Tsong-kha-pa died in 1417 and is said to have been transfigured and carried up into heaven while predicting to a great crowd the future glories of his church. His mortal remains, however, preserved in a magnificent mausoleum within the Gandan monastery, still receive great veneration.

Among his more eminent disciples were Byams-chen-chos-rje and mKhas-grub-rje who in Tibetan art are often represented as accompanying him. The first played a considerable part in China. The Emperor Yung-Lo sent an embassy to invite Tsong-kha-pa to his capital. Tsong-kha-pa felt unable to go himself but sent his pupil to represent him. Byams-chen-chos-rje was received with great honour[949]. The main object of the Ming Emperors was to obtain political influence in Tibet through the Lamas but in return the Lamas gained considerable prestige. The Kanjur was printed in China (1410) and Byams-chen-chos-rje and his disciples were recognized as prelates of the whole Buddhist Church within the Empire. He returned to Tibet laden with presents and titles and founded the monastery of Serra in 1417. Afterwards he went back to China and died there at the age of eighty-four.

mKhas-grub-rje founded the monastery of Tashilhunpo and became its abbot, being accepted as an incarnation of the Buddha Amitâbha. He was eighth in the series of incarnations, which henceforth were localized at Tashilhunpo, but the first is said to have been Subhûti, a disciple of Gotama, and the second Mañjuśrîkirti, king of the country of Śambhala[950].

The abbot of Tashilhunpo became the second personage in the ecclesiastical and political hierarchy. The head of it was the prelate commonly known as the Grand Lama and resident at Lhasa. Geden-dub[951], the nephew of Tsong-kha-pa, is reckoned by common consent as the first Grand Lama (though he seems not to have borne the title) and the first incarnation of Avalokita as head of the Tibetan Church[952]. The Emperor Ch'êng Hua (1365-1488) who had occasion to fight on the borders of Tibet confirmed the position of these two sees as superior to the eight previously recognized and gave the occupants a patent and seal. From this time they bore the title of rGyal-po or king.

It was about this time that the theory of successive incarnations[953] which is characteristic of Lamaism was developed and defined. At least two ideas are combined in it. The first is that divine persons appear in human form. This is common in Asia from India to Japan, especially among the peoples who have accepted some form of Hindu religion. The second is that in a school, sect or church there is real continuity of life. In the unreformed sects of Tibet this was accomplished by the simple principle of heredity so that celibacy, though undeniably correct, seemed to snap the thread. But it was reunited by the theory that a great teacher is reborn in the successive occupants of his chair. Thus the historian Târanâtha is supposed to be reborn in the hierarchs of Urga. But frequently the hereditary soul is identified with a Buddha or Bodhisattva, as in the great incarnations of Lhasa and Tashilhunpo. This dogma has obvious advantages. It imparts to a Lamaist see a dignity which the papacy cannot rival but it is to the advantage of the Curia rather than of the Pope for the incarnate deity of necessity succeeds to his high office as an infant, is in the hands of regents and not unfrequently dies when about twenty years of age. These incarnations are not confined to the great sees of Tibet. The heads of most large monasteries in Mongolia claim to be living Buddhas and even in Peking there are said to be six.

The second Grand Lama[954] enjoyed a long reign, and set the hierarchy in good order, for he distinguished strictly clerical posts, filled by incarnations, from administrative posts. He was summoned to Peking by the Emperor, but declined to go and the somewhat imperative embassy sent to invite him was roughly handled. His successor, the third Grand Lama bSod-nams[955], although less noticed by historians than the fifth, perhaps did more solid work for the holy see of Lhasa than any other of his line for he obtained, or at least received, the allegiance of the Mongols who since the time of Khubilai had woefully backslidden from the true faith.

As mentioned above, the conversion of the Mongols to Buddhism took place when their capital was at Peking and chiefly affected those resident in China. But when the Yüan dynasty had been dethroned and the Mongols, driven back into their wilds, were frequently at war with China, they soon relapsed into their original superstitions. About 1570 Altan[956] Khagan, the powerful chief of the Tümed, became more nearly acquainted with Tibet, since some Lamas captured in a border fray had been taken to his Court. After causing China much loss and trouble he made an advantageous peace and probably formed the idea (which the Manchus subsequently proved to be reasonable) that if the Mongols were stronger they might repeat the conquests of Khubilai. The Ming dynasty was clearly decadent and these mysterious priests of Tibet appeared to be on the upward grade[957]. They might help him both to become the undisputed chief of all the Mongol tribes and also to reconquer Peking. So he sent an embassy to invite the Grand Lama's presence, and when it was not successful he followed it with a second.

