And Dan, nice to see you here again as well! I suppose whether or not the Tibetan emperor’s nosebleeds were really kept and used to make ink, the very idea that this was done points to some kind of culture in which blood writing was considered sacred in Tibet as well.

S.

Yours,
D

Full text is available at: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/jiabs/article/view/9174/3032

I believe you’re right about the old man who might have just dropped a few drops of blood into the inkwell to write the Diamond Sutra. Out of hundreds of (premodern) blood scriptures I have looked at, I have never seen the color darken to black. In fact, I came across a discussion (in a premodern Buddhist text) about how to interpret the color of the blood when it darkens or lightens. Supposedly if the color lightens to a golden hue, then this shows the purity of the writer’s spiritual attainment. If it turns black, then his body (and mind) is defiled. But this is copying a text using only one’s blood–not mixing it with black ink. Apparently there are some received ideas about the color of the blood writings. Chinese monks in premodern times would mix cinnabar, which has a transformative element connected to “Daoist” outer alchemy practice, with their blood. Cinnabar also helps preserve the blood manuscript, preventing bugs from eating away at the characters (you see this in the Chinese case). The colors of those ms mixed with cinnabar are clearly artificial looking. There are a few Dunhuang “blood” manuscripts (and banner paintings) like that.

In the 17th century, blood writing became an accepted means of expressing sanctity and honor. However, the symbolic valence of using blood is quite complex. I deal with the symbolic, social, and corporeal significance of blood in my book (Sanctity and Self-Inflicted Violence through Oxford). Thanks for posting this. – Jimmy Yu

There are not very many other types of deities mentioned in the wooden slips. As well as yul lha we have the compound yul lha yul bdag which seems to refer to a single deity (though it is not clear). We have sman and g.yang, and we also have rtse lha and rtse sman.

S.

Indeed, you should be sceptical towards such an idea, and it’s not an idea I’m suggesting here! In an article written with Jacob Dalton some years ago, we documented a case of influence. What I’m arguing against in this post is the idea that Chan was the primary influence upon Dzogchen, and the problems inherent in “proving” this by selecting texts from both traditions, putting them alongside each other and pointing out their similarities.

S.