Commanding the Defilement Master: Materiality and Blended Agency in a Tibetan Buddhist Mdos Ritual

Abstract

Tibetan Buddhist ritualists devote immense energy to constructing specialized material items employed during practical rites. These material objects, such as gtor ma (ritual offering cakes), glud (dough effigies), and so forth, serve as conduits between the human and non-human, immaterial realm. This article examines the material, human, and immaterial non-human agencies in a particular grib mdos (defilement substitute-offering ritual) that invokes the deity Yamāri and summons an entity called the Grib bdag (Defilement Master) to clear away defilements (grib). This ritual demonstrates fluid dynamics between the material and immaterial, as human and non-human agencies seemingly blend. I will argue that although the material and non-human elements constitute key aspects of this rite, ultimately an emphasis on how human agency shapes and constructs the material and non-human dimensions captures the salient dynamics of both the ritual and its related textual production. This approach aims to center human cognition, the historical development of ritual, and hence practice and textual creativity.

1. Introduction

The Tibetan Buddhist world recognizes numerous obstacles that may prevent an individual from living a safe, prosperous life directed toward a favorable rebirth or the ultimate soteriological goal of enlightenment. These possible defilements (grib) include one’s own past negative actions coming to fruition, ill will from others, or even malevolent spirits (gdon). To combat these negative influences, Tibetans often seek help from Buddhist ritual specialists whose expertise can eradicate such harmful afflictions. These ritualists use a combination of meditative visualizations and manipulation of the material world to coax spirit entities to aid in their plight. In this way, the ritualists exact power from the transcendent onto the material world, dissolving the boundaries between humans, deities, spirits, and the material. The ubiquitous mdos rituals, found in the ritual repertoire of both Buddhist and Bon Tibetan traditions, employ elaborate material representations of the cosmos, thread-crosses, effigies, and various offerings to commune with the non-material realm. In this article, I will discuss a particular mdos ritual that summons an entity known as the Defilement Master. This mdos ritual, composed by the illustrious polymath Rig ʼdzin Chos kyi grags pa (1595–1659) of the ʼBri gung Bkaʼ brgyud tradition, is titled The Ultimate Action of the Defilement Destroying Diamond: A Very Concise Grib Mdos Ritual (Grib ʼjoms rdo rje pha lam gyi las mthaʼ grib mdos shin tu bsdus pa). Here, I analyze the ritual text to unveil the fluid dynamics of the material and immaterial components of the cosmos, and hence the functionality of the rite. Secondly, I consider the socio-historical context of this ritual as just one iteration of a ritual template, shifting conversations of material and non-human agencies toward the primary agency of the human as perceiver and creator.

2. Materiality and the Discourse of Agency

The post-humanist “material turn” focuses scholarly attention on how humans interact with and are acted upon by objects. This trend marks an important shift in religious studies, and perhaps, it is particularly felicitous in the study of Tibetan Buddhism since that world is populated with an array of religiously significant objects—from prayer wheels to rdo rje, mālā, magical effigies, and so on. Moreover, the material turn further supports the diversifying of Buddhist Studies scholarship, once solely dominated by research on philosophy, meditation, and all things related to the mind. In fact, this trend is a natural extension of the religious studies critique of Protestant-centric notions of “religion” as belief. This critique paved the way for scholars to investigate the significance of action, which invariably constitutes the importance of the material, physical world. These changes, coupled with the post-modern deconstruction of categories (particularly dualisms) and power structure analysis (e.g., those inherent in language, i.e., the linguistic turn), have pushed forward an important meta-analysis of categorization, namely, material, personhood, mind, body, spirit, god, etc., and how these distinctions intersect with one another.

Following in this vein, the very idea or reification, therefore, of the “material” must be investigated. What is at stake in deeming something material? What ideas does this connote and to whom and in what circumstances? First, it must be considered whether to speak of the “material” necessitates a duality with the “immaterial.”, and if so, determine if this distinction creates a problematic overlay onto the objects of study. As will be clear below, this study will consider the emic modes of categorization, paying close attention to how different types of entities are described and interact with one another in the physical plane. It will be argued here that there is an emic discourse about the material form that is distinct from the immaterial, but blended in some relational contexts. Thus, even though beginning with a base category of reference, nuances in this supposed duality will be explored especially in the context of personhood versus material object and spirit versus material object. Secondly, it must be considered whether speaking of the material inherently negates a material’s capacity to become subject, in other words, to exact agency on something else. This discourse is adjacent to the distinction between animacy and inanimacy, that is, what is considered “living” and thus capable of “acting”. This distinction is, at least to some degree, culturally constructed, as demonstrated by scholars such as biologist Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013), who has addressed language variations that nuance ideas of animacy, showing how some languages inherently extend animacy to entities that other groups might consider “objects”.1 In the Tibetan world, certain “objects” are innately expected to exert agency independently; for example, relics (ring bsrel) and more particularly “increasing bone” (ʼphel gdung) relics are understood to emerge, multiply autonomously, and exert effects on practitioners (Bentor 1994; Martin 1994). With these examples, it is clear that language and other cultural elements both serve as vehicles to construct our reality while simultaneously constraining it to structured norms à la Bourdieu’s (1977) habitus. However, I also contend that humans cognitively share a reality of existence embedded in a field of objects “other” than the “self” or perceiver of that reality (perception especially in the context of the common physical senses). And thus, they are ubiquitously tasked with interacting with that “other”, which necessitates a natural inclination to cognitively distinguish themselves, and things like themselves, from that other. Therefore, I begin with the simplest heuristic as a baseline: the material as that physical “other” to then examine how the given tradition and its language navigate these distinctions, acknowledging the complexities of the discourse on ontology and epistemology that challenge some of these very dispositions of dual referents (e.g., Barad’s theories of agential realism and entanglement that insist that all phenomena are inextricably linked and thus dependent upon one another to be expressed into existence through performative discursive practice).2

More specifically, for the purpose of this article, I am defining the material as any tangible thing that can be visually observed from a collective empirical (secular, non-religious, outsider) perspective and that exists apart from human (or any intent/will-driven conscious beings, e.g., animals) entities. This definition purposefully distinguishes material things from the entities of the “unseen realm”, such as deities and the lesser spirits that inhabit the Tibetan landscape. Moreover, and perhaps more salient in the context of the “material turn”, this distinction may seem to inherently relegate “the material” to “object” in a subject/object dichotomy. To reiterate, one of the primary aspects of the material turn is the insistence that materials can have “agency”; in other words, materials, can exact some sort of power over an object. My approach, too, will assign agency to material objects in specific contexts. However, the focus will be to analyze how these categories (human, material, immaterial), and hence agencies, shift and blend during key power-laden points of the ritual. Distinct from other approaches, I will not completely dismiss the subject/object category altogether but use it as a reference point to analyze the insider view and the mechanics of the ritual. I intend to analyze how those boundaries are traversed in an “agency as discourse”. In other words, the duality will simply serve as a heuristic to examine the embedded discourse of agency within this rite.

This approach is inspired by Alfred Gell’s work written in the 1990s on material theory in the context of art, namely, Art and Agency. For Gell, material objects do more than just convey meaning, they are active agents in social relationships. Importantly, he makes “a distinction between ‘primary’ agents, that is, intentional beings who are categorically distinguished from ‘mere’ things or artefacts, and ‘secondary’ agents, which are artefacts, dolls, cars, works of art, etc. through which primary agents distribute their agency in the causal milieu, and thus render their agency effective” (emphasis added, Gell 1998, p. 20). Thus, while Gell acknowledges that objects can have an effect on us, as if they were “agents” (relegating the human to object), this agency is still impressed upon the world by a conscious, will-imbued subject. Take, for example, a ceremonial scarf (kha btags) in the Tibetan world. As a primary agent, a lay person offers the scarf (an object) to a lama. The lama (as primary agent) blesses and returns (to the lay person) this scarf, which is now a secondary agent. Through this secondary agency, the scarf has a powerful effect on the lay person (who becomes the object) and anyone else who witnesses the item and its value, which is defined through socially determined pathways. These dynamics of primary/secondary agents form meaningful relationships between social actors (here, the lay person(s) and the lama) through the interplay of objects and agency. Gell’s (1998) theory of “distributed personhood” also captures the dynamics of this context with regard to the scarf. Via “distributed personhood”, the secondary agent (here, the kha btags) works beyond the limits of its embodied spatio-temporal confines, reaching multiple objects.3 Imagine that the lay person enshrines this scarf or gives it to someone else. Through “distributed personhood”, the agency of that initial lama may last generations, diffusing its power without the original primary agent’s physical presence but through the secondary object turned agent.