The Grand Lama then accepted and set out on his travels with great pomp. According to the story he appeared to the astonished Mongols in the guise of Avalokita with four arms (of which two remained folded on his breast) and the imprint of his horse's hoofs showed the six mystic syllables om mani padme hum. These wonders are so easily explicable that they may be historical.

A great congregation was held near Lake Kokonor and Sanang Setsen records an interesting speech made there by one of his ancestors respecting the relations of Church and State, which he compared with the sun and moon. The Lama bestowed on the Khagan high sounding titles and received himself the epithet Dalai or Talai, the Mongol word for sea, signifying metaphorically vast extent and profundity[958]. This is the origin of the name Dalai Lama by which the Tibetan pontiff is commonly known to Europeans. The hierarchy was divided into four classes parallel to the four ranks of Mongol nobles: the use of meat was restricted and the custom of killing men and horses at funerals forbidden. The observance of Buddhist festivals was made compulsory and native idols were destroyed, but the deities which they represented were probably identified with others in the new pantheon. The Grand Lama specially recommended to the Mongols the worship of the Blue Mahâkâla, a six armed representation of Śiva standing on a figure of Ganeśa, and he left with them a priest who was esteemed an incarnation of Mañjuśrî, and for whom a temple and monastery were built in Kuku-khoto.

His Holiness then returned to Tibet, but when Altan Khagan died in 1583 he made a second tour in Mongolia in order to make sure of the allegiance of the new chiefs. He also received an embassy from the Chinese Emperor Wan-Li, who conferred on him the same titles that Khubilai had given to Pagspa. The alliance between the Tibetans and Mongols was naturally disquieting to the Ming dynasty and they sought to minimize it by showing extreme civility to the Lamas.

This Grand Lama died at the age of forty-seven, and it is significant that the next incarnation appeared in the Mongol royal house, being a great-grandson of Altan Khagan. Until he was fourteen he lived in Mongolia and when he moved to Lhasa a Lama was appointed to be his vicar and Primate of all Mongolia with residence at Kuren or Urga[959]. The prelates of this line are considered as incarnations of the historian Târanâtha[960]. In common language they bear the name of rJe-btsun-dam-pa but are also called Maidari Khutuktu, that is incarnation of Maitreya. About this time the Emperor of China issued a decree, which has since been respected, that these hierarchs must be reborn in Tibet, or in other words that they must not reappear in a Mongol family for fear of uniting religion and patriotism too closely.

Lozang[961], the fifth Grand Lama, is by common consent the most remarkable of the pontifical line. He established the right of himself and his successors—or, as he might have said, of himself in his successive births—to the temporal and ecclesiastical sovereignty of Tibet: he built the Potala and his dealings with the Mongols and the Emperor of China are of importance for general Asiatic history.

From the seventeenth century onwards there were four factors in Tibetan politics.

1. The Gelugpa or Yellow Church, very strong but anxious to become stronger both by increasing its temporal power and by suppressing other sects. Its attitude towards Chinese and Mongols showed no prejudice and was dictated by policy.

2. The Tibetan chiefs and people, on the whole respectful to the Yellow Church but not single-hearted nor forgetful of older sects: averse to Chinese and prone to side with Mongols.

3. The Mongols, conscious of their imperfect civilization and anxious to improve themselves by contact with the Lamas. As a nation they wished to repeat their past victories over China, and individual chiefs wished to make themselves the head of the nation. People and princes alike respected all Lamas.

4. The Chinese, apprehensive of the Mongols and desirous to keep them tranquil, caring little for Lamaism in itself but patiently determined to have a decisive voice in ecclesiastical matters, since the Church of Lhasa had become a political power in their border lands.

