by Dandar D. Dashiyev

This paper was presented at the International Congress on Tibetan Medicine in Washington DC, November 7-9, 1998 and has been revised by the author for publication in AyurVijnana.

    This paper attempts to draw attention to the experiences that have been accumulated in the schools of Tibetan medicine prevalent in the Transbaikalian region  for the past three centuries. Moreover, ways of describing and systematising medical knowledge by various ethnic groups in Buryatia and some methodologies of their written sources will be discussed.

    Buryatia lies in the Northern outskirts of the Buddhist world, where the teachings of Tsong Khapa (1357-1419) had spread for three centuries. As we know from the Buddhist chronicles, the Transbaikalian Buryats received Russian citizenship by the middle of the 17th century. At that time they were already Buddhists and familiar with the practice of Tibetan medicine.

    Tibetan medicine among Buryats was first mentioned in 1735 by Johann Georg Gmelin.(1) His descriptions on Tibetan medicine almost coincide with the accounts of the Dominican monk, Ippolit Desideri, who arrived in Lhasa in 1716. While journeying across Transbaikalia, Gmelin encountered an Emchi-lama who showed him his books, medicaments and medical instruments. The physician demonstrated some techniques of medicine preparation and treatment. Gmelin witnessed the lama practising blood-letting, moxabustion and cupping. The lama, who also possessed a rather significant kit of surgical instruments, was believed to be an “excellent” occultist. In his book “Travelling across Siberia”, published in German in 1751-1752, Gmelin described therapeutic and surgical methods of removing a wall-eye (a persistent cicatriced turbidity of the eye cornea due to injury, inflammatory or ulcerous processes). From such accounts we know that in the early 17th century there were highly qualified practitioners in Transbaikalia, who used the entire arsenal of medicinal means and healing methods of Tibetan medicine and had a wide spread practice among the locals.

    The traditional codes of common law of the Buryats show that the practice of Tibetan medicine in Transbaikalia during the 18th century was rather considerable. The document named „Records of judicial laws elaborated on the 8th of the last autumn month, 1775, at the assembly of nobles of twenty-two clans under the Selenginsk local Government“ offers interesting information on the relationship between a physician and a patient: „When asking a remedy from a physician, offer him a fee of five copecks (=1/100 of a rouble) for one „tun“ or spoonful. Although both, monks and laymen, may settle their fees according to their own conscience. For treatment of paralysis, internal tumour, contraction of oesophagus, syphilis, eye ailments, ulcerous nasal diseases, tubeculosis of the lymphatic glands, smallpox, and similar disorders, one has to pay two roubles.  Remedies are bought according to the above rules“. (2)

    The medical practitioners of the Datsans were approached not only by Buryats but by Russians as well. Finally, this medical tradition gained fame beyond the borders of Buryatia through the successful practice of Alexander (died 1873) and Pyotr Badmaev (1849-1920) at the Tsar’s court in St. Petersburg. The elite circles of the Russian society belonged to their clientele as much as the common man.

    Despite three hundred years of Tibetan medical history in Buryatia, only very few original Buryat written sources have been retained, and only a few dozen herbal formulae reached our days. Their cultural and medical value remained unclear until recently. Reasons for this were that the basic medical treatises had not been introduced to scientific research and that there was no detailed information available about the development of Tibetan medicine, either within or outside of Tibet. The scarcity of the Buryat sources can be explained by the fact that the first medical school or Datsan (Tib. gra tsang) was opened rather recently, in 1869. Approximately from the last quarter of the 19th century, the main texts of Tibetan medicine, like the Gyushi (Tib. rgyud bzhi) (3), Vaidurya Ngonpo (Tib. baidurya sngon po), Drime Shelgong (Tib. dri med sel gong), Drime Shelphreng (Tib. dri med sel phreng),  Kunsal nanzod (Tib. kun gsal snang mdzod) (4) and other texts and formulae by Tibetan and Mongolian authors, were printed in the form of xylographs. Buryat treatises on Tibetan medicine are the “Dictionary of Synonyms of Medical Terms” by Tuguldurov (5) and the “Large Formulary of the Aginsky Datsan”. (6) The latter was printed after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Thereafter the development of Tibetan medicine in Buryatia came to a stand-still for a long time.

    The lack of schools over a long period of time and difficulties in accessing the traditional raw material compelled Buryats actively include local plants as substitutes in preparing herbal formulae as well as educate medical practitioners and healers through individual training based on indigenous knowledge. Hence, the training of Tibetan medicine in Buryatia relied on the living transmission of experience and expertise from teachers to their disciples. Deumar Geshe Tenzin Punthsok (Tib. de’u dmar dge bshes bstan ‘dzin phun tsogs), a prominent Tibetan Buddhist scholar, physician and pharmacologist of the 18th century, called this the ‘Fifth Tantra’ or the ‘Visual Aid Tantra’.