In contrast to Gell’s focus on materials and social relationships, other material theorists (specifically of the post-humanist variety), such as Bruno Latour (2005) and Daniel Miller (2005), push beyond Gell’s idea of secondary agency and insist that material objects have agency on their own accord, without the dominance of human relationships. For example, Latour’s discussion of actor-network-theory (ANT) places human beings, gods, material objects, etc., at an equal ontological capacity as all “actant” nodes in a network, focusing on the relational patterns between them in dynamic changes and flows. Likewise, and similar to Barad’s approach of “dynamic intra-acting”, Miller describes a world emerging only through the dialectical relationships of what our reification-oriented brains falsely perceive as a presupposed subject/object dichotomy. Unlike Gell, who ultimately allows the human to be the primary agent, Miller laments the “tyranny of the subject” (Miller 2005, p. 29). He calls for a shift beyond the social relationships of humans to “promote equality, a dialectical republic in which persons and things exist in mutual self-construction and respect for their mutual origin and mutual dependency” (Miller 2005, p. 38). He claims that we ought to examine the process of “objectification” rather than simply acknowledging that materials can be agents, and he urges scholars to examine how this distinction arises.

Within the field of Tibetan Studies, James Gentry (2017) has offered one of the most thorough studies of material objects. He draws on Gell, Latour, and Miller, among others, to analyze the discourse on power objects in the writings of the famed “Mongol Repeller”, (“Sog bzlog pa”) Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1552–1624). He shows that Sog bzlog pa’s writings capture a world in which materials are not only imbued with power through ritual action or symbolic meanings but also have inherent power in their own right. In this way, the flow of power is multi-directional and agency is nuanced.

My approach is similar to both Latour and Miller (and by extension Gentry) in the sense that it concentrates on how agencies shift and blend between actors in a ritual performative network. However, I diverge from these scholars in recentering the human perspective of those agencies. I remain skeptical of the heuristic utility of any “objective materials”, that is, any materials that are construed as agents without an interpretative, subjective framework overlain by the observer, consumer, or manipulator of that object. This is not to deny that there are particular qualities inherent in objects that facilitate a certain agency in the observer—for example, Webb Keane’s notion of “affordances”. Keane describes an affordance as any phenomenon that gives a potential “apart from our conceptualizations of it” (Keane 2018, p. 33). In other words, certain qualities of phenomena do not narrowly determine human orientation to them, nor are these qualities merely constructions of our observation, but by potentiality, rather, they support the emergence of meaning, utility, and discourse. But does this translate to object agency? Or does it merely set parameters around what we as humans can potentially perceive in an object? I tend to support the latter conclusion and suggest that “affordances” perhaps limit human conceptualization and behoove specific types of manipulation of objects, but they do not solely define our relationship to that object. Moreover, I appreciate the deconstruction of subject/object dualism inherent in the presentations of Miller, Barad, and others as an interesting philosophical exercise that pushes the bounds of our assumed epistemologies. However, these processes wherein the thinking, acting subject does not precede the act of perceiving are by nature theoretical (meaning beyond conceptual heuristics, in a realm exceeding our own experience), and thus they underestimate the human as a discursive agent.

Therefore, following anthropologists such as Ruth Van Dyke (2015),4 I propose a shift back toward the centrality of the human, retaining an “anthropocentric” focus, envisioning “objects as part of a lived aesthetic continuum that affects, enables, and constrains meaning and behavior”, but not as separate agencies from the humans that interact with them (Van Dyke 2015, p. 21). This approach challenges the most recent trend in ritual studies to shift agency to “materials” and non-human actors; important as they are, I argue that human agency should remain at the center of inquiry, and that if we ought to conceptualize any dialectical “entanglement” it should be through the lens of human cognition and human situatedness in the apparent, tangible world.

With this approach I will examine Tibetan ritual materiality—in the context of a mdos ritual—through the lens of an agency discourse, which is predicated on how subjects and objects are delineated by human actors. This will elucidate the internal mechanics of the ritual and situate it in broader, cross-cultural trends and questions about cognitive aspects of ritual practice. By paying close attention to how boundaries between material/immaterial and subject/object are transversed in a “discourse of agency”, a process perceived and here narrated in ritual context by humans, I aim to demonstrate how human interpretive frameworks shape these categorical distinctions.

This article will demonstrate three ways in which analyzing the materiality of this ritual centers human agency: 1. human agents as material constructors (in making ritual objects); 2. human agents as cognizers of sympathetic worlds of the dangerous and monstrous; and 3. humans as receivers, senders, and creators of tradition in text and performance.

3. The Ubiquitous Mdos Ritual

Mdos rituals are common throughout the Himalayan world in both Buddhist and Bon contexts. Generally, the term mdos signifies a broad category of apotropaic rituals meant to protect human patrons from a variety of threats, including maleficent spirits, ill will from others, or even one’s own negative actions. To accomplish this goal, ritualists construct a microcosm of the universe that often includes offerings and/or a dough effigy to serve as a substitute in place of the human patron. Some mdos, as exhibited in the example described here, require building special supports or figures for entities from the unseen realm to facilitate interaction with the patron. Tibetan Buddhists often request these types of rites to be performed when they or a family member have fallen ill.5 For example, in this ritual, it is clear that it should be performed for a singular person (even perhaps oneself as a ritualist) or a small group of sponsors. However, in other cases, mdos can be incorporated into larger community rituals performed by monastic complexes. Large-scale public rituals like the Dgu gtor chen mo, which incorporate mdos practices, are performed near the Tibetan New Year (lo gsar) to clear away any negative forces, forging the path for an auspicious New Year.

As this type of ritual is so widely performed, many scholars have noted its significance and various forms (Barnett 2012; Beyer 1978; Blondeau 2004; [1990] 2022; Orosz 2019a; Karmay [1997] 2009; Kelényi 2012; Lin 2005; Nebesky-Wojkowitz [1956] 1996; Ramble 2004; Steinmann 2011; Szabóová 2024; Tucci [1970] 2007). One of the most recent and thorough accounts is Gergely Orosz’s (2019a) dissertation, which examines the mdos rituals from a Mongolian collection preserved in the Eastern Collection of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.6 Orosz and, before him, Blondeau ([1990] 2022) provide an extensive account of the history of the mdos in Tibetan Studies; therefore, I only include the most salient points here.

Firstly, early scholars often conflated mdos with the concept of the “thread-cross” (nam mkhaʼ), an object made of support sticks with threads wrapped around them in colorful patterns.7 However, contemporary scholarship has delineated the thread-cross from the broader concept of the mdos, which oftentimes, but not always, incorporates these thread structures as a main element.8 The ritual I discuss here, for example, does not contain instructions for a thread-cross structure. Secondly, the mdos-type ritual is also related to, or perhaps interchangeable with, the Tibetan rituals termed gto, glud, and yas. Notably, the ritual here is an example of a mdos without a nam mkhaʼ, giving support to those scholars, namely, Yontan Gyatso and Samten Karmay, who assert that mdos cannot be differentiated from glud by whether or not it contains a thread-cross (Blondeau [1990] 2022, pp. 5–6). Interestingly, this rite employs the term mdos in the title but also uses the terminology glud and yas internally to describe specific masters that take away effigies and offerings, respectively. Steinmann asserts that there is such a wide range of semantic use with regard to these terms that it is impossible to determine a particular pattern that represents all of the Himalayas (Steinmann 2011, p. 3) This ritual confirms the complexity of these terms discussed by previous scholars. Thirdly, the origin of the mdos remains unclear, and traditional sources have attributed them to both Buddhist and Bon origins. Several scholars have put forth conjectures about their provenance. Blondeau, for example, highlights parallels between funeral rites and the mdos, although she refrains from arguing that this is evidence that the mdos are directly derived from these funeral rites. She also mentions that Chinese influence may have been a factor in the development of the mdos (Blondeau [1990] 2022, pp. 17–19). Orosz’s dissertation, however, specifically argues against a non-Buddhist/Bon origin, asserting that the mdos developed from the tantric bgegs gtor ritual (Orosz 2019a, pp. 47–54).

As Orosz and others have emphasized, these rites (mdos, gto, yas, etc.)9 form a predictable pattern, yet the specific materials, deities, and spirit entities vary depending on function and context. For example, a very similar gto ritual discussed by Szabóová invokes Mañjuśrī/Yamāntaka yet employs an effigy of a three-headed black entity (nag po mgo gsum) rather than a man riding a horse (the grib bdag), which is constructed in this ritual (Szabóová 2024). Likewise, she compares this rite to a three-headed entity ritual from the Bon tradition, translated by Ramble (2019), which calls upon Kong tse (Confucius)10 rather than a Buddhist yi dam, such as Yamāri.11 These variations reflect an amalgamation of function, traditional precedent, and perhaps practitioners’ personal relationships with various deities.