Lo-zang was born as the son of a high Tibetan official about 1616 and was educated in the Depung monastery under the supervision of Chos-kyi-Gyal-tsan, abbot of Tashilhunpo and a man of political weight. The country was then divided into Khamdo, Wu and Tsang, or Eastern, Central and Western Tibet, and in each province there ruled a king of the Phagmodu dynasty. In Central Tibet, and specially at Lhasa, the Gelugpa was the established church and accepted by the king but in the other provinces there was much religious strife and the older sects were still predominant. About 1630 the regent of Tsang captured Lhasa and made himself sovereign of all Tibet. He was a follower of the Sakya sect and his rule was a menace to the authority and even to the existence of the Yellow Church, which for some years suffered much tribulation. When the young Grand Lama grew up, he and his preceptor determined to seek foreign aid and appealed to Gushi Khan[962]. This prince was a former pupil of Chos-kyi-Gyal-tsan and chief of the Oelöt, the ancestors of the Kalmuks and other western tribes, but then living near Kokonor. He was a staunch member of the Yellow Church and had already made it paramount in Khamdo which he invaded in 1638. He promptly responded to the appeal, invaded Tibet, took the regent prisoner, and, after making himself master of the whole country, handed over his authority to the Grand Lama, retaining only the command of his Mongol garrisons. This arrangement was advantageous to both parties. The Grand Lama not only greatly increased his ecclesiastical prestige but became a temporal sovereign of considerable importance. Gushi, who had probably no desire to reside permanently in the Snow Land, received all the favours which a grateful Pope could bestow on a king and among the superstitious Mongols these had a real value. Further the Oelöt garrisons which continued to occupy various points in Tibet gave him a decisive voice in the affairs of the country, if there was ever a question of using force.

The Grand Lamas had hitherto resided in the Depung monastery but Lo-zang now moved to the hill of Marpori, the former royal residence and began to build on it the Potala[963] palace which, judging from photographs, must be one of the most striking edifices in the world, for its stately walls continue the curves of the mountain side and seem to grow out of the living rock. His old teacher was given the title of Panchen Rinpoche, which has since been borne by the abbots of Tashilhunpo, and the doctrine that the Grand Lamas of Lhasa and Tashilhunpo are respectively incarnations of Avalokita and Amitâbha was definitely promulgated[964].

The establishment of the Grand Lama as temporal ruler of Tibet coincided with the advent of the Manchu dynasty (1644). The Emperor and the Lama had everything to gain from friendly relations and their negotiations culminated in a visit which Lo-zang paid to Peking in 1652-3. He was treated as an independent sovereign and received from the Emperor a long title containing the phrase "Self-existent Buddha, Universal Ruler of the Buddhist faith." In return he probably undertook to use his influence with the Mongols to preserve peace and prevent raids on China.

After his return to Tibet, he appears to have been a real as well as a nominal autocrat for his preceptor and Gushi Khan both died, and the new Manchu dynasty had its hands full. His chief adviser was the Desi[965] or Prime Minister, supposed to be his natural son. In 1666 the great Emperor K'ang-hsi succeeded to the throne: and shortly afterwards the restlessness of the Mongol Princes began to inspire the Chinese Court with apprehension. In 1680 Lo-zang died but his death was a state secret. It was apparently known in Tibet and an infant successor was selected but the Desi continued to rule in Lo-zang's name and even the Emperor of China had no certain knowledge of his suspected demise but probably thought that the fiction of his existence was the best means of keeping the Mongols in order. It was not until 1696 that his death and the accession of a youth named Thsang-yang Gya-thso were made public.

But the young Grand Lama, who owing to the fiction that his predecessor was still alive had probably been brought up less strictly than usual, soon began to inspire alarm at Peking for he showed himself wilful and intelligent. He wrote love songs which are still popular and his licentious behaviour was quite out of harmony with the traditions of the holy see. In 1701, under joint pressure from the Chinese and Mongols, he resigned his ecclesiastical rights and handed over the care of the Church to the abbot of Tashilhunpo, while retaining his position as temporal ruler. But the Chinese still felt uneasy and in 1705 succeeded in inducing him to undertake a journey to Peking. When he got as far as Mongolia he died of either dropsy or assassination. The commander of the Oelöt garrisons in Tibet was a friend of the Chinese, and at once produced a new Grand Lama called Yeśes, a man of about twenty-five, who claimed to be the true reincarnation of the fifth Grand Lama, the pretensions of the dissolute youth who had just died being thus set aside. It suited the Chinese to deal with an adult, who could be made to understand that he had received and held his office only through their good will, but the Tibetans would have none of this arrangement. They clung to the memory of the dissolute youth and welcomed with enthusiasm the news that he had reappeared in Li-t'ang as a new-born child, who was ultimately recognized as the seventh Grand Lama named Kalzang. The Chinese imprisoned the infant with his parents in the monastery of Kumbum in Kansu and gave all their support to Yeśes. For the better control of affairs in Lhasa two Chinese Agents were appointed to reside there with the Manchu title of Amban[966].

