Lineage Painting and Nascent Monasticism in Medieval Tibet

Lineage Painting and Nascent Monasticism in Medieval TibetAuthor(s): Steven Miles KossakSource: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 43 (1990), pp. 49-57Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111206 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 03:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Archives of Asian Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:25:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asiasoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111206?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Lineage Painting and Nascent Monasticism in

Medieval Tibet

Steven Miles Kossak

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Ihe late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries a.D.

were the crucial period for the germination of much

of the iconography which would come to dominate

later Tibetan art, including that of the idealized por traits of spiritual founders. The precedent for these

is to be found in the Medieval period Tibetan lineage

paintings, which themselves constituted an original artistic mode.1 The Metropolitan Museum has

recently acquired a thanka painted around 1300, a

Portrait of a Great Teacher Surrounded by Lamas and

Mahasiddhas, which is one of the few paintings sur

viving from this period which can be seen as a

transition between the lineage and idealized portrait genres. Of equal importance, it is one of the best

documented of all early Tibetan paintings. An

examination of its complicated and somewhat

enigmatic iconography throws into relief the

historical dynamics of the early sects and explains the motivating rationale for both genres.

There is only a small corpus of extant Medieval

period Tibetan thankas, and perhaps one-third of

these are lineage paintings. The format of these

lineage paintings is fairly standardized, consisting of a large central figure of a richly robed hierarch

seated on a raised dias surrounded by cartouches

containing portraits of his spiritual "lineage"

(Fig. 1). Although most of the central lamas are

depicted in a stock attitude?seated, with their

heads turned in three-quarter view?their features are often individuated to an extent that suggests life

portraiture.2 Despite the existence of detailed his

tories of this early period, few of these paintings have inscriptions which allow any of the figures to

be identified. Therefore, it has previously not been

possible to specify the precise nature of the rela

tionship between the main figure and those sur

rounding him. This information in turn might

provide a clue to the dating of individual thankas as well as to the circumstances which caused them to be painted.

The Metropolitan Museum's thanka portrays a

central enthroned figure, surrounded by smaller

Fig. i. Je Sangyay W?n Drakpa and His Lineage. Tibet, ca. 1270,

ink, colors, and gold on cloth, h. ca. 48.2, w. 36.7 cm. Private

collection.

auxiliary ones (Fig. 2). The central figure is por

trayed as a siddha (one who has achieved miraculous

spiritual accomplishment). He is seated on an

antelope skin (a traditonal seat for a siddha or yogi) placed on a lotus, the whole set upon an elaborate raised throne. An animal horn rests on the fingertips of his raised right hand and in his left palm is held a cylindrical casket (?) surmounted by a sculpture of a snow lion. He wears a tall pointed yellow cap

with long pleated side flaps and bands of gold embroidery circling its peak, a red loin cloth, and

elaborate gold jewelries like those typically carved out of human bones and worn during Tantric

ceremonies. Rising from the base of the throne is a stylized border representing mountains (symbol

izing Tibet?), which frames the entire upper portion of the enthroned figure. Into the wide border of the

painting are set fifteen cartouches, each filled with a representation of a lama, mahasiddha, or Buddha.

All these originally had Tibetan inscriptions which

49



Fig. 2. A Great Teacher Surrounded by Lamas and Mahasiddas. Tibet, ca. 1300, opaque watercolor

and gold on cloth, h. 68.5, w. 54.6 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Friends of Asian

Art Gifts, 1987. 1987.144.

identified them, most of which survive.3 The central

figure alone is unidentified by inscription, save

perhaps by a cloth which was originally attached to the painting, which bore the embroidered

inscription, Jnana Tapa, "heat of knowledge." At the top center of the painting, above the cen

tral figure's head is an elaborately decorated arch

within which presides a seated adi-Buddha (?) (a

primordial Buddha) in a posture of meditation with

his consort to his right.4 Six lamas are portrayed, three on each side of the adi-Buddha, arranged in a chronological sequence (beginning to the left of

the adi-Buddha and read from left to right across

each successive row). All the lamas make mudras

(hand gestures) which connote the exposition of

50

doctrine. The first monk in the sequence is probably

Desheg Chenpo, the third abbot of the Kadampa monastery of Phanyul (Neusur) monastery.5 The

next four monks are all abbots of the Kagyupa

monastery of Taglung, which was founded in 1180.6

They are Je Thangpa Chempo, also called Taglung

Tashipel (1142-1210), the founder and first abbot of

the monastery; Kuyal Rinchengon (1191-1236) (Fig.

