 |
Research by Region
Tibet
A brief history of Tibetan Medicine
Bon Medicine
Pre-Buddhist
indigenous medical knowledge in Tibet has recently been described
as Bon medicine by several Bon scholars. Bon followers (Bon po)
attribute the origin of their medical tradition to dPyad bu khri
shes (literally “The One Who Knows Ten Thousand Diagnostic/Treatment
Methods”), who had learnt it from his father, Ston pa gshen
rab, the founder of Bon religion.The main mode of transmission
of knowledge in Bon derives from hereditary lineages perpetuating
religious as well as medical knowledge.
Medical
texts found among the earliest extant Tibetan sources from Dunhuang
(pre-10th century AD) present priests called 'bon' healing sick
patients and clearly contain non-Buddhist ideas and practices.
Dunhuang texts also mention an apparently pre-Buddhist medical
system from Zhang zhung (Karmay 1998). In contrast to Tibetan
Buddhist monasteries, Bon monasteries did not develop specific
medical colleges. Instead, oral transmission and hereditary or
master-to-disciple lineages have been the main sources of medical
knowledge in the Bon tradition.
Their
principle medical text is the so-called 'Bum bzhi. The text is
very similar in content to the Tibetan Buddhist work, the "Four
Tantras" (rGyud bzhi) which is mainly in use today. Bon medical
texts serve rather as icons of identity and a particular historiography
than for claiming a separate medical tradition today.
The
medical knowledge of contemporary Bon doctors is, however, understood
as being special and 'pure' in the sense of being transmitted
through continuous lineages and in certain regions, rather than
through centralised medical institutions such as the Men-Tsee-Khang
or monastic colleges (Schrempf in press).
Today,
Bon medical practitioners are still active in Tibetan areas of
the People's Republic of China, and in indigenous and exile Tibetan
communities in Nepal and India (see also Millard 2002). Their
distinctiveness and theoretical confluence with Buddhist medical
traditions are still not fully understood.Greek, Chinese and Indian
influences on the development of Sorig in Tibet During the later
propagation of Buddhism in Tibet major medical literary works
were introduced from India and subsequently translated from Sanskrit
into Tibetan and incorporated into a core compendium of 156 chapters
and 5900 verses, entitled the "Four Medical Tantras",
also known by its brief Tibetan title Gyushi (rGyud bzhi).
The
Gyushi, until today, remains the most influential medical text
among Tibetans, and a majority of chapters are still memorised
as an integral part of medical education.
The
following introduces the historical influences on Sorig and the
controversy concerning the origin of the Gyushi in more detail.
One
of the most interesting but also difficult aspects of analysing
Tibetan medical texts lies in the multicultural origin of this
body of literature. The Tibetan empire in Central Asia at various
times included the regions of Khotan, the Tarim basin, Lop Nor,
and other places with Iranian and Turkic populations (Kapstein
2000: 59). Thus multiple influences reached Tibet over lengthy
periods. Medical knowledge from mainly Greece, Persia, China and
India were incorporated into indigenous knowledge of healing over
many centuries. Tibet itself had its indigenous medical knowledge,
which encompassed animistic and shamanic elements.
Beckwith
(1979), Stein (1972) and Yontan (1989) have so far presented an
analysis of the introduction of Greek medicine into Tibet, of
which the first is the most detailed. Beckwith stated that the
court physicians of earlier Tibetan emperors came from Khrom (i.e.
Eastern Roman or Greek Byzanthine Empire) or Tazig (i.e. the Arab
Persian Caliphate) (Beckwith 1979: 297). Whether Khrom really
relates to Eastern Rome or Greece, is questionable. Other scholars
have speculated that the region of Khrom may in fact have been
Byzantine (Taube 1981: 10), Khrom near Persia (Jäger 1999:
19), 'bru zha in North West Tibet or the name of one of the six
original tribes of Tibet (Tsering 1980). It is nevertheless certain
that the Greek humoural system had an influence on the development
of the three humours, in Tibetan known as rLung, mKhris pa, and
Bad kan and their fundamental status in the understanding of illness
and disease.
