The brilliant phase of artistic activity that began with Yeshe Ö and Rinchensangpo was also the most
creative in the history of western Tibetan painting. The only distinctive and original style of painting
that prevailed in western Tibet was that which has been designated here as Khache-Tibetan style and which
has been discussed briefly in the introductory chapter. As was also mentioned in that chapter, there
have not yet been any thankas found in the Khache-Tibetan style. The second style, which seems to have
reached western Tibet in the thirteenth century from the central region, was the Kadampa style. Although
the principal examples of this style too are to be found in wall paintings, some thankas painted in this
style have emerged, but none can be dated earlier than the fourteenth century (Pl. 17). As has already
been mentioned, a few thankas in this style were recovered some years ago from a sunken cave monastery
near the Sibchu River in the Kailash region.
Olschak and Wangyal, pp. 50-52.
Another group acquired from monasteries in Ladakh and the
Indian Himalayas is now in the University of Michigan Museum.
Copeland.
Most of these thankas may be dated no
earlier than the fifteenth century, and they are all characterized by a nervously energetic linear
rhythm, crudely placed colours and by quaint archaisms.
Pl. 17 Vajrasattva and Prajna Western Tibet. late 13th century 36.6 x 32.5 cm. Zimmerman Family Collection
Moreover, after the fifteenth century, because of
constant synthesizing tendencies of western Tibetan artists, not only do we find a divergent array of
modes prevalent in the region but very little information is available about the origin of the thankas.
Not until the fifteenth century does one encounter the emergence of a new style in western Tibet. As with
thankas, few of the murals surviving in western Tibetan monasteries and the cave temples in Ladakh can
be dated with any certainty to the fourteenth century. However, despite recent interest in the Buddhist
monasteries of Ladakh, Zanskar and the Indian Himalayas, which include the famous monastery of Tabo,
much work remains to be done in sorting out the various styles and dates of these establishments.
Moreover, not since Tucci, has there been any new study done of the monuments of the ancient kingdoms of
Guge or Purang, which are of fundamental importance for the understanding of the artistic tradition of
western Tibet.
It has already been noted that the Drigungpas, a branch of the Kagyupas, had made a foray into western
Tibet in the early part of the thirteenth century and were patronized by members of the Ladakh royal
family. They appear to have established themselves around the Kailash region. For the most part, the
early monasteries of both the Tibetan provinces of Nari Khorsum and Ladakh were affiliated with the
Kadampa order. Apart from Rinchensangpo, the most well- known religious person from the west appears to
have been Zanskar Lotsava (eleventh-twelfth century) who is regarded as the founder of the great Karsha
monastery in Zanskar. But he did distinguish himself in central Tibet as well. Except for the Drigungpas
and the Drukpas (both subsects of the Kagyupas), no other religious order appears to have exerted much
influence in western Tibet until the arrival of the Gelukpas in the fifteenth century. Indeed, it is
somewhat surprising that during their heyday, the Sakyapas made little attempt to exercise their power
and authority in the west. Nevertheless, the well-known Sakyapa monasteries of Tsang must have attracted
both monks and traders from the western regions - Gyantse was an important trading centre - and Sakyapa
style thankas must have found their way into western Tibetan monasteries. Certainly the artistic evidence
from western Tibetan monasteries does support this surmise.
Pl. 42 A Bodhisattva worshipped by monks Western Tibet, 14th century 17.3 x 15.2 cm. Private Collection
Western Tibetan artists in particular seem to have been fond of archaizing tendencies, and of
synthesizing various manners, of drawing in a rather free and spontaneous style, and of distorting the
figural forms. Some of these characteristics have already been noted in our discussion of the Kadampa
style. They may also be frequently observed in metal sculptures of western Tibet. However, such
unconventional tastes did not result in unattractive works. On the contrary, they reveal a spontaneity of
execution and express an unexpected vitality that one misses in more carefully delineated paintings. This
is clearly evident from the Kadampa style Vajrasattva (Pl. 17) and also two charming illustrations on a
manuscript page, one of which is reproduced here (Pl. 42).
