Semiotics, the Gesar Epics and Cross-Cultural Understanding
AESTHETIC AND EXTRA-AESTHETIC ELEMENTS IN TIBETAN POETRY:
Semiotics, the Gesar Epics and Cross-Cultural Understanding
Jenna Musket
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper was presented at a panel at the American Anthropological Association meetings, December 2, 1998 in Philadelphia entitled Seeing Culture: The Anthropology of Visual Communication at Temple University. Do not cite without author's permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the increasing complexity of modern society can be rationalonly if an epistemological paradigm shift is made from that of privatized consciousness to communicative action." - Habermas
Ethnopoetics and Visual Anthropology
In "The visual in anthropology," David MacDougall challenges visual anthropologists to to expand the boundaries and "notions of "the visual," and to insist that visual anthropology is not about the visual per se but about a range of culturally inflected relationships enmeshed and encoded in the visual.which can give a richer sense of how culture permeates and patterns social experience" (MacDougall 1997: 288). For culture to be both enmeshed and encoded in the visual implicitly suggests that one, there is a "code" of sorts which renders culture visible, and two, that "coding" reflects a meaningful communications system and process shared by a c
ommunity of people who negotiate and mediate the process.
Poetry written by Tibetans or Tibetan Buddhists offers a visible language structure which is immanently and interdependently interwoven with the minds that produced and reproduce the structure. By becoming more familiar with the creation of the Gesar epics, for instance, we enter a unique conceptual framework constructed and reconstructed historically by people who share a common aesthetic, and a communicative style known as "drung.-singing." It is important to know that the one book that prompted this analysis is but one in a historical tradition that pre-dates written versions of the epic. It is the most recent publication, The Warrior Song of King Gesar, in particular, that helps make visible the crafting of social identity. The particularized language of The Warrior Song of King Gesar involves an intentionality and competency on the part of an individual author, but it also involves the author in a tradition that encompasses both space and time through word choices that build upon a treasury of cultural codes, concepts and ideologies connected to a ritual and play language (Sherzer 1982, 1983) that spans centuries.
In this context, the poetry becomes a medium for looking, anthropologically, at relationships between language, thought, and culture; and even more particularly at how written language and a poetic tradition offer a glimpse at a cultural model of the mind. While this approach has often been affiliated with "folk models" (D'Andade 1987), this becomes quite interesting to observe in a transnational "speech community" (Hymes 1962; Gumperz 1968) that represents and self-represents as Tibetan Buddhist.
The Gesar Epics as a "Slice of Tibetan Culture"
1
In the foreward to "The Warrior Song of King Gesar," Sakyong Mipham Rimpoche writes that "it becomes obvious that Gesar and the epic of his life , represent more than a simple folk tale or historical documentation-but rather the life force and energy of Tibet' (Penick 1996: ix). Penick thus frames the epic as representative of Tibetan culture by authorizing the author (Bourdieu 1991). Although there is great debate as to whether Gesar is a historical person (Thondrup Rimpoche 1996: xi, xvi), or mythical (Schumacher 1994:118), the historical continuity of privileging this work as "the greatest epic of Tibetan Buddhism" by some warrants some
attention.
It is not the task of this paper to pursue defining the Gesar epic as "great literature," art or not-art . I would propose instead to look at the text in terms of aesthetics similar to some anthropologists who have suggested that "all human activity has an aesthetic aspect" akin to perception , and that we need to employ a "cultural eye" to understand how they see (Maquet 1979; Coote 1984). In trying to become more familiar with an aesthetic that is particularly classified as "Tibetan," it is equally important to examine who determines the aesthetic, and how this aesthetic gets communicated among Tibetans or Tibetan Buddhists themselves. In this sense, aesthetic and extra-aesthetic elements are both intrinsically tied into ideology. Whether historically real or imaginatively alive, the figure of Gesar has a symbolic power to prompt not just cultural recognition, cultural understanding and cultural communication, but behavioral modification.
If our relationships are enmeshed and encoded in the visual, our perceptions are key to insight, understanding and action. In this light I propose exploring "The Warrior Song of King Gesar" as a mixed media comprised of aesthetic images which when decoded and unpacked can provide anthropological insight with regard to contributing to cultural and cross-cultural understanding. Imagery in this context then is related to the capacity for seeing, accessing and using codified resources, as well as assessing the value of any continued use. The "visual" in this semiotic sense relies heavily upon a sense and value of a shared aesthetic, as well as a sytem for extra-aesthetic function and activity. It is the ability
to monitor the social activity and social process that is explicitly anthropological (Morphy and Banks 1997: 2; Ruby 1980).
