365bet娱乐

[Full title: Conclusion: Skulls and charnel ornaments in Tibetan sources for Buddhist Tantra]

This chapter has discussed evidence for the ways in which charnel materials were accumulated, reformed and adapted by Buddhist authors during the eighth to twelfth centuries into the visual and liturgical traditions of tantra that would become fundamental to Tibetan religious life.

This was a gradual, incomplete and non-linear process, further elaborated by the expansion of rnal 鈥榖yor bla na med (or yog膩nuttara, *anuttarayoga) tantra in south Asia and the Himalayas during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.^[1] In many yogin墨 tantras especially, the five charnel ornaments鈥攁s well as the skull and 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 鈥攂ecame implements for the post-initiatory practice or observance (肠补谤测腻, vrata) of its most skilled practitioners.^[2] This is reflected as well in the characterization of many of the founding teachers and authors of 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 in the twelfth century collective hagiography of the Grub chen brgyad bcu rtsa 产锄丑颈鈥檌 rnam thar (see note 5, above). By the early thirteenth century when the siddhas Tilopa and 狈腻谤辞辫补 were depicted at the Alchi gSum brtegs (fig. 2.1), these materials, their associated methods and deities had come to define the most accomplished tantric specialists, whose modes of ritualized charnel asceticism represented the Buddhist contextualization of those practiced as well by historically adjacent non-Buddhist (i.e. 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补, 艢补颈惫补, 艣腻办迟补) communities.

As Tibetan material religion was shaped by the translation and illustration of these ritual methodologies and their sources, these objects were cultivated as a particular type of instrumental technology: While holding a skull or mounting it on a staff had been characteristic of the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 vow to identify with the transgression of killing a brahmin since its earliest known practice by 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 ascetics, in the development of tantra the function of the skull was expanded to general use as an offering vessel (figure 2.42). Moreover, by the tenth century, these ritual objects had been technically specified by Buddhist commentators as equivalent to a relic of the reality body of the Buddha (诲丑补谤尘补办腻测补艣补谤墨谤补), simultaneously associating it both with the experience of Buddhist gnosis (产耻诲诲丑补箩帽腻苍补) and the historical valorization of relics.^[3]

Figure 2.42: Detail of 厂补辫迟腻办峁�a谤补 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 (fig. 2.3) with skulls holding offerings on vases placed around the central assembly, as described, for example, in the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补, chapter 2 (see also fig. 2.1).

Therefore, in the formalization of sources for Buddhist tantra between the eighth and twelfth centuries, iconographically and liturgically, skulls had become points of engagement used to prepare, collect, transform or distribute ritually empowered substances; to bind together initiates and teachers or siddhas and their consorts; to illustrate the vow of guardians, 岣嵞乲颈苍墨蝉 and other oath-bound affiliates of Buddhist ritual systems; as platforms to subjugate, transform and control adversaries or negativities; and used in yab yum figures at the center of 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 to illustrate the accomplishment of the nondual through the accumulation of bodhicitta as 补尘峁泃补 and the connection of complementary opposites (i.e. male and female, method [耻辫腻测补] and knowledge [辫谤补箩帽腻]; figure 2.43).^[4]

Figure 2.43: Detail of the deity pair from fig. 2.3 with five-skull crowns, single-skull topped 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and a skull vessel connecting them in union.

The 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补, on the other hand, can be seen as a permutation of the banner-topped staff of more orthodox brahmin ascetics and the characteristic club of followers of 尝补办耻濒墨艣补, as well as a form of 测补尘补诲补峁囜笉补.^[5] In yogin墨 tantra and its sources, this instrument is primarily used to facilitate deity yoga with forms of

Bhairava or Heruka, and iconographically it is typically on the left side of the figure like the hand-held skull, visually suggesting how 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methods and charnel materials were cultivated as 惫腻尘腻肠腻谤补, or left-handed conduct which ritually instrumentalizes transgressive or impure associations and materials.^[6] However, while the skull has a variety of discernible applications as a vessel in the sources of Buddhist tantra, the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补鈥檚 material function becomes more obscure, despite its being the most historically consistent visual representation of the various traditions of vrata discussed here.^[7] In later representations of Buddhist tantra, as in Tibet, the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 typically has three skulls鈥攁s in the top left figure of Guru Rinpoche in fig. 2.30 and fig. 2.38鈥攐r three heads in various states of decomposition.^[8]

The processes of formalization described here have also supported the refinement of charnel ornaments from a single piece in the hair to the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻, a set of five seals or insignia worn on the body and made from human remains.^[9] Drawing from the description of observances in the sixth chapter of the Hevajra tantra, Grags pa rgyal mtshan lists these as a crown, earrings, bracelets, a girdle, and rings around the upper arms and ankles.^[10] The Hevajra tantra moreover includes an explanation for how the ornaments and implements of the Heruka yogin鈥攊ncluding the 补蝉迟丑颈尘腻濒颈办腻 or bone necklace, as well as the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and 岣峚尘补谤耻 鈥攃orrespond to specific buddhas and their respective clans or families (kula), and that the crown should be made of five pieces of skull representing the five buddhas.^[11] Moreover, in 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鈥攚丑辞蝉别 痴补箩谤补惫腻濒颈 was another valued source for early monastic leaders (see note 10, above)鈥攖he majority of wrathful deities are described wearing the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻 as crown, earrings, necklace, bracelets and girdle and, as in the Hevajra tantra, each of these are co-ordinated to buddha families.^[12]