4. Grib Mdos: A Subtype of Mdos

The grib mdos examined in this article constitutes a subcategory of the broader mdos ritual classification, differentiated by its specific function, i.e., eliminating grib. The term (s)grib has been translated into English in a variety of ways—as pollution, stain, defilement, obscuration, contamination, or even a spirit that causes illness. Like Mary Douglas’ ([1966] 1984) discussion of dirt and subsequent boundary-transgressing pollution, these words connote anything “out of place” within a particular socio-contextually expected order.12 Here, I have chosen to translate grib as “defilement” rather than following others such as Nebesky-Wojkowitz who uses the term “pollution”, as I contend that “defilement” better captures grib as characterized by the rite itself. The concept of grib in this rite is a “substance” that crosses the porous boundaries between the material and immaterial. For example, a bad omen may attach to someone and this grib must be removed by the rite. In this way, grib captures a resultant process—how something negative materializes—an action or concept that is particularly associated with a result that then continuously affects one’s being. Words such as “pollution”, “stain”, or “contamination” connote something too physical or perhaps even empirical, while “obscuration”, in a Buddhist context, seems too non-physical to represent the affliction of grib, which can manifest from touching impure items and present as a very physical illness. In short, grib covers a wide range of scenarios and represents an ongoing result from the process of encountering impure substances, engaging in negative actions, or even negative propensities for future happenings; thus, it cannot be relegated dichotomously to the physical or non-physical.13

At least two Tibetan Studies scholars have discussed the grib subtype of mdos: Nebesky-Wojkowitz and Orosz. Nebesky-Wojkowitz includes a description of a female grib bdag in Oracles and Demons of Tibet in a larger section on “thread-crosses” and thread-cross ceremonies (Nebesky-Wojkowitz [1956] 1996, pp. 388–90). He also provides a description of the equivalent male version, which is found in this rite, in his section on various dregs pa (Nebesky-Wojkowitz [1956] 1996, p. 307).14 These details will be discussed further below. Orosz’s classification includes the rite in this article as a subcategory of grib gsel rituals, specifically separating the male and female versions of the effigy used.

5. The Ultimate Action of the Defilement Destroying Diamond: A Very Concise Grib Mdos Ritual (Grib ʼjoms rdo rje pha lam gyi las mthaʼ grib mdos shin tu bsdus pa): Sources and Historical Context

The research for this article constitutes textual analysis augmented by ethnographic fieldwork conducted in India in 2024–2025. I first encountered this ritual text in the Collected Works (Gsung ʼbum) of ʼBri gung master Rig ʼdzin Chos kyi grags pa, a prominent figure in the history of the ʼBri gung Bkaʼ brgyud tradition and an active player in the tumultuous political environment of seventeenth century Tibet.15 He is distinguished within the ʼBri gung Bkaʼ brgyud tradition as the progenitor of the important reincarnation lineages known as the Che tshang (“older brother”) and Chung tshang (“younger brother”), in which he is recognized as the first Chung tshang.16 Chos kyi grags pa was an accomplished scholar and displayed expertise in many subjects including medicine,17 astrology, and ritual. Importantly, he was a master in war sorcery, purportedly exacting magic upon the allies of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682), with whom he later shared Yamāntaka teachings, specifically from the cycle Yang zlog meʼi spu gri, the Ultra-Repelling Blazing Razor.18 Chos kyi grags pa’s connection to the yi dam Yamāntaka is clear given that two volumes of his fifteen-volume Collected Works are dedicated to various types of Yamāntaka practice, namely, volumes eleven and twelve. This grib mdos ritual is the twenty-seventh rite in volume twelve.19 The translation and transliteration (Appendix A) provided in this article are derived from this source. It is also featured in the Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo, the famous treasure compilation of ʼJam mgon kong sprul Blo gros mthaʼ yas (1813–1899). In the Gter mdzod, this rite is in the section of Sangs rgyas gling pa’s (1340–1396) treasures called ʼJam dpal nag po Thugs kyi yang zhun.20 In ʼJam mgon kong sprul’s Gter ston brgya rtsa, he enumerates ʼBri gung Chos gyi rgyal po, who I believe is Chos kyi grags pa’s father, Chos rgyal Rin chen phun tshogs (1547–1602), as one of Sangs rgyas gling pa’s dharma heirs (chos bdag).21 Since Rin chen phun tshogs received these teachings, it would likely follow that Chos kyi grags pa would receive them as a successor of the ʼBri gung line.22 It is also worth mentioning that this text is included in the relatively new ʼBri gung compilation ʼBri gung bang mdzod skor lnga (The Five Cycles of the ʼBri gung Treasury) in the Sgrub thabs dngos grub bang mdzod section. It is included twice: once in volume forty-one along with several other rituals connected to the Yang zlog practices, a staple practice of Chos kyi grags pa’s Yamāntaka repertoire, and it appears a second time in volume fifty-seven in a section that includes various mdos rituals.23 This placement is quite interesting given the positioning in other texts like the Rin chen gter mdzod, i.e., not amongst the Yang zlog cycle. However, a ritual specialist from Rdo rje brag has confirmed that “rdo rje pha lam” (diamond) language is usually indicative of the Yang zlog cycle of Yamāntaka, as is also apparent in many phrasings of the Byang gter treasures from Rdo rje brag. Other forms of Yamāntaka practice also exhibit this phrasing to some degree as well. Further research on the Yang zlog cycles from the ʼBri gung and Byang gter collections will hopefully shed light on this connection.

6. Ritual Analysis: A Translation and Discussion of Agency and Materiality

This particular mdos is relatively short (twelve pages24_, including the title page), but it exhibits many of the common features and typical structure of mdos-type rituals documented in previous scholarship.25 In the case of the grib mdos examined below, I have identified a general order of events as follows: 1. preparation—building the ritual microcosm; 2. preparation—deity offerings, visualization, power of truth, and summoning; 3. the deity–human complex commands the Defilement Master and his minions; 4. crafting a material agent and placating the earth spirits; 5. mantras and casting the defilements to the Defilement Master; 6. the departing of the Defilement Master; and 7. the colophon—establishing legitimacy via Atiśa’s precedent.

The following will present a tentative translation of the rite as it appears in the Gsung ʼbum with pauses to give special attention to the various agencies and/or material objects implemented in the rite. I will generally be exploring three types of agency in the rite: human, material, and immaterial entity (i.e., deity and lesser spirit). This grib mdos ritual from Chos kyi grags pa’s Gsung ʼbum will demonstrate how human agency is fundamental in ritual analysis, as it demonstrates the importance of human construction effort, human cognition, and human volition. The ritual exemplifies both the choice to use a traditional template and the creativity of a particular master in making specific changes and developing a particular manifestation of that template, thus illustrating the dynamic between tradition and creativity.

6.1. Preparation—Building the Ritual Microcosm

The first page of the text contains solely the title: The Ultimate Action of the Defilement Destroying Diamond: A Very Concise Grib Mdos Ritual. The ritual itself begins on the second page with a repetition of the title and instructions to build the ritual microcosm. It reads as follows:

“Homage to Yamāri! {Regarding The Ultimate Action of the Defilement Destroying Diamond, A Concise Grib Mdos Ritual: Knead the black dough (zan) [made] from the roasted flour (tshig phye) of black grains (ʼbru) of buckwheat (bra) and pulses (sran). Inside an iron vessel, for instance, make a four-tiered, four-sided Mount Meru. On the first tier, place a black man with a black crest (ʼphru) on his head, mounted on a black horse. A black bird soars above. He leads a black dog at his side. He is dressed in black garments. He brandishes a black silk in his hand, [and] carries behind on his back, a shell (skogs) of an egg (sgong) [laid] by a black hen. In the four directions of the second tier, place four human forms possessing the heads of a bird, snake, pig, and frog/tortoise (sbal). On the third tier, make (byas) and arrange [on] the upper east a tiger, and so forth, either all black or each appearing in its own color. On the fourth tier, make butter lamps, offering morsels (bshos bu), squeezed dough (chang bu), spherical gtor ma (ril bu), and flattened dough (ong skyu)26 equal in number to the age of the patron, all in black color, and arrange on top of the black base in front of oneself. Altogether in a pot, gather the substances of slander (mi kha): buckwheat (braʼo), alpine bistort (ram bu), beer-making residue (sbang ma), guinea pepper (g.yer ma), bone (rus pa) and so forth. Arrange the thumb-length dough substitute effigies (ngar glud), equal in number to the age of the patron in one vessel.”27

As is the case in most ritual texts aimed at pragmatic ends, this rite begins with an homage to the main Buddhist meditational deity (yi dam), Yamāri. Following the homage to Yamāri, a rather extensive note, expanding across two folios (and continued below), instructs the ritualist on how to build the basic structures/effigies: Mount Meru, the Grib bdag rgyal po (the King Defilement Master), and his minions. This instructional note appears in a smaller font compared to the surrounding text (indicated here in the translated text by brackets). This signals that this section should not be read aloud during the performance of the ritual. It is intended merely for instructional purposes, specifically preparatory, describing actions that would occur well before reciting the text during performance of the actual ritual. Since the homage comes prior to these instructions (and will be said aloud during the rite itself), I posit that this demonstrates the necessity of having developed the relationship with the deity prior to any action taken as part of the ritual (including preparations), as is typical of tantric rites.

In regard to constructing the material objects, first, the rite instructs the practitioner to make Mount Meru, the center of the universe within Buddhist cosmology. This microcosmic axis mundi serves as a centerpiece of power that functions to stage the command of otherworldly forces. On the first tier of this structure, the ritualist places the main entity of the rite—the King Defilement Master (Grib bdag rgyal po). Nebesky-Wojkowitz mentions this entity in his chapter on malevolent spirits (dregs pa) (Nebesky-Wojkowitz [1956] 1996, p. 307).28 He uses the terminology “master of pollution”, whereas I have chosen to translate grib as defilement rather than pollution as outlined above. Nonetheless, Nebesky-Wojkowitz’s Grib bdag matches the description of the entity in this text. In fact, as Orosz elucidates, this entity in both a male and female form appears in this same basic pattern across many grib removal rites (Orosz 2019a, p. 170). Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict a female version of this spirit entity incorporated in a series of effigies constructed for the biennial Bkaʼ rgyad Dgu gtor rite at Rdo rje brag Monastery in Shimla, India. Similar to the Grib bdag rgyal po described in Chos kyi grags pa’s rite, she is black, mounted on a black horse with black animals accompanying her, and so forth.

