Table Of ContentB
Tibetan Demonology discusses the rich taxonomy of gods E
L
and demons encountered in Tibet. These spirits are often L
the cause of, and exhorted for, diverse violent and wrathful
activities. This Element consists of four thematic sections.
The first section, “Spirits and the Body,” explores oracular
Elements in Religion and Violence
possession and spirit-induced illnesses. The second section,
“Spirits and Time,” discusses the role of gods in Tibetan
astrology and ritual calendars. The third section, “Spirits and
Space,” examines the relationship between divinities and the
Tibetan landscape. The final section, “Spirits and Doctrine,” T Tibetan
ib
explores how certain deities act as fierce protectors of e
t
religious and political institutions. a
n
D Demonology
e
m
o
n
o
lo
About the Series Series Editors g
Violence motivated by religious James R. Lewis y
beliefs has become all too University of Tromsø
common in the years since the Margo Kitts Christopher Bell
9/11 attacks. Not surprisingly, Hawai’i Pacific
interest in the topic of religion University
and violence has grown
substantially since then. This
Elements series on Religion
and Violence addresses this
new, frontier topic in a series
of c. fifty individual Elements.
Collectively, the volumes will
examine a range of topics,
including violence in major world
religious traditions, theories
of religion and violence, holy
war, witch hunting, and human
sacrifice, among others.
Cover image: Jakub Grygier/Shutterstock
ISSN 2397-9496 (online)
ISSN 2514-3786 (print)
ElementsinReligionandViolence
editedby
JamesR.Lewis
UniversityofTromsø
MargoKitts
Hawai’iPacificUniversity
TIBETAN DEMONOLOGY
Christopher Bell
Stetson University
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108712675
DOI:10.1017/9781108670715
©ChristopherBell2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-71267-5Paperback
ISSN2397-9496(online)
ISSN2514-3786(print)
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Tibetan Demonology
ElementsinReligionandViolence
DOI:10.1017/9781108670715
Firstpublishedonline:June2020
ChristopherBell
StetsonUniversity
Authorforcorrespondence:ChristopherBell,[email protected]
Abstract:TibetanDemonologydiscussestherichtaxonomyof
godsanddemonsencounteredinTibet.Thesespiritsare
oftenthecauseof,andexhortedfor,diverseviolentand
wrathfulactivities.ThisElementconsistsoffourthematic
sections.Thefirstsection,“SpiritsandtheBody,”explores
oracularpossessionandspirit-inducedillnesses.The
secondsection,“SpiritsandTime,”discussestheroleof
godsinTibetanastrologyandritualcalendars.Thethird
section,“SpiritsandSpace,”examinestherelationship
betweendivinitiesandtheTibetanlandscape.Thefinal
section,“SpiritsandDoctrine,”exploreshowcertain
deitiesactasfierceprotectorsofreligiousandpolitical
institutions.
KEYWORDS:Tibet,demonology,ritual,demons,gods
©ChristopherBell2020
ISBNs:9781108712675(PB),9781108670715(OC)
ISSNs:2397-9496(online),2514-3786(print)
Contents
Introduction 1
I Spirits and the Body 19
II Spirits and Time 36
III Spirits and Space 46
IV Spirits and Doctrine 55
Conclusion 64
Tibetan Transliteration and Translation 72
Glossary 73
Bibliography 81
TibetanDemonology 1
Introduction
The Tibetan plateau may seem sparse, but it is overrun with the lives,
adventures,andinfluencesofinnumerablegods and demons.Thesebeings
playasignificantroleinshapingthereligioushistoryofTibetandcontinueto
haveastrongpresenceinthedailypracticesandworshipofTibetans.Such
entities are elicited in every facet of Tibetan cultural history. If a king is
oppressingBuddhism,asinthecaseofLangDarmaintheninthcentury,heis
believed to be possessed by a demon, and thus must be subjugated (i.e.,
assassinated). Conversely, the Tibetan Buddhist kings were believed to be
possessedbydemonsbypractitionersofBön,whowerebeingpersecutedin
theseventhandeighthcenturies.TheTibetanpeoplebelievethemselvestobe
descendedfromgodsanddemonsfromvariousheavenlyrealms,aswellas
fromemanationsofthebodhisattvasAvalokite´svaraandTa¯ra¯.TheTibetan
landscapeisthoughttobeteemingwithspirits,whichistheexplanationgiven
for the plateau’s harsh environment. The very land is said to be a giant
recliningdemonesswhowassubjugatedbytemplesconstructedbythefirst
TibetanBuddhistking,SongtsenGampo(557/617–650).Apopularnarrative
tropeinTibetanritualandmythicliteratureisoftheeighth-centurytantric
masterPadmasambhavaexorcisingandconvertingindigenousspiritsofthe
land to Buddhism, often through destructive means. Tibetan medical texts
describethevariousdemonicspeciesthatcausenumerouskindsofailments,
and how to expel them in the process of healing. To this day, gods and
demonsplayastrongpragmaticroleinthedailyandannualritualsofboth
BuddhistandBön,layandmonastic,communities.