    From the middle of the 19th century, the Buryat Datsans offered a significant choice of medical literature in Tibetan and Mongolian languages. Moreover, almost all Lama physicians and Datsans kept records of their own prescription. Compositions and dosages of formulae approved through their personal clinical experience were thoroughly recorded. Some of those records became known after the name of their compilers or Datsans, but their majority remained anonymous.

    The regional remoteness from the centres of classical Tibetan medical education and traditional medicinal raw materials contributed to the stimulation and development of peculiar features of Tibetan medicine within Buryatia. This is reflected in the wide dissemination of manuscript formulae called sbyor.

    The abundance of manuscript formulae lacking the theoretical background of the larger general treatises was characteristic for the development of Tibetan medicine in ethnic Tibet and in its neighbouring regions, during a certain period. This fact bears testimony to the intense process of adapting local medicinal raw material as main recourses for preparing herbal compounds. The necessity to record the new information and empirical knowledge gave rise to a simplified form of medical  literature which became known as sbyor or formulae. These Buryat sbyor records were generally preferred by local physicians for they substituted the classical species with native available herbs. Over 80% of the traditional plants were substituted with Buryat herbs.

    This kind of Tibetan medical literature was available to any medical practitioner, even to poorly educated ones who often were their composers. As a result of these efforts, even uneducated practitioners, who had difficulties in understanding the Gyushi and other traditional treatises, recorded their practical experience of medicine making and also could prepare medicines with the help of such sbyor records.

     One collection of 32 prescriptions is known as the Buryat formulae. The authors of only two formulae are known. The rest are anonymous. The Buryat formulae can be divided into two groups: (i) personal records and (ii) excerpts from literary sources.

    The first group of Buryat formulae is based on “short notes of experiences”, as it is mentioned in the foreword to the “Large Formulary of the Aginsky Datsan”.(6) Being familiar with numerous sources of this kind reveals that these formulae were replenished from time to time, as new information was added. The first pages of these manuscripts are worn out to the degree where the script is hardly visible whereas the later pages appear rather clear and fresh. Notes that were documented at different times were written either with ink or pencil. Their contents were not systematised. In the first hand they reflect the personal experience and specialised expertise of the physician. While preparing such material for printing, all thematic lacunas, inevitable in such notes, were filled with selections from literary sources. The entire text was grouped under headings, which were adopted from the classifications used in the Gyushi. Such editions are fraught with the danger of individual experience amalgamating with the previous literary tradition. Personal remarks such as ‘I tested this’, or ‘approved remedy’ and others, distinguished the author’s favourite formulae.

    Another peculiar feature of the Buryat formulae is a simultaneous usage of the Tibetan and Mongolian languages; the composition of the prescription is given in Tibetan, the indications in Mongolian. Naturally, there is some inconvenience in this combination of the horizontal Tibetan and the vertical Mongolian script. But it was necessary to combine the two languages as the native language did not possess the necessary botanical vocabulary. Unfortunately, the understanding of Tibetan words with the help of Mongolian characters was rather difficult for the majority of Buryat physicians. Consequently they had to rely on the educational value of the oral traditions and their own clinical experience. Feeling the need to preserve their own knowledge, they created the formulae.
The author carried out a comparative study of Tibetan, South Mongolian, North Mongolian and Buryat formulae based on the following sources:
 

    1) Formulae mentioned in the Gyushi (Tib. rgyud bzhi). They are considered the primary material. The names of the medicinal raw substances have been identified with the Russian “Atlas of Tibetan Medicine” (English version: ”Tibetan Medical Paintings”, 1992), published in 1994 (7);
    2) Formulae and identifications of the “Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Mongolian Medicine”, Chinese edition in Old Mongolian, 1986 (8);
    3) Formulae and identification provided in the works of researchers of the Mongolian People’s Republic (9);
    4) Buryat formulae with identification of raw materials according to the dictionary by A. F. Gammerman, B. V. Semichov, 1963. (10)

1) the names of the formulae, their structure and identification of medicinal raw materials have remained unaltered;

2) But the composition of raw ingredients used in producing medicines is very flexible and changeable. The understanding of a formula depends on the identification of the raw substances in the respective region. In some cases, the Tibetan and Buryat formulae differ immensely, their ingredients being partly or even fully substituted with local raw materials. But the names have not been changed. This has lead to erroneous identification of Latin botanical names of the medicinal plants.