In Figure 3, a monk carries her upstairs along with the other effigies toward a pyre where they will be pushed inside once the fire is ablaze (Figure 1 and Figure 2 are courtesy of Rdo rje brag Monastery).

The second tier displays chimeric representations of the common three poisons, bird/desire (ʼdod chags), snake/aversion (zhe sdang), pig/delusion (gti mug), in addition to a fourth, the frog/ignorance (ma rig).29 Their monstrous, boundary-crossing liminal and fantastical forms represent a materialization of human craving and suffering that underlies the necessity for the grib mdos itself.30 The tangible, material depiction captures the onlooker’s visual senses. Perhaps, too, these conditions stand as “other” not only to distinct categories of human and beast but also antithetical to a true form of enlightenment beyond discursive thought, essentially representing key Buddhist soteriological functions within a ritual deemed magical or pragmatic. Interestingly, the human/animal hybrids of the third tier are only partially enumerated in this section of the text, that is, only the black tiger. The pattern of animals here is explicated further in the rite, but the writer makes a conscious choice to leave this out of the introductory notes. This absence suggests that either this pattern of animals is well known broadly to Buddhist ritualists—an important element students of ritual are taught orally and thus not necessary to record in such a long list here, especially in the form of a truncated ritual—or alternatively, the ritualist is expected to be familiar with the entire written ritual, making the later detailed mention sufficient. The introductory note may only serve as a base reminder of preparation.

The final tier includes a variety of common offering substances. Especially of note here are the substances related to “slander (mi kha)”, which will be an important defilement to be rid of later. Slander, or alternatively translated as “gossip”, is particularly related to grib. Epstein reports that gossip is considered to cause harm. For example, if someone gossips about another’s possessions, those items of wealth tend to disappear. Furthermore, it attracts negative spirits toward the person to whom the gossip was directed (Epstein 1977, p. 91).

Lastly, the instructions specifically read that the number of small substitute effigies should equal the age of the patron, which implies this rite is normally performed for a single, specific individual, even though at times it is incorporated into community-wide rites. The link to the age is a component of identifying the individual patron and distinguishing that person, similar to incorporating pieces of their clothing, nails, hair, or writing their names on paper used within the rites.31

The next section continues the preparatory note, shifting to activities completed at the moments of the ritual directly preceding the chants:

6.2. Preparation—Deity Offerings, Visualizations, Power of Truth, and Summoning

“In addition, one must gather (ʼdu bya) the offering gtor ma for Yamāri and Bhurkuṃkūṭa (Sme brtsegs), the [standard] offerings (mchod pa), the amṛita and rakta, the music offering (rol mo), the black silk streamer (g.yab dar), and so forth. Visualize oneself as Yamāri with Bhurkuṃkūṭa clearly at the heart. In accordance with the vase treatise (bum pa gzhung), visualize Bhurkuṃkūṭa; perform recitations and so forth in accordance with the defilement destroying diamond. Afterwards, circle the black silk streamer over the head of the patron. And having spoken the power of truth (bden stobs) of Yamāri and others,32 summon the Defilement Master and dissolve (bstim) him into the figure (gzugs). Following that, regarding the chant (gyer ba) by melody (dbyangs):}”33

As written here, the two main deities of this text are Yamāri and Bhurkuṃkūṭa. Given the position in the Rin chen gter mdzod and the surrounding rituals with similar language, this Yamāri may be the one-faced, two-armed form found in Sangs rgyas gling pa’s writings. However, given information from interlocutors, it is also possible that this form is particular to Chos kyi grags pa’s Yang zlog Yamāntaka, who is three-faced with six hands, distinguished from similar types found in ʼJam dpal tshe bdag Yamāntaka cycles by the curved iron hook he wields in his uppermost left hand.

Since this ritual is aimed at destroying defilements, Yamāri is coupled with Bhurkuṃkūṭa, a deity commonly associated with illness and purifying defilements. Several types of Bhurkuṃkūṭa exist, distinguished by color, accoutrements, and lineage.34 The colophon of this text mentions a blue-green form associated with Atiśa (982–1054); however, it is unclear whether or not this version visualized here is the same form. Nonetheless, this is likely the case given that two other Bhurkuṃkūṭa-related texts in Chos kyi grags pa’s Gsung ʼbum both enumerate a lineage from Atiśa and one specifically describes a green form.35 I have yet to identify a Bhurkuṃkūṭa “vase treatise” that is specifically associated with Chos kyi grags pa or the broader ʼBri gung lineage, which would more definitively verify the particular form alluded to in this rite. Here, the two deities appear in tandem, and it seems that the combination of Atiśa’s Bhurkuṃkūṭa and this specific Yamāri may be a unique synthesis originated by Chos kyi grags pa himself. Specifically, the instructions to perform in accordance with the “pha lam” and the “vase treatise” may be evidence that Chos kyi grags pa is taking two different practices here and merging them. This is further reflected in the colophon, which mentions that Atiśa sets a precedent to include a grib mdos as the concluding/ultimate ritual of the Bhurkuṃkūṭa practice. It suggests he is creating something different but similar to the practice of a previous master.

As outlined by previous studies,36 one of the main components of any mdos ritual is the “power of truth” that commands the lesser spirits. As the practitioner visualizes these deities and utters the truth, the agencies of the human and enlightened divinity blend and merge to exact power over the Defilement Master. The Defilement Master, as a lesser spirit entity (compared to Yamāri and Bhurkuṃkūṭa), then moves from the solely immaterial world to dissolve into a quasi-material form (gzugs) created by the practitioners. For him to interact with the grib, he is forced into a liminal state “betwixt and between” material and immaterial as they summon him into the center of the cosmos.37 Thus, the blending of human and deity agency supplies the main power behind the ritual, but yet of course activated by the initial meditative will/volition of the human.

6.3. The Deity–Human Complex Commands the Defilement Master and His Minions

This section is quite long as it enumerates all sorts of defilements that the spirits will eradicate, and it describes the Defilement Master’s retinue. Thus, I have broken each into subsections.

6.3.1. The Command

“Hūm; I, Yamāntaka! I, the wrathful king, Bhurkuṃkūṭa! Destroyer of conceptuality, King Heruka! All the haughty spirits of worldly appearances and all the defilement masters (grib bdag), listen to me! Kyai! Beyond the direction of the setting sun, in the deep womb (gting rum) of the Mun pa nag po,38 deep within the black castle of defilement, is the Great King Defilement Master. His body is colored black, the color of darkness (mun pa). Underneath, he mounts a black defilement horse; a black defilement bird soars above him. He wears on his body a black defilement garment and brandishes in his hand a black defilement silk. Stuck on his head is a black defilement crest. He carries on his back a defilement egg sack (snod sgong) and leads at his side a black defilement dog. [I] summon you to this place. Gather in oath (dam). Great Defilement Master, accept (longs) the defilement. Kyai! The four attendant (bkaʼ nyan) minions (las byed) of that [Master] (namely): desire (ʼdod chags) having a head of a black bird, aversion (zhe sdang) having the head of a black snake, delusion (gti mug) having a head of a black pig, and ignorance (ma rig) having the head of a black frog/tortoise (sbal). All of you Defilement Masters, [I] summon you to this place! Gather in oath! Defilement Master, accept the defilement. Kyai!”39

This section (barring the initial homage) begins the chanted portion of the text, that is, the part of the text read aloud as the ritual is performed. Much of this section is thus familiar from the initial instructions at the beginning of the rite (particularly the description of tiers one and two). Yet, importantly, the voice is used to narrate these actions; thus, it is a combination of the material setup and oral narration of action that yields efficacy. The human voice has power; it is a vehicle of intentionality. These spirits must be named and described aloud to be controlled and brought under oath. Notably, more symbolic detail is provided here for each of the entities surrounding the Defilement Master, for example, the specific enumerations of the poisons; whereas, the earlier preparation listed material details for practical purposes (e.g., types of substances used to create them). The next section enumerates all of the defilements that the practitioner commands the Defilement Master to accept.

