Created by geographer Karl Ryavec, the maps in this volume, which follow immediately after this note, include locations of the various sbas yul or ‘hidden lands’ mentioned in the book. It is perhaps appropriate that there is a certain ambiguity attached to these locations. As Chapter 1 explains, the idealized picture of the discovery of a sbas yul, most fully realized perhaps in the life of Rgod ldem can, is that a visionary lama (gter ston) discovers a series of indications as to how to find and enter the sbas yul, along perhaps with a guide to how to get there (lam yig) and to the features of the sbas yul (gnas yig). This discovery may be material or visionary or a combination of the two (as when a cryptic message in “dākiṇi script” has subsequently to be deciphered by visionary means). The lama, and/or one or more later lamas, then locates the sbas yul and succeeds in ‘opening’ it, so that it is accessible to others. This is not necessarily a straightforward process, since the time and the circumstances (including the particular people present) have to be right for a successful ‘opening’ to take place. Often too the sbas yul has to be rediscovered and re-opened by others.
If this is what is ideally supposed to happen, the actual sequence and location of events is less certain. The opening of a sbas yul, like the discovery of gter ma or hidden treasures in general, is a dramatic demonstration of spiritual power, and if carried off effectively it may substantially increase the prestige of the gter ston, and perhaps lead to fame and fortune, not to say employment, for the gter ston. Michael Aris famously suggested that the great Bhutanese gter ston Padma gling pa may have fabricated at least some of his gter ma (Aris 1989). That may be going too far and was certainly not appreciated by many people in Bhutan, where Padma gling pa is a major national culture hero. It also may imply somewhat too black and white a picture of the situation, since elements of showmanship may well exist with genuine visionary experience or spiritual insight. But we may certainly suspect, as with other prophecies about the future, that the prophecy might be in part at least retrospective, and that some gter ston may have made sure there was a sbas yul to be found in a particular location before leading a group of people off to find it.
We can also be unsure whether a rediscovered sbas yul is the same place as had been previously discovered. It seems to be generally accepted that Glang ’phrang (Langtang) and Gnam sgo zla gam are different names for the same sbas yul, but do we really know? There are two locations named Mkhan pa lung, one in Bhutan and one in Nepal, both marked on Map 2. They share many features, including the same protective deity. Mkhan pa lung was mentioned by Rgod ldem can, but we can imagine various scenarios. Perhaps Rgod ldem can physically opened one of the locations, and the other is a subsequent duplicate. Perhaps the information left by Rgod ldem can was ambiguous enough to be the basis for two independent subsequent discoveries. In this case we may eventually be able to work things out through a careful study of the various gnas yig and other texts, but in general this is by no means guaranteed, given that the whole gter ma tradition is based on the discovery and rediscovery of texts which may or may not be written by their putative authors.
For most of the sbas yul on the maps (including the two Mkhan pa lung), the locations given are those generally accepted today and for some centuries past. Two sbas yul however present particular issues. One is ’Bras mo ljongs, ‘Rice Valley,’ another of the places whose discovery was predicted by Rgod ldem can. Rgod ldem can is generally believed to have ‘opened’ it, but it is regarded as having been reopened by a group of three lamas in the 17th century. ’Bras ljongs is today the standard Tibetan name for the former Himalayan kingdom, now Indian state, of Sikkim. Sikkim’s supposed sbas yul identity is indeed a significant part of the legendary account of the origin of the kingdom of Sikkim (Mullard 2011, Balikci 2008). However, to identify the historical sbas yul of ’Bras mo ljongs with the contemporary Sikkimese state would probably be misleading, and not only because the boundaries of Sikkim as a political entity have changed considerably over time (for example, through the British annexation of Darjeeling and Kalimpong in the 19th century). The original location seems to have been a much smaller region around the sacred site of Bkra shis sdings (Tashiding). The landscape around Bkra shis sdings is interpreted as a mandala of caves and hills with the sacred site at its centre. Vandenhelsken and Wongchuk suggest that “[as] the kingdom’s territory expanded, the holy land having Bkra shis sdings for centre became only its western region” (Vandenhelsken & Wongchuk 2006: 65 n. 3).
The situation is complicated by conflation with the (probably prior) Lepcha mythology of Máyel Lyáng, a holy land in the same general area, and by the progressive elaboration of the cult of Gangs chen mdzod lnga (Mt. Kanchenjunga), which was already of great importance for the local Lepcha people and became closely related with the Tibetan (“Lho po” or “Bhotia”) dominated kingdom of Sikkim (Balikci 2008, Mullard 2011, Scheid 2014). Today neither Lepchas nor Tibetans in Sikkim seem certain whether Máyel Lyáng or ’Bras mo ljongs exist as real physical locations (Scheid 2014). The idea that there may be outer, inner and secret manifestations of ’Bras mo ljongs adds another layer of potential confusion, as does the deployment of both Lepcha and Tibetan versions of the hidden land as part of the political resistance to dams and hydroelectric schemes. On Map 2, we have simply indicated the core area around Bkra shis sdings by a dashed circle.
Padma bkod, a sbas yul discussed in detail in several chapters of this book, and illustrated in the opening photo-essay, presents a different set of issues. In these chapters, we can see a succession of gter ston gradually extending the sbas yul further along the Tsangpo (Gtsang chu, Brahmaputra) valley and reinterpreting the mythology as they progress. In the process, various features, such as the locations identified with specific cakra of Vajrayogīnī’s body, were also relocated at different places in the landscape.
A distinction developed between Padma bkod chung (Small or Lesser Padma bkod) and Padma bkod chen (Great Padma bkod), but these terms appear to have been used for different regions at various times. Eventually, a key site, the so-called Yang gsang chu (“Extremely Secret River”) was identified with a tributary of the Brahmaputra in Arunachal Pradesh, south of the Indian border. Map 3 shows the general location of the main Padma bkod area and the Yang gsang chu area south of the Indian border, as well as Pachakshiri, a separate sbas yul discussed in Chapters 11 and 12. Map 4 is a more detailed view of the main Padma bkod area, while Map 5 shows the Yang gsang chu area on the south side of the Indian border.
References
Aris, Michael. 1989. Hidden Treasures and Secret Lives: A Study of Pemalingpa (1450–1521) and the Sixth Dalai Lama (1683–1706) (1450–1521 and the Sixth Dalai Lama). London: Kegan Paul.
Balikci, Anna. 2008. Lamas, Shamans and Ancestors: Village Religion in Sikkim. Leiden: Brill.
Mullard, Saul. 2011. Opening the Hidden Land: State Formation and the Construction of Sikkimese History. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Scheid, Claire S. 2014. “Hidden Land and Changing Landscape: Narratives about Mount Khangchendzonga Among the Lepcha and the Lhopo.” Journal of the Irish Society for the Academic Study of Religions 1:66–89.
Vandenhelsken, Mélanie and Wongchuk, Hissey. 2006. “Tibetan Masters and the Formation of the Sacred Site of Tashiding.” Bulletin of Tibetology 42(1–2):65–91.