We could label the medium of the Gesar epics as "Tibetan" from an ethnic perspective or "Tibetan Buddhist from an anthro-religious one. In historical context, the Gesar legends were first produced in the 11th century at a time when Buddhism began to prevail over the local shamanistic beliefs of the Bon religion. While parts of the epic from version to version remain unchanged, such as the retelling of the basic story-line of the birth and adventures of the legendary hero, part of the tradition involves an extemporizing aspect. Both in the earlier oral tradition as well as in written accounts.
Penick , the latest author in this stream of continuity, states that "the odd thing about Gesar that is different from say The Odyssey is that it is the subject of extemporized written tradition. People add to it as we go along, for example Do Khyentse, Mipham Namgyal and Kalu Rimpoche (telephone conversation with Penick 12/11/97). The earlier oral style also contained this aspect of extemporization. "Drung-singers," or visionary bards, were travelling singers who composed the earlier oral versions. These singing specialists, performance artists of their time, would tell stories for hours at a time. It is further noted that these drung singers had " special powers for recalling, retelling, and singing the endless epics of Gesar in beautiful poetry that takes place right in front of them" (Thondrup Rimpoche 1996: xvii-xviii). While memorizing information and social facts was a key element, an ability to apply an insight at the appropriate time was also instrumental in the visionary's role. This social role also brought with it a sense of social status very similar to the status acquisition described by others in different contexts (Bourdieu 1991; Akinnaso 1995).
It is this element of extemporization that introduces an aspect of social commentary that is contextual and contemporary despite the unchanging elements of the traditional story. It is often the current contextualization which while appearning most vague coincidentally holds a place for observation and participation in the creative process.
This, type of ritual and play language has been a fruitful area for many involved in the study of ethnopoetics (Sherzer ; Siran 1993) and who have proposed that this type of activity involves not just language comepetency, but a cultural competency that involves language use. What becomes important is not only a treasury or canon of knowledge to build upon, but also an ability for spontaneous, creative and timely responsiveness that applies to the building of a "context of context' (Siran 1993). This is particularly applicable and similar to the type of aesthetics involved in proverb use or ritual divinatory practice. Both of these can be directly associated with not just the epic construction of the Gesar sagas, but social construction of identity as well.
While the original form of drung-singing was affiliated with a geographic locale indigenous to Tibet and perhaps earlier in Mongolia, there is an aspect of historical continuity recognized as "Tibetan Buddhist".that now belongs to a poetic landscape. At a time when most Tibetan Buddhists are outside the point of geographic origin, as well as clear across the world, Some aspects of the culture as well as the culture bearers are still being recognized, identified and classified as "Tibetan Buddhist." What aesthetic elements are present in the Gesar epics in their continuity? How would the notion of a "Tibetan aesthetic" be defined. And how does Penick continue this sense of aesthetic in the current form?
One description of the"life-force" or "energy" that Rimpoche speaks of as particularly Tibetan Buddhist is the concept of vajrayana or tantrayana which has been described as "an exquisite realm, the aesthetic realm par excellence" (Thurman 1988: 121) as well as "an interior science" (Thurman 1988: 121; Yeshe 1987:8). It has also been described as a "way of being, and a form of social and political activity capable of flowing around and beyond any hierarchical structure (Samuel 1993: 573). Another describes the idea of tantra as "far from being a system of dogma to be accepted on faith or authority, it is a practical step by step exploration of the human condition leading to personal and social transformation (Yeshe 1987: 8).
In any cultural tradition, certain symbols come to acquire greater significance or importance. These symbols serve as major instruments or vehicles for conceptualization and as major affective models that motivate people to act in certain ways; they have a greater cognitive and emotive function. From the user's perspective they have complex, internal associations and at one level become metaphors. These symbols are abstract models which fuse past, present and future; they store meaning as experienced in the past, convey meaning for action, and project images for the future (Pandian 1985: 36-38).
Gesar as a mythical and symbolic figure has held a "staying power" similar to the power described by Caughey in "Social Relations with Media Figures" where the symbolic figure that one never met and might never meet serves as a mentor and role model , and that there is a relationship built on connecting to the figure through a system of knowledge where there is a relationship of the most intense and intimate fashion (Caughey 1984: 31-39). In this case, Gesar gets reified as a cultural product, media figure and cultural icon which continues to engage people in forms of personal and social transformation.
While many Tibetans and Tibetologists employ a uniquely constructed enlightenment project, they are content with employing Gesar in the metaphorical sense, some accounts of the epic assert an historical acknowledgement of the "founding ancestor of the people of K'am (east Tibet), and of a culture hero who defeated the non-Buddhist kings all over east Tibet and near the borders (Samuel 1993:68) Thus Gesar also carries the story of an inherent "Tibetenization" in relation to other neighboring tribes and cultures.