“The Great King Defilement Master and [your] four attendant (bkaʼ nyan) officials (blon po), you all are the defilement masters. You all are the masters of the basis (gzhi) and differentiation (byes) [of defilement]. Upon myself along with the surrounding sponsors (rgyu sbyor)—food defilements, defilement from clothes,40 the defilement of wealth; living (gson) defilement, death defilement, corpse defilement; vow-breaker (dam nyams) defilement and familial murder (rme)41 defilement, and; leprosy defilement, resentment (ʼkhon) defilement, widow (yug) defilement, and; defilement from the eight classes of spirits, that is, the gods (lha), serpent deities (klu), gnyan spirits, and so forth; the defilement of confused discursive thought (rnam rtog ʼkhrul ba), etc.; the three poisons, the five poisons, the defilement of action; afflictions (nyon mongs), previous karma (sngon las), and sudden difficulties (ʼphral rkyen) defilement; defilements like that and accumulations of wrong doing (nyes pa)—defilement masters, now accept (longs) and cleanse our defilements. Kyai!”42

From this list, it is clear that the conception of defilement (grib) in this rite defies the dichotomy of the material and immaterial. The process of production of grib and resultant process (the continual effect on the patron) shifts between these boundaries. For example, an immaterial activator such as a spirit can physically affect the victim. A physical piece of clothing can be defiled by magic and affect the victim through physical touch. Even if not “physical” in an empirical sense, these defilements can “materialize” as negativities in one’s life and then “de-materialize”, and as will be demonstrated below, be manipulated by the Defilement Master and transported with him. In fact, a patron will visit a ritualist to conduct this ritual if he or she is feeling ill, but as Blondeau has mentioned, these rites can eradicate many other harmful forces that cause life’s calamities (Blondeau [1990] 2022, p. 9).

6.3.2. The Retinue of Astrological Antagonists:

The next section describes in detail the entities on the third tier, whereas above in the preparatory instructions, they are only briefly mentioned. These “astrological antagonists” are pairs of animal-headed entities that are enemies of one another, positioned on opposite sides of the structure. Each pair is associated with a type of harm that must be eradicated.

“Regarding the servants (bkaʼ ʼkhor) of the Great Defilement Master: The upper east has the head of a tiger; the upper west has the head of a monkey. You two seventh-edge opponents (bdun zur)43 that enemy pair (dgra gshed)44 is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits (bgegs). All of you, defilement masters, now accept our defilements and perform the pacification of the harmful seventh edge. The lower east has a head of a rabbit; the lower west has a head of a bird. You two dividing ones (bye bral), that enemy pair is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits. You all, defilement masters, accept now our defilements, and perform the pacifying of harmful dividing ones. The upper south has the head of a snake; the upper north has the head of a pig. You two, that enemy pair of resentment (ʼkhon) is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits. You all, defilement masters, accept now our defilement and perform the pacification of the harmers of resentment. The lower south has the head of a horse; the lower north has the head of a rat. You two, that enemy pair that causes division (ru gcod) is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits. You all, defilement masters, accept now our defilement and perform the pacifications of the harmers of enmity (ʼkhon). The southeast has the head of a dragon; the northwest has the head of a dog. You two, that enemy pair which trample (thog rdzis) is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits. You all, defilement masters, accept now our defilement and perform the pacification of harmers who trample. The southwest has the head of a sheep; the northeast has the head of an ox. You two, that enemy pair of disastrous quarrels (phung gyod) is encircled by a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits. You all, defilement masters, accept now our defilements and perform the pacification of harmers of disastrous quarrel. The twelve great abiding malevolent spirits (gdon chen gnas pa), at this moment, accept our (along with that of the retinue of sponsors) defilements and harming impurities (mi gtsang gnod pa) and unions of inauspicious enemy pairs (dgra gshed skag ngan sbyor ba), and perform the pacification. In regard [to the twelve], differentiated in fives, the five: wood, fire, earth, iron, and water, they revolve by sixty, along with a retinue of a hundred thousand minor obstructing spirits; the enemies of time, the year, month, day, and the defilements of the four seasons, and the five elements, and so forth, and the impurities and the emerging nine inauspicious omens (ngan dgu byung ba), the great malevolent spirits now accept and purify our defilements. {Thus, uttered; the substitute effigies (glud) are blessed by six mantras and six mudrās.}45 Kyai!”46

This section is a clear expression of the significance of astrology and determining inauspicious and auspicious times in Tibetan daily life. The astrological antagonisms most prominently featured here are the opposite pairings of the animal zodiac, that is, the inauspicious pairs: tiger/monkey, rabbit/bird, snake/pig, horse/rat, dragon/dog, and sheep/ox.47 The physical rendering of the cosmos in miniature allows the practitioner to materialize time and space and personify ill will in such a way as to exact control over it. Since Chos kyi grags pa was an expert in astrology, it is no surprise that he would have a ritual in his collected works that employed these elements. Another interesting point here is that these antagonistic pairs who cause misfortune are the very entities that are called upon to eradicate those misfortunes, displaying a clear case of sympathy/homeopathy common in Tibetan pragmatic rites, and wrathful aspects of tantra more broadly (e.g., wrathful deity manifestations appropriating ferocious qualities to conquer demons). Lastly, the included note at the end is significant in that it displays a recurring pattern in Buddhist mdos rites—the six mantras and mudrās.

6.4. Crafting a Material Agent and Placating the Earth Spirits

This section begins with a few poetic lines describing the Three Jewels, and then the text introduces a striking metaphor of the emptiness of persons and a subsequent contrast to the more materially “real” effigy. That is to say, this portion of the text puts forth an emic theory of materiality. This section reads as follows:

“Who exists that does not listen to the speech of the Three Jewels—the buddha, dharma, and saṅgha? No one exists on a long travel path (skya ring) without going. No one exists in the falling rain without drinking. No one exists on a supportive ground without abiding. No one exists with a life of sustenance without cherishing it. No one exists with sincere speech without hearing it. No one exists who has rewards and gift offerings (rngan sbyin yas), without considering [giving them]. Regarding our body along with [that of] the sponsors—the flesh and blood are impure substances. Regarding the speech, it is the sound of an empty echo. Regarding the mind, like the wind it is free from substantiality (dngos po). Because of that, what is there for you all to do? [For] this substitute effigy (ngar glud), which is superior to the human, gather all [of these]: the five kinds of grain48 and the precious medicine, fine silks, various foods, the necessary wealth, completing the sense faculty (dbang po) and sense-spheres (skye mched).49 Regarding the body, it performs beautiful dance movements. Regarding the speech, it sings a pleasant song. Regarding the mind, it possesses friendly thoughts. Offer this substitute effigy that is more joyous than a human. This flesh substitute effigy (glud) of ours (and the sponsor retinue) is cast on the ground. The gods and the demons dwelling in the ground, receive this suitable great effigy (glud). {If it is for one’s own benefit, say for oneself; if it is for the benefit of another:}50 And, do no harm to this retinue (ʼkhor)! This blood substitute effigy is cast into water. The gods and demons dwelling in the water, receive this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This bone substitute effigy is cast at the cliff. The gods and demons dwelling on the cliff receive this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This substitute effigy of bodily heat (drod) is cast in the fire. The gods and the demons dwelling in the fire accept this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This substitute effigy of breath is cast in the wind. The god and the demons dwelling in the wind accept this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This substitute effigy of head-hair (skra) and pore-hair (ba sbu)51 is cast on wood. The gods and the demons dwelling in the wood accept this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This substitute effigy of entrails is cast in the narrow passage (ʼphrang). The gods and demons dwelling in the narrow passage accept this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! This substitute effigy of the mind (sems) is cast into the sky (nam mkhaʼ). The gods and demons dwelling in the sky accept this suitable great effigy. And, do no harm to this retinue! Effigy masters (Glud bdag rnams) accept the substitute effigy. Offering Masters (Yas bdag rnams) take the offerings. Defilement Masters (Grib bdag rnams) accept the defilement. Accept this suitable great effigy. For us, along with the retinue of sponsors, let go of the hold and loosen the bindings; relax control and lift the suppression. Perform the pacifications of unfavorable conditions (mi mthun phyogs), such as great sudden misfortune (chag che) and anxiety (nyam nga).”52

As mentioned above, this section begins with a philosophical, verse-like, expression of the Buddha’s teachings. Through a rhetorical question and series of answers, the text uses mundane actions such as traveling along a path or drinking water, suggesting that each action is intrinsically bound to its context within the experience of being human. Therefore, in parallel, as long as the teachings exist in the world, they will be heard, that is, imbibing the teachings is just as natural and inevitable to humans as drinking available water. This inclusion is important since it demonstrates that magical pragmatic rites are firmly embedded in the overall religious context of Buddhist rites and not in contradistinction to them, as one might assume given the discourse of magic in Western sources.53 Additionally, it prefaces the following section, which also relies on Buddhist philosophical elements to position the efficacy of the ritual action.

The most salient point in this section in the context of this article (i.e., the context of materiality) is the contrast between the unworthy, ultimately empty human self and the superior nature of the material, tangible effigy. Specifically, the text states that the human body is impure, and via metaphor, compares our human speech and mind to intangible concepts, namely, an echo and the wind. These concepts that lack substance in terms of visible/perceivable tangible matter allude to the idea of no-self (Skt. anātman). Regarding the wind metaphor, the text employs the term dngos po. This provides a glimpse into Tibetan Buddhist ideas of “the material/substantial” as opposed to concepts that lack such quality like the wind. The valence of dngos po is broad and can counterintuitively (at least in this context) mean “impermanent” in the sense of being distinct from a “permanent” intrinsic essence.54 However, here it simply means something that is made of substance or matter perceivable by a human as a concrete entity. Interestingly, the “substantial” effigy (the-more-real-than-human object) is only completed once it is bestowed with the same sense perception of the human. This is accomplished by pulling together specific ingredients—grains, medicines, foods, silks, wealth—that is, things that tether humans to worldly matters. Yet, somehow, in this form, those faculties manifest in a superior nature. The human is described as impermanent, impure, and fleeting whereas the effigy is fixed and full of vigorous life, taunting the spirits to accept the effigy as a substitute. The human construction activates the effigy to a liminal state between material and immaterial, as it is both substantial and imbued with intangible human qualities such as the senses. Indeed, the rite implies that the way we perceive the world through the senses is the determining factor of humanness. Furthermore, the effigy represents a human in an undefiled state, thus from the internal perspective of the ritual, the resultant human (post-ritual) is a model of the effigy, rather than the etic understanding wherein the effigy is the model of the human.