While 础产丑补测腻办补谤补驳耻辫迟补 and Grags pa rgyal mtshan worked primarily within the Hevajra commentarial tradition in order to articulate this set, earlier tenth century commentators on the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus engaged more directly with non-Buddhist 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 sources.^[13] In the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补, for example, while the text of the root tantra describes an accomplished Heruka yogin as smeared with ash and having hair marked by a skull or skulls (办补辫腻濒补办峁泃补尘奴谤诲丑补箩补), the tenth century commentator 叠丑补惫补产丑补峁�峁�补 clarifies that this is a five skull crown.^[14] Moreover, this same author elaborates that the five 尘耻诲谤腻 mentioned in the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补 should be understood as the necklace, arm bands, earrings, sacred thread, girdle and 补蝉迟丑颈尘腻濒颈办腻 or bone garland, a list reflected by select Tibetan translators as well.^[15] At the same time, in the 艢补颈惫补 叠谤补丑补尘补测腻尘补濒补 鈥攆rom which much of the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补 is derived鈥攖hese 尘耻诲谤腻 are described as a skull ornament (as jewel, ratna) in the hair, earrings, necklace, sacred thread and girdle, with bracelets on the arms and hands.^[16] As with the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补, these represent permutations of other forms in brahmanical material religion: Where a 尘别办丑补濒腻 is technically any post-initiatory girdle, in the context of ritualized charnel asceticism, it was primarily made of human remains.^[17]

However, as a system of ornaments worn on the body to facilitate deity yoga, the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻 which would become Tibetan rus pa鈥檌 rgyan represent the end of a cumulative process: Even in the twelfth century, some of these technical specificities were unresolved and where the 狈颈峁�p补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨 resonates with the comprehensively Buddhist articulation of the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻 given in Hevajra tantra, the nearly contemporary 厂腻诲丑补苍补尘腻濒腻 gives this set as six by adding ash, reflecting both the legacy of 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 sources and methods as well as earlier work by Buddhist authors on 厂补峁僾补谤补 tantra.^[18] Altogether, despite these variable systems and enumerations it can be seen that during the eighth to twelfth centuries, charnel ornaments as the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻鈥攍ike other 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements鈥攂ecame central to the dynamic practices of Buddhist tantra and the representation of its accomplished practitioners (e.g. siddhas) and characteristically wrathful deities (e.g. Heruka).

In conclusion, this chapter has introduced evidence for the integration and expanded visual and liturgical functions of skulls and charnel or bone ornaments in sources for Tibetan material religion. Though these objects may be related to or derived from informal practices of charnel asceticism which existed prior or adjacent to these traditions, this analysis has relied on historically formalized sources in order to present a document which is transparent to non-practitioners.^[19] This research is not exhaustive in its treatment of written and visual sources but rather aims to articulate an object-based hermeneutical rubric based on available evidence. At the same time, descriptions of these instruments in the tantric textual corpus and/or its iconography are understood as an unreliable indicator for their material reality.179 Nevertheless, this research has proposed a cultural historical narrative for the cultivation of charnel materials in Buddhist tantra from the origins of their ritualization through the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 vow to the methods and iconographies of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra as they were introduced to Tibet during the eighth to twelfth centuries.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Hatley notes that the conversion of 岣嵞乲颈苍墨 was similarly cumulative, beginning with their subjugation in the 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 and Guhya ritual traditions and completed in the practice and 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 of 厂补峁僾补谤补 and other sources translated into Tibetan in the eleventh century, idem., 鈥淭he 叠谤补丑尘补测腻尘补濒补tantra,鈥� 188-189. On the translation and historiography of Indian sources for 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 into Tibetan c.f. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism; Dalton, 鈥淎 crisis of doxography鈥� and Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, passim.

[2]:

Wedemeyer has tabulated the components of Buddhist tantric vrata and found that, while most advise wearing charnel ornaments, only five advise the use of skull and/or 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 including the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补 and 厂补峁僷耻迟补 tantras, as well as 叠耻诲诲丑补办补辫腻濒补, op.cit., 163.

[3]:

Gray, 鈥淪kull imagery and skull magic鈥�, 27-28. Note that the category of relics includes texts and other non-charnel materials. The ninth century 叠耻诲诲丑补办补辫腻濒补 tantra further legitimizes these objects鈥� efficacy by describing a skull as the source of its ritual and textual corpus.

