[Footnote 966:  It is said that all Ambans were Manchus.]

[Footnote 967:  See E. Ludwig, The visit of the Teshoo Lama to Peking, Tientsin Press, 1904.  See also J.A.S.B. 1882, pp. 29-52.]

[Footnote 968:  See the curious edict of Chia Ch’ing translated by Waddell in J.R.A.S. 1910, pp. 69 ff.  The Chinese Government were disposed to discredit the sixth, seventh and eighth incarnations and to pass straight from the fifth Grand Lama to the ninth.]

[Footnote 969:  See for a translation of this curious decree, North China Herald of March 4th, 1910.]

[Footnote 970:  In the List of the Bhutan Hierarchs given by Waddell (Buddhism, p. 242) it is said that the first was contemporary with the third Grand Lama, 1543-1580.]

[Footnote 971:  According to Waddell (Buddhism, p. 242) he appears to be a rebirth of Dupgani Sheptun, a Lama greatly respected by the Tibetan invaders of Bhutan.  For some account of the religion of Bhutan in the early 19th century, see the article by Davis in T.R.A.S. vol.  II. 1830, p. 491.]

[Footnote 972:  The fullest account of Sikhimese Buddhism is given by Waddell in the Gazetteer of Sikhim, 1894.  See also Remy, Pelerinage au Monastere de Pemmiontsi, 1880; Silacara “Buddhism in Sikkim,” Buddhist Review, 1916, p. 97.]

CHAPTER LI

TIBET (continued)

THE CANON

Tibet is so remote and rude a land that it is a surprise to learn that it has a voluminous literature and further that much of this literature, though not all, is learned and scholastic.  The explanation is that the national life was most vigorous in the great monasteries which were in close touch with Indian learning.  Moreover Tibetan became to some extent the Latin of the surrounding countries, the language of learning and religion.

For our purpose the principal works are the two great collections of sacred and edifying literature translated into Tibetan and known as the Kanjur and Tanjur.[973] The first contains works esteemed as canonical, including Tantras.  The second is composed of exegetical literature and also of many treatises on such subjects as medicine, astronomy and grammar.[974] The two together correspond roughly speaking to the Chinese Tripitaka, but are more bulky.  The canonical part is smaller but the commentaries and miscellaneous writings more numerous.  There are also other differences due to the fact that the great literary epoch of Tibet was in the ninth century, whereas nearly three-quarters of the Chinese Tripitaka had been translated before that date.  Thus the Kanjur appears to contain none[975] of the Abhidhamma works of the Hinayana and none of the great Nikayas as such, though single sutras are entered in the catalogues as separate books.  Further there is only one version of the Vinaya whereas the Chinese Tripitaka has five, but there are several important Tantras which are wanting in Chinese.  The Tibetan scriptures reflect the late Buddhism of Magadha when the great books of the Hinayanist Canon were neglected, though not wholly unknown, and a new tantric literature was flourishing exuberantly.