Lastly, once the effigy is constructed and completed with the human senses, each part of the body is offered to suitable spirits; for example, the entrails go to the spirits of a narrow pass. This suitability seems to be based on material features or characteristics of the environment (e.g., one’s intestines are long and narrow like a dangerous mountain pass). It also reveals that the environment in Tibetan thought is envisioned as animate and not simply inanimate material. This section creates a nexus of the human body, environment, and spirits, solidifying a sympathetic connection that flows from the body to the spirits to the environment. This sympathetic correspondence is crucial to the ritual’s efficacy, as it enables homeopathic solutions. The physical resemblance between specific parts of the body and environmental features create channels through which defilements can be transferred safely to the grib bdag while not opening oneself to further harm by pernicious spirits lurking in the landscape.

6.5. Mantras and Casting the Defilements to the Defilement Master

This section begins with an instructional note, then continues to the recitation of mantras and an enumeration of negativities cast away for the patron.

“{Thus, offer the effigies inside the mdos vessel of the Defilement Master. Then, regarding casting out the farewell offering (rdzongs btab pa): Mix together the contaminants (dri ma), for example, the liquid (khu ba) that cleanses the patron by vase water (which is achieved with deity mantras), and the water that cleanses the mouth (kha bshal) of the patron, and the hair, and the nails. And, put in the egg shell, roasted flour of black grains of buckwheat and pulses, and a small black ritual cake (gtor ma), the substitute effigy (ngar mi), and squeezed dough (chang bu) and [recite]:} OṂ YA MĀNTA KA HŪṂ OṂ BHUR KUṂ MA HĀ PRĀ ṆĀ YA BHUR TSI BHURKI BI MA LE U TSUṢMA KRO DHA HUṂ PHAṬ. BADZRA BHUR KUṂ RI LI SHU THA RA SHA HUR SHE BI MA LE U TSUṢMA KRO DHA HŪṂ HŪṂ PHAṬ PHAṬ SWĀ HĀ. OṂ BADZRA SATWA HŪṂ. GRIB GNON NAG PO ZHI ZHI MAL MAL SWĀ HĀ. OṂ ĀḤ HŪṂ E E HOḤ A DUṂ Ā SWĀ HĀ. A DUṂ Ā SWĀ HĀ. ỌM E HO SHUDDHE. BAM HO SHUDDHE. RAṂ HO SHUDDHE. LAṂ HO SHUDDHE. WAṂ HO SHUDDHE. E BAṂ RAṂ LAṂ YAṂ SHUDDHE SHUDDHE A AḤ SWĀ HĀ. {Having casted (the mantras), thus:} Kyai! The mantradhara (sngags ʼchang) master and patron (yon mchod), now offer (rdzongs btab) the departing drink (gshegs skyems) to the Great Defilement Master along with his retinue. Roasted flour of black grains of buckwheat and pulses, and the black defilement ritual cake, the sacred substances (dam rdzas), and the substitute effigy (ngar mi), the provisions (lam chas), squeezed dough (chang bu) and various kinds of defiling (grib) substances are cast out (rdzongs btab) to you, Defilement Master. Furthermore, [we] cast out to you as a farewell offering (rdzongs btab) [the following]: Cast out sickness and evil spirits (dgon)! Cast out of idleness (dal) and infectious disease (rims)! Cast out of bad auguries (than) and omens (ltas)! Cast out quarrels (gyod) and gossip (kha smras)! Cast out slander (mi kha) and disputes (kha mchu)! Cast out bad dream omens (rmi ltas) and signs (mtshan)! Cast out negative mo and pra divination! Cast out enemy retribution (la yogs gshed)! Cast out previous karmic debt that must be atoned for (lan chags bu lon)! Cast out returning vengeance (sha khon skyin)! Cast out antagonisms (mi mthun) and obstacles (bar chad)! Cast out inauspicious star enemies (skag ngan gshed)! Cast out the sorcerer’s ritual dagger and [his] sorcery (byad phur rbod gtong)! Cast out ill intent (bsam ngan) and acrimonious unions (sbyor rtsub)! Cast out poisonous weapons (dug mtshon) [sent] by curses (dmod pas)! Cast out retribution (la yogs) and blame (kha nyes)! Cast out defilement (grib) and impurity (mi gtsang)! Cast out all unfavorable conditions (mi mthun phyogs kun)!”55

The beginning scriptural notation that outlines the mixing of contaminated materials is integral to the function of the ritual as it materially links the patron to the ritual arena, and specifically to the spirit entities that take away the defilements. Similar to the number of dough pieces corresponding to the patron’s age in the previous passages, this step is indispensable as it creates a material identity link to the patron. Additionally, the substances must be “contaminated” or “impure” to forge a sympathetic connection between the patron and the actions of the defilement masters, who are enticed by the contaminated offerings. This process functions as a basic synecdoche whereby contaminated material aspects of the body represent the spectrum of the human experience of harmful forces that corrupt our being. These materials of impurity follow Indian notions of ritual impurities and align with Douglas’ ([1966] 1984) notions of impurities as boundary markers to the body, that is, substances from orifices like the mouth or the hair and nails, which are easily removable as a periphery to the living cellular body.56 However, the “things” that are ultimately cast out as a farewell offering to the defilement masters are less material in a physically tangible sense, rather, they are causes of particular material manifestations of negative being in a whole person as body, speech, and mind. Elements like slander, gossip, and bad omens demonstrate the spirit entities’ ability to interact with forces that are not strictly material, operating in a liminal plane distinct from mundane human functionality. While some defilements manifest tangible symptoms, such as illness causing a congested nasal cavity, the wider spiritual and systemic affliction remains fluid and less concrete, representing systemic imbalances whose totality cannot be empirically isolated or measured as an individual resultant essence. One cannot simply point to grib, yet it is a force that can change the patron and be taken up by the grib bdag.

In this section of the ritual, it is clear that the power rests not only on manipulating material objects (usually those that are contaminating in some way, or conducive to some sort of “dark aesthetic”, like the grains used to make the grib bdag and their homes—including the prevalence of the black coloring associated with ideas of impurity, which will be further discussed below), but also on the power of the deities demonstrated here through the words of the mantras. The mantras serve as the main activator of the ritual power for the materials. Of particular note, although mantras are not always composed of definable semantic units, it is clear that this mantra contains recognizable deity names and words related to purity. The initial line clearly refers to Yamāntaka; “bhur kuṃ” likely refers to Bhurkuṃkūta; “u tsuṣma” corresponds to Ucchuṣma; and “badzra satwa” corresponds to Vajrasattva—all deities related to eradicating impurities. Moreover, “bi ma le” and “shuddhe” are likely transcriptions of the Sanskrit vimala and śuddha, stainless and pure, respectively.

6.6. The Departing of the Defilement Master

Once everything is properly cast out to the defilement masters, the King Defilement Master and his minions must return home.

“Now carry off what has been cast to you as the farewell offering. I offer the departing drink (gshegs skyems) for which now, depart! Swiftly, swiftly now depart! Without delay, quickly, now depart! {Thus, uttered. Regarding the path instruction: Place the mdos, turned outward, in kindle blazing brilliantly}. Kyai! Now, Grib kha57 along with the retinue, who are shown the path of departure—depart on that path! Beyond the direction of the setting sun, in the center of black darkness (mun pa nag po),58 is that blissful abode of the Great Defilement Master. The black castle (mkhar) of defilement sways back and forth (ldems se ldem). The black castle of defilement is a powerful fortress (rdzong re btsan). Within the inner region of the black castle of defilement, the fog of defilement becomes thicker and thicker. The thick darkness (mun pa) is overwhelmingly majestic (brjid re che). Great Defilement Master now depart inside of the castle (mkhar) of majestic darkness! Now depart, the four which have the faces [of animals]! The twelve abiders (gnas pa bcu gnyis), now depart to the palace of the five elements (wood, fire, soil, iron, and water) in the cardinal and intermediary directions! All the maleficent spirits (gdon) and obstructors (bgegs), now depart to each of your own pleasant (nyams dgaʼ ba) dwelling place! Regarding this abode of the mantradhara master: you all are not inclined (mi spro) to dwell [here]. Here, your abode does not exist. Here, there are no central depths of darkness. Here, there is no black castle of defilement. Here, there is no fog of defilement. The things that please you do not exist [here]. Therefore, like a cross (rgya gram) lifted by the wind, Defilement Master and your retinue, return (songs)59 to the abodes of each defilement master. Like being driven by karmic wind, return to the abodes of each defilement master. Like being greeted by frightening darkness, return to the abodes of each defilement master. Like masses of clouds dispersing in the sky, return to the abodes of each defilement master. How delightful, content, the abode of each! The Defilement Master, along with the defilements: to the men, transform [them]—to the right, bhyoḥ! To the women, transform [them]—to the left, bhyoḥ! To the youth (chung), transform [them]—to the front, bhyoḥ! To the negative thoughts of neighbors, bhyoḥ! To whatever obstructors (bgegs) encountered, bhyoḥ! Bhyoḥ! Repel! Transform! Samaya, hoḥ!”60

