either Kha-che (Kashmiri) or Bram-ze (Brahmin), and associated with the early reign of Khri Srong-lde-brtsan, or chances are you’re looking at one of the other two.

What’s interesting to me is that he’s very often listed in what I believe is the earlier and more authentic listing of the Nine Great Translators, where he’s called the Kashmiri Ananta. I’m not sure that it’s necessary to refer to a ‘cover-up conspiracy,’ but the fact is that there are no works in the canon that were translated by these translators in the earlier versions of the list. I would think that if they did make literary translations, these were supplanted by later translations, just as the list of translators itself was replaced by a listing of translators (who *do* appear in canon colophons) probably only active in the early 9th century (or very end of the 8th)… Kha-che Ananta was active closer to the middle of the 8th century. I’ve always thought I’d write a paper on the subject of the Nine Translators, but haven’t pulled the many sources together yet.

It’s true that this discovery resolutely pushes our minds in the direction of recognizing the historical depths contained in the Sba-bzhed. Anything to say about the diminished role Guru Rinpoche plays in the Sba-bzhed? In some accounts Padmasambhava was suspected of magic, and even of wanting to poison the Emperor with supposed ‘elixir’. Fear of the foreigner and his barbarous ‘magic’ is always good for stirring up the people.

Bon sources are not unanimous, but they tend to have a fairly derogatory and sometimes extremely negative evaluation of Śāntirakṣita (whom they, like some non-Bon sources, know as Bo-dhi-sa-twa, or Bodhisattva). Some even call him a ‘bastard Tibetan child’ or say he came from Nepal or Kha-che (Kashmir) or that *his* father (and not Ananta’s) was banished to Kashmir (and not banished from Kashmir)… It would be interesting to take some of those accounts into account in trying to understand better the stresses Buddhism created as more and more Tibetans came to know more about it. There must have been negative reactions, just as you find in England, for example, to the introduction of Buddhism there.

Enough for now. Just to suggest that your readers ought to go read the published paper, and not just the blog version. I apologize if I’ve created any mud puddles or similar muddles in my attempt to communicate.

Cheers!
D.