TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)Are the bahls then older institutions than the biihiis as some commentators
have speculated? This is doubtful. My survey of the biihiis and bahls shows that
we have only two confirmed dates for extant bahls before 1200 AD (i.e., the
beginning of the Malia period). These are for Guita Bah! in Patan and Tharp
Bah! in Kathmandu. On the other hand we do have several confirmed dates from
the so-called Thakur! period for biihiis of the Aciirya-Giithl in Kathmandu and
the 'Fifteen Biihiis' of Patan. We also know that several of the principal bahls
were founded in the time of Jayasthiti and Yak~a Malia: Uba Bah! and lba Bah!
in Patan, Nhaykan and Syangu Bah! of Kathmandu. Another curious fact is that
except for two manuscripts copied in Dugan Bah! (Sa<;lak~ari Mahavihara) in
Kathmandu, we have no manuscripts copied in bahls. Buddhist manuscripts
were copied by people in biihiis, usually Vajracaryas. However, I would hesitate
to draw any conclusions from this data about the relative age of the bah!. We
know so little about the so-called Thakur! period that an argument from silence
is very weak indeed; and we have no way of knowing if what data we have is in
any sense a representative sample of data from that period. It may well tum out
to consist of chance finds from certain groups that are in no way representative
of the society as a whole. What does seem clear is that from the viewpoint of the
dominant tantric Buddhists of the Kathmandu Valley, the bahls represented an
archaic form of Buddhism. No definite conclusions can be stated, but my own
hypothesis is that the two institutions perhaps existed side by side from the earli-
est days. Gradually, and as a result of the ascendency of the Vajracaryas and
their form of tantric Buddhism, the celibate communities diminished, finally
succumbing to the dominant tradition and becoming married 'celibate monks'
(brahmacarya-bhilcyu), still trying to maintain something of their original tradi-
tions. If more accurate information on the Licchavi and so-called Thakur! period
is ever made available, we may well find that the celibate communities were
always in the minority.
It has often been said that the biihiis and bahls are all former monasteries.
This statement is erroneous on two counts. First, in the accepted tradition of the
Valley they are still monasteries, that is, abodes or shrines of an initiated sangha
of householder bhi/cyus and tantric priests, the Vajracaryas. If the statement
means to say that the biihiis and bahls were formerly the residences of celibate
monks, it is also inaccurate. Most of the bahls may well have housed celibate
monks at one time. The branch biihiis, which make up the bulk of the number,
were clearly founded for a lineage of a householder biihii. Though it cannot be
proven yet with any degree of certainty, it is entirely possible that the main
biihiis have always been what they are today: vihiiras for a married sangha. We
have no evidence that they were ever anything different, and how else explain
the consistent tradition of a common descent for all members of the sangha and
a common lineage deity? They may well have been founded by individuals who
had once been celibate monks, but the individual then left his former monastery
and founded a family vihiira (or a sarhsiirik tantrik vihiira) which has been
passed on by heredity from one generation of his descendants to the next.