But the Tibetans would not accept the rule of Yeśes and in 1717 the revolutionary party conspired with the Oelöt tribes of Ili to put Kalzang on the throne by force. The troops sent to take the holy child were defeated by the Chinese but those which attacked Lhasa were completely successful. Yeśes abdicated and the city passed into the possession of the Mongols. The Chinese Government were greatly alarmed and determined to subdue Tibet. Their first expedition was a failure but in 1720 they sent a second and larger, and also decided to install the youthful Kalzang as Grand Lama, thus conciliating the religious feelings of the Tibetans. The expedition met with little difficulty and the result of it was that China became suzerain of the whole country. By imperial edict the young Grand Lama was recognized as temporal ruler, the four ministers or Kalön were given Chinese titles, and garrisons were posted to keep open the road from China. But the Tibetans were still discontented. In 1727 a rebellion, instigated it was said by the family of the Grand Lama, broke out, and the Prime Minister was killed. This rising was not permanently successful and the Chinese removed the Grand Lama to the neighbourhood of their frontier. They felt however that it was unsafe to give ground for suspicion that they were ill-treating him and in 1734 he was reinstated in the Potala. But the dislike of the Tibetans for Chinese supervision was plain. In 1747 there was another rebellion. The population of Lhasa rose and were assisted by Oelöt troops who suddenly arrived on the scene. Chinese rule was saved only by the heroism of the two Chinese Agents, who invited the chief conspirators to a meeting and engaged them in personal combat. They lost their own lives but killed the principal rebels. The Chinese then abolished the office of Prime Minister, increased their garrison and gave the Agents larger powers.

About 1758 the Grand Lama died and was succeeded by an infant called Jambal. The real authority was wielded by the Panchen Lama who acted as regent and was so influential that the Emperor Ch'ien-Lung insisted on his visiting Peking[967]. He had a good reception and probably obtained some promise that the government of Tibet would be left more in the hands of the Church but he died of smallpox in Peking and nothing came of his visit except a beautiful tomb and an epitaph written by the Emperor. After his death a new complication appeared. The prelates of the Red Church encouraged an invasion of the Gurkhas of Nepal in the hope of crushing the Yellow Church. The upshot was that the Chinese drove out the Gurkhas but determined to establish a more direct control. The powers of the Agents were greatly increased and not even the Grand Lama was allowed the right of memorializing the throne, but had to report to the Agents and ask their orders.

In 1793 Ch'ien-Lung issued a remarkable edict regulating the appearance of incarnations which, as he observed, had become simply the hereditary perquisites of certain noble Mongol families. He therefore ordered that when there was any question of an incarnation the names of the claimants to the distinction should be written on slips of paper and placed in a golden bowl: that a religious service should be held and at its close a name be drawn from the bowl in the presence of the Chinese Agents and the public. The child whose name should be drawn was to be recognized as the true incarnation but required investiture by an imperial patent.

A period of calm followed, and when the Grand Lama died in 1804 the Tibetans totally neglected this edict and selected a child born in eastern Tibet. The Chinese Court, desirous of avoiding unnecessary trouble, approved[968] the choice on the ground that the infant's precocious ability established his divine character but when he died in 1815 and an attempt was made to repeat this irregularity, a second edict was published, insisting that the names of at least three candidates must be placed in the golden urn and that he whose name should be first drawn must be Grand Lama. This procedure was followed but the child elected by the oracle of the urn died before he was twenty and another infant was chosen as his successor in 1838. As a result the Lama who was regent acquired great power and also unpopularity. His tyranny caused the Tibetans to petition the Emperor; and His Majesty sent a new Agent to investigate his conduct. Good reason was shown for holding him responsible for the death of the Grand Lama in 1838 and for other misdeeds. The Emperor then degraded and banished him and, what is more singular, forbade him to reappear in a human reincarnation.