There seems no doubt that the style of this manuscript illumination is related to the Sakyapa paintings
but how refreshingly different this painting is. Noteworthy are the strong distortion of the
bodhisattva’s figure, the unnaturalness of his posture, the awkwardness of his hands and the indications
of the knees as two little bumps that look more like bunions than kneecaps. Nevertheless, the figure is
visually attractive against the bold and unusual design of the aureole behind him. Even more charming are
the little smiling monks, each seated on a lotus and enclosed by interconnecting vines. Similar
intertwining tendrils also enclose the monks in the Sakyapa lineage thanka (Pl. 35), but here the monks
have been rendered with greater spontaneity and are more playful than the somber and dignified figures in
the thanka.
The two thankas illustrated in Pls.43-44 were probably painted in western Tibet but they reflect
distinctly different mannerisms. The early fifteenth century thanka of Mañjuśrī (Pl. 43) is stylistically
related to the western Tibetan version of the Kadampa style (Pl. 17), but seems also to have been
modified by the Sakya-pa style.
Both the style and iconography of this painting closely resemble the illustrations of the 1410 Kanjur (see Karmay 1975, p.57, no.36). Thus an early fifteenth century date for this thanka seems certain.
The drawing is not quite as spontaneous and cursive as we see in the
Kadampa style murals or in the earlier Zimmerman thanka, nor is it quite as refined as the firm
draughtsmanship characteristic of Sakyapa thankas. The lightly delineated flame or floral decoration
behind the figures and the treatment of the lotus continue the Kadampa tradition, but the figural forms,
the finely delineated garments of the principal embracing couple, the design of the crown and the
colouring are more akin to the Nepali-Sakyapa style.
Pl. 35 Sakyapa Lineage Central Tibet (Sakyapa monastery), 15th century 132.1X 115.8 cm. Los Angeles County Museum of Art The Nash and Alice Heeramaneck Collection
Pl. 43 Gaya Matijuvajra in yab-yum Western Tibet, Early 15th century 40.7x 36.8 cm. Doris Wiener Gallery, New York
Pl. 44 Bhaishajyaguru and his Divine Realm Western Tibet, 15th century 52.6 x 44 cm. Edwin Binney 3rd Collection
The colouring is even bolder in the Bhaishajyaguru thanka (Pl. 44) which shows a stronger tendency to
formal organization of the composition characteristic of the Sakyapa style. The elaborate throne, as we
have already noted, is a very distinctive characteristic of the Sakyapa style, derived ultimately from
Nepal. However, rarely in Nepali paintings does one encounter such stiff and columnar figures as the two
bodhisattvas standing on either side of Bhaishajyaguru. There is no doubt that this thanka was painted
for a Tibetan patron, for it includes a large group of Tibetan monks who would not have been portrayed in
a Nepali painting. The worshipping monk and the presence of both Gurgyi Gonpo and Lhamo indicate that the
patron may have been a Sakyapa monk. But whether it was rendered in western or southern Tibet is more
difficult to determine. What may betray its western Tibetan origin is the treatment of the standing
bodhisattvas and of the elephant and rampant griffin on the throne. The masked kīrttimukha head at the
apex of the throne is also seen more often in thankas from western Tibet. The Nepali artists, as a rule,
preferred to place a complete figure of a garuḍa at this spot.
One of the key monuments for the history of painting in this period in western Tibet is the Red Temple at
Tsaparang which, as Tucci has convincingly demonstrated, was built in the mid-fifteenth century.
For the latest discussion and references to Tucci see Huntington.
By a
comparison with the murals in this temple and others in a similar style in the Serkhang in Tabo, it is
now generally admitted that a distinctive style developed in the mid-fifteenth century in Guge which is
designated as the ‘Guge’ style. Variations of this style can be traced as far west as Karsha in Zanskar
(the Labrang temple), but, by and large, the style remained confined to Tsaparang and Tabo and was quite
shortlived.
Murals in the fifteenth century Guge style (with local variations) can also be seen in some of the caves at Saspol (Caves 2 and 3), Basgo gonpa and Shey in Ladakh.
The Guge style is illustrated here by a thanka representing the cosmic form Fig. 12 of Avalokiteśvara
(Pl. 46), and a paradise thanka which is especially characteristic of the style (Fig. 11). The style has
been studied at length by John Huntington who characterizes it as an ‘amalgam’ of retardaire Kashmiri
tendencies and features from Nepali and Chinese traditions. If indeed Kashmiri elements are discernible
in the style, then they must be survivals of the Khache-Tibetan style of the eleventh century rather than
deriving directly from Kashmir. Parenthetically, it may be pointed out that Kashmir had only recently
been converted to Islam and the first attempt to conquer Ladakh was made during the reign of Sikander
(1394-1416), and yet there is no evidence of any exodus of Kashmiri monks or artists around 1400.
