TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)II. Tibetan modification-Cakrasaqavara and Hcvajra
a. We can detect two primary motives for the mythic exegesis of Grags-pa rgyal-
mtshan and Ngor-chen: the desire for cosmological and ritual closure at the
textual level, and verification of scriptural-lineal authenticity that textual closure
provides.
In the case of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, closure of mythic and ritual holes in
the heritage of the 'Khon family was of primary importance. Grags-pa rgyal-
mtshan was instrumental in putting together much of what is now considered the
orthodox Sa-skya-pa perspective on the Vajrayana, and integrated many fragile
meditative systems into the widely respected, if pugnaciously secretive, Lam-
'bras. In this endeavor, he utilized the rule already established by other early
teachers in southern Tibet, including his father and eider brother: orthodoxy is
verified by a system's Indian antecedents. Where those antecedents were
accepted or unassailable, he paid scant attention. Where the antecedents of his
system might have been considered controversial, he takes some pains to
demonstrate their validity.^45 He did this in a quite systematic way for the Lam-
'bras, and the development of the Mahdvara subjugation myth appears to have
proceeded on similar lines. Clearly, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan did not invent the
application of the myth to the preaching of the Cakrasaf!lvara. Although not
cited by him, commentaries by both Indrabhuti and Suravajra make the subjuga-
tion of Mahesvara part of the lore surrounding the advent of that tantra.^46 Yet
the jump from the paucity of Indic materials to the well-developed scenario
evident in Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's text is comprehensible if we surmise that the
Indic storytellers wove their tales on a speedy loom, for, as I have already indi-
cated, the author declared that he received the story from his teachers. I believe
that Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan-already removed by some decades from the Indic
and Nepalese sources of his tradition-found himself in possession of an enorm-
ous quantity of cosmological, hagiographical, ritual, and meditative material, as
did most lineage holders in southern Tibet at this time. The resulting textual pro-
duction was a response to the fear for the imminent demise of the lore-
Tibetans being quite aware of current Islamic incursions-the measure of its
quantity, and the need to verify its authenticiy.^47
This brings us to the second point: the validation of the system as a whole.
Contrary to the stereotypes of popular literature, Tibetans have not always been
benign, smiling mountaineers. Competition for economic resources traditionally
has been intense, and the early Tibetan hagiographicalliterature clearly indicates
an aspect of the culture obsessed with intrigue, black magic, challenges, occa-
sional religious wars, and hostility between certain members of the Buddhist
hierarchy. In such an environment, the myth of Mahe5vara's subjugation was
not, so far as I know, interpreted to allow the suppression of personal enemies-
as it might have been, given Christian eschatology of the Antichrist-but was
utilized to bolster the position of families and monastic institutions in specific
ways.