A common thread in these various interactions with Tibetan spirits is
that they are generally capricious and violent. They are often blamed for
illnesses,consideredharbingersofmisfortuneorkarmicconsequences,and
can even kill as an act of retribution or by stealing an individual’s soul.
Anyone can fall victim to such violence, but it can also be quelled,
harnessed, or directed by ritual specialists, and even interpreted toward
soteriologicalends.PartofcontainingorchannelingtheviolenceofTibetan
gods and spirits requires identifying and categorizing them in relation to
oneanother.Thisisnoeasytask.Tibetanshaveatbestdevelopedloosely
systematic spirit typologies and ontologies in an attempt to cope with the
2 ReligionandViolence
dizzying assortment of nonhuman agents,1 drawing from both Indian and
indigenoustaxonomies.Morespecifically,distinctTibetanreligiouslineages
and even individual masters have developed their own pantheons of divi-
nities.Incollectedworksandmonasticritualcatalogs,thesepantheonsevince
ahierarchyrangingfromenlightenedbeingsandtantricdeitiesemulatedto
achieve enlightenment, to guardian deities converted to Buddhism and
entreated for protection, and finally to local demonic beings warded off
with apotropaic rites. This spectrum of nonhuman beings also makes it
difficult to establish clear boundaries between transcendent beings that fit
morecomfortablyunderthelabelofsoteriologicaldivinitiesandthosespirits
betterclassifiedunderdemonology.Theproblemisfurtherexacerbatedby
manysuchbeingshavingoncebeenlivinghistoricalfigures,andbyseveral
spirittermsreferencingthedivineoriginsofpastTibetankings.2
Theterm“demon”hasbecomepopularinthesecondaryliteraturethatrefers
to these beings, given their general penchant for pernicious activity. This is
problematic because of the linguistic difficulty inherent in representing these
variousspiritclasseswithlimitedEnglishvocabulary.WhileEnglishhasone
overarchingtermfordemons,therearenumerouskindsofnonhumanagents
that exist in Tibet, possessing vastly different attributes and qualities both
beneficentandmalevolent.Therehasbeenmuchscholarlydebateontheutility
of“demon”inGreek,Egyptian,Israelite,andearlyChristianreligiouscontexts.
InhisexplorationoftheoriginalGreektermdaimonanditslaterRomanusages,
Jonathan Z. Smith understands demons as ultimately liminal beings and the
demonic as a locative and relational category that helps define boundaries.
Throughritualactionthe“demonis‘placed’bybeingnamed,entrappedand
removedtoitsproperrealm(e.g.exorcism)orredirectedtoa‘proper’goal(i.e.
tosomewhereorsomeoneelse,asinso-called‘hostile’magic).”3Inhisworkon
Tibetanspirits,CameronBaileyusestheGreekterminhopesofrecapturingits
originalbreadthofusage,thoughheacknowledgesthatitdoesnotcompletely
1 Iusethetermnonhumantorefertothesespiritsandtheiractivitiesratherthantheetic
term“supernatural.”Tibetansbelievethatthesebeingsareasmuchapartofthe
worldashumansare,andarenotthoughttotranscendnaturebuttoexistwithinit.