However, a glance at the Khache-Tibetan style murals (Pls. 1-2) will also reveal that almost nothing of
that style has survived in the Guge style thankas of the fifteenth century. As Huntington has
demonstrated, in some of the Tabo murals one can discern some archaisms, only in the figurative form,
from the earlier style, but by and large, the primary inspiration of the Guge style appears to have been
the Sakyapa tradition.
Pl. 45 Cosmic Form of Avalokitesvara Central Tibet (Gyantse style), 15th century 50x40.5 cm. Professor M. Driesch Collection, Cologne
Pl. 46 Cosmic Form of Avalokitesvara Western Tibet (Guge style), 15th century 91.5 x 66 cm. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Purchase, Andrew R. and Martha Holden Jennings Fund
Fig. 11
Amitabha and his Western Paradise
Western Tibet (Guge)
1450-1500 112.4x 86.3 cm.
Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
From the Nash and Alice Heeramaneck Collection. Museum Associates Purchase
Fig. 12
Scenes from the Early Life of the Buddha
Eastern Tibet, dated 1686 81.3 x53.3 cm.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Even a cursory comparison of the Eleven-headed Lokesvara (Pl. 46) with the earlier representation of the
same subject at Alchi (Pl. 2) at once shows how distinctly different the later painting is. On the other
hand, it offers a closer comparison with a near contemporary representation of the same subject
reflecting the Gyantse style (Pl. 45). At the same time, however, there are significant differences
between these two thankas. The Guge figures are covered with a greater profusion of clothing. Moreover,
the folds and design of the attire and the scarves are totally different from those that occur in the
Khache-Tibetan style and are adapted from the sinified mode encountered in the Sakyapa style. Similarly
the ‘Chinese’ cloud formations must have been borrowed from Sakyapa paintings rather than from Chinese
paintings directly. The petals of the lotus on which Avalokiteśvara stands imitated the Sakyapa version
of the Chinese lotus, while the grey mountain forms reflect a naturalism that is not generally
encountered in Nepali paintings. The assembly of monks and other deities around the figure are not
constrained by rigid registers in the Nepali manner but float more freely over the surface and in between
the cloud patterns. Indeed, the blue background along with the cloud motif makes it clear that while
Avalokiteśvara stands on a lotus emerging from the cosmic ocean, all the other figures are floating in
the sky and witnessing the divine revelation. Such clouds, the shapes of the mountains, the lotus rising
from the waters, the floating figures against red aureoles as well as the treatment of the garments are
all encountered in the Gyantse murals (Pls. 20-21) though in a different expression and with expected
variations.
Pl. 20 A Mahasiddha Central Tibet (Gyantse Kumbum). Early 15th century Mural
Pl. 21 A Goddess Central Tibet (Gyantse, Tsug Lakhang) Early 15th century Mural
Fig. 9
Dancing Vajravarahi
China (Kharakhoto), Before 1227
Watercolours on hemp cloth; 111 x67 cm.
The Hermitage Museum, Leningrad
Fig. 10
The Life of Sakyagri (1127-1225)
Central Tibet (Sakyapa monastery)
ca.1300 85.8 x 66.4 cm. R. H. Ellsworth, Ltd.
The most distinctive of the Guge style thankas depicts paradises based on texts that are rich in
descriptions of nature (Fig. 11). Interestingly, however, the natural forms employed in these paradise
thankas seem not to reflect any influence of the Chinese landscape tradition. Moreover, they retain no
memories of the well-known paradise paintings of Central Asia, either in terms of style or iconography.
They also bear no relation to the paradise painted at Alchi and, to date, no prototype in Nepal has come
to light. The bejewelled trees and flowers in the Guge paradises in general follow the decorative
conceptualization of such forms seen in the Indo-Nepali tradition (Fig. 10), while the architectural
forms used for the celestial pavilions are based generally on the wooden architectural style prevalent in
the Himalayas. Although numerous figures densely pack the composition, they are not rigidly
compartmentalized in the Nepali manner. Nor do they sit impassively in a strictly symmetrical
arrangement, but walk, bend, sit and fly in a wide variety of postures. True, the posture and gestures
are ritualized and the density of the figures makes concentration difficult; nevertheless the
compositions, on the whole, are lively and interesting. The only Nepali painting which shows a similarly
animated composition of countless figures is a sixteenth century paubha depicting the restoration of the
Svayambhunath stuūpa.