[4]:

See, for example, Bhattacharya on yab yum figures, op.cit., 163-4.

[5]:

See Wedemeyer, op.cit.,158 and 253n85 for an etymological analysis of 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 from a 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 commentary which suggests the staff is the body (-补峁単补) of the skull taken or torn from its corpse (办丑补诲惫腻- or 办丑补峁璿腻-).

[6]:

Beer mentions a left and right-handed schism in Buddhist methods recorded in the third century Lalitavistara, op.cit., 249. Stoddard moreover finds that left-handed ritual action is characteristic of Tibetan yogin墨 tantra, especially the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补, op.cit., 170-1. English also describes the ritual use of the left hand in brahmanical society as 鈥渟ocial religious iconoclasm,鈥�op.cit., 41.

[7]:

It is for this reason that this object, like the skull 尘腻濒腻 and other iconographic features, is not included in the final chapter and technical study: While many skulls鈥攁s well as rkang gling, bone ornaments and skull 岣峚尘补谤耻 鈥攈ave been preserved and made accessible physically or through the descriptions in primary sources, I have never had the opportunity to examine a 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补. See also chapter 1, note 36. There is nevertheless a description of the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 as a charnel implement for the Heruka yogin in Grags pa rgyal mtshan, 鈥淗e ru ka chas 鈥榙rug,鈥� 268-269.

[8]:

See also chapter 3, figs. 3.4 and 3.15.

[9]:

On empowerment through bodily ornamentation in the material and visual culture of brahmanical and Buddhist south Asia, see Vidya Dehejia, The Body Adorned: Dissolving Boundaries Between Sacred and Profane in India's Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009). Ornamental bands on the upper arms, hands and feet, neck and crown are found in images of royal figures as well as bodhisattva dating back to the last centuries BCE.

[10]:

See note 13, above and Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra, 63 (ch. 6).

[11]:

ibid, 64.

[12]:

de Mallmann, op.cit., 38. de Mallmann (ibid., n3) also notes the apron as an alternative sixth 尘耻诲谤腻鈥攔ather than a form of girdle鈥攖hough based not on the 狈颈峁�p补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨, but rather a commentary on Hevajra, the Yogaratna尘腻濒腻 of K膩峁卙a, who introduced this ornament after receiving it from a 岣嵞乲颈苍墨. K膩峁卙a moreover associates these five 尘耻诲谤腻 with the practice of 驳补峁嘺肠补办谤补, Sanderson, 鈥淭he 艢补颈惫补 age鈥�, 179n435.

[13]:

See Gray, The Cakrasamvara tantra: Editions, 11ff on the role of tenth century Buddhist commentators in the reform of 艢补颈惫补 material in the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus.

[14]:

Gray, The Cakrasamvara tantra, 164n4.

[15]:

Gray, ibid., 278n40 Gray finds this explanation of the 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻 in chapter 27 of the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补 in the sDe dge recension of Mardo鈥檚 translation and the commentary of 叠丑补惫补产丑补峁�峁�补 but not in other Sanskrit versions of the tantra. Like the 尝补驳丑耻蝉补峁僾补谤补, the 厂补峁僾补谤辞诲补测补 mentions the five seals or ornaments as an implement of the Heruka yogin, but does not describe them; c.f. Tsuda, op.cit., 284ff (ch. 21).

[16]:

This list鈥攖hough not identified as a comprehensive, enumerated set (i.e. 辫补帽肠补尘耻诲谤腻)鈥攊s given in chapter 80 of the 叠谤补丑尘补测腻尘补濒补 and repeated in the third part of the 闯补测补诲谤补迟丑补测腻尘补濒补, Sanderson, ibid.

[17]:

Similarly, where a householder might wear a cotton 耻辫补惫墨迟补, the charnel ascetic specialist would wear one of human hair or sinew; c.f. Sanderson, 鈥淭he 艢补颈惫补 age,鈥� 209n479.

[18]:

Bhattacharya, op.cit., 196. Here the set is described as necklace, bracelets, single skull in the hair, girdle, ash and sacred thread (which is uniquely considered here as equivalent to the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补). The tenth century 艢补颈惫补 commentator Y膩mun膩肠补谤测腻 cites the list from the 闯补测补诲谤补迟丑补测腻尘补濒补, but also adds ash, which is otherwise associated with orthodox ascetics and the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 vow, Sanderson, ibid. The tenth century Buddhist commentator Jayabhadra likewise articulates a system of six 尘耻诲谤腻, also with single skull ornament in the hair, ash and sacred thread; Gray, ibid., 165n5 and 278n43.

[19]:

In his semiotic reading of these sources and their utilization of antinomian associations, Wedemeyer has noted that the 鈥渟anitary鈥� nature of tantric historiography is a necessity when there is no recorded evidence for the less refined version, op.cit., 196. He also demonstrates how these practices were likely cultivated by the Buddhist monastic elite as well as non-monastic specialists who were equally deliberate in their use of transgressive rhetoric.