The reigns of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have mostly been short. Two others were selected in 1858 and 1877 respectively. The latter who is the present occupant of the post was the son of a Tibetan peasant: he was duly chosen by the oracle of the urn and invested by the Emperor. In 1893 he assumed personal control of the administration and terminated a regency which seems to have been oppressive and unpopular. The British Government were anxious to negotiate with him about Sikhim and other matters, but finding it impossible to obtain answers to their communications sent an expedition to Lhasa in 1904. The Grand Lama then fled to Urga, in which region he remained until 1907. In the autumn of 1908 he was induced to visit Peking where he was received with great ceremony but, contrary to the precedent established when the fifth Grand Lama attended Court, he was obliged to kneel and kotow before the Empress Dowager. Neither could he obtain the right to memorialize the throne, but was ordered to report to the Agents. The Court duly recognized his religious position. On the birthday of the Empress he performed a service for her long life, at which Her Majesty was present. It was not wholly successful, for a week or two later he officiated at her funeral. At the end of 1908 he left for Lhasa. He visited India in 1910 but this created dissatisfaction at Peking. In the same year[969] a decree was issued deposing him from his spiritual as well as his temporal powers and ordering the Agents to seek out a new child by drawing lots from the golden urn. This decree was probably ultra vires and certainly illogical, for if the Chinese Government recognized the Lama as an incarnation, they could not, according to the accepted theory, replace him by another incarnation before his death. And if they regarded him as a false incarnation, they should have ordered the Agents to seek out not a child but a man born about the time that the last Grand Lama died. At any rate the Tibetans paid no attention to the decree.

The early deaths of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have naturally created a presumption that they were put out of the way and contemporary suspicion accused the regent in 1838. There is no evidence that the deaths of the other three were regarded as unnatural but the earlier Grand Lamas as well as the abbots of Tashilhunpo lived to a good age. On the other hand the Grand Lamas of Urga are said to die young. If the pontiffs of some lines live long and those of others die early, the inference is not that the life of a god incarnate is unhealthy but that in special cases special circumstances interfere with it, and on the whole there are good grounds for suspecting foul play. But it is interesting to note that most Europeans who have made the acquaintance of high Lamas speak in praise of their character and intelligence. So Manning (the friend of Charles Lamb) of the ninth Grand Lama (1811), Bogle of the Tashi Lama about 1778, Sven Hedin of his successor in 1907, and Waddell of the Lama Regent in 1904.

The above pages refer to the history of Lamaism in Tibet and Mongolia. It also spread to China, European Russia, Ladak, Sikhim and Bhutan. In China it is confined to the north and its presence is easily explicable by the genuine enthusiasm of Khubilai and the encouragement given on political grounds by the Ming and Manchu dynasties. Further, several Mongol towns such as Kalgan and Kuku-khoto are within the limits of the eighteen provinces.

The Kalmuks who live in European Russia are the descendants of tribes who moved westwards from Dzungaria in the seventeenth century. Many of them left Russia and returned to the east in 1771, but a considerable number remained behind, chiefly between the Volga and the Don, and the population professing Lamaism there is now reckoned at about 100,000.

Buddhist influences may have been at work in Ladak from an early period. In later times it can be regarded as a dependency of Tibet, at any rate for ecclesiastical purposes, for it formed part of Tibet until the disruption of the kingdom in the tenth century and it subsequently accepted the sovereignty of Lhasa in religious and sometimes in political matters. Concerning the history of Bhutan, I have been able to discover but little. The earliest known inhabitants are called Tephu and the Tibetans are said to have conquered them about 1670. Lamaism probably entered the country at this time, if not earlier[970]. At any rate it must have been predominant in 1774 when the Tashi Lama used his good offices to conclude peace between the Bhutiyas and the East India Company. The established church however is not the Gelugpa but the Dugpa, which is a subdivision of the Kar-gyu-pa. There are two rulers in Bhutan, the Dharmarâja or spiritual and the Debrâja or temporal. The former is regarded as an incarnation of the first class, though it is not clear of what deity[971].

The conversion of Sikhim is ascribed to a saint named Latsün Ch'embo, who visited it about 1650 with two other Lamas. They associated with themselves a native chief whom they ordained as a Lama and made king. All four then governed Sikhim. Though Latsün Ch'embo is represented as a friend of the fifth Grand Lama, the two sects at present found in Sikhim are the Nying-ma-pa, the old unreformed style of Lamaism, and the Karmapa, a branch of the Kar-gyu-pa, analogous to the Dugpa of Bhutan. The principal monasteries are at Pemiongchi (Peme-yang-tse) and Tashiding[972].