Pal 1975, p.69.
In general the consistency and homogeneity of the Guge style indicates that it may have been created by a
single group or family of artists who were well aware of the Sakyapa tradition in south-central Tibet.
The most creative period of the style was the second half of the fifteenth century when the artists were
involved in painting the murals of the Red Temple in Tsaparang. However, as already noted, the style was
short-lived for in the next century it became considerably modified with other visual elements which must
have arrived in the train of the Gelukpas who had begun making their presence felt by the second half of
the fifteenth century.
The Sakyapa style with its admixture of Nepali and Chinese elements seems to have been the dominant
influence in western Tibet in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as is evident from several other
examples illustrated here
Strong Sakyapa influences may also be seen in murals at Phugtal (Snellgrove and Skorupski 1980, pl. V) in Zanskar and in Saspol near Alchi. In fact some of the Phugtal murals are extremely close to those of the Gyantse Kumbum.
(Pls.47-49). It is not always easy to determinevthe orders for which such
thankas were done. For instance, the thanka of Amitāyus (Pl. 47) may have been rendered for a Kagyupa
monastery because of the inclusion of the figure of Padmasambhava in the top row. Some of the others
(Pls. 52-54) are Bonpo thankas but the forms of the deities are basically not different from those of the
Buddhist gods. Although some of the religious ideas of the Bonpos go back to the pre-Buddhist days, both
in the conceptualization and the iconography of their deities, they were heavily influenced by the
Buddhists.
Pl. 47 Buddha Amitayus Western Tibet (Kagyupa monastery), 15th century 50.8 x 47.7 cm. Private Collection
Pl. 48 Angry form of Kubera Western Tibet (?), 15th century 117x95.3 cm. Private Collection
Pl. 49 A Buddhist Goddess Western Tibet (?), ca.1500 29x25 cm Private Collection
Most of these thankas are strongly influenced by the Sakyapa style, but at the same time they are
characterized by touches of provinciality and whimsy and generally more cursive draughtsmanship, features
that lead us to suggest a western Tibetan origin for them. The clothes and scarves as well as the
rendering of the lotus, the compositional arrangement of the four principal figures (Pl. 51) are
undoubtedly borrowed from the Sakyapa tradition, but the drawing in these paintings is not quite as
accomplished as one finds in Sakyapa thankas. The Sakyapa artist’s concern with meticulous detailing,
firm, steady drawing and smooth, even colouring is here eschewed for more summary though spontaneous
execution. For instance, neither the background design nor the flaming aureoles are delineated as
carefully as in Sakyapa paintings.
Pl. 50 Buddha Sakyamuni Western or Central Tibet, Late 15th century 161.29x99 cm. Private Collection
Pl. 51 Four Angry Deities Western Tibet, 16th century 50.8 x 36 cm. Ravi Kumar Collection
However, some thankas such as the Buddha Śākyamuni (Pl. 50) and the unusual Angry Kubera (Pl. 48) are
just as refined as any Sakyapa paintings known. The source of both thankas is difficult to determine. The
Śākyamuni thanka is said to have emerged from the monastery of Lamayuru, although it also shows
similarities with paintings in Central Tibet and Bhutan.
Klimburg-Salter, p.200 for the Lamayuru attribution and Olschak and Wangyal, p.68 for central or eastern Tibetan thanka now decorating the Temple of the Swans near Bumthang in eastern Bhutan.
If indeed this thanka emerged from Lamayuru, it
may have been brought there from central Tibet. Whatever its origin, it is an attractive thanka that is
not only beautifully drawn but also reveals a delicate and sensitive use of colours. The red and orange
robes have totally different tonal values than one normally encounters in western Tibetan or Sakyapa
paintings, while the blue has the luminosity of lapis lazuli rather than the dense indigo blue more
favoured by Nepali artists.
