202 THE TIBET JOURNAL

La D�esse sGrol-ma (T�r�): Recherches sur la Nature et le Statutd’une Divinit� du Bouddhisme Tib�tain, Pierre Ar�nes, UitgeverijPeeters en Departement Orientalistiek, Leuven, 1996, 449pp.

Following Godefroy de Blonay’s Mat�riaux pour servir � l’histoire de la d�esse buddhiqueT�r� (1895), Stephen Beyer’s The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet (1973) and MartinWillson’s In Praise of Tara: Songs to the Saviouress (1986), this book by Pierre Ar�nes isalready the fourth major monographical study on the important Indo-Tibetan Buddhistgoddess T�r� by a Western author, and the most comprehensive of all of them as well, giventhat de Blonay’s and Willson’s books are in fact collections of translations, while Beyer’sbook is more of a study on Tibetan ritualism as such than specifically on the goddess T�r�.

The book begins with a short “Introduction” (pp.13-16) and an unnumbered chapter onthe “Antiquity of the cult of the goddess sGrol ma (T�r�)” (pp.17-24) which gives anastonishingly brief overview over some well-known early Indian sources concerning T�r�. Itwould have been helpful had the author presented here his research into the Tibetan sourcesof T�r� history which he banned to his Appendix I (pp.245ff.) instead.

The rest of the study is subdivided in two parts. The first part has the title “Les sourcesoccidentales” (The Western Sources) while the second is named “Les sources orientales:Sources indiennes et tib�taines canoniques et non canoniques” (The Eastern Sources: IndianSources and Canonical and Non-Canonical Tibetan Sources). Subdivision and chapter titlesin both parts include important aspects of T�r�: The chapters on T�r� as “bodhisattvafeminin” (female Bodhisattava) and “incarnation de la compassion” (incarnation ofcompassion) (chapter 1, pp.29-61), on T�r�’s relations to the Bodhisattva Avalokite�varaand her role as praj�� (Wisdom consort) of the Buddha Amoghasiddhi (chapter 2, pp.63-102) and on T�r� as “m�re des buddha” (Mother of the Buddhas) (chapter 3, pp.103-114)are incorporated in the First Part on the “Western Sources”, while the Second Part on“Eastern Sources” discusses mainly the birth story of T�r� (subdivision I, pp.137-161) andthe aspect of T�r� as a female Buddha (chapters 1-2, pp.165-239).

After a short “Conclusion” (pp.241-2), the last 200 pages of the book contain fourappendices which are occupied with different aspects of T�r� source text history andinterpretation, among them an investigation into the Tibetan sources for the history of theT�r� tantras (I, pp.245-73), the classification of the T�r� texts in the system of Tantras (II,pp.275-87), the problems of interpretation of Tantric texts (III, pp.289-302) as well astranslations of two Tibetan commentaries of the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra (IV, pp.303-381). The book ends with a bibliography (pp.383-5), facsimiles of the commentaries translated(pp.407-28), and an index (pp.429-449).

Before going into details, there have to be made some remarks concerning the organizationof the book or, more precisely, the organization of the first 240 pages which the reviewerfinds in deplorable disharmony with the fundamentals of modern source criticism. How canthere be any “Western Sources” at all of a goddess who definitely stems from and wasvenerated over many centuries in India, Tibet and other Eastern countries? Looking closer atthe “sources” of Western origin the author describes, we find, instead of primary sources, therelevant works of Western scholarship which would normally not be described as “sources”,at least not as long as the (Eastern) primary sources on which they base are still extant. Asmodern science of history has stated, the value of a text or image as source for the historicalfact or process to be investigated depends on its nearness to the latter in time and place.Texts which are as far away from the original T�r� in both time and space as Westernscholarly works would therefore get the status of sources only if there were no primary orsecondary sources extant1. For instance, if (and only if) all Indian, Tibetan and Chinese textson and images of T�r� would be lost, books like that by Beyer or articles like those by Steinor Tucci quoted by Arènes would become real sources on the goddess. It is not understandablewhy Arènes, working on a historical subject, does not pay attention to the first and foremost

BOOK REVIEWS 203

rule of all scholarship dealing with history: to start from the primary sources. And concerningT�r�, those are definitely to be found exclusively among the Eastern sources to which anyrelevant Western texts are less than secondary.