CHAPTER LI

For our purpose the principal works are the two great collections of sacred and edifying literature translated into Tibetan and known as the Kanjur and Tanjur[973]. The first contains works esteemed as canonical, including Tantras. The second is composed of exegetical literature and also of many treatises on such subjects as medicine, astronomy and grammar[974]. The two together correspond roughly speaking to the Chinese Tripitaka, but are more bulky. The canonical part is smaller but the commentaries and miscellaneous writings more numerous. There are also other differences due to the fact that the great literary epoch of Tibet was in the ninth century, whereas nearly three-quarters of the Chinese Tripitaka had been translated before that date. Thus the Kanjur appears to contain none[975] of the Abhidhamma works of the Hînayâna and none of the great Nikâyas as such, though single sûtras are entered in the catalogues as separate books. Further there is only one version of the Vinaya whereas the Chinese Tripitaka has five, but there are several important Tantras which are wanting in Chinese. The Tibetan scriptures reflect the late Buddhism of Magadha when the great books of the Hinayanist Canon were neglected, though not wholly unknown, and a new tantric literature was flourishing exuberantly.

The contents of the Kanjur and Tanjur are chiefly known by analyses and indices[976], although several editions and translations of short treatises have been published[977]. The information obtained may be briefly summarized as follows.

The Kanjur in its different editions consists of one hundred or one hundred and eight volumes, most of which contain several treatises, although sometimes one work, for instance the Vinaya, may fill many volumes. The whole collection is commonly divided into seven parts[978].

I. The Dulva[979], equivalent to the Vinaya. It is stated to be the Mûla-sarvâstivâda Vinaya, and so far as any opinion can be formed from the small portions available for comparison, it agrees with the Chinese translation of Kumârajîva and also (though with some difference in the order of paragraphs) with the Sanskrit Prâtimoksha found at Kucha[980]. It is longer and more mixed with narrative than the corresponding Pali code.

II. The second division is known as Śer-chin[981], corresponding to the Prajñâ-pâramitâ and in the estimation of the Tibetans to the Abhidharma. It is said to have been first collected by Kâśyapa and to represent the teaching delivered by the Buddha in his fifty-first year. This section appears to contain nothing but versions, longer or shorter, of the Prajñâpâramitâ, the limit of concentration being reached by a text in which the Buddha explains that the whole of this teaching is comprised in the letter A. As in China and Japan, the Vajracchedikâ (rDo-rJe-gCod-pa) is very popular and has been printed in many editions.

III. The third division is called Phal-chen, equivalent to Avataṃsaka. Beckh treats it as one work in six volumes with out subdivisions. Feer gives forty-five subdivisions, some of which appear as separate treatises in the section of the Chinese Tripitaka called Hua Yen[982].

IV. The fourth division called dKon-brtsegs or Ratnakûṭa agrees closely with the similar section of the Chinese Tripitaka but consists of only forty-eight or forty-five sûtras, according to the edition[983].

V. The fifth section is called mDo, equivalent to Sûtra. In its narrower sense mDo means sûtras which are miscellaneous in so far as they do not fall into special classes, but it also comprises such important works as the Lalita-vistara, Lankâvatâra and Saddharma-puṇḍarîka. Of the 270 works contained in this section about 90 are prima facie identical with works in the Ching division of the Chinese Tripitaka and probably the identity of many others is obscured by slight changes of title. An interesting point in the mDo is that it contains several sûtras translated from the Pali[984], viz. Nos. 13-25 of vol. XXX, nine of which are taken from the collection known as Paritta. The names and dates of the translators are not given but the existence of these translations probably indicates that a knowledge of Pali lingered on in Magadha later than is generally supposed. It will also be remembered that about A.D. 1000, Atîśa though a Tantrist, studied in Burma and presumably came in contact with Pali literature. Rockhill notes that the Tanjur contains a commentary on the Lotus Sûtra written by Prithivibandhu, a monk from Ceylon, and Pali manuscripts have been found in Nepal[985]. It is possible that Sinhalese may have brought Pali books to northern India and given them to Tibetans whom they met there.

VI. The sixth division is called Myaṇg-ḥdas or Nirvâṇa, meaning the description of the death of the Buddha which also forms a special section in the Chinese Tripitaka. Here it consists of only one work, apparently corresponding to Nanjio 113[986].

