Search Results
Abstract
Nearly two dozen excavated Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang, Turfan, and Mazār Tāgh bear witness to the prevalence of a specific tradition of dice divination in Tibet. Largely dating to the ninth century, these manuscripts constitute a crucial part of the material culture of dice divination; another important part is the dice that are characteristic of this tradition. Known in Sanskrit as pāśaka-s, they are rectangular four-sided dice, and they have been found at archeological sites ranging from Mohenjo-Daro to Khotan to Egypt. From the first studies of early Tibetan dice divination texts inaugurated by A.H. Francke, scholars have emphasized the comparative and cross-cultural analysis of this method of divination. Such comparisons initially drew on the Runic Turkic Irq Bitiq, the Sanskrit Pāśakakevalī and the Bower Manuscript, and in more recent times have explored possible connections with Islamic traditions preserved in books known in Arabic as Kitāb al-Fāl and in Persian as Fāl-namāh and with Chinese traditions preserved among the Dunhuang manuscripts. The present contribution approaches this method of dice divination not through the mutable elements of poetics, and ideas of fate, luck, and fortune, which are open to adaptation to the social, aesthetic, and religious norms of various divining communities. Rather, it approaches this method of divination through a series of numbers that constitutes its “bones,” or defining elements. These include the four faces of a die; the symbols on each face; the number of oracular responses in a divination book; the order in which these are arranged; and the numerical probability of receiving a good, bad, or mixed divination. In the process of examining these numbers and comparing them across traditions, the analysis clarifies the relationship between certain traditions and offers some tentative remarks about transmission.
Abstract
Nearly two dozen excavated Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang, Turfan, and Mazār Tāgh bear witness to the prevalence of a specific tradition of dice divination in Tibet. Largely dating to the ninth century, these manuscripts constitute a crucial part of the material culture of dice divination; another important part is the dice that are characteristic of this tradition. Known in Sanskrit as pāśaka-s, they are rectangular four-sided dice, and they have been found at archeological sites ranging from Mohenjo-Daro to Khotan to Egypt. From the first studies of early Tibetan dice divination texts inaugurated by A.H. Francke, scholars have emphasized the comparative and cross-cultural analysis of this method of divination. Such comparisons initially drew on the Runic Turkic Irq Bitiq, the Sanskrit Pāśakakevalī and the Bower Manuscript, and in more recent times have explored possible connections with Islamic traditions preserved in books known in Arabic as Kitāb al-Fāl and in Persian as Fāl-namāh and with Chinese traditions preserved among the Dunhuang manuscripts. The present contribution approaches this method of dice divination not through the mutable elements of poetics, and ideas of fate, luck, and fortune, which are open to adaptation to the social, aesthetic, and religious norms of various divining communities. Rather, it approaches this method of divination through a series of numbers that constitutes its “bones,” or defining elements. These include the four faces of a die; the symbols on each face; the number of oracular responses in a divination book; the order in which these are arranged; and the numerical probability of receiving a good, bad, or mixed divination. In the process of examining these numbers and comparing them across traditions, the analysis clarifies the relationship between certain traditions and offers some tentative remarks about transmission.
Abstract
The conclusions explore the main actors of dice divination’s relational network one by one. They demonstrate how dice and books encode cosmologies, but at the same time inject randomization and play into these cosmologies and frustrate divination users’ attempts to impose any rigid order. The conclusions also reflect on gods and poetics and their shifting roles within dice divination’s oracular responses. This also returns to the question of the relationship between a given god and a given mantic figure created by the roll of the dice, and whether this mantic figure should be taken as a sign, a symbol, or even as a god itself with the power to protect or to harm. Turning to divination users, there is a similar variability ranging from the “tricky” Tibetan oracular gambler who steals from the goddess to the Chinese divination user who fully adopts the pose of sincerity prescribed by the text. Arguing that the gods of the wind and sky, as well as devouring mother goddesses like Hārītī, are leitmotivs for the innate flux and variability of dice divination, the conclusion sees dice divination’s opposition to order and control as a force that dignifies the human, divine, and material actors in its relational network.