1), his nephew and successor; Je Sangyay Yarjonpa

(1202-1270), third abbot of the monastery; and Je

Sangyay Won Drakpa ( 1251-1296), who held the

abbot's seat for only a single year (Fig. 1). After

leaving Taglung, Sangyay Won proceeded to

Kham, where he founded the monastery of

Riwoche, which was to become the most important



Fig. 3 Detail of Portrait of Atisha. Tibet, first half 12th century,

ink, colors, and gold on cloth, h. 49.5, w. 35.5 cm. The Kronos

Collections, New York.

in the area.7 There is no historical information

available concerning the last lama portrayed in the

painting, Ch?ku Orgyan Gonpo. The eight mahasiddhas who surround the bottom

half of the painting can be identified by their in

scriptions (some of which, however, are fragmen

tary) and by their characterizations and attributes.8

They are (beginning on the middle right and pro

ceeding around clockwise): Indrabhuti, shown

seated on a throne and wearing royal (?) garb;

Padmavajra, in ecstatic embrace; Luipa, regarding two jumping golden fishes; Kukuripa, dancing with

his dog held in one arm; Dombi Heruka, seated on

a leopard and holding aloft a skull cup; Bhusuku,

flying through the air holding a vajra (ritual

thunderbolt) and bell; Nagarjuna, with snakes in his

hair; and Saraha, dancing with arrows and a water

pot.

In order to understand the meaning and devel

opment of the lineage and idealized portrait genres, a brief outline of the early history of Tibetan Bud

dhism is necessary to set the stage. Although Buddhism had been introduced into Tibet in the

seventh century, it remained largely a court religion with a perilous foothold in the country. It developed neither a popular base, a monastic hierarchy, nor

a secure means to ensure the unsullied passage of

doctrine. Buddhism was challenged by the ad

herents of the indigenous shamanistic Bon religion, which remained the religion of the Tibetan people as well as of certain traditionalist sectors of the court. Eventually, geographically isolated from the

theological currents of the Buddhist world, Tibetan

Buddhism became debased. By the tenth century it

had largely disappeared from most of central Tibet, and what did remain was largely a melange of

Tantric and Bon rituals.

However, in the late tenth century a Buddhist

renaissance was begun by Yeshes ?, the king of a

small kingdom in western Tibet's Upper Sutter

Valley. Yeshes ? was intent on purifying the cur

rent practice of Buddhism and sent several missions

of students to Kashmir (one of the most important seats of Buddhist learning at the period) in order to have them educated. The most important of his

prot?g?s was the Great Translator, Rinchen Sangpo, who became renowned for his translations of

Budhist texts into the Tibetan language. Under his

spiritual guidance a number of small new

monasteries, decorated by imported Kashmiri

artists, were also founded in western Tibet. Despite these positive changes, Buddhist practice still

appears to have remained somewhat debased and the new monasteries largely the dominion of the court

and wealthy classes.9 At this period, Tantra was the form of Buddhism

current in India, Kashmir, and Tibet. This system

incorporated the esoteric revelations of the siddhas, which included the use of untraditional means to

achieve spiritual knowledge. Tantric practices were

largely divided into two main currents, that of

Mahamudra, in which stress is laid on the "prac tice of the mind" (mystic insight), and that of the

"practice of the energy" in which the focus is on

the Six Yogas (yogic meditation).10 It was Tantra's use of magic, wine, and sexual relations in some

rituals which was resonant with Bon practices and

permitted their admixture. Tantric teachings, unlike that of earlier Mahayana doctrine, promised the possibility of spiritual emancipation within an

adept's own lifetime. Although certain of the

mahasiddhas' texts and doctrines were eventually written down, thereby becoming available to a

large audience, the most secret of their revelations were kept inaccessible. These were made available

only through the personal transmission of a guru to

his adept. In 1040 Lha Tsunpa, Yeshes ?'s nephew, sent

another mission to India in order to bring back to

Tibet an Indian pundit who would serve to further

purify and revivify Tibetan Buddhism. In 1042,

Atisha, an eminent Indian teacher who had been an

51



upadhyaya (either a professor of sacred literature, head of a section of the monastery, or an administer

of sacred vows) at the monastery of Vikramashila in Bihar, arrived in Tibet. He was in many ways

ideally suited for the task before him. Although he

had become an adept of Tantric Buddhism at an

early age, he had decided to travel outside of India, dominated as it was at that time by Tantric prac tice, in order to study traditional Mahayana doc

trine with the great Buddhist scholar Dharmakirti

(Dharmapala) in the Sumatran kingdom of Shri

vijaya. He was therefore thoroughly versed in both

traditional Mahayana philosophy as well as in

Tantra.

Atisha immediately realized that Tibetan

Buddhism lacked not only a monastic base but also

the necessary code of daily conduct and religious

practice which was a product of it. Therefore, he

taught that the "precept of the lama was more

important than scriptures and commentaries."11

This conservative doctrine stressed the importance of monastic discipline?including celibacy, absti

nence from intoxicants, and the primacy of basic

meditational practices in the search for religious

knowledge. Tantric practices, which had formerly been central, were relegated to a secondary and

somewhat sequestered role.