Tibetan
historical sources that deal with early 7th-8th centuries influences,
and are often quoted in works on Tibetan medicine, date mostly
to much later centuries, and one must critically investigate whether
such late historians can be considered reliable sources to understand
these early periods. Beckwith analysed four Tibetan historical
texts with regard to the Chinese, Indian and Greek physicians
who visited the royal court of the 33rd Tibetan King Songtsen
Gampo (Srong btsan sgam po, 617-649/650 AD). It is said that only
the Greek practitioner stayed on as Court physician (Beckwith
1979: 301). He is cautious to interpret the sources as indicating
simply that the works of these writers or of their schools were
introduced into Tibet at the time of Songtsen Gampo (Beckwith
1979: 300). Meyer maintains that these physicians represent "archetypes"
of the various medical traditions rather than being historical
personalities (Meyer in Alphen and Aris 1995: 110). The 38th Tibetan
King Trisong Deutsen (Khri sron dle'u btsan, 742-c.797AD) was
also ascribed having nine court physicians, who came from India,
Kashmir, China, Iran, East Turkestan (Gru gu), Dolpo and Nepal.
For the same reasons however, the historicity of these figures
is not certain, but the famous physician Yuthog Yontan Gonpo the
Elder is said to have headed this "New Medical School"
as one of the nine private court physicians (Thinle 1991: 34).
Tibetan historians mention two physicians with the name Yuthog
Yontan Gonpo (gYu thog yon tan mgon po), the earlier of the 8th
century is called "the Elder" the latter, who appeared
in the 12th century, "the Younger". The two are particularly
linked with the transmission of the Gyushi (Meyer 1992: 3).
Chinese
influences on Tibetan medicine took place within broader cultural
exchanges linked to the politically motivated marriages of Tibetan
kings with Chinese princesses. Medical books were brought from
China into Tibet by the T'ang princess Wencheng Kung Chu in 641AD,
the main text being the sMan dpyad chen mo. This title is reminiscent
of the Chinese term ta yao ("great medicine") used for
the alchemist's drug of immortality (Beckwith 1979: 310). Princess
Wencheng married King Srongtsan Gampo, who is said to have had
a Tibetan and a Nepalese wife as well. Srongsten Ganpo was known
for his military activities in the expansion of the Tibetan Empire.
His interest in medicine and Buddhism were probably secondary,
if at all present. He was retrospectively, during the 14th century,
envisaged as "King of the Dharma" - Dharmarajah, as
part of the promotion of the cult of Avalokitesvara (Kapstein
2001), and his reign is generally marked as the first period of
translation of Buddhist texts into Tibetan. In 712 AD, the Chinese
Princess Kim Ch'eng Kung Chu is said to have brought mathematical
and medical texts into Tibet, which were translated into Tibetan.
In
India, while Northern Buddhist culture largely perished during
the Islamic conquest (11-12th century), many aspects of the tradition,
including medical ideas, were transmitted to Tibet, where the
ruling élites seem to have encouraged Buddhism as a means
to unify their domains. This second period of intense translation
activity established strong monastic centres of Buddhist learning
in Tibet, some of which had attached medical schools.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
See Namkhai Norbu 1995, Menri
Trizin Lungtok Tenpai Nyima 1998, sKal bzang Nor bu 2000.
For a discussion on the origins and main chapters of the 'Bum
bzhi (alias bDud rtsi bang mdzod 'bum bzhi'i mdo) with its own
partly controversial gTer ma traditions being part of the Bon
po bKa' 'gyur, see Martin, Kvaerne and Nagano (2003: 107-123;
and text no. 144 in the Mdo section). For a reproduced version
of the 'Bum bzhi text see gSo rig bdud rtsi'i bang mdzod 'bum
bzhi 1999 in the bibliography.
Text supplied by Barbara
Gerke and Mona Schrempf
Thanks
to Mona Schrempf and Alex McKay for their helpful comments on
this paper.
|
|
