[Buddha-l] "The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum"

[S.A. Feite]

Hi Curt:

On Jul 17, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Curt Steinmetz wrote:

> I was looking at a fascinating blog ( http://jayarava.blogspot.com/ )
> maintained by one of Richard's co-religionists (in the FWBO), and I  
> came
> across a reference to a book on "The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A
> Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra" by Alexander Studholme. According to
> the book's blurb at amazon:
>
> "This book presents a new interpretation of the meaning of Om  
> Manipadme
> Hum, and includes a detailed, annotated precis of Karandavyuha Sutra,
> opening up this important work to a wider audience. The earliest  
> textual
> source is the Karandavyuha Sutra, which describes both the  
> compassion of
> Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva whole power the mantra invokes, and  
> the
> mythical tale of the search and discovery of the mantra. Through a
> detailed analysis of this sutra, Studholme explores the historical and
> doctrinal forces behind the appearance of Om Manipadme Hum in India at
> around the middle of the first millennium c.e. He argues that the
> Karandavyuha Sutra has close affinities to non-Buddhist puranic
> literature, and that the conception of Avalokitesvara and his
> six-syllable mantra is influenced by the conception of the Hindu deity
> Siva and his five-syllable mantra Namah Sivaya. The Karandavyuha Sutra
> reflects historical situation in which the Buddhist monastic
> establishment was coming into contact with Buddhist tantric
> practitioners, themselves influenced by Saivite practitioners."
> [
> http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Om-Manipadme-Hum-Karandavyuha/dp/0791453901/ref=ed_oe_p
> ]
>
> I am a big fan of Siva - and I am always looking for sneaky ways to
> co-opt Him into the Buddhist pantheon (if for no other reason than to
> see the looks on people's faces at the very idea of a Buddhist  
> pantheon
> at all - let alone one populated with - horrors! - Hindu Deities).
>
> Is anyone out there familiar with this book by Studholme? Or am I  
> going
> to have to actually get it and read it myself?


The constant confusion of Vajrayana/Mahayana/Mantrayana elements with  
the various Shaivite schools is a common one, since at least the time  
of Giuseppe Tucci. More recent research on the Kingdom of Zhang Zhung  
and more recent publication of Bon Po tantras sheds an altogether  
different light on this issue. It may not be, as often supposed, that  
Buddhist Vajrayana "borrowed" from Shaivism, but rather the reverse,  
Hinduism borrowed from old elements of the country of Zhang Zhung  
before it's climate-based collapse c. 1000 CE.

Zhang Zhung was the country which originally surrounded Mount Kailash  
in western Tibet, yet it was also sacred to the Shaivites as their  
origin and to Taoists as well. It's reasonable therefore to at least  
conjecture that Shaivism is a Hindu offshoot of tantric conventions in  
dying remnants of this kingdom. Numerous Bonpo tantras like the Zhang  
Zhung Nyan Gyud still survive and are alleged to represent oral lines  
extending back into the Treta yuga.

Probably the leading expert on Zhang Zhung is Prof. Namkhai Norbu  
(emeritus) who writes of this new possibility in origins:

“...the chief sacred place of Shaivism is Mount Kailash in West Tibet,  
located in what at the time of the arising of Bönpo Dzogchen was the  
Kingdom of Zhang-zhung, where the Bön tradition prevailed, and where  
it was conserved and transmitted until its posterior diffusion through  
Eastern Tibet and Bhutan. Everyone automatically assumes that the  
culture, religion and philosophy of India and China are very old and  
autochthonous. However, the very opposite occurs with the culture,  
religion and philosophy of Tibet: people tend to assume that they must  
have in their integrity come from other countries, such as India,  
China, or even Persia. This way of thinking is typical of those who  
are totally conditioned by the traditions established by pro-Indian  
Buddhists in Tibet. If many concepts of Dzogchen and Bön came from  
Shaivism, where did Shaivism come from? Since it is supposed to be of  
Indian origin, Shaivism could not have come from elsewhere but India,  
whereas Bön and Dzogchen, being Tibetan, must be something absorbed or  
imported from other regions and traditions.

“What a naïve way of thinking! The Shaivas conserve the whole history  
of their teachings, and according to it, their doctrine originated in  
Mount Kailash. This is the reason why every year hundreds of Shaivas  
go on pilgrimage from India to Mount Kailash and circumambulate it.  
Now, where is Mount Kailash? In India or in Tibet? And if Kailash is  
in Tibet and it was there that Shaivism originated, why should it be  
said that Bön and Dzogchen took their concepts from India? It is  
logical to hypothesize that Shaivism may have had its roots in Bön,  
which prevailed in the region of Mount Kailash ever since Tönpa  
Shenrab Miwoche (ston pa gshen rab mi bo che) established it there  
some 3.800 years ago, and which contains its own Dzogchen teachings,  
part of which may have leaked into Shaivism.”

This also explains how various Dzogchen/Mahasandhi technical terms  
appear in Kashmir Shaivite texts, esp. since Kashmir was a Buddhist  
kingdom prior to the arising of the Trika.

Regarding origins of specific mantras, rather than relying on  
historical gymnastics or ideas of inter-religious competition between  
sects, it seems more reasonable to look closely at the origin of these  
tantras and their mantras in the process of individual gnostic  
revelation and awakening rather than as manipulation in an  
intellectual way.

Again Prof. Namkhai points out the style of their origins:

"The Tantric teachings [that constitute the Path of transformation]  
appeared in our human
dimension through the visionary experiences of realized individuals  
such as mahasiddhas,
who had the capacity to contact other dimensions and transmit to the  
human realm the
teachings received in those dimensions. The Tantric initiation arose  
because, once a
mahasiddha received the transmission of a practice based on the  
principle of
transformation, he or she used paintings or drawings showing the  
respective divinities and
the respective mandalas, as well as oral explanations, in order to  
communicate it to others
and enable them, through the use of imagination, to transform  
themselves in the prescribed
way. It is said that the teachings of Tantrism have a more symbolic  
character than those of
the Sutrayana because when the Mahasiddhas transmitted to their human  
disciples the
methods of transformation they had received, with their respective  
mandalas and the figures
of the corresponding divinities, these became symbols: the garland of  
heads of a
manifestation began to signify this, its diadem of skulls began to  
signify that, and so on."

This is more likely the origin of the many mantras of Vajrayana IMO,  
rather than via cultural borrowing of some sort. One also sees similar  
theories of mantric origins in Hindu tantric metaphysics (i.e. the  
four-fold division of Vac or "the Word" and the "arising of letters").

-Steve