Many of Atisha's tenets were aimed at recreating India's traditional monastic order in Tibet. Doctrine

was transmitted in an orderly fashion, on a one-to

one basis, directly from teacher to pupil. The

Tibetans refer to this transfer of an "instruction

handed down from master to disciple along a

spiritual lineage" as dam ngag.12 They believed that

the most important truths of Buddhism were avail

able not from texts but only through the practical

personal experiences of meditation guided by a

teacher. This carefully controlled transfer of

dharma was also important in that it assured that

the teachings were not contaminated by outside

influences, as they had been in earlier times.

The most important revelations of the Tantric

texts, whose underlying truths were shrouded in

arcane symbolism, were held inaccessible from the

majority of monks. As in India, their esoteric mean

ing was divulged to only a select few, whom their

teachers deemed spiritually evolved enough for

initiation. For example, when Neusurpa (the first

abbot of Phanyul monastery) first met his teacher,

The teacher at first explained to him the "Offering of

Jvalamukhi" (Khabarmai torma) and said: "When I met the

Master [Atisha], I was also given this first." Neusurpa then

thought to himself: "He seems to be giving the complete secret

precepts in the manner of the Master," and thus the complete

precepts were bestowed on him.13

52

Thus the transmission of both standard and esoteric doctrine was carefully controlled, theoretically thereby preserving its purity and therefore that of

Tibetan Buddhism as a whole.

Similarly, ordination, as in India, was accom

plished under the direction of both a sponsor and a kalyanamitra (a distinguished monk who oversaw

investitures). This ensured the worthiness of the candidate. In the Blue Annals3 the participants in the investitures of each important lama are recorded; otherwise they would be unknown. Their names are

preserved in this context only because of the central role they played in preserving the continuity of the

passage of doctrine within Tibetan Buddhism. Atisha gathered a

large popular following, not

simply in western Tibet but also in central Tibet, where he also journeyed to preach. His followers

eventually became known as the Kadampas (ones of

the doctrine, as opposed to the unreformed Nying mas, who presumably were believed to follow a

debased creed).14 The Kadampa sect never gained the wealthy patronage lavished on some of the other

sects, and it was largely absorbed by the emergent

Gelugpa sect in the fifteenth century. Its strict moral

code and lack of emphasis on Tantra had proved

inhospitable to most Tibetans. As Snellgrove states, "the majority of Tibetans . . . were far more at

tracted by the emotional and magical aspects of

Buddhism."15

Atisha, however, was not the only important

religious influence of his time. The Kagyupa order

also traces its lineage back to another teacher of this

period, Marpa (1012-1097), a Tibetan monk who, in India, studied with and received initiations from some of the most important siddhas of his age?

Naropa, Kukuripa, and Maitripa. In Tibet Marpa

gathered a large number of disciples, the most fa mous of whom, Milarepa, became the greatest of

the Tibetan yogins.16 Milarepa lived a solitary ascetic life and accepted few pupils. However, to

one persistent disciple, Gampopa, he transmitted

Marpa's secret teachings. The six main branches of

the Kagyupas derive from Gampopa's followers; one branch, the Taglung lineage, derives from his

adept Phagmodrukpa ( 1110-1170), the teacher of

Taglungpa, the first Kagyupa abbot in the

Metropolitan Museum's thanka.17 A careful reading of the fifteenth century Blue

Annals makes clear that despite its arrangement, which seems to portray the growth of the sects as

a linear process, with each sect-lineage theoretically demarcated by doctrinal differences, the distinc

tions among the sects were much less precise than

implied. Often monks wandered seeking instruction

from teachers of various sects. For example, Kag



yupa monks lived at Kadampa monasteries and

studied with Kadampa teachers. Taglungpa (the founder of the Taglung monastery and the first

Kagyupa monk in the Metropolitan Museum's

thanka) had studied with Kadampa teachers and was

told by his teacher, Phagmodrukpa, "keep what ever doctrine you have heard! It is not essential

that the line should originate with me. All the

doctrines will be needed by you."18 As Snellgrove states, "There was no essential difference in

doctrine between all of the various orders. Their

main difference consisted in their traditional

attachments to different lines of teachers and par ticular tutelary divinities."19

Before the thirteenth century, it is probable that

the majority of the sects had not developed a sense

of exclusive identity: this was not to occur until the

fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.20 In the earlier

formative period, allegiance was given first to one's

teacher and then to his lineage. Later, as they became established and were imbued with a cha

risma of their own, monasteries in turn became the

focus of identity. At some still later point, those

surviving monasteries which shared a common an

cestry and preference for certain doctrinal ap

proaches developed a common identity?as a sect.