A similar blue is also used strikingly in the thanka of the Angry Kubera (Pl. 48) which is a superb
painting, no matter where it was created. For several reasons, this remains an unusual thanka, even
though its ultimate source of inspiration was the Sakyapa style. Clearly here we are encountering a work
by an original artist who has left a strong impress of his individuality. His images are bold and his
colours reveal a range and tonality that are quite different from the Sakyapa thankas. Subtle and
delicate, some of the shades, such as the mauve behind the figure or the shocking pink of the decorative
flames, are rarely encountered in other thankas. Unusual also are the rows of offerings on either side of
the stem and foliage of the lotus at the bottom of the thanka. But perhaps the most interesting feature
in this thanka is the rich cloak of peacock feathers worn by Kubera. This provides a tenuous link with
the past for in one of the finest compositions among the Alchi murals, a queen is seen approaching
Mahākāla, riding a horse and wearing a similar cape of peacock feathers.
Pal 1982B, P1.544.
It is not known whether Tibetan
royalty used such sumptuous capes, but that they were much sought after by Chinese royalty is known from
textual evidence.
E. H. Schafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand (Berkeley and Los Angeles, u.c.p., 1963), p.114.
Although some information about the religion of the Bonpos is known, very little work has been done on
their art. Just as they organized their religion following Buddhist models, so also in their artistic
creations, they adopted Buddhist ideas and forms with some modifications and variations. Once found all
over Tibet, today the Bonpos are confined mostly to eastern Tibet and along the northwestern border of
Nepal. However, they do have an important monastery in Tsang and once the Bon religion was greatly
popular in the western regions. As a matter of fact their tradition claims the land of Shangshung (Zhang
zhung) was their original habitat and the region is generally identified with western Tibet. Mount
Kailash is considered by the Bons to be their most sacred mountain and is called Zhang zhung hon ri.
The presence of the large Bon monastery in Tsang may explain the strong Sakyapa influence evident in a
thanka representing Lha chen po dBal ge khod. One of the most important Bon deities, he may be
recognized, by his eighteen arms of yellow colour and the garuḍa-like khyung bird flying over his head
(Pl. 52). As can also be seen his companions include a greater number of animal- and bird-headed deities
than is usual in Buddhist thankas. Note further the inclusion of a large number of mahasiddhas, (who are
common to Buddhist iconography as well), in the two top registers. Also noteworthy are the distinctive
hats of some of the Bonpo hierarchs and of the figures in the dedication panel at the lower left. Indeed,
except for such minor differences in costumes and iconographic features, the only other motif that seems
to be different from Buddhist thankas is the shape of the flames behind the central figure.
Pl. 52 Lhachenpo Balge Khod Western Tibet, 16th century, 80x68 cm. Mr. and Mrs. John Gilmore Ford Collection, Baltimore
Pl. 53 Bonpo Deity Dolpo (Nepal?), Late 16th century 77x66 cm. Private Collection
Pl. 54 Bonpo Deity Dolpo (Nepal?), Late 16th century 79x 62 cm. Private Collection
Similar flames are used with even greater expressiveness behind the prancing and militant figures in two
other Bonpo thankas that form a pair (Pls. 53-54). Apart from this and some iconographic elements,
however, these two thankas have very little in common with the one just discussed. The principal deities
in both thankas are placed within shrines with Chinese style roofs but the columns are formed with
bizarre imagery. In one, the columns consist of piled up corpses and multi-hued animal heads projecting
outwardly. In the other, three rows of skulls and severed heads are employed. The macabre nature of the
imagery is further emphasized by the row of heads that adorn the base of the shrine and the sea of blood
along the bottom. On either side of the shrine are the charnel fields of the cremation ground with
scavenging birds and animals, severed limbs and dancing skeletons - all represented against a black
background adorned with golden scrolls in the manner of a special type of painting we will study later in
this book. Various emblems and gruesome offerings are also presented against a similar background along
the bottom, while above the shrine gods and hierarchs sit in contemplative tranquility.
Although the architectural design as well as the use of gold scrolls on black have been adapted from
eastern Tibetan paintings, the figural forms and the colouring are more akin to the Sakyapa style
paintings of western Tibet. The thankas could also have been painted for the Bonpo monastery in Tsang,
and thus, the western Tibetan attribution is by no means certain. These examples, once again, reiterate
the difficulty in suggesting definite origins for thankas.
Pl. 17
Pl. 42
Pl. 35
Pl. 43
Pl. 44
Pl. 45
Pl. 46
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Pl. 20
Pl. 21
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Pl. 47
Pl. 48
Pl. 49
Pl. 50
Pl. 51
Pl. 52
Pl. 53
Pl. 54