Equally astonishing is the attempt of the author under review to subsume the aspects ofT�r� as a bodhisattva or as an embodiment of compassion, both being roles which definitelyhave their origin in Indian or Tibetan Buddhism, under the heading “Western Sources”, whilehe includes the aspect of T�r� as a Buddha in the part on “Eastern Sources”. Does he wantto say that only the latter role of the goddess is in conformity with the original Easternsources, while the image of T�r� as a bodhisattva, as embodiment of compassion etc. wasfabricated by modern Western scholars? Even if some sentences by Arènes sound like it2, I donot really expect the author to mean that, and a closer look at his First Part shows that he doesnot actually seem to, because even while he tries to always quote Western scholars, the role ofthe Eastern sources as the base of the Western scholars’ opinions are in most cases visible atleast in the footnotes (see, e. g., pp.40n86; 41n92; 46n118; but cf. also p.51). Thus Arènes’First Part is in fact no less dealing with Eastern sources than the Second Part, although theauthor tries to “hide” them in the footnotes. The reason for the whole basic approach remainsunclear3. For using the book with some gain at least, we therefore have to carefully read thefootnotes, but refrain from looking at the titles of the parts, subdivisions and chapters whichobviously only confuse our understanding of the “red thread” of the book.

If we read the book in this way, the different chapters and subdivisions give anapproximately satisfying image of the most important aspects of T�r� as seen by the Easternsources as well as Western scholars. Only some selected details can be discussed in thefollowing lines.

In his first chapter on T�r� as a female bodhisattva, Arènes shows (pp.33ff.) the role ofTar� as a double of Avalokite�vara, especially in her role as saviouress from the eight fearswhich is described in the �rya-t�r�-aaghora-t�r��i-s�tra (bKa’ ’gyur of sDe dge, No.731,of Beijing, No.395). The author discusses in some length (pp.39-47) the hypothesis of H.Shastri4 that T�r�, the goddess who crosses the ocean of sa�s�ra (from Skt. t ), wasoriginally a local goddess of ocean navigation. This is rightly rejected by the author inaccordance with Giuseppe Tucci who objected that water is only one of the perils againstwhich T�r� protects her adepts (pp.46f.).

The second Chapter on the relation between T�r� and Avalokite�vara starts with someinformation about the �akti concept in Hinduism (pp.63-69), followed by considerations on�iva (pp.69-70) and Vi��u (pp.70-72) as models for Avalokite�vara and the goddess �akti asmodel for T�r� (pp.73-77), ideas which are, nevertheless, rejected by the author. Somefollowing subchapters deal with the difficulties of theories on syncretism and assimilation,especially of Hindu deities to Buddhism, but without clarifying the relations of all that toT�r� (pp.78-84). Arènes then discusses some problems of erotic Tantrism in Hinduism andBuddhism, among them T�r� ‘s relations to the Hindu goddess Durg� (pp.84-88), especiallythe mysterious c�n�c�ra practice in connection with the question of influences of North-west Indian human sacrifices on Tantrism (pp.86ff.) the theory of Tantrism being a degeneratedform of Mah�y�na Buddhism (pp.88-96), and the (wrong) use of the Hindu term �akti forBuddhist consort goddesses (see especially pp.97ff.). Some of his argumentations are notbad. But since T�r� is, as a rule, a non-ferocious prajñ� (not of Avalokite�vara, but ofAmoghasiddhi, as Arènes correctly remarks, pp.101f.), and since, moreover, her role asprajñ� is one of her least important aspects in the Indian as well as in the Tibetan tradition(where her mother and saviouress roles are most important), all these considerations ofChapter 2 would better fit in a book on Buddhist Tantrism than in one on T�r�.

The chapter 3 on T�r� as the Mother of Buddhas starts with considerations on theconcept of parenthood and motherhood in Mah�y�na (pp.103-8), followed by a subchapteron canonical as well as noncanonical Tibetan sources on T�r� as “Mother” (pp.108-114).This, again, does not fit the heading “Western Sources”.