VII. The seventh and last section is called rGyud[987] or Tantra. It consists of twenty-two volumes containing about 300 treatises. Between thirty and forty are prima facie identical with treatises comprised in the Chinese Tripitaka and perhaps further examination might greatly increase the number, for the titles of these books are often long and capable of modification. Still it is probable that the major part of this literature was either deliberately rejected by the Chinese or was composed at a period when religious intercourse had become languid between India and China but was still active between India and Tibet. From the titles it appears that many of these works are Brahmanic in spirit rather than Buddhist; thus we have the Mahâgaṇapati-tantra, the Mahâkâla-tantra, and many others. Among the better known Tantras may be mentioned the Arya-mañjuśrî-mûla-tantra and the Śrî-Guhya Samaja[988], both highly praised by Csoma de Körös: but perhaps more important is the Tantra on which the Kâlacakra system is founded. It is styled Paramâdibuddha-uddhṛita-śrî-kâlacakra and there is also a compendium giving its essence or Hṛidaya.

The Tanjur is a considerably larger collection than the Kanjur for it consists of 225 volumes but its contents are imperfectly known. A portion has been catalogued by Palmyr Cordier. It is known to contain a great deal of relatively late Indian theology such as the works of Aśvaghosha, Nâgârjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, and other Mahayanist doctors, and also secular literature such as the Meghadûta of Kâlidâsa, together with a multitude of works on logic, rhetoric, grammar and medicine[989]. Some treatises, such as the Udâna[990] occur in both collections but on the whole the Tanjur is clearly intended as a thesaurus of exegetical and scientific literature, science being considered, as in the middle ages of Europe, to be the handmaid of the Church. Grammar and lexicography help the understanding of scripture: medicine has been of great use in establishing the influence of the Lamas: secular law is or should be an amplification of the Church's code: history compiled by sound theologians shows how the true faith is progressive and triumphant: art and ritual are so near together that their boundaries can hardly be delimitated. Taking this view of the world, we find in the Tanjur all that a learned man need know[991].

It is divided into two parts, mDo (Sûtra) and rGyud (Tantra), besides a volume of hymns and an index. The same method of division is really applicable to the Kanjur, for the Tibetan Dulva is little more than a combination of Sûtras and Jâtakas and sections two, three, four and six of the Kanjur are collections of special sûtras. In both compilations the tantric section appears to consist of later books expounding ideas which are further from the teaching of Gotama than the Mahayanist sûtras.

To the great majority of works in both collections is prefixed a title which gives the Sanskrit name first in transcription and then in translation, for instance "In Sanskrit Citralakshana: in Tibetan Ri-moi-mthsan-ñid[992]." Hence there is usually no doubt as to what the Tibetan translations profess to be. Sometimes however the headings are regrettably brief. The Vinaya for instance appears to be introduced with that simple superscription and with no indication of the school or locality to which the text belonged.

Although the titles of books are given in Sanskrit, yet all Indian proper names which have a meaning (as most have) are translated. Thus the name Drona (signifying a measure and roughly equivalent to such an English name as Dr. Bushell) is rendered by Bre-bo, a similar measure in Tibetan. This habit greatly increases the difficulty of reading Tibetan texts. The translators apparently desired to give a Tibetan equivalent for every word and even for every part of a word, so as to make clear the etymology as well as the meaning of the sacred original. The learned language thus produced must have varied greatly from the vernacular of every period but its slavish fidelity makes it possible to reconstruct the original Sanskrit with tolerable certainty.

I have already mentioned the presence of translations from the Pali. There are also a few from the Chinese[993] which appear to be of no special importance. One work is translated from the Bruza language which was perhaps spoken in the modern Gilgit[994] and another from the language of Khotan[995]. Some works in the Kanjur have no Sanskrit titles and are perhaps original compositions in Tibetan. The Tanjur appears to contain many such.

But the Kanjur and Tanjur as a whole represent the literature approved by the late Buddhism of Bengal and certain resemblances to the arrangement of the Chinese Tripitaka suggest that not only new sûtras but new classifications of sûtras had replaced the old Pitakas and Agamas. The Tibetan Canon being later than the Chinese has lost the Abhidharma and added a large section of Tantras. But both canons recognize the divisions known as Prajñâ-pâramitâ, Ratnakuṭa, Avatamsaka, and Mahâparinirvâṇa as separate sections. The Ratnakûta is clearly a collection of sûtras equivalent to a small Nikâya[996]. This is probably also true of the voluminous Prajñâ-pâramitâ in its various editions, but the divisions are not commonly treated as separate works except the Vajracchedikâ. The imperfectly known Avatamsaka Sûtra appears to be a similar collection, since it is described as discourses of the Buddha pronounced at eight assemblies. The Mahâparinirvâṇa Sûtra though not nominally a collection of sûtras (at least in its Pali form) is unique both in subject and structure, and it is easy to understand why it was put in a class by itself.