2 SeeKarmay2003,pp.69,71,andKarmay1998b,pp.294–305.
3 Smith1978,pp.428–429.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 08 Jun 2021 at 02:23:41, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108670715
TibetanDemonology 3
mapontotheIndo-Tibetancontext.4Othershaveattemptedtorecognizethe
individualityofthesediversespirittypesbyusingEuropeannonhumantermi-
nology.Forinstance,thespirittypecalledtsenhasbeentranslatedas“furies,”
whilesinpospiritshavebeencalled“orcs,”“ogres,”and“gnomes.”5Whileitis
admirabletousedistincttermsforeachspirit,theseeticlabelsalsocarryspecific
culturalconnotationsandconveycharacteristicsthatarenottruetotheoriginal
Tibetan concepts. A sinpo looks very different from the popular images of
gnomes. Due to the various limitations of the above attempts at translating
individualspirittypes,itisultimatelybesttorenderthemphonetically.While
initiallycumbersome,thismethodhasthebenefitofusingemicterminologyfor
suchdistinctindigenousconcepts.Whendiscussingthesebeings,Icontinueto
usetheterm“demon,”thoughmorewhenreferringtocertainTibetanspirits
whoareconsideredespeciallyviolentandharmfulinnature.Iusethebroader
term“spirit”morefrequently,whichspeakstotheoriginalnatureofmanyof
thesebeingsastherestlessspiritsofpastindividuals.
ThegoalofthisElementistoactasanintroductiontoTibetandemonol-
ogy, providing a brief overview of its primary structures, classifications,
content, and scholarship, especially as they pertain to various kinds of
violence, so that the informed and interested reader can explore deeper
avenues of this robust topic. With a field of inquiry that could easily fill
multiple volumes, let alone a short one like this, the focus of this work is
inevitably on taxonomy, categorization, and summary. Nevertheless, it is
important to be cognizant of the greater complexities and multivocalities
hiding beneath and behind the illusory order presented. In his extensive
exploration of Japanese pantheons – or what he more accurately describes
as “polytheons”6 – Bernard Faure discusses the pitfalls of essentializing
narrativeswhilerecognizingtheneedtooccasionallyfallbackonaccessible
language for the sake of expediency. In describing Japanese divinities and
theirrelationtothehumancommunitiesinwhichtheyarefound,Fauredraws
ontheactor–networktheorydevelopedbyBrunoLatour,MichelCallon,and
4 Bailey2012,pp.11–12.
5 ThesedefinitionscanbefoundintheRangjungYesheTibetan-EnglishDictionaryof
BuddhistCulture,nowsearchableonline;seeRangjungYesheWiki2018.
6 SeeFaure2016,p.13.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 08 Jun 2021 at 02:23:41, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108670715
4 ReligionandViolence
John Law. The notion of actor–network emphasizes the relationships
betweenhumanandnonhumanactorscreatingconstantlyshiftingconstella-
tionsofstrategicinteractionandintersection.Assuch,godsanddemonsare
activeagentsasmuchashumansare,signifyingequallyimportantnodesin
a larger network. Faure describes the Japanese gods succinctly in their
capacitytoactandchangeacrosspersonalandsocialcontexts:
The gods are multilevel, kaleidoscopic phenomena (some
wouldsaynoumenaandnumina):theyexistbothatthelevel
ofindividualbeliefandatthatofcollectiverepresentations.
Atthelevelofsociety,theyrepresentlargerforces,institu-
tions, or groups, which are often in conflict: temples,
shrines, lineages, palaces, courtiers, warriors, itinerant
priestsandartists,Yin-YangMasters,andsoon.7
Withsomevariation,thisdescriptioncouldapplytothemultivalentandoften
convoluted interactions between humans and nonhumans in the Tibetan
milieu. Regardless, the following organization and taxonomic descriptions
are meant to offer a limited but necessary demonological grammar upon
whichdeeperreflectionandscholarlyexplorationcanadvance.
Tibetan Demonologies
Thedifficultiesandcaveatsoftranslationandorganizationaside,attemptingto
delimit and consolidate Tibetan demonology is still a valuable enterprise.
JonathanZ.Smithnotesthattaxonomycanhelptoclarifytheshiftingperspec-
tivesofthedemonic–whichhecallschaoticandprotean–thatnonethelessare
presented in seemingly orderedsystems within a culture (orcultures) across
time and between regions. His observation that devotees themselves are
“obsessed”withmakingdistinctionsandcategoriescancertainlybeobserved
intheexamplesbelow.8AsRitaLucarelliexplains,theuseof“demonology”as
astartingpointforexploration,aswellasacomparativeexercise,is“usefulin
order to give a descriptive basis to analysis, stimulating issues of definition,
7 Faure2016,p.14.
8 SeeSmith1978,pp.437–438.Iuse“devotee”inplaceofthenowobsoleteand
offensive“primitive”thatSmithuses,though,heseemstohavebeenawareofits
negativeshiftinconnotationatthetime.