An additional subdivision in the first part (which out of no discernible reason does not

204 THE TIBET JOURNAL

figure as “chapter 4”) analyzes the two monographical studies on T�r� by Beyer andWillson. The reason why the author puts his analysis of his two most recent predecessors’books in a separate chapter is apparently that he wants to show that after the Chineseoccupation of Tibet and the escape of many monks to India, Tibetologists got access tohitherto unknown texts (p.117), a banality which hardly justifies an own subdivision of 18pages to be proved. In practice, the chapter repeats on the one hand many of the subjectsalready discussed, e. g. T�r�’s name (p.120), her status as a Bodhisattva (p.131) and as amother (p.131ff.), and introduces, on the other hand, new subjects which definitely wouldhave deserved separate chapters, for instance the terrifying forms of T�r� (p.125) or T�r�’sfunction as a Tantric deity (p.133f.). All this is not very useful.

The second part begins with another subdivision which the author had better named“chapter”, dealing with the birth of T�r� (pp.140-161). One single symbol, the eye, isintroduced as a symbol of T�r�’s birth (pp.140-3) a short typology of birth forms is given(pp.143-5), and then various birth stories from Indian and Tibetan texts are told (pp.145-161), the well-known story of T�r�’s birth out of the tears of Avalokite�vara being only oneof them. The whole chapter, however, looks as if much more indeed could have been madeout of such an interesting subject.

The following chapter 1 of the second part contains some well-known facts and quotationsconcerning the status of women in Buddhism and the issue of female buddhaship which leadthe reader to T�r�’s vow to always work for the salvation of beings in the body of a woman.Chapter 2 with the title “T�r�, Buddha” (pp.177-239) is by far the best of the whole book.Here, after all, the author comes to what he should have done from the beginning: analyze andevaluate primary source material. The many references carried together show that at least inthe hymn literature (see pp.187-202), less obviously in the canonical prose texts (pp.202-4), T�r� is described and honoured as a Buddha. A large part of the chapter (pp.205-39) isconcerned with the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra in 21 verses and its Tibetan commentaryliterature both of which are thus treated as chief witnesses for the Buddhaship of T�r�.Arènes shows that, while T�r� is not often plainly called “Buddha” or “sugata” in thesources (for exceptions see pp.192f.), there are indirect proofs for her Buddhaship:

1. The Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra is commented upon by the Tibetan tradition (goingback to the Indian scholar S�ryagupta, tib. Nyi ma sbas pa) in the way that its versesare each related to either the sambhogak�ya (tib. longs spyod kyi sku) or thedharmak�ya (tib. chos sku), i. e. to the two higher ones of the three buddhak�yas ofT�r� (pp.209-213). Remarkably, the incarnated aspect, i. e. the nirm��ak�ya (tib.sprul sku) of T�r�, does not seem to turn up in the system of these commentaries atall. It does turn up, however, in some of the Indian T�r� hymns (see pp.193-5).

2. The Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra mentions Buddha characteristics of T�r�, for exampleominiscience, compassion etc. (see pp.214-7).

3. According to the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra as well as some other texts quoted byArènes, T�r� is an incorporation of the enlightened activities (’phrin las) of theBuddhas, and these activities are practised by her in order to save beings (pp.217-39).

Arènes’ collection of evidence for T�r�’s Buddhaship is very useful, showing that femaleBuddhas are not only theoretically imaginable, but a practical, ritual reality in TantricBuddhism. However, what the author fails to discuss is the fact that T�r�, in spite of allBuddha characteristics attributed to her, is never iconographically depicted as a Buddha inIndo-Tibetan art, but exclusively as a bodhisattva wearing, e. g., the normal bodhisattvaornaments. In common lists of different deities of the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, T�r� alsoappears as a bodhisattva, as well as in Chinese Buddhism5. More research remains to be doneto elucidate the different roles of this complex goddess in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.