As Tucci states, Buddhism "spread . . . thanks to

solitary ascetics and theologians, not by virtue of

monastic organization; the latter . . . was formed

but slowly."21 Equally, it is important to remember

that even today, despite well over seven hundred

intervening years, the four major divisions of the

Kagyupas (which originally arose through the pupils of Gampopa and were perpetuated by and named

after the monasteries they founded) are still adhered to as distinct lineages.22

A large number of monastic establishments were

founded during this period, many of which did not

survive (even to history). It is hard to gain a clear

picture of their initial size. Presumably they were

modest. Perhaps some of the western Tibetan mon

asteries which have remained untouched through the centuries, such as Tabo and Alchi, are appro

priate models. According to Tucci, the largest of

the first Sakyapa monasteries, when founded, were

"great for those times, but surely of moderate

proportions as compared with those built at a later

period."23 They originated due to the charisma of a single lama, and their chance of survival was often

perilous after the death of the founder. As the

history of the Taglung monastery illustrates, al

though Taglungpa (the founder of the monastery)

clearly passed his mantle to his nephew, Rin

chengon, by giving him the keys to the library and

teaching him the most secret portions of the

doctrine, most of the three thousand monks who had

been drawn to Taglungpa left after his death,

thereby imperilling the institution he had founded.

Interestingly, although no building program is

ascribed to Taglungpa, the great Vihara (assembly

hall) of the monastery was built in 1224, during

Rinchengon's tenure as abbot.24

As this example illustrates, during this formative

period the loyalty of the samgha had not yet been

refocused from allegiance to the founder of the

monastery to the monastery itself; the monasteries

themselves lacked sufficient prestige. Therefore, the orderly passage of spiritual power and prestige from abbot to abbot became the vital issue in

ensuring their survival. Several methods were used to try to establish a clear passage of power. In many cases the founder or abbot chose his successor during his lifetime. Often this was one of his relatives, as

was the case of Rinchengon (the second abbot of

Taglung), who was the nephew of the founder,

Taglungpa. It is unclear whether the familial re

lationship was believed to imbue the successor with some of the same powers. In some cases where

monasteries were closely allied with the secular

power of the local clans, the abbots were chosen

from the members of the clan's first family in order to preserve the link between the monastery and the

clan. Succession proceeded from the celibate abbot

to his nephew.25 This was the case of the Sakyas, with the Lang, and some of the Kagyupas with the

Khom clans. This method ultimately lead to the

indivisibility of church and state in Tibet.

Sometimes, as was the case with the fourth abbot

of Taglung, Sangyay Won, besides being the

nephew of his predecessor, Sangyay Won was also

believed to be the incarnation of an important

previous lama (in this case, of Gampopa, the most

important follower of Milarepa, to whom Milarepa

singularly transmitted the teachings of Marpa, and from whom the six Kagyupa schools derive).26

Eventually, this may have led to the idea of

incarnate lamas, thereby making moot the problem of legitimate succession. The dead abbots would be

reincarnated in infants.27 However, in some cases,

the monasteries which were not able to evolve an

ongoing lineage of abbots did not outlive their

founders (or their immediate successors) and their

libraries and relics were appropriated by other

institutions.

During their lifetimes, abbots were considered to

have achieved a quasi-deified status. Presumably this was partially because they had received from

the former abbot the most secret esoteric reve

lations of the doctrine, which had been passed down to them through the lineage and whose possession

53



alone raised them to a pinnacle of spiritual devel

opment. There are many reports in the Blue Annals of abbots being seen by members of their commu

nities in miraculous visions in the form of deities.

Taglungpa, for example was beheld by various

members of the sangha as the Buddha, as the

Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, as Samvara-Sahaja, as

Vajravarahi, and in numerous other forms. Equally, his teacher Phagmodrukpa claimed that Taglungpa had been Indrabhuti (#2) in one of his past incar

nations.28 Their super-human status is reflected in

the manner in which they are portrayed in the

lineage thankas, like deities, seated on elaborate

thrones, with lotus seats, and with halos framing their heads.

In the Metropolitan Museum's thanka, all the

lamas depicted, about whom information is avail

able, are abbots. The last lama, Ch?ku Orgyan

Gonpo, is shown in an identical manner to the rest,

richly robed and with his head framed by a nimbus.

This is the manner in which abbots are uniformly

pictured in lineage paintings.29 Conversely, it is

unlikely that a monk of lesser status would be given this equal status if he were not also an abbot.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that Orgyan Gonpo was also an abbot.

From the monastic standpoint, the ideological program of the Metropolitan Museum's thanka is now fairly straightforward. Leaving aside the con

nection of the first Kadampa (?) abbot to the rest, there appears to be a linear progression between the

Kagyupa abbots from the founder of Taglung mon

astery, to Sangyay Won, the fourth abbot (Fig. 1).

