Locating Mahacina

By admin on May 10, 2014 | In Society, Oriental/New Age

- Prof. Tan Chung
Buddhist iconographical texts often refer to Mahcna as the source of some distinct form of the
iconography of the images of divinities. For instance, in the Sdhanaml there is the description of a
form of goddess Tr, composed by Shvatavajra, which the latter refers to as the Mahcnakrama
form. Both in the text of the Sdhanaml and in the colophon; Mahcnakrama evidently implies that
the iconographic form concerned was popular in the geographical dispensation of Mahcna, and, as the
suffix krama indicates, the composer of the sdhana introduced the aforesaid popular form to the
Indo-Nepalese Buddhist pantheon.
An interesting illustrated manuscript of the Aashasrik Prajpramit, dated A.D. 1015 and now in
the collection of the Cambridge University Library, there are several illustrations of Buddhist divinities
along with inscribed labels not only disclosing the identity of the relevant images, but also associating
them with a topographical placement. A parallel version of this manuscript, but bearing the date A.D.
1071, is there in the holding of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta. Interestingly, this manuscript contains the
illustration of a male divinity with the accompanying inscribed label reading: Mahcne Majughoa.
The inscription may have either of these two meanings. (i) Majughoa (a well-known form of the
Bodhisattva Majur) while he was at Mahcna (ii) Majughoa as he is known in Mahcna. In both
the interpretations, Mahcna evidently bears a geographical connotation, and that being the case, the
second of the above interpretations seems to be more valid because the objective of the Aashasrik
Prajpramit manuscript concerned ostensibly was to prepare a visual documentation of the
distinctive iconographical forms of divinities which had acquired celebrity at the various shrines and
centers of Buddhism.
The expression Mahcna definitely refers to a land that could be regarded as Greater China, and not
the mainland of China. Stael Holstein discovered from the lamaistic establishment, Pao-hsiang Lou
(Buaxianglou), in the city of Peiping (Beijing) in China as many as 787 Buddhist bronze images belonging
to the pantheonistic community of Chinese Buddhism. These objects of visual representation were
studied, along with a series of photographs from three manuscripts in Chinese, admirably by Walter
Eugene Clark, and he published valuable materials in two volumes under the title Two Lamaistic
Pantheons. Clark recovered the Sanskrit names from their Chinese counterparts. These materials not
only throw significant light on the interrelationship between Indian and Chinese Buddhist iconography,
but also offer information of much relevance in the history of Buddhist iconography in general. It is
interesting to note that Clarks list of images contains the names like Chna Tr and Chnakrama Tr,
and none of the images bears the epithet Mahcnakrama. It seems that the topographical epithets Cna
and Mahcna were two distinct connotations.
That cna and mahcna referred to two separate geographical concepts is known from various other
sources. Here we can refer to a glaring evidence to put the point across. In the Laghukalacakrarjatantra
Tk there is the prescription for the composition of the canonical texts in the languages, and perhaps
also in the scripts, prevalent in the respective lands. It has the following categorical statement:
tath bhoaviaye ynatraya bhotabhay likhita, cne cnabhay, mahcne mahcnabhay |
Here three distinct geographical territories, Bhoaviaya, Cna and Mahcna are mentioned. This leaves
no doubt that Cna and Mahcna are two seperate entities in terms of geo-cultural identities. Cna is
positively the present day China, and Mahcna is the land where Chinese culture commuted
notwithstanding the orthodoxy of the geo-political boundary. In that case, what is known as Central Asia
or the Chinese Turkistan should really be that land referable by the expression Mahcna or Greater
China.
However, there is a wrongly upheld belief that Mahcna stands for Tibet. In the above mentioned
statement of the Laghukalacakrarjatantra Tk, there is the mention of a land called Bhoaviaya which
is distinct from Mahcna and Cna. The sdhana number 127 of the Sdhanaml is ascribed to the
authorship of Ngrjuna, and, as per the further information given in the colophon, the iconographical
concepts delivered in the sdhana concerned are derived from the tradition of the Bhoa country. In this
sdhana there is the description of three different presentations of the Ekaja form of the goddess
Tr. Since all these presentations are quite distinct from the form of the Mahcnakrama Tr of the
Sdhanaml, referred to earlier, it seems that Bhoa and Mahcna represent two distinct geo-cultural
entities. Bhoa is, in fact, Tibet and Bhutan forming one cultural unit. The contribution of the Tibet-
Bhutanese tradition of Bon-Po culture is of much significance in the evolution of Tantric Buddhist
iconography and rituals. In the above mentioned colophon statement of the Sdhanaml the reference
evidently is to Tibet (Bhoa), and not to Central Asia (Mahcna).
That Bhoa is Tibet, and Mahcna is Central Asia or other than Tibet, can be known from other
authorities as well. It is well-known that the Lamaistic form of Buddhism is primarily pertinent to Tibet.
In a Nepalese Buddhist work entitled Tantratattvasamuccaya, there is an interesting observation which
is as follows:
nepladee skyn vatatantram | bhoadee lmn kmbojatantram | cnadee cnn
ptatantram | mahcnadee vrtyn miratantram | sihaladee ngn sthaviratantram ||
Here the people of the Bhoa country is associated with the Kmboja Tantra, and they are called as the
Lamas, and they seem to be distinct from the vrtyas who are associated with Mahcna and with the
Mira Tantra. The ascription of the Kmboja Tantra to Bhoa or Tibet is interesting because Amtnanda,
the residency Pundit in Nepal in the nineteenth century under Brian Hodgson, associates the Lamaistic
Buddhists of Tibet with the Kmbojadea in his Dharmakoa Samgraha. In fact, cultural nomenclatures
differed not merely on the change of time, but also on the personal interpretations of the individuals
looking at a culture.
However, it is pertinent to mention that the reference to any culture does not necessarily imply its
relevance only to the political boundary of the country of its origin. It is understood that because of the
predominantly Chinese cultural traits, the presence of which is not the result of any force or motive, the
vast land of Central Asia has been referred to by the ancients as Mahcna or Greater China, and as
Chinese Turkistan by the present day chroniclers. It is true that it is almost impossible to single out the
Chinese features from the cultural complex of Central Asia. But the fact remains that the overall Chinese
ethos there cannot escape notice. Minute and detailed analysis shows that the Indian, Persian, Turkish
and Mongol elements are also present there in various modes and manners. Central Asia seems to be
the land where various cultures seem to have stepped out of their respective playgrounds in order to
revel in a composite game of give and take.
In view of the stepping out from the boundaries of the orthodoxy, and because of the participation in
activities bereft of the consideration of who contributes what, Central Asian culture has been referred to
by the Tantrasamuccaya, mentioned above, as Miratantra, i.e., the amalgamated system, and the
people involved in it as the vrtyas or the disconnected ones. Once one steps out of the protected realm
of orthodoxy, one gets disconnected from the concerns of the mainstream culture. That is exactly what
might have happened with the mendicants, monks and itinerant travelers and merchants traversing
Central Asia through the so-called Silk Route. In their every footstep in the journey between China and
India through Khotan, and in the reverse travel, they got themselves distanced from the culture of the
land of the origin, and they adapted themselves to other itinerant cultural traits that they happened to
meet en route. Being disconnected or distanced from the mainstream culture, they verily were the
vrtyas, and because of their adopting alien cultural traits during transitory meetings with fellow
itinerants, they imbibed a mixed culture which admittedly can be called Miratantra. It is in the fitness of
things that the Tantratattvasamuccaya has characterized the culture of Mahcna or Central Asia as the
Miratantra followed by the vrtyas.