Four appendices, mostly concerned with the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra, are added tothe main text of Arènes’ book. The appendix no. I includes an examination of T�ran�tha’ssGrol ma’i lo rgyus (History of T�r�), partly in excerpt with translation, partly in

BOOK REVIEWS 205

paraphrase by the author who adds some lines of transmission in India and Tibet taken fromT�ran�tha. Since this first appendix contains much information about the T�r� cult as awhole and not only about the source texts in particular, it should have been shifted to thechapter on the history of the T�r� cult in the first part of the book.

Following T�ran�tha, Arènes distinguishes in appendix I three periods of diffusion of theT�r� tantras in India (p.258): an “early diffusion” (s�on dar (sic!)), a period of declinestarting in the eight or ninth centuries during which texts had to be hidden on the cemetery of�tava�a (see p.261) and a “later diffusion” (phyis dar, p.258 (sic!)). As far as Indianreligious history of T�r� is concerned, this periodization does not, to the best of my knowledge,have any equivalent in Indian historical sources6. It rather seems to have been transferredfrom Tibetan to Indian history by T�ran�tha, an obvious connection not taken intoconsideration by Arènes. Especially the reference to the hiding of texts in the period ofdecline reminds us of the rNying ma pa description of the decline period between the earlierand later propagation of Buddhism in Tibet.

Concerning the Tibetan history of T�r�, there is one error especially common in popularliterature about Tibet which is repeated by Arènes (p.263): the statement that the two wivesof king Srong btsan sgam po (who himself figures as an incarnation of the bodhisattvaAvalokite�vara in that context) from China and Nepal were later identified as the green andwhite T�r�: in fact, not the white T�r� but the (yellow) goddess Bhk�� is concerned7.However, Arènes correctly states (p. 264) that we do not know much about a cult of T�r�being established in Tibet in the first period of propagation of Buddhism (eighth to ninthcentury) in that country. Most of her texts and practices came in the second period (tenthcentury onwards) through Ati�a (982-1054) and other Indian scholars.

Appendix no. II describes the discussions of Tibetan scholars on the place of the T�r�cycle within the system of tantra texts created (what Arènes does not mention) by Bu stonRin chen grub (1290-1364) and used in most of the known bKa’ ’gyur editions. The appendixfocusses on the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra which is classified on the one hand as akriy�tantra (lowest of four tantra classes) and on the other hand as an anuttarayogatantra(highest class) according to the two different commentary traditions (p.281).

The last two appendices are likewise related to the texts the author has done research into,viz. the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra and its commentaries. By discussing the “problems ofthe interpretation of canonical texts” first in general and then in relation to T�ran�tha’sinterpretation of the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra (pp.299ff.), Appendix III introducesAppendix IV which consists of annotated translations of dGe ’dun grub pa’s (the First DalaiLama, 1391-1475) and T�ran�tha’s (1575-1634) commentaries of the Namast�re-ekavi��ati-stotra (pp.303-332, 332-381) of which the former has already been translated into Englishby Glenn Mullin8. The Tibetan texts are not edited but added in facsimile (pp.408-412,413ff.).

On the whole, the book by Arènes contains many interesting informations and translationson Tar� in India and Tibet, albeit on the basis of texts exclusively, leaving out informations onart history as well as cult practice (the omission of which always tends to render TantricBuddhist subjects a little theoretical, not to say boring). The order of the material, however,is highly confusing and misleading, using an impenetrable distinction between “Western” and“Eastern sources” and having no consistent chapter and subdivision succession.

Furtheron, the book is somewhat overburdened with general information on TantricBuddhism which does not show direct connection with T�r� or, if it does, is too extensive.Thus, like with Stephen Beyer’s The Cult of T�r�, the value of Arènes’ work does notconsist only in the information on Tar� herself, but in the knowledge about Tibetanscholasticism and general theory of Tantrism the author shares with us. As a consequence,the personality of T�r�, on the one hand, is not sufficiently elaborated and remains somewhatpale and lifeless. On the other hand, the two translated commentaries as well as theirexposition by Arènes might prove the most useful parts of his book.