Sangyay Won was forced out of his seat in favor

of another of Sangyay Yarjonpa's nephews and

traveled to Kham (eastern Tibet), taking with him some of the monastery's most hallowed relics. There

he founded the monastery of Riwoche. If the basic

format of the ordering of the lineage is extended, Ch?ku Orgyan Gonpo would most likely be his

successor, the second abbot of Riwoche.30 The

thanka, therefore, is proclaiming the lineage of

Riwoche.

But what is the connection between this Kagyupa

lineage and the Kadampa (?) abbot?and who is the

central figure? Unfortunately, although they were

contemporaries, the Blue Annals does not mention

any connection between the lives of Desheg Chenpo and Taglungpa, the founder of the Taglung mon

astery. However, it is clear that a close connection

did exist between some portions of the two sects.

As already discussed, at this period the sects were

still nascent and there was sometimes a cross-fer

tilization of teachers, texts, and secret law (Tantric

initiations). The Kagyupa Taglung lineage derives

54

through Gampopa, who was the teacher of Tag lungpa's teacher Phagmodrukpa.31 Gampopa had "been a follower of the Kadampa and of the Ven

erable Milarepa, and his own system was known as

the 'confluence of those two streams,' that of the

Kadampa and that of the Mahamudra [branch of

Tantra]."32 Gampopa was trained as a Kadampa.

Late in his life he persuaded Milarepa to pass on to

him his secret teachings, thus forging a link between

the monastic traditions of the Kadampa and the

hermit-sage traditions of the siddhas. Thus the

Kagyupa-Taglung tradition was a synthesis of

Kadampa and Mahamudra doctrines. It is not clear if the mahasiddhas in the Metro

politan Museum's thanka, the originators of these

Tantric teachings, are meant to form a lineage,

paralleling and leading to that of the abbots. This is certainly a

possibility as the mahasiddhas were

historical personalities whose esoteric teachings were transmitted from generation to generation of

siddhas, theoretically in an unbroken line, directly to the Tibetan lineages.33 If one begins the sequence

with Indrabhuti, reading the mahasiddhas from

right to left (the opposite way in which the abbots are arranged), their sequence can be made to fit into a rough chronological sequence.34 Nevertheless, in

the Metropolitan Museum's painting, there are

many skips in the sequence, and Kukuripa appears

totally out of order. In any case it is likely that the

mahasiddhas chosen are meant to be the lineage of a particular doctrinal tradition or text.35

At least one hundred years separate the last of the

siddhas portrayed from the earliest of the abbots in

the Metropolitan Museum's thanka. Logically, the

central figure in the thanka must represent someone

who was responsible for the passage of a specific esoteric teaching from the Indian to the Tibetan

spheres. The term Jnana Tapa, although it does not

refer to any known historical figure, may yet refer to a specific state?perhaps one reached through the

meditation outlined in a text. The central figure's wide-open eyes with fully exposed irises suggests

that he is in some paranormal state. His portrayal as a siddha, with largely naked body, ritual jewelry, deerskin seat, magic horn and casket?seem to

indicate that he is engaged in some Tantric ritual.

Even among the few surviving thirteenth century, Yuan period, Sino-Tibetan thankas of siddhas, the

iconography is unique. The magic horn the figure carries may provide

one hint to the type of Tantra being performed. The

animal horn trumpet in the thanka may refer to the

(human) thighbone trumpet associated with the

Tantric Cho rites, the cemetery ritual. In the ritual it is used by the practitioner to summon the dakinis,



female deities (here in their wrathful aspect) who are invited to hack to pieces, stew, and then drink

the body of the meditating lama. This visualization

is intended to engender a realization of the illusion

ary nature of the practitioner's body and through that, of the world's essential voidness.36

However, a reference is not necessarily being made to the Cho ritual. The horn in the painting

is not made out of a thighbone, as is traditional and

appropriate. The rite is practiced as a kind of dance, not seated, and none of the other paraphenalia asso

ciated with it, such as the kangling (drum), vajra

(ritual thunderbolt), or dorje (bell), and tent are

portrayed. Nor is the picture set in a cemetery. It

is unclear when the Cho ritual was introduced into

Tibet and by what route. Evans-Wentz claims that

the doctrine came down through the Nyingma school and shows Bon intermixtures, while Tucci

attributes its spread to an Indian ascetic, Dampa

Sangye, who came to Tibet in 1097.37 There are

several extant early thankas whose central figures are dakinis, dancing in the midst of cemeteries.