This section of the rite repeats some details from prior sections concerning the dwelling place of the Defilement Master, that is, the black castle, the depths of darkness, and so forth. However, here, the text itself clearly outlines the sympathetic connections developed through a “dark aesthetic” that undergirds the efficacy of this ritual. From the more detailed description of the castle, it is revealed that the Defilement Master’s residence is filled with defilement. The text uses the positive adjective “brjid” (majestic/magnificent/splendid/shining) to describe the darkness created by the thick layers of grib, thus establishing his natural affinity for the darkness and impurity. More specifically, his abode is narrated as “other”, different from the realm of humans, carefully constructing the scenario in which he only temporarily crosses the boundaries to this realm. The ritualist must assure the defilement masters that their respective abodes are felicitous to them compared to this realm so that they swiftly return with the grib that has been cast out from the patron. The “dark aesthetic” represents a fundamental inversion of human values, where impurity becomes majestic and defilement becomes desirable. The rite contains elements of both homeopathy and sympathy as the twelve abiders who in the right combinations can cause grib, also are responsible for carrying it away as part of the Defilement Master’s retinue. The sympathetic principle operates thus because the grib naturally belongs in the dark realm of the defilement masters, making the transfer both logical and inevitable within the ritual’s cosmology.

This ends the chanted portion of the ritual. The following is an appended note that contains the final ritual instructs, followed by a brief colophon.

6.7. The Colophon—Chos kyi grags pa Establishes Legitimacy via Atiśa’s Precedent

The appended note reads as follows:

“{Thus, having uttered: Carry the (mdos) without looking back, and point it away toward an inauspicious direction (phyogs ngan) or demon cutting (bdud gcod) [place] or in the direction of the five spirits (ʼdre) or toward the great river, or toward a large path, then dispatch [it]. The mdos bearer and his companions along with the dwelling place are cleansed by water from a vase. In accordance with that, this Ultimate Action of the Defilement Destroying Diamond: A Concise grib mdos ritual also, like the small grib mdos permitted to practice by Atiśa, also as the ultimate action of Blue-Green Bhurkuṃkūṭa, this as well, having been perceived not unsuitable as the ultimate action of Bhurkuṃkūṭa, was composed by the monk of the end times (dus mthaʼi dge slong) who lived (son pa) as a descendent of the ʼBri gung skyu ra [clan] in the upper region of Dbu, the mantradhara, vajradhara, Thugs kyi rdo rje (Chos kyi grags pa), on the first red rgyal61 (dmar poʼi rgyal ba dang po) of the first month (mchu zla) of the fire pig year (1647), in the supreme place Sra brtan rdo rje at Rtse ba estate (gzhis ka).}”62

The beginning of this note emphasizes the dangerous aspect of the ritual materials. The materials must be properly oriented for expelling and must be disposed of in proper places. Furthermore, the ritual participants, especially those that interact directly with the materials of the ritual, must be cleansed by water lest they become contaminated by the concentrated defilement. This applies not only to the bodies of the ritualists but to their living quarters as well. Indeed, water is a common substance for ritual cleansing in a variety of traditions, as it is used to wash away impurities, however defined in that particular worldview.

After the final instructions, this note includes a colophon that identifies ʼBri gung Chos kyi grags pa as the composer. It also serves to legitimize the incorporation of a grib mdos at the end of Bhurkuṃkūṭa practice. Since Atiśa is a renowned Buddhist Indian master, his work sets the precedent to include this ritual at the end of a Bhurkuṃkūṭa practice. This mention not only legitimizes the ritual but also demonstrates Chos kyi grags pa’s breadth of knowledge about the traditions that came before him.

7. Final Analysis: Blended Agencies Form the Functional Material

This mdos ritual exemplifies the indispensability of material objects within Tibetan Buddhist ritual. These objects facilitate the perceivable action of otherworldly actors since they serve as a stage and threshold for the spirit entities to interact with the human realm. An analysis of this mdos thus reveals an internal emic discourse of materiality and agency. It shows that the tangible object is porous to the invisible, non-tangible entity; and, importantly, it demonstrates that due to this porosity, the resultant object is perceived to become agential. Like Gell’s description of agency in relation to art, wherein the artist creates a prototype based on an index and subsequently that prototype exerts agency upon the recipient, the ritualist, too, creates an effigy based on the notion of a Defilement Master, which then acts upon a patron to take away defilement. However, in the Tibetan context, it is important to highlight the blended agencies that facilitate this main function.

As presented above, the text begins with instructions to make material objects that will be manipulated by the ritual master. Next, the ritual master visualizes himself as Yamāri and Bhurkuṃkūṭa. This visualization is a key moment in the ritual that blends the agencies of the divine and human; this essential action dissolves the boundaries between the human and divine, which facilitates the command of the Defilement Master. This act extends beyond a mere supplication, as the divine authority and human agent work in tandem to manipulate the Defilement Master. This blended agency is necessary because in the next step of the ritual, the Defilement Master becomes inseparable from the material effigy; he resides simultaneously in the tangible, human realm and the unseen realm. Thus, it is only the human/deity complex that can functionally manipulate him in that state. Importantly, through this process, the Defilement Master becomes an agent himself. The text specifies that the ritualists dissolve the Defilement Master into the figure, that is, he and his minions must materialize to act as causative agents. In a process of what Miller would call objectification, first, the Defilement Master and his minions become the object to receive action, but then second, they become agents to the object of the patron, as they perform cleansing acts on the patron, ridding him of grib. The status of the grib too is ambiguous in the context of the “material”. On one hand, it is an object to be manipulated; it is a result of some negative experience that has physically manifested as a problematic symptom for the patron. Yet, it is also something that operates primarily in the unseen realm as a process of cause and effect rather than any particular essence to which one could point. Before allowing the defilement masters to return to their abodes with the defilement, a human effigy must be offered to the surrounding spirits to prevent them from harming the patron. This effigy also presents a dynamic blended identity as it takes a material form but it is imbued with the essence of a perfected human through adding contaminants of the human body and accoutrements that animate it as an enticer to the local spirits of the landscape. Clearly, there are multiple actors in this rite that display fluid notions of agency and materiality.

Yet, like Gell, I contend that non-human agencies, whether material or non-material, ought to be characterized as merely secondary agencies. In doing so, this orients the focus to three particular aspects related to uniquely human volition: construction effort, cognitive correspondence, and text/performance creativity.

7.1. Construction Effort

The acquisition and construction of ritual material objects is extremely time-consuming. Some ritualists, for example, roast their own barley on site, while others buy flour and other materials (like paints, etc.) from nearby shops. In contemporary India, the monastic groups often buy ritual-related base materials from local Tibetan community shops. Once the main ingredients are procured, the construction of these objects requires very ornate detail (e.g., adding various forms such as the many minions of the Defilement Master here), and some ritual objects are very large structures. Indeed, it is part of the monastic education to learn gtor ma-making and other skilled construction of ritual objects. The younger monks are often taught by elder masters of the craft. They are also guided by instruction in texts, but not surprisingly, nowadays, I have found in my ethnographic work that younger monks will employ technological devices, for example, using cell phone pictures of past gtor ma as reference guides. The construction of the ritual materials is intensive but clearly can serve as a social activity in some circumstances. The younger monks I have witnessed in my fieldwork play music and josh around when not in direct sight of the curious anthropologist. Thus, it seems to be a community-building activity within the monastery itself, especially when making sizeable amounts of materials for large-scale rituals.

Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 depict gtor ma-making tools used by monks at Rdo rje brag in Shimla, India.

Patrons make donations to the ritualist to perform these functions, and they are keenly aware of the labor that these ritual preparations entail. Having a visual representation of the cosmos in material form not only reaffirms the patron’s place in the cosmos—that is, situated amongst other forces—but it also strengthens the social bond between the ritualists and the lay practitioners. This labor is key component of perceived efficacy and completes the loop of the exchange economy in which lay persons support the monastic/ritualists financially and the ritualists provide protection from possible ills. The hard work and resultant display serve as tangible evidence of the ritualists’ prowess in manipulating the spirit world. In my own experience, the efficacy of material performance is palpable via all senses. Often these material forms are made for the ritual performance and then ritually discarded, usually by burning, by tossing outside of the area over the hill, or the like. At the Rdo rje brag Dgu gtor chen mo, the monks dismantled and shoved the effigies into a fire one by one, the accompanying firecrackers loudly popping causing the audience to shift back, startled at the climbing blaze. Thus, after the mechanical function of the ritual is performed, the materials are then disposable (and contaminated). The particular identity and aspect of the material is only active within a defined parameter of human activity.