In the form presented, the book will add to the bewilderment of beginners, but may be of

206 THE TIBET JOURNAL

use for experts in Tantric Buddhism and “T�r� theology” who are able to relate its contentsto their own, possibly more transparent system of thought.

Notes1. See A[hasver] von Brandt, Werkzeug des Historikers, Stuttgart etc., 61971 [1959].

Among the foremost scholars who have formulated the basic rules of source criticism areto be named J. G. Droysen, Historik, hg. R. Hübner, 41960; K. Erslev, HistorischeTechnik, 1928; E. Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und derGeschichtsphilosophie,6 1908, reprint New York, 1960.

2. See e. g. p.34: “D’une manière générale, T�r� appara�t dans les sources occidentalescomme un bodhisattva féminin en raison, bien que ce ne soit pas toujours directementaffirmeé, de sa parité avec Avalokite�vara ainsi que de ses activités salvatrices.” It shouldgo without saying that in Western scholarly works the idea of T�r� as a bodhisattva is notcoming from nowhere but was taken from the Eastern original sources Western scholarsused, among them the sGrol ma’i rgyud kyi byung khungs (Origin of Tara Tantra) byT�ran�tha (1575-1634) which Arènes himself (p.60) quotes as a testimony for T�r� as abodhisattva!

3. Minor inconsistencies lie firstly in the fact that Arènes not only discusses Western butIndian scholars (like H. Shastri, see pp.35n50; 39ff.) as well, and they cannot in any casebe designated “Western sources”, secondly in the inclusion of a subchapter on T�r� asmother in the Tibetan canonical textes and commentaries (pp.108-114) in chapter 3 ofthe first part on “Western Sources”. This, again, makes clear, how artificial the separationin “Western” and “Eastern Sources” is. Equally inconsistent is the beginning of thesecond part (on “Eastern Sources”) which abounds not with Eastern sources but withanother bulk of quotations from Western secondary literature.

4. H[ariprasad] Shastri, The Origin and Cult of T�r�, Calcutta, 1925 (Memoirs of theArchaeological Survey of India. 20.), 19.

5. See the Chinese titles of the T�r� texts in the Chinese canon, cf. H�b�girin: FasciculeAnnexe: Tables du Taish� Issaiky�, compilé par Paul Demiéville, Hubert Durt et AnnaSeidel, ed. revisée et augmentée, Paris-T ky , 1978, nos. 1101-9. Most of them containthe element to lo p’ou sa (jap. tara-bosatsu) which means “T�r� bodhisattva”.

6. Cf. Mallar Ghosh, Development of Buddhist Iconography in Eastern India: A Study ofT�r�, Prajñ�s of Five Tath�gatas and Bh ku��, Delhi, 1980; Shastri, Origin (see note 4above).

7. Beyer, T�r�, 9f. The bodhisattva Avalokite�vara with his two attendant goddesses T�r�and Bhku� form a triad which was very popular in the Indian Buddhist iconographyfrom the sixth century onwards; see Ghosh, Development, 22f. It was this triad theincarnation of which was seen in Srong btsan sgam po and his two wives.

8. Selected Works of the Dalai Lama I: Bridging the Sutras and Tantras featuring theKalacakra and Tara Tantras, ed. Glenn H. Mullin, Ithaca, 1985 (1981), 124ff.

—Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt

Religion and Biography in China and Tibet, Benjamin Penny (ed.),Curzon Press, 2002, 273pp. ISBN 0 7007 1177 5.

As the editor Benjamin Penny notes, this book contains selected papers read during theconference “Biography in Asian Religions”, which was held at the Australian National Univer-sity. “Biography” or “Hagiography” is the keyword that unifies all the essays and representsthe main focus of the book. Although being among the most widely spread genres in Orientalsocieties, religious biography as a source of fictional literature has been a relatively forgottenarea of studies. That is why the publication of this book is a very appreciable initiative.

Now, I would like to stress out briefly the main points of the contributions. In “JiaoXian’s Three Lives” Benjamin Penny examines the triple biography of Jiao Xian who lived

Copyright of Tibet Journal is the property of Library of Tibetan Works & Archives and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.