Given the limited iconography of this early period, which is otherwise chiefly devoted to images of

Buddhas and lineage paintings, these images may

prove to be connected with the Cho ritual. How

ever, another dakini, Vajra-Yogini, also plays a

prominent role in the visualizations of the Yoga Tantra and may be the one portrayed.38

In the later idealized portrait tradition, the cen

tral place in the thanka is sometimes held by the

idealized portrait of one of the founding fathers of

the sects, for example, Padmasambhava, Marpa, or

Milarepa, who form the link between the siddhas,

deities, and the Tibetan lineage. Nevertheless, the

identification of the central figure in the Metro

politan Museum's thanka is problematic. The most

likely candidates would be the two most important

Kagyupa hierarchs, either Marpa or Milarepa. However, the absence among the mahasiddhas in

the painting of Marpa's teacher, the mahasiddha

Naropa or of his teacher, the mahasiddha Tilopa, makes it unlikely that either is being portrayed. Conversely, the probable inclusion at the beginning of the list of abbots of a Kadampa points to another

possibility, that the central figure represents Atisha,

depicted as a great siddha.

Several factors seem to point to this identifica

tion. Atisha seems to have held, both in his lifetime

and thereafter, a singular position; he was revered

by all. Throughout the Blue Annals he is referred to

as the "Venerable Master." Despite Atisha's out

ward silence during his lifetime toward Tantra, he

translated a number of important Tantric texts into

Tibetan and in the following centuries, was consid

ered as one of the main conduits of the transmis

sion of esoteric doctrine to Tibet.39 For example, the

great "Kagyupa" lama Milarepa is quoted in the

Blue Annals as acknowledging Atisha as a master of

Mahamudra by saying, "Because a demon had pene trated the heart of Tibet, the Venerable Master

[Atisha] was not allowed to preach the Vajrayana . . . , but if he were allowed to do it, by now Tibet

would have been filled by Saints!"40 Further, it is

important to remember that the abbots of Riwoche

monastery traced their lineage to that of the

Kagyupa lama Gampopa, whose philosophy formed a union of Kadampa and Mahamudra. Thus, it is

likely that a thanka portraying Atisha, painted for

this monastery, would have stressed his esoteric

side, characterizing him as a great siddha, mediating between the Indian siddhas and the Tibetan

lineages.41 Two iconographie elements, when compared to

those in the earliest portrait of Atisha to survive, in the Kronos Collections, support this identifica

tion42 (Fig. 3). First, the unusual patterned helmet

like hat that the figure wears is identical in form

and color to that worn by Atisha in the early

portrait.43 This type of hat is called a pan sha, or

scholar's (pundit's) hat. Tucci says that in later times

it was worn exclusively by incarnate lamas and

abbots when they expounded doctrine. The circling bands of gold indicate the wearer's "experience

acquired through deep study of the doctrine," and

their number corresponds with the number of

collections of sacred scriptures or rigpas, the five

branches of knowledge, which the wearer has

mastered.44 The enormous number of bands shown on the hat in the Metropolitan Museum's painting, far exceeding the top limit of five mentioned by Tucci, indicates the unusually profound learning of

the figure portrayed. In no other early lineage

painting does the principal abbot wear this hat.45

However, Atisha's pivotal role in the transmission

of Buddhist doctrine to Tibet would make him a

prime candidate for just such an honorific portrayal. Second, in the Kronos portrait, in which he is por

trayed as a hierarch, enthroned and richly robed, Atisha is nevertheless shown with similar wide

open eyes, irises fully visible, most probably a sign of his mystic state and knowledge. At this period, such eyes seem to be used only in the portrayal of

siddhas and certain deities, Kubera for example. Two more iconographie elements reinforce the

identification. First, because of his transcendental

wisdom, Atisha was believed to be an incarnation

of Manjusri, the bodhisattva of wisdom.46 In the

Metropolitan Museum's painting, a snow lion,

Manjusri 's mount, surmounts the casket held by the

55



central figure, perhaps referring to Manjusri Atisha. Second, a peacock feather cockade sur

mounts the helmet-like hat. The peacock is a com

mon metaphor for a bodhisattva, as the peacock's

penchant for eating the poisonous belladonna root

is likened to that of one who can turn the poisons of the earth into radiant splendor. In his famous

Letter Garland of Stainless Gems, a text in sixty-six verses which "was intended above all to be a

manifesto of Buddhist reform in Tibet,"47 his

parting advice to the Pala king Nirya-pala, Atisha

likens the sound of his conservative religious ideals to that of the peacock, saying,

Even though the coo coo of the birds

sing most sweetly in springtime, The peacock is not shy to sing out

its less sweet sound.

Similarly, although there exist many

teachings by many masters,

I have written to you, O King, that

it may help clear any confusion.

