The Paradox of Bön Identity Discourse Some Thoughts on the Rma Clan and the Manner of Bsgrags Pa Bon, and on ‘Eternal’ Bön, New Treasures, and New Bön
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE PARADOX OF BÖN IDENTITY DISCOURSE SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RMA CLAN AND THE MANNER OF BSGRAGS PA BON, AND ON ‘ETERNAL’ BÖN, NEW TREASURES, AND NEW BÖN HENK BLEZER (LEIDEN UNIVERSITY) INTRODUCTION For many the name Tibet will evoke colourful imagery of Tibetan Buddhist culture set in a vast and inaccessible high-altitude habitat. Partly due to the exile predicament of Tibetans, a wider audience now has heard of His Holiness the Dalai Lama—that most famous spokesman for ‘the Tibetan cause’ and an engaging ambassador of Tibetan Buddhism and culture. It is less well-known that ethnic Tibet also harbours minority cultures, such as Bön, a significant minority religion in Tibet. Still, a casual observer might easily mistake Bön for a Tibetan Buddhist sect.1 Bönpos, the adherents of Bön, will of course beg to differ. For about a millennium, they have developed distinct and interesting subaltern identity discourses and by now entertain a veritable ocean of stories on what sets them apart from their more well-known Buddhist compatriots, who have dominated the Tibetan cultural scene for most of that time. Systematic research within the Three Pillars of Bön research program on the main ‘pillars’ of Bön identity2 is gradually opening up new perspectives from which to understand Bön as it emerges at the turn of the first millennium AD. Particularly, work on visualisa- tions of a heartland of Bön and its sacred landmarks,3 and reflection 1 See Govinda (1966:220ff). 2 ‘The Three Pillars of Bön’: Doctrine, ‘Location’ & Founder—Historiographi- cal Strategies and their Contexts in Bön Religious Historical Literature, funded by NWO Vidi (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) scheme of subsidies for innovative research, Leiden 2005–2010. 3 Such as the fabled ‘Silver Castle’; Blezer 2011b, Creation of a Myth. 124 HENK BLEZER on its embedding in narratives on a founder of Bön, gShen rab mi bo,4 yield very surprising insights into the dynamics of still on-going negotiations on Bön identity, which moreover bear comparison to other cultural contexts—hence this volume. These narratives pertain to various factions in the emerging Bön scene. I will specifically deal with the literary traces of one important group, the rMa clan, which keeps surfacing all along my quest for old story paradigms and narremes that are relevant to early Bön identity. Elsewhere, I presented the earliest evidence for Bön as it emerges during the early phyi dar, the second diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet, 10th–11th c. AD.5 Here, I discuss slightly later times and particularly engage that nebulous (b)sGrags pa bon lugs, Manner of ‘bsGrags pa Bon’, and, in bird’s eye view, sketch its relation to the early rMa ston teaching lineage. These are topics that Anne-Marie Blondeau has written most extensively and incisively about.6 The focus on rMa folks will move my analyses of the historiography of emerging Bön still further away from both religious historical and from prevalent academic sensibilities. It may eventually even contribute to a Gestalt switch in our perceptions of what Bön once was and still is. FAR FLUNG PLACES AND WESTERN ORIGINS: 'OL MO LUNG RING, ‘TA ZIG’, & ZHANG ZHUNG Bönpos project their origins into far western Tibetan regions called Zhang zhung, and ultimately beyond that, even further west, into 'Ol mo lung ring and Ta zig (cf. Tajikistan and wider ancient Persia). Due to a lack of data it is difficult to sift fact from fiction. According to Tibetan and perhaps also Chinese historical sources, Zhang zhung was a powerful kingdom in larger western Tibet, which in more recent accounts even includes parts of present-day India and Nepal. It allegedly had its own king, or even lineages of kings, Zhang zhung languages and ‘Bön’ religion. It is said to have existed independent from the ‘Central Tibetan’ Yar lung dynasty, until the 7th–8th c. AD. 4 See Blezer 2008a, RET 15. 5 E.g., Blezer 2011b, Creation of a Myth; Lecture SOAS March 2007 (see Blezer 2008a, addendum 2009); and lecture at the Oriental Institute, Oxford, March 2008. 6 But see also Karmay, “The Origin Myths of the First King of Tibet as Revealed in the Can lnga”, in Karmay (1998:282–309). .