    The characteristics of the native tradition to which the respective author belongs, provides still more valuable information. The formulae provide prescriptions of medicinal compounds that were tested by the author himself. Moreover, these medicines can be prepared locally from indigenous herbs. They have not been copied from some other sources. The fewer prescriptions in one sbyor, the stronger the certainty that it was tested by the author personally and can be compounded from local available material.

    Nowadays a significant number of Tibetan medical texts, including formulae and pharmacological works devoted to the identification of medicinal substances are available to scholars. Their comparative analysis shows that while speaking about Tibetan medical texts, one always has to refer to its specific location in space and time. Despite a common theoretical basis, uniformity in the various classification schemes and descriptions of diseases, which are borrowed from the Gyushi, all local schools incorporated classical and native medical systems.

    This discrepancy between theory and practice requires to place the study of any Tibetan medical text within the context of the epoch of its appearance. The identification of medicinal substances mentioned in  any particular text has to be based on textual and illustrative descriptions of that very time. Translations of anonymous medical texts outside the context of its contemporary sources would be a waste of time,  generally speaking.

    A clear perception and study of the general and specific medical practices in Tibetan medical schools of the various regions will enlarge the field of information for the research on pharmacological experience and the use of Tibetan herbal compounds. Such research carried out under modern conditions certainly promises good prospects in the understanding and usage of Tibetan medical formulae in future.

NOTES

1. V.  Girchenko.  Russian and foreign travellers of the 17th, 18th and the first half of the 19th century on the Buryat-Mongols.  Ulan-Ude, 1939, 90p.
2. B.  D.  Tsybikov.  Common law of the Selenginsk Buryats.  Ulan-Ude, 1970, 281p.
3. The first 62 chapters from the third volume of this text were translated into Russian by the author and published in  in Ulan-Ude, in 1991. (ed.)
4. Deumar GesheTenzin Phuntsog (Tib. de’u smar dge bshes bstan ‘dzin phun tsogs).  Lag len gces rin bstus pa sman kun bcud du bsgrub pa‘i las kyi kun gsal snang mdzod zhes bya ba bzhugs so  (“The Fountain of Light“ - collected most important practical recommendations on converting various medicines into elixirs“).  Xylograph of the Aginsky Datsan, compiled in the 18th century and published in the late 19th century, 59 folios. This work was translated into Russian by the author and published in 1991. (ed.)
5. Galsan Zhimba Tuguldurov. sman gzhun bshad pa’i sman rnams kyi mngon brjod rnams bkrol pa  “Dictionary of synonyms of names of medicinal means found in medical treatises“. Xylograph of the Aginsky Datsan, compiled in 1867, 220 folios.
6. Sumati Prajna (Lobsang Sherab).  sman sbyar tsad kyi skor rnams che long tsam phyogs gcig tu bkod pa kun phan bdud rtzi’i snying po. (The “Large Formulary of the Aginsky Datsan / The Amrita Extract Beneficial for Everybody - Collection of Basic Formulae“. Xylograph of the Aginsky Datsan, 151 folios, 6.5 x 32 cm.
7. The Atlas of Tibetan Medicine. Moscow, 1994, 587p.
8. Dumdadu ulas-un anagaqu uqagan-u nebterkyi toli.  Mongol anagaqu uaqagan.  (Encyclopedic dictionary of Chinese medicine.  Mongolian medicine.).  Publishing House of scientific and technical literature of Inner Mongolia, 1986, 944p.
9. U.  Ligaa.  Mongolyn ulamzhalt emnelegt emiyn urgamlyg heregleh arga ba zhor. Ulaanbaatar, 1997, 395 p.
10. A.  F.  Gammerman,  B.  V.  Semichov.  Dictionary of Tibetan-Latin-Russian names of medicinal raw material applied in Tibetan medicine.  Ulan-Ude, 1963, 162p. 

DANDAR BAZARZHAPOVICH DASHIYEV, Cand. Sc. (Philology) (b. 1946) graduated from the Faculty of Oriental Studies of St. Petersburg State University in 1973. His field of research is Tibetan medical literature, ethnography and Buryat literature. He authored 29 works including translations of medical texts from Tibetan into Russian, such as ‘The Four Tantras’ (Tib. rgyud bzhi), the kung sal nang mdzod (a treatise on compounding medicines) and the bri cha (a text on Tibetan medical paintings), all of them published by leading Russian publishing houses. Currently he heads the Source Studies Group of the Department of Tibetan Medicine of the Institute of General and Experimental Biology SD (Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in Ulan Ude.

Dandar Bazarzhapovich DASHIYEV
Department of Tibetan Medicine
Institute of General and
Experimental Biology
6, Sakhyanovoi Str.
Ulan-Ude 670047
Buryatia, Russia

phone: 007(3012) 338863
fax:     007(3012) 330134
e-mail: biolog at buriatia.ru