While it may be argued that the material with its inherent characteristics or affordances lends itself to a certain type of objectification, for example, the nature of a pliable dough that allows material to be molded into a variety of forms, to incorporate various items in its configuration, and to facilitate absorption or entrapment of immaterial entities, it is the human that chooses to employ that material in such ways. As described above, some may argue that the materials, by having these capabilities, shape the way we interact with it, and thus should be considered an agent in its own right. I argue, rather, that although the material world (that exists other than the thinking, volitional agent) has unique properties that limit its function, the human must still be considered the main agent in the interaction with these materials. This is because it does not follow that it is necessary to interact with the material in a certain way based on these characteristics; there exists merely a propensity for humans to engage in that behavior that is ultimately volitionally decided by the human alone.

Thus, recentering the human, while maintaining the importance of material objects, highlights the role of the ritualists who spend hours constructing the material and ultimately providing the means to protect the patrons in an economy of exchange. These social dynamics may be obscured if the focus shifts to the materials or immaterial entities/deities instead of the people who fashion the existence of these materials and commune with or control interactions with the supermundane world. This approach aims to facilitate comparisons of social ritual dynamics that extend beyond specific materials that may vary in different socio-historical contexts.

7.2. Cognitive Correspondence

Responses to the ritual arena, and thus the perceived ritual efficacy, depend upon the presentation of cognitive correspondences within the ritual. Since humans perceive the world through a basic cataloguing system that by nature reifies and places items in categories based on perceived similarities, this aspect of experiencing the world is integral in creating a comprehensible and convincing microcosm wherein actions can be performed and yield demonstrable results.63 In other words, aspects of the ritual—the deities, the spirits, the ritualist, and the materials—must “fit” one another to construct an efficacious arena of action; I call this underlying principle developing “aesthetic affinities”. The human seeks to ascertain patterns to make sense of the world, and thus the ritual arena is legitimized by creating an extension of those patterns in a controlled performance. The notion of “aesthetic affinities” particularly underlies the magical technologies commonly present in these ritual systems via the principles of sympathy and homeopathy.

In the defilement cleansing ritual presented here, the ritual arena is constructed via materials correspondent to “dark aesthetics” of “otherness”, that is, the monstruous and the contaminated. Inversions of the “normal” create power vectors, not stemming from the inherent characteristic of the materials themselves, but from the humans who make and perceive that material. As described above, most of the ritual materials are dark in color. This darkness is directly related the contaminating aspects of grib (defilement) that can stifle the progress of the patron in attaining positive life circumstances, and it is reflected in the abodes of the defilement masters and their physical forms. The King Defilement Master and his minions operate within a like-attracts-like and like-conquers-like system. Not only are each constructed using black flour, but each minion in particular presents with an out-of-place or monstruous countenance. The minions of astrological antagonisms are described as enemy pairs that both cause calamities but also homeopathically serve as the remedy to these circumstances.64 The four poisons are depicted as animal–human hybrids that challenge the normal boundaries of form. These do not simply represent inversions, darkness, etc.; rather, they exist as such, activated by the power of the ritualist. He creates a sphere of relatedness, an interconnected environment of power objects and entities that constitute a supermundane space. Material is fundamental in activating the power of the ritual arena, but at the heart of this activation is human cognition and recognition of pattern—not to be simply read as a symbol but recognized as a legitimate world of action. Following Gell’s distinction of primary and secondary agency, the constructed object, imbued with agency via human intention to exact a cause in the world, enables the ritualist to forge social relationships between the patron, the ritualist, the deity, and the defilement masters.

7.3. Text Creation

The continued ritual tradition depends on past masters transmitting their knowledge to the next generation. Quite often this expertise is recorded, as is the case with this ritual, via written text. The authors of ritual, although following certain patterns and precedent, have a degree of freedom to create unique renditions of the rite. In fact, doing so is a strong marker of their identity as powerful ritual masters and as authoritative sources of tradition. It is critical for masters who are in descendant lines of power within the tradition, like the author of this rite, Chos kyi grags pa, to have such a common, ubiquitous rite in their ritual repertoire. It solidifies and perpetuates their legacy through the conduit of material book culture.

Since this ritual is not currently practiced, for example, by the monks at the ʼBri gung Bkaʼ brgyud Institute in Dehradun (despite its inclusion in their major textual collections), it is essential to examine this text as a material with a function beyond its actual content. It is a historical status symbol representing the prowess of previous great masters, especially those who have served as scions to the great legacy of power, in Chos kyi grags pa’s case, a Skyu ra clan descendant and progenitor of the ʼBri gung incarnation lines. That is, its presence alone is efficacious as a preserver of historical legacy, safeguarding a potential to combat the adversities of saṃsāric existence.

Returning to Gell, in the context of what he terms “distributed personhood”, the material ritual texts in Tibetan culture, even though initially products of primary agents like Chos kyi grags pa, extend their influence as secondary agents beyond the time and space of the primary agent’s physical acting, thinking body.65 The importance of books, rituals, and teachings distributed from single and multiple masters is supported by the view of the tradition itself, as illustrated by the emphasis on creating texts that are explicitly dedicated to enumerating the lineage of teachings, e.g., records of received teachings (gsan yig), supplication prayers (gsol ʼdebs), and so forth. In short, the lineage of the distributed personhood is a teaching in itself. The master’s teaching is meant to imbue the future with its continued legacy, and the text is a medium to accomplish this.

In the case of a ritual text such as this mdos, there is an element of both preservation and creativity. This creativity is unique to the master based on personal relationships with the deity, particular visions, and exposure to other texts. Clearly, from the colophon, Chos kyi grags pa draws on the previous teachings of Atiśa to legitimize his own similar creation. He carefully strikes a balance between personal creation and retention of tradition. This textual writing anticipates future action and the need for flexibility.

Any given text is a product of the multiple collective hands of history, and thus the human volition involved in creating these texts is important to highlight lest we undervalue the socio-political force of the human centered in these relationships that commonly extend over multiple generations. From an etic analytical perspective, examining the human agency in text creation can reveal important information about individual authors and their particular cultural milieu, as it is clear from this rite that authors bring a specialized version that encapsulates, in Chos kyi grags pa’s case, his own strengths and proclivities as a supreme intellectual of his time. If scholars draw too heavily on emic perspectives of deities and other non-humans as agents, there is a risk of missing important social relations and causative relationships between human interaction, experience, and complexities of personhood that are important to navigate, especially in the context of experience-centered practice where emic descriptions may not capture the importance of social influences, for instance, contemplative practices that are deceptively “personal” but really distributed. In my fieldwork, I have found that chosen yi dam practice is mitigated to some degree by institutional affiliation rather than solely personal affinity, generally manifesting through a combination of outcomes of intense personal meditative practices and the historical lineages one is exposed to while training in that practice. Furthermore, the deity as a static, timeless actor can minimize the reality of historical changes over time that are products of human agency and interpretation. Although it is important to acknowledge and analyze through an emic perspective (for example, the deity as primary agent alone as understood by the internal mechanics of the rite itself), a complete historical analysis involves carefully examining these non-human agencies in the embedded field of human experience and volition, past and present.

8. Conclusions

Examining this mdos ritual in the context of materiality and agency reveals the power of dissolving boundaries between agencies and the material/immaterial, wherein the supernormal is not simply that which is not empirically provable but that which defies boundaries and transcends the everyday separateness of “substance”/agent and human/divine. However, I argue that it is essential to envision this process as ultimately a product of primary human agency. Although the internal mechanics of the rite suggest agency of material objects and immaterial actors, or a combination thereof, I question the practical utility of treating the study of these network actors as primary in a seemingly closed system or in iterative moments of dialectical objectification. Even as a study of objectification, wherein the discourse of agency is examined from an emic perspective, this discourse is inherently a product of human intent. The relegation of propensity for action (whether it be deity, spirit, material, etc.) is orchestrated by an agency that is human, perceived by and interpreted by and experienced by the human. We must ask is there really anything gained from a primary “other-than-human” agency? Since the human (both scholar and practitioner) is the source of the very inquiry into agency—that is, the interlocutors of the process itself—I further question the methodological advantage of such an approach. Rather, I propose a shift that centers the human as the perceiver of a material reality, since the very definition of the material (and the boundaries of categories in general) hinges on our perception and crafting of it. It is the human, through volitional intent, who selects and creates this form of expression and action through a defined pathway of social networks—importantly highlighted in this study as historically informed by precedents and creating new moments juxtaposed in the present (modern technologies, for example, new relationships, and new personalities). This orientation allows scholars to approach large human-centered comparative questions about how we situate ourselves in the world while analyzing individual contexts of specific humans (and non-humans) in a particular place and time, with a distinct worldview. It shifts the emphasis to human effort, cognition, and creativity. It brings to the forefront what it means to be human and how we interact in our environment from a cognitive and social perspective that is both fashioned by our predecessors and open to change by contemporary actors. It brings into focus the true power of masters like Chos kyi grags pa as a situated human pulling from a lifetime of influences and hundreds of years of tradition, setting a precedent for future participants to follow and/or alter.