This text is one of Atisha's best known and it is

therefore possible that the feather, crowning the

figure's hat as a cockade crowns a peacock's head,

is used in combination with the hat as a further emblem of Atisha.48

Despite these confluences, the identification must remain hypothetical. Too many of the determinants are generic. However, as a whole, the iconographie program of the Metropolitan Museum's picture is clear. It depicts the transmission of (one?) esoteric

dogma from the spiritual fountain head of the adi

Buddha, through the mahasiddhas to the central

figure, and from him to the lineage of Kagyupa abbots of the Riwoche monastery. Considering that

Riwoche was a comparatively new monastery, it is

interesting that its abbot (?) Ch?ku Orgyan was not

given the central position in the thanka, as in the earlier lineage paintings. The reason for this must

be that by the turn of the fourteenth century the monastic system had become well enough estab

lished in Tibet that the earlier political motivations for portraiture were no longer primary. The focus of the samgha had begun to shift away from images of the living abbot to those of the monastery's spiritual founders.

Notes

i. In this article the Medieval period in Tibet is defined as

the late eleventh through the late thirteenth centuries a.d.

2. P. Pal, Tibetan Paintings: A study of Tibetan Thankas Eleventh

to Nineteenth Centuries (Basle, 1984), p. 39 has suggested that the

Tibetan portrait tradition derived from that of the Chinese, and

like it was commemorative in nature. But it is more likely that

the genre evolved independently and that these portraits of

abbots were painted within the sitters' lifetimes. The unusual

inscription on the lineage painting of Je Sangyay Won Drakpa refers to him as the Lama of Taglung (Fig. 1). As Sangyay Won

sat on the abbot's chair of the monastery for only a

single year, and was forced out

by unfriendly forces, it is likely that this

lineage portrait was

painted during his brief tenure as abbot

of Taglung, perhaps at the time of his investiture.

3. The initial translations of the names were done by Heather

Karmay. All the Tibetan has been phoneticized with the help of Jane Casey Singer. The fifteenth century history compiled

by G? Lotsawa Zhonupal, The Blue Annals, the Stages and

Appearance of the Doctrine and Preachers in the Land of the Snows, is the source for the biographical information on most of the

historical Tibetan personalities. 4. The exact identification of this deity is unclear as the

identifying inscription A-ba-gr(-)ba seems to make no sense.

Jane Casey Singer suggests that it is perhaps a Tibetan

transliteration of the Sanskrit Avagarbha.

5. G. Roerich, The Blue Annals (Dehli, 1979), p. 316. The dates

of this lama are unclear. He is referred to in the inscription under his portrait as Desheg Rinpoche. A lama called Desheg

Chenpo (1203-1265) presided as abbot of Taglung for twenty

five years. He was part of the lineage which derived from one

of Atisha's followers, Sherab ? (d. 1118), whose lineage formed

one of the two main branches of the Kadampa order, the dam

ngagpa. A lama called Desheg Chenpo Sherab ? is referred

to in The Blue Annals, pp. 958-961, in connection with the history of his son. He may be identical with the Taglung abbot, but

his date of death can be computed as 1245, not 1265. However,

in many cases the histories of these lamas were compiled from

different sources and this sort of discrepancy does not rule out

their being the same person.

6. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 617, and preceding.

7. Ibid., pp. 610-652.

8. The greatest eighty-four of the siddhas are called

mahasiddhas (great siddhas); see K. Dowman, Masters of

Mahamudra (Albany, 1985).

9. Yeshes ? himself gave up his crown to become a monk.

56



io. Chen-Chi-Chang, "Yogic Commentary," in Evans

Wentz, Tibetan Yoga (London, 1958), pp. xxxvii-xlix.

n. G. Wangyal, The Door of Liberation (New York, 1973),

p. 78. 12. A. David-Neal, Initiations and Initiates in Tibet (Berkeley,

1971), p. 27.

13. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 312.

14. In the strictest sense a Kadampa monk is one who is

"advised by verbal command" according to Jane Casey Singer.

15. D. Snellgrove and H. Richardson, A Cultural History of Tibet (New York, 1968), p. 131.

16. Roerich, The Blue Annals, pp. 400-404.

17. Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cultural History of Tibet,

p. 135. 18. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 612.


p. 139. 20. In special instances, where the monasteries were

closely allied with the local clans, as was the case with the Sakyapas, this identity may have been forged earlier, in the thirteenth

century; see also G. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls (Rome, 1949), vol. 1, pp. 84-86.

21. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, p. 5. Tucci thought that the

monastic system "did not reach its full development before the

Xlth and Xllth centuries," but his dating seems to be several

centuries too early; see also p. 84.