Closer reading also brings to light that it was Tibetan men who were trained as lamas who executed tantric and often secular power. And it's also been noted that "the most successful of these visionary lamas, creators of new religious orders or founders of new political structures who were able to transform the shape of Tibetan religion and society through their activities. And further that "symbolic power" was often accompanied by or produced political power as can be seen most easily in the centralization and hierarchy established in Lhasa. The lamas were able to occupy their exceptional position because of their highly specialized training which prepared them for their combined shamanic and clerical role. Samuels also notes that shifts in socio-religious state status are reflected in the epic versions, the time of "visionary" interjections in the history of the epic coincide with ruptures in the social order of Tibet.
Aesthetics, extra-aesthetics and transnationalism in the Gesar epics
As the Gesar myth slips over new transnational borders, it's the writers, the artists, the scholars in addition to or in place of lamas who carry out the story. As Penick has also studied with Tibetan Buddhist teachers, he in one sense carries on the teacher-student lineage
in terms of self-representation. Throughout the text, Penick evokes a tradition of shared terminology, symbols, beliefs and values that continue to represent a particular cultural identity. In somewhat naïve fashion because the text is dense with Buddhist terminology and Tibetan Buddhist codes including the few but rich iconographic illustrations, I thought that this rendition was geared for a Tibetan or American-Tibetan Buddhist audience. Penick has commented that many Tibetans in his social circle, in fact, cannot speak Englishand that even in his own Buddhist community, he "was met with suspicion. " Penick, a Princeton graduate says that this current version was inspired by the Mahabharata and was designed to be a performance piece set to music; he further stated that it was better received in arts circles than in the Buddhist communities. This is, perhaps, a variation of an "unintended audience " (Jhala 1994) as Tibetan Buddhists cross geographic boundaries as well as conceptual ones and in so doing, perhaps create new visions of alternative social orders. That is, if previous versions of the Gesar epic, and the perpetuation of a particular genre of epic-construction was undifferentiated from socio-religious and political activities, the shift to personal and cultural identity construction in relation to aesthetic self-determination is an interesting cultural turn which warrants further consideration.
In closing, I echo insights asserted by another anthropologist that "culture and our views of 'it' are produced historically and are actively contested"(Clifford 1986: 18) in an open-ended context of cultural encounters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Akinnaso, F. Niyi
1995 Bourdieu and the Diviner: Knowledge and
Symbolic Power in Yoruba Divination. In The Pursuit of Certainty, ed.
Wendy James. London: Routledge
Bourdieu, P.
1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Briggs, Charles L.
1988 Competence and Performance: The Creativity of
Mexicano Verbal Art. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Caughey, John L.
1984 Relations with Media Figures. In Imaginary
Social Worlds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Clifford, James
1985 Introduction: Partial Truths. In Writing
Culture: The Politics and Poetics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California
Press; pp.1-27.
Coote, Jeremy
1992 Marvels of Everyday Vision: The Anthropology of
Aesthetics and Cattle Keeping Nilotes. In Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Foucault, Michel.
1982 The subject and power. In Michel Foucault:
Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics by Herbert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ginsberg, Fay
1991 Indigenous Media: Faustian Contract or Global
Village? In Rereading Cultural Anthropology. Ed. George Marcus., pp. 356-376.
Gunmperz, John J.
1968 The speech community. In International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 9: 381-386.
Hymes, Dell
1962 The ethnography of speaking. In Thomas Gladwin
and William C. Sturtevant, eds. In Anthropology and Human Behavior.
Washington: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Jhala, Jayasinghi
1993 The Unintended Audience. In The Construction of
the Viewer: Media Ethnography and the Anthropology of Audiences. Ed. P.
Crawford and Hafsteinsson .
Obelkevich, James
1989. Proverbs and social history. Peter Burke and Roy
Porter, eds. In The Social History of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pandian, Jacob
1986 Anthropology and the Western Tradition. Prospect
Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.
Penick, Douglas J.
1996 The Warrior Song of King Gesar. Boston: Wisdom
Publications.
Rimpoche, Sakyong Mipham
1995 Foreward . In The Warrior Song of King Gesar.
Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Rinpoche, Tulku Thondup
1996 Introduction. In The Warrior Song of King Gesar.
Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Ruby, Jay
1980 Exposing Yourself: Reflexivity, Film and
Anthropology. In Semiotica 3: 153-79.
Samuel, Geoffrey
1992 Civilized Shamans. The Smithsonian Institute:
Washington D.C.
Sherzer, Joel
1983 Kuna Ways of Speaking: An Ethnographic
Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1982 Play Languages: With a note on ritual languages.
In Exeptional Language and Linguistics. New York: Academic Press.
Siran, Jean-Louis
1993 Rhetoric, Tradition and Communication: The
Dialectics of Meaning in Proverb Use. In Man: V.28, pp.225-242.
Thurman, Robert
1987 Vajra Hermeneutics. In Buddhist Hermeneutics. Ed
Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Kuroda Institute.
Yeshe, Lama
1987 Introduction to Tantra. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