The translation of all this literature falls into three periods, (i) from the seventh century until the reign of Ralpachan in the ninth, (ii) the reign of Ralpachan, and (in) some decades following the arrival of Atîśa in 1038. In the first period work was sporadic and the translations made were not always those preserved in the Kanjur. Thonmi Sanbhota, the envoy sent to India in 616 is said to have made renderings of the Karaṇḍa Vyûha and other works (but not those now extant) and three items in the Tanjur are attributed to him[997]. The existence of early translations has been confirmed by Stein who discovered at Endere a Tibetan manuscript of the Śalistambhasûtra which is said not to be later than about 740 A.D.[998] The version now found in the Kanjur appears to be a revision and expansion of this earlier text.

A few translations from Chinese texts are attributed to the reign of Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan (705-755) and Rockhill calls attention to the interesting statement that he sent envoys to India who learned Sanskrit books by heart and on their return reproduced them in Tibetan. If this was a common habit, it may be one of the reasons why Tibetan translations sometimes show differences in length, arrangement and even subject matter when compared with Sanskrit and Chinese versions bearing the same name. During the reign of Khri-sroṇ-lde-btsan and the visit of Padma-Sambhava (which began in A.D. 747 according to the traditional chronology) the number of translations began to increase. Two works ascribed to the king and one to the saint are included in the canon, but the most prolific writer and translator of this period was Kamalaśîla. Seventeen of his original works are preserved in the Tanjur and he translated part of the Ratnakûta. The great period of translation—the Augustan age of Tibet as it is often called—was beginning and a solid foundation was laid by composing two dictionaries containing a collection of Sanskrit Buddhist terms[999].

The Augustus of Tibet was Ralpachan who ruled in the ninth century, though Tibetan and Chinese chronicles are not in accord as to his exact date. He summoned from Kashmir and India many celebrated doctors who with the help of native assistants took seriously in hand the business of rendering the canon into Tibetan. They revised the existing translations and added many more of their own. It is probable that at least half of the works now contained in the Kanjur and Tanjur were translated or revised at this time and that the additions made later were chiefly Tantras (rGyud). On the other hand it is also probable that many tantric translations ascribed to this epoch are really later[1000]. The most prolific of Ralpachan's translators was Jinamitra, a pandit of Kashmir described as belonging to the Vaibhâshika school, who translated a large part of the Vinaya and many sûtras[1001]. Among the many Tibetan assistants Ye'ses-sde and Dpal-brTsegs are perhaps those most frequently mentioned. These Tibetan translators are commonly described by the title of Lo-tsa-va. As in China the usual procedure seems to have been that an Indian pandit explained the sacred text to a native. The latter then wrote it down, but whereas in China he generally paraphrased whatever he understood, in Tibet he endeavoured to reproduce it with laborious fidelity.

The language of the translations, which is now the accepted form of literary Tibetan, appears to have been an archaic and classical dialect even in the early days of Tibetan Buddhism, for it is not the same as the language of the secular documents dating from the eighth century, which have been found in Turkestan, and it remains unchanged in the earliest and later translations. It may possibly have been the sacred language of the Bonpo[1002] priests.

As narrated in the historical section Buddhism suffered a severe reverse with the death of Ralpachan and it was nearly a century before a revival began. This revival was distinctly tantric and the most celebrated name connected with it is Atîśa. According to Csoma de Körös's chronology the Kâlacakra system was introduced in 1025 and the eminent translator bLo-ldan-shes-rab[1003], a follower of Atîśa, was born in 1057. It is thus easy to understand how during the eleventh century a great number of tantric works were translated and the published catalogues of the Kanjur and Tanjur confirm the fact, although the authors of the translations are not mentioned so often as in the other divisions. To Atîśa is ascribed the revision of many works in the Tantra section of the Kanjur and twenty others composed by him are found in the Tanjur[1004]. It is said that the definitive arrangement of the two collections as we know them was made by Bu-ston early in the thirteenth century[1005]. The Kanjur (but not the Tanjur) was translated into Mongol by order of Khutuktu Khagan (1604-1634) the last prince of the Chakhar Mongols but a printed edition was first published by the Emperor K'ang-Hsi. Though it is said that the Tanjur was translated and printed by order of Ch'ien-Lung, the statement is doubtful. If such a translation was made it was probably partial and in manuscript[1006].