22. Ibid., pp. 90-91.

23. Ibid., p. 5.


25. As the monasteries became rich and politically powerful, the desire to keep the abbot's seat within a

family may have

been fostered by more mundane considerations.


p. 137 on Gampopa. G? Lotsawa mentions at the end of his

section on Sangyay Won (the fourth abbot) that Sangyay

Yarjonpa (the third abbot) had probably instructed both his

nephews to act as abbots simultaneously, i.e., both Sangyay Won and Mangalaguru (who became the fifth abbot of

Taglung); see Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 652.


p. 136. See also T. Wylie, "Reincarnation: A Political In

novation in Tibetan Buddhism," in Csoma de K?r?s Memorial

Symposium, L. Ligeti (ed.) (Budapest, 1978), on the advent of

the idea of reincarnation in Tibet.

28. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 619. Phagmodrukpa also

stated that he had been the first and third Indrabhuti in his past lives.

29. Because of his elaborate dress, which was similar to that

found in fifteenth century thankas of Sakyapa abbots, Pal

originally identified the abbot in the lineage thanka in the

Jucker collection as being

a Sakyapa hierarch. However, it is

now clear that Kadampa and Kagyupa lamas were also similarly

portrayed and the costume cannot be thought of as having

sectarian connotations; Pal, Tibetan Paintings, p. 39.

30. However, it is not possible

to test this assumption, as The

Blue Annals, although it mentions that Riwoche was to become

the greatest monastery in Kham, does not contain a list of its

abbots (because the lineage is a comparatively late offshoot?).

31. It is interesting to note that becaue Sangyay Yarjonpa was considered to be an incarnation of Gampopa, his tie to the

Kagyupa lineage was

doubly strong, as it is through Gampopa

that the Kagyupa lineages derive. Further, Sangyay Won (the fourth abbot of Taglung and the founder of Riwoche)

was

considered an incarnation of Gampopa, further strengthening the identification with his ideals.


33. Dowman, Masters of Mahamudra, p. 390. It is interesting to note that the teacher of the first of the Taglung abbots

considered himself and his pupil as

having been in their former

incarnations, the three incarnations of Indrabhuti; see Roerich,

The Blue Annals, p. 619.

34. "Genealogical" trees of the mahasiddhas can be recon

structed. However, as some of the historic mahasiddhas were

believed to be reincarnated, in some cases several times,

important ones, such as Indrabhuti, Dombi Heruka, Kukuripa, and Nagarjuna (to name those shown in the Metropolitan's

thanka), recur several times in an overall genealogical tree,

confusing the possibility of forming a

simple linear arrange

ment; see Dowman, Masters of Mahamudra, pp. 390-391.

35. A number are associated with the Mother Tantras and

with one of the principal divisions of the highest of esoteric

teachings, the Annuta Tantra. The Mother Tantras emphasize the pursuit of wisdom; see Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 869.

36. For a discussion of the philosophical ideas underlying the

Cho rites, see Giuseppe Tucci, The Religions of Tibet (Berkeley,

1988), pp. 87-92.

37. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, p. 92; Evans-Wentz, Tibetan

Yoga, pp. 277-278. The treatise Evans-Wentz translates was

compiled in the fourteenth century (?) by Long Chen Rabjampa. It is interesting to note that one of the strongholds of Cho

practice was at two Kagyupa monasteries in Kham, the same

area in which Riwoche was located; see Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, p. 92.

38. Evans-Wentz, Tibetan Yoga, p. 174; see also Pal, Tibetan

Paintings, pis. 15, 16. The iconography of Vajra-Yogini in the

Yoga Tantra does correspond to the depiction in the early

thankas. However, a good case can be made for these two

paintings to relate to the Cho ritual as they are portrayed in

cemeteries, and are surrounded by auxiliary dakinis, neither of

which is specified in the Yoga Tantra visualizations.

39. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, p. 85.


41. It is interesting to note that the mahasiddha Dombi

Heruka, one of Atisha's teachers, is one of the last portrayed. 42. Because of a

donatory inscription, the terminus ante

quern for this painting can be established as the first half of the

twelfth century.

43. It is not clear if the same banding appears on the hat in

the Kronos thanka as the decoration in that area is largely lost.

44. Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, pp. 124-125, 127, 142.

45. Perhaps it is Atisha who appears as an auxiliary figure,

wearing a similar hat in many of the early Kadampa (and

Kagyupa) lineage paintings; for example see fig.

2 in Jane

Singer, An Early Painting from Tibet, Orientations 17(7) (July 1986): 41-45. Equally, might the lama in the upper left-hand

corner of the portrait of Wonpo Rinpoche wearing a similar

hat be Atisha? See Figure 1.

46. W. Y. Evans-Wentz, The Tibetan Book of the Great

Liberation (London, 1969), p. xx.

47. A. Chattopadayaya, Atisa and Tibet (Dehli, 1981), p. 340.

48. The text is called Dri ma may pay rin po che tring yig in Tibetan and Vimala-ratna-leka in Sanskrit.

57



Documents

Lineage Painting and Nascent Monasticism in Medieval Tibet